With all due respect, you're literally replying to a post saying that it'll always be "This war is different, this war is justified" by emphasising how this war is different and this war is justified.
What is happening is directly pointing out that this was is NOT different. That this war is ALSO unjustified.
In war, the aggressors are the problem. Period. And lending support to the aggressed is not the same as supporting war.
It would work, simply letting Russia finish a genocide against Ukraine or Israel finish a genocide against Palestine. The conflict would certainly be resolved that way. But if you think it is an acceptable outcome, you value peace too highly.
Ok, misunderstanding. I'm not American - I didn't see the connection with the US being the aggressor in the examples in the comic. I was just interpreting it as 'Anti-War'.
The rest of the exchange makes more sense now!
I was honestly baffled, it felt like I was having a different conversation than everyone else.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
I realised that I'm in the bad here - I missed the connection between the specific wars in the cartoon (i.e. that the US was/supports the aggressor). I thought it was just anti-war in general.
Back when iraq was invaded, Saddam was the aggressor who bad WMD, it all turned out to be a lie.
How do you know that American government is telling it's citizens complete facts about Ukraine war?
Yes I know Russia is the aggressor here and I am completely against the invasion. However, everyone knew that NATO expansion will trigger a war and US actively pushed for it. American governments hands are not clean when it comes to Ukraine war and American citizens don't question it at all.
Which brings me to the cartoon here where if you say the above mentioned statements you will be called a tankie, Putin bootlicker etc.
Not really comparable. If in 2003 the US did nothing Iraq would still be doing what it was doing and there would have been no war. If Ukraine stops fighting for even a day the country no longer exists.
It isnt special pleading when you can point out major differences between cases.
Kraut IMO made a pretty good argument based on exactly that point that Iraq would have been doing what it had been doing already,
That being that what Iraq was doing was plenty horrible on its own, and that Bush and co could have made an argument for US involvement just on the merits of stopping a genocidal dictator. The question with no answer is if the public would have accepted that argument for going into Iraq at the same time as Afghanistan.
But we must also look at pacifism as a convenient shield at times. There were “pacifists” in the Second World War who clearly weren’t ideologically opposed to war but were opposed to fighting hitler. I see letting putin continue as utterly chamberlainian.
Ok that's not really fair. Declassified docs have revealed that Chamberlain knew damn well what was going to work and intentionally played down causus belli because he was buying Britain time to rearm, the problem was that time is a resource you buy for both sides, and the axis used theirs a lot better.