Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
You're grossly under estimating the crimes conducting by countries in previous wars. Some also actively support and supply countries that are knowingly conducting war crimes in other countries or murdering people in their own.
There should also be consequences when countries to out and hastly order to kill based on flimsy information, latest incident being the US drone that killed a group of kids but what was initially said to be a car of ISIS militants.
There is also clear evidence of torture in Iraq, which is a war crime, that is actually still defended by some people in the US.
Has anyone on here defended My Lai?
That wasn't the point though, the post I quoted was responding to someone saying he/she hopes that western countries hold themselves accountable when they bomb other countries the same way they are doing now to Russia.
While My Lai isn't defended, you might still find people who defend US invading Vietnam.
Cool… but you posting My Lai in response is kinda weird then.
But what about the West ?
Why? The poster was saying as if other countries don't do war crimes, or haven't engaged in illegal wars; specifically talking about shooting/executing civilians.
Because nobody but you is referencing My Lai.
If someone were defending Russians shooting people in the street then you’d have a point. But they aren’t.
No, it literally didn't. What history books are you reading ffs?
Stalin was not toppled or deposed internally or through a western intervention. Nor did his death lead to a change of regime. He had a haemorrhagic stroke as a result of long standing atherosclerosis and died within four days of it. He was replaced temporarily by Malenkov and eventually by his right hand man, Khrushchev. Khrushchev was a man who supported Joseph Stalin's purges during the latter's reign and approved thousands of arrests. The same one-party rule and the same regime survived until the fall of the USSR under Gorbatchev.
Khrushchev's memoir says that Beria did it. Who knows if that's true but it's certainly true that Stalin wasn't treated promptly and correctly, whether because they didn't want him to recover or because they were too scared to make mistakes and incur his wrath. Either way, Khrushchev then goes on to denounce and "de-Stalinise" Russia. That's the sort of outcome you'd be hoping for. And yes it will take years, decades or maybe never to succeed in transforming Russia but it has to be tried. We fecked it up first time round, we need to try not to do the same again.
It has been interesting to see this exact sentiment as many times as I've seen it from folks all around the world.
No he doesn't. He blames Beria for inaction, the very opposite of "did it". Khrushchev was the one who called Beria after Stalin was found unconscious, a full 19hrs after last seen going to bed. Beria was not even at the Dacha at the time, he couldn't have "done" anything. Khrushchev is as guilty of inaction with regards to not immediately notifying doctors and requesting medical attention, as Beria. But Khrushchev won the power struggle against Beria and the latter was put to death as a result, so of course he blames it on Beria and we only hear that narrative. Both were obviously afraid to act independently without orders.
But regardless, Stalin's death was a naturally caused stroke, not a murder or toppling which is what you've been talking about. No one would dare make a move against Stalin while he still had his faculties.
You've gone from privately offering someone in position of power a deal to topple Putin, to waiting for years for old age to do the trick and then hoping another less autocratic leader takes over and gradually transforms the country.
Your arguments are all over the place. I'm tired.
Yeah I think you need your beauty sleep tbf.
No. The EU would never subvention an Israel-like system. We are not accepting Orban's slow march into that authoritarian system of his. Actually, EU has been increasingly trying to pressure Israel into less apartheid. The European Court of Justice vigorously defended the right of BDS to promote a boycott of Israel.
The US is the superpower defending Apartheid in Israel and questions on that have already started to be asked. The US will not support Ukraine in emulating that.
Ali Velshi didn't get canceled and labeled antisemite after this (he would have a few years ago..). There will be many more speaking out against Ukraine if it were to start moving toward that kind of system. I hope Zelenskyy knows that and is keeping it in mind. I'm convinced it is not his intention, but once you've opened the door to the "Military/Police state" you can't know where it actually leads.
Last edited:
From a right-wing journalist very supportive of the ruling party:
https://www.newslaundry.com/2022/04...-powered-subs-are-just-prestige-military-toys
In Economist’s fantasyland, India’s nuclear-powered subs are just ‘prestige military toys’
Anxieties of western diplomats and media, in convincing countries to ally against Russia, could be counterproductive.
https://www.newslaundry.com/2022/04...-powered-subs-are-just-prestige-military-toys
In Economist’s fantasyland, India’s nuclear-powered subs are just ‘prestige military toys’
Anxieties of western diplomats and media, in convincing countries to ally against Russia, could be counterproductive.
And, this means it is almost certain that Sweden will also join NATO in the coming months.
Hopefully, the Danes don't f**k up their EU-defense referendum in June. The first referendum a country holds on EU matters since Brexit.
The social democrats in sweden will receive a backlash if they say yes to NATO. Even during this fear surge, support among the population is quite weak. Fortunately looks like a 75% parliament majority will be needed to join NATO.
"Fortunately"
Let the Swedes decide their own foreign policy.
Hilary Clinton (lovely person...) has accused Saudi Arabia of siding with Russia because they haven't (SA)increased oil production. Interesting. Perhaps they'll increase olive oil production instead.
I don't think the social democrats can afford to have NATO membership as one of the Election's big issues. They have nothing to gain from that. Their own base is very divided on it (27 v 31). Only the Greens and the Left have a clear majority against it. Currently, the most important party for S not to anger is C, and as long as C is pro-NATO I can't see the upside for S in holding against it.
This is TV4, 2 weeks ago breaking it out by party-voters.
And more recently this, also ordered by TV4.
https://omni.se/ny-undersokning-svenskarna-allt-mer-natovanliga/a/1O8ooq
35 % support joining vs only 31 % against.
Why are so many Swedes against joining NATO?
Collateral damage.
Really hope Sweden follows Finland in joining Nato, will make our Baltic region so much more safer all things considered. Since you don’t want to fully depend on the US given that there’s now always a possibility of another Trump around the corner as Putin’s bot and troll armies will only intensify going forwards. It was really important for Finland to be part of the block, very happy with this news.
The opposition isn't high. It's only 31 % currently (and a third of them would say yes if Finland was joining). But it used to be around 50 %.. The truth is People aren't educated well enough on defense issues.
Then again I don't think it is a Swedish thing. Finland used to be more opposed to it than us. People don't like big changes generally.
Actually, Ireland and especially Austria have stronger "fake neutrality" no-NATO traditions than us.
But to give you some context. You can go back to this discussion we had earlier on the matter.
Swedish people have had a problem with US foreign policy long before Trump. The school debates were often quite heated when someone started to troll the more left oriented. I used to be right wing nato supporter when I was younger but that was a long time ago.
That's a misconception though. I do have issues with many US foreign policies, but I'd rather see us join NATO. We have to distinguish the 2. NATO is not a tool of US foreign policy. NATO is a strictly defensive alliance. And having the US in it is what makes it a real deterrent.
Germany and France (2 of NATO's biggest countries) opposed the American invasion of Iraq and NATO stayed out of it.
Even if we belived NATO was purely defensive, how can we think it's disconnected from US foreign policy when they are waving their dick around the entire planet? In the 60's they supported mass killings of perhaps millions in indonesia only on suspicion someone might be a "leftie". I would probably have been slaughtered for being a union activist. So yeah I think sweden should rather mediate between military blocs than be part of one.
We need look no further than the Russia/Ukraine crisis to see whether it is defensive. We have a tangible, real life example transpiring before our eyes in the present that demonstrates why NATO not only should have existed post Cold War, but that it should have expanded aggressively to balance against an authoritarian lunatic with nukes threatening Europe.
Last edited:
That's the ultimate question. Does he have that kind of power?
History tells us that dictators usually have a shelf life and when it all starts to fall apart, it does so quickly. He's surrounded himself with "yes men" but these are not political hardliners tied to an ideology - they're thieves and chancers who (along with their wives, mistresses and children) want to live a western lifestyle and spend their billions.
He's a near 70 year old man, possibly ill and he isn't the future. Are they going to sit by while he burns Russia's economy to the ground? Possible, but I suspect there's numerous people around him (known and perhaps, more who are unknown) who would put a bullet in him if push comes to shove.
Russia is a big country. Their military is demonstrably much weaker than the world thought and there are separatist groups all over the Country - possible soon to be covertly backed by the wet, who could cause a lot of trouble at home. By surrounding himself by the people he has he's done a great job of gaslighting himself into thinking he's invincible.
Big issue will be whether sanctions are rolled back when this is over, or whether Europe can wean itself off Russian oil and gas but even that won't save the economy.
Two very debatable points, all things considered. But probably also best left for the geopolitics thread.
Simply isn't true. We're on the side of freedom and democracy in Yemen, are we? Thought so.
Personally, I am 100% with freedom and democracy everywhere, but I don't think that any of the two sides in Yemen represent "freedom and democracy".
Freedom and democracy has never existed in Yemen nor any of the nations attacking Yemen. So, apart from your classic "what aboutism", who knows what your point is.
China + Russia + North Korea + Syria + Byelorussia + Cuba + Venezuela + numerous ex-Soviet states in central Asia + elsewhere. Plus authoritarian leaders currently in power in the Philippines, Brazil, India and elsewhere.
Full democracies comprise only 6.4% of the global population. So yes, I'd say democracy and freedom is engaged in an existential and global fight for survival.
The point is simple. The US/West does not wage war to protect democracies. It hasn't happened once in history insofar as I can tell. Any democracy/freedom dichotomy will be an effect (and mostly chimerical) rather than cause and possess about as much intelligence as "freedom fries" in 2003 (that one was for democracy, too, remember?).
It's a joke to frame it like that (you're talking about the need for EU countries to go to war with China
).Regarding Yemen, the point is also simple. The US/UK/NATO directly funds genocide. The US has just given the Saudis its Patriot missile system which they need after the Houthis have had some success following the death of 400 thousand people over eight years. We're directly on the side of autocracy for the sake of self-interest and profit and have been a million times before, often at the expense of democracy, so framing this situation (having to engage China) as an existential threat to western democratic values is absurd.
The point is simple. The US/West does not wage war to protect democracies. It hasn't happened once in history insofar as I can tell. Any democracy/freedom dichotomy will be an effect (and mostly chimerical) rather than cause and possess about as much intelligence as "freedom fries" in 2003 (that one was for democracy, too, remember?).
It's a joke to frame it like that (you're talking about the need for EU countries to go to war with China
Regarding Yemen, the point is also simple. The US/UK/NATO directly funds genocide. The US has just given the Saudis its Patriot missile system which they need after the Houthis have had some success following the death of 400 thousand people over eight years. We're directly on the side of autocracy for the sake of self-interest and profit and have been a million times before, often at the expense of democracy, so framing this situation (having to engage China) as an existential threat to western democratic values is absurd.
I guess WWII escaped your attention ... like much else it seems.
Your frequent attempts in this thread to paint a moral equivalence between the democracies of this world and the likes of China and Russia is frankly sickening.
Your claim that the likes of China and Russia do not pose an existential threat to freedom and democracy flies in the face of reality. If you haven't seen it I suggest you watch a fairly recent BBC Panorama report principally focused on China, called Are You Scared Yet?
I also suggest you drop the fashionable cynicism and get real.
He's indeed another who should be put on the ignore list if it wasn't for his status as staff member.
Having been part in demonstrations against dictatorships before, people who show up to "support" such dictatorship are the first being yelled to feck off from our country if they love supporting autocracies through whataboutism.
Last edited: