The warmongers at the European Union

[Estro Felino]

Please don't.
I'm already insufferably impressed with myself.
You'd only make it worse.

Well...I will kneel before Putin only, then.

Heir of Catherine the Great.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well...I will kneel before Putin....

Please don't share with us what
you'll do in that position.
This is a family friendly forum.

 

[Estro Felino]

Please don't share with us what
you'll do in that position.
This is a family friendly forum.

As czar.
Come on...you always think poorly of me.

 

[Revoltingest]

As czar.
Come on...you always think poorly of me.

I don't criticize people for sexual
acts between consenting adults.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It turns out that Turkey didn't have to do some "serious reforms" to join the NATO.
So...please...
no hypocrisy and no doublestandardism ...

That was 1952. Turkey back then was very different from Erdogan's Turkey today.
It was also a very different time with the cold war just getting started.

Today's Turkey would have problems joining, tbh

 

[Stevicus]

Yeah, but to change a country the population need to be aligned with it. In the US there doesn't seem to be very strong support for a good social system, it is more, each one on their own. But if the majority wanted it, they would vote for people trying to improve on it.

There was greater support of better social systems back in the post-WW2 era, such as the Civil Rights Act and LBJ's Great Society programs. U.S. public opinion was much more amenable to liberal and progressive ideas back then, but there was a noticeable shift in public opinion by the Reagan era. I think the loss in Vietnam, the energy crisis, runaway inflation, and the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 were contributory factors which shifted public opinion away from liberal, moderate, more peaceful policies, into the kind of society we have now.

Hitler probably wouldn't have, he needed a Germany that felt defeated so he could be seen as the solution.

In Russia as well, in general, there seems to be a tendency that if too many people in a country have it too bad a revolution is very likely. So it probably wouldn't have happened in Russia either. But obviously there can be many reasons, like religious or just straight-up power-hungry people.

I think it's pretty clear that economic deprivation was the main driving factor leading to the rise of extremist regimes in Russia and Germany back then, which seems to be the case in most every revolutionary situation or great power shift. This is why, even despite all the wild seditious talk coming out of the 1960s, there was never any revolution, even as many people called for it. The economy and standard of living were still quite good, so there was no compelling reason for the average person to support a revolution. They had far more to lose than they had to gain.

As long as there is money to be made it is very unlikely

Had there been no oil in the Middle East, I don't think either Russia or the US would care a whole lot. Just like China has a huge interest in Africa if it wasn't because they can get a lot of resources I don't think they would bother.

In the case of the Middle East, its importance is not just in oil, but in strategic position and location along major trade routes. Our interest in places like Yemen and Somalia have little to do with oil but with where they're located.

However, I agree with your point about China making inroads into Africa - and also Latin America, which should be of concern to the U.S. U.S. exploitation and indifference towards Latin America is coming back to haunt us. While the US has been so desperately obsessed with wanting to secure Ukraine and the Middle East (in addition to Japan, SK, Taiwan, etc.), our government has neglected its own region and even its own borders.

I think every country does at least about those that interest them.
And Saddam Hussein, to me at least, seems to follow the standard recipe of power-hungry dictator leaders in the world.

I think Hussein would have been at the level of "tinpot dictator." He was the most powerful man in a relatively weak nation.

I would disagree with that, the world wouldn't like the US to just go in and remove Saddam. Even as you did, other countries would be nervous, if the US could just do it in Iraq and it had little consequence, what would prevent them from doing it to them?

Yes, exactly! You've hit the nail right on the head with this point. This points up a major reason why many countries (including Russia) do not trust the U.S. government.

And there was some EU countries that opposed it and in fact the majority called for the expert to get more time to look for the weapons, yet the US obviously didn't want this, because they knew they weren't there.

France and Germany opposed it, yes. That's when U.S. propagandists came up with "freedom fries" to replace "french fries." France became a butt of jokes in US social media for a while.

No, we are in the situation today, because Putin is a maniac, obviously, the whole US vs Russia plays a role, but that doesn't justify what he is doing.

Ukraine was not and isn't now, being considered to join NATO. After this war, then it could very well happen, because the West doesn't want to risk something like this happening again, it also cost us a lot of money for something that could easily have been avoided.

I don't think any of this is justified. The situation could have been avoided if NATO had simply disbanded at the same time the Warsaw Pact disbanded.

As everyone remembers, this was for a very long time to spread "Democracy", that was the underlying excuse. But I think especially after Iraq, this excuse kind of ran its course, people really saw through the lies here. And it turned more into a fight against terrorism.

I strongly agree with you when you say the excuse ran its course. For a lot of Americans, that excuse ran its course even much sooner than Iraq. It's like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." Eventually, people stop believing it. But they never stopped believing in the basic principle or ideal of American exceptionalism and the idea that it is our national purpose to defend freedom and spread democracy throughout the world. What we're seeing now is a lack of faith and confidence in the people charged with the responsibility of carrying out these principles and ideals.

I don't know if it has so much to do with that, as it has to do with the inequality rise in the US. Over the last many years, this has just grown and even the middle class now is kind of struggling. But I think one can blame the US system allows for these institutes and organisations to manipulate the political system and each year they want more. And basically now they seem to have gotten it all and I would be surprised if the poorest get out on top here, they might get a bit more money, but in terms of rights etc. I would assume that it is a huge win for big business.

It could very well be due to the inequality rise, as you say. We've always had inequality in the U.S., although the disparities seem wider today than they ever were. It's not as bad as it was in Germany, where people had to fill up wheelbarrows full of money just to buy a loaf of bread. It's also not as bad as it was in Tsarist Russia prior to the Russian Revolutions and Civil War. But since they had been used to and accustomed to living in an authoritarian police state in the past, it wasn't too much of an adjustment to do it again.

Hitler was delusional at this point, it started even earlier, when he started ordering armies around which didn't exist anymore etc. I think had it been up to him, he would have sacrificed every single German in a final fight, he was either going to win or die, so it didn't really matter to him at this point. I think everyone has seen some of the last videos of him, where he inspects some very young German kid soldiers just before they most likely go out and get killed. A person willing to do this is a monster.

Hitler was definitely out there, even more so by the time he entered the Bunker. His scorched earth plan was intended to destroy literally everything in Germany, with the idea that the Allies would gain nothing from conquering Germany. Presumably, he expected the entire population to fight to the death or commit suicide with him.

I probably would agree, but again it's so difficult to say because Stalin wasn't exactly a good person either. And he was also delusional.

Stalin was quite paranoid, to be sure.

And as long as there is something worth winning, I think we will have the same issues. Imagine we were very good at sharing resources in the world or had an abundance of them. Then it could be possible as I see it, simply because there would be very little value in it, everyone would essentially have whatever they need. But that is not going to happen anytime soon I think,

Again I think the most likely future is one where we face the issue of there simply not being purchasing power enough. So we have to create an alternative system. Humans on a grand scale can't compete with AI and robots.

I'm not sure where humanity is headed at this point. We seem to be at some kind of impasse - a crossroads and we can't seem to figure out which direction to go. We can't even agree on what our shared problems might be. Many of the wars of today look like street fights - rival gangs fighting for territory in a city which is burning down all around them.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There's no rule saying they can't join.

Off course, to be able to join they'ld be required to do some serious reforms off course..

It's too late for that now .. the West is exposing itself for what it really is .. a club for
Capitalists.

The only reason it expands is because there are countries that beg to join.

Nonsense .. it's just like the immigration issue .. "we are full now, so go away" .. unless you
accept "our values".
What values? Funding wars that slaughter women and children, and the promotion of
hate towards non-Capitalists?

Every time a country joined, it was because that country wanted to.

I'm not suggesting otherwise.

Maybe it's not up to Russia to "not accept" the sovereign decisions of other nations?

That's childish double standards .. what about the Cuban missile crisis?
The US do not accept missiles pointed towards them on their border, and nor do Russia.
..but Russia is not part of the "Capitalist club", so they are to be ignored.

Why are these discussions always about what "Russia" does or doesn't like?

It's not as straightforward as you suggest. There was a military coup in 2014, ousting the
more cautious President of Ukraine.
..but you don't want to talk about that, in the same way as the conflict in the Middle East started
on Oct 7 2023, the Ukraine conflict started in Feb 2022.

 

[Nimos]

There was greater support of better social systems back in the post-WW2 era, such as the Civil Rights Act and LBJ's Great Society programs. U.S. public opinion was much more amenable to liberal and progressive ideas back then, but there was a noticeable shift in public opinion by the Reagan era. I think the loss in Vietnam, the energy crisis, runaway inflation, and the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 were contributory factors which shifted public opinion away from liberal, moderate, more peaceful policies, into the kind of society we have now.

Yeah maybe, but at least to me, it never seemed like, in general, there was/is a huge support for it. And my guess is that a lot of propaganda is being made against it. Kind of like when you see the gun lobbyist or what they are called arguing their case after almost each school shooting. Yet one wonders how the US have so many school shootings compared to any country in the world if it has nothing to do with how easy it is to get hold of weapons. And this is obviously because it is a huge business, just like everything else. But it does make you wonder if the US citizens get the best solution in such a case.

I think Hussein would have been at the level of "tinpot dictator." He was the most powerful man in a relatively weak nation.

Yeah, but you have to compare him to those around him. Obviously against the US it was no match, but then again hardly any countries would be, you would need something like Russia, EU or China.
But Saddam didn't have a huge influence, he just got in bad standing with the US (Bush family).

Yes, exactly! You've hit the nail right on the head with this point. This points up a major reason why many countries (including Russia) do not trust the U.S. government.

That is obviously part of it, the others as we also talked about are interfering in things which they probably shouldn't. I don't know if they do it as much as the use to or that we just don't hear a lot about it.

But I do think that a lot of countries around the world are happy for Trump, because he seems very focused on China and internally, so maybe he won't bother these countries as much

France and Germany opposed it, yes. That's when U.S. propagandists came up with "freedom fries" to replace "french fries." France became a butt of jokes in US social media for a while.

Yeah, that is how they do it, make something sound ridiculous etc. and people will prefer not to be associated with it.

I don't think any of this is justified. The situation could have been avoided if NATO had simply disbanded at the same time the Warsaw Pact disbanded.

Well, I would disagree, I think whatever NATO is, it has probably prevented several conflicts. NATO is a defensive alliance, but at the same time, NATO countries might also be more inclined to solve their issues in a diplomatic way given they are part of NATO. No NATO countries have been at war with each other, so one could imagine if that could have happened if NATO wasn't there.

I strongly agree with you when you say the excuse ran its course. For a lot of Americans, that excuse ran its course even much sooner than Iraq. It's like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." Eventually, people stop believing it. But they never stopped believing in the basic principle or ideal of American exceptionalism and the idea that it is our national purpose to defend freedom and spread democracy throughout the world. What we're seeing now is a lack of faith and confidence in the people charged with the responsibility of carrying out these principles and ideals.

And also I think everyone now has realized that you can't just spread democracy, if a nation isn't ready it just won't work. It's not something you can do in a couple of years. And I think that was the problem in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The US and its ally would have needed to be there for an extremely long time, for it to even have the slightest chance of success and there just wasn't any strategy for how this should be done, which obviously ended with both cases being utter failures And I think that put the last nail in the coffin, it simply won't work.

It could very well be due to the inequality rise, as you say. We've always had inequality in the U.S., although the disparities seem wider today than they ever were. It's not as bad as it was in Germany, where people had to fill up wheelbarrows full of money just to buy a loaf of bread. It's also not as bad as it was in Tsarist Russia prior to the Russian Revolutions and Civil War. But since they had been used to and accustomed to living in an authoritarian police state in the past, it wasn't too much of an adjustment to do it again.

It is obviously extremely complicated, but I don't think what the Germans experienced is even remotely what the US are. The problem with Germany was that their money value was haywire. Whereas in the US, if people (middle/middle and middle/lower class), can't make a living then things start to collapse.

And again I think a lot of this is connected to your lack of social security, even if things are bad in EU countries, people still don't have to worry about healthcare, schools etc. It removes a lot of stress from the population, obviously, we feel these things as well, but it's not like, you get sick and then you get bankrupted at the same time as you potentially can in the US, or suddenly you struggle to pay for your kid's school or whatever. So I think for the average US citizen it is a whole lot more stressful.

The funny thing is that most US citizens get shocked when they hear how much taxes we pay, however, when you add all your expenses together it is as expensive or even more expensive than what we pay, depending on how healthy or unlucky you are.

This obviously creates a huge amount of inequality, if you are poor then you are screwed and if the middle class start to struggle, then they start to get screwed and I think that is what we are seeing now with Trump, that is why he won.

Hitler was definitely out there, even more so by the time he entered the Bunker. His scorched earth plan was intended to destroy literally everything in Germany, with the idea that the Allies would gain nothing from conquering Germany. Presumably, he expected the entire population to fight to the death or commit suicide with him.

Yeah.

I would recommend watching "Der Untergang" it is about his final time. It is very good.

You can actually watch the whole movie/documentary here with English subtitles:

I'm not sure where humanity is headed at this point. We seem to be at some kind of impasse - a crossroads and we can't seem to figure out which direction to go. We can't even agree on what our shared problems might be. Many of the wars of today look like street fights - rival gangs fighting for territory in a city which is burning down all around them.

I think we are on the brink of a whole new era, kind of like when electricity was "invented"/discovered. I think the moment the first everyday useful humanoid robot is released it will go very fast because the price will quickly start to go down and then everyone will own them like we do a car or a bike. But how many years are we talking about, I don't know? If AI goes as some expected we will have AGI in 2-5 years and then things should start to go quite fast.

 

[Father Heathen]

Like me, for example?

You're confirming my theory. That Putin is disliked because he is the heterosexual alpha male.
It's a psychiatric-sexual issue.

Are you sure he's not disliked because he's an dictator who has critics and opponents jailed or assassinated, violates human rights, persecutes LGBT (you know, people like you), and invades other countries unprovoked and facilitates war crimes such as the trafficking, rape, torture, murder of civilians, including children? Those aren't valid reasons for disliking Putin? You claim to be a Christian, yet you're clearly attracted to evil.

Also, as we've already established some time ago, rational and mature adults don't take the "alpha/beta/sigma" nonsense seriously. It isn't real. It's basically astrology for incels.

 

[Father Heathen]

@Estro Felino would you suggest forcing victims to consent as a solution to rape? If not, why would you suggest forcing defenders to surrender to aggressors as a solution to war?