Opinion of people who support both Israel and Russia

[John Dule]

Again, do you really think the US government only began to express opinions or views on issues external of the USA after the advent of the airplane?

Lincoln never said a peep about the conquest of Central Asia because he was…. drumroll, please… neutral on it.

Who said anything about "saying a peep?" Nobody here is talking about issuing statements or moral support. We are discussing providing aid that can ultimately determine the outcome of the conflict. I know you're playing dumb, but the fact that you think this is a good argument to take up even as a joke makes you actually dumb as well.

[TheReckoning]

Again, do you really think the US government only began to express opinions or views on issues external of the USA after the advent of the airplane?

Lincoln never said a peep about the conquest of Central Asia because he was…. drumroll, please… neutral on it.

Who said anything about "saying a peep?" Nobody here is talking about issuing statements or moral support. We are discussing providing aid that can ultimately determine the outcome of the conflict. I know you're playing dumb, but the fact that you think this is a good argument to take up even as a joke makes you actually dumb as well.

No one is ever morally obligated to give up their own resources to potentially help someone else.

[John Dule]

Again, do you really think the US government only began to express opinions or views on issues external of the USA after the advent of the airplane?

Lincoln never said a peep about the conquest of Central Asia because he was…. drumroll, please… neutral on it.

Who said anything about "saying a peep?" Nobody here is talking about issuing statements or moral support. We are discussing providing aid that can ultimately determine the outcome of the conflict. I know you're playing dumb, but the fact that you think this is a good argument to take up even as a joke makes you actually dumb as well.

No one is ever morally obligated to give up their own resources to potentially help someone else.

Then why do you devote so much of your time and energy to washing Putin's dick on this forum?

[Alben Barkley]

Anyone who supports Russia is an automatic HP no matter what the rest of their politics are.

[KaiserDave]

Lincoln probably didn’t say anything about about the Russian conquest of Central Asia because

a) He never even heard about it - he was busy you see
B) Tsar Alexander II was an avowed supporter of the Union cause

[DaleCooper]

Supporting Russia isn't a good thing, but I suppose it depends on why people chose to take that position in the first place.

I don't understand what you mean here. I cannot think of any good reason to support Russia in their imperialist war of conquest. Supporting Russia either means you genuinely support imperialism, or it isn't enough of a deal breaker because "the west is always bad."

Has Vivek/Trump supported actively giving aid to Russia? What makes you think they’re pro-Russia as opposed to being neutral?

Neutrality in the face of moral crisis is not neutrality.

By this logic, was Abraham Lincoln being pro-Russia when he didn’t do anything to oppose their conquest of Turkic tribes in Central Asia?

Neutrality is absolutely a real thing.

What exactly do you think Abe Lincoln could have feasibly done about such a thing at that time, stupid?

Come on, quit antagonizing the mentally challenged kid. It's a sick thing to do. 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Russia was America's foremost ally during the Civil War.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Supporting Russia isn't a good thing, but I suppose it depends on why people chose to take that position in the first place.

I don't understand what you mean here. I cannot think of any good reason to support Russia in their imperialist war of conquest. Supporting Russia either means you genuinely support imperialism, or it isn't enough of a deal breaker because "the west is always bad."

Has Vivek/Trump supported actively giving aid to Russia? What makes you think they’re pro-Russia as opposed to being neutral?

Neutrality in the face of moral crisis is not neutrality.

By this logic, was Abraham Lincoln being pro-Russia when he didn’t do anything to oppose their conquest of Turkic tribes in Central Asia?

Neutrality is absolutely a real thing.

What exactly do you think Abe Lincoln could have feasibly done about such a thing at that time, stupid?

Lincoln could've obviously immediately resigned, traveled to Central Asia, and convened a grand kurultai in Tashkent rallying all the local Beys, Khans, and Emirs to defend the steppe from Muscovite domination! Duh!

Instead of being known for freeing the slaves, he'd have been known for "freeing the Tatars."

[TheReckoning]

Again, do you really think the US government only began to express opinions or views on issues external of the USA after the advent of the airplane?

Lincoln never said a peep about the conquest of Central Asia because he was…. drumroll, please… neutral on it.

Who said anything about "saying a peep?" Nobody here is talking about issuing statements or moral support. We are discussing providing aid that can ultimately determine the outcome of the conflict. I know you're playing dumb, but the fact that you think this is a good argument to take up even as a joke makes you actually dumb as well.

No one is ever morally obligated to give up their own resources to potentially help someone else.

Then why do you devote so much of your time and energy to washing Putin's dick on this forum?

You do realize I consider Putin one of the worst leaders in the world today, right? Rivaled only by people like Bashar Al-Assad?

[John Dule]

Again, do you really think the US government only began to express opinions or views on issues external of the USA after the advent of the airplane?

Lincoln never said a peep about the conquest of Central Asia because he was…. drumroll, please… neutral on it.

Who said anything about "saying a peep?" Nobody here is talking about issuing statements or moral support. We are discussing providing aid that can ultimately determine the outcome of the conflict. I know you're playing dumb, but the fact that you think this is a good argument to take up even as a joke makes you actually dumb as well.

No one is ever morally obligated to give up their own resources to potentially help someone else.

Then why do you devote so much of your time and energy to washing Putin's dick on this forum?

You do realize I consider Putin one of the worst leaders in the world today, right? Rivaled only by people like Bashar Al-Assad?

My question stands.

[Hindsight was 2020]

The people who compare US helping Ukraine to Vietnam or Iraq make less mind numbing arguments than whatever the hell TheReckoning is doing here

[HisGrace]

Better than people who support Russia and Hamas but worse than people who support Ukraine and Israel.

[Ferguson97]

No one is ever morally obligated to give up their own resources to potentially help someone else.

This is honestly the saddest thing I've ever heard anyone say.

What an awful, ugly way to look at the world.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Again, do you really think the US government only began to express opinions or views on issues external of the USA after the advent of the airplane?

Lincoln never said a peep about the conquest of Central Asia because he was…. drumroll, please… neutral on it.

Who said anything about "saying a peep?" Nobody here is talking about issuing statements or moral support. We are discussing providing aid that can ultimately determine the outcome of the conflict. I know you're playing dumb, but the fact that you think this is a good argument to take up even as a joke makes you actually dumb as well.

No one is ever morally obligated to give up their own resources to potentially help someone else.

Jesus disagrees.

[darklordoftech]

Anyone who supports Russia is an automatic HP no matter what the rest of their politics are.

[Red Velvet]

There are people who associate this positioning with the AuthRight quadrant but I look at it more as a Realist/Pragmatic Western American policy tbh

Simply because Israel matters to the US interest in a way that Ukraine doesn’t. So in terms of Western realpolitik I can understand being really invested in Israel victory over Palestine while not caring much about Russia/Ukraine. It’s probably the position of most people who actually run things, though it’s still very different from being Pro-Russia.

But considering Russia is a bigger power than Ukraine, there are people who interpret being friends with Russia as something that brings more gains than being friends with Ukraine, while also pushing Russia to your side instead of going towards the Chinese. So there’s still a realpolitik argument for that.

So even if it’s a position that I don’t agree with, it still makes sense under the logic it operates.

Interestingly enough, the polar opposite positioning (Pro-Ukraine and Pro-Palestine) also happens to represent the opposite of realism, being the stereotype position of idealists who choose to look at the world at how it SHOULD be while ignoring how it actually is.

Pro-Russia and Pro-Palestine is the realist de-facto positioning for Non-Western realpolitik. Russia is wrong but is too important to be “canceled” for them, while Israel/Palestine are minor powers where you can afford a position that is both the moral one AND the most pragmatic to their self-interests.

Meanwhile the positioning that makes absolute no sense and is easily the WORST of all possible combos is being Pro-Israel and Pro-Ukraine because it literally makes no sense under a realist OR idealistic lenses

From a idealistic expression, these are extremely contradictory: You’re against land expansionism when it’s against Whites in Europe but in favor of it when it’s against Muslims in the Middle East.

From a realist expression, makes sense to be very Pro-Israel but zero sense to get much invested on whatever happens in Ukraine since the latter is mostly irrelevant and doesn’t affect them. So I attribute this combo to delusional neocon people who are already used to being contradictory and having no clear goals regarding geopolitics since at least the Iraq War.

They basically are defending their realistic interests in Israel/Palestine while being silly children on Ukraine/Russia based on nothing but their instinct of sticking it up to Russia.