I agree it is a tough conumdrum and no doubt why the UK is not participating in this endeavor. As France and Germany Seize Yachts, UK Accused of Coddling Russian Oligarchs "When it comes to individuals it is the case that we need to do the preparatory work, the requisite work, to make sure it is legally sound before introduction," said the spokesperson, who added that "if there are ways to further speed it up then we will."
Meanwhile Russia literally imported the infamous “crisis actors” and staged a humanitarian relief effort in Ukraine, then broadcast it as real. “War is Peace” digital banners is all that is left.
Also...well well if it isn't the consequences of my own actions? I get he's pretty untouchable but he still needs the lawmakers to do his bidding.
The residents did. But the people in the vid getting the packages, whatever they actually were, were assuredly not residents.
Work of the Werner group. Private money should be funding a comparable, but larger and better equipped team for the good guys
Panama papers are full of info on how and where the $$ was washed and stored. Im sure most of it has changed by now but likely using the same processes. Force Cayman and BWI and other offshore havens to open up or be removed from swift. Past due Revealed: the $2bn offshore trail that leads to Vladimir Putin | World news | The Guardian
I guess I’ll be The One to say it. Perhaps I have an unresolved need for negative feedback? I alluded to it on the assassination thread. But now I realize that I wasn’t being truly honest about not having a “solution.” I still don’t have a solution guaranteed to work. But what I do know is that the Russian, Chinese, North Korean, and to a barely perceptible lesser degree, Saudi, Iranian, and other models, there are only two acceptable options for the vast majority of us: abject subjugation, or death. I don’t like either. But I don’t see any value in the former. As in, I am simply avoiding the latter. Your time here is brief no matter how you try to spin it. Don’t settle for access to oxygen. Live, or don’t bother being alive. You may be able to run out your own clock in luxury. Me almost for sure, I’m def closer to the end than the beginning. From a purely self-advocating stance, stay away!! But the type of thing we are seeing today, and as pointed out is only the latest chapter, as in Syria for example, is creeping toward you relentlessly. Your kids, grandkids, or however long you choose to push it into the future. You know, like Ukranians thought way back in January. Some of my buds assured me that my dog was being wagged as recently as three weeks ago. They used interviews of Ukranians rolling their eyes at the thought of this. Those eyes are mos def rolling differently today. I am also aware that western democracies are far from utopian, and the US is no historical saint. Point taken, agreed, and I will continue to criticize my own state profusely. But I CAN DO THAT. And that is a monumental, existential difference that two of the three most powerful actors in the world do not share. And my criticism of the third is that it is increasingly becoming the same. I say do it today. Light this fuse and see if it leads to Armageddon. My understanding is that the end of that story is ultimately glorious. This current story obviously leads to hell. No thanks comrade.
Yes, Russia would be allowed to invade Finland, or Sweden, just like how we were allowed to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. Before you point out the differences in motivation, it doesn't really matter. We felt justified in our invasions, and so do they, because the ones who control all of our media are the same ones who are calling the shots on war. So what's stopping them? The same thing that's been stopping them all this time - risks not worth the rewards. It's just great power politics. It always was and always will be. Morality is just something politicians use to justify their actions to the public. The concern here is that oligarchs in the future will be more hesitant to move their assets out of their home countries. Oligarchs in countries like Russia and China have a TON of assets parked in the West and contribute to our wealth (whether that spreads down to the general populace is another matter) because they feel the rule of law will always allow them to access these assets. If we don't follow the rule of law in seizing their assets then they'll think there's no advantage to keeping them inside their respective countries, where they can access them more easily in normal times.
We have blown up entire blocks to kill terrorists and killed many civilians. We blew up a family in Afghanistan. Accident or not, That is what Biden will not call it a war crime.
This kind of stuff happens in Africa all the time, and our own ally the Saudis have been doing this for years in Yemen. Something like 1 million people died in Iraq in the wake of our invasion. The deaths and destruction in Ukraine is chump change in comparison. This is why I hate moralistic arguments in here. There's so much evil going on in the world, much with our own blessing if not perpetration. Call me a cynic if you want, but I just don't see morality as something that matters to those who're capable of doing the most harm. You should look up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Freedom of speech is very much higher on the hierarchy and in general will only be sought after one has all the other needs satisfied. At the risk of derailing the thread, I've been trying to convince fellow liberal many times about Trump's appeal to parts of America. When people see their jobs threatened by offshoring and automation, their loved ones threatened by addiction and lack of healthcare, their safety threatened by the desperate fleeing high cost of living, a lower rung of their hierarchy of needs is being threatened than their desire to see racial equality or environmental protection. The voting populace of wealthier coastal cities largely have had their lower rungs of needs satisfied and can't seem to understand why those who haven't in interior America don't care about reaching for the higher rungs.
While I'm sure you see the Russians justified here, as have other invaders, unlike the Russians, the US brought their cases before the UN, at least in the case of Afghanistan, where the vote in favor was unanimous. They brought their case, presented evidence, and acted. I will look at the others later but at least in that example since that's one of the ones you listed, there's a difference. Edit ::: my apologies but the search result that gave me the above info on Afghanistan was regarding UN involvement in Afghanistan and not specifically about the US argument for war.
Your second paragraph is very interesting. You’ve framed it in a way I’ve never quite thought about it before, and intellectually it makes sense. However I think in many ways it doesn’t apply to most of what goes on here and the current politics. Many who are riled up in the red vs blue are middle class and even upper middle class who by any measure have a good handle on the lowest hierarchy. What is driving them is a sense of tribalism, which is a form of belonging, community and purpose. Sitting around watching Tucker say how bad the blues are helps bring a sense of belonging, purpose and an ego boost, knowing that they are better than all those people that Tucker is talking about.
I don't think either is justified. I think they're all war crimes. Also, can you link me to where it was brought before the UN? I'm interested in how they justified it.
