A) It’s not deflection to limit a response to the parts most relevant to what I had actually asked.
B) I compared an unprovoked outright invasion to an unprovoked outright invasion. If you can annex land because there’s a civil war there and the people speak the same language as you, you’d be in favour of America annexing Ireland during the Troubles. Or Britain annexing it, for that matter. Never mind whether or not you’re fomenting the civil war in the first place.
C) I’m in favour of self-determination for people - hell, I want the place I live to leave the country hat it’s currently part of - but getting invaded is not self-determination.
D) Fun fact but you do not need to parrot the US State Department to think that Russia invaded Ukraine. If I was as virulently pro-America as you seem to think I am I probably wouldn’t be using a thing America did as a negative comparison, would I?
A) it is when you ignore every single point except the one you can twist
B) and you were wrong
C) yet you’ve been minimizing the Ukrainian coup orchestrated by the US, and denying the right of self-determination to people in the Donbass
D) you didn’t use it as a negative at all. Nowhere in your comment do you condemn the Iraq war. In fact you are whitewashing it by implying that somehow the US should be praised for not doing ethnic cleansing (which they did, lest we forget the 1.5 million dead Iraqi)
Okay, I just want to focus on D for a moment because I genuinely can’t work out how you could arrive at this conclusion. We can come back to the others afterwards. I was arguing that a referendum run by an invading army should not be considered legitimate and used a hypothetical one run by America in Basra as an example. I even specifically called the invasion “unprovoked” in my first response to you. Please explain to me how you think that this is me saying that the invasion of Iraq was praiseworthy.
A) It’s not deflection to limit a response to the parts most relevant to what I had actually asked.
B) I compared an unprovoked outright invasion to an unprovoked outright invasion. If you can annex land because there’s a civil war there and the people speak the same language as you, you’d be in favour of America annexing Ireland during the Troubles. Or Britain annexing it, for that matter. Never mind whether or not you’re fomenting the civil war in the first place.
C) I’m in favour of self-determination for people - hell, I want the place I live to leave the country hat it’s currently part of - but getting invaded is not self-determination.
D) Fun fact but you do not need to parrot the US State Department to think that Russia invaded Ukraine. If I was as virulently pro-America as you seem to think I am I probably wouldn’t be using a thing America did as a negative comparison, would I?
A) it is when you ignore every single point except the one you can twist
B) and you were wrong
C) yet you’ve been minimizing the Ukrainian coup orchestrated by the US, and denying the right of self-determination to people in the Donbass
D) you didn’t use it as a negative at all. Nowhere in your comment do you condemn the Iraq war. In fact you are whitewashing it by implying that somehow the US should be praised for not doing ethnic cleansing (which they did, lest we forget the 1.5 million dead Iraqi)
Okay, I just want to focus on D for a moment because I genuinely can’t work out how you could arrive at this conclusion. We can come back to the others afterwards. I was arguing that a referendum run by an invading army should not be considered legitimate and used a hypothetical one run by America in Basra as an example. I even specifically called the invasion “unprovoked” in my first response to you. Please explain to me how you think that this is me saying that the invasion of Iraq was praiseworthy.