Quote :

"That’s unfair. Earl doesn’t believe in appeasement necessarily. He’s made it abundantly clear that he does not believe that Ukraine is a legitimate country. He believes because some regions identify more with Russia that it’s ok for Putin to ignore international borders and seize the land. He’s said this explicitly."

lol, that's literally among the reasoning given for why it was okay for germany to annex sudetenland, it's literally part of appeasement.


[Edited on November 27, 2019 at 12:45 PM. Reason : it felt too funny reading his comments against history repeating itself ]

11/27/2019 12:41:13 PM

Ghouliani was in talks to be paid by Lutsenko as they together sought dirt on Biden

11/27/2019 1:12:12 PM

I was wondering what would drop when Trump started claiming Guiliani has lots of other clients and he didn't send Rudy to Ukraine.

11/27/2019 3:55:19 PM

11/27/2019 5:52:27 PM

Quote :

" Ghouliani was in talks to be paid by Lutsenko as they together sought dirt on Biden "

Wait lutsenko the attorney general was going to pay Giuliani?

This rabbit hole is getting deeper seems like... etf...

11/27/2019 5:57:17 PM

Quote :

"The United States withdrawing from world affairs will not suddenly cause Russia, China, and other competitors to do the same. They will fill that vacuum, they will become more powerful, and when they are powerful enough, they will come after us."

Being an obvious Russian troll, that's exactly what horosho is aiming for.

11/27/2019 6:12:36 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/giuliani-was-in-talks-to-be-paid-by-ukraines-top-prosecutor-as-they-together-sought-damaging-information-on-democrats/2019/11/27/636c3e86-112d-11ea-b0fc-62cc38411ebb_story.html

Quote :

" >The people said that Giuliani began negotiations with Ukraine’s top prosecutor, **Yuri Lutsenko**, about a possible agreement in February. Lutsenko has already been named as a focus of the [criminal indictment in SDNY](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/lutsenko-unnamed-ukrainian-who-led-plot-oust-yovanovitch-says-official-n1065246) for FARA purposes. >"They sought political influence not only to advance their own financial interests, but to advance the political interests of at least one foreign official ?— **a Ukrainian government official [Lutsenko] who sought the dismissal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine,"** Geoffrey Berman, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said at a Thursday news conference. "

This is nuts.

Assuming Trump knew about this, he then subsequently used taxpayer dollars as leverage to help guiliani engage in a corrupt deal with Ukraine to personally enrich themselves. Wow ??!

11/27/2019 6:59:21 PM

I was going to respond point by point to horosho but GrumpyGOP nailed it.

^Yep, it is absolutely outrageous and insane. And congressional Republicans are all in on him still. Absolute cowards.

[Edited on November 27, 2019 at 7:17 PM. Reason : a]

11/27/2019 7:16:30 PM

Quote :

"I prefer to base my understanding of the world on established evidence rather than absolutely nothing whatsoever."

Except that you are taking evidence from countries that no longer exist and a world and global order that no longer exist and trying to apply them to a completely different world. You are taking one small outliter of modern history and using it as the rule for how things work going forward.

I am not basing my understanding on "absolutely nothing" and you know it. Thats hyperbole. Occupying land is no longer profitable in the same way it was before. Neither is looting resources via invasion or convincing your population to pay for an extremely costly conflict. There is a boatload of evidence and corporate influence is the only reason why we haven't reeled it all in. The cold war was never about safety or defense and was always about markets. The world is completely connected now. Its an entirely different realm and consensus is building on my behalf.

You're neglecting the fact that are biggest existential threats are all within our own borders.

Quote :

"In December 2013, the Pew Research Center reported that their newest poll, "American's Place in the World 2013," had revealed that 52 percent of respondents in the national poll said that the United States "should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.""

Quote :

"A July 2014 poll of "battleground voters" across the United States found "77 percent in favor of full withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2016; only 15 percent and 17 percent interested in more involvement in Syria and Ukraine, respectively; and 67 percent agreeing with the statement that, 'U.S. military actions should be limited to direct threats to our national security.'"[45]"

https://www.overseasbases.net/letter.html
Theres a growing consensus on my side and its not by accident. The only evidence you need is the opportunity cost of operating the way we do now. You start from a point of war and disaster today and without it, you worry about war and disaster that may or may not occur. Even then, we still can let congress vote us into a war that break out at any time but this permanent state of war is wasteful. Close the bases and bring everyone home .

Quote :

"So by your own admission, your vision for the world involves our adversaries gobbling up all their smaller neighbors. Sounds exactly what you're accusing us of saying, that "the moment the US isn't involved, the 4th reich is going to erupt." The United States withdrawing from world affairs will not suddenly cause Russia, China, and other competitors to do the same. They will fill that vacuum, they will become more powerful, and when they are powerful enough, they will come after us."

No they will not "gobble up" random neighbors. They will protect their resources and interests the same way we do now. They will invest in other nations and extract wealth the same way we do. This idea that they are blindly evil and "will eventually come after us" is an extremely elementary way of thinking. I almost can't believe there are people who can type that out without realizing how ridiculous of a caricature it is. As if theres some sort of "good vs evil" fight that we'd be leaving. China nor Russia have nothing to gain and everything to lose by "coming for us".

The difference is we have everything we need here in our country and don't need to do this anymore.

Quote :

"It's not all-or-nothing, is it? On the one hand we have your buffoonish "defund the military and abandon all the allies" plan, which leaves us vulnerable to everything, including traditional warfare. And on the other extreme we could throw everything we've got into building tanks, bombs, and rifles to meet Russia on the plains of Poland."

Well I do think its nothing until we are able afford basic necessities for people in this country. Like on the plane put your own mask on before trying to help others put on their mask. If we can't provide basic services in this country, then theres nothing worth defending anyway.

What sense does it make that we are debating whether we can afford healthcare and education for our people while providing security to other countries? For example, people in UAE pay no income taxes while American workers with student loan debt and no healthcare actually subsidize those things for free to citizens of the UAE. All so you can make more gains on your portfolio.

I'd be down with charging them to defend but they need to cover all of the costs and some. Thats how aid should work. No more free rides for rich countries.

Quote :

"Some countries are bigger and more powerful than others are ever going to be. China is massively more powerful in terms of manpower and resources than most of its neighbors. Ditto Russia. None of the nations of continental Europe can defend against Russia alone, or even working together. We know, because they've tried, and failed, repeatedly. Together, with us, they stand a reasonably good chance, and so Putin is forced to nibble at the periphery."

This is the adult in the room argument. Like these extremely wealthy countries are helpless and incapable of figuring out a way to defend themselves. Its almost like the whole of European history before the US existed was just Russian occupation.

Besides, Russia has no interest in taking over a country like France. What would they do there? It would be completely pointless and the costs would be so high it would literally cause Russia to collapse. You never thought about motive because you literally think they just want to do bad things for the sake of it because Putin is a marvel villain. You never thought about invading and annexing territory with an unwilling population is completely more complex than it was 50-100 years ago. You think you are so smart for applying WW1 and WW2 logic to every situation but you aren't analyzing any nuance.

They don't want to take Western Europe, they want to overtake Western Europe's power and influence in their immediate region. Suppressing their desire to be a major world player is the real threat to global peace.

You wouldn't understand this point unless China froze your bank account and built military bases with nukes all along the canadian and mexican borders.

Quote :

"That’s unfair. Earl doesn’t believe in appeasement necessarily. He’s made it abundantly clear that he does not believe that Ukraine is a legitimate country. He believes because some regions identify more with Russia that it’s ok for Putin to ignore international borders and seize the land. He’s said this explicitly. "

Its not what "I believe". Its fact that Crimea is Russian. Its also fact that places all around the globe ended up on the wrong side of borders that were hastily drawn in the 20th century--against the will of the people. It just so happens that Russia also needs an outlet.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/27/apple-and-google-maps-accommodate-russias-annexation-of-crimea/.

But you aren't even being genuine because you don't give a damn about borders anyway. The US has broken the borders of every treaty it ever signed. There will always be border disputes all over the world because borders are subjective/unnatural. If you care so much about international borders, start by donating your land to the nation it was stolen from in the link below. Its a ridiculous demand but you are asking the Russian people of Crimea to give in to a weak, poor country that didn't exist in the first place and can't even keep them from joining Russia.
https://native-land.ca/


ps: no one ever asks what we were doing in pearl harbor in the first place. it never comes up in general discussions. Its always just us minding its own business then BAM all our ships got bombed

[Edited on November 28, 2019 at 12:25 AM. Reason : half our navy just happened to be in the middle of the pacific. ]

[Edited on November 28, 2019 at 12:26 AM. Reason : the answer is we were already there to counter japan. its almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy. ]

[Edited on November 28, 2019 at 12:33 AM. Reason : we will collapse ourselves]

11/28/2019 12:15:47 AM

ok russian apologist

11/28/2019 12:46:04 AM

Quote :

"Besides, Russia has no interest in taking over a country like France. What would they do there?"

All of the politics in Europe run through France; it's the de facto capital. Sounds to me like a good spot to have on the map.

11/28/2019 2:17:18 AM

Quote :

"I am not basing my understanding on "absolutely nothing" and you know it. Thats hyperbole."

Hahahaha

"'Absolutely nothing' is hyperbole! I'm basing my opinions on virtually nothing."

Like, you keep insisting that the entire history of the world up to the present day is irrelevant, but for your side you just promise that there is "a boatload of evidence" without ever actually providing any. You're a joke.

Quote :

"Theres a growing consensus on my side and its not by accident."

What are these polls supposed to be showing me? That isolationism is having a resurgence in the United States? OK. That's happened before, and rather famously it ended poorly.

What those polls don't show is support for closing military bases around the world. You want to get out of Afghanistan? So do I. No strategic purpose is served by us staying there in any significant numbers, and Afghanistan is beyond saving. But once again, there's a wide, wide gulf between "this particular overseas activity is dumb" to "CEASE ALL OVERSEAS ACTIVITY"

Quote :

"No they will not "gobble up" random neighbors."

According to you, the only things preventing Russia and Iran from divying up Syria, and the only thing preventing China from absorbing Taiwan, is our presence. That's what I was responding to.

And you are completely missing the point if you think I'm presenting a "good vs. evil" scenario. International relations theory is not about "good" and "bad." It's about describing the world as it is.

Any country will expand as much as it thinks it can get away with. There are no "good" or even really "peaceful" countries; there are only those countries which are so weak relative to their neighbors that war must result in their destruction. Nor are there any "evil" countries, but there's only a few that are powerful enough to seize their neighbors without credible fear of defeat. Those few are kept in check by each other.

The only reason that Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states are currently independent is that Russia is aware that trying to take them would result in a response from the combined militaries of NATO, which it cannot defeat in the long term. Taiwan stays independent because China knows attacking it would bring the United States and probably Japan and Australia into war against it, and while it could almost certainly defend the mainland from invasion, it would fail to take Taiwan and suffer massive damage in the process. And it's us, too. Cuba's independence was preserved, firstly, by the military support of the USSR, and more recently by the knowledge that invading it would undermine our alliances with other countries to the benefit of our adversaries.

Quote :

"The difference is we have everything we need here in our country and don't need to do this anymore."

No we don't. We're not an autarky, we don't have everything, and even if we did, cutting ourselves off from intercourse with the world is wildly inefficient.

Quote :

"Well I do think its nothing until we are able afford basic necessities for people in this country."

Still a false dichotomy. Fixing domestic problems is not dependent on withdrawing from the rest of the world. I suppose you're in favor of getting rid of aid to poor countries, too?

Quote :

"Its almost like the whole of European history before the US existed was just Russian occupation."

No, but Czar Alexander marched into Paris and Stalin took damn near half the continent for himself as soon as he had the opportunity. They've got a demonstrated ability to whoop Europe.

The rest of this part of your rambling is an effort to build a straw man with more grass clippings than straw. Large scale regional expansion doesn't happen instantly and rarely happens quickly. Yes, conquering an unwilling populace is difficult and costly. That's why you don't do it all at once. You do it in steps, and that isn't something from the distant past, that's something we're seeing Russia do right now.

11/28/2019 9:25:35 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/27/politics/trump-official-conspiracy-theories-state-department/index.html

New Senior adviser in state department is a demented conspiracy pushing trump loyalist who wants to nuke Iran

11/29/2019 1:01:40 AM

Quote :

"Hahahaha "'Absolutely nothing' is hyperbole! I'm basing my opinions on virtually nothing." Like, you keep insisting that the entire history of the world up to the present day is irrelevant, but for your side you just promise that there is "a boatload of evidence" without ever actually providing any. You're a joke."

Theres evidence all around you, you just choose to ignore it. Even if you only want to look at history, consider Switzerland. They have a utopian society specifically because they are and were always neutral.

You ignore the fact that pretty much all of the major conflicts on Earth since WW2 have been caused by US meddling or intervention. Just since 911, the US has killed about a million dollars and spent almost 7 trillion and the result is a world that is MORE unstable and MORE dangerous than it was in 2001. No ones saying there wouldn't be disadvantages to pulling back but its hard to imagine the losses would be that big for anyone other than the companies who sponsored your worldview.

Quote :

"What are these polls supposed to be showing me? That isolationism is having a resurgence in the United States? OK. That's happened before, and rather famously it ended poorly."

It ended because it never actually started and our enemies knew it. WW1 wasn't a war we shamefully sat out of. It was a war that never should have happened in the first place and staying out would have been better for everyone. It was a war we got dragged into because we weren't fully neutral. The Lousitania was carrying arms to Britain. Much of the shipping activity was propping up the Briish cause. Joining WW1 caused it to end the way it did which created the conditions for WW2. Thats the thing with intervention. No one ever considers what happens next and theres always a next. It never ends.

Quote :

"According to you, the only things preventing Russia and Iran from divying up Syria, and the only thing preventing China from absorbing Taiwan, is our presence. That's what I was responding to."

Russia and Iran didn't want to "divy up" Syria, they wanted to end the instability we created there by crushing the terrorists and restoring assad's control that was already friendly to them. Russian troops were invited there, we weren't This is what you don't understand about today's world. Powers don't want to expand their borders across the world anymore. Its about influence now and with globalization, all you need is a friendly leader in Syria who allows you the port access and favorable trade agreements. You get all of the benefits of imperialism without having to physically suppress the native population. Bolivia is our example of this. I don't agree with it but at least its a more efficient form of conquest.

Why do I care if China takes Taiwan? Thats a Chinese dispute. I realize that the republic of China is not a native taiwanese government anyway. Its all relative but again, you just seem to favor the position that is best for your portfolio. There is no limit to China's desire to expand but there is a real limit to the number of places they want to govern.

I can't just say I'm not going to be governed by DC anymore and break out without the full wrath of DC neither can California or PR but somehow no Chinese territory should be held accountable by Chinese laws. Its almost like sovereignty only matters for countries you like.

Quote :

"Any country will expand as much as it thinks it can get away with. There are no "good" or even really "peaceful" countries; there are only those countries which are so weak relative to their neighbors that war must result in their destruction. Nor are there any "evil" countries, but there's only a few that are powerful enough to seize their neighbors without credible fear of defeat. Those few are kept in check by each other."

So why not just let things reach a natural equilibrium instead of spending an infinite amount of resources propping up places that

a, aren't natural
b, are too weak to defend themselves
c, could easily be incorporated into another country (the population would allow it)

Its like you would have rather spent trillions and hundreds of thousands of lives keeping Crimea from Ukraine instead of letting them have a democratic referendum and join Russia with like 2 people dying. It makes no sense.

Quote :

"The only reason that Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states are currently independent is that Russia is aware that trying to take them would result in a response from the combined militaries of NATO, which it cannot defeat in the long term. Taiwan stays independent because China knows attacking it would bring the United States and probably Japan and Australia into war against it, and while it could almost certainly defend the mainland from invasion, it would fail to take Taiwan and suffer massive damage in the process. And it's us, too. Cuba's independence was preserved, firstly, by the military support of the USSR, and more recently by the knowledge that invading it would undermine our alliances with other countries to the benefit of our adversaries."

but how is WW3 or a perpetual state of aggression better than any of that? Of course its better for the beneficiaries but how is it better for us that Latvia not be returned to Russia?

Its not like I want these things to happen either. I'd be fine giving them time to transition into defending themselves or even be willing to sell them weapons and protection but if they aren't a sustainable country, then maybe they shouldn't exist. We simply can't be burdened with making sure the world's borders stay a certain way forever. If you want to look at history, thats something that has never happened and every empire has collapsed or overstretched itself.

You're willing to risk everything in order to keep some Chinese places from becoming Chinese and some Russian places from becoming Russian.

Quote :

"No we don't. We're not an autarky, we don't have everything, and even if we did, cutting ourselves off from intercourse with the world is wildly inefficient."

We would still be a giant with massive economic influence around the globe without doing what we are doing.

Quote :

"Still a false dichotomy. Fixing domestic problems is not dependent on withdrawing from the rest of the world. I suppose you're in favor of getting rid of aid to poor countries, too? "

We are only doing one right now so its not clearly a false dichotomy. Its a real dichotomy as long as we are doing one and there is bipartisan "how would we have pay for that" when it comes to the other. We may be able to afford both but the entire political establishment believes we can only afford one.

Quote :

"They've got a demonstrated ability to whoop Europe."

Then, like I said, we are enabling them by not making Europe build up its own defenses. Everyone needs to be able to defend themselves. They can figure something out. Thats what nukes are for. What if Russia and China decide to go in at the same time? We gonna win a two-theatre world war just to make sure Latvia and Taiwan maintain independence?

[Edited on November 29, 2019 at 3:44 AM. Reason : no border is forever]

11/29/2019 3:41:57 AM

In order to minimize the quote-bombing, I'll skip the various little things that you are factually wrong about, including Switzerland's perpetual neutrality since the dawn of time (to say nothing of its status as a "utopia").

Quote :

"Powers don't want to expand their borders across the world anymore. Its about influence now"

I don't recall ever saying that the only form great power expansionism could take was direct annexation. Influence to the point of domination is functionally the same thing. History is full of puppet states.

Quote :

"Its all relative but again, you just seem to favor the position that is best for your portfolio."

LOL

Yeah you guys, GrumpyGOP the Wall Street big shot, investing in the military industrial complex since he got a real job like three years ago.

Quote :

"So why not just let things reach a natural equilibrium instead of spending an infinite amount of resources propping up places"

You are assuming that the natural end-state is an equilibrium in which a passive, isolationist United States would be at anything like parity with other powers.

We spend some (hardly infinite) resources propping up countries to maximize our share of power relative to other great powers. We don't keep the Baltic independent for its own sake. I'm sure that many people, myself included, have warm fuzzy feelings about self-determination and all, but the real reason we keep the Baltic from falling into Russian hands is so that Russia won't get that much more powerful relative to us. There is, at present, no discernible "end-state" to play for; there's only maximizing our strength and minimizing that of adversaries.

Quote :

"We would still be a giant with massive economic influence around the globe without doing what we are doing."

We wouldn't be if we totally withdrew from the world, and that's what would be necessary to achieve your dystopian vision of American neutrality. To retain massive economic influence, you have to trade with the world. If you trade with the world, you have to expose that trade - the supply lines, logistics, and resources - to attack or interference. If you don't defend that trade, then you don't have massive economic influence.

Quote :

"We may be able to afford both but the entire political establishment believes we can only afford one."

...which is exactly why it's a false dichotomy.

We can play a major role in maintaining the global order and fix problems at home by tweaking some priorities. We are on the same page that most politicians right now are unwilling to do that. Because we cannot convince them to take more modest steps, you propose that they take radical (and destructive) steps. I propose that we vote for people will take more modest steps.

Quote :

"Everyone needs to be able to defend themselves. They can figure something out. Thats what nukes are for."

LOL OK I'm done

11/29/2019 12:58:59 PM

Please don’t be done. This is quite enjoyable seeing you dissect his fallacies. Very thought inducing posts.

11/29/2019 1:56:43 PM

Quote :

"Influence to the point of domination is functionally the same thing."

Reminded me of this:

Quote :

"Everyone needs to be able to defend themselves. They can figure something out. Thats what nukes are for."

Reminded me of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov_(vice_admiral)

[Edited on November 29, 2019 at 3:04 PM. Reason : a]

11/29/2019 2:56:18 PM

Quote :

"In order to minimize the quote-bombing, I'll skip the various little things that you are factually wrong about, including Switzerland's perpetual neutrality since the dawn of time (to say nothing of its status as a "utopia")."

You conveniently skipped the biggest rebuttal to your point about using the history of ww1 and ww2 to talk about secondary points. Your entire argument depends on the premise that those historical events can be directly applied to today's situation.

Quote :

"LOL Yeah you guys, GrumpyGOP the Wall Street big shot, investing in the military industrial complex since he got a real job like three years ago."

I was giving you credit. Its a lot worse if you go to bat for policies that will only hurt yourself at the expense of people like this. The sad product of brainwashing and the exact reason why I asked Cherokee what he thought I should read. Everything you've been taught was designed to arrive at this world view. Thats why its the status quo.

Would it be crazy to consider a non-capitalist point of view to supplement the decades of capitalist propaganda you've consumed as part of your education? Its not like I went to school in Cuba either. I've just taken the time to consider past and current events through multiple perspectives.

Quote :

"You are assuming that the natural end-state is an equilibrium in which a passive, isolationist United States would be at anything like parity with other powers."

Of course we would. China has done it up until now. In fact, its a contributing factor to them gaining on us. There are a lot of reasons why the USSR failed but everyone can agree that military spending was at least a major contributing factor. It spent too much from the 70s on because it overstretched itself abroad and had a quagmire in Afghanistan. You love history so much but omit big historical events that don't support your point. This wouldn't be a problem if you didn't claim "all of human history" supported your point.

Quote :

"there's only maximizing our strength and minimizing that of adversaries."

but thats the argument. I'm specifically arguing that conflict does NOT make nations stronger and in my model, Russia and China are partners not adversaries. If maximizing strength is the goal, why would you rather to be partners with needy Belarus and Ukraine instead of Russia?

Quote :

" To retain massive economic influence, you have to trade with the world. If you trade with the world, you have to expose that trade - the supply lines, logistics, and resources - to attack or interference. If you don't defend that trade, then you don't have massive economic influence."

More of the same. If we are partners with China, and China's expanding their strength, things become a lot more stable and there isn't much concern about attack or interference. We still have a massive population with enormous natural resources, technical prowess, and production capabilities. We are geographically insulated. China still depends on trade with us and they need to keep it safe too. All trade is two sided. China's a good ally as long as you don't poke around with their internal affairs. There would be losses, of course, but the savings would more than make up for it. We always would have the ability to take our ball and go home if they try to cheat.

All scenarios where Russia or China try to shut down trade depend on us applying your approach, the current approach. Under my approach, Russia and China have no incentive to fuck with us, their partner, and can crush anyone who does. You'd be looking at 3 spheres of influence where they'd be more likely to conflict with each other than with us.

Syria's a great example of this. We're afraid of ISIS, Russia hates ISIS and Syria hates ISIS. Assad's Russian propped Syria is stable, and ISIS-free but in the current model, theres a lot of things happening in Syria for us to worry about that could impact the US directly.

Quote :

"Please don’t be done."

I'm pretty sure he's only done because he thinks my nuke statement is outrageous. He thinks more countries having a nuclear deterrent makes the world a more dangerous place but he can't actually go into it because he knows his reasoning is hypocritical. The US using nuclear weapons in WW2 is the only evidence that anyone would ever actually use nukes forward which ironically, I'd bet he probably still supports.

He has to be done because India and Pakistan have been at a relative equilibrium and haven't destroyed each other after almost 50 years of being able to defend themselves against each other.

He has to be done because nuclear proliferation has ended the disastrous age of total war that his entire world view is predicated on saving us from.

11/29/2019 3:22:43 PM

Quote :

"The sad product of brainwashing and the exact reason why I asked Cherokee what he thought I should read. Everything you've been taught was designed to arrive at this world view."

Lol. I suppose all physicists are brainwashed by scientific education. Mathematicians for that matter, too. And of course, historians are brainwashed by everything they've read about history.

This is what I meant by you being woefully uneducated when it comes to this topic. The fact that you even brought up brainwashing has me inclined to suppose that you believe the fluoride in our drinking water is a government mind control project.

Look, any one of us here can tell you specific things to read. The point is this - you cannot take any one person, book, article, etc. You have got to read a wide, wide variety. When you actually engage in this, you will begin to see consensus forming around certain things and that almost always consensus indicates reality and the best approach forward (not perfect approach, best approach). It's how science works. If you are incapable of accepting that, there's nothing else anyone here can do for you.

You can continue to try and point to isolated situations or to random counterfactual beliefs that are espoused by people who have no experience nor education in any of the subject matter at hand - it doesn't matter. You are speaking opinion without any factual basis. One of the most amazing examples of you being wrong due to this is your assertion that Switzerland lives in a utopia because they've always been neutral.

They don't live in a "utopia." The extent to which their society is desirable is due in a LARGE degree to demographic homogeneity combined with geography. Oh, and never mind the small little details such as the fact that not only have they not always been neutral but that they have, in fact, been a war faring nation themselves. I suppose you forgot about their invasion of France.

Also, Austria has a history of neutrality. I seem to recall that working out quite well for them during World War Two....

Quote :

"The US using nuclear weapons in WW2 is the only evidence that anyone would ever actually use nukes forward which ironically, I'd bet he probably still supports."

You really, really need to study more before trying to engage in debates. It's insane how wrong you are here, not because you're wrong, but because you have such confidence in yourself that you're correct with absolutely nothing to base your beliefs on other than your emotion.

[Edited on November 29, 2019 at 5:06 PM. Reason : a]

11/29/2019 5:01:20 PM

Quote :

"Lol. I suppose all physicists are brainwashed by scientific education. Mathematicians for that matter, too. And of course, historians are brainwashed by everything they've read about history."

I say you are brainwashed from an American centric history education =/= Mathematicians and scientists are brainwashed.

These wild connections and leaps made here represent a complete failure of logic and the same sort of bad logic that you are using to build your views. I'm glad you provided this sample because you can read until the cows come home but it will not fix poor logic and assumptions.

Quote :

"This is what I meant by you being woefully uneducated when it comes to this topic. The fact that you even brought up brainwashing has me inclined to suppose that you believe the fluoride in our drinking water is a government mind control project."

So now anyone who thinks anyone out there is brainwashed is probably uneducated and also believes in fake conspiracy theories? Its a cheap and easy way to dismiss anyone who disagree with your perspective.

Quote :

"Look, any one of us here can tell you specific things to read. The point is this - you cannot take any one person, book, article, etc. You have got to read a wide, wide variety. When you actually engage in this, you will begin to see consensus forming around certain things and that almost always consensus indicates reality and the best approach forward (not perfect approach, best approach). It's how science works. If you are incapable of accepting that, there's nothing else anyone here can do for you."

Here you are accusing me of what you're actually guilty of. I've had the American centric education. I used to believe all of the things you believe until I expanded my horizons. Its you who needs to venture outside the realm of pro-american, pro-capitalism, euro-centric, American-centric, judaeo christian-centric education. Political debate is not Science. . I will use a science example. There is science behind climate change, what it is, how it works, and the potential consequences. Given climate change science, the debate about the approach we should take, and how other governments might react is politics, not Science. There are many ways one could consider all of the Science, take it into account, and come up with a series of actions to deal with them. How effective the different approaches would be or the wisdom of each approach is impossible to know in advance and up for debate.

Quote :

"They don't live in a "utopia." The extent to which their society is desirable is due in a LARGE degree to demographic homogeneity combined with geography. Oh, and never mind the small little details such as the fact that not only have they not always been neutral but that they have, in fact, been a war faring nation themselves. I suppose you forgot about their invasion of France."

You're mixing timelines and referring to things out of historical context. Switzerland invaded at the end of the 18th century. I've been talking about 20th century Switzerland. Completely different time. Switzerland was a dirt poor country and is rich specifically because of the neutrality. They were actually more homogenous back in the 19th century when they were poor not yet neutral.

You're doing the same thing with Austria. They didn't stay neutral because they joined Germany. Its almost like being neutral doesn't work if you stop being neutral... That also reminds me of how Anschluss was another result of how the failed end to WW1 created bigger problems later.

And yeah the use of utopia is hyperbole but that should be obvious because no place can be perfect. The point is that Swiss society is a LOT better than almost everywhere else including the US.

Quote :

"You really, really need to study more before trying to engage in debates. It's insane how wrong you are here, not because you're wrong, but because you have such confidence in yourself that you're correct with absolutely nothing to base your beliefs on other than your emotion."

So you're indirectly admitting that you haven't been exposed to any literature that comes from a perspective similar to mine and that my personal emotion is the only thing supporting pacifist, non interventionist approach to foreign policy and then saying its me who needs to read more.

You are projecting what I call brainwashing by suggesting I'll become a neocon if I just read more and more neocon literature and that if I don't believe the conclusions that are the consensus of a large body of neocon authors, I must reject all expertise, knowledge and reading in general.

I'm not acting like I'm right because no one knows the future and human psychology is too complex to know how a group of people will react to a cascading series of events or actions. Its the same as debating economic or legal systems. Anyone who thinks a specific set of conditions (especially the conditions they happened to be born into), happen to be the only way it can be done is full of shit.

[Edited on November 29, 2019 at 6:23 PM. Reason : anyone who doesn't hold your perspective is clearly uneducated or they would see things as you do]

real debates are a way of gaining knowledge and perspective assuming everyone argues their views and no party tries to shut down the process by dismissing the ideological minority as uneducated. even if someone is significantly less educated than you, "get educated" is not an argument.

[Edited on November 29, 2019 at 6:28 PM. Reason : lol]

11/29/2019 6:22:11 PM

Quote :

"You conveniently skipped the biggest rebuttal to your point about using the history of ww1 and ww2 to talk about secondary points. Your entire argument depends on the premise that those historical events can be directly applied to today's situation."

What rebuttal? You keep saying they aren't applicable, but you haven't given us any reason to agree. "The evidence is all around" and "read other sources" aren't arguments.

For what it's worth, this subject was the focus of my studies through undergrad and graduate school. It shouldn't shock you to learn that in the course of all that study, I covered sources running the ideological gambit.

Quote :

"Of course we would. China has done it up until now. In fact, its a contributing factor to them gaining on us. There are a lot of reasons why the USSR failed but everyone can agree that military spending was at least a major contributing factor. It spent too much from the 70s on because it overstretched itself abroad and had a quagmire in Afghanistan."

China has not been passive or isolationist, and during the periods in which it attempted to be isolationist, it mostly succeeded in proving my point - other countries humiliated and subjugated it. In the 70 or so years of the PRC, it has hardly been isolationist, as Vietnam, Cambodia, Russia, and everyone involved in the Korean war could tell you.

The USSR did overextend. I haven't advocated constant, mindless expansion. They repeatedly misjudged the capabilities of their adversaries and lost as a result. Their example does not prove your point.

Quote :

"I'm specifically arguing that conflict does NOT make nations stronger and in my model, Russia and China are partners not adversaries."

Are you? This is the first I'm seeing of Russia and China being our partners. How is that to be achieved, pray tell? Or are you of the opinion that the only obstacle to global harmony and cooperation is the mean ol' United States?

Quote :

"All trade is two sided. China's a good ally as long as you don't poke around with their internal affairs."

I don't fundamentally disagree. Our extensive trade ties with China make conflict less likely, and I don't think we're in a position to meddle extensively in Chinese internal affairs. None of this has anything to do with abandoning South Korea, Japan, or Taiwan.

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure he's only done because he thinks my nuke statement is outrageous. He thinks more countries having a nuclear deterrent makes the world a more dangerous place but he can't actually go into it because he knows his reasoning is hypocritical."

Your statement is outrageous, expanding membership in the nuclear club does make the world more dangerous, and I was unwilling to go into at the time because it was opening up a whole new front in the exhausting and pointless battle against your ignorance. Seriously, you are to intelligent discourse what land wars in Russia are to Western Europeans.

Nuclear weapons have reduced, but not eliminated, the risk of total war between great powers. But the risk still exists and its consequences have gone from "really bad" to "extinction-level event." In the current balance of power, a handful of nations are capable of deterring each other from using (and most other countries from developing) nuclear weapons. Giving everybody access to the bomb adds a great deal of complexity and instability to a situation that is currently quite stable.

11/29/2019 8:24:07 PM

11/29/2019 9:01:19 PM

Quote :

"The extent to which their society is desirable is due in a LARGE degree to demographic homogeneity combined with geography. "

Switzerland is one of the most culturally diverse countries on the planet, the fuck are you talking about? Calling it a utopia and neutral is also a bit of a stretch. Their security blanket is that all of the major world players in business and politics have significant investments in Switzerland due to their banking security and confidentiality laws. Yes, it is true that they had plans in place to retreat to the mountains if they were ever invaded during the war, but the real reason for them staying out of combat and conflict for so long has more to do with the fact that so much money is tied up within their banks.

They are also way ahead of the game in terms of keeping foreigners out of their country. For one, it is incredibly expensive to live there, and you pretty much have to have a Swiss pass in order to benefit from and work in their system. If you are in, then you're golden. You could be a bartender for your entire life and never have to worry about being taken care of, but if you're out then good luck having to pay 10 bucks for a cup of coffee. And good luck getting that Swiss pass.

The Swiss have also been accused of perpetrating hate crimes against other Europeans and immigrants for decades. They are also typically the first in Europe to move when it comes to passing legislation that keeps outsiders from coming in.

It's kind of ironic that people in America point to countries like Switzerland, Luxembourg and even Germany as being way on the socialist left of the political spectrum, when in fact living there is at times the manifestation of a republican wet dream.

[Edited on November 29, 2019 at 9:12 PM. Reason : why tf are we even talking about this place?]

11/29/2019 9:08:21 PM

Not reading all of this but if your geopolitical beliefs don't include a deep examination of aggressive, mostly euro-centric, colonization, including ongoing economic colonization, you're lacking some critical perspective.

11/29/2019 9:11:42 PM

"Hey I don't know what's going on or when what you're talking about but here's my two cents"

If you want to participate, do so. If you want to drop in for a little bit of virtue signaling non non sequitur, shut your fucking trap.

11/30/2019 10:54:50 AM

Only a good guy with a nuke can stop a bad guy with a nuke.

Where have I heard that argument before...?

[Edited on November 30, 2019 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2019 12:26:08 PM

^^
I skimmed it and it's the same as it always is. You and Cherokee pretending that our foreign policy is meant to protect and stabilize the world and not to economically colonize it. Your arguments come from the conventional basis of protecting US hegemony, not making the world safer and better for everyone.

11/30/2019 1:26:34 PM

Quote :

"making the world safer and better for everyone"

What is this suppose to mean? As someone who doesn’t believe in any of the major religions, this is a such a worthless sentence.

11/30/2019 2:46:02 PM

does letting russia have crimea or the donbass region make the world safer and better?

11/30/2019 2:49:40 PM

Quote :

"What is this suppose to mean? As someone who doesn’t believe in any of the major religions, this is a such a worthless sentence"

It means exactly what I said. Traditional conservative geopolitics consists of protecting the hegemony of the colonial west. It doesn’t care about ruining entire countries as long it serves to advance the interests of the US and its close allies. Cherokee and Grumpy argue exclusively in these terms rather than considering the interests of the entire population of the world.

Russia annexing a former territory is not worth starting a war over, and ultimately would be far worse for Crimeans, as evidenced by nearly every single conflict we’ve involved ourselves in. Idk how any lefty could see getting involved militarily with Crimea as a viable option with any recent US administration.

[Edited on November 30, 2019 at 3:33 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2019 3:26:55 PM

Quote :

"Russia annexing a former territory "

It's more than a former territory. It is, and always has been, a perfect location for Russia to expand and boost its Navy, which has historically always been a weak spot for them. This is definitely more of a strategic move than "annexing" a society of people that claim to come from Russian decent.

There is definitely cause for concern.

[Edited on November 30, 2019 at 4:35 PM. Reason : d]

11/30/2019 4:28:39 PM

Quote :

"Traditional conservative geopolitics"

What are these, exactly? It's not a term I'm familiar with.

I've been speaking primarily from the perspective of a realist approach to international relations, which is agnostic on the question of political ideology. I've been pretty clear throughout that the United States, China, and Russia are all playing essentially the same game (as are all countries, to the limits of their capabilities).

I do think that America's prevailing political ideologies have historically been preferable to those of China or Russia, but for purposes of this debate it's irrelevant. All countries strive for dominance as best they can. If we could somehow magically become the one country that didn't, we inevitably would find ourselves dominated. I don't like that outcome any better than anybody else would.

Quote :

"consists of protecting the hegemony of the colonial west."

And Russian and Chinese strategy consists of establishing and protecting the hegemony of Russia and China, respectively. All part of the same game.

Quote :

"Russia annexing a former territory is not worth starting a war over"

Who has advocated starting a war over it? I haven't. Don't think Cherokee did. Haven't seen anybody do it.

There was a reasonable and proportional response to Russia's annexation of the Crimea. I think we fell a little bit short of what we should have done, but I don't think we should have gone to war. A reasonable response signals to Russia (and our allies) that we are paying attention, we are reacting, and that our reactions will escalate with further provocation.

11/30/2019 6:41:38 PM

Russia started a minor shooting war over crimea and the donbass, they would not have started a major war which is why a blocking force would be effective. Similar story in Syria

11/30/2019 7:38:36 PM

Quote :

"There was a reasonable and proportional response to Russia's annexation of the Crimea. I think we fell a little bit short of what we should have done, but I don't think we should have gone to war. A reasonable response signals to Russia (and our allies) that we are paying attention, we are reacting, and that our reactions will escalate with further provocation. "

Yeah, exactly. These are schemes that we are playing, not really starting a war. I think that there is a big difference.

For the record, and please correct me if I am wrong, but this began at the end of the 2014 Olympics and beginning of 2015. I don't know why Obama is getting so much hate on this, since the time of it was during a regime change for us.

11/30/2019 8:40:30 PM

Quote :

"Switzerland is one of the most culturally diverse countries on the planet, the fuck are you talking about? "

Quote :

"Swiss 69.5%, German 4.2%, Italian 3.2%, Portuguese 2.6%, French 2%, Kosovar 1.1%, other 17.3%, unspecified .1% (2018 est.)"

Five of those eight categories are effectively caucasian. And you call that incredibly diverse. Educate yourself, that's all I can say. Debating you and horosho is like debating tulsigabbard. You guys are either trolls, which is cool, I can appreciate that. Or you're just beyond the mark where you're capable of learning how to learn. I'll leave you two be now to live in your bubble world of delusion and antipathy towards education.

[Edited on December 1, 2019 at 7:20 PM. Reason : a]

12/1/2019 7:17:11 PM

educate your own self. Ethnic and Cultural diversity is not the same as racial diversity. Americans tend to only think in terms of race because of how we are a diverse nation in terms of race, but our country shares much more similarity in language and cultures than other countries such as India or Nigeria where there is actually more racial homogeneity.

Just because the majority of the people in CH are white, it doesn't mean that they don't have major differences. It is actually incredibly diverse there, as it was originally made up as a confederation consisting of Swiss German, French and Italian (among others) regions that to this day have different languages and unique lifestyles. Their country code is CH because the abbreviation for Switzerland is different in each of the languages.

Taking a road trip through Switzerland would no different than an American traveling through multiple different countries. The languages change, road signs change, people and the food change, etc.

[Edited on December 1, 2019 at 9:30 PM. Reason : a]

12/1/2019 9:18:00 PM

Quote :

"Just because the majority of the people in CH are white, it doesn't mean that they don't have major differences. It is actually incredibly diverse there"

True, but that doesn't make it this:

Quote :

"Switzerland is one of the most culturally diverse countries on the planet"

German, French, and Italian cultures are different, but still, they are white European cultures, and as such, a lot closer to each other than say, Chinese, Muslim Malay, and Hindu Indian cultures are to each other, which is what you would find in Malaysia and Singapore. Or look at Brazil for that matter.

You can definitely label said countries as "some of the most culturally diverse countries on the planet", but definitely not Switzerland. There are dozens of other countries--in Asia, Africa, and Latin America--between Malaysia/Singapore and Switzerland on the list of "most culturally diverse countries."

12/2/2019 5:17:26 AM

Quote :

"Debating (you and) horosho is like debating tulsigabbard."

About that...

12/2/2019 6:22:13 AM

LMAO at Switzerland being one of the most diverse countries in the world. I mean a case for relatively high linguistic diversity exists since they do speak three languages, but so what? Hundreds of languages are spoken in some countries like Papua New Guinea, India, the Philippines, etc.

Culturally? No way. It's not even that diverse for Europe.

12/2/2019 12:14:37 PM

https://t.co/ldqL7oi8vR?amp=1
Half of the Trump administration’s latest trade-war bailout for farmers went to just a 10th of recipients in the program

Quote :

"“The farm rescue is now more than twice as expensive as the 2009 auto industry bailout, which ultimately cost taxpayers $12 billion.”"

Trump continues to show he is a D in R clothing.

12/2/2019 2:47:35 PM

Keep fuckin' that chicken, HCH!

12/2/2019 3:20:32 PM

lol at comparing the republican handout to the bailout loan that was repaid

12/2/2019 3:48:22 PM

Quote :

"Culturally? No way. It's not even that diverse for Europe. "

How about you actually look into it, and then we can talk. You're still thinking of diversity in terms of race, but that's not the actual qualifier. Yes, it's true that countries like the US or Brazil are racially diverse, but we actually share much more in common than you'd think.

You say that "they speak three languages" in CH, but that's not true either. Swiss people speak around two languages, their native language, which depends entirely on what Canton they are from, and English... if you're lucky.

For example, it's really common for a young adult in CH to get a job or a university spot in a city where he will have to learn an entirely new language and way of life during his stay. That doesn't happen in countries like the US, Brazil, France or England.

That's actually very diverse. The US, aside from race, is relatively homogeneous. Just look it up.


[Edited on December 2, 2019 at 6:38 PM. Reason : a]

12/2/2019 6:16:32 PM

stop it

12/2/2019 6:46:35 PM

dude you're misinformed and just need to look it up. Technically speaking canada is more diverse than we are, and CH is definitely one of the most diverse countries in Europe.

12/2/2019 7:09:25 PM

lol

12/2/2019 7:20:55 PM

Its really interesting to see a lot of the same people who project their americanized worldview into global politics ALSO project their racist americanized view of diversity onto other countries. "They are all the same because no one has dark skin". I'd bet most of the people who think Switzerland lacks diversity have never been to Switzerland.

Cherokee even used the outdated and racist American context of the term "Caucasian". The scariest part is not the argument about the degree of diversity in Switzerland, which is probably a good argument on both sides, but the fact that the original point from grumpgop was that Switzerland being a nice place had nothing to do with neutrality and was mostly due to it being full of white people. Straight up white supremacy. Yikes.

Quote :

"What rebuttal? You keep saying they aren't applicable, but you haven't given us any reason to agree. "The evidence is all around" and "read other sources" aren't arguments. "

I've given several reasons world war is less likely to break out the way it did back then
-economic interdependence in a globalized world prevents war
-nuclear deterrent prevents nations from going to war
-mass spread of information makes it more difficult to sell a destructive war
-the world is a lot smaller today

None of those things existed to this extent back before ww1 and ww2 so its absurd to just blindly apply those situations to today without taking that context into consideration.

Several reasons why WW2 was the result of meddling and not isolation
-treaty of versailles caused ww2
-ww1 intervention made ww2 more likely
-entangled alliances and defense agreements make a big, bloody war more likely (if a attacks b then b attacks c etc etc is more like NATO than isolation)
-if every country is isolated militarily, you only get two party wars of domination
-worst case scenario under isolation is little wars until things stabilize with all nuclear states remaining

Several reasons why endless war is more costly than isolation's worst case scenario
-Vietnam accomplished what?
-Korean war aftermath has led to mass suffering with costs still ballooning today with no end in sight
-War on terror has been more costly to us alone than just letting 911 repeat itself twice

Quote :

" In the 70 or so years of the PRC, it has hardly been isolationist, as Vietnam, Cambodia, Russia, and everyone involved in the Korean war could tell you. "

Those are all conflicts on their border. We aren't talking about that. This is where you don't quite get it. Russia and China are being criticized for things they are doing in their own backyard. We are talking about our projection of force on the other side of the world. No one is saying the US should not defend its borders. We would have a good cause if Russia or China was annexing Sonora. Crimea, not so much... No amount of spin could interpret that as a direct threat to the U.S.

Quote :

"The USSR did overextend. I haven't advocated constant, mindless expansion. They repeatedly misjudged the capabilities of their adversaries and lost as a result. Their example does not prove your point."

So how does WW2 prove your point but a more recent, more apples to apples example of what we are doing now not apply at all? Moral judgement aside, if you think we can continue to police the entire world at an economic gain for the country, you are misjudging the capabilities of Russia, China, and Iran.

Quote :

"Giving everybody access to the bomb adds a great deal of complexity and instability to a situation that is currently quite stable."

So Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Ukraine are stable now? Why do we have 900 bases if the world is so stable? Which side are you on?

The bomb adds complexity in the same way the most common pro-gun argument do. "I want to rob that house but the owner has a gun and might shoot me" is much more complex than, "I'll strong arm the owner and rob that house" .

Quote :

"does letting russia have crimea or the donbass region make the world safer and better?"

well of course the world is safer and better if we let russia have crimea and donbass than if we go to war with russia over it if thats what you're asking...but you, of course, think you can just line all the dominoes up next to each other to keep them from being knocked over.

These "schemes" are irresponsible because the outcomes are unpredictable and your bluff can be called at any time leading to further escalation. The nuclear scares of the past are a result of this type of behavior. Letting them run their backyard is the safest, cheapest option for us.

Quote :

"It's more than a former territory. It is, and always has been, a perfect location for Russia to expand and boost its Navy, which has historically always been a weak spot for them. This is definitely more of a strategic move than "annexing" a society of people that claim to come from Russian decent. There is definitely cause for concern."

How dare they want to rebuild their navy.

signed
-nation with offensive ships and bases on every ocean of the planet

[Edited on December 2, 2019 at 10:54 PM. Reason : this ideology is rife with white supremacy too]

12/2/2019 10:53:01 PM

Quote :

" the original point from grumpgop was that Switzerland being a nice place had nothing to do with neutrality and was mostly due to it being full of white people."

Wait, what?

When did I say this?

Oh, right. I didn't. I didn't say anything even remotely close to being part of the same sport as the same ballpark as this. In fact, what I said was: Switzerland isn't all that neutral, and it isn't even all that nice. Possibly my experience of working there for a few weeks did not expose me to all of its "utopian" charms, but Geneva was...fine. It wasn't a shit heap, but it ain't a goddamn utopia, either.

My exact words:

Quote :

"I'll skip the various little things that you are factually wrong about, including Switzerland's perpetual neutrality since the dawn of time (to say nothing of its status as a "utopia")."

Show me where I said Switzerland was a nice place, and you get 10,000 bonus points if you can point out where I attributed the niceness that I never said it had to white people.

Quote :

"I've given several reasons world war is less likely to break out the way it did back then -economic interdependence in a globalized world prevents war -nuclear deterrent prevents nations from going to war -mass spread of information makes it more difficult to sell a destructive war -the world is a lot smaller today"

The first two are demonstrably untrue, the third is unproven, and the fourth is basically nonsense.

Quote :

"-treaty of versailles caused ww2 Sure, though a big part of the problem is that we decided to be isolationist again halfway through the process, leaving the League of Nations to die an ignominious death -ww1 intervention made ww2 more likely Whose intervention? Ours? Prove it. Or even just defend it. -entangled alliances and defense agreements make a big, bloody war more likely (if a attacks b then b attacks c etc etc is more like NATO than isolation) There's a case to be made for this, but there's also an excellent case for the idea that they make wars generally much less likely. -if every country is isolated militarily, you only get two party wars of domination If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd have Christmas every day. We don't live in a world where every country is isolated militarily. You convince everyone else to be isolationist, then we can talk. -worst case scenario under isolation is little wars until things stabilize with all nuclear states remaining No, worst case scenario is one country (not us) wins all those two party wars of domination, until it's the whole world vs. us"

Quote :

" -Vietnam accomplished what? I don't really think our intervention in Vietnam was very well thought out, but it's worth pointing out that even after we inflicted incalculable damage on the NVA, it was capable of intervening in Laos and Cambodia, and held its own against China. If it had been able to steamroll the south, it could well have been powerful enough to threaten more important countries in the region, including Thailand. Do I think that was worth the price paid in treasure, lives, and political capital at home and abroad? Probably not. But it's not nothing, either. -Korean war aftermath has led to mass suffering with costs still ballooning today with no end in sight As opposed to a unified Korea under the Kim family, which I'm sure would not be inflicting any mass suffering on anyone -War on terror has been more costly to us alone than just letting 911 repeat itself twice So if it were three times, then it would be OK?"

Quote :

"Those are all conflicts on their border. We aren't talking about that."

Oh, OK. Do you need a forklift to keep moving the goalposts, or can you handle the weight all on your lonesome?

Quote :

"So Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Ukraine are stable now? Why do we have 900 bases if the world is so stable?"

...to maintain the stability? What are you asking here? My whole point is that our approach has maintained the global order, and our having bases all over is part of that approach.

I don't really give a shit whether Iraq, Syria, and Libya are stable. Overall I probably prefer that they be a little bit precarious, as long as they aren't dominated by somebody opposed to us.

12/3/2019 12:04:04 AM

Quote :

"Show me where I said Switzerland was a nice place, and you get 10,000 bonus points if you can point out where I attributed the niceness that I never said it had to white people."

They likely confused you with me, related to what I said regarding the demographic homogeneity of Switzerland, particularly when I commented on the statistics from the CIA World Fact Book.

12/3/2019 1:34:09 AM

Quote :

" particularly when I commented on the statistics from the CIA World Fact Book."

Again, racial homogeneity does not mean anything when it comes to ethnic, cultural, and linguistic diversity statistics. Your point was that they are all white and by your definition lack diversity. WTF?

Yes, of course, many Americans have ethnic origins to Italy, Germany, Mexico and multiple areas in Africa. But, if you take a road trip to new york, you don't have to learn to read and speak Italian.

Due to very aggressive policies in our history, the cultural and linguistic diversity in america has become incredibly homogeneous compared to countries like CH, India, or even Canada.

And I believe that Grumpy's original quote was

"The extent to which their society is desirable is due in a LARGE degree to demographic homogeneity combined with geography."

Which is very arguable to say the least. For one, they consistently rank at the top of all of the diversity lists in Europe. They are to this day a de facto confederacy of French, Italian, Swiss German and other ethnic groups with their own languages and customs still in tact.

Most importantly, I, and many others, would argue that their society is desirable because they have tapped into an incredible banking system that has historically boosted their economy to the point where they can stay out of recent wars and keep foreigners at bay. Their banking economy is like the freaking camouflage dome of Wakanda. Their wages and cost of living there are so incredibly inflated compared to their European neighbors that hardly anybody wants to vacation in CH, and people in need of refuge or asylum can't just show up there due the fact that their "neutrality" keeps them out of other treaties and European pacts to take in migrating populations.

Just because somebody like me says it's not a utopia does not mean that I am calling it a shithole. On the contrary, it is a very clean, safe and beautiful place. But their neutrality should not be confused with benevolence. Their country has been routinely accused of hate crimes and anti-immigration legislation in Europe. They are in general not as welcoming to foreigners as their neighbors and have a society built to keep outsiders out.

[Edited on December 3, 2019 at 2:59 AM. Reason : a]

12/3/2019 2:56:23 AM