Total posts: 4,140
-->
@Benjamin
Not all freedom is good or liberating. Freedom and unfreedom always comes in pairs.
- One can have freedom from slavery OR freedom to own slaves.
- One can have freedom from crime OR freedom from police.
- One can have freedom from taxes OR freedom to enjoy a functional state.
As you can see, freedom isn't simply a question of quantity, but of QUALITY. The freedom to run around naked in a cities is not a valuable freedom, and neither is the freedom to become a slave. These supposed "freedoms" do more harm than good to a society. We should pursue the types of freedom that are of best quality, rather than simply allowing people to do whatever they please. Even democracy, which is alledgedly a national liberty of highest importance, is actually restricting the individuals of said society in crucial ways. You can't become a monarch, you can't rule by force, you can't silence your opposition -- this is a huge lack of freedom. But democracy is worth restricting people's freedom for, one would say. That is most probably true, and the same goes for many other things.
Agreed.
Are you saying that the poorest and most unfortunate benefit from living in a country with few restrictions on how the rich can exercise their economic power?
It depends. In the most extreme cases of socialism, there are far fewer restrictions on how the rich can use their economic power than there are under capitalism, because pretty much the only rich people in extreme socialist countries are the ones in the government.
Economic freedom necesarily favors those with economic means disproportionately, as compared to those with little ability to exercise their alledged liberty.
Every system favors those with economic means disproportionately.
The freedom to "pull oneself by the bootstraps" and escape poverty as an individual in a capitalist system is extremely overrated. By the time the diciplined poor reaches a normal standard of living, assuming he does, the entrepeneurial guy with a rich family already holds a monopoly on his economic sector.
Even if it's overrated, the ability to work to improve one's economic status exists under capitalism. That isn't the case in places like the USSR.
However, the data shows us that inequality and inequity are a natural result of growth under capitalism.
Economic inequity is not necessarily a bad thing. It doesn't affect you or I in the slightest if Elon Musk has $1 billion or $100 billion or $100 quadrillion. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Just because someone is getting richer doesn't mean that other people are getting poorer.
No. The communist party, despite its inexperience and numerous problems, rappidly built the country up from scratch. Otherwise they would have lost WWII.
Nope. Russia did not start from scratch. They had started to industrialize before the communist revolution. Yes, they did industrialize further during the communist party's reign. The question is not whether they industrialized under communism, but whether they would have industrialized faster without communism. And consider the results of their industrialization. It was great for building tanks and aircraft. It did absolutely nothing for the common man.
Yes, the 5-year-plans were far from perfect, and their executions largely suffered from numerous problems while creating many new ones. However, they worked.
"Far from perfect" is an incredibly euphemistic way to refer to plans that killed about as many people as the Holocaust.
The very reason there was blood in Russia is that large changes were made too rappidly and the plans too ambitious.
No. This is not even remotely true. The reason there was blood in Russia is because they switched to collective farming, an incredibly inefficient system that has never worked anywhere on a large scale. As a result, their food production cratered, and millions starved. The reason there was blood in Russia is because 1.7 million people died in the gulag. Those deaths were deliberate, they were cruel, and they were purposeless. The reason there was blood in Russia was because 1.8 million poor peasants were turned into scapegoats for the failures of socialism and deported to Siberia, where 400,000 to 600,000 of them died. The reason there was blood in Russia was because the communist government was a brutal, bloodthirsty, inhuman, murderous tyranny. If you don't believe me, I can bring up example after example after example after example of every one of those things.
You cannot simply point to socialism at its most desperate and chaotic point and assert that is how socialism always works.
You are absolutely correct, which is why I've been saying since the beginning that places like the USSR are extreme cases. And yet, here you are defending it.
The US only caught up to the USSR because they had more resources at their disposal and because they adopted a planned economy in the space sector --- NASA was funded by the state and was not owned by private enterprises, thus it is not capitalist.
You are correct that NASA is not capitalist, although they now use rockets developed through capitalism. I am saying that capitalism is better for economic development. I am not saying that it is better for accomplishing national projects such as going to space, although being more economically developed is a huge help for going to space.
its just that they were superior at prioritising and allocation.
No. The USSR's space program was dreadful at prioritizing and allocation. Kruschev was continually pushing the program to achieve risky "firsts" (e.g. first two-man capsule, first three-man capsule, first space walk) at the expense of actual development. They had multiple competing programs that worked together poorly.
The USSR went from the least developed country in Europe to the most developed country in Europe and second in the world in just a few decades.
The USSR was nowhere close to being the most developed country in Europe. They were the most militarily powerful country in Europe and the second most militarily powerful in the world. However, almost none of the economic development they had went to the common man. It all went to the rich and the military.
I do not want to diss on Hong Kong but their economic development is far less impressive,
Hong Kong's development is far more impressive because the common man actually got to experience it, and they did it without stomping on the freedoms of their people.
A far better comparison to China would be India, which is a country of similar scale that was never socialist. If capitalism was superior, surely democratic India would put both China and the USSR to shame.
You are ignoring the fact that India had a legally enforced caste system for years. Even now that it is illegal, the caste system endures in their culture.
As a general commentary on the USSR, it did not have freedom of speech, religion, press, or assembly. And when freedom of speech was finally introduced in the late 1980s, the USSR fell apart shortly thereafter. You may want to think about why that is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yes, actually. I am just interested in the answers to the poll questions rather than anyone's opinion on the case as a whole. It's nothing personal, and I do have a reason for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
How would you answer the three questions?
Created:
Posted in:
I have a question for you all on how to interpret the phrase "breathing expert." Barney and Novice had a debate about whether Derek Chauvin is a racist. After I voted, I found out that my interpretation of a phrase in that debate is not as universal as I thought. So here's a quick question for you all.
Read the following paragraph from the debate.
"During the murder, DC was told 27 separate times by a breathing expert with 46 years’ experience, that the victim could not breath; the expert was African American, and DC wholly ignored the advice. Another breathing expert with 26 years’ experience (fellow officer Alexander Kueng) likewise advised DC that George Floyd no longer had a pulse, also an African American and was of course ignored [4]. Had DC respected superior knowledge when it comes from African Americans, he would not be in prison and George Floyd would still be alive."
Poll Questions:
1) Who are the breathing experts in question?
2) Does this paragraph imply that the breathing experts in question are medical professionals?
3) Is this a correct use of the term "breathing expert"?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I am calculating extremism by distance and speed of a political movement from the political center rather than the tactics used by that movement.
I am aware of that, and I think you are wrong to ignore tactics. Take this simple example. Which is more extreme:
1) A political party that wants to change the tax rate by 2%.
2) A political party that wants to change the tax rate by 1%, but is willing to start a civil war if they don't get their way.
By your standard, the second party is less extreme because their policies are closer to the center, and their tactics are not considered. However, such a conclusion is absurd on its face. Tactics matters a great deal for determining extremism. Consider another example.
1) A Palestinian who believes that Israel was founded illegitimately and starts a peaceful protest.
2) A Palestinian who believes that Israel was founded illegitimately and plants a bomb on a street corner.
One of these is an extremist and the other is merely a political activist. However, the only difference (all else being equal) is their tactics. A standard of ignoring tactics is absurd.
Wasn't Russia's February Revolution objectively less extreme than the October Revolution or are all civil wars alike in extremity to your thinking?
They are not all alike. Even so, a movement that wants to start a civil war is almost invariably more extreme than a movement that doesn't want to start a civil war but is otherwise identical.
Were the sailors who began the German Revolution really more extreme for wanting an end to war than the Kaiser for wanting to press on?
No. There was already a war going on. Context matters.
Is Ukraine today necessarily the more extreme faction because they seceded from Russia?
This is almost incoherent. Of course "Ukraine today" is not the more extreme faction because "Ukraine today" is not seceding. And when Ukraine did secede, that was during the general breakup of the Soviet Union, when there was much less risk of a civil war (which did not occur). Furthermore, there is a wee bit of difference between seceding from your own country and seceding from a country that conquered or annexed your country.
JP Stevens was fond of pointing out he started his Supreme Court career as the most conservative judge on the bench and ended it as the most liberal without ever changing his mind on a major issue. The Republican Party today doesn't just celebrate Confederate secession, they celebrate American's foreign enemies too- NAZI Germany and authoritarian Russia. They reject their core leader of just ten years ago- Bush, Cheney, McCain, Romney are considered traitors to their movement now. Today Republicans are advocating for jail for the young women, not just abortion providers. Alito quotes a 17th Witchhunter in defense of his outlook on abortion. 26 Republican candidates for Secretary of State are pro-coup and believe that Trump secretly won the election.If Lincoln represented the American center when he said he would preserve slavery if only that kept the Union whole then the ideological distance between Lincoln and Davis was not so great as McCain from Trump, who would embrace any falsehood or foreign dictator for a second chance to install an American Monarchy on a White House Throne.
Let's ignore the fact that a good chunk of this is pretending that an extremely tiny minority of neo-Nazi nuts is in fact the entire Republican party and assume that every word of this is true. Even then, the Republican party is not deliberately seceding with the known certainty of starting a civil war. That makes them less extreme than the Confederates. You cannot ignore tactics, and it is absurd to do so.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
The planned economy of the Soviet Union transformed it from a primitive agrarian society to a spacefaring superpower in three decades, DESPITE all the internal problems and world wars, and while everything being executed in a flawed, inefficient manner due to bad leadership and logistical hurdles.That is called DEVELOPMENT, and it occured without capitalism.
Russia was already starting to industrialize before the communist revolution. When the communists took over, Russia went backwards for a few years as millions starved to death under Lenin's reign. Russia industrialized slowly. During Stalin's reign, 5 to 7 million (some historians say as many as 20 million) starved to death or were murdered in the gulags. Yes, there was some techological development that took them into space, but their space program was significantly technologically inferior to the US space program.* And guess how much of that development reached the average Russian? If you guessed next to none, you would be correct. "Quality of life" in the USSR was a sick joke. Economic development can occur under socialism, but it is much slower and much bloodier, and very little of it reaches the common man.
*And before you say that the Russians were ahead at the beginning of the space race, this was, counterintuitively, because of their technological inferiority. Their nuclear warheads were much heavier, so they needed bigger rockets. Thus, at the beginning of the space race, they achieved a bunch of firsts before the US because they had larger rockets, which the US didn't need because they could have smaller warheads that delivered the same or better firepower.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Also consider the Soviet Union, which was fairly industrialized, but had an appalling standard of living.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Do you consider "being a more developed nation" an advantage of capitalism?
It is a result of capitalism.
Like, do you actually buy the claim that socialism keeps countries poor and underdeveloped despite technological advances?
Yes. That was the point of the Hong Kong-vs-China example. They started from a similar point. One was mostly capitalist; the other was mostly socialist. In just a few decades, the mostly capitalist society was leaps and bounds ahead of the mostly socialist society, and the mostly socialist society didn't start catching up until it introduced more economic freedom, i.e., became more capitalist and less socialist.
Or do you simply think that the wealthy capitalist countries didn't have decades of head start industrializing.
It's true that many capitalist countries did have a head start. However, Hong Kong did not, yet it caught up in decades. China didn't start catching up until it started liberalizing its economy. It was too busy starving tens of millions of people to death.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
If your standard makes starting a civil war less extreme than passing a ban, your standard is wrong. Quite frankly, even if the Republican party supported banning all the freedoms in the bill of rights, that would still be less extreme than starting a civil war.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That is a measure of a nation, yes. Societies with more economic freedom tend to be far better for their least influential members than those with less economic freedom. Socialism (at least the Venezuelan and communist styles) result in absolutely crushing poverty for their poorest citizens. Of course, that is the most extreme case.
Oromagi makes an excellent point above that no society is total capitalist or totally socialist. Most are in between. If we were to compare societies with more equal levels of economic development, we would see different, though more complicated, results. For example: Singapore and the US. Singapore has single-payer healthcare, so it is more socialist than the US in that respect. However, it usually scores higher for economic freedom, so it is more capitalist than the US in that respect. For perhaps a more apples-to-apples comparison, take Hong Kong and China. Here is a photo gallery of Hong Kong in the 1940s so you can see where it started from. https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/hong-kong-1940s
You can see that it isn't the worst, but it was still behind more developed countries like the US. Hong Kong has for many years scored very high on economic freedom indexes. Today, (or at least before China started sinking its teeth into it) it is one of the richest countries. China, on the other hand, went the extreme socialist route. Tens of millions of deaths from starvation later, they started allowing more economic freedom, and their economy began to catch up.
Of course, few people support the extreme communist forms of socialism. Most US "socialists" are in fact social democrats, who support a mix of socialism and capitalism.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
The present day GOP is the most extreme political party to ever control a state legislature.
The Confederate state legislatures who voted to secede from the US would like a word about that.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
When you compare socialist and capitalist countries adjusted by level of economic development -- like the study does -- socialist countries take the crown in 28 out of 30 cases.
In other words, once you remove the massive, overwhelming, near-undeniable advantage of capitalism by "adjusting" for it, capitalism doesn't look as good. Economic development is not a side issue wholly disconnected from a country's economic system. Capitalism is what enables (or at least greatly accelerates) economic development.
Also, what oromagi said.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
So far as the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum goes, probably. On political tests, I usually end up near the center on the libertarian-authoritarian scale, leaning a bit toward the libertarian side. The left-right spectrum is a different question, though.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Late to the party, since I don't come around here often, but I picked 3 for the first four questions and 4 for the last two, so 20/36.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Of course it's a "feel-good" project. You pick and choose who to help out of the 100 million that die every year on the basis of "feel-good"Or are you myopic enough to think Ukraine is the only war going on right now?
I know there are other wars on. Maybe we should be doing things to help those as well.
But really, characterizing an attempt to save lives as a "feel-good project" is rather callous.
"Priority" does not mean "the only thing we can do,"That's exactly what priority means. It says do this BEFORE this. Otherwise it isn't a priority.
"That's exactly what priority means," you say, and then immediately provide a definition contradicting that statement. Regardless, the whole "we can't work on this problem until we work on this problem" is absurdly reductive. Should we not work on policing crime because the debt is more important, or neglect the debt because of abortion, or ignore abortion because of corruption? Policy is not an either-or question. It is, in fact, possible to do more than one thing at a time. And if you refuse to help other countries until you've sorted out all your own problems, you'll never help anyone. If you're fine with that kind of isolationism, that's up to you, but some of us can't sit by and watch people die when we could be doing something to help.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
If the US was invaded, would you advocate surrender to save lives?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"Priority" does not mean "the only thing we can do," and saving lives is not a "feel-good project."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
No, it is based on what they are doing right now in the present.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
No. Our first priority lies domestically.
Yes, the first priority of the American government is American citizens. That does not mean that we cannot help others as well. It is not an either-or.
And “saving lives” is another dog whistle for even more conflict. We can’t save the lives of everyone. And it’s immoral to choose Ukraine for example over those in Yemen or Syria. You can’t make a moral argument here. Conflict is just a part of humanity.
Yes, I can make a moral argument. Once again, just because we cannot help everyone does not mean that we should not help anyone.
And the morality is cloudy because of opportunity cost. In any scenario helping vets and others domestically is far more important for the President of the United States.
It is still not an either-or.
It is because your moral obligation means that we should do everything possible. I’m surprised you’re not outright saying we should send troops. That’s the far larger moral thing to do.
Sending troops would have a high risk of starting WWIII, which does not quite qualify as saving lives.
Again the morality factor. Why should we choose one over the other. Morality is a double edged sword. It’s the same argument with illegal immigration tbh.
Yes, again with the morality factor. Morality matters.
French need to figure out how to prevent invasions from Belgium first lol
Heh. Never going to happen. Every single time, the French say, "They won't do that again." And every time, it happens again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Better to throw that money domestically, no?
It's not an either-or. We can do both.
Cliche
Deliberately so.
and false. China has immense power as well, and they’re not doing anything about it. I’d prefer to not get ripped off.
Just because a country that has great power doesn't use it responsibly doesn't mean that the saying is false. The existence of responsibility does not imply that the responsibility will be met. Also, getting "ripped off" is a rather callous way to describe trying to save lives.
Funny enough, legally, you’d have no obligation to help.
In some places you might, but it's completely beside the point. This isn't a question of law, but of morality.
I’d rather spend that money at home to help our veterans.
It's not an either-or.
See this is the moral high ground that justified Iraq and Syria.
Past failures do not justify current inaction.
Every “moral obligation” we have internationally takes us away from the immorality going on within the United States.
False. It's still not an either-or.
Our job is not police the world, period.
Again, just because we can't help everyone doesn't mean we shouldn't help anyone.
Well, at least I now know that you don’t live in Wisconsin lol
You underestimate my power. Put me in France, and I'll use so much cheese the French will wine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Well, the first reason is simply that we can afford it. The US government wastes billions every year. It can afford to throw a few billion at a worthy cause. The second reason is, if I may be permitted a little cheesiness, "With great power comes great responsibility." If there was someone getting beat up in front of us, and we could help them with very little risk to ourselves, I'd like to think that most of us would help. In Ukraine, there are 44 million people who are being attacked are faced with the prospect of foreign domination and subjugation, whether directly or through a puppet regime. We can help at very little risk and, relatively speaking, very little cost to ourselves. When you can do the things that America can do, but you don't do them, then when the bad things happen, they happen because of you. It's true that we can't help everyone; it does not then follow that we should not help anyone.
By the way, does anyone have any cheese? I think I'm running out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
More false dichotomies lol.
First of all, I must beg your pardon for the following bit of pedantry. Those are not dichotomies. A dichotomy is a choice between two options or a division between two things or parts. I was not setting up dichotomies in my post; I was drawing comparisons.
Secondly, the argument I jokingly presented for why NATO is a threat to Russia was "NATO has nukes, so they are a threat to Russia, regardless of whether they are likely to use them." The examples I gave were directly comparable to that. Merely having nukes does not make a country or alliance a threat.
No one cared when the USSR stayed in the USSR. But as soon as they allied with Cuba, problems, problems, problems. Did the USSR plan on nuking the US? I don’t think so.
Again, the modern Russia-NATO situation is not analogous to the Cold War. In the Cold War, the only reason WWIII didn't break out was because of mutually-assured destruction. If that hadn't been an issue, it was entirely possible or even probable that the USSR would have attacked NATO, unless for some reason NATO attacked first, which also would have been possible. Even with MAD, war nearly broke out several times. So while it's true that the USSR probably did not plan on nuking the US, that was because they feared the consequences of doing so, not because they lacked the desire or will to fight. In the modern situation, NATO very clearly lacks the desire to fight, and could probably only muster the will to fight if directly attacked. Even then, they might just shrug their shoulders and say, "It's just the Baltic states. They're not worth a war." During the Cold War, NATO and Russia were threats to each other that were only held back by the even greater threat of a nuclear holocaust. Today, NATO is only a military threat if one of their member states is attacked, and only an economic threat when non-member states are attacked/threatened/annexed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
To be quite honest, I'm not sure what you mean. What is NATO hegemony even supposed to look like? Everyone getting together and saying, "We promise to spend X amount of money on defense and defend each other from invasion"? Where's the hegemony in that? How would they force an unwilling Russia to assimilate into it? What would "assimilation" mean in that context?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Just as absurd as the idea that the Ukraine would never join NATO.
NATO invading Russia is far more absurd than Ukraine joining NATO, which was never an absurd idea, at least after the fall of the USSR.
You’re still running under the interpretation that NATO would never invade a country. It’s not Estonia that Russia is worried about, it’s the US. NATO is a proxy for a U.S. v Russia conflict.
I'm operating under that assumption for good reason. NATO, and the US, have absolutely nothing to gain by invading Russia. Furthermore, neither NATO nor the US have much stomach for any war, let alone a war with Russia. The US let Afghanistan fall into the hands of the Taliban because it didn't have the political will to support a war with double-digit annual casualties. The majority of Americans don't want war with Russia. As for the rest of NATO, they don't even care enough to uphold their military spending promises, not to mention their pre-invasion desire for Russian oil. I'm operating under the assumption that NATO won't invade because the idea that NATO would invade Russia is utterly, completely, and in every way absurd.
Canada would get obliterated in a war. Plus they don’t have nukes
That undermines your argument. Russia has nukes, NATO has nukes, America has nukes, but Canada doesn't have nukes. Thus, Canada should have more reason to fear the US than Russia has to fear NATO.
. The difference here is that NATO is backed by the US. If the leader was Estonia, then who would care.
No, that is the chief similarity. In NATO vs. Russia, the US in the main player. In Canada vs. the US, the US is the main player. If Russia should consider NATO a threat because of the US, then why shouldn't Canada consider the US a threat?
If Putin decided today to create a defensive military alliance with Cuba and station some nukes there, we’d all be in outroar.Do you support a Russian-Cuban “defensive military alliance” with nukes stationed in Cuba?
If it was a defensive military alliance in the same way that NATO is a defensive military alliance, then that would be fine. America isn't going to invade its neighbors or annex their lands, so it would have nothing to fear from a genuinely defensive military alliance.
You have to be crazy to believe the invasion isn’t defensive. There is no offensive reason for Putin to invade Ukraine
Then I'm crazy, because I see no defensive reasons for Putin to invade Ukraine, but I do see offensive reasons.*
*You may point out that such reasons would almost certainly be irrational. You would be correct. The conqueror's desire for power is quite irrational. However, we know from history that it is a powerful motivator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
That’s the point. I don’t know what it’s going to be like 10 years from now.
So it's within Russia's interests to invade Ukraine based on the possibility that 10 years from now, despite all signs to the contrary, NATO might invade? That's so thin it makes paper look thick.
You and I both know this is a false dichotomy lol.
I don't see how it is. If we're judging countries and alliances as threats based on what they might do in the future, regardless of the facts of the present, then why wouldn't the US be a threat to Canada? It's a well-armed neighboring country. Of course, based on the present facts, the US doesn't seem likely to invade, but that might change in the future. How is this different than the logic you're using to justify NATO being a threat to Russia?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If the bully can't function without the opportunity to beat people up, then that's their problem. They might just try not being a bully.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Then you misunderstand the purpose behind the invasion. I believe that Putin doesn’t want to annex all of Ukraine. Neither does he want to annex Donetsk or Luhansk. He wants to install a pro-Russian government and then back off so there’s a buffer between Russia and the bulk of NATO. The Russian border with the Baltic States is tiny and easily defensible.
A buffer is only needed if there is a threat of military invasion. Unless you think NATO is going to invade Russia, this isn't a valid reason to invade Ukraine.
If Ukraine joined NATO though then it’s a larger threat. No matter how you perceive it. Stockpiling troops and weapons in NATO countries, especially if Ukraine joined NATO is a threat.
Only if you think NATO is going to attack Russia, which is absurd.
The future is unpredictable. Let me ask you the question. If you were Putin and you saw Ukraine joining NATO, which allows placement of weapons along an even larger piece of the Russian border, wouldn’t you feel threatened? If you say no, then we just have a fundamental difference in the definition of “threat.” Intent in the present means nothing if future intent is possible
No, I wouldn't feel threatened. If I were Putin, all I would need to do is not annex, invade, or threaten to invade, and NATO would not be a threat. Also, by this logic, Canada should be really scared of the US and should try to find a buffer. After all, the US has a long border with Canada and is really well armed. Sure, there are no signs that America will ever invade, but hey, intent in the present means nothing if future intent is possible. Anyone know where Canada can get itself some more tanks?
Created:
Posted in:
Ooh! I know:
2) NATO has nukes, which means it's a threat to Russia, regardless of whether NATO is likely to use them on Russia. By this logic, Pakistan is a threat to Monaco, India is a threat to Nigeria, and Israel is a threat to Honduras. Isn't this fun!?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If we believe everything, then the same was true during the Cold War. Even during the Cold War everyone knew about MAD. MAD is still true right now. There was no threat that NATO would attack USSR at that time, but it sure as hell didn’t stop us from having weapons along the USSR border creating a perceived threat. When the USSR did the same, we were mad, as we should have been. The whole point is about perceived threats currently and future threatsLet me be unequivocal in saying that what Putin’s doing is wrong from a humanity perspective. But from a national defense standpoint, he’s doing the right thing for his country.
There are words here making vague references to "perceived threats" without even attempting to explain why Putin should perceive NATO as a threat. And even if we assume that NATO is a threat, invading Ukraine does absolutely nothing to counteract that threat. If anything, it makes it worse.
Let me pose the question this way. Suppose Putin didn't annex parts of other countries and didn't invade or threaten to invade any other country. Would NATO attack Russia? If the answer is no, then NATO is not a genuine military threat to Russia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
That situation is not analogous to the current one. In the Cold War, there was a constant risk that the other side might attack. There is no risk that NATO will attack Russia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I understand that, but using terms too loosely can obscure their meaning. Mergers are typically mutually agreed on. That is not the case in Ukraine, nor in Austria, although there was more support for it in the Austrian case than there is in the Ukrainian case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
People 'do seem to be responding more negatively to the Ukraine-Russia merger, of Putin,Than the Austria-Germany merger, of Hitler
Neither of those were mergers. One of those was an invasion, and the other was an annexation. Far be it from me to defend Hitler, but invasions are worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
NATO has undoubtedly increased influence in the past 20 years near the Russian border. This is undeniable
True.
How is that a threat to Russia? Be specific, please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
That's true. A king can be a dictator, but does not have to be. It still doesn't make a lot of sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Do Burger King Christians get free Burger King? If so, how do I sign up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
WWJD - "Love thy neighbor" (like, don't invade your neighbor. Pretty ****ing simple).
You'd think, but apparently not.
I really don't know how someone can complain about Biden being a dictator and yet unironically support a monarchy. Does not compute. It makes me want to slither back down the Illuminati hole from whence I came and pretend I didn't see anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am not so sure NATO is actually opposed to at least part of Russia's aggression. Ukraine extorts high taxes on oil shipped out the Black Sea. That cost is passed onto NATO members who, on average, rely on Russia to deliver 35% of their energy needs due to poor policy choices. Some more and some less. If you have been following the sanctions, there are no sanctions on Russian oil and gas. It seems to me that NATO is willing to turn a blind eye to Russia gaining Black Sea access and bypassing the corrupt middleman of Ukraine if it means lower energy costs.
If true, that makes NATO even less of a threat to Russia. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it's true, though. Most of the NATO member states are pretty hypocritical when it comes to energy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Read again, Frankie says Putin is better despite being anti-monarchy. Frankie is actually saying that monarchy is good. Not a typo or misunderstanding, see post 219 for confirmation.
Oh...I don't know whether to apologize to him for misreading his post or sit here stunned that he supports a monarchy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Another thought: NATO didn't even have the stomach to continue fighting in Afghanistan against a ragtag collection of terrorists who didn't even have tanks or aircraft, let alone nuclear weapons. What in the world makes you think they are a military threat to Russia?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
and Biden is very fond of corruption
Probably, but so is Putin, and Putin is way better at it. He is a billionaire. Some estimates put his wealth at 80 or even 200 billion dollars. No way he got that without corruption on a massive scale.
, demographic replacement, cultural destruction, and more.
Do you have any evidence that Biden actually supports these things? Regarding "cultural destruction," can you define that? I would ask that you be careful with your definition and evidence of Biden's support for it. Does he actually support destroying America's culture, or does he just happen to support things that you call "cultural destruction?" There is a world of difference between those two things. And even if he does support those things, Putin's oppression is still far worse for Russia than those are for the US.
Biden is the dictator who was crowned after a fraudulent election, has a drugged-up son, and thinks I am a domestic terrorist.
He does not have the power of a dictator, and is not ruling like one either. I'm not even sure he's competent enough to do so. The election was not fraudulent. He doesn't think you are a domestic terrorist, unless you were in the Capitol on January 6. He does have a drugged-up son, but bad parenting isn't an ideological question.
Anyone who claims to support Christianity but then proceeds to murder, oppress, and invade is very far in the red so far as "doing things for Christianity" goes. Biden is also in the red on that front, but he clears Putin's bar easily.
Again I am not favor in the invasion or even explicitly pro-putin. He has cracked down on monarchists and other groups but is infinitely times better than Biden.
Cracking down on monarchists while ruling as a dictator is a rather ridiculous thing to praise Putin for. Sure, he's opposed to people who want a king to have absolute power, but only because he wants absolute power for himself. Also, Putin is a murderer and a conqueror. Biden is not. That makes Biden infinitely better than Putin.
If he supports the United States of America foreign policy then he supports that
There is no connection between supporting American foreign policy and supporting "gay American expansionism." Even if there was, supporting American foreign policy is not an all-or-nothing question. It is possible to support some parts without supporting others.
The US is in bed with Ukrainian businesses and military infrastructure.
Yes. So what? Ukraine was never going to invade Russia or do anything to threaten Russia militarily. How does invading Ukraine do anything at all to help Russia?
As an analogy, France has recently provided some major military support to the UAE. Does that automatically make the UAE a threat to its neighbors because it is supported militarily by a world power?
And no, Nato is opposed to Russia
Really? They've placed sanctions on Russia, but only when Russia annexes part of other countries, threatens to invade other countries, and actually invades other countries. None of that is aggression on NATO's part, and can easily be avoided by not annexing, threatening, and invading. And there is no chance whatsoever that NATO was going to attack Russia militarily. So explain to me how Ukraine joining Russia would hurt NATO. What would it do to Russia? Would there be any risk of NATO invading Russia? Or would it only make it harder for Russia to invade Ukraine? Please, try to give specifics. How would Ukraine joining NATO hurt Russia?
Again, NATO is opposed to Russian aggression, not Russia itself. So long as Russia does not invade, threaten to invade, or annex parts of other countries, NATO is no threat to Russia. It is a defensive alliance, not an offensive alliance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Corruption is not a sham, neither was any colonialism of the past.
Agreed.
Stop trying to strawman.
I wasn't trying to strawman. I don't mean to offend, but conspiracy theories (no offense meant by the term either) are often nebulous and poorly defined. I've never seen anyone who believes in the Illuminati really try to explain how much power it does and doesn't have. If there is an organization that controls world politics, then it seemed to me a reasonable implication would be that the majority of world politics, wars included, would be a sham.
China and Russia did not magically have coinciding goals acting at the same time. Putin being one of the only/few world leaders to attend the Winter Olympics in Beijing is not a coincidence.
Of course it's not a coincidence. It mutually benefits them to pretend the other's actions are legitimate and justified. There doesn't need to be a worldwide conspiracy to explain that.
Open your eyes and do more studying before strawmanning conspiracy theories.
While I find conspiracy theories entertaining, I confess that the Illuminati is not one I've studied. I have examined the 2020 election and anti-vax conspiracies, and I have extensively studied the moon hoax and flat earth conspiracies, but the Illuminati is not one I've looked into that much. If you want to explain it further, by all means go ahead. I almost certainly won't agree, but it would be quite interesting.
I never said NATO is the aggressor.
Okay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
As an aside, don't you believe in the Illuminati? Wouldn't that make this whole thing a sham anyway?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
That may have something to do with the fact that Russia is currently invading Ukraine, and has been repeatedly threatening it for the past few years. Russia is not innocent in this, and NATO has not been the aggressor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Not my point at all. I share more ideological connections to Putin than Biden
I think this is the point you are missing. Dictatorship, invasion, and oppression aren't the unsavory tools being used by someone with an otherwise good ideology. They are Putin's ideology. Putin doesn't care about gay people or Christianity. He only uses them to curry favor with people on the right. If he can make some people feel like he's on their side, then that weakens the political will to oppose his real ideology: a base desire for power. It's said that when someone shows you who they really are, believe them. Right now, by invading Ukraine, Putin is showing you who he really is. He is exposing his true ideology of conquest and control for all to see. I would suggest believing him.
true, but supa is a neocon and fully supports gay american expansionism into the ME. The thing he wants to see more of are porn theaters in Kabul
The idea that Supa wants any of those things is hilarious. Now I'm imagining Supa waving a gay pride flag in front of a brothel in Kabul. The thought just tickles my sense of absurdity.
It is absolutely in the best interests of Russia to ensure Ukraine is out of NATO, to think otherwise is foolish.
Why? That's a genuine question. How does Ukraine being outside of NATO help Russia? NATO isn't opposed to Russia; they are only opposed to Russian aggression. All Putin has to do is not invade other countries, and NATO won't be a threat to him. Almost every country on the face of the planet seems to be able to do just fine without invading their neighbors. Consider what would happen if someone formed an alliance to oppose Zimbabwean aggression. It wouldn't do anything to hurt Zimbabwean interests at all, because Zimbabwe isn't aggressive. The same is true of Russia and NATO. I've repeated this several times, and I plan to keep repeating it: the one and only thing that Putin has to do to keep NATO from being a threat is to not invade other countries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
so what? USA commits war crimes too.
Just because the US does bad things doesn't mean those same things aren't bad when Russia does them.
Russia is defending their interests against the gay west and I am all for it.
Russia isn't defending anything. Ukraine is not a threat to them in the slightest, and the one and only thing Russia needs to do to keep NATO from being a threat is to not invade other countries. Its interests are not being threatened by the West, and especially not by Ukraine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
fair enough-if you believe in bull**** civic ideas like democracy.
Um...yes. Yes, I do. Its got its flaws, but its significantly less bad than every other form of government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
fair enough, but putin isnt the one pushing LGBT on my nation so Im going to have to disagree
Well, LGBT people aren't in the habit of starting wars, conquering their neighbors, and murdering and imprisoning the opposition, so I think Putin may be just a bit worse than them.
Created: