Foe, a Witch's Curse

Another Ukrainian song I thought I'd pass along (with over 1M page views in a bit over a month and a half): "Foe" ("Враже"), a witch's curse against the enemy; the author is Liudmyla Gorova, and the cover is by Angy Kreyda, with English subtitles. I'm not wild about the video, but I expect some might enjoy it, and it is thematically true to the subject. There's a looser but more poetic English translation here, and the Ukrainian text here.

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

How about some Roosh-un tunes? We're not all cheering for You-Crane.

[DaivdBehar]

Frankie. Advocating for Hitler Junior is not a good look.

I am a utilitarian. That arithmetic concludes start killing leaders and the oligarchs behind them. Let millions of working people who do not want to fight go home. Only the lawyer scumbag profession stops us.

War, another catastrophic consequence of lawyer idiocy. They are a million times more toxic than organized crime.

[DaivdBehar]

The scumbag lawyer will say, they will kill ours. No shit Sherlock. Send them a fruit basket if they do.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Let go of brandy.

[David Bremer]

If you're cheering for a Russian dictator's attempt to recreate the Soviet Union through an unprovoked aggressive military campaign in which the military bombs civilian targets, rapes and murders civilians, and engages in other war crimes, then you've got more to worry about than the music selection on this blog.

[Cal Cetín]

Wow, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has certainly modernized its liturgy.

Here's my incantation

Roses are red
Skunks are skunky
The prowar lobby
Has put a spell on the country

[Sarcastr0]

Recognizing unjust military aggression is not the same as being pro war. That framing is more about defending Putin's behavior than being anti war.

[Cal Cetín]

Even if a war with Russia would be perfectly justified, anyone who pointed this out would, indeed, be prowar.

So that gets us to the question of whether the prowar people are right? Is it an excellent and awesome idea to have a proxy war / quasi war with Russia, which the U. S. can wage with full confidence that (a) it won't reach the nuclear level, (b) the national finances can sustain it, (c) going to war for a country which isn't in NATO is the bestest idea when there's a legitimate question whether NATO itself should be drawn down, (e) etc.

[DaivdBehar]

Tell that to the people of Finland and to Sweden.

[Frank Drackman]

Who just coincidentally decide to join NATO when the Bear is at the Door? Eff them and their Womb to tomb Socialism until they pay back dues for the last 70+ years.

[DaivdBehar]

Thank the scumbag lawyer for pussifying the police.

https://nypost.com/2022/07/12/video-shows-child-hit-and-swear-at-cop-in-minnesota/?lctg=607d90f2373dd11b6ec10b87

[DaivdBehar]

The career criminals are known to everyone but the scumbag lawyer at age 3. Several felonies are depicted in that short video. That is how one knows. Kindergarten students named the student they were most afraid of. That was an accurate prediction of who became a criminal in adulthood.

[Cal Cetín]

What do those quotation marks mean? Whom are you quoting?

[Cal Cetín]

You still haven't shown where I said what you imputed to me.

[Cal Cetín]

Also, define "rooting." Does rooting include sending weapons and military advisors to a non-NATO country?

[Cal Cetín]

I see you haven't defining "rooting," a key word you used in your question.

[Cal Cetín]

"do you know exactly what I was getting at"

No, I don't know what you're getting at, why don't you say it directly so I can mock it?

[Cal Cetín]

You're so full of nonsense that I can't figure out what kind of nonsense you are trying to suggest this time.

[Cal Cetín]

Heh, you referred to being "weasel-like," I wonder if that could be projection?

[Cal Cetín]

Yup, projection it is. You won't even explain your own question, but you're confident I know the answer.

[Cal Cetín]

Why was I going on about NATO? Because that was actually relevant to the issue of the war.

As for personal self-defense, it's violent no matter how justified it is. So I would imagine that someone who supports defensive violence is pro-violence in your sense. Just as those people (including you I hope) who support that bodega worker's fighting off a violent criminal are pro-violence in your sense.

Now let's get back to whether the United States should have a proxy war / quasi-war against Russia (see below).

Of course,

[Cal Cetín]

No self-respecting zombie would eat *your* brain.

[Cal Cetín]

I would have thought that ducking questions about the war (the topic of this post) would be more serious than not answering stupid rhetorical questions which only you think are clever, but if I'm wrong I'm wrong.

[Cal Cetín]

OK, fine, you want to provide military aid, advisors, etc. to Ukraine, own up to your position and acknowledge that you're prowar.

Take your pro-Russian allegations and shove them where the sun doesn't shine, we have to defend NATO nations against Russian aggression (until we can get untangled from that entangling alliance) and you're ducking the fact Russia isn't in NATO.

You want examples of interpersonal violence? Do you want that prosecutor to be thrown out of office who charged the bodega owner in a self-defense case? If you don't answer unequivocally yes, you are by your own definition pro-criminal.

[Cal Cetín]

I meant *Ukraine* isn't in NATO.

[Cal Cetín]

Heh, that shut you up pretty darn quickly.

You're trapped in your own logic, your own book of rules. By that logic, if you don't want this wicked prosecutor out of office, you're in favor of his pro-criminal actions, which means you're in favor of thugs beating up clerks, and you're happy to let the prosecutor not get away with his pro-criminal actions, but continue to commit similar actions in further cases.

I say *by your own logic* which, needless to say, doesn't mean I *agree* with your ridiculous logic, but I'll hold you to your own book of rules, under the terms of which you're pro-criminal.

[Cal Cetín]

Happy to let the prosecutor *get away* with etc. etc.

[Cal Cetín]

See below, dillweed.

[Cal Cetín]

Anyone who advocates for war is prowar. Churchill was prowar. He believed a war was necessary and justified.

You can smear the syrup of euphemism over it if you want, but the term applies to good wars and bad ones alike. If you support a war you're prowar.

Now can we get back to whether *this* war is justified?

[Cal Cetín]

Because your analogies suck. A grand jury finding insufficient evidence of criminal violence is not proviolence. But that's stupid because it ignores the question of whether it's a good idea for the U. S. to get involved in this particular war, a question you've understandably been avoiding even though it's actually relevant to the subject of the post.

[Cal Cetín]

Is there a category of justified wedgies?