Hey /u/Quite_frequency, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She’s one of those basic white bitches that goes “Why can’t everyone just get along?” On Instagram for likes. Except some idiot gave her a job where these decisions matter.
Just give in to Putin's every demand! I'm sure he'll give you a \*quick\* death and not torture you. And your people? They'll be starved and thrown into labor camps for showing opposition, but they'll be alive.. at least for the time being.
And when Putin decides to take another country, we'll just look at them glaringly until he stops. I'm sure Putin will decide that taking over another country without a fight is not a worthy venture, because we had the balls to threaten him with red tape and civil discourse. /s
If we let the threat of nukes prevent us from stopping a country like Russia, then the alternative is no better than mutually assured destruction.
Yeah, that would have worked during WWII. The US and UK shouldn't have gotten involved because that prolonged the the Nazi advance and ended up killing more than if they just rolled over Europe. We should have negotiated to give them what they wanted. No biggie!
Which is 100% unadulterated bullshit. People forget that it was Chamberlain who put his foot down, gave Poland a security guarantee, and [declared war on Hitler](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xcSnKArKz8E). He also spent years putting the remnants of the interwar British armed forces back together despite Labour sabotage and dreams of unilateral disarmament (until they belatedly changed track in the **~~late~~Edit:mid** 1930s due to Hitler).
>On 21 February 1945 Hitler explained to his deputy and personal record keeper, Martin Bormann, what had gone wrong in 1938 at the time of the Munich settlement: '**We ought to have attacked in 1938. It was the last chance we had of localizing the war**.' Hitler scolded himself for not holding his nerve over the invasion of Czechoslovakia, which would have been a 'short war' only. Britain and France would have remained passive, their political stock in ruins. Above all, mused Hitler, 'we should thus have gained the time required to enable us to consolidate our position, and we would have postponed world war for several years to come'. **The chief culprit in Hitler's view was Neville Chamberlain**, whose intention it had been all along to blind Hitler with promises in September 1938 while **buying time for England to prepare a ruthless war.**
Richard Overy "Germany and the Munich crisis: A mutilated victory?.", Diplomacy & Statecraft, vol.10, no.2-3 (1999), p.191.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09592299908406129
Diplomacy & Statecraft(Web of Science)
Edit:
An apocryphal quote from Churchill:
>"Poor Neville will come badly out of history. I know, I will write that history."
The dead cannot defend themselves. Chamberlain was literally dying of cancer, but even in his last months, during the darkest days of the Battle of Britain, he was not a man for surrender.
Churchill threw Admiral Fisher (the visionary who created *Dreadnought*) under the bus for Gallipoli (which he oversaw as First Lord of the Admiralty), just as he threw Chamberlain under the bus for Norway (which he oversaw as First Lord of the Admiralty). Sensing a pattern here ...
He is also partly responsible for millions of dead Indians due to his sheer incompetence and apathy. No wonder the Brits voted him out straight after the war. The Brits won WW2 because of their strength as a nation and a people, not because of one man.
Don't get me wrong, Churchill deserves plenty of credit, but many could have been in his place.
Edit 2: Link to Chamberlain's declaration of war speech.
Edit 3: u/chochazel has some wonderful contributions and insight to add. In fact, I believe we only disagree on technicality and a misreading of my comment (which, tbf, was not unambiguous enough). There is some nuance in the 1935-1937 period regarding Labour abandoning pacifism. That ambiguity only ends in 1937 i.e. the *late* 1930s. See my reply to their comment.
>He also spent years putting the remnants of the interwar British armed forces back together despite Labour sabotage and dreams of unilateral disarmament (until they belatedly changed track in the late 1930s due to Hitler).
This is a misreading of history. Labour had rowed back from disarmament behind before Chamberlain became Prime Minister. In 1935, Ernest Bevan launched a powerful attack George Lansbury, the pacifist Labour leader and the party conference overwhelmingly rejected the pacifist and extreme socialist positions by 2,168,000 votes to 102,000. Lansbury resigned, and was replaced by Attlee. Attlee was famously more hawkish towards Hitler than was Chamberlain.
Labour's opposition to Chamberlain's defence loan was on the basis of the funding rather than the principle. They wanted to pay for defence through taxation rather than borrowing, but they still wanted to pay for defence. In fact Hugh Dalton had already told the Labour conference in 1936 that: ‘a Labour Government, if it came into power tomorrow ... would be compelled to provide an increase in British armaments’.
When opposing the defence loans, he said that it was ‘not a vote for or against armaments in general’, nor ‘a vote for or against armaments at any particular level’, but simply a vote for or against a particular method of raising money. The loan was objectionable because it would lead to the budget being ‘gravely unbalanced’ for the next five years, and would be inflationary at the present stage of the trade cycle. Labour went on to describe how they would fund rearmament through taxation.
So to describe this as Labour being motivated by dreams of disarmament *after* Attlee became leader and after Dalton expressly adopted a position of rearmament in 1936 is historically inaccurate, and to describe the actions of the opposition party, in opposing the Government (on point of financial objection rather than on point of principle over rearmament) as 'sabotage' seems more than a little hysterical. In a democracy, oppositions oppose; we don’t call it sabotage.
Really interesting debate thanks both. Was there any truth in what I heard that Hitler would’ve backed down considerably if the Allies had confronted him over re-militarisation of the Rhineland?
At that point, probably. It's often forgotten by the revisionist crowd that the German war machine did not pop into existence the moment Hitler came to power. In the mid-30s the German military was still re-arming itself, and had very little in terms of tanks, planes and ships. Although Hitler massively expanded the scale of covert rearmament that had happened under the Weimar administration and withdrew from treaties banning rearmament, full-scale open rearmament only began in 1935, a year before the Rhineland.
Delaying the war to 1939 likely benefitted German rearmament far more than Britain or France. Between 1938 and 1939 the size of the German military almost quadrupled.
Hitler definitely gambled with the Rhineland because they had not yet built up their military to a point where they could take on France and Britain. He gambled on their inaction and it paid off - remilitarising the Rhineland allowed them to build up defences along the Siegfried Line and massively shifted the balance of power in Germany’s favour. Hitler correctly calculated that there would be no appetite for military intervention by Britain and France in the face of a country occupying its own territory - Britain was in no position to fight, only just having started to rearm, and the British public generally thought the Treaty of Versailles was unfair on Germany. France could easily have intervened as Germany was no match for them at the time - it would have been trivial to overwhelm them but they vastly overestimated the numbers of German troops involved, France was on the verge of elections, had a financial crisis and a caretaker Government.
> Before Chamberlain became Prime Minister
He was Chancellor, i.e. the #2 of Baldwin's government, and money = defense (to paraphrase Chamberlain).
I do not disagree with you in that many in Labour changed their views on pacifism. I should have said until the mid 1930s, not the late 1930s. However, that was a bit of a gradual process during the course of 1935-1937. I did not claim that all of Labour were so opposed, and I made no references to Attlee at all. I do believe that Attlee and Labour as a whole were fully for rearmament publicly only from 1937 onwards, as 1935-36 was an understandable transition period for their party.
> During the campaign for the 1935 General Election, Greenwood attacked Chancellor of the Exchequer Neville Chamberlain for spending money on rearmament, saying that the rearmament policy was "the merest scaremongering; disgraceful in a statesman of Mr Chamberlain's responsible position, to suggest that more millions of money needed to be spent on armaments."
Here are some of Attlee's speeches as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in April and May of 1935:
> Everything was devoted to piling up the instruments of death. The Chancellor (note: Chamberlain) expressed great regret that he should have to spend so much on armaments, but said that it was absolutely necessary and was due only to the actions of other nations.
Edit: separate two quotes
> I beg to move, That, in the opinion of this House, the policy of His Majesty's Government with respect to defence is completely at variance with the spirit in which the League of Nations was created to establish a collective world peace, gravely jeopardises the prospect of any Disarmament Convention, and, so far from ensuring national safety, will lead to international competition and the insecurity thereby engendered and will ultimately lead to war.
It is important to realize that defense spending does not provide results overnight. 1937 was a little late, and much of the defense industry (which should have been nationalized or subsidized) needed long-term growth and investment.
Thanks for being civil :)
> I do not disagree with you in that many in Labour changed their views on pacifism. However, that was a bit of a gradual process during the course of 1935-1937.
Agreed - but your description of that them having dreams of unilateral disarmament until the *late 1930s* was inaccurate (I see you changed that now - thank you), and I don’t understand your description of it as sabotage. As I said, oppositions oppose, the Government had a clear majority, so beyond giving speeches and voting in Parliament, what specifically did you have in mind as being actions worthy of the term sabotage?
> Thanks for being civil :)
Likewise!
Don't negotiate man, war is solved with peace. So just surrender, see no more war.
She is such a genius. I'm am curious of her solution for a murder attempt. I guess "kill yourself, so they can't murder you!"
she is like them people who worked for 4 minutes in marketing and start saying shit like "*everyone* can be approached, you just need to know what language to speak with them"
Ugh, I'm getting black and white flashbacks from my salesperson days.
"See this product that no one really wants because it's just a glorified extended warranty that "justifies" it's higher than competitors price by the bonuses the customer gets but can't claim until a year after they buy it meaning they'll likely forget about it by that time anyway? Yeah you have to sell it to 50% of everyone you serve or you'll be replaced with someone who can"
"It's all about synergy and mineset, Terence."
"You mean *mindset*."
"No, *mine*set, like how you set your mines, so you know how to be happy about what's yours."
Imagine being that would-be murderer. Just raw confusion. You sneak in to give that person a full murdering then all of a sudden they pop out from behind a thing, go "AH HA!" and put a bullet in their temple.
"I get that you're angry, Russia. We all are. But if you shoot another one of my colleagues, we'll be forced to.."
\*shoots another one in the head\*
"That was totally uncalled for! We're here to help you pick the path for peace! If you'll just look over these documents.."
\*another one shot\*
"Well that's just great, now there's blood and bits of brain all over them.. We'll have to make copies of these and get back to you.."
When Hitler invaded France, they should just have talked to him and given him half their country and army, everything else would be needless aggession /s
After this war is over, I bet these idiots will feel really dumb that they supported needless aggression from the largest country on earth.
She reminds me a bit of libertarians and their claims that somehow we could simply stop taxing people and as if by magic, roads will continue to be paved and firemen will put out fires without a paid income.
What a looney tunes argument that was.
Libertarianism would have spread across America if it wasn't for those [pesky bears.](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling)
*and logic, common sense, reality and human greed.*
"I see that you're angry because you're hitting me in the face, but if you just stop for a moment, I'm sure we can come to some agreement, namely you stopping with the punching and the stomping of my feet. That would be lovely... No? Well maybe some other people would be offput by this, but I believe we can build a strong dialog and work through our problems. Again, these are the terms from my side of things.. the stopping of the hitting and physical violence. In exchange for your cooperation, I won't press charges, and we'll call it even.."
Wait…she’s against sanctions, she’s against military support…does she actually have anything to recommend besides “peace,” (whatever the fuck that actually is when you try to make a verb out of it)?
She keeps saying nouns as things to do…instead of actual things that you can do. “Peace, “diplomacy,” and “dialogue” are effects. Everyone on our side of the table wants those effects, that isn’t the question. The question is “how do we accomplish them?” and she seems to have no fucking idea.
And who’s the homeless guy sitting next to her?
That's Mick Wallace, he's also an MEP.
Looks can be deceptive - he's actually an extremely wealthy builder and property developer, and I'm pretty sure they're fucking too
Also, if you think *he* looks homeless, you should see one of our other MEPs Ming Flanagan.
Ireland is incredibly pro-EU,pretty much across the political and class spectrum, (and now that being so also fucks off the Brits, it's an even more popular opinion), but for some reason we don't take the election of MEPs very seriously and regularly send fucking eejit joke candidates
No one is saying peace is off the table, but it relies entirely on Russia since they are the aggressors here. It is naive to think that Russia wants peace after they themselves invaded to begin with. There should always be an open possibility of starting peace talks, but I would be wary of peace talks where Putin has not expressed any interests of peace. There needs to be a token act like a cease fire or a retreat of troops for peace talks to show any sign of working.
Putin can and has used peace talks as a means to an end, using cease fires as a way to reposition troops. If that is all he hopes to achieve by feigning interests in diplomacy, then he should not be able to get it.
Well we can always deliver peace and negotiations by renaming the bombs we send over to Peace and Negotiations. Then she’ll have nothing to complain about.
They are both Irish MEP who are certified nutjobs, the guy is Mick Wallace and with any luck they will both be replaced at the next elections.
Honestly their behaviour reeks of Russian backhanders and doesn't reflect the stance of the country or people they are supposed to be representing.
EU tried to resolve this conflict in diplomatic way. Before war started there were talks with Putin in which he promise not to attack Ukraine -result Putin lied. When the war started Macron had multiple talks with Putin - result nothing. As well multiple negotiations between Russia and Ukraine happened - result nothing.
You can't in diplomatic way resolve this conflict if one side refuses to end this war.
Yeah, I mean, I’m pretty pacifist myself, but sometimes you _need_ to defend yourself because you’ve been invaded by a force that just won’t listen to you. They’ve tried negotiating anyway, and Russia just completely ignored them.
Sometimes you need to fight to protect yourself from invasion. That’s what will bring proper peace, not “peace” under the heel of a brutal dictatorship.
Quite often, when you see two people arguing. Both are wrong. A really good conman, is both people, and just tricks you into picking a side that is also wrong, so they get the upper hand.
Two idiots arguing in the above video then?
The video cuts short. As he was storming out of the building right in a huff, he turns around to “wave good bye” with his arm extended straight out to the finger tips
I am a sovereign nation and under maritime law you have no jurisdiction!
I the legal nation of UKRAINE is not the nation known as THE UKRAINE and as such not liable to any Levy's placed on it.
Am I being detained?
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine'
Consider supporting anti-war efforts in any possible way: [[Help 2 Ukraine](https://help2ukraine.org)] 💙💛
[[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)]
^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
And even then, nothing stopping the opposing side from just obliterating your entire country, they would have just made it easier for them to do so, which is exactly the kind of threat that is being faced under the merciless hands of Putin.
She is confusing the idea of the absence of hostilities and killing being the definition of peace. That is not peace. Peace requires Justice and that is where the complexity lies. How can Ukraine get justice after the war crimes and after it was attacked to satisfy an ego maniac's jollies?
Not even technically would he be right. Zelenskyy not surrendering would not have caused any deaths if the Russians would not have attacked. Even if Zelenskyy surrendered early, there would have been a lot of deaths, as we can see that many of the war crimes have been committed early in the invasion, and large amount of people would not have accepted a surrender. There is also no guarantee (or more like there is proof to the contrary) that Russia could have kept the occupied civilians safe from their own soldiers, as the Bucha massacre happened against civilians in Russian occupied territory without any outside threat at the time.
Wow that's a weird way to say "Ukraine should just surrender and we shouldn't do anything about the encroachment on the Ukrainian peoples' sovereignty."
>The answer to war isn’t more war. It’s peace.
Except peace can’t exist without justice.
And when someone is actively trying to murder you, the only just response is to stop them.
If this lady is proposing some sort of radical non-violent response (where masses of people throw themselves in front of the tanks), then let her be the first in line.
Her saying that made me think of a line from rent that says "the opposite of war isn't peace, it's creation"
And I don't know how (if) that applies here. But... I like it as a statement.
Perhaps to say: the answer to war isn't more war nor is it peace, peace is an outcome of whatever the answer to war is and maybe creation is the catalyst for peace.. Creation of safeguards against tyranny. Creation of education opportunities. Creation of true, open, and accessible information to every person. Creation of technologies that get food and health care services to low income people and countries. Creation of empowerment for the oppressed.
I really hate how cliche everything I just wrote sounds. But... its a comforting sentiment? I guess?
Well. In theory it would stop a dictator from being given the power of a dictator in the first place. (Obviously I'm not saying this is by any means a solution to the current problem in any way)
If people have education, access to free and accurate information, and are free from worrying about food and health, then they're able to give focus to things like politics, and have the background knowledge to not let someone like that gain power.
Putins following is not zero. And that following is a confluence of a few things such as: people losing access to food or financial stability when the soviet union fell apart, or people being told straight up lies (like that there are nazis in Ukraine). Even Hitler's popularity was gained on the promise of prosperity for the non-Jewish people.
Like... yes actually, the things I mentioned *would* stop a dictator. People who have the means, the information, and the empowerment to fight back against oppression cannot be ruled by a dictator. Being a dictator requires some level of compliance by the people you're ruling over and. Of course. A dictator doesn't have the time to roll into other countries if their own people ar ein a big enough uproar. Where would the resources be to do both?
Edit: and I'm not saying ensuring those things are an easy solution either. They're very complicated and difficult to come by. I'm just saying that the presence of those things is helpful to not having dictators.
Her name is clare daly and the person beside her is called Mike Wallace.
Both of them are absolute clowns. Equally.
Clare daly was up on stage warning people about russiaphobia a few years ago.
How did she get into a position of power?
I genuinely don't know. She's an MEP for the dublin Constituency which is just mad the people in our capital voted for her
>The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) is a [Palestinian](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians)-led[[6]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#cite_note-FOOTNOTE''The_Times_of_Israel''2019Holmes2019Trew2019-6) movement promoting [boycotts](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycotts_of_Israel), [divestments](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divestments), and [economic sanctions](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_sanctions) against [Israel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel)
Didn't know what that was. Lol
It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users.
I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!
[Here is link number 1 - Previous text "[6]"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#cite_note-FOOTNOTE''The_Times_of_Israel''2019Holmes2019Trew2019-6)
----
^Please ^PM ^[\/u\/eganwall](http://reddit.com/user/eganwall) ^with ^issues ^or ^feedback! ^| ^[Code](https://github.com/eganwall/FatFingerHelperBot) ^| ^[Delete](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=FatFingerHelperBot&subject=delete&message=delete%20i49x0yz)
I doubt Putin had any intention of peace. Neither did Hitler. Only war, ends wars, but at the cost countless lives. As long as countries have crazy leaders and they do nothing to remove them. Then there will always be war. It's the history of mankind. We are always fighting for whatever reason seems right to them. Land, religion, etc.
Even most pacifists understand and believe in a collective or individual right to defend themselves. We only get one fucking life, lady. You bet your ass I'm going to defend it if someone tries to take my livelihood.
Okay then…
Go to Russia, stand on the street and ask for peace. Let’s see which gulag you end up in. They get free labour and the rest of the world is rid of you.
Imagine you disappearing off the face of the earth being a win-win for everyone. What a useless human being.
This bitch would rather Ukrainians just keeled over and let Russia genocide their nation out of existence. Those genocidal plans have been made public by Putin in his speeches and essay, "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians", and recently Ria Novosti published an article, "what should we do with Ukraine", that lays out the same genocidal agenda. Already we're seeing the mass kidnappings and murders. To surrender is to die or be committed to "denazification" camps.
Incredible stupidity. This woman is a useful idiot.
>would rather Ukrainians just keeled over and let Russia genocide their nation out of existence.
u/Ace-O-Matic just said there would be less death and destruction if Ukraine just surrendered. I think y'all should arm wrestle to decide who's right.
I guess Finland and Sweden should just surrender as well when Russia attacks them. And why not the Baltics too? After all there might be less death and destruction. That's all that matters. Let's all be subjugated by Russia.
“Stupid martial law.”
Yeah, man. That stupid martial law. It’s like, Putin and what army. Amirite? Arm wrestling has got to be my vote to see which one is right here.
MY GOD, why didn't anyone else think about that? It was such a simple solution! Did anyone even bother to try this with Hitler?
Of course Ukraine would be destroyed by now likely if it wasn't for defensive weapons, but what would that Karen know about anything.
When did Ukraine leave the negotiation table with Russia before Russia invaded Ukraine?
Oh yea, there was no negotiation before Russia invaded a sovereign country. Maybe if Russia wasn't such a demented country other countries would want to be friends with it and it wouldn't have to worry about its borders.
I guess Ireland's MEP doesn't have any brains left? But then we must remember she does represent the views of Ireland.
Hey fuck you man, everyone here actually thinks she's a nutjob. Why smack talk an entire country because of the political opinions of one person? You foolish fool, you.
Everyone's got a few, the US has so many I have lost track of most of em. Dear rest of the planet, I am sorry the US has so many morons in positions of authority, I was not given enough say in the matter to prevent it, though I tried where i could. We were able to get rid of a few, to a degree........
She’s right though. I remember years ago a burglar broke into my house. I had the option to use force to defend my property but peace was the answer, so I helped him load my items into his van. After being so accommodating, the burglar came back and said he was moving into my house. Of course peace was the answer, so I moved him in. After a week he decided that I shouldn’t live in my house any longer, so obviously to avoid any conflict I just moved out with my family onto the streets. Give peace a chance.
She's is right about a few things, Sanctions will hurt the Russian people more than the oligarchs, and the road to end this is to talk about peace, clearly, **Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine**, meanwhile, we should help Ukraine with arms and humanitarian support, but the truth is this unless Ukraine plans to invade Russia and subdue Russia permanently, peace talks need to be happening.
Peace talks take time. In the meantime since Lavrov won't agree to a ceasefire Ukrainian cities are being bombed into oblivion.
Even without debating who should do what, in the short term peace talks do very little for Ukrainians living in fear of their lives.
"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'."
George Orwell
The lady speaking is an Irish MEP Clair Daly who seems to have some sort of wired russian friendly attitude. In January she was quoted as saying russias build up was completely defensive. Though that's more appropriate to aged like milk.
My father was once interviewed in the street by RT and it will never not make me laugh.
It seems I can no longer watch RT Youtube videos… thanks Putin!
We shall have peace…when Russia answers for the burning of the Westfold! When they answer for the children who lie dead on the plains! For the soldiers who were hewn even as they lay dead! We shall have peace when Putin hangs from a gibbon for the sport of his own crows!
This is roundabout talking points to say that she wants Ukraine to surrender. This is tankie shit. In her mind it's a "better to live under Russia than die fighting them" argument. It of course ignores that Russia will oppress,, brutalize, and kill the Ukrainians if they win. Just like the USSR did. She's what they call an "idiot".
But that would require that the aggressive part can be reasoned with. I'm not sure if that is the case. Putler has been bluffing his way through the diplomacy and is laughing at the west and basically does whatever pleases him at this point.
But probably much of this could have been avoided had the west been very strict with sanctions in 2008 when he invaded Georgian and even more strict when he took part of Ukraine in 2014.
Why the fuck does she thing we’ve given Ukraine military support? To allow Ukrain to invade the Russian heartland? Moron. There would be no peace negotiations going on right now if Ukraine hadn’t been able to defend themselves.
In what way can they negotiate peace with Russia? They're attacking civilian targets, bombing food and medical relief supplies, and arresting their own civilian population when they speak out against the war effort.
This kind of invasion cannot be reasoned with. It can't be negotiated with. Putin just wants to take Ukraine. He wants Ukraine to be a part of Russia, so he invaded. How can we believe he'll accept anything but that? Honestly how can we believe he'll stop when he eventually takes Ukraine?
She wants peace. Russia terms for peace is control of Ukraine and nothing more. Both these people have been on the side with Russia before and i remeber one of them saying ages ago, "why are we aggressive towards RU when we don't need to be!" Or along those lines.. Russia honestly don't give a shit. Never have or will yet both fail to realise this.
Peace negotiations can help in certain circumstances. But that doesn't mean you don't defend while that happens. Imagine if that's how world War 2 went? Everyone just let it be and tried to make peace. It's pretty hard to negotiate with someone willing to order literal acts of terrorism. I don't think putin is concerned for the people. Not sure why, maybe its the civilian murdering and hospital destroying. I don't know.
Diz :: "My mother always said violence never solves anything."
Rasczak :: "Really? I wonder what the city fathers of Hiroshima would say about that...you"
Carmen :: "They probably wouldn't say anything; Hiroshima was destroyed."
Rasczak :: "Correct."
\-The "Democracy Failed" classroom scene from Starship Troopers.
She is incredibly naive. The human race simply cannot NOT go to war with itself, yet. We are expansionists and highly competitive. That got us to the top of the food chain but oddly enough is about to become our downfall unless we make some massive changes to our fundamentals. If we continue making more changes and innovating the way we have over the last few years we might have 2 life spans to remedy what we have done; if not less than 1.
That all being said, she's actually not wrong in saying the answer to war is peace. The issue is EVERYONE needs to want that same peace and not their own variant of it. She is very, VERY wrong with saying the answer to aggression is not more aggression. Someone hits you you hit them back to the point they regret hitting you and then you keep your arm cocked, ready, and displayed for that aggressor to see.
Yo Putin how are things, are you eating your vegetables? Crazy war we in right now bud. I was wondering if you could stop and I’ll be like totally cool with what you did over the span of 2 months, but if you wanted to go for one more month I guess that be ok. Just lmk, I’ll be online tonight at 9 if you want to play duos I gotta get up early tho. Hmu l8er bro
As an Irish person, let me say that she (and the lump beside her) are national embarrassments. We have this tendency to send our worst lunatic fringe to Europe so we don't have to listen to them.
>"The answer to war is not more war, it's peace"
**Country being invaded:** "How about you stop invading and we have peace"
**Invading country:** "No."
This one's a real head-scratcher, Karen. A real fucking chin-fondler.
They are honestly one of the biggest embarrassments of Ireland I honestly don’t know how they got to where they are both are headcases I can’t stand either of them I hope they get replaced soon everytime I see something about them on this or fb I just roll my eyes
How dare you fight back against the world's worst international bully? How dare the citizens of Ukraine resist the complete theft of their country?
Putin could not have chosen a better voice puppet. Ireland, why aren't you still a British colony? Oh, right - because you resisted, and suffered, for decades before the bully finally gave up and went home.
But that's not what you want for Ukraine. Vietnam did it, Afghanistan did it, and Ireland did it. Ukraine can do it, too, with lots of help from the West. Except Ireland, apparently.
Yeah, maybe she should remember that if it weren’t for the RA, the Republic of Ireland would still be under British rule and there’d still be apartheid in NI. The Brits weren’t going to do the right thing without their hands being forced.
Yes, peace is preferable to war.
But if war is inevitable you should fight to win. Once war is started you aim for the head, the chest, the ball sack, whatever crosses your sights (metaphorically speaking). Sanctions might not end a war directly, but they can sure make people think twice about backing a dictator who got them into it.
It's sad that sanctions hurt the civilians, but oligarch-seeking bullets haven't been invented yet so we use the tools we have.
At this point I imidatly assume anybody who uses this kind of rhetorics was payed by russia or has his profit in some other way. Otherwise you have to really be dimb, like really dumb and I don't want to think of THAT many people, they're dumb
Someone please tell her that arms deliveries and sanctions are part of the negotiation. In fact, the war itself is a type of negotiation: Russia is negotiating for territory and influence with tanks and missiles. Sometimes pacifism can hurt (a lot of people).
Hey /u/Quite_frequency, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There would be no stealing, if I just donated my tv, car and my left testicle to the man who broke into my house
She's either incredibly naïve, or suckling on that Putin dick. Either way, an embarrassment.
Idk but she looks like Bob Odenkirk.
Better Call Niall
Putin's dick is embarrassing? No wonder he thinks he needs a bigger country. Men and their insecurities.
She’s one of those basic white bitches that goes “Why can’t everyone just get along?” On Instagram for likes. Except some idiot gave her a job where these decisions matter.
Yeah she's sucking hard, how else is she suppose to find money for her campaign? On the street like a common whore?
What's most fascinating is watching someone from Ireland make this argument.... No idea who she is but how fucking dumb can you get.
Just sit down and talk to the guy who’s trying to steal your TV, he’ll give it back.
Hey, it's me ur burglar. Mind if I get something from the fridge, too?
“Woah wtf are you doing? I want the right one”
When people attack you just negotiate with them. Gawd!
It's simple. The answer is peace. Easy. Why can't people see it. There.... She has single handedly solved world conflicts forever
Exactly, just give Putin everything he wants and it will all be fine...
Yeah, have we asked the president of Ukraine to just become part of Russia? That will end the war…/s
Just give in to Putin's every demand! I'm sure he'll give you a \*quick\* death and not torture you. And your people? They'll be starved and thrown into labor camps for showing opposition, but they'll be alive.. at least for the time being. And when Putin decides to take another country, we'll just look at them glaringly until he stops. I'm sure Putin will decide that taking over another country without a fight is not a worthy venture, because we had the balls to threaten him with red tape and civil discourse. /s If we let the threat of nukes prevent us from stopping a country like Russia, then the alternative is no better than mutually assured destruction.
Yeah, that would have worked during WWII. The US and UK shouldn't have gotten involved because that prolonged the the Nazi advance and ended up killing more than if they just rolled over Europe. We should have negotiated to give them what they wanted. No biggie!
That is pretty much what Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax wanted to do. At least that is how it was depicted in "Darkest Hour".
Which is 100% unadulterated bullshit. People forget that it was Chamberlain who put his foot down, gave Poland a security guarantee, and [declared war on Hitler](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xcSnKArKz8E). He also spent years putting the remnants of the interwar British armed forces back together despite Labour sabotage and dreams of unilateral disarmament (until they belatedly changed track in the **~~late~~Edit:mid** 1930s due to Hitler). >On 21 February 1945 Hitler explained to his deputy and personal record keeper, Martin Bormann, what had gone wrong in 1938 at the time of the Munich settlement: '**We ought to have attacked in 1938. It was the last chance we had of localizing the war**.' Hitler scolded himself for not holding his nerve over the invasion of Czechoslovakia, which would have been a 'short war' only. Britain and France would have remained passive, their political stock in ruins. Above all, mused Hitler, 'we should thus have gained the time required to enable us to consolidate our position, and we would have postponed world war for several years to come'. **The chief culprit in Hitler's view was Neville Chamberlain**, whose intention it had been all along to blind Hitler with promises in September 1938 while **buying time for England to prepare a ruthless war.** Richard Overy "Germany and the Munich crisis: A mutilated victory?.", Diplomacy & Statecraft, vol.10, no.2-3 (1999), p.191. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592299908406129 Diplomacy & Statecraft(Web of Science) Edit: An apocryphal quote from Churchill: >"Poor Neville will come badly out of history. I know, I will write that history." The dead cannot defend themselves. Chamberlain was literally dying of cancer, but even in his last months, during the darkest days of the Battle of Britain, he was not a man for surrender. Churchill threw Admiral Fisher (the visionary who created *Dreadnought*) under the bus for Gallipoli (which he oversaw as First Lord of the Admiralty), just as he threw Chamberlain under the bus for Norway (which he oversaw as First Lord of the Admiralty). Sensing a pattern here ... He is also partly responsible for millions of dead Indians due to his sheer incompetence and apathy. No wonder the Brits voted him out straight after the war. The Brits won WW2 because of their strength as a nation and a people, not because of one man. Don't get me wrong, Churchill deserves plenty of credit, but many could have been in his place. Edit 2: Link to Chamberlain's declaration of war speech. Edit 3: u/chochazel has some wonderful contributions and insight to add. In fact, I believe we only disagree on technicality and a misreading of my comment (which, tbf, was not unambiguous enough). There is some nuance in the 1935-1937 period regarding Labour abandoning pacifism. That ambiguity only ends in 1937 i.e. the *late* 1930s. See my reply to their comment.
>He also spent years putting the remnants of the interwar British armed forces back together despite Labour sabotage and dreams of unilateral disarmament (until they belatedly changed track in the late 1930s due to Hitler). This is a misreading of history. Labour had rowed back from disarmament behind before Chamberlain became Prime Minister. In 1935, Ernest Bevan launched a powerful attack George Lansbury, the pacifist Labour leader and the party conference overwhelmingly rejected the pacifist and extreme socialist positions by 2,168,000 votes to 102,000. Lansbury resigned, and was replaced by Attlee. Attlee was famously more hawkish towards Hitler than was Chamberlain. Labour's opposition to Chamberlain's defence loan was on the basis of the funding rather than the principle. They wanted to pay for defence through taxation rather than borrowing, but they still wanted to pay for defence. In fact Hugh Dalton had already told the Labour conference in 1936 that: ‘a Labour Government, if it came into power tomorrow ... would be compelled to provide an increase in British armaments’. When opposing the defence loans, he said that it was ‘not a vote for or against armaments in general’, nor ‘a vote for or against armaments at any particular level’, but simply a vote for or against a particular method of raising money. The loan was objectionable because it would lead to the budget being ‘gravely unbalanced’ for the next five years, and would be inflationary at the present stage of the trade cycle. Labour went on to describe how they would fund rearmament through taxation. So to describe this as Labour being motivated by dreams of disarmament *after* Attlee became leader and after Dalton expressly adopted a position of rearmament in 1936 is historically inaccurate, and to describe the actions of the opposition party, in opposing the Government (on point of financial objection rather than on point of principle over rearmament) as 'sabotage' seems more than a little hysterical. In a democracy, oppositions oppose; we don’t call it sabotage.
Really interesting debate thanks both. Was there any truth in what I heard that Hitler would’ve backed down considerably if the Allies had confronted him over re-militarisation of the Rhineland?
At that point, probably. It's often forgotten by the revisionist crowd that the German war machine did not pop into existence the moment Hitler came to power. In the mid-30s the German military was still re-arming itself, and had very little in terms of tanks, planes and ships. Although Hitler massively expanded the scale of covert rearmament that had happened under the Weimar administration and withdrew from treaties banning rearmament, full-scale open rearmament only began in 1935, a year before the Rhineland. Delaying the war to 1939 likely benefitted German rearmament far more than Britain or France. Between 1938 and 1939 the size of the German military almost quadrupled.
Hitler definitely gambled with the Rhineland because they had not yet built up their military to a point where they could take on France and Britain. He gambled on their inaction and it paid off - remilitarising the Rhineland allowed them to build up defences along the Siegfried Line and massively shifted the balance of power in Germany’s favour. Hitler correctly calculated that there would be no appetite for military intervention by Britain and France in the face of a country occupying its own territory - Britain was in no position to fight, only just having started to rearm, and the British public generally thought the Treaty of Versailles was unfair on Germany. France could easily have intervened as Germany was no match for them at the time - it would have been trivial to overwhelm them but they vastly overestimated the numbers of German troops involved, France was on the verge of elections, had a financial crisis and a caretaker Government.
> Before Chamberlain became Prime Minister He was Chancellor, i.e. the #2 of Baldwin's government, and money = defense (to paraphrase Chamberlain). I do not disagree with you in that many in Labour changed their views on pacifism. I should have said until the mid 1930s, not the late 1930s. However, that was a bit of a gradual process during the course of 1935-1937. I did not claim that all of Labour were so opposed, and I made no references to Attlee at all. I do believe that Attlee and Labour as a whole were fully for rearmament publicly only from 1937 onwards, as 1935-36 was an understandable transition period for their party. > During the campaign for the 1935 General Election, Greenwood attacked Chancellor of the Exchequer Neville Chamberlain for spending money on rearmament, saying that the rearmament policy was "the merest scaremongering; disgraceful in a statesman of Mr Chamberlain's responsible position, to suggest that more millions of money needed to be spent on armaments." Here are some of Attlee's speeches as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in April and May of 1935: > Everything was devoted to piling up the instruments of death. The Chancellor (note: Chamberlain) expressed great regret that he should have to spend so much on armaments, but said that it was absolutely necessary and was due only to the actions of other nations. Edit: separate two quotes > I beg to move, That, in the opinion of this House, the policy of His Majesty's Government with respect to defence is completely at variance with the spirit in which the League of Nations was created to establish a collective world peace, gravely jeopardises the prospect of any Disarmament Convention, and, so far from ensuring national safety, will lead to international competition and the insecurity thereby engendered and will ultimately lead to war. It is important to realize that defense spending does not provide results overnight. 1937 was a little late, and much of the defense industry (which should have been nationalized or subsidized) needed long-term growth and investment. Thanks for being civil :)
> I do not disagree with you in that many in Labour changed their views on pacifism. However, that was a bit of a gradual process during the course of 1935-1937. Agreed - but your description of that them having dreams of unilateral disarmament until the *late 1930s* was inaccurate (I see you changed that now - thank you), and I don’t understand your description of it as sabotage. As I said, oppositions oppose, the Government had a clear majority, so beyond giving speeches and voting in Parliament, what specifically did you have in mind as being actions worthy of the term sabotage? > Thanks for being civil :) Likewise!
Anyone from that time would have rembered ww1 industrial killing and done anything to avoid a repeat of it. Carnt blame them really.
“Peace in our time”
Don't negotiate man, war is solved with peace. So just surrender, see no more war. She is such a genius. I'm am curious of her solution for a murder attempt. I guess "kill yourself, so they can't murder you!"
she is like them people who worked for 4 minutes in marketing and start saying shit like "*everyone* can be approached, you just need to know what language to speak with them"
Ugh, I'm getting black and white flashbacks from my salesperson days. "See this product that no one really wants because it's just a glorified extended warranty that "justifies" it's higher than competitors price by the bonuses the customer gets but can't claim until a year after they buy it meaning they'll likely forget about it by that time anyway? Yeah you have to sell it to 50% of everyone you serve or you'll be replaced with someone who can"
"It's all about synergy and mineset, Terence." "You mean *mindset*." "No, *mine*set, like how you set your mines, so you know how to be happy about what's yours."
"no mineset, there are mines planted throughout the store. It keeps people alert."
Imagine being that would-be murderer. Just raw confusion. You sneak in to give that person a full murdering then all of a sudden they pop out from behind a thing, go "AH HA!" and put a bullet in their temple.
”Now Russia, lets sit down at the-” *get shot in the head*
"I get that you're angry, Russia. We all are. But if you shoot another one of my colleagues, we'll be forced to.." \*shoots another one in the head\* "That was totally uncalled for! We're here to help you pick the path for peace! If you'll just look over these documents.." \*another one shot\* "Well that's just great, now there's blood and bits of brain all over them.. We'll have to make copies of these and get back to you.."
You described it perfectly as i vizualied it in my head
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdM44rovn6c
When Hitler invaded France, they should just have talked to him and given him half their country and army, everything else would be needless aggession /s After this war is over, I bet these idiots will feel really dumb that they supported needless aggression from the largest country on earth.
They will just peddle a revised history in which they are right. We can see it happen in real time.
The naïvity is of the charts.
She reminds me a bit of libertarians and their claims that somehow we could simply stop taxing people and as if by magic, roads will continue to be paved and firemen will put out fires without a paid income. What a looney tunes argument that was.
Libertarianism would have spread across America if it wasn't for those [pesky bears.](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling) *and logic, common sense, reality and human greed.*
> I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser...
*naiveté
Also *off
"I see that you're angry because you're hitting me in the face, but if you just stop for a moment, I'm sure we can come to some agreement, namely you stopping with the punching and the stomping of my feet. That would be lovely... No? Well maybe some other people would be offput by this, but I believe we can build a strong dialog and work through our problems. Again, these are the terms from my side of things.. the stopping of the hitting and physical violence. In exchange for your cooperation, I won't press charges, and we'll call it even.."
Wait…she’s against sanctions, she’s against military support…does she actually have anything to recommend besides “peace,” (whatever the fuck that actually is when you try to make a verb out of it)? She keeps saying nouns as things to do…instead of actual things that you can do. “Peace, “diplomacy,” and “dialogue” are effects. Everyone on our side of the table wants those effects, that isn’t the question. The question is “how do we accomplish them?” and she seems to have no fucking idea. And who’s the homeless guy sitting next to her?
That's Mick Wallace, he's also an MEP. Looks can be deceptive - he's actually an extremely wealthy builder and property developer, and I'm pretty sure they're fucking too Also, if you think *he* looks homeless, you should see one of our other MEPs Ming Flanagan. Ireland is incredibly pro-EU,pretty much across the political and class spectrum, (and now that being so also fucks off the Brits, it's an even more popular opinion), but for some reason we don't take the election of MEPs very seriously and regularly send fucking eejit joke candidates
Who's the laughing "155" guy?
angel dzhambazki, bulgarian mep
A guy who literally was just sanctioned for giving a nazi salute.
Thanks for the answer, I appreciate the depth as well!
Ah no bother. There's an "explain Mick Wallace" rota in Ireland and I was on for today
That makes a confusingly large amount of sense 😂
I think dialogue is a tool, diplomacy is a method, peace is a condition. The method is failing, but doesn't that mean the tool is useless.
No one is saying peace is off the table, but it relies entirely on Russia since they are the aggressors here. It is naive to think that Russia wants peace after they themselves invaded to begin with. There should always be an open possibility of starting peace talks, but I would be wary of peace talks where Putin has not expressed any interests of peace. There needs to be a token act like a cease fire or a retreat of troops for peace talks to show any sign of working. Putin can and has used peace talks as a means to an end, using cease fires as a way to reposition troops. If that is all he hopes to achieve by feigning interests in diplomacy, then he should not be able to get it.
Yes, agreed. My comment should have been 1 level up the thread as a response to peace, democracy and dialogue being effects.
Well we can always deliver peace and negotiations by renaming the bombs we send over to Peace and Negotiations. Then she’ll have nothing to complain about.
They are both Irish MEP who are certified nutjobs, the guy is Mick Wallace and with any luck they will both be replaced at the next elections. Honestly their behaviour reeks of Russian backhanders and doesn't reflect the stance of the country or people they are supposed to be representing.
These are MEPs? Fuck me, everything about them looks like like this is a school board meeting.
Same vibes as "If you're depressed, just be happy"
EU tried to resolve this conflict in diplomatic way. Before war started there were talks with Putin in which he promise not to attack Ukraine -result Putin lied. When the war started Macron had multiple talks with Putin - result nothing. As well multiple negotiations between Russia and Ukraine happened - result nothing. You can't in diplomatic way resolve this conflict if one side refuses to end this war.
He just jumped on the plane with her and she had no choice but to negotiate peace with him, so now he's co-MEP
She is just in love with grandstanding. If she gets to do that, she has achieved her goal.
You need a big gun for diplomacy to work. How else are you going to get them to come to the table to talk?
[удалено]
Yeah, I mean, I’m pretty pacifist myself, but sometimes you _need_ to defend yourself because you’ve been invaded by a force that just won’t listen to you. They’ve tried negotiating anyway, and Russia just completely ignored them. Sometimes you need to fight to protect yourself from invasion. That’s what will bring proper peace, not “peace” under the heel of a brutal dictatorship.
She wants Russia to not be invading Ukraine, and thinks that if the EU wasn't trying to stop him, he just wouldn't be doing it.
I love that he just straight up laughs at her.
The funny part is that he is a big anti-EU and generally pro Russian nationalist who also used a Nazi salute in the EP a few weeks ago.
Well, that just makes me all kinds of confused.
i imagine he's sitting there thinking "holy shit someone actually fell for our propaganda this bad and is doing our work for us on the floor?"
Quite often, when you see two people arguing. Both are wrong. A really good conman, is both people, and just tricks you into picking a side that is also wrong, so they get the upper hand. Two idiots arguing in the above video then?
Honestly thi is the first time i see a clip with Dzhambazki where he is not the idiot. Whats next, cats and dogs living together?
Mass hysteria!
real wrath of god type stuff
>Nazi salute he was just saying goodbye /s
The video cuts short. As he was storming out of the building right in a huff, he turns around to “wave good bye” with his arm extended straight out to the finger tips
The best part is when he does a NAZI salute when he walks out. No I'm not joking and obviously was cut out.
Fuuuuuuuu.... We're not gonna make it as a species
The answer to war is surrender. There is no war if you just give up. /s
If a country invades your country tell them to stop. They can't legally invade your country if you don't want them to.
I am a sovereign nation and under maritime law you have no jurisdiction! I the legal nation of UKRAINE is not the nation known as THE UKRAINE and as such not liable to any Levy's placed on it. Am I being detained?
I know that sovereign citizen video and the judge handles it beautifully.
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine' Consider supporting anti-war efforts in any possible way: [[Help 2 Ukraine](https://help2ukraine.org)] 💙💛 [[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)] ^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
"Do not share, copypaste on facebook if you don't want your country to be invaded. "
And even then, nothing stopping the opposing side from just obliterating your entire country, they would have just made it easier for them to do so, which is exactly the kind of threat that is being faced under the merciless hands of Putin.
Can't didn't when you are dead. The obvious solution.
Yeah, but after all that war there will be no war left.
She is confusing the idea of the absence of hostilities and killing being the definition of peace. That is not peace. Peace requires Justice and that is where the complexity lies. How can Ukraine get justice after the war crimes and after it was attacked to satisfy an ego maniac's jollies?
My dad seriously keeps spouting this :( He says the deaths are Zelenskiy's fault because he didn't just surrender.
[удалено]
Not even technically would he be right. Zelenskyy not surrendering would not have caused any deaths if the Russians would not have attacked. Even if Zelenskyy surrendered early, there would have been a lot of deaths, as we can see that many of the war crimes have been committed early in the invasion, and large amount of people would not have accepted a surrender. There is also no guarantee (or more like there is proof to the contrary) that Russia could have kept the occupied civilians safe from their own soldiers, as the Bucha massacre happened against civilians in Russian occupied territory without any outside threat at the time.
Wow that's a weird way to say "Ukraine should just surrender and we shouldn't do anything about the encroachment on the Ukrainian peoples' sovereignty."
That's literally what pro-Russian propagandist were also saying, by the way, so....
>The answer to war isn’t more war. It’s peace. Except peace can’t exist without justice. And when someone is actively trying to murder you, the only just response is to stop them. If this lady is proposing some sort of radical non-violent response (where masses of people throw themselves in front of the tanks), then let her be the first in line.
Her saying that made me think of a line from rent that says "the opposite of war isn't peace, it's creation" And I don't know how (if) that applies here. But... I like it as a statement. Perhaps to say: the answer to war isn't more war nor is it peace, peace is an outcome of whatever the answer to war is and maybe creation is the catalyst for peace.. Creation of safeguards against tyranny. Creation of education opportunities. Creation of true, open, and accessible information to every person. Creation of technologies that get food and health care services to low income people and countries. Creation of empowerment for the oppressed. I really hate how cliche everything I just wrote sounds. But... its a comforting sentiment? I guess?
Doesn't really stop a dictator though, does it?
Well. In theory it would stop a dictator from being given the power of a dictator in the first place. (Obviously I'm not saying this is by any means a solution to the current problem in any way) If people have education, access to free and accurate information, and are free from worrying about food and health, then they're able to give focus to things like politics, and have the background knowledge to not let someone like that gain power. Putins following is not zero. And that following is a confluence of a few things such as: people losing access to food or financial stability when the soviet union fell apart, or people being told straight up lies (like that there are nazis in Ukraine). Even Hitler's popularity was gained on the promise of prosperity for the non-Jewish people. Like... yes actually, the things I mentioned *would* stop a dictator. People who have the means, the information, and the empowerment to fight back against oppression cannot be ruled by a dictator. Being a dictator requires some level of compliance by the people you're ruling over and. Of course. A dictator doesn't have the time to roll into other countries if their own people ar ein a big enough uproar. Where would the resources be to do both? Edit: and I'm not saying ensuring those things are an easy solution either. They're very complicated and difficult to come by. I'm just saying that the presence of those things is helpful to not having dictators.
I remember when we stopped the Nazis by debating them on the open marketplace of ideas.
If the best answer to war was not fighting back, they'd be speaking German at that place today.
Did Ireland just send some drug addicts?
Yes
As an Irish citizen, I would like to apologise for these two eejits. They do NOT represent us.
Seconded. An utter embarrassment.
It is beyond me this clown is paid more than majority of the people on the planet are paid for their jobs for ... THIS.
Who is she? Also how did she get in that position of power?
Her name is clare daly and the person beside her is called Mike Wallace. Both of them are absolute clowns. Equally. Clare daly was up on stage warning people about russiaphobia a few years ago. How did she get into a position of power? I genuinely don't know. She's an MEP for the dublin Constituency which is just mad the people in our capital voted for her
Some Irish Member of the European Parliament, I think.
[удалено]
The perfect subreddit for Clare and Mick Wallace. That pair of idiots are a national embarrassment.
I knew the MEPs could say soome crazy stuff but I have to admit she took me by surprise with that.
The funny (for a very limited value of 'funny') thing is that she's a passionate BDS advocate.
>The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) is a [Palestinian](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians)-led[[6]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#cite_note-FOOTNOTE''The_Times_of_Israel''2019Holmes2019Trew2019-6) movement promoting [boycotts](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycotts_of_Israel), [divestments](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divestments), and [economic sanctions](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_sanctions) against [Israel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel) Didn't know what that was. Lol
It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users. I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click! [Here is link number 1 - Previous text "[6]"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#cite_note-FOOTNOTE''The_Times_of_Israel''2019Holmes2019Trew2019-6) ---- ^Please ^PM ^[\/u\/eganwall](http://reddit.com/user/eganwall) ^with ^issues ^or ^feedback! ^| ^[Code](https://github.com/eganwall/FatFingerHelperBot) ^| ^[Delete](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=FatFingerHelperBot&subject=delete&message=delete%20i49x0yz)
I doubt Putin had any intention of peace. Neither did Hitler. Only war, ends wars, but at the cost countless lives. As long as countries have crazy leaders and they do nothing to remove them. Then there will always be war. It's the history of mankind. We are always fighting for whatever reason seems right to them. Land, religion, etc.
Why do both of them look like haven’t bathed in a month?
Well the war's been going on for that long so it's probably getting more and more difficult to cash those russian cheques.
Those two fucknuts have been sucking putins dick for years.
Even most pacifists understand and believe in a collective or individual right to defend themselves. We only get one fucking life, lady. You bet your ass I'm going to defend it if someone tries to take my livelihood.
Okay then… Go to Russia, stand on the street and ask for peace. Let’s see which gulag you end up in. They get free labour and the rest of the world is rid of you. Imagine you disappearing off the face of the earth being a win-win for everyone. What a useless human being.
Aka never stand up for yourself, always surrender and give bullies whatever they want.
Stop the war and then Un-war the war.
#Peace by superior firepower
This bitch would rather Ukrainians just keeled over and let Russia genocide their nation out of existence. Those genocidal plans have been made public by Putin in his speeches and essay, "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians", and recently Ria Novosti published an article, "what should we do with Ukraine", that lays out the same genocidal agenda. Already we're seeing the mass kidnappings and murders. To surrender is to die or be committed to "denazification" camps. Incredible stupidity. This woman is a useful idiot.
>would rather Ukrainians just keeled over and let Russia genocide their nation out of existence. u/Ace-O-Matic just said there would be less death and destruction if Ukraine just surrendered. I think y'all should arm wrestle to decide who's right.
I guess Finland and Sweden should just surrender as well when Russia attacks them. And why not the Baltics too? After all there might be less death and destruction. That's all that matters. Let's all be subjugated by Russia.
“Stupid martial law.” Yeah, man. That stupid martial law. It’s like, Putin and what army. Amirite? Arm wrestling has got to be my vote to see which one is right here.
MY GOD, why didn't anyone else think about that? It was such a simple solution! Did anyone even bother to try this with Hitler? Of course Ukraine would be destroyed by now likely if it wasn't for defensive weapons, but what would that Karen know about anything.
I wonder if she actually believes this or not.
Who's the gentlemen shaking his head and eventually walks out. He seems to know what's up.
Dude was hearing it all like. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME RIGHT NOW?! ARE YOU SERIOUS?!
Gentleman? You’ve gotta be kidding. More like a clown that performed a nazi salute.
In the full video he walks out and gives the nazi salute.
When did Ukraine leave the negotiation table with Russia before Russia invaded Ukraine? Oh yea, there was no negotiation before Russia invaded a sovereign country. Maybe if Russia wasn't such a demented country other countries would want to be friends with it and it wouldn't have to worry about its borders. I guess Ireland's MEP doesn't have any brains left? But then we must remember she does represent the views of Ireland.
Ukraine literally gave up its nuclear arsenal to Russia in exchange for a promise to never be invaded.
Hey fuck you man, everyone here actually thinks she's a nutjob. Why smack talk an entire country because of the political opinions of one person? You foolish fool, you.
Everyone's got a few, the US has so many I have lost track of most of em. Dear rest of the planet, I am sorry the US has so many morons in positions of authority, I was not given enough say in the matter to prevent it, though I tried where i could. We were able to get rid of a few, to a degree........
Hey at least the moron isn't in the position of president anymore unlike here in Brazil
[удалено]
Thats how we shouldve dealt with Hitler!! Aaaah we did it all wrong!
When you’re argument is “if we just have in to everything Russia wants we wouldn’t have any war!”
She’s right though. I remember years ago a burglar broke into my house. I had the option to use force to defend my property but peace was the answer, so I helped him load my items into his van. After being so accommodating, the burglar came back and said he was moving into my house. Of course peace was the answer, so I moved him in. After a week he decided that I shouldn’t live in my house any longer, so obviously to avoid any conflict I just moved out with my family onto the streets. Give peace a chance.
I agree with her
She's is right about a few things, Sanctions will hurt the Russian people more than the oligarchs, and the road to end this is to talk about peace, clearly, **Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine**, meanwhile, we should help Ukraine with arms and humanitarian support, but the truth is this unless Ukraine plans to invade Russia and subdue Russia permanently, peace talks need to be happening.
Peace talks take time. In the meantime since Lavrov won't agree to a ceasefire Ukrainian cities are being bombed into oblivion. Even without debating who should do what, in the short term peace talks do very little for Ukrainians living in fear of their lives.
Man, if everyone followed that idea in WW2, she’d be speaking German today. But she doesn’t even realize that
"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'." George Orwell
Could anyonr give more background on this world-wide embarassment? Jeez! how much are they getting paid???
The lady speaking is an Irish MEP Clair Daly who seems to have some sort of wired russian friendly attitude. In January she was quoted as saying russias build up was completely defensive. Though that's more appropriate to aged like milk.
thanks!
Is it possible she has some sort of financial reason?
RT "contributor".
My father was once interviewed in the street by RT and it will never not make me laugh. It seems I can no longer watch RT Youtube videos… thanks Putin!
You don’t bite hand that feeds you
Getting invaded? Just say no. Russia is not legally allowed to annex your country. Simply negotiate with them to stop doing that.
Didn’t she just say that sanctions don’t work and then say that war isn’t the answer?
Sounds like a threat if you ask me, is she Russian ?
I don't think this person is pro-russian...
Fucking muppet!
This is not surprising unfortunately. Check irelands sad history during WWII. History repeats.
This whole show is easy to pull off when you live on an island.
he walked away xD
If you think you can just talk with Russia to make peace go right ahead and see what happens
We shall have peace…when Russia answers for the burning of the Westfold! When they answer for the children who lie dead on the plains! For the soldiers who were hewn even as they lay dead! We shall have peace when Putin hangs from a gibbon for the sport of his own crows!
What an eejit.
This is roundabout talking points to say that she wants Ukraine to surrender. This is tankie shit. In her mind it's a "better to live under Russia than die fighting them" argument. It of course ignores that Russia will oppress,, brutalize, and kill the Ukrainians if they win. Just like the USSR did. She's what they call an "idiot".
War is not something advocated by those who have had to fight the wars and survive. Fuck war.
Humans killing humans. It's just history repeating itself. And we keep believing it, because they've done a damn good job at dividing us.
I agree with the part about the UN being terrible though
But that would require that the aggressive part can be reasoned with. I'm not sure if that is the case. Putler has been bluffing his way through the diplomacy and is laughing at the west and basically does whatever pleases him at this point. But probably much of this could have been avoided had the west been very strict with sanctions in 2008 when he invaded Georgian and even more strict when he took part of Ukraine in 2014.
Why the fuck does she thing we’ve given Ukraine military support? To allow Ukrain to invade the Russian heartland? Moron. There would be no peace negotiations going on right now if Ukraine hadn’t been able to defend themselves.
In what way can they negotiate peace with Russia? They're attacking civilian targets, bombing food and medical relief supplies, and arresting their own civilian population when they speak out against the war effort. This kind of invasion cannot be reasoned with. It can't be negotiated with. Putin just wants to take Ukraine. He wants Ukraine to be a part of Russia, so he invaded. How can we believe he'll accept anything but that? Honestly how can we believe he'll stop when he eventually takes Ukraine?
She wants peace. Russia terms for peace is control of Ukraine and nothing more. Both these people have been on the side with Russia before and i remeber one of them saying ages ago, "why are we aggressive towards RU when we don't need to be!" Or along those lines.. Russia honestly don't give a shit. Never have or will yet both fail to realise this.
wait so if we give more guns to ukraine, more ukrainians will die? are they shooting themselves?
"Hello, I've noticed you are being invaded by another country! I am no military expert but have you considered...peace?"
Peace negotiations can help in certain circumstances. But that doesn't mean you don't defend while that happens. Imagine if that's how world War 2 went? Everyone just let it be and tried to make peace. It's pretty hard to negotiate with someone willing to order literal acts of terrorism. I don't think putin is concerned for the people. Not sure why, maybe its the civilian murdering and hospital destroying. I don't know.
what a maniac. So disconnected from this planet
I guess if any country gets invaded they should just roll over and let that country take control.
Idk, there's some truth in there bc the sanctions are not hurting the oligarchs and putin, it's hurting the people, and that's not gonna stop putin
She is right that peace won't happen untill there are negotiations. But there won't be any incentive to negotiate without the barrel of a gun.
Diz :: "My mother always said violence never solves anything." Rasczak :: "Really? I wonder what the city fathers of Hiroshima would say about that...you" Carmen :: "They probably wouldn't say anything; Hiroshima was destroyed." Rasczak :: "Correct." \-The "Democracy Failed" classroom scene from Starship Troopers. She is incredibly naive. The human race simply cannot NOT go to war with itself, yet. We are expansionists and highly competitive. That got us to the top of the food chain but oddly enough is about to become our downfall unless we make some massive changes to our fundamentals. If we continue making more changes and innovating the way we have over the last few years we might have 2 life spans to remedy what we have done; if not less than 1. That all being said, she's actually not wrong in saying the answer to war is peace. The issue is EVERYONE needs to want that same peace and not their own variant of it. She is very, VERY wrong with saying the answer to aggression is not more aggression. Someone hits you you hit them back to the point they regret hitting you and then you keep your arm cocked, ready, and displayed for that aggressor to see.
Yo Putin how are things, are you eating your vegetables? Crazy war we in right now bud. I was wondering if you could stop and I’ll be like totally cool with what you did over the span of 2 months, but if you wanted to go for one more month I guess that be ok. Just lmk, I’ll be online tonight at 9 if you want to play duos I gotta get up early tho. Hmu l8er bro
I mean I agree with her at certain turns, but when a country is invading you, diplomacy doesn’t work if you aren’t on somewhat equal footing.
As an Irish person, let me say that she (and the lump beside her) are national embarrassments. We have this tendency to send our worst lunatic fringe to Europe so we don't have to listen to them.
al assad did nothing wrong
Imagine not blaming Russia for the conflict.
>"The answer to war is not more war, it's peace" **Country being invaded:** "How about you stop invading and we have peace" **Invading country:** "No." This one's a real head-scratcher, Karen. A real fucking chin-fondler.
They are honestly one of the biggest embarrassments of Ireland I honestly don’t know how they got to where they are both are headcases I can’t stand either of them I hope they get replaced soon everytime I see something about them on this or fb I just roll my eyes
How dare you fight back against the world's worst international bully? How dare the citizens of Ukraine resist the complete theft of their country? Putin could not have chosen a better voice puppet. Ireland, why aren't you still a British colony? Oh, right - because you resisted, and suffered, for decades before the bully finally gave up and went home. But that's not what you want for Ukraine. Vietnam did it, Afghanistan did it, and Ireland did it. Ukraine can do it, too, with lots of help from the West. Except Ireland, apparently.
Yeah, maybe she should remember that if it weren’t for the RA, the Republic of Ireland would still be under British rule and there’d still be apartheid in NI. The Brits weren’t going to do the right thing without their hands being forced.
Yes, peace is preferable to war. But if war is inevitable you should fight to win. Once war is started you aim for the head, the chest, the ball sack, whatever crosses your sights (metaphorically speaking). Sanctions might not end a war directly, but they can sure make people think twice about backing a dictator who got them into it. It's sad that sanctions hurt the civilians, but oligarch-seeking bullets haven't been invented yet so we use the tools we have.
At this point I imidatly assume anybody who uses this kind of rhetorics was payed by russia or has his profit in some other way. Otherwise you have to really be dimb, like really dumb and I don't want to think of THAT many people, they're dumb
Someone please tell her that arms deliveries and sanctions are part of the negotiation. In fact, the war itself is a type of negotiation: Russia is negotiating for territory and influence with tanks and missiles. Sometimes pacifism can hurt (a lot of people).
shes fucking right...
She's 100% right, if Ukraine surrenders there wouldnt be a war.