Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

rgbecker

(4,806 posts)
Thu Mar 10, 2022, 10:54 AM Mar 2022

The crazy talk of moral war needs to stop.


For some reason the NATO countries are bending over backwards to keep from giving Putin the excuse to use nuclear weapons. Somehow they think he won’t if we just let the Ukrainians beat them without any more help than a few Javelins and Stingers. They think Putin will simply quietly call his commanders and tell them to turn around and head back to Russia. Or maybe our western leaders, steeped in the morals of correctly fighting wars are just waiting for the inevitable, that is the Russians’ victory, which will include the death or removal of millions of Ukranians. The morally superior will then condemn the Russians, talk about how they were so morally blessed not to risk a nuclear war and how everything will be fine now that the war is over…thousands dead or displaced? So be it.

Why do so many think that Putin will not justify his use of Nuclear weapons as he is backed into a corner militarily and economically? Is there any indication he has the slightest hint of a moral compass as he attempts to revive his dream of super power? Does his history of past actions, including poisoning his political rivals, demolishing former Soviet states and his current actions in Ukraine give you any indication of what to expect will be his reaction to lose to Zelensky and the Ukrainians?

When the Nuclear missiles start flying, at least as we shift through the ruins, we will be able to congratulate ourselves for being the ones that didn’t escalate the war and give Putin an excuse to shoot the first one…..as if he needed one.

Where were all the moralists in Washington as Bush ordered his unprovoked Shock and Awl bombardment of Baghdad? 600,000 Iraqis dead. For What? Terrorism? What are the Russians committing in Ukraine right now? Why the hesitation? Did anyone go to Hell for our anti-terrorist wars? In fact, has anyone even mentioned the immorality of the torture brought to the Middle East by our forces?

You don’t want me in charge, that is for sure, but consider this:

Sign Ukraine into the EU and NATO right now. Advise Putin that he needs to remove his troops from Ukraine by March 15th or expect NATO to react as they would to any incursion of any NATO country. March 16th enforce the expulsion of the Russian military from Ukraine…by any means necessary. Call it a “Special Military Operation”. Threaten the use of Nuclear weapons if resisted. Why is Putin the only one that can use such talk? Ukraine has been recognized by the entire political world as a distinct sovereign nation for years. What is holding the moralists back from doing what is apparently necessary to keep Putin from killing those poor people?
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The crazy talk of moral war needs to stop. (Original Post) rgbecker Mar 2022 OP
As long as we cower before Putin's empty threats with his small nuke arsenal, lagomorph777 Mar 2022 #1
We are totally unequivocal hypocrites walkingman Mar 2022 #2
Thank you, thank you, you for this. I wish I could K&R a zillion times. onecaliberal Mar 2022 #3
Sitting in a jail cell in downtown Detroit. old as dirt Mar 2022 #4
I firmly believe Putin is bullshitting harumph Mar 2022 #5
And if you're wrong? MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2022 #8
Your perspective terrifies me CommonHumanity Mar 2022 #6
+100. MarineCombatEngineer Mar 2022 #9
We are already at risk of nuclear annialation. rgbecker Mar 2022 #11
I just can't agree CommonHumanity Mar 2022 #12
He won't call them home... CrackityJones75 Mar 2022 #7
How many of those will die in addition to the 1000s of Ukrainians? rgbecker Mar 2022 #10

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
1. As long as we cower before Putin's empty threats with his small nuke arsenal,
Thu Mar 10, 2022, 10:57 AM
Mar 2022

we may as well let him take over the whole world.

As you say, we need to knock that off and push the bastard out.

walkingman

(7,511 posts)
2. We are totally unequivocal hypocrites
Thu Mar 10, 2022, 11:00 AM
Mar 2022
"Where were all the moralists in Washington as Bush ordered his unprovoked Shock and Awl bombardment of Baghdad? 600,000 Iraqis dead. For What? Terrorism?"

The difference that no one wants to admit......??
 

old as dirt

(1,972 posts)
4. Sitting in a jail cell in downtown Detroit.
Thu Mar 10, 2022, 11:14 AM
Mar 2022
Where were all the moralists in Washington as Bush ordered his unprovoked Shock and Awl bombardment of Baghdad?


In the middle of the night, an African American guard summoned us out of our jail cells and into his office, where we all watched "Desert Storm" begin to unfold on his TV.



harumph

(1,871 posts)
5. I firmly believe Putin is bullshitting
Thu Mar 10, 2022, 11:47 AM
Mar 2022

and we need to act accordingly instead
of being so timid. Push the forces out of
Ukraine. Do not set a foot on Russian soil -
but remind them we have nukes too and
will use them is necessary. One of his
generals or someone from GRU
will belly up the bar and blow his brains
out.

CommonHumanity

(246 posts)
6. Your perspective terrifies me
Thu Mar 10, 2022, 12:32 PM
Mar 2022

I am actually offended by your implied perspective that military engagement with Russia is the more moral choice.

In fact, I am appalled and terrified. Not because I am a coward, which I may be, but because life on earth is precious. Yes, the Russian attack on Ukraine is horrible, horrifying and inhumane beyond measure. Completely innocent lives are being lost. So we should then go ahead and risk more life and perhaps all life (who knows once the bombs start falling), the health of uncountable generations to come, the integrity of the DNA of life that has evolved over eons?

We can't take risks when the outcome could be our annihilation and, perhaps, the annihilation of much of life on earth. Innocent people. Innocent animals. Innocent life. When those are the stakes the calculations change. Period. PERIOD. Full stop.

And, btw - Not being the first to escalate matters when these are the stakes. THAT is a moral choice.

And, btw, again - There may not be anyone to sift through the ruins.

And, btw, a third time - A few points on invading Baghdad: There were many who were opposed. You make it sound like there was unanimous support which translates to unanimous to hypocrisy. Even if there was, it does not justify escalation at the risk of nuclear engagement. Another point, governments and associated political/power machinations sometimes result in awful things. This was the case with Baghdad. There were also a lot of lies.

As I was writing this my beautiful sweet dog scratched on the door to come in. I petted her and thought about how much I cherish her ONE simple mammal self. How vulnerable her mammal self, our mammal selves and all life is to weaponry nuclear and other. I beg and implore you to reconsider. In the fruitless and horrific game of war there are stakes that should never come into play. These weapons should not exist at all, but since they do avoiding their use needs to be priority 1.

rgbecker

(4,806 posts)
11. We are already at risk of nuclear annialation.
Thu Mar 10, 2022, 03:00 PM
Mar 2022

Do you think at few Western strikes at Putin's artillery and missile forces are going to change that? Putin is right now thinking about what he is going to do to counter the financial sanctions which will certainly threaten his entire being. Why are we waiting until so many Ukrainians are killed or displaced until we do what will be necessary sooner or later? Yes your love of life is well taken but too many times the forces of evil have done their damage without consequence and thus they have been encouraged to repeat and continue. We will see chemical weapons soon and nuclear weapons after that. Those that think we are going to avoid that are only those willing to let Ukraine fall to the Russians. It won't affect us here in the good ol USA, so maybe we should just stand back.

The cowering of NATO and the West at the threat of Nuclear weapons is the biggest selling point to those who want a Nuclear arsenal of their own. If the countries without the Bomb are not going to be protected by those that have it, then the first order of business for any state's government would be to get one and soon or sign up with a power like Russian who, at least to you, appear to be prepared to use it.

CommonHumanity

(246 posts)
12. I just can't agree
Thu Mar 10, 2022, 04:17 PM
Mar 2022

Although I thank you so much for engaging with me and replying to my post. I think I do understand where you are coming from, but I just can't agree. That said, I hear, appreciate and love how much you care about Ukraine and the human suffering we seem powerless to stop despite the world's most extensive armaments.

Two responses to your points:

Do you really think "a few strikes" is something we can control in the fog of war amidst nations armed to the teeth with nuclear and other war technology?

I am not sure that NATO cowering at the threat of nuclear weapons is the biggest selling point to those who want a nuclear arsenal of their own. It could just as well be that the specter of their use will normalize the threat of their use. I could be very wrong, but to my knowledge, Putin is the first so-called leader who has threatened the use of nuclear weapons. We should act to make this a single event, not a precedent with more to follow. We have not used these weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they are horrific beyond imagination. That says a lot in a world prone to nation-state violence and armed to the teeth.

Moreover, if we play a role in escalation that leads to a nuclear conflict we become one of the forces of evil even if we act on moral grounds. It is illogical and sad, but war is not logical. I think this is one of the many circumstances in our world where there is no wholly good choice so we must choose the lesser evil. The lesser evil is really what it comes down to. The lesser evil is not a choice anyone prefers, but this is the world we have.

Realistically, I also think Russia is going to collapse economically eventually. In time, the folly of this war will also be clear to the Russian people. And, as always, new world orders and nation-state alignments will emerge. Until then, we must protect a livable world for now and for the future. Yes, innocent people will die while we wait. Of course, it is a horror and an additional horror that it has taken people dying for us to enact policies that will hasten the demise of an authoritarian state. Of course.

Unfortunately, world orders aren't built on logic and kindness and the nations of the world have yet to find a way to live in peace. If we have evolved just one wisdom since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is that we cannot risk turning more living bodies and green earth to dust and embers with the use of nuclear weapons.

I've asked myself if I could be as brave as the civilians who stand before tanks or the people who will die, but not kill, for a more just world. I don't know. As mentioned, I don't consider myself particularly brave at all. I am pretty selfishly attached to living out my natural life. That said, I think if I had the choice of dying at the hands of a hostile foreign power or risking all the dangers associated with a potential nuclear confrontation, I would choose protecting life on earth and a livable planet for future generations over protecting my own life and the life of those I love.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The crazy talk of moral w...