Why don't you apply the same logic to the opposite side?
> You can’t go back and retroactively show your disapproval
"Might is right" is extremely bad principle for doing politics. It is actually an absence of principles at all.
Why don't you apply the same logic to the opposite side?
> You can’t go back and retroactively show your disapproval
"Might is right" is extremely bad principle for doing politics. It is actually an absence of principles at all.
I mean, it's sort of true, but it's very weird to (as GP did) espouse might-makes-right as a determinant of moral ownership and then turn around and say "Russia owns Crimea" when there is literally a war happening in Ukraine right now and the Western war machine is straining at its leash to utterly annihilate the Russian presence in what it considers Ukrainian territory, held back only by Russia's semi-credible threat of nuclear escalation.
What the hell?
I'm saying that Ukraine deserves Starlink access in Crimea. And you go off on tangents about irrelevant details. The only person who matters in this discussion is Elon Musk, who is refusing to enable Starlink access in Crimea.
But as I said in other posts: even if Mr. Musk enabled Starlink in Crimea, I don't know if the Ukrainian Commandos could trust it. We need to simply choose an entirely different satellite system to provide them... because Mr. Musk is seemingly compromised here. (And if Mr. Musk turns it off at a bad time, it could be even worse than his current inaction)
If you would like to clarify your position, feel free to do so. But I'm afraid doing so may undermine the point you were trying to make.