Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The US isn't antagonizing China, unless you're talking about trade wars. The patrols through the South China Sea are international waters that China has no right to. This is no different from the Gulf of Mexico, Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf being international waters and not bound to any nation from which they derive their name.
Surrounding a nation with military assets is to antagonize. So far China has not invaded any country in that area.
As we discussed before, I would love to see the US reaction if Chinese warships would go up and down the Gulf of Mexico....I know your probable answer "as long as they are in international waters they are ok" and in theory it is correct.....but I suspect in reality the Pentagon would go ballistic.
The US got paranoid because left leaning governments and rebellions (only marginally supplied from the Soviet Union) sprouted up in Central America, not even on direct US borders...not to mention risking nuclear war because of the Cuban missiles.
It's interesting your comments about the USSR admiration from certain segment of the population around the world......when the left was accused to be "soft" on Russia and, in some extreme cases, some Democratic politicians in the US were accused to be Russian stooges...today the situation is totally reversed....many conservatives in the world are attracted by Russia with its message of family values, Christianity, etc...while current liberals absolutely loathe the Kremlin....what a change!!!
I would agree that I take, hands down, the US approach in domestic governance (but still hardly a model) even if, I would like to point out that current Russia is way far from what the USSR were and China somehow still is....I would also argue that from an ordinary citizen point of view in everyday life today I do not see major differences between modern day Russia and the US....all it takes is spending some time in Russia to realize that.
That depends on what your everyday live consists of. If you're gay, want to watch "Les Miserables" , or listen to certain types of bands, you may run into trouble. In China, it goes beyond that. In theory, one can live a comfortable life anywhere if their demands (whatever they may be) are met. Lots of expats live in Saudi Arabia and enjoy the privileges afforded to those living in compounds as well as high salaries. That wouldn't work for me.
Quote:
In foreign policy the US is pretty much as thuggish as the other two, actually in many instances even more so....also, world opinion on the subject seems to confirms that.
Only if you break it down to it's most pedestrian element, which is the physical act of bombing another sovereign nation. This isn't something I don't particularly care about, to be honest. If foreign intervention were the only metric worth considering, then North Korea and Cuba, would be some of the best nations in the world as their actions have little impact outside of their respective borders.
World opinion is largely driven by what I like to call "the flavor of the day". People have always gravitated towards Robin Hood like stories, where an underdog goes up against a superior force, in order to bring justice to it's people. People fall prey to that scam, only to later realize that the oppressed has become the oppressor.
The US has been put in a tough spot. Since the end of WW2, it has taken on the role of "policeman" This is not an easy task to handle and is in many ways a burden. However, we've not had a global conflict since then and are living in the mot peaceful of times, even if long term exposure to media suggests otherwise. By extension, it has also done a lot of stupid things, some of which are only visible in hindsight, like the arming of rebels in Afghanistan that would one day become known as Al-Qaeda.
Many countries that were under it's sphere of influence prospered, including those that had dictators supported by the aforementioned power. Today, Chile has become of the most progressive nations in Latin America, after suffering through Pinochet's rule (who helped boost the economy). Had the US not helped overthrow Allende in 73, we would be looking at another Cuba.
Even the much maligned Iraq War (and rightly so), is finally showing signs of paying off for Iraq. Does that excuse the invasion? Absolutely not.
Being a melting pot is another crucial key to the puzzle. The US,having been built by people from all corners of the world, gives it a unique position not found in the others. The same applies to Canada, Australia, Brazil... (I'm not gonna go over the semantics here, so the difference between a "melting pot" and "mosaic" will be ignored).
Countries that do not have that ethnic makeup should not be superpowers, unless they are open to changing that status. I'd be more than happy to learn Russian or Mandarin knowing that I can become a full fledged citizen of said nations. (Yes, I know that this is technically possible)
Until Russia and China fulfill all of these requirements, they don't deserve to be superpowers. Once/If they do, I'd be more than happy to oblige.
Having autocracies be the dominant powers is going to set the human race backwards as it's going to inspire other countries to pursue that model, which would be a massive regression.
Keep in mind though, that I fully admit that these are my own hypocritical views. If you go over my philosophical ramblings (in my last response to erasure) you will see that I deplore many of humanity's facets. These aren't only directed at others but act as a form of self directed criticism.
Surrounding a nation with military assets is to antagonize. So far China has not invaded any country in that area.
As we discussed before, I would love to see the US reaction if Chinese warships would go up and down the Gulf of Mexico....I know your probable answer "as long as they are in international waters they are ok" and in theory it is correct.....but I suspect in reality the Pentagon would go ballistic.
The US got paranoid because left leaning governments and rebellions (only marginally supplied from the Soviet Union) sprouted up in Central America, not even on direct US borders...not to mention risking nuclear war because of the Cuban missiles.
It's interesting your comments about the USSR admiration from certain segment of the population around the world......when the left was accused to be "soft" on Russia and, in some extreme cases, some Democratic politicians in the US were accused to be Russian stooges...today the situation is totally reversed....many conservatives in the world are attracted by Russia with its message of family values, Christianity, etc...while current liberals absolutely loathe the Kremlin....what a change!!!
As far as I'm concerned, China is more than welcome to patrol those waters and even establish bases in any nation willing to grant them those rights. I haven't changed narratives here. I'm sticking with what I said. You'll also realize that in all my criticisms of Russia, flying near Alaska or California was never brought up as one of them. That's one area that I have zero issue with, even if done for provocative reasons, as they are still in "international waters".
The problem with many conservative values is that those who try to preserve them fail to realize that they were created by men to replace previous ones in the past. Many of them are quite at odds with today's world. Who cares if two guys or gals want to date or get married? Why is it anyone else's business?
Why does one need to follow Christianity to be a moral person? There are plenty of scientists who are atheists for x,y,z reasons (I'm not going to elaborate on this, as it deals with theology and will likely get this thread closed).
Many professed conservative values are being followed out of respect for tradition, even if their message is out of place. I've had countless debates with people over them, and to this day no one has been able to give me a good answer that doesn't fall back to tradition. I try to look at a problem from a logical perspective and follow the principle of "out with the old and in with the new" if it is better. I'm not beholden to any tradition, and would welcome the removal of those that are counter-productive to progress.
That depends on what your everyday live consists of. If you're gay, want to watch "Les Miserables" , or listen to certain types of bands, you may run into trouble.
Being gay does not get you into trouble with the government in Russia....simply you cannot legally marry, that's about it.
An honest look at the so called Russia anti-gay laws and the western hysteria way out of proportion...from the Guardian, not a Russian propaganda outlet...
There are more chances to run into homophobic hate in the US than in Russia according to some stats.
Quote:
Only if you break it down to it's most pedestrian element, which is the physical act of bombing another sovereign nation. This isn't something I don't particularly care about, to be honest. If foreign intervention were the only metric worth considering, then North Korea and Cuba, would be some of the best nations in the world as their actions have little impact outside of their respective borders.
World opinion is largely driven by what I like to call "the flavor of the day". People have always gravitated towards Robin Hood like stories, where an underdog goes up against a superior force, in order to bring justice to it's people. People fall prey to that scam, only to later realize that the oppressed has become the oppressor.
The US has been put in a tough spot. Since the end of WW2, it has taken on the role of "policeman" This is not an easy task to handle and is in many ways a burden. However, we've not had a global conflict since then and are living in the mot peaceful of times, even if long term exposure to media suggests otherwise. By extension, it has also done a lot of stupid things, some of which are only visible in hindsight, like the arming of rebels in Afghanistan that would one day become known as Al-Qaeda.
Many countries that were under it's sphere of influence prospered, including those that had dictators supported by the aforementioned power. Today, Chile has become of the most progressive nations in Latin America, after suffering through Pinochet's rule (who helped boost the economy). Had the US not helped overthrow Allende in 73, we would be looking at another Cuba.
Even the much maligned Iraq War (and rightly so), is finally showing signs of paying off for Iraq. Does that excuse the invasion? Absolutely not.
Being a melting pot is another crucial key to the puzzle. The US,having been built by people from all corners of the world, gives it a unique position not found in the others. The same applies to Canada, Australia, Brazil... (I'm not gonna go over the semantics here, so the difference between a "melting pot" and "mosaic" will be ignored).
Countries that do not have that ethnic makeup should not be superpowers, unless they are open to changing that status. I'd be more than happy to learn Russian or Mandarin knowing that I can become a full fledged citizen of said nations. (Yes, I know that this is technically possible)
Until Russia and China fulfill all of these requirements, they don't deserve to be superpowers. Once/If they do, I'd be more than happy to oblige.
Having autocracies be the dominant powers is going to set the human race backwards as it's going to inspire other countries to pursue that model, which would be a massive regression.
Keep in mind though, that I fully admit that these are my own hypocritical views. If you go over my philosophical ramblings (in my last response to erasure) you will see that I deplore many of humanity's facets. These aren't only directed at others but act as a form of self directed criticism.
Nobody asked the US to be the world policeman....sure in some situation it was good to have that ability around...the US has its handsome return playing that role, is not done out of altruism.
We cannot speculate what Chile would have been if Allende was not overthrown...I could as easily speculate that could have made Chile another Sweden or Norway...Allende was not following a Cuba model.....and, to be precise, despite the odiousness of the regime (no argument there), in some regard average Cuban citizens did much better than in some other Latin American countries.
Finally, as a matter of fact, Russia is its own melting pot, something not many people realize...a multi ethnic, multicultural and multiconfessional country....and it takes a lot of immigrants.
Last edited by saturno_v; 04-08-2018 at 09:44 PM..
Being gay does not get you into trouble with the government in Russia....simply you cannot legally marry, that's about it.
An honest look at the so called Russia anti-gay laws and the western hysteria way out of proportion...from the Guardian, not a Russian propaganda outlet...
There are more chances to run into homophobic hate in the US than in Russia according to some stats.[
I also made a mistake. I meant to say "Beauty and the Beast" and not "Les Miserables".
Quote:
Nobody asked the US to be the world policeman....sure in some situation it was good to have that ability around...the US has its handsome return playing that role, is not done out of altruism.
We cannot speculate what Chile would have been if Allende was not overthrown...I could as easily speculate that could have made Chile another Sweden or Norway...Allende was not following a Cuba model.....and, to be precise, despite the odiousness of the regime (no argument there), in some regard average Cuban citizens did much better than in some other Latin American countries.
Finally, as a matter of fact, Russia is its own melting pot, something not many people realize...a multi ethnic, multicultural and multiconfessional country....and it takes a lot of immigrants.
Nor did I suggest it was out of altruism. There are times when it was beneficial and others where it backfired.
By melting pot, I'm looking at the global picture. How many Italian Russian are there, or Indian Russian?
Scrat, sorry to go all *theological* here, BUT...
This is the Russian coat of arms since the... the end of the XIVth, beginning of the IVth(?) century I believe.
It was adopted as a second one, in addition to the first one, for the reason of Ivan the Great announcing himself ( and his state) as the successor of the Eastern Roman Empire - i.e. Byzantium, that earlier fall to Muslims and was no more.
As you can see, it's a double-headed eagle;
" Though modified more than once since the reign of Ivan III (1462–1505), the current coat of arms is directly derived from its mediaeval original, with the double-headed eagle having Byzantine and earlier antecedents from long before the emergence of any Russian state."
The reason he put such claim ( Russia being the successor of Byzantium (and hence the Third Rome,) and adopted this particular coat of arms, was his marriage to Zoe ( Sophia) Palaiologos, whose dynasty was using this particular coat of arms.
From what I remember the meaning of this double-headed eagle was that the eagle was looking both East and West.
And so did the Russian state.
The point being, if Russia breaks the relations with the West, it can forge relations with the East, and rally it against the West.
And this is what I see is happening now, quite honestly...
Who told you Russia was the "New Rome"? Anyone can make such claims. I've heard it being used to describe the US as well.
The 3rd Rome idea was born during the pan-slavism movements about 150 or less years ago. Sure some monk coined the term before that but Ivan had no 3rd Rome concept driving his coat of arms or state policy. At best is was used to justify Russia's continued "reconquista" against former Khangates and Ottoman territories. Pan-Slavism brought the end of the Ottoman Empire but it also created events that led to the end of the Russian empire.
Ukraine itself is partially in existence due to this concept. Part of the lands were taken from Polish and Ottoman rule using the same justification.
I also made a mistake. I meant to say "Beauty and the Beast" and not "Les Miserables".
Nor did I suggest it was out of altruism. There are times when it was beneficial and others where it backfired.
By melting pot, I'm looking at the global picture. How many Italian Russian are there, or Indian Russian?
You don't have to have Italians or Indians to be a melting pot. Russia's melting pot isn't as international as America's but their is a huge diversity of cultures in the former USSR/Russian Empire and that is the cultural melting pot that Russia has.
That being said Russia as of 2010 has 1,370 Italians and 4,058 Indians, which isn't a lot, but Russia has many other much larger minorities such as;
And then if you were to add all the ethnic group of the post soviet countries you would get an even more astounding diversity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
