|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States43933 Posts
On October 22 2016 00:26 WhiteDog wrote:
Do you understand the amount of ressources (and men) Russia used in order to make sure Assad get back into power ? Why would they accept a no fly zone on aleppo ? I don't understands it.
Because their choices are
1) Accept it, say that you wanted it all along, be a part of it and get shit in return.
2) Don't accept it, say it's shit, do nothing about it, get nothing, be made to look like a bitch.
3) Don't accept it, try to flaunt it, get slapped down like a bitch and do nothing about that.
|
On October 22 2016 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 00:16 Dan HH wrote:On October 22 2016 00:13 WhiteDog wrote:
I'd say the world is absurd. It is, but to conclude from trying to impose a bilateral no fly zone over Aleppo that a WW3 with Russia invading Western Europe is a likely outcome it takes quite a bit of paranoia and misunderstanding of geopolitics Bilateral fly zone makes no sense, it's either unilateral or it's not.
It's quite the opposite. Only one side wants it, but it has to pressure the other to accept it (hence bilateral) in order to be put in place and enforced.
She literally said 'it would take a lot of negotiation', again concluding that the likely outcome of her words is the US unilaterally imposing a no fly zone and shooting down Russian planes is the most tinfoil-y interpretation. I'm starting to see a pattern here.
|
kwark -> It seems more like they'd don't accept it, flaunt it, and know america isn't willing to shoot down russian planes over the syrian situation.
|
3) Don't accept it, try to flaunt it, get slapped down like a bitch and do nothing about that.
I'm eager to see the US slap Russia "like a bitch" ... Russians are proud people.
On October 22 2016 00:31 zlefin wrote:
kwark -> It seems more like they'd don't accept it, flaunt it, and know america isn't willing to shoot down russian planes over the syrian situation.
Exactly.
|
On October 22 2016 00:32 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +3) Don't accept it, try to flaunt it, get slapped down like a bitch and do nothing about that. I'm eager to see the US slap Russia "like a bitch" ... Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 00:31 zlefin wrote:
kwark -> It seems more like they'd don't accept it, flaunt it, and know america isn't willing to shoot down russian planes over the syrian situation. Exactly.
I mean, Russia has been having its allies and economic power steadily hacked away. We're pretty much already seeing them getting slapped like a bitch, but this way we don't pay in American blood.
|
On October 22 2016 00:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 00:32 WhiteDog wrote:3) Don't accept it, try to flaunt it, get slapped down like a bitch and do nothing about that. I'm eager to see the US slap Russia "like a bitch" ... On October 22 2016 00:31 zlefin wrote:
kwark -> It seems more like they'd don't accept it, flaunt it, and know america isn't willing to shoot down russian planes over the syrian situation. Exactly. I mean, Russia has been having its allies and economic power steadily hacked away. We're pretty much already seeing them getting slapped like a bitch, but this way we don't pay in American blood.
Dafuq you on about man, Duterte's got Russias back. No way Killary is gonna fuck with Russia now. They gonna go all Pacquiao on your asses.
|
United States43933 Posts
On October 22 2016 00:31 zlefin wrote:
kwark -> It seems more like they'd don't accept it, flaunt it, and know america isn't willing to shoot down russian planes over the syrian situation.
If the US had a very public, very clearly defined and internationally agreed no fly zone over designated safe areas for Syrian refugees and a Russian bomber entered that area and was warned that it was in a no fly zone and had to leave I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if it got shot down after refusing to leave. However I wouldn't anticipate that happening precisely because it's such a dumb thing to try to do. You don't become a Russian dictator by getting into dumb pissing matches you can't win. There is no upside to initiating a situation that ends with you getting humiliated. And once you've established that there is no upside to flaunting the no fly zone and no upside to not participating in the no fly zone then it becomes a question of "okay, how much will you give us to say that we wanted this too".
|
United States43933 Posts
On October 22 2016 00:32 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +3) Don't accept it, try to flaunt it, get slapped down like a bitch and do nothing about that. I'm eager to see the US slap Russia "like a bitch" ... Russians are proud people.
Which is why Putin is eager to not see it happen. Russia is a bitch but it doesn't like to be reminded of that. He's not about to get into a pissing match with the United States over something completely avoidable when they're willing to give him shit for not getting into one.
|
On October 22 2016 00:31 zlefin wrote:
kwark -> It seems more like they'd don't accept it, flaunt it, and know america isn't willing to shoot down russian planes over the syrian situation.
There is no way planes wont get shot down for transgressing no fly zones. No one will tolerate that shit and it wont escalate either. It will just become a we said they said situation with statements and some chest thumping.
And frankly it would be monumentally stupid for Putin to try and pull something like that, and Putin is alot of things but he is not stupid. He isnt in a position to flaunt much, he used the Syria weakness to play some cards and that was clever, but he also knows when to stop poking the bear (or the eagle, whatever metaphor you like).
|
On October 22 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 00:31 zlefin wrote:
kwark -> It seems more like they'd don't accept it, flaunt it, and know america isn't willing to shoot down russian planes over the syrian situation. If the US had a very public, very clearly defined and internationally agreed no fly zone over designated safe areas for Syrian refugees and a Russian bomber entered that area and was warned that it was in a no fly zone and had to leave I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if it got shot down after refusing to leave. However I wouldn't anticipate that happening precisely because it's such a dumb thing to try to do. You don't become a Russian dictator by getting into dumb pissing matches you can't win. There is no upside to initiating a situation that ends with you getting humiliated. And once you've established that there is no upside to flaunting the no fly zone and no upside to not participating in the no fly zone then it becomes a question of "okay, how much will you give us to say that we wanted this too".
You never do things that are not rationally efficient in order to defend a certain idea of yourself ?
|
On October 21 2016 23:49 KwarK wrote:
Dude. WW1 is super easy to explain. So you have about 150 years in which France and the United Kingdom are the strongest nations in the world and they basically take over most of the world. Then, right at the tail end of it, Germany suddenly appears as a superpower that eclipses either of them (was arguably the strongest nation in the world in 1900) in industrial production, population and military might. And they are robbed of their destiny by the UK and France and told they must content themselves to being a second rate imperial power and just having European influence. And so they flip the fuck out, say that it's total bullshit and go "fite me irl bitches".
Imagine if I said 50 years from now: Dude. WW3 is super easy to explain. So you have about 50 years in which the US are the strongest nation in the world and basically takes it over. Then, right at the tail end of it, as other countries begin to build economic and industrial force to match it, there's an economic collapse in the US leading into instability... Their citizens feel that their dream is being destroyed, flip the fuck out and go "fite me irl bitches".
I barely had to make any adjustments at all, and I don't think there's anything inaccurate about it either (aside from the fact that the war hasn't happened yet). Looking back and finding similarities is easy, though, and looking ahead is a lot more difficult. I'm sure you could have had discussions comparable to this while the events you described as leading up to WW1 were unfolding. We can try to make analogies to what happened in the past, but there's always issues that invalidate such analogies (like technological developments).
I'm not saying it is inevitable or even "likely" (chance would need analysis to be expressed), but it's a realistic thing to be worried about in the upcoming few decades. Especially if the US continues in its persistence of their claim to be the only indispensable country in the world (which is what both Clinton and Trump seem to represent in my eyes).
We're seeing more resistance to the US policies already, like that Duterte fellow in the Philippines. Do you really think that will be end of it in the next few decades?
|
This topic involved into an impressive attempt at a dick-measuring contest by the usual suspects.
|
On October 22 2016 00:41 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 23:49 KwarK wrote:
Dude. WW1 is super easy to explain. So you have about 150 years in which France and the United Kingdom are the strongest nations in the world and they basically take over most of the world. Then, right at the tail end of it, Germany suddenly appears as a superpower that eclipses either of them (was arguably the strongest nation in the world in 1900) in industrial production, population and military might. And they are robbed of their destiny by the UK and France and told they must content themselves to being a second rate imperial power and just having European influence. And so they flip the fuck out, say that it's total bullshit and go "fite me irl bitches". Imagine if I said 50 years from now: Dude. WW3 is super easy to explain. So you have about 50 years in which the US are the strongest nation in the world and basically takes it over. Then, right at the tail end of it, as other countries begin to build economic and industrial force to match it, there's an economic collapse in the US leading into instability... Their citizens feel that their dream is being destroyed, flip the fuck out and go "fite me irl bitches". I barely had to make any adjustments at all, and I don't think there's anything inaccurate about it either. Looking back and finding similarities is easy, though, and looking ahead is a lot more difficult. I'm sure you could have had discussions comparable to this while the events you described as leading up to WW1 were unfolding. We can try to make analogies to what happened in the past, but there's always issues that invalidate such analogies (like technological developments). I'm not saying it is inevitable or even "likely" (chance would need analysis to be expressed), but it's a realistic thing to be worried about in the upcoming few decades. Especially if the US continues in its persistence of their claim to be the only indispensable country in the world (which is what both Clinton and Drumpf seem to represent in my eyes). We're seeing more resistance to the US policies already, like that Duterte fellow in the Philippines. Do you really think that will be end of it in the next few decades?
Ok so Im not going to adress the first bits because I just dont care, but I will point out that Duterte isnt the first autocrat to stick his middle finger at the US in the last few decades either and its not signs of a sudden "trend" of people moving away from the US. Now if the whole asia pacific bloc did it, then you can start talking. (hint,. they wont).
People in his cabinet are already walking back the shit he said btw.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-philippines-trademin-idUSKCN12L06L?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: reuters/topNews (News / US / Top News)
|
United States43933 Posts
On October 22 2016 00:41 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 23:49 KwarK wrote:
Dude. WW1 is super easy to explain. So you have about 150 years in which France and the United Kingdom are the strongest nations in the world and they basically take over most of the world. Then, right at the tail end of it, Germany suddenly appears as a superpower that eclipses either of them (was arguably the strongest nation in the world in 1900) in industrial production, population and military might. And they are robbed of their destiny by the UK and France and told they must content themselves to being a second rate imperial power and just having European influence. And so they flip the fuck out, say that it's total bullshit and go "fite me irl bitches". Dude. WW3 is super easy to explain. So you have about 50 years in which the US are the strongest nation in the world and basically takes it over. Then, right at the tail end of it, as other countries begin to build economic and industrial force to match it, there's an economic collapse in the US leading into instability... Their citizens feel that their dream is being destroyed, flip the fuck out and go "fite me irl bitches". I barely had to make any adjustments at all, and I don't think there's anything inaccurate about it either. Looking back and finding similarities is easy, though, and looking ahead is a lot more difficult. I'm sure you could have had discussions comparable to this while the events you described as leading up to WW1 were unfolding. We can try to make analogies to what happened in the past, but there's always issues that invalidate such analogies (like technological developments). I'm not saying it is inevitable or even "likely" (chance would need analysis to be expressed), but it's a realistic thing to be worried about in the upcoming few decades. Especially if the US continues in its persistence of their claim to be the only indispensable country in the world (which is what both Clinton and Trump seem to represent in my eyes). We're seeing more resistance to the US policies already, like that Duterte fellow in the Philippines. Do you really think that will be end of it in the next few decades?
50 years of the US being the strongest nation in the world by far was about 40 years ago now and I don't remember WW3, although I hadn't been born yet when you're predicting it having happened. Just saying. Furthermore the US hasn't taken over the world. It has economic interests all over the world but those can shift with the balance of power, and have been. China has gone from being a colony to a great power in its own right but rather than needing to explode out of constraints imposed upon it by external forces, as Germany tried to do, it can just buy influence and power in Africa using the exact same means that the US uses.
The game is much more flexible now than it used to be. The end of the explicit spheres of interest system has allowed for continual adjustments to preserve the balance. The Philippines is actually an example of the solution, not the problem. If it were a US colony then it couldn't barter itself to the Chinese. But it is not so it can.
|
United States43933 Posts
On October 22 2016 00:41 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 00:31 zlefin wrote:
kwark -> It seems more like they'd don't accept it, flaunt it, and know america isn't willing to shoot down russian planes over the syrian situation. If the US had a very public, very clearly defined and internationally agreed no fly zone over designated safe areas for Syrian refugees and a Russian bomber entered that area and was warned that it was in a no fly zone and had to leave I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if it got shot down after refusing to leave. However I wouldn't anticipate that happening precisely because it's such a dumb thing to try to do. You don't become a Russian dictator by getting into dumb pissing matches you can't win. There is no upside to initiating a situation that ends with you getting humiliated. And once you've established that there is no upside to flaunting the no fly zone and no upside to not participating in the no fly zone then it becomes a question of "okay, how much will you give us to say that we wanted this too". You never do things that are not rationally efficient in order to defend a certain idea of yourself ?
Certainly not since I became President of Russia.
|
On October 22 2016 00:41 LegalLord wrote:
This topic involved into an impressive attempt at a dick-measuring contest by the usual suspects.
The important thing is you found a way to feel superior to all
|
On October 22 2016 00:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 00:41 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 00:31 zlefin wrote:
kwark -> It seems more like they'd don't accept it, flaunt it, and know america isn't willing to shoot down russian planes over the syrian situation. If the US had a very public, very clearly defined and internationally agreed no fly zone over designated safe areas for Syrian refugees and a Russian bomber entered that area and was warned that it was in a no fly zone and had to leave I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if it got shot down after refusing to leave. However I wouldn't anticipate that happening precisely because it's such a dumb thing to try to do. You don't become a Russian dictator by getting into dumb pissing matches you can't win. There is no upside to initiating a situation that ends with you getting humiliated. And once you've established that there is no upside to flaunting the no fly zone and no upside to not participating in the no fly zone then it becomes a question of "okay, how much will you give us to say that we wanted this too". You never do things that are not rationally efficient in order to defend a certain idea of yourself ? Certainly not since I became President of Russia.
I personally believe it's even more acute for the president of Russia : the president of a nation that thought itself as a world leader and that is viewed as a "bitch".
|
The No. 3 Republican in the Kansas House called Adolf Hitler’s words “profound” in a Thursday Facebook post that she said was meant to criticize Planned Parenthood.
“Great quote from Hitler in the video,” Rep. Peggy Mast wrote in the post on her private page, which was accessed by the Wichita Eagle. “Please listen to it closely. His words are profound! Let’s start using discernment.”
Though Mast’s initial post did not include a link to any video, the Eagle reported that she later shared a link to an article from Christian blog JulieRoys.com that included video of anti-abortion activist Gianna Jessen testifying against Planned Parenthood at a congressional hearing.
Jessen compared the healthcare provider’s techniques for getting its message out to those of the Nazi leader, saying they both used propaganda to falsely sway people to their side.
“The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan,” the Hitler quote reads.
According to the Eagle, Mast later wrote a third post explaining that she did not mean to praise the fascist leader responsible for ordering the death of at least six million Jews during the Holocaust.
“To clarify the intent of my previous post: Planned Parenthood has learned well the same tactics and deception used by Hitler regarding innocent lives. … I was making a connection between the ideology he used and the arguments made by Planned Parenthood,” she wrote, according to the Eagle.
Mast is not seeking reelection in 2016.
Source
|
United States43933 Posts
On October 22 2016 00:49 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 00:48 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 00:41 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 00:31 zlefin wrote:
kwark -> It seems more like they'd don't accept it, flaunt it, and know america isn't willing to shoot down russian planes over the syrian situation. If the US had a very public, very clearly defined and internationally agreed no fly zone over designated safe areas for Syrian refugees and a Russian bomber entered that area and was warned that it was in a no fly zone and had to leave I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if it got shot down after refusing to leave. However I wouldn't anticipate that happening precisely because it's such a dumb thing to try to do. You don't become a Russian dictator by getting into dumb pissing matches you can't win. There is no upside to initiating a situation that ends with you getting humiliated. And once you've established that there is no upside to flaunting the no fly zone and no upside to not participating in the no fly zone then it becomes a question of "okay, how much will you give us to say that we wanted this too". You never do things that are not rationally efficient in order to defend a certain idea of yourself ? Certainly not since I became President of Russia. I personally believe it's even more accute for the president of Russia : the president of a nation that thought itself as a world leader and that is viewed as a "bitch".
You understand that your narrative is the one where he gets to be humiliated and mine is the one where he gets paid to fold a losing hand, right? In mine he makes a rational choice to come out looking like an equal partner with the United States in creating a no fly zone. In yours he says that one is being imposed on him against his will but that he's too weak to stop it, then tries to flaunt it, then gets slapped down and can't do anything because he has no capacity to do anything about it. Your scenario is built on an insistence that Putin wants to humiliate himself by overplaying a weak hand.
I think mine is the more likely one.
|
To help with Kwarks point the Russian economy is REALLY bad with a bad long term outlook. Any help Russia can get with these they NEED to take.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
