The warmongers at the European Union

[muhammad_isa]

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

Well, you know, right now I think Georgia would be better off controlled by Russia ( but I doubt that it is ) .. it would be a much better prospect than being controlled by the US .. they seem to be
increasingly morally bankrupt. They have just elected a convicted felon, due to their Democrat
party caring more about propping up Israel than their own citizens!

 

[muhammad_isa]

He will continue to grab land.

Fine! I don't care if "he" does .. as long as US does not get hold of it.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Well, you know, right now I think Georgia would be better off controlled by Russia ( but I doubt that it is ) .. it would be a much better prospect than being controlled by the US .. they seem to be
increasingly morally bankrupt. They have just elected a convicted felon, due to their Democrat
party caring more about propping up Israel than their own citizens!

Yes the US has elected a convicted felon, but Putin is a gangster who has murdered thousands of people. Throwing his own subordinates/friends out of windows is his favorite pass time.

 

[Nimos]

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.

Agree, but there is nothing to do about it.

But alternatively, if you look at the other big countries like Russia or China, I mean it's not exactly like they are doing a whole lot better when it comes to their political systems

..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.

At least that is one of the excuses used.

How realistic do you honestly think it would be for Ukraine to join NATO had Russia not attacked? If anything good can be said that came out of this conflict, then it is that Sweden and Finland joined.

 

[Estro Felino]

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.

A warlike and aggressive NATO will ultimately lead to the crisis of the EU institutions.
It is already happening.
The EU has lost any institutional credibility. Orban went to Putin and to Zelensky, he has done much more than the EU.

We do know how to deal with Russia, trust me.

 

[Stevicus]

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 would say the majority come for a better life.

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.

It's easier to be "more moral" when one is living in the lap of luxury on a full stomach. Those who are less fortunate and have to struggle might have to cross the line and transgress just to survive. This is the world we live in.

Yes, the blacks and women fought for their rights, but they didn't actually get them until the economy was strong enough and the people were contented enough to be willing to support such proposals. That's why the post-war economic boom also saw broad, far-reaching changes in civil rights and immigration reform. When times are good and there's plenty to go around, governments can be more liberal and generous. When times are tougher and people have to tighten their belts - and there's a greater risk for crime and possible political instability - then governments have to tighten the screws a bit.

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

We would have to get rid of money?

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.

The U.S. chose to get involved in the region for a variety of reasons, though mostly relating to the Cold War and our desire to keep the Soviets contained and out of the Middle East. The region is strategically located along major trade routes, as well as a major source of oil. In addition, the U.S. support of the nation-state of Israel and various disputes and conflicts regarding what many regard as "Holy Land" have been another major complication.

In fairness, the U.S. did not cause most of the original problems faced in the Middle East, but our actions may have helped exacerbate certain issues. We helped factions which would later become our enemies, such as the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. We thought they were on our side against the "Evil Empire," but that came back to bite us in the backside, particularly on September 11, 2001. Iran is still mad at us for installing the Shah back in 1953. Considering our operations in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, I'm sure there are quite a few people over there with good reason to be angry with us.

One thing that came to light in the first Iraq War was that, due to diplomatic bungling on our part, Saddam Hussein was convinced that the U.S. would not be concerned or take any action against him if he invaded Kuwait, so he did just that. But we drove him out of there just the same. The 2003 war against Iraq was just finishing the job that was left off from the last war. It obviously had nothing to do with WMDs, but in the aftermath of 9/11 and the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Bush Administration wangled it in since the US was still in a state of war fever at the time. He was able to get the support he needed, even despite his cover story being obvious BS. It didn't really matter at that point, since the U.S. was still in a fighting mood.

They got away with it because so many people were obviously for it, despite any other consideration. Heck, quite a number of people supported invading Iraq because they thought they had something to do with 9/11, and nobody really went out of their way to disabuse them of that particular notion.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

Yes, there are serious deficiencies and disparities within the U.S. educational system. The wealthy, affluent districts have wonderful schools, along with a wide variety of expensive private schools. The less affluent districts are not so fortunate, and education is catch as catch can.

But even then, subjects like geography, history, political science aren't really considered all that important by a lot of people. Many people think it's boring and useless knowledge, and they just don't care. The U.S. is still somewhat insular in a lot of ways where many people think "Why should we care about things happening so far away?"

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.

It's certainly on a lot of people, but in the U.S., I could tell that there was a great deal of goading and manipulation taking place. They set up their presentation in such a way that anyone who disagrees with them would be instantly branded the worst person in the world.

You can see the same manipulative tack being used in these discussions here, where people use terms like "Putin apologists" and "Russophilia," as if they believe it will have some kind of effect on how people believe and perceive these events and the positions being taken. But I can see way beyond such cheap rhetorical tricks.

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.

I think the monied interests obviously feared socialism in the sense that it would lead to wealth redistribution and cut into their profit margins by treating their workers fairly and decently. That may be why they were willing to work with non-communist labor leaders and unions who were very much anti-communist.

The common people in the U.S. at the time were still mostly religious, and they feared communism because it was atheistic and godless. They also associated feminism and the Civil Rights movement with communism, although the anti-communists started to appear more and more over-the-top crazy that the anti-anti-communists started to gain traction. That is, people who were not communist themselves, but found America's obsession with communism to be going way too far (such as in our war against Vietnam). If you look at films and TV from those years, you'll see anti-communist militarists made into the butt of jokes; they were a laughingstock.

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.

As far as what was known about Stalin before WW2, I think a lot of the early U.S. impressions of Stalin came out of the sensationalistic Hearst press. All that really mattered in the eyes of the U.S. was that Stalin was a communist, and the U.S. was against communism and the Bolsheviks from the very start. That's all they needed to know about Stalin. I don't think they would have viewed Stalin as much of a threat in the 1930s, as the USSR didn't have the wherewithal to be a global threat at that point, and Stalin seemed content to confine his activities to mostly within his own country, de-emphasizing the concept of global revolution (since that didn't seem to be happening anyway).

I think Hitler was viewed as the more immediate threat because he already stated many times that he was intent on reversing the "shame of Versailles." Hitler was breaking treaties and promises he made. Stalin was cold, calculating, and paranoid, while Hitler was an impulsive, flaky, hotheaded megalomaniac.

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.

They might have gotten scared, although I think they agreed beforehand that the Soviets would take Berlin militarily and then divide it up later. Patton wanted to go all the way to Berlin and beat the Soviets, but he was told not to. It's also interesting that many Germans, including many Nazis were also in a race to get to the Western Allied lines as quickly as possible, lest they get captured by the Soviets. The Germans who fell into Soviet hands could expect much harsher treatment than they would if they were captured by the Americans.

I sometimes wonder how it might have turned out if FDR had remained healthy and survived his fourth term. A lot of people have mixed views about him, but one thing that appears evident is that he was a master geopolitician.

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.

Yes, and having lived here all my life, I have grown rather skeptical whenever government officials, along with their cheerleaders and pundits, seem hellbent on falling all over themselves to get out the word and point out to everyone they see who this "really bad, evil, horrible enemy" is. I just look at the whole situation, roll my eyes, and say "Here we go again."

 

[Nimos]

It's easier to be "more moral" when one is living in the lap of luxury on a full stomach. Those who are less fortunate and have to struggle might have to cross the line and transgress just to survive. This is the world we live in.

Yes, the blacks and women fought for their rights, but they didn't actually get them until the economy was strong enough and the people were contented enough to be willing to support such proposals. That's why the post-war economic boom also saw broad, far-reaching changes in civil rights and immigration reform. When times are good and there's plenty to go around, governments can be more liberal and generous. When times are tougher and people have to tighten their belts - and there's a greater risk for crime and possible political instability - then governments have to tighten the screws a bit.

It is, but in a lot of these countries, people are not starving, so I don't think one can really use that as an excuse at least for the majority.

Sure having a strong economy is a benefit, but you still need a general change in the population. Blacks and women wouldn't have gotten the rights had the majority of the population not supported it and had they not been allowed to protest and tell about why things had to change etc.

In some countries, this is simply not allowed or you will be punished very severely.

We would have to get rid of money?

Yeah, essentially we probably would have to reach a point where money doesn't exist or at least work in the way it does now. As long as everything has value people will fight and exploit each other. No one is going to fight over a plastic bag on the street because it has no value, nothing is really gained from owning it.

This is obviously a very simplified version, but it is probably something we will eventually reach, when there are enough AI and Robots and no one has money to buy anything, then we are going to need to approach things in different ways.

In fairness, the U.S. did not cause most of the original problems faced in the Middle East, but our actions may have helped exacerbate certain issues. We helped factions which would later become our enemies, such as the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. We thought they were on our side against the "Evil Empire," but that came back to bite us in the backside, particularly on September 11, 2001. Iran is still mad at us for installing the Shah back in 1953. Considering our operations in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, I'm sure there are quite a few people over there with good reason to be angry with us.

Sure there is.

And the US have probably interfered too much in other countries, but on the other side, if you handed maybe Russia or some other countries would and things might not be a lot better on a global scale. But again, as you say, it is not purely the US fault a lot of it also comes down to each individual country. Had the US not done anything, maybe the Middle East would have been in an endless war.

One thing that came to light in the first Iraq War was that, due to diplomatic bungling on our part, Saddam Hussein was convinced that the U.S. would not be concerned or take any action against him if he invaded Kuwait, so he did just that. But we drove him out of there just the same.

At least the story I have heard (I don't know if it is true or not), but the US kind of screwed over Saddam Hussein after the Iraq/Iran war and didn't want to pay what was agreed and as compensation he took Kuwait, simplified. I do think that he expected the US to reach, but he probably hoped that they could come to some agreement and he probably underestimated the US reaction. Obviously, that doesn't justify his action and again they might have been motivated by something else, I'm not trying to defend his action or him as a person, again he wasn't exactly a pleasant person.

They got away with it because so many people were obviously for it, despite any other consideration. Heck, quite a number of people supported invading Iraq because they thought they had something to do with 9/11, and nobody really went out of their way to disabuse them of that particular notion.

Agree, they straight-up lied and got away with it.

Yes, there are serious deficiencies and disparities within the U.S. educational system. The wealthy, affluent districts have wonderful schools, along with a wide variety of expensive private schools. The less affluent districts are not so fortunate, and education is catch as catch can.

But even then, subjects like geography, history, political science aren't really considered all that important by a lot of people. Many people think it's boring and useless knowledge, and they just don't care. The U.S. is still somewhat insular in a lot of ways where many people think "Why should we care about things happening so far away?"

It's unfortunately, because it is kind of important in the current world in which we live. The world is smaller than ever

I think the monied interests obviously feared socialism in the sense that it would lead to wealth redistribution and cut into their profit margins by treating their workers fairly and decently. That may be why they were willing to work with non-communist labor leaders and unions who were very much anti-communist.

The common people in the U.S. at the time were still mostly religious, and they feared communism because it was atheistic and godless. They also associated feminism and the Civil Rights movement with communism, although the anti-communists started to appear more and more over-the-top crazy that the anti-anti-communists started to gain traction. That is, people who were not communist themselves, but found America's obsession with communism to be going way too far (such as in our war against Vietnam). If you look at films and TV from those years, you'll see anti-communist militarists made into the butt of jokes; they were a laughingstock.

Agree, there is no hiding this, it is just something that is built into people in the US. The powerful organisations and institutes have done an excellent job of taking control of the country.

And I think this election demonstrates it well, one could almost think that maybe the institutes etc. just cut away the middle man And took control themselves, they needed to support a "politician" they just got their own business people in control instead. Elon Musk's sudden interest in politics seems strange to me, and he has never even remotely reminded me of a person who has anyone's interest but his own in mind. And Trump/Elon etc. have been very open about greatly reducing the federal institutes, which my guess is because it will eventually make it a lot easier for them to do whatever the hell they feel like.

As far as what was known about Stalin before WW2, I think a lot of the early U.S. impressions of Stalin came out of the sensationalistic Hearst press. All that really mattered in the eyes of the U.S. was that Stalin was a communist, and the U.S. was against communism and the Bolsheviks from the very start. That's all they needed to know about Stalin. I don't think they would have viewed Stalin as much of a threat in the 1930s, as the USSR didn't have the wherewithal to be a global threat at that point, and Stalin seemed content to confine his activities to mostly within his own country, de-emphasizing the concept of global revolution (since that didn't seem to be happening anyway).

I think Hitler was viewed as the more immediate threat because he already stated many times that he was intent on reversing the "shame of Versailles." Hitler was breaking treaties and promises he made. Stalin was cold, calculating, and paranoid, while Hitler was an impulsive, flaky, hotheaded megalomaniac.

Yeah, it was a crazy time back then as well.

I don't know how much Stalin tried to spread communism before post-WW2 it was obviously getting the attention of people, but whether there was the same amount of eagerness to promote it, I don't know.

Hitler was very much against it, but I think he was against a lot of things, the guy wasn't exactly normal, as you said his ambitions were through the roof would things go the way he wanted them to.

They might have gotten scared, although I think they agreed beforehand that the Soviets would take Berlin militarily and then divide it up later. Patton wanted to go all the way to Berlin and beat the Soviets, but he was told not to. It's also interesting that many Germans, including many Nazis were also in a race to get to the Western Allied lines as quickly as possible, lest they get captured by the Soviets. The Germans who fell into Soviet hands could expect much harsher treatment than they would if they were captured by the Americans.

I sometimes wonder how it might have turned out if FDR had remained healthy and survived his fourth term. A lot of people have mixed views about him, but one thing that appears evident is that he was a master geopolitician.

Yeah, there definitely was a fight for Berlin, but also I think the German propaganda had done a lot of painting the Russians as monsters, they really didn't like them, so the German people also had a huge fear of them and rightfully so, the Russian didn't hold back, the Nazis had done horrible things to them, so understandable that they were pretty pissed off.

Maybe things would have turned out differently with FDR, who knows.

Yes, and having lived here all my life, I have grown rather skeptical whenever government officials, along with their cheerleaders and pundits, seem hellbent on falling all over themselves to get out the word and point out to everyone they see who this "really bad, evil, horrible enemy" is. I just look at the whole situation, roll my eyes, and say "Here we go again."

Agree, politics seems to be a lot of this, and way too little about finding the best solutions. It is about winning the power. In theory, you wouldn't really need to have any political parties, their sole job should be to find the best solutions for the people and the country.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Agree, but there is nothing to do about it.

That is a defeatest attitude, which suggests that you prefer such corruption over any alternative
as you are not one of the losers of such a system.

But alternatively, if you look at the other big countries like Russia or China, I mean it's not exactly like they are doing a whole lot better when it comes to their political systems..

That's the thing .. I do not "worship" Russia or China, just because I am pointing out
the abhorrence of uncontrolled Capitalism.
The answer is a middle way .. it is not a question of either/or.

At least that is one of the excuses used.

How realistic do you honestly think it would be for Ukraine to join NATO had Russia not attacked?

How realistic would it have been for ANY of the Warsaw pact countries to have joined a few decades ago?

 

[Nimos]

That is a defeatest attitude, which suggests that you prefer such corruption over any alternative
as you are not one of the losers of such a system.

I mean Im a Danish citizen I have no influence on how the US votes or what they do.

That's the thing .. I do not "worship" Russia or China, just because I am pointing out
the abhorrence of uncontrolled Capitalism.
The answer is a middle way .. it is not a question of either/or.

I am not sure I agree with that.

I don't think either Russia or China have a lot to offer when it comes to their political systems.

We need something to challenge how things are done now, an alternative. A new type of socialism, not be confused with the old ideas. But a system that is ready for the future to come.

How realistic would it have been for ANY of the Warsaw pact countries to have joined a few decades ago?

Times were different back then.

But again, you also have to look at it from each country's point of view, if they feel more secure being in NATO, how can you blame them? There might have been lots of pressure from Russia on them, both political, financial etc. trying to get them under their sphere of influence as we see in Belarus.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Times were different back then.

"Times" continually evolve..

But again, you also have to look at it from each country's point of view, if they feel more secure being in NATO, how can you blame them?

Well, a govt. who's intentions is to defy Russia, on the border of Russia, would clearly like
to bring NATO on to their side.

As I've said previously, I don't see it purely in the terms of 'the west' --> good, 'Russia'--> bad.
Economics and perceived benefit comes into play.
I doubt whether so many Eastern Europeans see it as so beneficial to become part of the EU as
they did a decade ago.

There might have been lots of pressure from Russia on them, both political, financial etc. trying to get them under their sphere of influence as we see in Belarus.

Pot, kettle, black.
Corruption exists both in Russia and the west. It's easy to claim that the West are democracies,
where the rule of law is being followed. I see that this is far from true, these days.

The political elites have laws unto themselves .. they care more about wealth than morality.

 

[Stevicus]

It is, but in a lot of these countries, people are not starving, so I don't think one can really use that as an excuse at least for the majority.

There are hungry people everywhere, even in the United States. Just as the poorer neighborhoods are more susceptible to crime and gangsterism, the same could be argued regarding poorer countries and regions.

Sure having a strong economy is a benefit, but you still need a general change in the population. Blacks and women wouldn't have gotten the rights had the majority of the population not supported it and had they not been allowed to protest and tell about why things had to change etc.

In some countries, this is simply not allowed or you will be punished very severely.

As the economy gets stronger, people become more affluent and contented, which happened after WW2. Income growth grew by leaps and bounds, and working people were moving out of slummy tenements and grimy cities into nice new homes out in the suburbs.

That's when society started to really change in terms of civil rights. Prior to that, the country was not really entirely "free," but only "partly free." But at least we were a little more free than Germany or Russia at the time. Lesser of two evils.

I guess one might ask, if Germany had been more affluent and their people contented, would the Nazis have ever come to power at all? Likewise, in Russia, if the Tsarist government had been more benevolent and addressed the needs of the people, would they have been overthrown? If the West had been more gracious and amicable towards Russia in 1917, would the Bolsheviks have come to power at all? Would Putin have ever come to power if the West behaved decently and honorably? People generally don't support the scourges of the state unless they feel fearful, threatened, or otherwise unjustly treated.

Yeah, essentially we probably would have to reach a point where money doesn't exist or at least work in the way it does now. As long as everything has value people will fight and exploit each other. No one is going to fight over a plastic bag on the street because it has no value, nothing is really gained from owning it.

This is obviously a very simplified version, but it is probably something we will eventually reach, when there are enough AI and Robots and no one has money to buy anything, then we are going to need to approach things in different ways.

It should be interesting to see what the world will look like in 100-200 years.

Sure there is.

And the US have probably interfered too much in other countries, but on the other side, if you handed maybe Russia or some other countries would and things might not be a lot better on a global scale. But again, as you say, it is not purely the US fault a lot of it also comes down to each individual country. Had the US not done anything, maybe the Middle East would have been in an endless war.

There have been constant wars in the region for as long as I can remember. So, it already is an endless war. A lot of it seems to be the result of interventionism and war-by-proxy. The US and Russia have used some of these countries as pawns in a larger fight. During the Cold War, I recognized that the wars and interventions we were engaging in largely involved smaller countries but were justified on the basis of containing so-called "Soviet expansionism."

My view was that the U.S. and Russia should have agreed to not fight over small countries and to leave them alone, although the common answer to that argument (just as it is today) was a blanket assumption that "they will not do that." That was always the stock answer, just as it is now.

Many believe that we can't have peace because "the other" is just too treacherous, dishonorable, incorrigible, irredeemable, etc. (while implying that "we" are a bunch of saints and do-gooders). Essentially, we go gallivanting around the world and pointing our fingers at other countries and calling them "baskets of deplorables," and then we wonder why some countries are getting a bit salty lately.

We can't really have it both ways, yet too many people want to eat their cake and have it too, and that's why we're currently in the dilemma we're in.

 

[Stevicus]

At least the story I have heard (I don't know if it is true or not), but the US kind of screwed over Saddam Hussein after the Iraq/Iran war and didn't want to pay what was agreed and as compensation he took Kuwait, simplified. I do think that he expected the US to reach, but he probably hoped that they could come to some agreement and he probably underestimated the US reaction. Obviously, that doesn't justify his action and again they might have been motivated by something else, I'm not trying to defend his action or him as a person, again he wasn't exactly a pleasant person.

It's hard to say. I think it stands to reason that the US government would have psychological profiles on all the leaders of the world and would know just the right buttons to push to provoke a desired reaction. Or maybe Saddam Hussein really did have a screw loose somewhere.

Agree, they straight-up lied and got away with it.

Yeah, although by that time, Saddam Hussein was, more or less, a wounded animal. I don't think he had any friends in the world left, and even if the US government lied about WMDs, Hussein still had very few sympathizers or people who actually cared what happened to him. I doubt there would have been little change in support if the US government told the truth and said, "We just don't like Saddam Hussein and we want to put him out of his misery."

Trouble was, because of the world system of international treaties, the UN Charter, and the general court of world opinion, we can't just invade a country just because we don't like them. We have to have some sort of legitimate pretext or casus belli. Even Putin needed that to invade Ukraine, but our government (in its infinite wisdom) chose to deem their pretext as "not legitimate," which is why we're in the situation we're in now.

It's unfortunately, because it is kind of important in the current world in which we live. The world is smaller than ever

Yes, although one can also discern that much of the public has been somewhat wary and cynical of what our official government agencies often proclaim about the state of affairs in the world. Some are not convinced that our government's extracurricular activities overseas have anything to do with legitimate American interests. After 80 years of crying wolf, our government cries wolf yet again - yet wonders why fewer people actually believe them.

Agree, there is no hiding this, it is just something that is built into people in the US. The powerful organisations and institutes have done an excellent job of taking control of the country.

And I think this election demonstrates it well, one could almost think that maybe the institutes etc. just cut away the middle man And took control themselves, they needed to support a "politician" they just got their own business people in control instead. Elon Musk's sudden interest in politics seems strange to me, and he has never even remotely reminded me of a person who has anyone's interest but his own in mind. And Trump/Elon etc. have been very open about greatly reducing the federal institutes, which my guess is because it will eventually make it a lot easier for them to do whatever the hell they feel like.

What I've noticed, for as long as I've been alive - and I think it probably goes back to WW2 - is that people in America have been geared and conditioned towards a national security mindset - at least to some degree or another. Some were more extreme than others. Patton, MacArthur, McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, Goldwater were examples of a more extreme approach to the issue, while there were others who still wanted to protect America but in a more moderate fashion.

Nevertheless, the US public was treated to ample doses of rhetoric about our obligations as "leader of the free world," with a heavy-handed narrative about protecting our way of life from...whatever enemies happen to be out there. In this way, the US government was able to convince the public to support massive increases in defense spending, as well as accept the existence of organizations like the CIA and NSA, along with an overall culture of secrecy and a lack of transparency in government. We had fallout shelters in every school, along with daily doses of news and information about all the horrors and misery of the outside world.

While there was a brief resistance to this kind of thinking in the late 1960s/early 70s, those high-minded ideals pretty much evaporated by the Reagan era, which saw a return to the national security mindset which continued after the Cold War - and became even more intensified as a result of 9/11. Along the same lines, the public has been heavily conditioned towards a "war on drugs" mentality which has justified restrictions on civil liberties, qualified immunity for cops, and an overall militarization of US police forces across the country.

People simply accept these things because they believe it is for the greater good. So, when people have been heavily conditioned and brainwashed into believing that they live in a hostile, dangerous world, full of tyrants and enemies, both within and without, then they become susceptible to the kinds of ideas propagated by the likes of Trump and Musk.

We did this to ourselves, because we live in a country full of scared, ignorant people who have been manipulated into believing that most of the rest of the world is full of dangerous enemies who want to take all of our precious bodily fluids. People who have been lamenting and worried that the US might turn fascist have failed to notice that we were more than halfway there already.

I think it may have been tolerated at the higher levels of power because most the ultra-patriotic, "land of the free," "our way of life" rhetoric was treated as just so much bunkum for the masses. I don't think that the ruling class really believed in the pablum they were feeding the public, but perhaps felt they could keep it under control. With guys like Trump and Musk and their followers, they are considered dangerous because they are "true believers." They believe in the "pablum" that generations of Americans have been fed for a very long time now.

Yeah, it was a crazy time back then as well.

I don't know how much Stalin tried to spread communism before post-WW2 it was obviously getting the attention of people, but whether there was the same amount of eagerness to promote it, I don't know.

Hitler was very much against it, but I think he was against a lot of things, the guy wasn't exactly normal, as you said his ambitions were through the roof would things go the way he wanted them to.

Communism was an idea that pretty much spread on its own. I think Stalin's most immediate concern after WW2 was rebuilding his country and taking necessary defensive measures to prevent any future invasions of the USSR. I think it was pretty clear at that point that the dream of a "global worker's revolution" was simply not going to happen, although that didn't prevent the Soviets from passing up opportunities as they were presented to them. In China, for example, communism had already spread, and Mao's armies were turning the tide on the road to victory in their revolution against Chiang Kai-Shek's Kuomintang. Stalin would have an interest in helping Mao, and the Soviets already had troops in Manchuria and North Korea as part of their agreement with the Allies.

The post-war world saw plenty of countries and peoples around the world who were more than fed up being colonial subjects or otherwise under Western hegemony, so this also gave the Soviets an opportunity to help to liberate the oppressed peoples of the world, at least as they would have seen it. Maybe the Soviets wanted to "spread communism," but would any of these countries have been better off under communism? As opposed to Westernized global capitalism where most of these countries remain heavily indebted and dependent on the West, while their people are still exploited and used as cheap labor, in mines, plantations, and sweatshops throughout the world?

Yeah, there definitely was a fight for Berlin, but also I think the German propaganda had done a lot of painting the Russians as monsters, they really didn't like them, so the German people also had a huge fear of them and rightfully so, the Russian didn't hold back, the Nazis had done horrible things to them, so understandable that they were pretty pissed off.

Maybe things would have turned out differently with FDR, who knows.

That may be the reason the Germans were so entrenched and fought to the very end, even long after it should have been obvious that the war was lost and no chance of victory. If Hitler was going to kill himself, he should have done so right after the Battle of the Bulge. That would have saved them five more months of pointless fighting, death, and destruction. I've seen movies about Hitler's last days in the bunker, and while there's a certain macabre fascination about the whole thing, I can't help but shake my head at the utter pointlessness of it all. Hitler sits and stews in his bunker, with bombs, shells and bullets exploding overhead, and thousands of his people fighting and dying in the streets of Berlin in a vain effort just so he can hang out for a few more days. Sheer insanity.

I think FDR had already started to get sick before the Yalta Conference, and his untimely death on the eve of victory put Truman in the White House. He said it felt like a bale of hay had fallen on him, which seemingly characterizes the kind of job he did as President. I have somewhat mixed views on Truman, but I think if FDR had lived, things might have been different. Looking at it from Stalin's viewpoint, he had been dealing with Churchill and FDR throughout the war, and then at Potsdam, it was Attlee and Truman. Stalin must have thought "Who are these guys?" Maybe he thought they were wimps.

Agree, politics seems to be a lot of this, and way too little about finding the best solutions. It is about winning the power. In theory, you wouldn't really need to have any political parties, their sole job should be to find the best solutions for the people and the country.

Ideally, that's what it should be. But too many ambitious, greedy, power-hungry individuals out there want to use politics for their own personal gain or glorification. In the U.S., it seems generally understood that politicians and others at that level in society are in it for the money and prestige, but within our political culture, the expectation is that they reflect a certain decorum of relative modesty and a willingness to "play ball." When someone seems to be too delusional or thinks they deserve to be praised or worshiped like some kind of king, then it gets kind of dicey. It goes against the grain of the political culture which has been established, which has been corrupt, but not crazy. It gets to the crazy stage after corruption has run its course.

 

[Nimos]

Well, a govt. who's intentions is to defy Russia, on the border of Russia, would clearly like
to bring NATO on to their side.

As I've said previously, I don't see it purely in the terms of 'the west' --> good, 'Russia'--> bad.
Economics and perceived benefit comes into play.
I doubt whether so many Eastern Europeans see it as so beneficial to become part of the EU as
they did a decade ago.

Maybe, maybe not.

I don't know how easy it is for a small economy to be on its own in today's world, as it does allow the big economies to set the rules. I don't know if the UK is happy about leaving?

Pot, kettle, black.
Corruption exists both in Russia and the west. It's easy to claim that the West are democracies,
where the rule of law is being followed. I see that this is far from true, these days.

The political elites have laws unto themselves .. they care more about wealth than morality.

Agree, that corruption can be found everywhere, but it comes at different scales.

At least in the West in general I think you can trust the voting system. It was only really with Trump that some US citizens really started to follow this "It is rigged" etc. And for some reason, Trump got away with it, even in this election despite winning, he also claimed that there was things going on.

Compare it to Russia where any opposition seems to fall out windows.

 

[Nimos]

There are hungry people everywhere, even in the United States. Just as the poorer neighborhoods are more susceptible to crime and gangsterism, the same could be argued regarding poorer countries and regions.

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.

I guess one might ask, if Germany had been more affluent and their people contented, would the Nazis have ever come to power at all? Likewise, in Russia, if the Tsarist government had been more benevolent and addressed the needs of the people, would they have been overthrown? If the West had been more gracious and amicable towards Russia in 1917, would the Bolsheviks have come to power at all? Would Putin have ever come to power if the West behaved decently and honorably? People generally don't support the scourges of the state unless they feel fearful, threatened, or otherwise unjustly treated.

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.

My view was that the U.S. and Russia should have agreed to not fight over small countries and to leave them alone, although the common answer to that argument (just as it is today) was a blanket assumption that "they will not do that." That was always the stock answer, just as it is now.

Many believe that we can't have peace because "the other" is just too treacherous, dishonorable, incorrigible, irredeemable, etc. (while implying that "we" are a bunch of saints and do-gooders). Essentially, we go gallivanting around the world and pointing our fingers at other countries and calling them "baskets of deplorables," and then we wonder why some countries are getting a bit salty lately.

We can't really have it both ways, yet too many people want to eat their cake and have it too, and that's why we're currently in the dilemma we're in.

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.

It's hard to say. I think it stands to reason that the US government would have psychological profiles on all the leaders of the world and would know just the right buttons to push to provoke a desired reaction. Or maybe Saddam Hussein really did have a screw loose somewhere.

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.

Yeah, although by that time, Saddam Hussein was, more or less, a wounded animal. I don't think he had any friends in the world left, and even if the US government lied about WMDs, Hussein still had very few sympathizers or people who actually cared what happened to him. I doubt there would have been little change in support if the US government told the truth and said, "We just don't like Saddam Hussein and we want to put him out of his misery."

Trouble was, because of the world system of international treaties, the UN Charter, and the general court of world opinion, we can't just invade a country just because we don't like them. We have to have some sort of legitimate pretext or casus belli. Even Putin needed that to invade Ukraine, but our government (in its infinite wisdom) chose to deem their pretext as "not legitimate," which is why we're in the situation we're in now.

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?

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.

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.

Nevertheless, the US public was treated to ample doses of rhetoric about our obligations as "leader of the free world," with a heavy-handed narrative about protecting our way of life from...whatever enemies happen to be out there. In this way,

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.

People simply accept these things because they believe it is for the greater good. So, when people have been heavily conditioned and brainwashed into believing that they live in a hostile, dangerous world, full of tyrants and enemies, both within and without, then they become susceptible to the kinds of ideas propagated by the likes of Trump and Musk.

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.

That may be the reason the Germans were so entrenched and fought to the very end, even long after it should have been obvious that the war was lost and no chance of victory. If Hitler was going to kill himself, he should have done so right after the Battle of the Bulge. That would have saved them five more months of pointless fighting, death, and destruction. I've seen movies about Hitler's last days in the bunker, and while there's a certain macabre fascination about the whole thing, I can't help but shake my head at the utter pointlessness of it all. Hitler sits and stews in his bunker, with bombs, shells and bullets exploding overhead, and thousands of his people fighting and dying in the streets of Berlin in a vain effort just so he can hang out for a few more days. Sheer insanity.

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.

I think FDR had already started to get sick before the Yalta Conference, and his untimely death on the eve of victory put Truman in the White House. He said it felt like a bale of hay had fallen on him, which seemingly characterizes the kind of job he did as President. I have somewhat mixed views on Truman, but I think if FDR had lived, things might have been different. Looking at it from Stalin's viewpoint, he had been dealing with Churchill and FDR throughout the war, and then at Potsdam, it was Attlee and Truman. Stalin must have thought "Who are these guys?" Maybe he thought they were wimps.

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.

Ideally, that's what it should be. But too many ambitious, greedy, power-hungry individuals out there want to use politics for their own personal gain or glorification. In the U.S., it seems generally understood that politicians and others at that level in society are in it for the money and prestige, but within our political culture, the expectation is that they reflect a certain decorum of relative modesty and a willingness to "play ball." When someone seems to be too delusional or thinks they deserve to be praised or worshiped like some kind of king, then it gets kind of dicey. It goes against the grain of the political culture which has been established, which has been corrupt, but not crazy. It gets to the crazy stage after corruption has run its course.

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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He is "cornered" by US and its allies

"cornered", how exactly?

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

No country gets "invited" to NATO. Countries need to apply themselves if they wish to join and if accepted, they need to comply with a whole bunch of criteria which usually takes years of reforms.

What do you think the purpose of NATO is?

A defensive alliance to deter countries from attacking one of the members since it would be considered an attack on all members.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

All it takes is listening to what Kremlin people say and claim.

The more the West appears as a threat to Russia, the more likely it is that the West will
go into decline.

The west is not a threat to Russia. Russia is a threat to the west.

What has to happen? Stop! A reset of thought before it gets worse.

What does that entail?

..and NOT "poke the bear"

Nobody is poking any bear. Instead, the bear is trying to leave it's den and rage havoc in territories that aren't his. This bear should expect pushback when doing such.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We know how to deal with Russia.

Indeed we do. And one of the things we know about Russia is that showing weakness and cowardice to it, is a VERY bad idea.

Russia is like a highschool bully. If you allow it to take your lunch money "to keep the peace", it will only be back the next day to do it again. And again, and again, and again,....

The only thing such a bully understands, is a swift punch in the nose.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Yep.

All this accomplishes, is Putin thinking "ow, so they are weak cowards... cool. All I have to do is bully them around and I'll get what I want without any consequences..."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Orban went to Putin and to Zelensky, he has done much more than the EU.

By doing so, Orban accomplished exactly nothing except make Putin think he will get away with his war of aggression.

We do know how to deal with Russia, trust me.

Clearly, you don't.