And the UK hasn't wavered in its support. I can see who the baddies are, and it isn't us.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Printable View
And the UK hasn't wavered in its support. I can see who the baddies are, and it isn't us.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Putin has been exploiting the fear of direct confrontation for many years. Sanction do hurt their economy but hasn't really worked as a deterrent.Quote:
As a response, the US, UK and France provided Ukraine with financial and military assistance, and imposed economic sanctions on Russia, while ruling out "any direct interventions to avoid a direct confrontation with Russia"
That's true. But NATO as a whole was wrong for allowing Russia to invade and occupy the Crimea. If they would have stopped that, I don't think Russia would currently be invading Ukraine.Quote:
And the UK hasn't wavered in its support. I can see who the baddies are, and it isn't us.
Did the UN have any "legal" right to take action? What about every other country Russia has armies fighting? Should NATO protect nations not in NATO?Quote:
That's true. But NATO as a whole was wrong for allowing Russia to invade and occupy the Crimea. If they would have stopped that, I don't think Russia would currently be invading Ukraine.
Let's not forget in every single respect Russia invaded a sovereign nation...
It's funny how Ukraine was the most corrupt regime on the planet... right up until useful idiots were corrupted to trumpet it as a "close ally" and some wounded lamb. But I suppose that's what "pay for play" can get you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
You have no idea how right you are. Hardcore liberals are almost like a hivemind programmed to believe in whatever nonsense they are told to believe. I mean you could choose any far left idea and gather clips of people promoting these ideas and layer the audio of these clips on top one another and you'd see the hivemind in real time. Dozens or perhaps even hundreds of voices robotically repeating the exact same phrases almost as if they are trying to hypnotize the public. People have actually done this. It's really a sight to behold and as far as I know there is no equivalent on the right.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
DEI in practice as far as I understand is really just racism against white people and I've heard in some cases, Asians.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
It amazes me how people seem to forget that, or perhaps they never knew thus making them more susceptible to brainwashing.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
lol so much projection...
If we could ever harness the energy from conservatives projecting, we'd solve our energy needs for the next ten millenia.
Do they ever??Quote:
Did the UN have any "legal" right to take action?
It depends on the circumstances. In this case, yes.Quote:
Should NATO protect nations not in NATO?
What makes you think I've ever forgot that.Quote:
Let's not forget in every single respect Russia invaded a sovereign nation...
Given you have shared a post here in which you were mocking USAid under the Democrats for giving money to Reuters news agency for funding manipulating social media; that was a government department and not USAid, under Trumps last presidency and not the democrats, was to Thomas Reuters (a cyber security firm) and not the news agency, and was defending against social media manipulation not doing it - this comment comes across as hypocritical at best. Given you have also claimed you don't care if Musk is corrupt either, I would suggest you are happily repeating and echoing whatever "your side" is telling you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
That is just repeating what you are told, it isn't about race but equality (including race, but not limited to it)Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
In answer to the first questions, they need to be working within the UN charter. That is what gives them world legitimacy, for the parts of the world participating. As far as the second, I didn't mean it personally. It was rhetorical based on the post.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
I would say the simple answer is no but it also misses the point when talking about International bodies like NATO or the UN. These bodies don't have any "legal" right to do anything because there's no such thing as International Law. Instead there's a bunch of Nations that get together and consider their moral obligations. If enough Nations agree on a moral obligation they will refer to it as International Law but other Nations can and do take a different view.Quote:
Did the UN have any "legal" right to take action?
If Nations decide to formalise their "Get Together" as an International Organisation (e.g. NATO, the UN etc) and make adherence to those obligations a condition of joining, then other Nations that may disagree with an obligation may still find themselves bound by it if they still want to join under the condition of that adherence. Even then, though, they may still disregard it if they believe that they are more important to the organisation than the organisation is to them which is where the US has found itself right now - or at least, Trump thinks that, whether or not it's actually true remains to be seen.
All of which is basically a longwinded way of saying that International Law is really just a set of moral obligations that enough nations agree on for it to have clout. But any Nation is free to ignore it if they think they can get away with - it's Real Politique.
So to me, the key question is not whether the UN had a Legal Right to intervene in Crimea or whether NATO has a Legal Right to defend Ukraine, but rather whether they have a moral obligation. In both cases I would say yes.
It's also important to consider that neither the UN or NATO would have precluded their member Nations from intervening in either case. NATO has no mechanism at all to preclude their members from doing anything except attacking another member and the UN would only preclude it under a UN Resolution saying that they shouldn't so precluding it would be deliberate act rather than a default position. Since neither condition exists, any member Nation of either body could have acted unliterally or as part of some other coalition if they'd chosen to.
One of the biggest dissapointment to me in all of this is that NATO and the UN have been used as excuses not to act when the spirit both were founded in should have encouraged action.
If we had an elected official that acted the way your President has, he would be gone within a week. Such a volte face would not be tolerated. It is about time you sorted out your country and your politics.
Tariffs are on, tariffs are off. Fire lots of people, rehire lots of people.
It feels like the shotgun approach. Just blast away, take credit for anything that hits successfully received by his fans and ignore all the misses. I don't think a lot of thought goes into any of his actions.
That's a bold claim. Your riding an awfully high horse there.Quote:
Originally Posted by yereverluvinuncleber
Unfortunately he was elected. "sorting out" that choice will take much longer than a week. That's one of the hazards of a democracy.
I see your point but it is based on " because there's no such thing as International Law". You could say that about the world economic system, map lines, or even national laws. They exist because we agree they exist. If people quit playing by the rules the machine breaks down. In that respect the UN does not have a "legal" right to intervene. Another reason things break down is when people start acting outside of the systems because of their "beliefs/morals". That would be acting outside the charter.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Yeah, I think that's the crux. And I think you (or Wes, can't remember who said it) summed it up that it's about moral weight. E.g. An action taken with UN approval has moral weight because it indicates a widespread agreement that it's a morally correct thing to do. Or, the corollary, an action taken without UN approval carries the implication that it might be morally shady.Quote:
They exist because we agree they exist.
I'm not sure it is that bold. We don't have fixed terms over here so a PM can face a vote of no confidence and a re-election at any time. They don't even need to face a re-election because our Prime Minister role is really just an honorific that also happens to carry authority. Their own party can kick them out at any time based on their own party rules, - it's not dependent on the laws of the land. Our bar to remove a PM is WAAAAAY lower than yours is to remove a President with a whole impeachment procedure. So he certainly could be removed under our system.Quote:
That's a bold claim. Your riding an awfully high horse there.
Whether he would is more debatable. Trump's approval rating have tanked, watching some of the Town Halls it's hard to imagine that some of your Senators and Congressmen aren't feeling like their positions are threatened, I kinda get the feeling that some of his cabinet have issues with Musk's antics and the discomfort on Rubio's face in that Zelensky press conference looked pretty stark. It's hard to tell because those people will present a united front, whether they believe it or not, because you're system makes the President massively less assailable than they are. Under ours, where a PM faces more of a threat, his party is more likely to break ranks because, by inference, they are less threatened.
I think YerEverLuvin is probably being a bit hyperbolic citing two weeks but he's definitely not beyond the realms of possibility. Over here you would probably at least be hearing rumblings of dicontent right now.
All that said, our PM isn't really the equivalent of your President because our PM isn't the head of state. Out equivalent would be somewhere between the PM and the King. We have removed Monarchs in the past (Charles I is the obvious one but there's also been the Glorious Revolution and various historical usurpations) but our bar to do that is way higher than your impeachment.
No, a PM does not have that sort of power. A President does, as he is PM combined with King, a massive mistake in the US constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
If our PM tried to side with Russia, I guarantee he'd be gone within a week/month at best.
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I find it hard to believe that the people of the US are just rolling over and taking it up the bum, as it were. I held contempt of the Russians due to their continual failure to make any steps toward deposing Putin. It is not Putin's war, it is Russia's Putin that is making war...
The US, I now hold in equal deep contempt, if you fail to rise up and remove him then you, the Americans of the USA are as contemptuous as the Russian people have demonstrated to be. These aren't mere words, this is the expression of many, the majority here in the "Intelligent West".
There’s a dignity in royalty, a majesty that precludes the likelihood of assassination. Now, if you were to point a pistol at a king or a queen, your hand would shake as though palsied . . . the sight of royalty would cause you to dismiss all thoughts of bloodshed, and you would stand — how should I put it? — in awe.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Now: a president? Well, I mean: why not shoot a president? ;)
Quote can be traced easily
Here I'm going to disagree with you, I'm afraid. I had a similar discussion in the Palestine thread and my position doesn't change. I don't hold the entirety of an electorate responsible for the actions of the individuals that elect. In the case of the USA they only get a say once every four years and, even then, the say have have may not be represented in the person who gets elected.Quote:
The US, I now hold in equal deep contempt
Similarly, I don't hold Russians individually or collectively responsible for the actions of Putin, particularly that they don't get a say at all, or at least not a meaningful one. I've got several Russian friends and they absolutely hate what's happening and would oppose it if they could. They're all ex pats living in the UK, though, so may not be particularly representative.
What I would say is that I hold in contempt anyone who voted for Trump in the expectation that this is what he would do.
You should be unforgiven for dredging that reference up.Quote:
There’s a dignity in royalty, a majesty that precludes the likelihood of assassination. Now, if you were to point a pistol at a king or a queen, your hand would shake as though palsied . . . the sight of royalty would cause you to dismiss all thoughts of bloodshed, and you would stand — how should I put it? — in awe.
Now: a president? Well, I mean: why not shoot a president?
There is no equivalent on the right? There are equivalents on the right in this very thread. I don't disagree that this happens, it is just happening very explicitly on the right, at the moment. Conservative leadership is required to promote the 'view du jour' from Trump. That's not implicit, either. There have been explicit threats to go after any politician that doesn't spout the company line. Those threats are usually about being primaried, where a true believer challenges the incumbent in the primary (only works in primaries), but the threats work in practice, as well, as every public figure who acts in ways not in line with Trump reports waves of death threats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
If you were to gather the clips from the right, layer the audio, you'd also see the hivemind in real time.
That's not to say that there isn't also the same thing happening on the left. In fact, it seems unremarkable to me that there would be both. After all, what is essentially being done is people saying, "fight about this." And it's on. Once the division has been selected, the positions on either side of it are going to tend to be repetitive. I'm not sure how it could be otherwise.
Yes, I remember our discussion. I'll say, I do hold the entirety of our electorate responsible. What type of person Trump is, is well known. Nothing he is doing surprises me. Just because I didn't vote for him doesn't absolve me of all responsibility. That doesn't mean I think everyone wants what Trump is doing. But we as a whole, shape our society. There is something( or many things) in our society that drove 51% of the people to vote for him. It's strange, I don't understand it. My son is a Trump supporter. He feels over worked, under paid and over taxed. For some reason he thinks Trump can make his life better. My daughter is strongly against Trump. So, go figure.Quote:
I'm afraid. I had a similar discussion in the Palestine thread and my position doesn't change. I don't hold the entirety of an electorate responsible for the actions of the individuals that elect.
I don't know if contempt is the word I'd use but those people definitely keep us from evolving into something better.Quote:
What I would say is that I hold in contempt anyone who voted for Trump in the expectation that this is what he would do.
51% of those who voted, not 51% of the eligible voters. There's something in our politics that means that a very large number just don't vote at all.
Do you think the percentage would be different if everyone voted?Quote:
51% of those who voted, not 51% of the eligible voters
I've never looked, I wonder if our percentage of eligible people that vote is high or low compare to other similar countries.Quote:
There's something in our politics that means that a very large number just don't vote at all.
Hey, maybe Sap wants to be placed on a watch list. This way he can get an all paid for vacation to the states!Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
The DEI war is in full force...a historic plane with "Gay" in the name is now banned:rolleyes:
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/n...purge/3861030/Quote:
References to a World War II Medal of Honor recipient, the Enola Gay aircraft that dropped an atomic bomb on Japan and the first women to pass Marine infantry training are among the tens of thousands of photos and online posts marked for deletion as the Defense Department works to purge diversity, equity and inclusion content, according to a database obtained by The Associated Press.
It was named after someone's mother.
What you have to realise is that the only way to make people feel included and equal is to only recognise the efforts of straight, white, cis men. Obviously any attempt to show that other races or genders can achieve things is simply pandering to minorities and treating them as being in need of special treatment, and therefore demeaning them. Or something. Probably should put the word "woke" in there a couple of times as well - I feel that would have made it more convincing.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
I think we have a difference of perception.
Some feel that a three-ring circus of perversion with growing income inequality, austerity, authoritarianism, urban violence, and perpetual war is normal. The majority of people don't.
perversionQuote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
income inequality
austerity
authoritarianism
urban violence
perpetual war
What does any any of those things have to do with DEI?
Your post makes no sense.
I'm not sure it's all that different. Growing income inequality is certainly an issue. We don't HAVE austerity, unless you mean that the poor, who have always dealt with austerity...though perhaps a bit less than in the past...that's a difficult question. Authoritarianism is always an issue. Urban violence has been declining for decades. Violence in general has been in decline since the 70s.
As for perpetual war, that hasn't changed any. The US has a history of remembering only the large, named, wars that we have participated in. In fact, we've almost always been involved in some conflict somewhere. There was a book written called "The Savage Wars of Peace" that was about the various conflicts the US has been involved in in central and south America over the century preceding Vietnam (I forget the exact time period), and how this resulted in a doctrine that was forgotten by the time of Vietnam. Following Vietnam, we didn't get in another fight until...the 80s. So, yeah, we had almost a decade without being in a war. Then we had Grenada, Gulf War I, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Gulf War II. Those were the named wars (unless I forgot one or two), but we had service members involved in fights all over the world.
It may be that the only period during which the US was not involved in any conflicts was roughly the period prior to the Civil War...with one notable exception in the middle.
Not even then if you count the conflicts with our native American tribes.Quote:
It may be that the only period during which the US was not involved in any conflicts was roughly the period prior to the Civil War...with one notable exception in the middle.
"Our tribes?" Paternalism much? Do European colonizers talk about "their tribes" in Africa or SE Asia?Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
OH HECK YEAH!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86UR...nel=IronMaiden
Get off my lawn. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Well, I may have been wrong. I've said that Trump being elected probably wouldn't have much affect on me. But I had no idea he would go completely insane and start a trade war and let Musk try to get his hands on Social Security. With the stock market rapidly dropping, Social Security under attack and the likelihood of the cost of good going up because of tariffs, the future is very uncertain.
I was only slightly worried Trump would crash the economy. The speed at which we're headed in that direction is shocking. So far nothing has happened that's not easily reversable. Though it does feel like that tipping point is very close.
It almost seems as if he wants to trash the economy, why else would he announce things like 50% tariffs on Canada regarding steel and aluminium? He is effectively going to cause massive price increases for American citizens who buy anything involving steel or aluminium - given Canada is your biggest supplier of these it is going to be impossible to avoid this.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Sooner or later (probably sooner) your trading partners are going to stop going along with his madness and will effectively reduce their trade with America. There are only so many times he can threaten tariffs, impose tariffs, undo the tariffs, and keep repeating this before it becomes untenable. Countries and companies cannot plan around such erratic and inconsistent behaviour, it is better to have predictability (even at an increased cost over what USA used to be), rather than uncertainty.
The big issue for the USA is that once trust has been lost, and alternate arrangements have been made, it will be a very hard sell to convince the alienated parties to resume trading.
Trump has no concept of both sides being happy, he has the attitude that if the other side is happy then you didn't screw them over enough - his past business dealings are testament to this. He will use, and then abandon, anyone to get his own way - colleagues, friends, business partners, wives, anyone.
He only understands hard power and displays of strength, he is using tariffs as a show of might; he doesn't understand soft-power in the slightest though. A lot of what USAid did was for charity (and lots of people benefitted) - however a lot of the things they supported also aligned with USA's agenda. e.g. supporting a free and open press in countries that were historically very controlled, and also happened to be run by people with unfavourable views of America.
At least the Trump, Musk Bromance is still going strong. Trump buys a Tesla. Even after years of saying how bad an idea EV's were.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...174220041.html
For some reason this made me laugh. I wonder if Trump even knows how to drive anything but a golf cart. :)
Well UK steel (get it get it?) seems to be US obedient dog
https://www.theguardian.com/business...teel-us-canada
So how about get a backbone there and demand retaliation instead of barking to the keyboard? :rolleyes:
I'm steel (get it? lol) waiting for the first one USarian here to say that his income has been decreased... But I know it's the inflation the want and demand the martians and the hollow moon.
Let me know when your economy start to crumble will you?
Democrats voting against funding Social Security and Medicare and favor a government shutdown
The UAW has had enough, and is kicking Dems to the curb and endorsing Trump as they pine for Ross Perot.
Canada's crazy trade wars expand on another front (China) as the fools pull the trigger on another scheme (electricity tariffs) that won't go well for them. They rely heavily on that revenue to make the payments on vast loans that were used to flood out First Nations lands to create hydro power opportunities in Ontario.
https://youtu.be/QIQpUyzg7yo?si=IPSgPYhmNsYc49sa
First you need to be honest about the long-standing tariff imbalances that have been subsidizing the sovietized countries.
As soon as a few reciprocal tariffs come along, suddenly things aren't fair? No, they haven't been "fair" for a long time but the free lunch is over.
Attachment 194356Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante