Russian-Ukrainian war

1. Sure, and they could be CPC shills. Taking a page from your playbook.

2. I am talking way before Hitler. Wars involving Spain, England, France, The Vatican mucking shit up, etc. Had a single superpower brought order, it could be argued that WW1 might have been avoided.

3. That was the result of the cold war. Soviets had their puppets, we had ours. Without the soviets, we wouldn't have had a cold war and vice versa. All those proxy wars avoided. Nukes only served to keep proxy wars from getting out of hand. It was lessons learned from Europe that kept shit cold. When the big fish fight directly and ruin eachother, the smaller fish win.

4. Its also leads to an arms race. Crni came to the same conclusion. The world agrees with me, its called the NPT.

6. Because it hasn't been proven. Otherwise we'd be in a shitstorm right now. Putin and the rest of the world would be screaming for our heads. Some shit is too big to cover up. Our own news would be screaming it. Instead, all of this accusations, come from folks who like us not. Another page from your playbook.

7. Really, countries like Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia right? Oh yea, your logic is they joined NATO to spite Putin.
 
Crni, imagine a barrel on fire. Do we throw money and aid at it or put the friggin fire out first ? We tried to take out Aidid in Somalia, we failed.

Money isn't always the answer. Milosovic is another example but I am sure some here would disagree.
 
Last edited:
Sander said:
Yes, who cares about human beings that weren't accidentally born within the same random lines drawn on a map as you were, amirite? Humanity, what's that?
Click to expand...

What is "humanity"? If any grouping of people can be called a social construct at all, it's your "human race"
 
Sander said:
Yes, who cares about human beings that weren't accidentally born within the same random lines drawn on a map as you were, amirite? Humanity, what's that?
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I fully empathize with their plight. But, to be honest, I don't make much money. I sometimes have trouble feeding my own family. When the government talks about poverty, they focus on other nations, often forgetting what goes on in their own country. Why can't they solve issues at home first before moving to help everyone else? I have more to add, but I'm having trouble thinking of how to articulate it.
 
Sander said:
Yes, who cares about human beings that weren't accidentally born within the same random lines drawn on a map as you were, amirite? Humanity, what's that?
Click to expand...

If the only issue were lines drawn on a map, there wouldn't be a problem. What do you think should be done?
@DarkCorp

1. This just doesn't warrant an answer. Why are people who disagree with you so often shills, or conspiracy theorists or whatever?

2. So you're basically arguing for a world government? You do understand the dangers of that?

3. The lessons learned in Europe might have been a deterrent for a decade after the war had ended, at most. After that it was nukes. If we were so good at learning lessons, there never would have been a WWII to begin with.

4. The treaty is a joke. "Now that we have enough weapons of mass destruction to destroy the world many times over, let's stop making new ones. If that doesn't make us look peaceful, I don't know what does."
It's the countries that do have nukes trying to prevent other countries from getting them. Because that would make these other countries more equal.

6. Your side hasn't been proven either. And the other side could say the exact same things you just said. You see the problem here, right?

7. Why are people convinced that Russia even wants to occupy the Baltic states? What's in it for Russia? I don't think you get just how far national hatred can take you in eastern Europe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Beaushizzle said:
Don't get me wrong, I fully empathize with their plight. But, to be honest, I don't make much money. I sometimes have trouble feeding my own family. When the government talks about poverty, they focus on other nations, often forgetting what goes on in their own country. Why can't they solve issues at home first before moving to help everyone else? I have more to add, but I'm having trouble thinking of how to articulate it.
Click to expand...

Remember that you are arguing with somebody who will call you racist if you try to draw attention to anybody in poverty who is white.
 
1. That is why I said I took a page out of your own playbook. Any argument against yours is bullshit because its propaganda or a media fabrication. Or Hollywood making a big deal over nothing.

2. The alternative is endless proxy and other forms of competition with no end in sight.

3. Nice attempt at dodging. We are talking about the Cold War here, not pre-WW2 Europe.

4. Its a joke declares LA. Fuck you world, LA knows better.

6. You, Dr. and Crni are screaming about how we financed all that shit, during you folks hate boner circle. Why did you even bring it up then?

7. Because Putin wants BASES IN FOREIGN LANDS. First Ukraine, now Tartus in Syria. Whats next?
 
Last edited:
Beaushizzle said:
Sander said:
Yes, who cares about human beings that weren't accidentally born within the same random lines drawn on a map as you were, amirite? Humanity, what's that?
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I fully empathize with their plight. But, to be honest, I don't make much money. I sometimes have trouble feeding my own family. When the government talks about poverty, they focus on other nations, often forgetting what goes on in their own country. Why can't they solve issues at home first before moving to help everyone else? I have more to add, but I'm having trouble thinking of how to articulate it.
Click to expand...
The amount of money spent on welfare and other poverty relief in the United States is far, far below the level it should be. I completely agree with that. However, it absolutely dwarf the commitments to helping those abroad -- 1% of the federal budget goes to foreign aid compared to 48% to social security and healthcare -- and that looks even more skewed if we also consider other social spending and poverty relief, as well as state budgets (which typically spend next to nothing on foreign aid). It's not even remotely close.

The reason that welfare spending is relatively low in the USA (compared to other "developed" nations) is not that all that money is spent on foreign aid, but because your governments keep making ideological choices to shrink welfare and punish the poor. Foreign aid has nothing to do with it, and the rhetoric that pretends it does is nothing but a way to distract people from the fact that their governments keep making a conscious and completely unnecessary choice to harm the poor, while simultaneously trying to shut down further foreign aid.

ChildServices said:
Remember that you are arguing with somebody who will call you racist if you try to draw attention to anybody in poverty who is white.
Click to expand...
Do you ever have anything to add other than straw men?

LordAshur said:
If the only issue were lines drawn on a map, there wouldn't be a problem.
Click to expand...
Borders are nothing but lines on a map. The only thing that makes them a reality is the combined ideological and institutional investment by nations in the solidity of those borders.
 
ChildServices said:
Sander said:
Borders are nothing but lines on a map. The only thing that makes them a reality is the combined ideological and institutional investment by nations in the solidity of those borders.
Click to expand...

This isn't an explanation as to why a border is bad.
Click to expand...
I didn't see anyone asking that question. But here's the trivially true answer: being born on one side or the other of a border does not make a human being different. Human beings have no control over where they are born. So right now, and throughout the ~100-year history of borders the way we know them now, they simply act to separate an in-group from an out-group, create arbitrary differences, and deny one group of people the rights given to another group of people. That is why they are 'bad'.
 
That's still not an explanation for why a border is bad, since I don't accept that humanity fits neatly into one group, nor do I accept the myth that cultures and the lands that they assign themselves based upon a heritage and a legacy of living on said lands in order to propagate their own existence are just arbitrary differences.

Edit: I take your "what you believe is a social construct" and raise you one "what you believe is a social construct as well"
 
Last edited:
AskWazzup said:
Yep, Putin made Russia into a strong country, where 110 oligarchs hold 35%~ of Russia's wealth. All of that during a period where oil prices were through the roof and the majority of the population still live worse than people from baltic countries (which have no natural resources and started out in even worse position in 1992). Seems like quite a feat.
Click to expand...

Still saved Russia from Yeltsin's mistake though..
 
DarkCorp said:
Crni, imagine a barrel on fire. Do we throw money and aid at it or put the friggin fire out first ? We tried to take out Aidid in Somalia, we failed.

Money isn't always the answer. Milosovic is another example but I am sure some here would disagree.
Click to expand...

Only in a world like Murrica is a figure like Milosevic a war criminal and someone like Kissinger or Obama getting the Nobel Price for Peace.
 
1. Logic is a strange thing, you might try using it as a tie-breaker in these propaganda wars.

2. Far better than a single world government in my book. But to each his own.

3. So comparing the post WWII situation to the situation after the last world war before that one is dodging? Fact remains, front-line casualties didn't make us avoid WWII, why do you think they were what made us avoid WWIII? And the US, one of the most likely actors of WWIII, wasn't all that hurt in WWI or WWII. Especially in the realm of civilian casualties.

4. Don't the US and Russia have enough weapons of mass destruction to destroy the world many times over? What about India and Pakistan? There seems to have been more conflict between the two before they had nukes.

6. Because that's what my logic implies. You obviously follow a different kind of logic. How did you react to the picture posted in this thread not long ago which clearly shows Al-Baghdadi amongst "moderate" terrorists in the presence of John McCain?

7. "According to the Department of Defense's 2010 base structure report, as of 2009, the US military maintained 662 foreign sites in 38 countries around the world."

And we're supposed to be worried about Russia having one base in Syria, which it has had, unless I'm mistaken, since Soviet times?
 
DarkCorp said:
2: Before, it was terror from both sides. Not good but better than war. You mean Israel was attacked FIRST, by three nations no less. This was right after the Jews had just been genocided by Hitler. And you wonder why they don't like the arabs much. Continue to stick your head in the sand.
Click to expand...

Israelis are actually a type of Arabs. Actually they're closer to Arabs than Egyptians.

LordAshur said:
And we're supposed to be worried about Russia having one base in Syria, which it has had, unless I'm mistaken, since Soviet times?
Click to expand...

Not even a base. It's just a supply depot.
 
Last edited:
Mohamed2001 said:
Israelis are actually a type of Arabs. Actually they're closer to Arabs than Egyptians.
Click to expand...

A lot of Arabs living there did convert to Judaism, but we're all being more than slightly naive if we actually try to think the Israeli state considers gentiles within its borders to (really) be Israelis and that most Arabs likewise consider the Jewish converts to still be Arabs. This partially ignores that a large number of Israelis have "European" ancestry, as well.
 
Last edited:
ChildServices said:
That's still not an explanation for why a border is bad, since I don't accept that humanity fits neatly into one group, nor do I accept the myth that cultures and the lands that they assign themselves based upon a heritage and a legacy of living on said lands in order to propagate their own existence are just arbitrary differences.

Edit: I take your "what you believe is a social construct" and raise you one "what you believe is a social construct as well"
Click to expand...
Correct. Everything is a social construct. Human culture is extremely variable and malleable. That is my point. Yet instead of acting like human beings are human beings and no one is more deserving of prosperity than anyone else based on an accident of birth, we get proto-fascists like you that some humans just shouldn't have the same rights as others. Oh, no, that's not literally what you say -- it's just the inevitable practical conclusion of your line of thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top