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 fact of the matter is that the US government has interfered in European elections , wiretapped several leading political figures of its supposed allies , and even quite plausibly supported the terrorists responsible for the Bologna bombing as documented by Daniele Ganser :
In short one is immediately reminded of the old saying of " if one has such friends then one doesn't need enemies " when it comes to the issue of the US government being the ally of Europe .
Which is not to say that Europe should ally itself with the Russian Federation , because it most certainly should not , however a Europe free of both Russian and American influence would be the ideal goal to aim for if institutions like the ( Anti ) European Union didn't exist .
Is this to imply that every nation that's done something crappy in the past, can never be "right" about anything in the future? Can't we say that about every nation? And in order for your post to function as a usable reply to that post suggesting that the US and Russia are somehow peers as it relates to these current events, then your position is actually supportive of any nation that wants to wage war on another?
Is this to imply that every nation that's done something crappy in the past, can never be "right" about anything in the future? Can't we say that about every nation? And in order for your post to function as a usable reply to that post suggesting that the US and Russia are somehow peers as it relates to these current events, then your position is actually supportive of any nation that wants to wage war on another?
No I do not subscribe to the notion of " once in the wrong , always in the wrong " in the least , but I do not see how that relates to this particular subject at hand , since the intent of my post you've quoted was to cast aspersions upon the notion of the United States government being a proper ally of Europe , as opposed to making any sort of commentary regarding whether or not a country that was in the wrong can ever be right again .
I also do not understand how you ( correct me if I'm wrong ) seem to have reached the conclusion that I am supportive of countries wanting to wage war on each other , when I've clearly taken an explicitly pro peace stance many times already , but perhaps you're referring to some poorly phrased post of mine that may give off that misunderstanding which I'll gladly address if you wish to point to it .
I wonder how the prices are in russia curently?
I saw contradict stuffs. Some say the prices doubles others nothing happen.
18% inflation or so according to many unbiased sources. Certainly huge but no Turkey and 2 times as bad as America and on par with several countries in the EU.
No I do not subscribe to the notion of " once in the wrong , always in the wrong " in the least , but I do not see how that relates to this particular subject at hand , since the intent of my post you've quoted was to cast aspersions upon the notion of the United States government being a proper ally of Europe , as opposed to making any sort of commentary regarding whether or not a country that was in the wrong can ever be right again .
I also do not understand how you ( correct me if I'm wrong ) seem to have reached the conclusion that I am supportive of countries wanting to wage war on each other , when I've clearly taken an explicitly pro peace stance many times already , but perhaps you're referring to some poorly phrased post of mine that may give off that misunderstanding which I'll gladly address if you wish to point to it .
One person said that Europe should have at least banned Russian entries since February of this year. Another person replied that Americans should be banned too, which is implying that Russia and the US are essentially peers in their behavior. Then someone replied saying that-that was basically silly and that the US and Europe are allies and that Russia is an enemy of Europe due to this war. Then you replied with some links as a refutation to the alliance, and to refute the alliance due to the US' poor behavior puts the US and Russia back into the peer category.
My point to follow that conversation is, every nation has probably done some bad things, so if the US is the same as Russia as they relate to Europe, in that both should not be allowed into Europe, then it may as well be all nations everywhere and what you end up with is total division and isolation and apparently you may as well all be at war, because what's the difference? Now obviously that's tongue in cheek, which comes from a rejection of the idea that the US and Russia are somehow in the same category today. And also to point out where creating too high of a standard leads. That's not to say that we should accept the things you've pointed out, we should always work hard to do significantly better than that, but let's also keep a foot on the ground with it.
One person said that Europe should have at least banned Russian entries since February of this year. Another person replied that Americans should be banned too, which is implying that Russia and the US are essentially peers in their behavior. Then someone replied saying that-that was basically silly and that the US and Europe are allies and that Russia is an enemy of Europe due to this war. Then you replied with some links as a refutation to the alliance, and to refute the alliance due to the US' poor behavior puts the US and Russia back into the peer category.
My point to follow that conversation is, every nation has probably done some bad things, so if the US is the same as Russia as they relate to Europe, in that both should not be allowed into Europe, then it may as well be all nations everywhere and what you end up with is total division and isolation and apparently you may as well all be at war, because what's the difference? Now obviously that's tongue in cheek, which comes from a rejection of the idea that the US and Russia are somehow in the same category today. And also to point out where creating too high of a standard leads. That's not to say that we should accept the things you've pointed out, we should always work hard to do significantly better than that, but let's also keep a foot on the ground with it.
Well regarding NATO/the ongoing permanent American military presence in Europe , I'm opposed to it based on the principle of being opposed to all permanent foreign military presences , viewing them as merely the ( in this case ) peaceful varieties of military occupation .
I'd be just as opposed to Russian/Chinese/Brazilian/you name it troops maintaining a permanent presence in Europe , the same as I'd be opposed to European troops garrisoning in the United States or Japanese troops maintaining a permanent base in Tuvalu .
Naturally the factor of certain countries wanting another country to maintain a permanent military presence within their borders can be brought up , which in the case of small ones with little to no proper modern martial history like Tuvalu can be argued in favor of , but there is no reason that Europe of all places in the world should continue to depend on the USA to defend it like it still essentially does via the ongoing existence of NATO .
European countries could more than adequately make any foreign invader think twice about invading them if they were to introduce a classic Swiss/Cypriot/Israeli style of defense , with all able bodied persons automatically becoming members of the military reserves after basic training/being called up periodically to keep ship shape ( along with storing all their equipment including arms/ammunition at home for quick mobilization ) , putting any prospective invader in the position of having to use WMD's to avoid mass casualties on their side ,thereby obviously ruining the point of the invasion in the first place .
Instead the continent with one of the proudest martial traditions in all of history is essentially reduced to being a protectorate of the USA , since one cannot really talk of genuine national sovereignty when the absolutely essential to national independence factor of maintaining your own defense is placed into foreign hands , and thus cannot even properly be called sovereign .
So in short I'm not in favor of banning American/Russian/Chinese or what have you tourists from Europe , but I am very much in favor of having the Old Continent stand tall against Russian and American power politics that hurt it .
Obviously as one who is a great partisan of Occidental civilization as such , I would love to see a proper European/Russian/American alliance emerge if Western tradition ( in the form of constitutional monarchism in Europe , liberal minded tsarism in Russia , and Founding Father era republicanism in the USA ) were to be fully restored in all three places , but that is unfortunately a very flighty idea at this point .
So I take you approve of the Japanese internment camps in the US during WWII, and now you want to do the same for Russians and Chinese who happen to already live in western countries?
Who said anything about internment? I said deportation. That's the opposite of internment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grega94
where do you even begin to draw the line to tease them all out?
Those who still have Russian citizenship? Those who want to stay can apply for political asylum and show that they are loyal to Western values, then give up their Russian passport.
Well regarding NATO/the ongoing permanent American military presence in Europe , I'm opposed to it based on the principle of being opposed to all permanent foreign military presences , viewing them as merely the ( in this case ) peaceful varieties of military occupation .
Two world wars where the USA had to come to the rescue.
Russia protecting its backyard.....care to explain that?
That's Pootin BS ....afraid that Ukraine was going to attack Russia? Yeah right
No, of course. Afraid NATO might try something at some point.
And there's some truth to that. P met with a series of US Presidents, asking them all the same question: will NATO extend membership to Ukraine. What he didn't know, is that the US' opinion doesn't matter. NATO had already nixed the idea of Ukraine (along with Georgia) joining. EUrope's NATO members are wiser than America's presidents, who tend to get caught up in missionary zeal about spreading democracy (GW Bush), and other misguided motives in politically delicate matters. They even ignore seasoned experts advising them and explaining why membership for Ukraine is a bad idea.
But the point is, P's repeated quizzing of US presidents on the matter shows it's been a concern of his. And Ukraine had been taunting him with threats of joining NATO, which was probably one reason he kept turning to the people he thought were the ultimate decision-makers for NATO: our presidents.
He was wrong. He could easily have met with NATO's leadership to get an accurate answer to his concern. Instead, he started planning an invasion.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 08-22-2022 at 10:48 AM..
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.
