Gasping for air from a trench in eastern Ukraine, an infantryman was ready for the worst when a suffocating white smoke spread into his position.
A Russian drone had just dropped a gas grenade into the trench, an internationally banned practice in warfare used to suffocate Ukrainian soldiers hiding inside. Forced out in the open, the Ukrainians immediately became vulnerable targets for Russian drones and artillery.
. . .
Russia has increasingly deployed chemical agents in its grand offensive to occupy the last cities in the Donbas region under Ukrainian control. The suffocation tactic is to take out entrenched personnel and dampen the morale of Ukrainian soldiers who – severely outmanned and outgunned – have been withdrawing village by village in the east for nearly a year.
You missed the point. The point the other guy made is that for the past 50+ countries have turned a blind eye to Isreal not playing by the rules and that has let Israel become more and more ruthless to a point where they’re the ones effectively committing genocide. Maybe Ukraine won’t turn out like Israel but is it really the door we want to open?
Just because Russia is getting increasing more violent and inhumane doesn’t mean Ukraine should follow the same path. Nobody is saying Ukraine shouldn’t defend itself (or fight on Russian soil), we’re just saying we shouldn’t turn a blind eye if Ukraine starts shelling humanitarian corridors, chopping off legs of prisoners, gas striking the front etc.
Do you know why there are no nazis committing holocausts across Europe right now?
Because we killed them all.
Hate to break it to you, but they just moved to the USA and started calling themselves Republicans.
They were always here, they were southerners, Hitler wrote about how Jim crow was an example Germany needed to follow.
Black GIs came home to be tortured and killed.
Because after the Civil War we DIDN’T clean out the leadership and they simply slimed back into power later.
Er, no. We didn’t. Not in the slightest.
Go learn history. This “we must show them” mentality is how after WW1 Nazis got into a position of power. And no, we didn’t kill all of them. Some were sent to the Hague, most were picked up by the US (unsurprisingly US now has a fascism problem) and the rest (the wider population) got collectively guilted out of nazism. Oh and we made sure Nazi and Fascist are so bad words that actual Nazis and Fascists use them in a derogatory way to not associate themselves with that word.
The idea that we should ruthlessly kill Russians because Putin is a horrible person is Lemmygrad level of idiotic.
Actually it’s because you killed thousands of innocent Japanese, using a weapon that could wipe all life on Earth. (So they moved other there of course, they sounds like a fascist dream)
Everybody always gets hung up on the nukes but I never see anyone complaining about the firebombing which killed many times more people (or the Japanese and their many attempts at biological warfare).
War is inherently bad, and using powerful weapons to end it sooner is the pragmatic and often moral choice. Would you have preferred that the allies invaded Japan, causing millions more to die? Or perhaps simply blocade Japan, causing millions more to die? It’s easy to be moralistic when you don’t have to make decisions that have millions of lives hanging on them.
The need for bombing with nukes is a made up history. Japan was surrendering with just one condition that wasn’t a big deal and could be discussed in the peace treaty. But the bombs, specially the Nagasaki one, was not meant for the Japanese to surrender but as a show off to the USSR.
Because, believe it or not, [part of] the US saw the USSR as an enemy even during the war.
There would never have been any peace treaty, the allies had already agreed that axis surrender must be unconditional.
Japan having one condition would not have matteted, because the allies were not interested in a conditional surrender.
Yeah, for sure let’s continue to 1up and glorify violence. While you do that, let me reiterate the point you seem to be arguing against:
More violence is not the solution to violence.
You can go on now.
If you ignore the many examples throughout history of more violence being the solution to violence, perhaps you may have a point.
I can go on now?
Sounds like we didn’t use enough then, if you’re still here.
Sure. That’s not what they were saying though. They were saying supplying arms to Israel is bad because they’re using it to commit a genocide, so we shouldn’t provide the means for Ukraine to defend themselves because it must be equally bad. Fuck that. If Ukraine doesn’t win Russia is going to do horrible things. They must be stopped. We should be providing the means for Ukraine to do this and allowing them to use them how they see it needed.
At no point did I say Ukraine shouldn’t get what it needs to end the war. What I said is that we shouldn’t let Ukraine get away with the same things Russia is doing. If for example Ukraine would gas the Russian front line we shouldn’t be “well Russia did it first”. Chemical warfare is not acceptable. Turning a blind eye towards atrocities is how we got Isreal.
The other guy is pretty much saying it would be okay if Ukraine dirty bombed Moscow because he is literally implying we should kill all Russians.