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.
This sounds so innocent, yet this "expansion" is much more sinister than you think.
MONEY is what rules the modern world, so all these "expansions" ( and particularly when we are talking about the transnational corporations) are the tentacles of the one and the same octopus, whose head ( and banks) are in New York. That's why the octopus doesn't need "more land grab" because it hopes to take over the world with the help of its tentacles and military "lily pads."
I can elaborate on the sinister part of this. I hope this doesn't sound too off the wall, please keep in mind I have not got it all sorted it to the last detail. The world has a problem, the leaders are not held accountable. France was heavily involved in the Libya debacle. To this day the country is a wreck. It once had the highest standard of living on the continent of Africa. Nicolas Sarkozy as president of France was largely responsible for this, he ordered France to get involved. Why is he still free after so many Libyans have died? Why is George Bush, Colin Powell, Dick (Darth) Cheney not in prison for what has happened in Iraq? What is happening in Syria is largely the responsibility of the west and its allies in the ME. All because Assad and his government refused to toe the wests line. Uncounted innocents have died because of this war. Who will be held responsible?
No one.
Where money, the expansion of power and influence by the few and for the few come up against common people and human beings, it seems that life means little. How is this in any way right? MWR puts forth the EXCUSE that this is the natural way of things. I don't agree. Humans largely by nature are communal creatures, social in nature. When given a choice we don't seek conquest, we don't seek to steal what our neighbor has. Unfortunately there is a subset of humanity who gathers what he needs for the coming winter and then looks to his neighbor. To see what he can steal. Or in a modern sense, what he can get others to steal for him.
If it comes down to it they'll FORCE people to be their little tin soldiers and force them to do their bidding, they will draft and conscript as many as it takes and kill as many as it takes to accomplish their goals, unless the lose. On a smaller scale they use power plays, sponsor coups and instigate civil conflicts using mercenaries to get their way destroying functioning societies and killing millions and destroying lives of millions more.
Never to be held accountable, ever, by anyone.
Where the rubber meets the road MWR, life is cheap. And you're one of the people.
I can elaborate on the sinister part of this. I hope this doesn't sound too off the wall, please keep in mind I have not got it all sorted it to the last detail. The world has a problem, the leaders are not held accountable. France was heavily involved in the Libya debacle. To this day the country is a wreck. It once had the highest standard of living on the continent of Africa. Nicolas Sarkozy as president of France was largely responsible for this, he ordered France to get involved. Why is he still free after so many Libyans have died? Why is George Bush, Colin Powell, Dick (Darth) Cheney not in prison for what has happened in Iraq? What is happening in Syria is largely the responsibility of the west and its allies in the ME. All because Assad and his government refused to toe the wests line. Uncounted innocents have died because of this war. Who will be held responsible?
While you're not wrong, the solutions you come up with are very simplistic. Yes Bush, Dick, Sarkozy... are guilty but so are plenty others.
You can also add the likes of Putin, Kim Jong, Maduro... the list goes on
Assad isn't as innocent as you might think either. It's a very complicated situation, some are for him others against.
No one.
Quote:
Where money, the expansion of power and influence by the few and for the few come up against common people and human beings, it seems that life means little. How is this in any way right? MWR puts forth the EXCUSE that this is the natural way of things. I don't agree. Humans largely by nature are communal creatures, social in nature. When given a choice we don't seek conquest, we don't seek to steal what our neighbor has. Unfortunately there is a subset of humanity who gathers what he needs for the coming winter and then looks to his neighbor. To see what he can steal. Or in a modern sense, what he can get others to steal for him.
Humans are social creatures in the sense that they live in collective units, be that a house, city, country on a larger scale.
What do you mean humans don't seek conquest? What did the Roman Empire, Persian Empire, Mongols, Russian Emmpire, Aztecs, Inca's... do
Since they first popped up, humans have been competing for resources and to establish their way of thinking.
Humans are vile creatures, scumbags. Individuals have done great things, but we are not a nice species.
In fact the only thing that would unify us would be an alien invasion and even that's debatable.
Quote:
If it comes down to it they'll FORCE people to be their little tin soldiers and force them to do their bidding, they will draft and conscript as many as it takes and kill as many as it takes to accomplish their goals, unless the lose. On a smaller scale they use power plays, sponsor coups and instigate civil conflicts using mercenaries to get their way destroying functioning societies and killing millions and destroying lives of millions more.
Never to be held accountable, ever, by anyone.
Who is "they"? That is one of the most vague statements.
The term coup is also overused and really means nothing in the context of the 21st century. It's just used to complain about everything and anything.
Why is it that people who complain about western backed coups ignore the fact that someone like Castro came to power in a coup. In other words it doesn't bother them as long as it fits with their view. That works both ways btw, whether it's people backing one side or the other.
Quote:
Where the rubber meets the road MWR, life is cheap. And you're one of the people.
If you want to respond to me, you can quote me. I should have mentioned this above, but at first I wasn't sure what MWR was supposed to mean. I thought they were initials for a term.
Anyways, I'm not sure what you meant by your last statement so please elaborate.
Where are the millions Putin has killed? Don't toss the Chechen thing into this please. The Russians didn't want war throughout the southern regions of their country. The Chechen had to happen or millions would have died in Asia.
Quote:
Assad isn't as innocent as you might think either. It's a very complicated situation, some are for him others against.
No, its not complicated. Syria was a stable secular society where its citizens could live normal lives in peace. Grow up, start families watch them go to school and start families of their own. The status quo didn't suit some minority of the citizens and some people who had no business meddling in Syrian affairs in places far away. Syria is the most recent example of what I was trying to explain to you. It was never about freeing the Syrian people, it was more about enslaving them.
And make no mistake, there is only one reason Bashar Assad is still in the power. Its because the people stood and are still standing behind him.
I did not say humans do not seek conquest. I said that when GIVEN A CHOICE people do not seek it.
Quote:
Who is "they"? That is one of the most vague statements.
The problem is (as with all things) in nature there are aberrations. In human societies there are defective people. Politicians, patriots, murderers, psychopaths, sociopaths, fanatics, Tour De France riders people who stand on street corners shooting up heroine, whatever you care to label them THEY are not the norm in human nature. They're the anomalies, the aberrations.
Right now certain aberrations have far too much influence in this world. They control enormous power, huge mercenaries armies and the power to create armies by force if necessary. They have the industrial capacity and infrastructure to utilize this power to extreme degrees in all aspects of space and time across the globe. They are now using this power to enrich themselves. They will continue to do this unless they're held accountable and they will kill millions along the way.
They're not Tour De France riders either. I'll leave to you figure out who I'm talking about.
Weary of what? You also suggested that Russia should build a strong alliance with Germany. If you're willing to ignore two world wars for that, then you can't tell me that the US is problematic.
What "two world wars for that?"
In both wars Russia and Germany were stacked against each other. ( And please don't tell me about "Stalin-Ribbentrop" pact. To bring this kind of "facts" means to understand little in WWII. This pact was all about Russians buying time, since they knew that they were going to be targeted by Germany sooner or later. And in both cases German leaders did what Bismarck was warning them about - NOT to do it.
Quote:
I personally like that mentality as I don't care about history in a practical way (I'm very passionate about it and love reading about things from different sources) but it doesn't bother me if country x attacked or killed more people than country y as it doesn't make y better.
North Korea killed far less people then either Russia, China, US, UK, Germany, France... yet it's a far worse country.
Not sure how it's relative, but when you ask what Russians are "weary of," - in the latest case they know that the US is targeting them for destruction, as much as Hitler did before, just in a different manner.
The US would like to strangle them economically, with the help of money - the rest should take care of itself in a due manner. In fact Brzezinski, one of the political advisers to US presidents was not even making secrets of such plans.
Quote:
The products you use in your daily life.
Let's use an example
You're on city data which is American
How did you get here? You used a web browser (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge) which is American
Where did you find the browser? On your OS (Windows, Android, iOS) American unless you run Linux
Where is the OS found? On your PC, smartphone, tablet. Can be American, Japanese, Korean...
How predictable of you to bring internet in.
But think about the internet - what it's all about?
On one hand - a convenient source of information and "socialization place."
On another hand - often the provider of a FALSE sense of "knowledge and education," a place that promotes the shallowness and conformity to the "norms of the society," brings the 5 minutes of fame to people with no particular merits, makes them feel "special" and helps to organize the "color revolutions" somewhere in Egypt.
How did we ever survive without this invention?
Quote:
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Cars, movies, social media... Even Iran's president uses twitter.
Not to mention Donald Trump.
How did ever Franklin Delano Roosevelt survive without it? Or Winston Churchill? Not to mention J.F. Kennedy. How did he manage to be so popular without twitter and "social media" I wonder?
Quote:
Other then the fact that they have more power, I don't see the difference.
But the mentality is the same. Both UK and France have multiple ones. The US has more because it is able to have more.
Conquering the world was not an option for the Roman Empire, the Mongols... as they didn't have the means.
What about colonial empires? British, French, Spanish, Portuguese... all were fighting to expand their territory.
The "colonial Empires" were just about that - expanding their lands. But not to infinity - they could have/use only that much. The rest of world's resources has been left to *others.*
In case of the US - they want to topple the world, ALL OF IT, by financial means, not by physical expansion of their territory. That's why this danger is unprecedented, comparably to previous major powers.
Quote:
I used the lord of the rings reference because Tolkien's world was fairly black and white. Sauron was the embodiment of evil at that time with no possible redemption.
You make it seen that somehow magically after world war 2 Sauron's ring of power fell into the hands of the US while everyone else was an innocent little lamb.
This is not a question of "innocent little lambs."
This is a question of WHY certain country claims the ultimate spot on top of the world?
Is it completely *innocent* ( following your expression,) is it without internal problems/contradictions that it imposes itself on the rest of the world?
Quote:
There were a lot of domestic tensions. Some countries were fighting for independence. Others had internal turmoil like Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.
This were minor issues comparably to the Cold War.
Because if the major conflict wouldn't have been resolved and the nuclear war would have been unleashed, all this "fight for independence" in India or Bangladesh wouldn't matter any longer.
Alechek, I have only one question - why does this clown wear a Tyrolean hat, while "trying to kill a Russian" in himself?
No sorry - make it TWO questions; do these morons REALLY think that they are somehow different from Russians, just because they decided to wear someone else's hats?
What "two world wars for that?"
In both wars Russia and Germany were stacked against each other. ( And please don't tell me about "Stalin-Ribbentrop" pact. To bring this kind of "facts" means to understand little in WWII. This pact was all about Russians buying time, since they knew that they were going to be targeted by Germany sooner or later. And in both cases German leaders did what Bismarck was warning them about - NOT to do it.
Never had any intention of bringing any pact. A lot of parties were guilty in WW2.
Quote:
Not sure how it's relative, but when you ask what Russians are "weary of," - in the latest case they know that the US is targeting them for destruction, as much as Hitler did before, just in a different manner.
The US would like to strangle them economically, with the help of money - the rest should take care of itself in a due manner. In fact Brzezinski, one of the political advisers to US presidents was not even making secrets of such plans.
I read some of your previous comments about how you believe Russia should forge an alliance with Germany. If you can ignore two wars in which Germans attacked Russia resulting in millions of death, then your dislike of the US feels misplaced.
Interesting you brought up Brzezinski who was Polish. He is a case of someone seeking revenge on the USSR for its action against Poles. A lot of advisers who were against Russia came from Eastern Europe.
Quote:
How predictable of you to bring internet in.
But think about the internet - what it's all about?
On one hand - a convenient source of information and "socialization place."
On another hand - often the provider of a FALSE sense of "knowledge and education," a place that promotes the shallowness and conformity to the "norms of the society," brings the 5 minutes of fame to people with no particular merits, makes them feel "special" and helps to organize the "color revolutions" somewhere in Egypt.
How did we ever survive without this invention?
Except that the internet isn't just a one off snack you munch on from time to time. It is present in all of our daily lives. Can you major in any field of study without using a computer and the internet by extension? Even art majors require some form of interaction nowadays
The internet didn't organize anything by itself. People use it to spread information, whatever that may be. The internet isn't independent of human input at this stage.
Do you blame cellphones for accidents caused while texting?
Quote:
Not to mention Donald Trump.
How did ever Franklin Delano Roosevelt survive without it? Or Winston Churchill? Not to mention J.F. Kennedy. How did he manage to be so popular without twitter and "social media" I wonder?
Not sure you understood my original point which was that the president of a country which has no official diplomatic relations with the States still relies on their technology.
As to your examples, those were different times. Things change over time, Twitter was also very different from what it was in 2007 when it popped up. Along with Instagram they are nowadays used for marketing purposes which goes beyond their original scope.
Quote:
The "colonial Empires" were just about that - expanding their lands. But not to infinity - they could have/use only that much. The rest of world's resources has been left to *others.*
In case of the US - they want to topple the world, ALL OF IT, by financial means, not by physical expansion of their territory. That's why this danger is unprecedented, comparably to previous major powers.
The colonial empires would have also expanded further if given the chance. They were either limited by geography or by other powers with which they were waring.
The US is a modern power, therefore it has access to technology not present back then.
Quote:
This is not a question of "innocent little lambs."
This is a question of WHY certain country claims the ultimate spot on top of the world?
Is it completely *innocent* ( following your expression,) is it without internal problems/contradictions that it imposes itself on the rest of the world?
Countries have always competed agains one another for the top stop. Presently it's the US, some day it may be someone else. The innocent little lamb expression I used was to refer to other countries. I don't like this trend that has developed lately where everyone dumps their problem at the superpower ( in this case the US) where we pretend that somehow magically if the US pulled back the world would be peaceful.
There has never been a period of global peace. Humans have always warred with one another. That comes largely from the fact humans are a violent species.
To answer your question about imposition, it once again comes from human nature of establishing dominion over others. Did we not domesticate animals to do our bidding? Did we ever ask them if they wanted to be our pets.? We did it because we could.
How would you feel if a more advanced species came to Earth and decided to make us their pets.
I don't object to criticism of the US, there is a fair amount worthy of it, but I can't stand the infantile approach where whatever happens the US gets blamed. Other countries are at fault too. Be it Russia, UK, France, China, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, North Korea...
Quote:
This were minor issues comparably to the Cold War.
Because if the major conflict wouldn't have been resolved and the nuclear war would have been unleashed, all this "fight for independence" in India or Bangladesh wouldn't matter any longer.
They weren't minor to the people who lived through them
Just like with WW2 we largely hear about the big players whether it be the UK, France, Germany, US, USSR, Japan. But what about Yugoslavia, Burma, Malaysia... all were affected by the war.
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.
