The use of depleted uranium munitions has been fiercely debated, with opponents like the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons saying there are dangerous health risks from ingesting or inhaling depleted uranium dust, including cancers and birth defects.
Should the US have sent supplies to the allies in WWI and WWII before joining? It was just prolonging the war and causing people to die, right?
The reason the US is doing it is not morality. Everyone knows that. International politics is never about morality, it’s about power. However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t also the moral option.
Also, NATO and the US are not in the war. We’re sending supplies. The US isn’t even sending the good stuff. We’re sending parts of our stockpile that’s old and has just been sitting around waiting for a use. They haven’t sent the newer technology so it it isn’t studied in case a real enemy requires them to be used.
It takes an incredible amount of historical illiteracy to try and draw parallels between WW2 and the proxy war US is waging against Russia in Ukraine. However, if you weren’t historically illiterate, then you’d also know that US companies continued working with the nazis well into the war, and IBM is famously responsible for facilitating the holocaust.
Also, NATO and the US are very obviously in this war, and one has to be utterly intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.
When the US government was providing resources to the allies, was it good or bad? I’m not talking companies or anything else. You’re dodging the question. There are enough parallels to draw a comparison. You just know what the answer would be and it conflicts with your beliefs, so you can’t admit it, to yourself or others.
When US government provides resources to these people, is it good or bad?
And this is why your comparison is historically illiterate. The actual comparison would be US funding the nazis in WW2. You’re either ignorant of whom US is propping up in Ukraine or you’re just dishonest. Either way not a good look.
Still didn’t answer the question. More What-aboutism. How unexpected! /s
I did answer your question in detail, and it’s safe to dismiss anybody who uses whataboutism as a form of argument. That’s just a logical fallacy that imbeciles use to try and create a double standard.
You didn’t, and I didn’t use What-aboutism. I pointed out that you did. You said “what about…” What’s wrong with you?
I did, and you crying about whataboutism is what I’m referring to. Anybody who calls out whataboutism as a form of argument is engaging in intellectual dishonesty. The question you set up is fundamentally wrong, and you’re fishing for an answer for that setup. This is like me asking you if you’ve stopped beating your wife.
I love that, in your opinion, calling out What-aboutism is “intellectual dishonesty” but using it is totally OK.
I also love that you say you both answered the question, and also that you didn’t because it was wrong to ask.
That’s be easy to answer for anyone being honest. It’s either “I never did”, “yes”, or “no”. Someone who want to hide something may not answer the question though, and likely they’ll do something to throw people off, like attacking them for something they did instead (aka, “what about…”). It’s avoiding the question.
You libs always want to demand every single historical event be perceived and analyzed in a vacuum. This is why you get mocked so often.