So you’re saying you are Ukrainian?

No, I am not Ukrainian. I oppose my country’s involvement in the conflict. That is an isolationist position, by your definition.

Walk me through the chain of logic that leads you to say that I would have to be Ukrainian for my opposition to involvement in foreign conflicts to be isolationist. I know that you can’t do this, because you were just spouting off random bullshit when you asked that, but pretending that there’s some bizarre chain of reasoning behind it, what is it?

And when you can’t provide it, as you’ve been evading doing this whole time, I will be proven right that you’re just another liar.

a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

That’s literally what I’m arguing for. How could you possibly construe that definition as supporting your position as opposed to mine?

Putin isn’t doing the Holocaust. In the case of WWII, you can point very clearly to a reason why stopping Hitler was in the class interests of the people of Europe. I never claimed to be opposed to all war, just to wars that aren’t in the interests of the average person. It’s kind of telling that you have to jump to a completely different conflict from 70 years ago instead of just making the case for the current conflict, or at least comparing it to something from recent history.

That’s also true, but I was talking more about the .world culture where you can just casually lie and make up whatever you like about the out group and everyone just goes along with it, with zero sources needed. It’s very much an echo chamber where nobody cares about evidence or truth, not just in terms of politics and world affairs, but also with people and conversations. You can go full on Yeonmi Park with it so long as you’re in the in-group talking about the out-group. I think it’s brought over from toxic Reddit culture.

That’s a completely ridiculous take. That’s not isolationism, that’s political disengagement. How do you even manage to say something so wrong?

Isolationists do not disengage from matters of foreign intervention, we actively oppose it. That’s what isolationism means, and you obviously know that.

If you actually had any confidence in your position whatsoever, you would have no problem saying that my position is isolationist and that isolationism is wrong. But instead, you’re trying to use wordplay to shift definitions in an attempt to delegitimize my position, by adopting the completely insane stance that wanting non-intervention in a conflict is somehow inconsistent with isolationism.

This is very blatant bad faith.

A one state solution doesn’t mean that everyone in Israel would have to leave. It would just mean that everyone in the region gets an equal voice in governance. Many people would probably choose to leave, in the same way many people left South Africa when their system of apartheid ended.

Trump failed in it’s execution because we were still there when he left office. Biden succeeded in it’s execution as evidenced by the fact that we are no longer there.

I will repeat my question, since you didn’t answer it at all: How do you pull out of the country, watch the inevitable collapse of the regime you spent 20 years building, and hand the county over to your enemies without it being messy and getting egg on your face?

Please elaborate how opposing military aid to a country on the other side of the world is not an isolationist stance. You just said, “because they don’t want to get involved.” That’s my stance, I don’t want to get involved.

I don’t think you know what any of those terms mean tbh. Or rather, I think you know what they mean and are pretending that they don’t mean what they do because you’re acting in bad faith.

I don’t “know” their intent on reunification of the Soviet Union and neither do you. They say the same thing in every conflict we’ve ever been in, the enemy will keep expanding forever so we have no choice but to fight. Remember “Domino Theory” from Vietnam? How’d that play out? Remember how with the War on Terror, it was “If we don’t fight them over there, we’ll have to fight them over here.” Well, we’re not fighting them over there, so where are they? It’s the easiest propaganda line ever because you don’t need any evidence and you can apply it to anyone under any circumstances.

As for a word for what you’re describing “isolationist” or “dove” would be most appropriate. Peacenik. Defeatist. Pinko. Hell, you could even go with coward, if you like. It’s not as if there’s a shortage of derogatory terms for people advocating peace, it’s a very common thing to deride, historically speaking. Just go back and look at what people were calling me when I opposed the War on Terror if you need some inspiration.

In what way is that accelerationist?

If I were an accelerationist, I would want the US to overextend into as many conflicts as possible, and I would want those conflicts to last as long as possible, in order to weaken it. I don’t, because I’m not, because that’s a lie.

That user is an accelerationist

Source?

who wants Donald to drive the US into the ground

Source?

Y’all just casually lie about people constantly, all the time and none of you ever see anything wrong with it whatsoever. You’re backing up someone who is blatantly lying, and who constantly lies about my positions. Back up their claims then, if you claim they’re not a liar, if you claim that “it doesn’t seem like they’re wrong.” Show me that you don’t just blindly accept claims with zero evidence. Show me that you’re not a liar just like they are.

So what? We got out, so it was a success. The Taliban were always going to take over, they didn’t get “legitimized” by making a deal with the US, they got legitimized by winning the war. And so what if they did? Afghanistan is officially Not Our Problem.

Standing in a pool of blood over a mother’s corpse: “Oh, I guess this is all just team sports to you, isn’t it?”

That quote directly contradicts you criticizing the stance of giving up on Afghanistan. I should be the one quoting it at you. I cannot make any sense of your position whatsoever.

Why? You wanna know why? Because from the earliest age that I was aware of politics existing, we were sending people overseas to commit mass murder for no fucking reason! Why? Because I was calling for it to stop since I was thirteen and there was never any indication that it ever would! It legitimately could have continued for another 20 years as the corpses piled up higher and higher while having no meaningful voice to oppose it! My own damn brother came back so fucked up from the experience that he made my family’s life a living hell and eventually went out to try to kill some innocent person! And we got off so unbelievably lucky, do you have any idea, and shred of understanding of what the people of those countries went through, for absolutely nothing? How dare you ask me why. You have a fucking responsibility to understand the horrors that you’re supporting if you want to criticize the withdrawal.

But thank you for answering my question, you are indeed, blindly trusting what the “experts” in the media and government tell you to think, even when those exact same “experts” lied to the public and faced zero consequences, completely failed to show the perspective of the victims, and never experienced any personal cost from it.

It’s absolutely bizarre to me that y’all refuse to give your own guy credit for ending the war. Trump “made a plan” but left it for the next guy to carry out so that he’d have to take the flak from the media when they inevitably attacked whoever ended the war. If he’d won reelection, he very well could’ve torn up that deal and left it to the next guy again, prolonging the war. Biden could’ve done the same, but he accepted the responsibility and took the flak, and there is absolutely no reason I can see for y’all to accept the media’s framing of that as a bad thing, except that you just love war so much you won’t take credit for ending it even when it would benefit you.

You do have a point, it’s probably better to spend time on instances where people have the same disdain for facts that I do (none) as opposed to instances where people have a much higher disdain for facts, as evidenced by the fact that you’re allowed to run around telling blatant lies about people constantly.

Every word you speak is a lie. Are you even capable of being truthful?

Do you ever get tired of following me around and telling lies?

What I said is that you have no alternative, which you just agreed with.

So that returns to my question - if you’re not aware of any alternative, you have zero solutions to what could’ve been done differently, even with the benefit of hindsight, then what, exactly, has led you to make this criticism? Because the news told you to, the same news that told all sorts of lies to justify the wars?

As a tankie, I oppose virtually all war, because that’s what being a tankie means. I don’t consider it acceptable for Russia to knock out the ability for people to heat their homes.