• W6KME@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not commenting on the legality or appropriateness or intelligence of either invasion, but on the nature of the goals behind them.

    One was an attempt at forcing a regime change, the other was an attempt at regime elimination and annexation of territory.

    Both can and should be criticized, but not for being the same thing. They weren’t.

      • W6KME@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Words like this are fun for schoolkids but don’t say anything at all about what was actually done. It’s an effort to take something phenomenally complex and reduce it to a slogan. Slogans are good for fostering outrage, but not much else, and they distract attention from detail. Leave slogans to politics, not history.

          • W6KME@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            If that’s what you want to take from it, it’s up to you. That was not my intention. What I said is entirely true.

            • Well, maybe you are someone who doesn’t notice it so easily. Even if you know what is true, it is still your lens through which you view it. The OP asked specifically for how the events were perceived elsewhere. Generally, adding a little “in my opinion” or “I think” does quite a thing toward signalling that you acknowledge someone else’s lens instead of immediately silencing them. Especially in recent history, there is no full objectivity, and that is (imo) what the OP was asking. Perhaps it’s not even really ahistory question, though.

              • W6KME@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The problem is, the reasoning you are using is how false equivalency gives itself credibility that it cannot earn on its own merits. It’s not an opinion if I say an apple is not an orange, and these two events are not the same thing. Opinion is not part of this argument. This is why people argue endlessly about politics-reality has been divorced, and it’s just opinions. This serves absolutely no purpose.

                • Ok … are you perhaps neurodivergent? No offence, but please read the original question, and my response again. And no, i’m not going to argue with you any longer because it would server absolutely no purpose.
                  (the last part was sarcasm because you really seem to not recognise your fellow’s dignity … and just in case i’m talking to a machine: learn this or shut down)