There's still those Americans that actually believe in a healthy way in their country and it's role in the World. The self-hatred hasn't become endemic. — ssu
That's a really neat way to look at it. Well, global trade had been around for a long time. Some might argue that it really went off when the Ottomans basically cut the ties of Europe to the Far East and the Silk Road didn't work as earlier. Thus the Portuguese and the Spanish went looking for maritime trade roots and found them (plus another continent in addition). The last transformation happened when countries like China and India changed the economic policies from the ruinous socialism to capitalism in their own way (as still the Chinese think their system is Marxism).The US is just the tail end of the British Empire, which invented global trade for our world. — frank
The luddites broke machines in the 19th Century, so even that isn't anything new. Yet the dramatic change of people who work on the fields in the countryside and now are in cities didn't happen with huge swarms of unemployed farmers and farm workers roaming the countryside.I see flames in the future, and maybe a split in our species between technology-loving and technology-hating. That's where my head is. But I hope the best for Europe. — frank
You think we aren't capable of adapting to a changing climate? — ssu
Do you think that a declining Global population will still mean perpetual growth? — ssu
People tend to take the alarmist attitude to alarm people, as if they wouldn't be alarmed if you say: "You know, this issue will suck in the future" — ssu
I'm not making any ad hominem remarks. But coming back to the topic of the thread, one has to understand that Anti-Americanism typically leads to a distorted view that supports the disinformation of a totalitarian state.There's a good side and a bad side to everything. You keep interpreting me as pessimistic or full of self loathing. Neither is true. — frank
[...] yet there are many Putin apologists like one frequent commentator on the thread [...] — ssu
In fact one commentator in this thread [...] — ssu
one has to understand that Anti-Americanism typically leads to a distorted view that supports the disinformation of a totalitarian state.
We don't have to pick sides, I think it's totally logical for example be against Israel's actions in Gaza and Russia's actions in Ukraine. Yet the Anti-American typically goes with the thinking of my enemy's enemy is my friend. — ssu
In fact one commentator in this thread (perhaps unintentionally) told the reason why the strange bias: he didn't want the US to be looked at as a knight in shining armor — ssu
Yes, I think it was him, thanks for reminding it. Nice that others too follow what fellow members write here! And I think it was really a honest reply. People do get unhinged when the topic is the US, especially it's foreign policy. Israel and Palestinian conflict is another example, which also is understandable when you think of it.At least one of the people who said that was Isaac in an exchange with me. An otherwise normal person becomes unhinged when the topic is the USA. Weird. — frank
What is happening now, yes.Yes. I think this will haunt Israel forever. It was a terrible mistake. — frank
You haven't once mentioned the hostages. — BitconnectCarlos
Quite a strawman argument. The hostages, just as killing of civilian families, is evident, as I referred to Al Aqsa Flood having been a military-terrorist operation. The killing of as many people and the capture of hostages was obviously the objective of the operation. Just as is the destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure the objective of the Russian forces. It was an intended warcrime.You haven't once mentioned the hostages. It's like they're invisible to you. — BitconnectCarlos
Let's put things into some context, the Syrian war has gone on for some time, about half a million have been killed. But as I said, nobody has claimed that the Assad-family run state has ever been a democracy. It's been a totalitarian state at least from the 1980's. Why no ICC arrest for Assad. The ICC has asked to do this, but Syria is not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, meaning that it has not been possible to bring an international criminal case against its government.It's also, in a way, been overshadowed by events in Syria. — BitconnectCarlos
The hostages, just as killing of civilian families, is evident, as I referred to Al Aqsa Flood having been a military-terrorist operation. The killing of as many people and the capture of hostages was obviously the objective of the operation. Just as is the destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure the objective of the Russian forces. It was an intended warcrime. — ssu
The ICC has asked to do this, but Syria is not a party to the Rome Statute, — ssu
Or simply once when the insurgents clearly showed sings that they wouldn't be genocidal lunatics as ISIS was in wanting to create an international Caliphate, then those soldiers fighting for the dictatorship of the Assad family simply laid down their arms and took off their uniforms. Because the obvious reason why Alawites and Christians etc. would support the Assad regime was for the fear what the Sunni majority, lead by violent Sunni extremists, would do to them. That was the way the Assad family ruled. If there were no Syrians willing to fight for Assad, doesn't matter how much support Russia or Iran would give to them. The will to fight was lost.or more signs that it's not only the US that is overstretching, but also Russia and Iran? — neomac
Or simply once when the insurgents clearly showed sings that they wouldn't be genocidal lunatics as ISIS — ssu
Firstly,I doubt that. — neomac
Opposition fighters in Syria, in an unprecedented move, have totally taken over numerous cities, in a highly coordinated offensive, and are now on the outskirts of Damascus, obviously preparing to make a very big move toward taking out Assad. Russia, because they are so tied up in Ukraine, and with the loss there of over 600,000 soldiers, seems incapable of stopping this literal march through Syria, a country they have protected for years. This is where former President Obama refused to honor his commitment of protecting the RED LINE IN THE SAND, and all hell broke out, with Russia stepping in. But now they are, like possibly Assad himself, being forced out, and it may actually be the best thing that can happen to them. There was never much of a benefit in Syria for Russia, other than to make Obama look really stupid. In any event, Syria is a mess, but is not our friend, & THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT. LET IT PLAY OUT. DO NOT GET INVOLVED!
There's an obvious difference in the message that Al Qaeda and ISIS are saying... — ssu
(and btw there's a thread for Syria... this is the Ukraine thread) — ssu
Indeed they did. And indeed they also showed very quickly there own side. But in Afghanistan, there was just one actor that took power. Also, notice how any military opposition to the Taleban fizzled out in a few days. The sheer number of actors, of foreign forces now in the country (including IDF that just enlarged it's zone from the Golan Heights) makes this all very difficult.Also Talibans when they came back in power talked about peaceful relations with other countries , women's permissions to work and study "within the framework of Islam", granted a general amnesty, etc. — neomac
So better leave these "no sound arguments" unchallenged in a Philosophy Forum? Not everyone is a troll and I think trolls do get banned rather quickly.It is very fruitful as it doesn't give space to zealots where their arguments are prima facie engaged as if they are rational, reasonable or acceptable when in fact they have no argument. — Benkei
Well, I do.I don't think there's anything essentially wrong with Mearsheimer's analysis as it paints the one-sided viewpoint of Russia — Benkei
Yet it doesn't reflect accurately EVERYTHING. Yes, Putin says that he is in a war with NATO. So basically he is saying that Russia is also in war with your country, Benkei, and with my country. And I've been the first one here to remind even before the annexation of Crimea, the in the official military doctrine of Russia the first threat was NATO enlargement, when international terrorism (read Al Qaeda) was threat number 14 or so. Yet if you just repeat the Mearsheimer line, the logical system would be not to enlarge NATO or even get rid of NATO. But that wouldn't stop Russia! In fact that would simply make them be even more aggressive. If you think that's just a hypothetical, that also Russia could be totally passive and nice neighbor, that isn't the case when people like Putin run the country. You simply have to listen to what they really say, not just look at the US and the West and think that everything that other people do is just a response to your own actions. It isn't that way. That's the whole point here.It's accurate insofar it reflects Russian arguments and thinking and you can think about it what you want but it has been raised repeatedly as a reason. — Benkei
Hold on,The argument NATO is purely defensive is merely theoretical as Kosovo and Libya have shown but even the treaty changes with respect to, for instance, space warfare. — Benkei
Russia is an empire.Does Russia have a right to empire? No, but then no country does. Yet there were empires and there are empires; through military, economic or even cultural influence. Russia has the de facto power to project power in the near abroad as do other large powers (notably the US and China). — Benkei
Really? I beg to disagree. You are in the heart of Europe. You have the largest port in Europe, which also is the largest one outside Asia. Paris is just 280 km from your border. You are next to the Ruhr region of Germany. An ordinary artillery missile fired from the Netherlands can hit London (just like V2 rockets did in WW2 that were first launched to London from the Hague). You have a lot of strategic relevance!!! It just isn't contested, but you are one of those central countries to any Western alliance.After all, nobody gives a shit about the strategic relevance of the Netherlands for a reason! — Benkei
Why oppose having morality in international relations? Aren't there morals that we all should adhere to? Or is everything just realpolitik, shit just happens? Well, what Israel is doing in Gaza is realpolitik too, so why do you anything to complain about that? Or is it that we pick what is realpolitik and what is morally wrong just because of our own likings? I think that's close to the argument that @BitconnectCarlos hurls at others on a constant basis.Some of the responses to Harris' video reflect a moral view of international relations, which simply doesn't mean much in a world where international relations are preponderantly governed by real politk considerations. - The problem with the moral argument is also that it only works if you adhere to moral principles yourself; otherwise it's just another real politik tool "Do as I say (but don't do as I do)". — Benkei
Again I have to disagree with you.And while I agree Eastern European countries have the moral high ground; they are simply not the most relevant players between the proxy wars. — Benkei
The criticism is the one-sidedness of Mearsheimer's theory. He doesn't, and he has admitted himself, look at the situation from the Russian domestic political viewpoint. This is the theoretical flaw here. — ssu
Domestic politics is absolutely essentially in every country: it drives foreign policy in every country. — ssu
Then there is the idea that this, starting a huge conventional invasion, was a rational decision by Putin to thwart NATO enlargement. Yet the action lead to Finland and Sweden joining NATO, the NATO countries increase their spending and NATO getting back to the role that it had during the Cold War. It doesn't make any sense. — ssu
Especially when just having large scale exercises would have made Ukrainian NATO membership as impossible as EU membership of Turkiye. — ssu
(But as NATO follows it's charter, it could never say this out loud.) — ssu
Hence the war cannot be explained only by NATO enlargement, which is now done by those willing to go with Putin's line. And that "only" changes a lot in the actual picture. Yet it make sense if Putin wanted Ukraine irrelevant of NATO. — ssu
Yet it doesn't reflect accurately EVERYTHING. Yes, Putin says that he is in a war with NATO. So basically he is saying that Russia is also in war with your country, Benkei, and with my country. And I've been the first one here to remind even before the annexation of Crimea, the in the official military doctrine of Russia the first threat was NATO enlargement, when international terrorism (read Al Qaeda) was threat number 14 or so. Yet if you just repeat the Mearsheimer line, the logical system would be not to enlarge NATO or even get rid of NATO. But that wouldn't stop Russia! In fact that would simply make them be even more aggressive. If you think that's just a hypothetical, that also Russia could be totally passive and nice neighbor, that isn't the case when people like Putin run the country. You simply have to listen to what they really say, not just look at the US and the West and think that everything that other people do is just a response to your own actions. It isn't that way. That's the whole point here. — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.