GnauzBookOfRhymes
Superstar
Biden asking for another $37,700,000,000 in aid to Ukraine
Russia is
Russia is
It was two missiles
This shyt is too much at this point
This shyt is too much at this point
This shyt is too much at this point
The more money that goes to Ukraine the more it keeps Putin in check… NATO might as well give Ukraine membership…Russia needs to be stopped. I hope we start giving even more money to Ukraine and start putting more money aside for Covid it's getting rough out here
[/QUOTE]The Kargil conflict between India and Pakistan in 2000 is one obvious and recent one. Pakistan invaded the Indian-controlled region of Kashmir, Indian forces initially lost ground but then achieved battlefield dominance and beat them back to the previous line of control, but didn't keep going forward to liberate Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Pakistan continues to occupy that land until today and there is occasional bloodshed but far, far less than there would have been if war had continued.
But honestly it's not common because most leaders don't consider casualties to be a major factor in wartime, especially civilian casualties, unless they're losing. They operate on a power-based understanding, so if they have superiority they push that edge as far as they can regardless of other consequences. So one major factor that could potentially cause it to happen more often is never even considered.
The terms of the armistice that ended World War 1 and the treaty of Versailles virtually guaranteed a 2nd conflict.lol, damn near EVERY conflict ends in an uneasy armistice. That's why wars beget wars. Your WW1 example is horrible because Germany WAS beaten back to their own territory and in fact was viewed as being very seriously punished for their role in the conflict, just like you want Russia to be. And yet it STILL erupted again later.
You can name literally dozens of countries in the last century alone who "fully expelled" the invading force and still faced horrific violence in the following years. Past experience shows that war is a ridiculously poor path to take if you don't want violence to continue down the road.
What are you even trying to argue here, that Russia needs to be responded to even more aggressively than WW1 Germany? Exactly how what are you plotting there
I'm not arguing for direct democracy, I was just responding to Orbital's bs assertion that the people of Ukraine get to decide what the Ukrainian military does. I think a country should be particularly considerate of the lives of its citizens, especially minorities, whether or not the majority cares.
Same way it discouraged Marcos, de Klerk, Churchill, and Taylor, for example. Even the USSR disintegrated in large part due to nonviolent resistance. There are numerous instances in history where tyrants have been unable to control populations who didn't want to be controlled, even if they expressed their lack of submission nonviolently, and where the tyrant's forces proved unwilling to fight against a populace that wasn't fighting back. Of course there are some casualties, as there are for every tyrant, but generally far, far fewer than if they had fought violently. For example, India suffered 7,000 lives lost during their nonviolent fight for independence against racist imperialists, but the Malagasy uprising at the same time cost 40,000 lives in a far smaller country. At least 21,000 people lost their lives during decades of political violence during South African apartheid (which was mostly, though not entirely, nonviolent), but that's about 1% of the 2,000,000 lives lost during the Indochinese wars against the French/Americans at the same time. Kwame Nkrumah was nonviolently leading his people to freedom in Ghana with hardly any bloodshed at the exact same time that the Mau Mau rebellion was costing tens of thousands of Kenyan lives without the freedom.
Look, I understand that the things I'm saying are too uncomfortable for most of the people here to read. You've spent your entire life being conditioned by the ruling world governments to accept war and violence as the ultimate solutions. The cartoons you watched, the history you were taught in school, the blockbusters that were put out, the message the news media promote, the positions of the governments in power, they ALL push the violence narrative as the solution. That doesn't mean it's objectively true, any more than racist or imperialist ideologies were objectively true in the 1800s. But it's the only message in play for most people.
Objective reality suggests not only that there are other ways, but that on average those other ways are more effective by every measure:
The '3.5% rule': How a small minority can change the world
Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.www.bbc.com
Why nonviolent resistance beats violent force in effecting social, political change
Harvard Professor Erica Chenoweth discovers nonviolent civil resistance is far more successful in effecting change than violent campaigns.news.harvard.edu
Are peaceful protests more effective than violent ones?
“There’s certainly more evidence that peaceful protests are more successful because they build a wider coalition,” says Gordana Rabrenov.news.northeastern.edu