Is it right to tell random people “hey you, it’s your job to break local laws and topple your dictator, we could invade you with actual trained military people but that would be inconvenient for us”?
Is a strictly enforced economic sanction better than an all out regime change invasion/occupation of another sovereign country that costs the lives of millions… we’ll have to get back to you on that one.
“Is it right?” Are you kidding? Yes, it’s obviously a better alternative than invading another country and killing people. It’s one of the ways we have learned, as a species, to avoid massive wars and losses of life. If you’re advocating for war as an alternative then you should fuck off and die so you don’t get other people killed in the process.
Just because someone does something instead of fighting a war doesn’t make whatever they actually did do right. They could also do neither thing. Especially if the alternative to war turns out to not actually achieve the goal the war would have achieved, leaving them in the same position of deciding whether to do a bad thing or not, after having already done another different bad thing.
So why were they blocked?
One of their main contributors are in US sanctioned regions (Russia) so they can’t access it.
Really! Can’t believe them. Yeah fk microsoft.
Russia is being sanctioned because of its aggressive war against Ukraine.
Microsoft aren’t the bad guys for enforcing international sanctions.
Sanctions are bullshit economic violence. This is a great example.
So a person that happens to be iving in a sanctioned country, makes them banned? Bullshit
Yes. That’s how sanctions work.
Part of the intention is to pressure citizens of the country for violating international law so they exert pressure on their governments to stop.
Another part is to remove the use of tooling to support the sanctioned nation.
Russia could stop the war and problem is solved. This isn’t Microsoft being the bad guy, this is Microsoft following international law.
Does that work?
Is it right to tell random people “hey you, it’s your job to break local laws and topple your dictator, we could invade you with actual trained military people but that would be inconvenient for us”?
Is a strictly enforced economic sanction better than an all out regime change invasion/occupation of another sovereign country that costs the lives of millions… we’ll have to get back to you on that one.
I didn’t ask whether it was better or worse than declaring a war; it’s clearly less bad than starting a war.
But that doesn’t mean it’s right. Maybe doing neither a war nor sanctions, but something else, or nothing, is the right thing to do.
“Is it right?” Are you kidding? Yes, it’s obviously a better alternative than invading another country and killing people. It’s one of the ways we have learned, as a species, to avoid massive wars and losses of life. If you’re advocating for war as an alternative then you should fuck off and die so you don’t get other people killed in the process.
Just because someone does something instead of fighting a war doesn’t make whatever they actually did do right. They could also do neither thing. Especially if the alternative to war turns out to not actually achieve the goal the war would have achieved, leaving them in the same position of deciding whether to do a bad thing or not, after having already done another different bad thing.
deleted by creator