Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
You'll have to point out the part there that's "looking for a war". It's invisible to those of us not desperate to find it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is the NATO?
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
About Europe & China though...
Now China is playing wargames in Europe
Chinese soldiers are now stationed a few miles from the border of Nato-member Poland.
metro.co.uk
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Considering this is ridiculous, it's probably best not to put it out there.
"NATO's easterly expansion". You mean because Russia doesn't like nearby countries getting involved with an organization that works directly against its goal of expanding aggressively. Ukraine expressed its desire to join NATO. NATO didn't even agree to allow them to join. But Russia attacked anyway. It's not "easterly expansion".
It becomes rather apparent that Russian propaganda is the problem, as is your spreading of it.
lukethethird
unknown member
Is that why you are in Ukraine fighting the Russians?
lukethethird
unknown member
No doubt.
Well, yes, the first Red Scare and the Palmer Raids would confirm that from the outset. Long before the USSR could have been seriously considered any kind of threat to the West.
Do you believe that the following aren't a reasonable
basis for the west to align in defense against Russian
conquest?
- Russian purges & pogroms that killed tens of millions
in the USSR.
- Russia's oppression of all in the USSR.
- Russia's designs on expanding its empire, eg, invading Finland.
Ref...
Soviet and Russian Invasions Since 1917
A comprehensive list of Soviet and Russian invasions since 1917 to modern time. A brief description and history of each country has been accounted for.www.numbers-stations.com
I would question the number of "tens of millions" in your claim here. They were bad and committed atrocities, but the numbers of those killed might be in doubt (the sources for those numbers are unreliable).
In any case, internal oppression is not an automatic reason or a reasonable basis for the West to align against it, consider the number of countries with oppressive governments which we have supported. Obviously, oppression within a country is not a sufficient or reasonable basis for the West to take a hostile stance. (Perhaps you're arguing that they should do that, but if so, they should be consistent in that regard.)
As for your last point, Russia's designs on expanding, you may have a point there, but only if there is a bona fide threat to the West. Russian border disputes in Eastern Europe do not break that barrier.
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Hmmm... Yah, I'm not sure yet. It depends. I think right now the greater concern more so than what NATO might do is what Russia is going to do. Russia has poured so many resources into this thing that it looks like this is going to be a losing endeavor in the long run whether or not they win or lose. If they lose, the massive cost for this war in lives and resources along with the way it would impact their nation as a whole would be felt for decades, and if they win then they will need to pump infrastructure money and resources into the Ukraine to build it back up in the wake of a war that has left the Ukraine devastated. It's becoming a lose/lose situation seems to me, and the more it drags on the more drastic the losing situations gets. Russia seems beyond the point of cutting their losses
Balthazzar
Christian Evolutionist
A narrow focal point leaves a scenario that would appear futile to have ever endeavored.
Balthazzar
Christian Evolutionist
This seems like kind of a big deal to me. What do you think?
Ukraine and Nato
"We know Putin won't stop at Ukraine. But make no mistake — Ukraine can and will stop Putin," the president said of Russian President Vladimir Putin. "Especially with our full, collective support. They have our full support."
Ukraine and Nato
"We know Putin won't stop at Ukraine. But make no mistake — Ukraine can and will stop Putin," the president said of Russian President Vladimir Putin. "Especially with our full, collective support. They have our full support."
FDR was probably one of the shrewder Presidents we've had in the United States. When you think of it, the whole world is fighting each other, while the U.S. remains relatively safe from attack or invasion. When it was over, most of the major powers were bankrupt, in tatters, with shattered economies, while the US was still intact, with all our factories, food supplies, and vast cornucopia of resources. I don't know if there was any kind of "master plan" to make it all happen, but the U.S. was pretty much on top of the world when it was all over. So, maybe it was just a tremendous stroke of luck.
It's too bad that FDR died prematurely as he did. He smoked too much. He might have been able to provide the leadership necessary to prevent or at least ameliorate the effects of the Cold War.
As for the elites, I don't know. In WW2, it seems the true power, the actual game winner was oil. Oil was what drove the machine. Without oil, the war was lost, which is what happened with both Germany and Japan. They were both starved for oil, while the U.S. was swimming in it. If the elites wanted to pay off Hitler to attack Russia, they might have had better results by bribing him with oil rather than cash.
Interesting document. It's rather extensive and detailed:
Loading…
www.nato.int
It's hard to predict how things will play out in this current conflict. One thing pointed out in the NATO declaration was the growing cooperation between Russia and China, which could be formidable, along with other nations in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and/or Latin America who might join up with them. Whatever "enemy" NATO is gearing up to fight, it's not just Russia.
It's not even about communism anymore, not really. Nobody is calling for the workers of the world to unite anymore. Nationalism is afoot, and nationalism is a sword that cuts both ways.
It really is a shame that it's come to this. At a time when the world should be cooperating to solve many of our shared problems, such as climate change, global poverty, hunger, destitution, underdevelopment - so much of our time, attention, and resources are devoted towards war.
Too bad the workers of the world never did unite. Things might be different today.
Wu Wei
ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
yup, I think they might be in South America too.... but deploy NATO near China.... that would not end well. Besides NATO happily lets the US and the JDF handle things there........ China is trying to be a global power with global influence. I coild go into there belt and roads thing a bit, and what it is really all about, but that would go way off topicAbout Europe & China though...
Now China is playing wargames in Europe
Chinese soldiers are now stationed a few miles from the border of Nato-member Poland.
lukethethird
unknown member
NATO is escalating this war as we speak. People are putting a lot of faith in Putin, faith that Putin won't drop a nuke, and if he does, it's curtains for all of us.
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
What is the NATO?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A thing that, soon after WW2, popped up in response to a perceived threat of Soviet expansion. Even though the Soviet Union dissolved in 1992 NATO lingered around. I suppose just in case someone back in Moscow changed their mind. I think someone might have changed their mind.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A thing that, soon after WW2, popped up in response to a perceived threat of Soviet expansion. Even though the Soviet Union dissolved in 1992 NATO lingered around. I suppose just in case someone back in Moscow changed their mind. I think someone might have changed their mind.
Balthazzar
Christian Evolutionist
History repeating itself isn't just a cliche I'm afraid. That's the real concern and very likely the larger aim, and you're correct in suggesting it isn't just Russia, nor has it ever been just about Russia. They have been an integral force in terms of dominating for as long as I've been alive, as has Iran and Israel. I'm thinking the larger picture is about which side gets to call the money shots in the future, so ... This will very likely drag on for several years, calm down for a while then come back up one day to repeat itself in our human geopolitical affairs. I think this is due to lacking satisfaction in quality of life, so until we find that "satisfaction" on a global level, we'll get a lot of what we've always had in the world. Is anyone ever truly satisfied, though? I think the difference may be in our freedoms or lack thereof.
So, what war has this "warmongering organization" started? I mean, a fishmonger who doesn't sell any fish is going to go out of business in a day or two.I am asking all the people who live in a NATO country:
what exactly is the NATO?
When I was very little, at school, I thought the NATO was a great organization meant to spread peace and to solve the international controversies through diplomacy and political support.
I thought the NATO was synonym with values, with principles of decency, honesty, equality, freedom, solidarity and cooperation.
But when I became an adult, I started feeling nausea, every time I used to think of NATO. Nausea and fear.
Now I feel like vomiting.
Because the NATO has turned out to be a warmongering organization meant to make the ongoing conflicts escalate... and to turn all conflicts into economic operations.
So ...I was wrong when I was little
I thought the NATO was synonym with peace and peacekeeping. Now I know that NATO is synonym with Military-Industrial Complex, with Industries producing Warfare and with Warmongers.
NATO is an nothing but an agreement between many democratic nations to come to each other's aid when they are attacked. That is what Article 5 is about -- that an attack on one member will be considered an attack on all, and all signatories will respond.
That Article 5, by the way, was first used many years after NATO was formed -- right after the attack on the US of September 11, 2001.
So, what wars are you accusing these "warmongers" of? Or are you just still worshipping Putin's weenie?
The Russians entered Berlin at the end of WW2, in 1945, which is 79 years ago. To a far greater extent than the Allied forces they committed murder, theft, rape and great brutality on the conquered population ─ they had certainly suffered under the German invasion, so arguably it's understandable, but I leave it to you to determine its morality, since you so earnestly profess to be peaceloving.
At the same time the Russians invaded and seized Manchuria and intended the same for Japan, but were prevented by US action. They set about imposing communist governments in Europe on East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania. (Tito's Jugoslavia remained communist but independent of Russia.) It all fell over because Khrushchev finally faced up to the fact that Russian economics sucked.
So you have no problem with the Russians invading Ukraine in order to seize their land and in the process kill many thousands of their people and do great damage to their economy. Therefore I dare say you'd have no problem if the Russians invaded your country, gagged your press, watched you with an extended secret service aimed at stamping out democracy, and installed a plutocratic government on the Putin model?
Why don't you just move to Moscow? Seriously?
Russia was probably at the peak of their power in the years following WW2, even though they were still recovering from the devastation from that war. The rift between Russia and China, however, was advantageous to the West. Now, it seems the Russians and Chinese are working together again.
I don't think history necessarily repeats itself, but I think many often fail to learn the lessons of history. Countries and governments may tend to act in the same ways they've acted throughout history, but what changes are the kinds of weapons, industries, and technologies available. The World Wars were the culmination of 19th century thinking with 20th century technology. With the advent of nuclear weapons, along with other devastating weapons and tactics, humanity got to the point where it had to face the notion that "Either war is finished, or we are."
We also have cyber wars, along with new drone technologies. That NATO declaration also mentioned increasing the use of AI, so that could also add a new twist to things. Perhaps someday, we might either be plugged into the Matrix, or assimilated by the Borg (although I probably won't live to see that day).
Mine is just a theory, of course.
But everything would make sense. Someone funded Hitler, and this someone was from the other side of the ocean.
Socialism and Communism are incredibly dangerous ideologies for the banking élites who want to keep the Seigniorage for themselves.
Just one detail: Mussolini had nationalized the national bank, Bankitalia, in 1936.
Maybe these banking élites were terrified that Americans would do the same with the FED,
So the evil coming from Russia had to be eliminated.
I don't know if the US was going to nationalize the banks, although some regulations might have been in order at the time. A lot of banks were failing during the 1930s.
Hitler did get a good deal of funding from German bankers and industrialists, and there were those from other countries who probably supported Hitler early on in the belief that he could be a strong counter to the Soviet Union. That's one of the key reasons he came to power in the first place, because so many people were afraid of the Soviet Union and the spread of communism. For their part, Germany was in greater need of resources to feed their industries, and Russia was seen as a potential source of resources.
America was also afraid of communism, mainly as an internal ideological threat. In some ways, it did help push some of the elite into going along with labor reforms and other measures towards economic justice, as it provided for moderate changes in order to forestall any radical ideas from gaining a foothold. Indeed, organized labor in the U.S. took a decidedly anti-communist stance, supporting workers' rights without supporting socialism or state ownership. Liberal support of labor was a key component in maintaining a relative degree of political harmony in the country, but without that, we can see signs of greater discord.