so they can keep land taken by force like diego garcia, hawaii, sioux nation territory* or countless others were taken by force once and the new "owner" kept and exploited these lands since then? yes, that would be awful.

*(thats also where that "monument" stands that stands as an example to remind the the world which nation will never ever stick to laws, not even to its very own ones, but instead humilitate other peoples religions like it i.e. also does in hawaii)

no! i think we really should make such countries give the taken-by-force land back to their rightful owners immediately plus a compensation that is worth that name plus whatever it takes to undo any destruction or change or poisoning with whatever chemicals done to the land under such evil invaders (thinking of the enewetak atoll right now 😢)

And maybe we should concentrate on the cultures that were completely(!) deported long ago first, to at least give their children back the land that was taken from their parents or grandparents or grandgrandparents a.s.o. so diego garcia seems to be the easiest one, the current invaders there don't need it for a living and don't even call it their "home", so just make them leave the captured land that is not theirs now. rescueing a whole civilisation and culture from evilish invaders was never easier! then of course those who's ancestors had been deported and enslaved, those need to be compensated for but that cannot be aligned in money especially not since that money happens to be printed by those who's ancestors did the deportation and enslavement and the money presses were at least indirectly build with slave labour, so other solutions need to be found that are not only accepted by those of the deported families who live today but really(!) compensate for centuries of abuse. also the debt of not yet abolishing slavery needs to be compensated for as it is at least a slap in their faces every day and this should be compensated like a slap in the face of an officer today, but for each single day per affected person living during that time since slavery was first introduced into those laws until it is completely abolished (this would only be the compennsation for not yet abolishing slavery). also those countries where those long ago enslaved had been deported from have to be compensated for all the losses including but not limited to all losses that resulted or may have resulted in development that did not happen due to that deporting and enslaving their families friends and firefighters ages ago. also all damages that happened after that deportation like robbing of resources underground their land that they could not defend any more due to that deporting like robbed diamonds, robbed gold and robbed oil and maybe lots of other robbed resources too. this compensatoon needs to be done throughoutly and complete, just to give the russians that example that the west actually "can" do something good and would stand to rightful living together and not only robbing the world until everything is gone like the west does now. if the west would stand to its so called values, a war against robbers would be a good one, but as it is right now, fighing another robber nation would just be a fight about who can rob more and stands last which is a bad thing or do you actually like that idea?

so on which robber nations side are you? you seemed to want to sound like being on the russian side, so tell me how many nations had been invaded and robbed and enslaved by russia in the last ... lets say 400 years ? (next step would be to compare that with western nations to be at least complete when determining which robbers side would be the more civilised one to know which side to stand to - which seemed to me to be your real question here)

Or else they will use nuclear bombs.

i guess giving back sioux nations land, hawaii and diego garcia to their rightful owners and start compensating the damages done to other nations would put real moral pressure on the russians, but until then, the only thing that happens when "the west" keeps bubbling about the values they don't even fight for within their own captive taken lands is that one evil side shouts at the other but using bombs instead of real actions of good.

have a nice day!

[–] tellah@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No reasonable person will ever be convinced by this unhinged wall of text that tries to equivocate between European colonialism in North America over the past 400 years, and Russian imperialism happening literally right now.

Insane whataboutism - but in any case, it doesn’t change the fact that what the Moscow regime is doing is wrong.

[–] smb@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

the civilisation of diego garcia people (or how the islands are named by them and how they name themselves) are forced away from their homeland 'right now', not only in the past.

hawaiian country is destroyed 'right now' by their invaders military, not only in the past.

not to mention how 'law enforcement' acts on people without that secure pale skin today in the us, which is happening 'right now', not only in the past and slavery is protected by us law 'right now', not only in the past.

Can sioux people walk their rightful land right now freely and follow their religion? ay, no they can't, some invadors don't allow that but keep captured their land 'right now', not only in the past.

it happens right now what you seem to want to see as some "history" things, so following your argumentation, the invasion of ukraine was in the past too (right? there are little changes nowadays and ukraine even got some land from russia, right?) so should we:?

not talk about it as the initial invasion already is history?
only talk about it cause its "the others" who do it?
ignore all wars and genocides supported by the west but claim other invaders do be the evil ones but the west to be the goodies despite all the warcrimes committed?
... (your ideas here to maxbe stop maybe ALL invaders) ?

after how many years some evil act becomes "legalized by history" in your opinion? is it 20 years, 50years or 100years? you already complained about 400years to be too much, so plz tell me what you think is the time a land must be forcefully captured to 'rightfully' change ownership to the brutish invader? whatever number "the west" would say would be enough to legalize such past crimes, that would be exactly the number of years the west would in the same sentence tell russia to have to keep ukraine captive so that the status quo would be as legalized as in those countries or cities captured by the west already beeing said to be "historically legitimised" as the west seems to accept that as "rightful ownership" then. since the west seems to never give back once invaded land, it tells russia and israel to actually do the same and capture as much as they can now to "legally own"(style of "the west") it in a few decades, while israel already invaded and captured land in the (i think) northwest, they are driven by the wests real-world-definition of their so called "rightful ownership" to invade other countries now, and not only in some future.

maybe i didn't write it for people like you (how could i know u?) but for others who might want to read whole thoughts instead of only cheap and short propaganda. The evil ones always want the masses to forget at least most of what they did and "short and incomplete" is the tool of propaganda.