Would You Support War Against Russia?

[Professor]

I don't really "want" to go to war with Russia. As in, not at all.

But, if a few conditions are met, I'd support the effort.

1) Russia actively initiates military action in Ukraine
2) NATO-member European states send troops to Ukraine to oppose
3) Russia responds by attacking one or more of the NATO-member states (not their troops in Ukraine, but upon their sovereign soil)

I can pretty easily see #1 and #2 happening. #3 is a huge leap. But, if it happened, I'd support war on Russia.

[Spider]

I wouldn't need condition 3. Russia is already the aggressor in Ukraine. But condition 2 is a must.

[exploited]

Well, it's been awhile since it has slapped me in the face, but some American's stubborn inability to learn is really something to behold. Do you guys get off on this shit? Who in their right minds goes to war with Russia on principle alone? Especially principle that you regularly ignore when it suits you?

"Oh, well, Russia is going to like form an economic union, and it has, like, violated the sovereignty of a state. They have no right to intervene because of another countries civil war."

And then you wonder why your MIC is so insane. It is a mind-boggling level of cognitive dissonance. As if the militarization of your society is totally unconnected to this exact thinking.

Also, to make it conditional on European participation says all we need to know about your reasons. You don't have any. You just can't stand anyone behaving like you do.

[Dylan]

What's so objectionable about prof's position? If Russia initiated an attack on NATO forces we would be obligated to assist. What's the problem?

[Dobby]

2 is never going to happen. 1 is unlikely. Which renders 3 about as likely as us setting up a colony on Mars in the next 5 years.

[Indy]

What's so insane is that our entire toolbox seems to consist of two options:

a) Bend to our will or,
b) We start bombing/invading you

That sure has worked out. My favorite part was when you had years of Cheney refusing to negotiate with Iran because they're eeeevil--which leaves one option--bombing them. Until they come to the negotiation table. Where he won't go. See that little closed feedback loop there?

Flash forward to now, where we got Iran to negotiate (at least on its face)--and you had all the GOP and some Dems (bending to the Israel lobby) STILL itching to bomb them. You know, to that negotiating table. Where they already are.

Insanity at this point.

[Spider]

[Spider]

[exploited]

@Dylan

Initiated an attack on their home countries, not just their troops in Ukraine. It is the same thing as saying you'd get involved if Russia started bombing France, but not if they bombed French troops in Ukraine. Which kind of goes without saying and isn't a response to this "crisis" so much as a simple statement of principle.

Spider took it a step further and said he'd attack if the Europeans did, which is the opinion I was primarily addressing. In that case your foreign policy is being decided upon principle ("Shit, my drunk buddy is picking a fight with some huge dude, I guess I better jump in and save his ass") rather than any legitimate security concern. It is this exact motivation that is turning the US into a security state. The inability to not get involved, even when it is already being handled and it doesn't impact you at all.

[Dylan]