AND the insurance companies make a profit in everything. That also puts the price up.Let's not insult health care workers. The care is fine just not accessible because too many people are uninsured. — Benkei
Well, comes to mind a small curious anecdote: one of the longest conflicts happened between Sweden and San Marino. You see the tiny nation of San Marino, which was on the Catholic side, and protestant Sweden didn't make peace in treaty of Westphalia, hence the two states were technically at war until 1996. I assume that no Swede noticed this belligerent status of his or her country in the 1980's when visiting San Marino.I was replying to your comment. Of course, literally, no war is forever. But they can be very long, like Korea, which is still ongoing. — Manuel
Why then didn't the Ukrainians denazify themselves then?Winning is stopping the killing. What other winning is there? That Russia is defeated- that they go back pre-invasion days? That's not going to happen. — Manuel
To put it simply: Only American soldiers sent to a war on another continent see and feel the war. Many in civilian life in Continental US don't even know about the conflict. In the country the war is fought, usually nobody can distance themselves from the war. For these people, the conflict can surely be marketed as an existential struggle. In the US, the Foreign Policy establishment has to try to conflate everything to be an "existential struggle", which makes Americans very, very skeptical. So skeptical that they can indeed believe that all wars are just forever wars concocted by the Deep state for war profiteering of the military industrial complex.I think America underestimated the tactical advantages of their enemy fighting on home turf, with all-or-nothing mentality, and with gorilla-terror tactics; and, as you mentioned, the perception from the US public also plays a huge role. — Bob Ross
It was a double whammy. Trump made a lousy peace deal, Biden went along with it and made it even worse. I feel for the Afghan war vets: they were really betrayed.Not to mention, Biden left billions of dollars of military-grade resources in Afghanistan for the Taliban :roll: It can’t get anymore embarrassing for the US than that. — Bob Ross
Some thoughts: If military spending is cut, the money simply isn't put somewhere else. Likely you simply take less debt. For example the Global War on Terror was financed basically by taking more debt. You didn't see large tax increases then. Secondly, you are already paying at these interest rates (which are low) more in debt service than in defense spending. The historian Niall Ferguson has said once this happens, no country in the entire span of human history has continued to be the Great Power it was before.I think the US people generally don’t want to spend billions of taxpayers dollars on foreign wars when they have so many problems at home that could be fixed with that money. I do not support sending any aid to Israel nor Ukraine: we need to fix our country first. — Bob Ross
Was South Vietnam a treaty ally of the US?Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the US doesn’t actually have any military presence in Ukraine: all we have been doing is funding them. Let them fund their own battles—they aren’t a part of NATO. - The US doesn’t have a formal alliance with Ukraine. I would completely agree with you if they were a part of NATO. If Russia hits a NATO country, then they are going to get their shit rocked. — Bob Ross
Deporting millions of working people will simply mean an economic downturn. I mean. this is just Silly-talk from Trump. 11 million is 3,2% of the US population. Just to put into some historical perspective just how big of a population we are talking about: when one famous Austrian rose to power and didn't especially like one ethnic group of Germans, this group was less than 1% of the German population in 1933."America First" rhetoric may sound good to working people, but deporting millions and erecting high tariff walls is not going to help workers very much. — BC
There are no forever wars.Yeah, they will take more land. It might be a forever war. — Manuel
Yet winning never has been that Victory Parade on the Red Square for Ukraine.Ukraine simply cannot beat Russia now the numbers don't add up. — Manuel
What provocation or escalation is attacking ammo dumps? It's totally logical to destroy the ammo dumps of the enemy. It's not that Ukraine is doing pure revenge bombing and shooting missiles into Russia hospitals (as the Russians do in Ukraine). Ukraine is fighting for it's survival in an all out war. Why would it have to fight with one arm tied to it's back. It's simply nonsense to think otherwise.This isn't deterrence. This is provocation and escalation, and it achieves nothing besides those two things. — Tzeentch
No, It isn't. Ukrainians are totally capable using those weapon systems themselves. Besides, Ukraine has had cruise missiles and artillery missiles for a long time.But it is US and UK soldiers using US and UK machinery firing into Russia. — Manuel
Imagine the US invading Cuba or Mexico, then these countries attacking Florida Keys or municipalities near the Rio Grande. If they have a possibility to do that, why not?Imagine Russian missiles being shot with Russian technology from Cuba into the US. What would happen? — Manuel
Exactly.We stood at the precipice of annihilation during the Cuban missile crisis or on the few occasions when a detection error almost set off a nuclear exchange. The current situation doesn't seem remotely close to those situations. — Echarmion
People of the UK are Europeans, actually. :wink:How do Europeans sleep, knowing they're the playing chips with which the US and the UK are pursuing these types of escalations? — Tzeentch
If you have pets
You are responsible for the care and wellbeing of
your pet in the event of crisis or war. Make sure you
have supplies at home to last at least a week.
In the event of an air raid, you may bring your pet to protective
structures like cellars, garages and metro stations. If you must leave
your pet at home – and it can manage free access to food – leave
additional food and water.
Or then just leave the service. Let somebody else do the job that is better capable. Just go to your job at McDonalds or the supermarket. They have no problem of their employees being fat and the PT done on breaks (if there's any PT) are quite easy and meant for everyone.Yes, I think we Europeans might be genuinely worried about Trump leaving NATO - much like how a fat private fears PT. Yet, PT is the only way to whip said private back into shape. — Tzeentch
Yes, there's just one hot war in Europe, if you mean that by "no concrete threat". Because the Russian hybrid attacks (last few days ago) and the bellicose rhetoric of Russia sure feels like some kind of a threat.Now would be the best time, since there is no concrete threat to Europe yet. — Tzeentch
You mean there's a stronger alliance around? Russia and North Korea are an alliance, but when it comes to let's say Iran, It doesn't feel like China and North Korea or Russia are allies in the manner of attack on one is an attack on all. China, even if supporting Russia, has officially stayed neutral in the Ukrainian conflict and hasn't liked the nuclear sabre rattling of Russia.About NATO being the US' strongest alliance I am not so sure, though. — Tzeentch
Many Americans are what I class as the "Pivot people". America has to Pivot! Well, perhaps not from defending Judeo-Christian heritage in the Middle East, but still, Europe! Bye bye Europe.Personally, I think Europe has dropped down on Uncle Sam's priority list, in favor of the Five-Eyes Alliance, Japan and South-Korea. These countries have a far clearer overlap with US strategic goals and challenges. — Tzeentch
No, they won't and no, it's not a good thing for everyone. Democratic values like a justice state are worth defending. And so are things like the UN Charter. If we abandon those ideals of Enlightenment that have given us the present, it won't be better. First of all, Russia will not stop. Finlandization isn't nice. Russia is not a country that will say "Fine, we got what we wanted and now we'll leave you alone." Nope, once they have power, they will then start to meddle in our own domestic politics. The government has then to go after people that have made critique of Russia and Putin and supported the "Nazis" of Ukraine. That's the next step in "Finlandization" if Russia wins. It's an Empire, who just loves to be important.I guess Russia-EU relations will return to normal now that Trump is taking office. Gas and oil will begin to flow again? The US will lose whatever influence it ever had over Europe. Europeans hate America anyway, so that's probably a good thing for everyone. — frank
For the populist/conspiracy theorist, it's not about ending "deep state" and strengthening the democratic institutions, it's basically having their control over the deep state, because they are the good guys. Would Trump start eradicating the Patriot Act? Of course not! When he's in charge, those kind of acts are just good. And I fear that many Trump followers think this way too.Trump's attack on the "deep state" is just about securing his control over the government. He doesn't share the ideological sentiments of his supporters. Putin's fight against the US is over, I think. Trump and Putin are pals. — frank
In my view, the likely outcome is that the US will continue to shrink off (voluntarily, actually) and NOTHING will replace it. China isn't going to replace the US. It has only a few allies and then trade ties. We won't start to learn Chinese, English will stay as the universal language for at least a Century, if not two. China doesn't have that ideological ambition that drove the West to conquer the World. They are too satisfied about themselves. Besides, the country faces large problems with it's population growth and likely is too confident about centally controlled economy it has.I think we're entering a new global era. The US will continue to shrink off of the world stage. China will continue to grow and learn. All eyes will turn eastward. — frank
The real fight is about influence. Russian tanks won't be physically occupying West European Capitals. (Theoretically they could go "as peacekeepers" or something hilarious like that to the Baltic States, but even that is unprobable as it might be so that NATO wouldn't chicken out). But Russians can reach their objectives of breaking the Atlantic tie and to severely weaken NATO. That is the real goal of Russia here.I think Trump might come to the aid of the British, but not the EU. Trump sees the EU as weak and unworthy of respect. — frank
I agree with this. Putin doesn't care a shit about economics or the economy. He didn't care when the Russo-Georgian war started, he doesn't care now. Command economy is his solution to everything.In terms of his thinking, I would guess the key factors would be:
-His role in history/legacy and the relative success of annexing Crimea and the intervention to save Assad in Syria
-The conviction that it would be something like the "three day special military operation," that would quickly topple the government.
-The fact that Belarus had just had a popular revolt, requiring Russian forces to be moved in, and that they also had to send troops into Kazakhstan just a month earlier (and similar events had played out across the old satellites).
Stuff like gas resources and pipelines seem ancillary based on everything written about him. The historical narrative and prestige also takes center stage in his own speeches and writings. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Don't think that Europeans aren't taking Trump seriously. They genuinely believe that Trump and his gang could take the US out of NATO. It's a genuine possibility that could happen: Americans could be perfectly capable of shooting themselves in the foot and breaking their strongest alliances, then wake up and notice that they aren't anymore the Superpower they used to be. If the US goes into isolationism, it simply will be a richer and larger version of Canada. People don't have anything against Canada, they might even know the name of the Canadian prime minister, but that's it. Who cares about the policies that Canada is pushing in it's foreign policy. It something quite irrelevant for Europeans.However, my point remains that NATO leans completely on the American security apparatus, and at this point in time it is clear that the Americans will not commit to the defense of any nation in Europe, since it must focus on the Pacific and China. — Tzeentch
Isn't Poland acting accordingly? They are on the track to have the strongest military in Europe. Finland is arming itself and the military is excercising it's forces on a level not seen since the Cold War.Europe is in fact defenseless. And instead of acting accordingly, we do everything possible to follow Washington's line towards further confrontation with Russia. — Tzeentch
And some do think that Ukraine is lead by drug addicted nazis too! Yes, the propaganda works like a charm.The Russians perceive our behavior as a clear sign that we are no longer interested in peace — Tzeentch
On the first page of the thread I wrote this post, arguing why America doesn't necessarily lose wars, but instead tends to fight wars in which a decisive military victory is not the goal. — Tzeentch
Simple - the US is a maritime power that must dominate global trade and divide the Eurasian continent in order to maintain global dominance.
Being the most powerful maritime power and having strong maritime powers as its allies, domination of maritime trade is a given. However, the goal is to dominate global, and not just maritime trade. — Tzeentch
Finland and Sweden in my view waited for the right moment. Before 2022 there simply wouldn't have been a consensus to join NATO. If a conservative adminstration would have rammed through NATO membership, it would have become a right-left issue. Now it wasn't. Era of post-Finlandization ended when Putin attacked Ukraine on a wide front.Trying to join NATO was arguably the crudest and most risky way of doing so, and hedging the survival of the country on a distant maritime power was rather naive given the track record of said power, and that is a criticism that applies to virtually all NATO members.
We should know better than to trust Washington. — Tzeentch
Let's then just think about this.Was then defending South Korea from Northern attack worth it?
— ssu
I don't know. — T Clark
Your troops are here today. I saw US marines in the navy garrison I was in last Sunday at the mess hall in the food line. We are now a member of NATO and those marines were taking part in "Freezing Winds" exercise that is now ongoing. We weren't earlier your allies. And I remember the CIA yearbook having a picture of us being "likely allies" of the Soviet Union. So that much trust in our non-alignment. Yes, it was a culture shock for me some years ago (before we were in NATO) to see in the same garrison's soldier home full of young British soldiers waiting for their pizzas. The last foreign troops that you could see in Finnish garrisons were during my grandparents time, they were from the Wehrmacht and the SS. But they were in the North, yet in the summer of 1944 German soldiers camped in my now summer cottage, an old farmhouse built in 1914 by my great grandparents. During the Cold War my father told that the only foreign soldier that he saw in Helsinki was a US Marine in the US Embassy when he renewed his visa to the US. But many then thought there were Soviet soldiers in Finland.But you weren't our allies. You were countries that we were friendly with but with which we had no binding military relationships. Do you expect us to send US troops to Finland if Russia decides to invade? — T Clark
As I've said, you would have had larger than life politicians on both sides for that to have happened.There was never any realistic chance of Russia joining NATO. — T Clark
With Finlandization, we got our everyday life to be out of the Russian sphere of interest. So defending your country and in 1944 preparing to fight an insurgency kept Stalin out. And the Finnish Communists were idiots btw, they couldn't stamp out Finnish democracy without the Red Army in the country. So as @Count Timothy von Icarus put it so well:It was never realistic that we could somehow keep countries bordering Russia outside the Russian sphere of interest. — T Clark
You know who thinks Poland should be in Poland's sphere of influence? Poles. And the same sort of thing goes for Czechs, Finns, Ukrainians, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Well, you didn't go to war with the French when they had their adventures in Mexico. In fact, the French intervened in Mexico twice, in the 1830's and then in 1861–1867 again. The Monroe Doctrine was given in 1823, so the French didn't care a shit about your doctrines back then. (And of course, they still are all around the American continent btw, which the Monroe doctrine accepts.) Oh, the US did disapprove the French actions in Mexico during the second intervention. However Abraham Lincoln wouldn't want to go to war with France then, because it would have been too easy for the French then to give overwhelming support to the Confederacy.It certainly doesn't work that way in the US. We have the Monroe Doctrine and haven't shied away from sticking our noses in our neighbor's affairs. — T Clark
In a larger sense, what is the vital national interest to see China as a threat? Last country it invaded was Communist Vietnam, a country the you had just fought with.What is the US's vital national interest in Taiwan? — T Clark
From the experience of Bosnia and the Balkans, the US Armed forces understood what it would take. And Chief of Staff of the Army general Eric Shinsheki publicly stated how many troops would be needed in the post-war occupation. This was too high for the great visionary Rumsfeld, who fired Shinseki. Later at the so-called "Surge", the levels came to the level what Shinseki had originally stated. Iraq of course had internal problems being such a divided country with so much bloodshed and internal strife all of it's present history, so Divide et Impera could work. With Americans, this meant basically a Sunni insurgency and a separate Shia insurgency against the Americans. At least the Kurds were friends.This is a fair critique. In particular, the widespread looting that occured during the second invasion poisoned public opinion against the US. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Was there this kind of thinking? Paul Bremer really didn't do so with his CPA order number 2:And so the idea was to use the Iraqi army for stabilizing unrest. That was the fatal flaw. — Count Timothy von Icarus
After the invasion, several factors contributed to the destabilization of Iraq. On 23 May, L. Paul Bremer issued Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 2, dissolving the Iraqi Army and other entities of the former Ba'athist state. Ba'athists were excluded from the newly formed Iraqi government.
"The task we've got ahead of us now is an awkward one ... It's untidy. And freedom's untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen here,"
When both the US and North Korea have nuclear weapons, then the question would this:Even if the negative consequences were very low (or non-existent), are you saying that the West would not be justified in taking over North Korea by force?
I agree that coercion should be the last resort, but it seems to be a resort; and seems to be a valid resort to stop societal structures that are really immoral; and this entails some version of imperialism, even if it is a much weaker version than the standard ones historically. — Bob Ross
Why say that? You haven't made things worse. They would be far worse without you. Remember that the US is actually very popular in Europe.Your countries' motivation was to make things better. The US's should have been not to make them worse. — T Clark
Was then defending South Korea from Northern attack worth it?I agree that the US had the wrong narrative in Vietnam. It just wasn't worth it. — T Clark
So just where do you put the line for defending democracy and your allies? Is the UK worth then defending? Is Canada? I am personally glad that for example the tiny nations of the Baltic could avoid the present situation of Moldavia, Georgia or Ukraine.Your narrative might have been right for you, but it wasn't right for us. — T Clark
Are you familiar with the actually discourse when NATO expansion happened? It was totally different from where NATO is now when Sweden and Finland joined. Look, there were no plans to defend the Baltics. That was too escalatory or offensive! A NATO member (likely Germany perhaps) saw making actual warplans to defend the Baltic States too escalating for Russia. NATO didn't train it's forces as it does now in the Baltic States. Russia had a special observer status in NATO. And as @frank pointed, people genuinely talked about the prospect of Russia joining NATO. Unfortunately, there is a route of application to the organization, which Russia wouldn't take. It would have to get the blessing from all other nations to join in and face a road the Sweden had. Russia simply then should have been controlled by democrats, not KGB people. In the end, war in Kosovo ended these hypothetical ideas. So in reality the "window of opportunity" to join NATO already ended during the Yeltsin years.Are you suggesting this is a good reason for expanding NATO? — T Clark
But you did promote stability in Europe. Or do you think that without NATO and US involvement, that Russia would have been peaceful and not tried to get it's empire back? That is naive. This should be easy to understand when Putin says that the fall of Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in the 20th Century. Russia would have simply far more easily taken back a lot more than it has now attempted. Likely the Baltic States would be Russian satellites and the Ukraine would be a rump satellite state with Novorossiya being a part of Russia (which btw the latter can still happen). Europe simply would be far more unstable than now! Does that help your national interest?Saying the US should have acted consistent with our own national interest, including to promote stability in Europe, rather than the interests of nations formerly in the Russian sphere is not "going with Kremlin's line." — T Clark
I think people who want to be independent ought to have their independence and simply the UN charter ought to be respected. It is as simple as that. NATO is an European security arrangement that works and it has created stability in Europe. SEATO and CENTO didn't work and these areas are still volatile. Alliances simply work. They aren't a burden, just as international cooperation isn't a hindrance.I agree completely. Taiwan is not worth war with a country with a huge military and nuclear weapons. I feel the same way about Taiwan that I do about Finland. No, that's not true, I feel a lot more sympathy and common cause for the people of Europe. Taiwan is a fake country occupied by the losers in the civil war in China with delusions of grandeur. The US should never have staked its "reputation" on supporting it. — T Clark
Just like Poland was risking war with Germany in the late 1930's. Just like Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Norway were also risking war with Germany, for that matter. And not only did they risk it, they got the war Hitler. How badly done from them! Especially the Poles, didn't they get the memo (Mein Kampf) that they were Untermenschen and should move away somewhere else and give their lands to the German Übermenschen?Taiwan is risking war with China. Just like Ukraine was risking war with Russia, South Vietnam was risking war with the North, etc. — Tzeentch
Would the UK even want that? I don't think so. Britons are past their Empire. They've accepted it. Even can laugh at it like Monty Python. Just like the Spanish understand well that they don't have the Empire they formerly had. But Putin doesn't think so. That's the huge difference.Should the UK have a right to dictate India's military alliances and attack India to prevent new ones? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Exactly. This ought to be the point. And many past Empires have understood this.Also, arguing for "spheres of influence," what is this, 1938? You know who thinks Poland should be in Poland's sphere of influence? Poles. And the same sort of thing goes for Czechs, Finns, Ukrainians, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Ever heard of the UN? Something like the Security Council is what humans can possibly do.We'd need a global government for that. — frank
It wasn't. Finland is seen as part of the Nordic countries. Scandinavian countries are Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Something similar to all the different names for the British Isles.. I thought Finland was considered one of the Baltic states. Pardon if that is considered an insult. It wasn't intended to be. — T Clark
And this really is the crux of my argument.From your point of view, I can see this is important, but from the perspective of US national security it shouldn't have been the main consideration. — T Clark
@T Clark, no you didn't know it. This is pure hindsight. Please read what hubris filled ideas were in the US during the Yeltsin era. It wasn't triumphalism, it was the idea that the Cold War had ended. Then you focused on 9/11 and the global war on Terror. All things were looked at from that prism. Hence when Russia occupied Crimea, this came out from nowhere to the US intelligence agencies. There were no assets in the region, the system was focused on hunting muslim terrorists. The denialism can be seen from the many times that the US wanted to "reboot" the relationship with Russia, even if Russia had attacked Georgia with it's "breakaway regions with peacekeepers" masquerade. The attempted reboots are also forgotten in the "US actions did it" narrative.After the dissolution of the USSR, any expectation that Russia would give up it's influence, even hegemony, in the region was unrealistic. We knew this, but American triumphalism won out over common sense. — T Clark
You get my reasoning, great! But then the next question. Why then thumb your noses at China?Again, I don't fault the various countries for making the decisions they did. I just think that thumbing our noses at Russia was a dangerous idea. — T Clark
The last US win, the Gulf War, is very telling here. First, the US created a huge coalition, which had as it's members countries like Syria (one armoured division), Morocco and Pakistan. The US worked in the UN (something that now it doesn't do) and got an OK from the Soviet Union. The US took really seriously the Iraqi army and massed a huge army, that still was around from the Cold War. The huge Reagan build up of an Army intended to fight in Central Europe then liberated Kuwait. Secondly, the objective was clear (liberation of Kuwait) and the US did listen to it's Arab allies. Just listen what Dick Cheney said in 1994:What made these different?
Certainly not the comparative military strength of the opponents. Saddam had a million men under arms, a military with a wealth of relatively recent combat experience, and Iraq had spent lavishly on high the Soviet and French equipment (and this was before the huge technological/qualitative gap between NATO and Russian equipment widened). But the result was an out and out rout. 147 Coalition servicemen were killed while Iraqi casualties were somewhere between 200,000-300,000, with perhaps 50,000 killed in action. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Yet Korea finally did become a democracy in the 1980's and thanks to the Koreans themselves. And if some Americans are quick to say that now the US and Vietnam have good relations, how better would it be if there would be a South-Vietnam? Who knows.A clear difference with the GWOT is the goal of state building and a transition to liberal democracy, but this wasn't the case in Vietnam (where the US backed a coup and the state was far from a liberal democracy) nor in Korea (an authoritarian dictatorship at the time of the war; also, militarily, a draw). — Count Timothy von Icarus
Well, you could also have a long list of when Russia has attacked it's neighbors. After all, it was Catherine the Great who said "I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.”As I noted, Russia is historically paranoid about invasion, but as they say, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. — T Clark
The World definetly doesn't need an Emperor. Centralized powers have their weaknesses. Far better is that there's simply countries that tolerate each other and don't start wars, even if they disagree on matters. That would be the ideal.He's right though, isn't he? The US makes a schizoid global leader when there's no existential threat to keep things on track. The world needs an emperor. Not exactly like a Dune emperor, but similar. — frank
Close, but no cigar. I live in Finland.Do you live in the Baltics? — T Clark
The fact is that if the applicant countries themselves wouldn't have been active, NATO enlargement wouldn't have happened. That's the reality which the anti-US narrative (that it was totally Clinton's idea) totally forgets. In fact, behind closed doors the US asked if for example in the case of the Baltic States Finland and Sweden could give them security guarantees. Totally horrified about the prospect, Finland (and likely Sweden) refused and urged the countries to be accepted into NATO. For the applicants their reason to join NATO was Russia. But for NATO especially the 90's were the time when the organization tried to find a purpose (something on the lines that Trump later has talked). One also should understand that in NATO there's Article 1, that member countries refrain from using violence at each other, which is important. Hence for example Greece and Turkey haven't had a border war. NATO is an European security arrangement and there simply is no counterpart for it in the EU realm.Living where you do, you may know more about this than I do. I remember back in the early 1990s when Bill Clinton and the rest of NATO started expanding NATO. Even back then I thought it was a graceless response to a world changing action. — T Clark
You do understand then that many other countries, like the Baltic States, would have been treated the same way as Ukraine and Georgia by Russia and likely Russian military bases would be back in the Baltic states, if these countries wouldn't have used the window of opportunity they had. Just look at Moldova. It has a frozen conflict with Russian "peacekeepers" the example how Russia has meddled also in Georgia:I don't necessarily think we should have "linked Russia into Europe." I just think it was a big mistake to move NATO right up to Russia's borders. We reacted very aggressively to Russian weapons in Cuba back in the 1960s. Why would we expect to Russia to feel differently? What benefit did the west get out of it? — T Clark
The Russian Federation maintains an unknown number of soldiers in Transnistria, an unrecognized breakaway state internationally recognized as part of Moldova. This Russian military presence dates back to 1992, when the 14th Guards Army intervened in the Transnistria War in support of the Transnistrian separatist forces. Following the end of the war, which ended in a Russian-backed Transnistrian victory and in the de facto independence of the region, the Russian forces stayed in a purportedly peacekeeping mission
Just look at what the Russians actually do in the occupied territories. Russification of the population is no joke. That they have now publicly annexed territories that they (Russians) even don't control yet. That tells about their objectives quite clearly. It's not just words, it's the actions.It always seemed to me that was just a rationalization for political and propaganda purposes. Maybe I'm wrong. — T Clark
Let's see what Trump does. When it comes to Israel, it feels like the US is the ally of Israel, not the other way around. I personally view the reason for this is the large pro-Israeli Evangelist vote in the US. It's not the American Jewish (who can also oppose the policies of Israel), it those waiting for Armageddon and the rapture.There are a lot of hawks still around. I kept expecting Israel to attack Iran with strong US military support. — T Clark
Hate to be the pessimist here, but you are correct. It is a fantasy. Poland is already doing it, and Germany and other Western countries can happily assume that Polish rearmament will be enough. Remember that during the Cold War WW3 was going to be fought out in Germany and very close to the border of France etc. Now there's Poland there, so I don't think that a real turnaround will happen. Here I accept that I'm a bit of a pessimist, as I said.I have a fantasy that Europe will step up to take a bigger military and political role in the world, especially in Europe. — T Clark
The difference between an organization that is voluntary to join and an organization that you are forced to join (like the Warsaw Pact) should be obvious. But the way many talk of NATO enlargement is if it has been just a plan of the US (or in US, the objective of the Foreign Policy blob) with the applicants being passive "victims". It's always puzzled me, but I think it's the idea that the US treats all countries the same way. That how the US treats and has treated Panama, Guatemala or Haiti is similar how it treats Ireland, Belgium or France. The obvious fact that it doesn't in a similar fashion, just as France has treated differently former colonies in the Sahel and member states in the EU. Another example is how China treats West European countries and compare it to how the act towards the Philippines.Something's a bit off ↑ here.
NATO isn't seeking to take over countries. Countries seek to be part of NATO for defense and have to qualify (which can take some years). — jorndoe
This is the line that has been discussed again and again especially the Ukraine war thread (which btw started before the large scale Russian invasion started).One thing I have thought about a lot, starting in the early 1990s - Gorbachev gave us the gift of a new eastern Europe and western Asia. How did we handle it? Even knowing Russia's historical paranoia about being surrounded and invaded, we immediately started expanding NATO right up to it's borders. Now it's enclosed by hostile countries backed by the US and western European militaries. No wonder Putin is furious. We blew it. — T Clark
Bob Ross likely wanted to stir up a heated debate, luckily didn't get banned. Yet I don't think there's a US superpower mania. The last true excess were the neocons, who didn't themselves believe at first they got the power. They themselves were encouraged by the last war that the US won: the liberation of Kuwait back from Iraq. That is now the time that I see as the pinnacle of US power, which lead the neocons to go crazy later. Trump actually destroyed them (the neocons) in my view, although he can appoint them into his administration. He simply walked over Jeb Bush and nobody still goes with the line that President Bush "just got bad intel with Iraq". That is something thanks to Trump.The OP brings to mind the ongoing discussion here on the forum - "In Support of Western Supremacy, Nationalism, and Imperialism." That thread displays the US's superpower mania at a scale that dwarfs even our past adventures. The fact that that kind of fantasy still holds power always confounds me. The worst part is that the desire for military solutions to political problems is still strong in mainstream political leadership. — T Clark
Perhaps for Dick Cheney and Haliburton, but not for the North Vietnamese soldier fighting the Americans. Or the young Afghan men that we called the Taleban. For them it's not the military industrial complex or profits, it's a war to defend your country against an outside aggressor. The simple fact is that in war the enemy is has different objectives than you and you cannot assume that he has similar aspirations and objectives as you do.The value of those policies is monetary, in service to the military industrial complex (MIC). The fantasy held by people not directly involved in the service to MIC is a result of successful propaganda disguised, among other things, as nationalism or patriotism. — DingoJones
How delusional are these people? Which Criminal Organizations they are talking about? Which Weaponized Government? Might not be speaking of the DoD. Repeal the Patriot Act or what? Very unlikely.Trump wrote Wednesday in a post on his Truth Social platform. “Matt will end Weaponized Government, protect our Borders, dismantle Criminal Organizations and restore Americans’ badly-shattered Faith and Confidence in the Justice Department.”
Gaetz said in a post on X that it would “be an honor to serve” in the role. — CNN
Well, I view anarcho-capitalist libertarianism as a prime example how once a successful ideology (that is liberalism here in question) has achieved it's logical and most justifiable goals, the next "waves" in the thinking that want to go further, simply in the end make it all very silly. Just look at where modern feminism is now after second, third and fourth waves after the Suffragettes. Not many women support the objectives of the fourth wave.In being an educator you need to assume that the person to be educated has no knowledge of the subject which you profess. Therefore you need to start from the basics, make them very clear, and then move on to the specifics. You are doing the opposite, starting form some very specific assumptions, but then you cannot show any general principles which would support these specific assumptions. — Metaphysician Undercover
Lack of competition of what? The legality of the laws and legal system?the state's existence depends on fear and people's misguided assumption that there are some things - protecting our basic rights - that the state does best. Upon recognizing that this is simply false - that the state police are really awful at their job (due to lack of competition) - as well as unjust is the first step. — Clearbury
Well, in my country they write books and make documentaries about unsolved murders. That's how rare unsolved murders are in my country. I guess last Century there was about ten-twelve or something like that in my country of 5 million. Less than 20 murders were done last year, to give you a comparison. But when my car was broken into, they didn't do anything. Something for the insurance company. Hence the severity of the crime is where police focus.Most people have no idea just how bad the police are at solving crimes, for we rarely if ever need them. — Clearbury
Punishment is far different from defense. Defending your life or home is legal. Giving punishment is really another thing. That's really not a right for you to become the judge and make your own laws.Even as individuals we are not allowed to protect our own rights if we so wish. I have a right to punish those who violate my rights, but the state prevents me from exercising that right. — Clearbury
If over 90% of the people belonged to the same church, why not? Besides, nothing makes people less religious than you make the religion something close to the government. The clergy really doesn't have to compete in any way for the people. They can behave like government employees.Is it in public schools? That’s a no-no for me. — Bob Ross
Right to bear arms is in many countries. It really doesn't have to be in the constitution.I am not sure I followed, but my point is that people should have the right to bear arms. — Bob Ross
Hey, nobody hasn't used the Hitler card yet. Or have they???I didn't steer the conversation towards Trump, and it is not necessary to do so to contend with the OP: I am merely entertaining all avenues of conversation that present itself to me. — Bob Ross
State religion. The Monarch being the head of the Church should make it obvious.What about it? — Bob Ross
Lol. Nobody that doesn't belong to the church isn't forced to participate in the classes, yet even today 65% of Finns do belong to the state church and just seven years ago 71% belonged to the Church. When I was in school (in the 1980's) well over 90% of Finns belonged to the Lutheran Church, so it would have been quite stupid not to have religion taught at school for all those that belonged to the Church. Even then children that didn't belong to the Church or were of other religious background naturally were exempt of it.No one should be shoving a particular religion down the throats of children at a public school—that’s not how it should work. — Bob Ross
That then is quite meaningless, more of an oddity if firearms are mentioned in the Constitution or not. Mexico has quite strict gun laws, similar to other countries and gun ownership is actually quite low with the country being at 60th place of firearms per capita (Guatemala is at number 70). Then you have countries like Switzerland that has a lot of guns and with a militia that has the (government owned) assault rifles at home.I don’t know about that...only three countries that I am aware of have a constitutional right to bear arms: that’s the US, Mexico, and Guatemala. — Bob Ross
That's totally reasonable. But not all things are so easy to buy as the service when your lightbulb has gone out. Safety and the perception of safety in a community is one. This is why it's not anymore just a service that an individual can decide to have or disregard. For example, you can go on a trip without travel insurance, but what about your car insurance? That's also for when you drive lousily and wreck somebody else's car. Of course, you can opt not to have a car.Yes. I 'hire' electricians. If an electrician just decides to change a lightbulb - without asking me - and then bills me and threatens me with violence if I do not pay, then that's UNJUST. — Clearbury