Should we go to war with Russia to save the economy?

David Nelson said:
Wow. If you are prepared to have a civil debate I will show you I am right. I’m well up for the challenge and I’ll try not to be offensive back. I suspect you won’t though.
Click to expand...

I don't debate with totalitarian ideologues as that ship sunk over the past two years.
 
Regarding the left wing being no longer effective…
 

Attachments

  • 3C2A205C-0294-42D0-9E26-641A624551B6.jpeg
    3C2A205C-0294-42D0-9E26-641A624551B6.jpeg
    1.6 MB · Views: 1
@David Nelson
Whilst I can appreciate that the conversation recently from other members, as well as yourself, has branched into something else I would just like to remind both you and others that the topic of this thread is centred around Russia and the economics of war.
Should you wish to continue this new discussion elsewhere, could you please create the appropriate thread, or find an already existing one which is relevant?
The discussion originally intended by the OP must be respected.
 
Perhaps it was naive of me to think the subject of Brexit and related could be discussed in an open minded and civil way. We could start a new thread but I think there’s only me prepared to debate. I’d just like to say that the unwillingness of people to discuss these issues and name calling is a key part of the problem. Unless we address those issues the new class war will carry on. Enjoy the rest of the revolt/revolution because it will carry on.
 
Some of the reasons as to why totalitarian ideologues hate the Russians and Eastern Europeans is that they see such as ideological failures having failed to maintain much less spread such ideology to the west while constantly wanting war to reduce population on both sides. They want war with Russia as it would be more or less suicidal for the US while drastically weakening Russia so the surviving populations would be too weak to oppose totalitarianism while enabling the rise of the CCP as the dominant world power though ironic given the current state of China being a tofu dregs empire. Europe is also very weak and would do basically nothing to oppose this on a geopolitical level.

By the way this isn't anything new as it has been around for decades and openly advertised. So the question is who has to die and who lives?
GAguidestones-text.jpg


 
Last edited:
Roses In The Vineyard said:
This is only but a tiny fraction of the horrors those like yourself have inflicted upon humanity in the past century.




Click to expand...

So you’ve gone from accusing me of the ‘stupidest comment on the internet’ to accusing me of genocidal tendencies, while also accusing me of being on drugs. Good job!

I’m not an ideologue, almost the opposite. I’m trying to shed light and expose ideologies, because none of them work. The really dangerous mindsets are closed ones like yours and the ones which have led us to the goat fuck of a western world we now inhabit, where people like you summon fictional demons because you can’t or won’t understand what is happening.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1509539999/?tag=infjs-21
 
David Nelson said:
I think some small communities have lived pretty peacefully. Haiti was like paradise until the Spanish got there. Since then it has been abused by many people especially the USA. I’m sure there have been many other examples.

I think we need to separate people having petty squabbles and state organised exploitation of the masses to suit an elite. In a true enlightened representative democracy I don’t think a conventional war would be possible because it would be in no ones interests.
We have been conditioned to think of history as unchangeable.
Click to expand...
I think the reason why small communities are so often used as an example is that the war complex is the result of a scale problem. Meaning, the larger that human civilization becomes the harder it is to manage and inevitably small communities get into conflict with each other, team up to be stronger, etc. The existence of areas that are peaceful don't seem like a model of what could be applied other places but actually the consequence of war. The unique circumstances presented by other nations distracting themselves with war or maybe an isolated civilization that is not known to nearby community gives the privilege of these small communities to be peaceful.

I think the crux, though, of my argument is that humans have violence and conflict as an inherent part of their nature and the risk of aggression is amplified by sheer number of people alive. So yes small communities might be able to be peaceful but we've never seen the world at peace. Does that mean it's not possible? Technically no. But it seems extremely unlikely
 
slant said:
I think the reason why small communities are so often used as an example is that the war complex is the result of a scale problem. Meaning, the larger that human civilization becomes the harder it is to manage and inevitably small communities get into conflict with each other, team up to be stronger, etc. The existence of areas that are peaceful don't seem like a model of what could be applied other places but actually the consequence of war. The unique circumstances presented by other nations distracting themselves with war or maybe an isolated civilization that is not known to nearby community gives the privilege of these small communities to be peaceful.

I think the crux, though, of my argument is that humans have violence and conflict as an inherent part of their nature and the risk of aggression is amplified by sheer number of people alive. So yes small communities might be able to be peaceful but we've never seen the world at peace. Does that mean it's not possible? Technically no. But it seems extremely unlikely
Click to expand...
Granted small isolated communities like Haiti are not representative of the world as a whole, and I agree with your point that as countries get bigger, keeping peace is usually harder.

My own belief is that the inevitability of war in modern times, in developed nations like ours, is more a product of elite power games and propaganda than natural, inherent aggression in individuals in a population. People will probably always squabble through jealousy etc, but when has a majority of a population decided to invade another country without its government stirring them up first.
You only have to look at the USA and all it’s foreign conflicts all in the name of “defence”. General Smedley D Butler said a longtime ago in his anti war classic ‘War is a Racket’ that he saw at first hand that war was all about profit. Even WW2 allowed many capitalists to get wealthier. This reminds me of a line from the film Good Will Hunting about “the capital forming effects of military mobilisation”.
In former times, in days of Empire, it was seen as a natural part of life to fight wars and gain territory. This was then inside the ‘Overton window’, of which anything outside seems impossible. I would argue conventional wars should be outside that window now, and not seen as inevitable. We have mass communication now and no conscription in the West. The greatest danger clearly is in Eastern countries like China and Russia, which have more dangerous political structures and far less individual freedoms, usually ruled by ENTJ, although that happens here too (Trump, Thatcher).
 
So WW3 is about to break out. At least Hollywood will have some new material and can make accurate films about this one because there will be lots of video footage as it happens. It might even revive Hollywood after Ricky Gervais destroyed it . Who’s going to become a conscientious objector then?
 
The problem with all this is that the conundrum of ''should we go to war with Russia or not'' was exactly what Russia's objective was, what they have been working towards with psyop after psyop, disinformation and distabilization. They single handedly facilitated and expedited the polirization of USA by appointing Trump, and almost the complete fall of American ''democracy'', they created dissent in Europe by spreading covid misinformation, while making sure they're dependent on them for energy among many, many other things.
Where was Biden when USA was being taken over by Putin's btch? What was Europe thinking when they let a regime control over half of their energy supply? Rubbing shoulders with big daddy bucks, Wall Street and co. Now they want to santion Russian oligarchs, LOL.
Putin has been single mindedly working towards this crescento for a long while now, and it feels that he's a few steps before check mate, and we, the west, can only flail in reaction. But rememeber that Putin was enabled by those same people who fervently proclaim they will punish Russia with sanctions while their warhounds are barking at them.
 
While Russian government are as corrupt as they come, and not above trying to influence and control the west, the USA and Europe have been polarised long before Trump appeared and he wasn’t the result of nazi tendencies in the population (a flawed old trope) or Russian interference (analysis shows that to be false). Note that authoritarianism mostly comes from the middle classes. It’s just a tool used to beat the populists, to avoid having to address the elephant in the room, which is a deeply divided society which is far from a meritocracy. So many can’t seem to see further than their own wishes and delusions. Wanting something to be true has nothing to do with it being true or not.
 
I think Putin is as bad, or worse, than Hitler. He’s just got a different style. ENTJ. I think we have to destroy him. If left, he will take over the world.
 
David Nelson said:
I think Putin is as bad, or worse, than Hitler. He’s just got a different style. ENTJ. I think we have to destroy him. If left, he will take over the world.
Click to expand...

Come on...Untrue and unhelpful.

Ukraine was a buffer zone between NATO and Russia and the US has been trying to get it to their side. Putin told multiple times it's not gonna happen. Ukraine is their core strategic interest, while it's not even close to being a core strategic interest for the US. I don't know why they were provoking Putin so much, did they really think he's gonna gonna just take it.

Putin doesn't even want to invade Ukraine, i.e making it part of Russia. He said multiple times that NATO should just back off and there would be no war.

USA should focus more on their core strategic interest, which is East Asia and Gulf Area...I don't know why they're still so set on antagonizing Russia.

If Ukraine was really a core strategic interest of NATO, they would already stop this. But it's not.
 
philostam said:
Come on...Untrue and unhelpful.

Ukraine was a buffer zone between NATO and Russia and the US has been trying to get it to their side. Putin told multiple times it's not gonna happen. Ukraine is their core strategic interest, while it]s not even close to being a core strategic interest for the US. I don't know why they were provoking Putin so much, did they really think he's gonna gonna just take it.

Putin doesn't even want to invade Ukraine, i.e making it part of Russia. He said multiple times that NATO should just back off.
Click to expand...
I'll admit I haven't been following events in Ukraine at all. But invasion of a sovereign country is beyond the pale. Just look at Putin, he heads a gangster state. He's said any resistance will be met by force never seen before in history. He won't stop. He is a tryant.
 
US thought that whole world would just become one big happy family with identical political systems and become an US satellite. But China and Russia don't agree, they are still interested in keeping some sort of balance of powers.

We should just accept this already.

The West mightly fucked up here...again. I am as angry with them as I am with Putin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top