The warmongers at the European Union

[Estro Felino]

And I think them not winning is a blessing for themselves. Government seems to be the worst job ever

That's true.
But not to people thirsty for power.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All these wars in the Middle East...
I wonder who funded them.

Actually we do know who funded them.
As usual...it's the "Banking powers" that want to steal the oil production from the nations that legitimately own it.

They can't bear the socialist mindset that gives the nation the ownership of these natural resources. They want to own them.

As a supposed self-proclaimed socialist... shouldn't you be demanding that it should be owned by the people / the workers?
Why don't you complain about the trillionaire sjeiks while the workers have to work in the sh*tiest of conditions and be poor as hell?


It's amazing how selective you are in your ranting and thinly veiled fake calls for social justice.

 

[Stevicus]

Sure, but I don't think you can really split the two, it's not one or the other. One might be more dominating in certain cases than others.

However, I do think we can at least draw some conclusions and based on what we see in the world there is a clear stream of refugees going from these "moral" countries to the immoral EU and US and not the other way.

The stream of refugees around the world is mostly about economics, not morality. People from "have not" countries are migrating to countries that "have." The West is wealthier and has a higher standard of living. That's why refugees come here.

Sure, we have a part to play in the world and what is going on, but largely it is up to each country and how they are governed and why things go as they do. It is too easy to just point fingers at us and keep in mind that by far the most countries we don't interfere with at all and still they are not doing particularly well, given the system they are ruled under. Which in many cases are oppression and lack of freedom mixed with a lot of corruption.

Seeing how Russia and China treat their own people, do you think that is something that would make for a more moral world if their national interests were the dominating ones?

I don't expect there to be a "moral world," regardless of which country, alliance, or faction happens to rule. My whole point is that countries and factions are involved in a great game of power and geopolitics. The countries which got a head start on the industrial revolution still dominate the world today, while the rest of the world has been playing catch up.

For a time (mainly after WW2), the Western countries were strong enough and wealthy enough to be able to afford to be more liberal and generous with their own citizens, which is why there was greater support for labor unions, civil rights, social programs, welfare, etc.

By the time of the Reagan era, many were saying that we had spent too much being generous with liberal "giveaway" programs. It also became clear that America's ride on the gravy train which began back in 1945 was finally slowing down and sputtering to a stop. As a result, there has been a rise in corruption and oppression, along with a decrease in freedom, since the Reagan era. Our policies towards militarism and warmongering also intensified during that period. The war on drugs was escalated, the police became more militarized and aggressive, and the incarceration rate went up exponentially (and we have one of the highest in the world).

I agree that it's up to each country in how they govern their people, and I judge our government on how they treat us, the American people.

I agree, nothing has probably changed about this ever

But it makes sense to at least bet on the least of the worst big fish out there rather than the worst of the worst.

Yes, that seems to be the default course of action in politics: Choose the lesser of two evils and hope for the best.

Maybe someday, the world will be ruled by AI overlords who will be much smarter and wiser than humans. They will take care of us.

I can fully understand that, but also a lot of it is caused by the US themselves, the Iraq war was basically a lie, yet had no consequences for your politicians who were behind it. The US people didn't care apparently.

Then you/we had the whole terrorist period, which wasn't war against countries really, but against fanatics and again a lot of these were supported and protected by countries that didn't want to deal with them.

I'm aware that most of these events and consequences were caused by the US themselves, which has been my point all along. There were no consequences for those involved because everything our government does is shrouded in secrecy and deception, while politicians can claim "plausible deniability."

I'm forced to concede your point that many (if not most) Americans probably don't care, and many probably don't even know most of what's going on or what the actual issues truly are. A lot of people can't even point out their own state on a map. It makes it easier for government to lead people by the nose and manipulate them into supporting whatever interventionist action they wish to proceed with.

You mention Iraq, and I recall how easy it was for people to be suckered and manipulated into supporting that war. I recognize many of the same tactics and rhetorical tricks being used currently, in discussions about this war, along with the finger-pointing and red-baiting directed at those who refuse to toe the party line. It was essentially the same during the Cold War. If you didn't support aid to the Contras, you were a communist. If you didn't support US efforts to prop up the corrupt regime in South Vietnam, you were a communist. If you supported MLK and/or Civil Rights, you were a communist. If you listened to the Beatles, you were a communist.

I still see shades of that kind of mindset even now. It doesn't seem to have the same kind of effect as it once did, though. That seems to be more and more common, where the old tricks and tactics from the old playbook just don't seem to have the same zing or staying power they once had.

The US still suffer from this whole thing, just as Russia does when it comes to Nazis, which is obviously why Putin uses that excuse. The same with the US, you mention socialism and 99% of the US is ready to execute the person who said it.

Well, maybe not "execute." I don't think we've gone that far yet.

And it probably could have, but Stalin had other plans, again Russia isn't exactly famous for its good caring politicians. Stalin killed millions of Russians

Putin's competitors seemingly have a huge difficulty standing near windows without falling out of them. So again, the Western allies and the US might not be perfect, but at least it is a hell of a lot better than these other countries.

Stalin rose to power out of political chaos and upheaval after WW1 and the Russian Revolution. At a time when the Western Allies had to make a choice between the lesser of two evils, they chose Stalin over Hitler, which is how they got Stalin on their side. They refrained from declaring war on the USSR, even despite their part in the invasion of Poland, as well as their attack on Finland and the Baltic Republics. They gave Stalin a pass on those invasions. Prior to the German attack on Russia in 1941, there were discussions about the possibility of Russia becoming a full-fledged member of the Axis, but Hitler apparently thought that Stalin was too demanding and untrustworthy. Once the Germans invaded Russia, the USSR became an automatic member of the Allied coalition (who also thought that Stalin was too demanding and untrustworthy).

Stalin had softened many of his policies during WW2. He removed the Party's prohibitions on religion and actually encouraged Russians to go to church and pray. Most of the Red Army officers who were purged and sent to gulags were rehabilitated and brought back to their own units - just in time for the Moscow Counteroffensive, when the Russians trounced the Germans and saved Moscow. Stalin was at least practical enough and cooperative enough so that the Allied coalition would hold on to the end. Hitler's only real hope was for the Alliance to break up, believing that any kind of alliance between the West and the USSR was impossible. But by that time, they all hated Hitler more than they hated each other, so that was that.

So, maybe they thought they could maintain a cooperative post-war relationship, but I guess it wasn't in the cards. We could have tried harder, but the U.S. was virulently anti-communist to the point where it would not have mattered what Stalin did - good or bad - as there were those in America who saw the "godless communists" as the spawn of Satan and the enemy of all mankind. Patton and MacArthur wanted to take them on right away. McCarthy and Hoover were avowed anti-communists and would stop at nothing to rid America of the Red Menace in our own backyard. Nixon built his whole political career on anti-communism.

The McCarthy period was a pretty ugly chapter in our history, and the global activities of the US military and intelligence community were also rather questionable. There were numerous incidents of political violence in the 60s, along with the assassinations of major figures like JFK, RFK, MLK - all of whom were virulently hated by the anti-communist right wing who associated them with communists and/or communist sympathizers.

So, it can and does happen here, but perhaps in a different way where the perpetrators can better cover their tracks and make it seem like it's still "free and democratic" on the surface. And, because we are a wealthier and more opulent country, most people in the US are more comfortable and better fed than most areas of the world, and many seem committed to protecting and defending "our way of life." The less affluent areas of the world have a rougher time of it, for obvious reasons.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Absolutely it is their fault.

It was US's responsibility for dropping the bombs, but there was justification..

That's a contradiction .. firstly you say that it is the fault of the nation who drops the bomb,
and then make an exception for the US.

In the case of Russia invading Ukraine, there is no justification.

You are acting as judge and jury .. and probably brainwashed by mainstream media, who
omit the things they don't want you to know about.

On the one hand, they accuse Putin/Russia of being maniacs, but on the other hand call
Russia's nuclear bluff .. pathetic!

 

[soulsurvivor]

That's a contradiction .. firstly you say that it is the fault of the nation who drops the bomb,
and then make an exception for the US.

I did not say it was the fault. I said it was the responsibility. It was not an exception for the US. Any country can act in self-defense or defense of the world.

You are acting as judge and jury .. and probably brainwashed by mainstream media, who
omit the things they don't want you to know about.

On the one hand, they accuse Putin/Russia of being maniacs, but on the other hand call
Russia's nuclear bluff .. pathetic!

You are acting as Putin lover and apologist.

Anyway, Putin is not a maniac he is a thug or a gangster. Blackmail and threats are some of his favorite tools.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..If you listened to the Beatles, you were a communist..

I listen to the Beatles .. just Imagine.

 

[Nimos]

You don't say?
..and I suppose you think it had nothing to do with Israel, and US policy?
..and you think 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, Israel and US policy?
..and Libya, ditto.
ditto, ditto, ditto!!!

No, of course you don't .. it's all those evil Muslims with their evil god .. they don't have
a right to defend themselves from imperialism.

..and now evil Iran has to be silenced .. who next? Saudi Arabia?

It's complicated - but the best way to start is by looking at the war as a conflict between those who, in broad terms, support and oppose Mr Assad and his government.
On the Syrian government's side, we have:

• Russia (carries out air strikes and provides political support at the UN)
• Iran (provides arms, credit, military advisers and reportedly combat troops)
• Hezbollah (The Lebanese Shia movement has sent thousands of fighters)
• Shia Muslim militias (recruited by Iran from Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen)

And, on the side of the rebels* we have:

• Turkey (provides arms, military and political support)
• Gulf Arab states (provide money and weapons)
• The US (provides arms, training and military assistance to "moderate" groups)
• Jordan (provides logistical support and training)

*The term "rebels" is used to describe a huge and diverse array of fighters, some of whom co-operate with jihadists like those from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, an al-Qaeda-linked alliance. Different foreign states often back different rebel factions.

It has nothing to do with the "evil Muslims" as you say, they are fighting on both sides in this civil war. Yet, for some reason, this is all the West's fault?

It's common knowledge that a lot of countries in the Middle East don't get along, even internally within their countries given religious beliefs. You can't simply point your finger at the West and blame it on us.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Putin is not a maniac he is a thug or a gangster. Blackmail and threats are some of his favorite tools.

He is "cornered" by US and its allies .. that is what is behind it all.
They see NATO expanding eastwards, but they are not invited..

What do you think the purpose of NATO is?

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's complicated - but the best way to start is by looking at the war as a conflict between those who, in broad terms, support and oppose Mr Assad and his government.
On the Syrian government's side, we have:

• Russia (carries out air strikes and provides political support at the UN)
• Iran (provides arms, credit, military advisers and reportedly combat troops)
• Hezbollah (The Lebanese Shia movement has sent thousands of fighters)
• Shia Muslim militias (recruited by Iran from Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen)

And, on the side of the rebels* we have:

• Turkey (provides arms, military and political support)
• Gulf Arab states (provide money and weapons)
• The US (provides arms, training and military assistance to "moderate" groups)
• Jordan (provides logistical support and training)

That is now history .. the US will find it a lot more difficult to play their "divide and rule" games
from now on.
I assume you are aware that the US supported ISIS .. until it didn't.
I assume you know Israel supported Hamas .. until it didn't.
I assume you know the US supported Sadam Hussein .. until it didn't.

The list is endless.

You can't simply point your finger at the West and blame it on us.

Of course I can .. nobody told the West to interfere and invade foreign countries.
They decide that it is "in their interests" .. and spin false narratives in order to achieve their aims.

 

[soulsurvivor]

He is "cornered" by US and its allies .. that is what is behind it all.

You can't start a war and then claim you are cornered.

They see NATO expanding eastwards, but they are not invited..

NATO has been eagerly invited by Ukraine and all the eastern members (Baltics, Poland and new ones like Finland, Sweden)

What do you think the purpose of NATO is?

NATO's purpose is defense against aggressive powers like Russia. If there was no NATO, Russia would be in Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia.

 

[muhammad_isa]

NATO's purpose is defense against aggressive powers like Russia..

Thankyou .. but the US has a record of aggressive military policy all over the world.
They have military bases all over the world.
If I was Russia, I would not trust the intentions of the US.

They repeatedly said, since the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of USSR, that they cannot
accept Ukraine ( a former member of USSR ) to be part of NATO.

..but their requests were ignored, and Zelensky plots with the West to undermine a major
nuclear power.
Go figure!

If there was no NATO, Russia would be in Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia.

Pure fear-mongering, with no evidence to support such.
The more the West appears as a threat to Russia, the more likely it is that the West will
go into decline.

We live in a nuclear world .. the victors of WWII did not.
Empires rise and fall .. co-operation is superior to war .. Europe is now in a bad place .. of
their own making .. the cost of energy is strangling any industry that they might have left.

What has to happen? Stop! A reset of thought before it gets worse.
..and NOT "poke the bear"

 

[soulsurvivor]

Thankyou .. but the US has a record of aggressive military policy all over the world.
They have military bases all over the world.
If I was Russia, I would not trust the intentions of the US.

This is true. But that is not Ukraine's fault. If does deserve to be invaded because US has bases everywhere.

Pure fear-mongering, with no evidence to support such.

The evidence of Russia's intentions is Russia's control of Georgia and annexation of parts of Georgia.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The evidence of Russia's intentions is Russia's control of Georgia and annexation of parts of Georgia.

The EU is having trouble in keeping together existing member countries, and you
think that expansion of EU/NATO is a sensible direction for Europe?
I think not.

..and an increasing number of people in Georgia agree.
They can also see that the EU isn't as attractive as it once was.

 

[Nimos]

The stream of refugees around the world is mostly about economics, not morality. People from "have not" countries are migrating to countries that "have." The West is wealthier and has a higher standard of living. That's why refugees come here.

Definitely that has a lot to do with it. But also lots of people are political or religious refugees etc. there are lots of reasons.

I don't expect there to be a "moral world," regardless of which country, alliance, or faction happens to rule. My whole point is that countries and factions are involved in a great game of power and geopolitics. The countries which got a head start on the industrial revolution still dominate the world today, while the rest of the world has been playing catch up.

For a time (mainly after WW2), the Western countries were strong enough and wealthy enough to be able to afford to be more liberal and generous with their own citizens, which is why there was greater support for labor unions, civil rights, social programs, welfare, etc.

By the time of the Reagan era, many were saying that we had spent too much being generous with liberal "giveaway" programs. It also became clear that America's ride on the gravy train which began back in 1945 was finally slowing down and sputtering to a stop. As a result, there has been a rise in corruption and oppression, along with a decrease in freedom, since the Reagan era. Our policies towards militarism and warmongering also intensified during that period. The war on drugs was escalated, the police became more militarized and aggressive, and the incarceration rate went up exponentially (and we have one of the highest in the world).

I agree that it's up to each country in how they govern their people, and I judge our government on how they treat us, the American people.

Yes and no, surely changes were made after WW2 and in general a lot of things change over time.

But take the US, the black people fought for their rights (Obviously not fully there, but at least a whole lot better), women got to vote and were allowed to drive cars (not sure they were ever allowed this in Western countries), more commonly on the job market etc. . etc.

These are choices made by the western countries, nothing prevents other countries from doing the same, but all these things help form the countries to what they are today and people value freedom and the right to speak freely and be able to protest etc. So it's not only about economics, it doesn't cost a lot to allow women to vote or work or give people the right to vote for who they want to lead them, religious freedom etc.

Just think about the capacity of simply letting women work and get an education, you basically doubling the workforce and bright minds in a country, it has huge economic potential.

But doing these things and allowing people rights does make for a more moral country in my opinion.

Yes, that seems to be the default course of action in politics: Choose the lesser of two evils and hope for the best.

Maybe someday, the world will be ruled by AI overlords who will be much smarter and wiser than humans. They will take care of us.

Hopefully, because I doubt it could be worse, but it requires that we get rid of money.

I'm aware that most of these events and consequences were caused by the US themselves, which has been my point all along. There were no consequences for those involved because everything our government does is shrouded in secrecy and deception, while politicians can claim "plausible deniability."

Obviously it is complicated, I think some are pretty clear-cut cases. While others might have occurred because there wasn't really any other solution.

The Islamic State was causing a lot of issues and the countries housing them did nothing. So what options are there? Most of Europe and the US were barricaded and essentially changed forever because of them. So something had to be done. And again, it wasn't only a Western issue, a lot more Islamic countries suffered from this than we probably did. They were conquering and blowing up stuff there constantly.

I'm forced to concede your point that many (if not most) Americans probably don't care, and many probably don't even know most of what's going on or what the actual issues truly are. A lot of people can't even point out their own state on a map. It makes it easier for government to lead people by the nose and manipulate them into supporting whatever interventionist action they wish to proceed with.

This is obviously an education issue. Unfortunately, the US have some very talented people but also a whole lot of uneducated ones. But it's not an issue that couldn't be solved fairly easily, given pretty much all other Western countries have solved it. But obviously, as with everything else in the US, education is also business.

You mention Iraq, and I recall how easy it was for people to be suckered and manipulated into supporting that war. I recognize many of the same tactics and rhetorical tricks being used currently, in discussions about this war, along with the finger-pointing and red-baiting directed at those who refuse to toe the party line. It was essentially the same during the Cold War. If you didn't support aid to the Contras, you were a communist. If you didn't support US efforts to prop up the corrupt regime in South Vietnam, you were a communist. If you supported MLK and/or Civil Rights, you were a communist. If you listened to the Beatles, you were a communist.

This was bad, I didn't like Saddam Hussein and I think the world and Iraq as a whole were probably better off without him. But that doesn't change that it was an unjustified attack based on lies. And unfortunately, my country decided to support the US in this, so the blame is also on us.

Well, maybe not "execute." I don't think we've gone that far yet.

Obviously not

But at least when looking at it from the outside, it feels very much like if anyone even remotely suggests something that would be good for a lot of people in need and it is a federal system, then someone instantly calls it socialism and then it pretty much dies. Despite (I think) all other Western countries have such systems and are not even remotely socialistic countries.

I think that is connected to the fear of communism and socialism that the US suffered from during the cold war and after WW2 and obviously because you have a lot of institutes that are making **** lots of money from not having these systems in place.

Stalin rose to power out of political chaos and upheaval after WW1 and the Russian Revolution. At a time when the Western Allies had to make a choice between the lesser of two evils, they chose Stalin over Hitler, which is how they got Stalin on their side.

Yes and no, had Hitler conquered Russia, things would have been extremely bad and most of the world might have been based on nazists now. So I don't really think there was much of a choice. And I honestly don't know how much was known about Stalin before WW2, I don't think the world media was as fast as they are today when you can digitally send everything in a few seconds. But maybe he was known as a bad person or whatever, I really don't know.

So, maybe they thought they could maintain a cooperative post-war relationship, but I guess it wasn't in the cards. We could have tried harder, but the U.S. was virulently anti-communist to the point where it would not have mattered what Stalin did - good or bad - as there were those in America who saw the "godless communists" as the spawn of Satan and the enemy of all mankind. Patton and MacArthur wanted to take them on right away. McCarthy and Hoover were avowed anti-communists and would stop at nothing to rid America of the Red Menace in our own backyard. Nixon built his whole political career on anti-communism.

I honestly think that the US and UK got scared, they pretty much had a race to get to Berlin first. And Russia at this point had a huge army in Europe and Germany and Italy etc. was defeated. And I think the US etc. got scared that Stalin would use the opportunity to spread communism, and maybe even continue the war, so a lot of things happened here. Also, remember that the US was still fighting Japan at this point at a very high cost.

So a lot of things were happening at the same time and they also had to think about the post-war and what should happen in Europe. The US I don't think was ever interested in a weak Germany as they despite WW2 would still be the main opposition to a communist Russia post-war, but they needed Europe back on track fast, which is probably also why they did the Marshall plan.

The McCarthy period was a pretty ugly chapter in our history, and the global activities of the US military and intelligence community were also rather questionable. There were numerous incidents of political violence in the 60s, along with the assassinations of major figures like JFK, RFK, MLK - all of whom were virulently hated by the anti-communist right wing who associated them with communists and/or communist sympathizers.

So, it can and does happen here, but perhaps in a different way where the perpetrators can better cover their tracks and make it seem like it's still "free and democratic" on the surface. And, because we are a wealthier and more opulent country, most people in the US are more comfortable and better fed than most areas of the world, and many seem committed to protecting and defending "our way of life." The less affluent areas of the world have a rougher time of it, for obvious reasons.

Again, the US was really into all this and the Cuba crisis etc. the weapon race with Russia, trying to shape the world so to speak. But again the US have a record of assassinating presidents, think about Trump it happened twice.

 

[icehorse]

I am a pacifist.
I support peace.

I want Ukraine to join the EU and to be at peace with Russian.

If I were pro-Russia, I would want Ukraine to be conquered by Russia.

It is a mistake for tolerant people to tolerate intolerant people. It's a bit of a paradox to be sure. But if we tolerate people like Putin we will not get peace.

 

[Nimos]

That is now history .. the US will find it a lot more difficult to play their "divide and rule" games
from now on.
I assume you are aware that the US supported ISIS .. until it didn't.
I assume you know Israel supported Hamas .. until it didn't.
I assume you know the US supported Sadam Hussein .. until it didn't.

The list is endless.

Yes, I know. But that was during different times. The US helped them against Russia when they tried to invade.

And as far as I know, the US kind of screwed over Saddam Hussein, which is why he invaded Kuwait.

Im not going to deny this, but it is too easy to simply blame it all on the West and US, other countries also have interests and interfere with countries.

Of course I can .. nobody told the West to interfere and invade foreign countries.
They decide that it is "in their interests" .. and spin false narratives in order to achieve their aims.

Yes, in some cases.

But no one told Russia to invade Ukraine or Afghanistan etc. either. So why is it somehow fine that they do and it is the US and West fault, but not his?

 

[Estro Felino]

It is a mistake for tolerant people to tolerate intolerant people. It's a bit of a paradox to be sure. But if we tolerate people like Putin we will not get peace.

Are you from the US, right?

Since the issue is in Europe....can you guys leave it to us?

We know how to deal with Russia. Ukraine will join the EU and peace will be made with Russia.

 

[soulsurvivor]

The EU is having trouble in keeping together existing member countries, and you
think that expansion of EU/NATO is a sensible direction for Europe?
I think not.

..and an increasing number of people in Georgia agree.
They can also see that the EU isn't as attractive as it once was.

Hungary and Serbia or Slovenia can leave if they wish. They are actually a drain on the EU and NATO.

Georgians cannot make their own decisions, Georgia is fully controlled by Putin and Ivanishvili

 

[icehorse]

Are you from the US, right?

Since the issue is in Europe....can you guys leave it to us?

We know how to deal with Russia. Ukraine will join the EU and peace will be made with Russia.

No, if you think you can appease Putin, you do NOT know how to deal with Russia. If you compromise with Putin, your worries will not be over. He will continue to grab land.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Im not going to deny this, but it is too easy to simply blame it all on the West and US..

Well of course the US is not to blame for all the ills in the world over the last century.
The problem today, is that its political institutions have been compromised. This has been
made possible due to uncontrolled Capitalism, with oligarchs sanctioning and bribing the
political elite.

I find it very sad that this has happened .. even more so, due to the brainwashing of the nation
to believe that the US stands up for democracy and justice .. which are worthy causes.

..But no one told Russia to invade Ukraine or Afghanistan etc. either. So why is it somehow fine that they do and it is the US and West fault, but not his?

These are separate issues..
The first:-

The Soviet–Afghan War was a protracted armed conflict fought in the Soviet Union-controlled Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) from 1979 to 1989. The war was a major conflict of the Cold War as it saw extensive fighting between the Soviet Union, the DRA and allied paramilitary groups against the Afghan mujahideen and their allied foreign fighters.
Soviet-Afghan_War - Wikipedia

..and the current war in Ukraine is with the Russian Federation .. post-Soviet, and involves the
Russian perceived threat of NATO expansion, that has been happening for decades.