State of the Race: 14 Days Left

[Actinguy 862]

13 minutes ago, Patine said:

And, I repeat, Russia and China are also nuclear powers with intercontinental missile range.

And these are powers you’re comfortable leaving unchecked, to grow and grow and grow?

You don’t like American intervention, fine.  But the opposite of American intervention is not no intervention.  It’s Russian and Chinese intervention.

.

[Patine 468]

4 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

But the opposite of American intervention is not no intervention.

"Only Sith think in absolutes." There are wiser ways of wielding great power than constantly hammering people with it, or endlessly threatening so to do. In fact, seeing that as being the sole way to use such power is the viewpoint of the barbarian warlord, even they lead an advanced and civilized nation.

[Actinguy 862]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

"Only Sith think in absolutes." There are wiser ways of wielding great power than constantly hammering people with it, or endlessly threatening so to do. In fact, seeing that as being the sole way to use such power is the viewpoint of the barbarian warlord, even they lead an advanced and civilized nation.

You want to talk about American war atrocities, and that’s fine.  We’ve earned that criticism, at times.

But if you want to talk about Chinese and Russian war atrocities...well...we’ll miss you.  
 

Because those are two regimes that do not tolerate dissonance.

[vcczar 1,224]

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

"Only Sith think in absolutes." There are wiser ways of wielding great power than constantly hammering people with it, or endlessly threatening so to do. In fact, seeing that as being the sole way to use such power is the viewpoint of the barbarian warlord, even they lead an advanced and civilized nation.

@Actinguy has a point here. You know I don't like military intervention, but China and Russia are very likely to intervene in ways the US did if the US disengaged. There's basically no win-win situation unless all major powers agree together not to intervene. Note, I'm not making a judgment that US would be necessarily better interventionists than China or Russia, but as the US is less authoritarian than the other two countries it seems less promising. I think there's some sort of middle ground between what @Actinguy sees as best and what you and I both see as best. I hope.

[Patine 468]

1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

You want to talk about American war atrocities, and that’s fine.  We’ve earned that criticism, at times.

But if you want to talk about Chinese and Russian war atrocities...well...we’ll miss you.  
 

Because those are two regimes that do not tolerate dissonance.

I have never denied Chinese and Russian war atrocities. All the war criminals - be they Chinese, Russian, Korean, Indian, American, British, French, Israeli, Islamic World, African, and wherever else they might hide, should all, ideally, on one fine, halcyon, glorious day justice that will never happen, because the world is so rotten, be gathered up an tried in the biggest war tribunal event in history, and to set an example to new leaders going forward just what consequences evil will bring. But that is a pipe dream. Only African warlord, Yugoslav militia leaders, and old men who committed their crimes in WW2 EVER get tried for war crimes nowadays, and that is a crying shame.

[Hestia11 572]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

"Only Sith think in absolutes." There are wiser ways of wielding great power than constantly hammering people with it, or endlessly threatening so to do. In fact, seeing that as being the sole way to use such power is the viewpoint of the barbarian warlord, even they lead an advanced and civilized nation.

You do have a point here. There is ways that the US could use their power more effectively/less frequently. I think that should be widely acknowledged. 

For example, the Iraq War obviously shouldn't have happened. More troop drawbacks should be planned when it is possible that the government there can sustain itself. Should Afghanistan's government show that it is strong enough to stand on it's own, and they want all US troops gone, then by all means, pull out entirely. But if it seems like it'll just fall back into violence, keep some soldiers there to help the transition. Everything should be focused on helping the current government strengthen enough to stand on it's own. Unfortunately, I'm very sure that this isn't the focus right now.

However, a Russia-China oriented world...those things wouldn't even be debatable. If they wanted troops there, there will be troops there. 

It's a tricky issue with many different flaws and sides.

[Patine 468]

Just now, vcczar said:

@Actinguy has a point here. You know I don't like military intervention, but China and Russia are very likely to intervene in ways the US did if the US disengaged. There's basically no win-win situation unless all major powers agree together not to intervene. Note, I'm not making a judgment that US would be necessarily better interventionists than China or Russia, but as the US is less authoritarian than the other two countries it seems less promising. I think there's some sort of middle ground between what @Actinguy sees as best and what you and I both see as best. I hope.

But all three nations having large stockpiles of nuclear weapons with intercontinental range complicates that idea IMMENSELY. Unless you all love those Fallout games who were discussing a while back enough to want to SEE that kind of world.

[vcczar 1,224]

Just now, Patine said:

But all three nations having large stockpiles of nuclear weapons with intercontinental range complicates that idea IMMENSELY. Unless you all love those Fallout games who were discussing a while back enough to want to SEE that kind of world.

I guess I'm missing the argument between you and @Actinguy. I assumed you were advocating that US stop intervening. Actinguy brought up that China and Russia would fill the vacuum. I'm just waiting to hear a sound alternative from you. 

If the option is:

1) US bullies the world

or

2) China and/or Russia bullies the world. 

Then, I don't like any of these options. What's the alternative. I hope there's one.

[Patine 468]

Just now, vcczar said:

I guess I'm missing the argument between you and @Actinguy. I assumed you were advocating that US stop intervening. Actinguy brought up that China and Russia would fill the vacuum. I'm just waiting to hear a sound alternative from you. 

If the option is:

1) US bullies the world

or

2) China and/or Russia bullies the world. 

Then, I don't like any of these options. What's the alternative. I hope there's one.

The U.S. could use it's economic power and the old "arsenal of democracy," idea if need be, instead of blundering headfirst into more endless quagmires of wars with, as I said above, a very, very low actual victory rate in the post-WW2 era.

[Hestia11 572]

Just now, vcczar said:

I guess I'm missing the argument between you and @Actinguy. I assumed you were advocating that US stop intervening. Actinguy brought up that China and Russia would fill the vacuum. I'm just waiting to hear a sound alternative from you. 

If the option is:

1) US bullies the world

or

2) China and/or Russia bullies the world. 

Then, I don't like any of these options. What's the alternative. I hope there's one.

I think this is a multi-faceted argument There's a lot going around.

On this...I don't think that it's a contest. The China/Russia world will be worse than the US world. While @Patinehas a good point about nuclear arsenals, China has shown a willingness to test nuclear powers (i.e. India). Without fear of a US backing of India, a war between two countries with a billion people each would be possible. China could use it's navy to openly harass countries in the Indo-Pacific (Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc.). 

Russia would be willing to step it's foot into Ukraine more confidently, if not the Baltics since they would still (theoretically) be under EU protection. Israel would be surrounded by enemies on all sides. Turkey, who has recently been growing more hawkish, would be unleashed to do as they wanted and, likely get embroiled with Iran in a war in the northern Middle East. 

The US-world isn't perfect. But it's far better than what a China/Russia one would look like.

[Hestia11 572]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

The U.S. could use it's economic power and the old "arsenal of democracy," idea if need be, instead of blundering headfirst into more endless quagmires of wars with, as I said above, a very, very low actual victory rate in the post-WW2 era.

I think this is probably the best you've articulated your point, in my opinion. There have been only a few wars since WW2 which have been entirely justified. Much of the time, people launch headfirst into it without truly thinking about what the actual consequences will be. 

[Actinguy 862]

10 minutes ago, Patine said:

The U.S. could use it's economic power and the old "arsenal of democracy," idea if need be, instead of blundering headfirst into more endless quagmires of wars with, as I said above, a very, very low actual victory rate in the post-WW2 era.

You think that hasn’t been tried?  By any President?  Ever?

[Patine 468]

6 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

You think that hasn’t been tried?  By any President?  Ever?

It's usually given up on far too easily or soon, or often seems like tokenism JUST to declare, after a short period, it was a failure as a casus belli for escalation. I rarely feel it's genuine - except maybe for a few nations where no war has happened after a long period of such tactics, like with North Korea, Iran, and Cuba - but otherwise, a conspicuous and suspicious impatience seems to kick in a lot of the time.

[vcczar 1,224]

17 minutes ago, Patine said:

The U.S. could use it's economic power and the old "arsenal of democracy," idea if need be, instead of blundering headfirst into more endless quagmires of wars with, as I said above, a very, very low actual victory rate in the post-WW2 era.

I'm not going to dispute that. 

What do you think the US should do if China and Russia muscle their way into other countries, knowing that the US will just stick to economic power and "arsenal of democracy" tactics. I'm sure these two countries would take whatever advantage they could, so long as Putin and Xi are leading their countries. 

Who would you rather have if one of these three countries were intervening in Canada, predominately in your province.

I say this as someone who, like you, things almost all our boots on the ground interventions since WWII have been mistakes and who is mostly a pacifist.

[Zenobiyl 209]

1 hour ago, Hestia11 said:

Just look at Armenia and Azerbaijan. Or Eastern Ukraine. Or Taiwan, which is being threatened more often. Or India and China, who have been at loggerheads for the last few years. 

The world is unfortunately getting more dangerous than less. Like it or not, the US-EU world is going to be a better one than whatever the China-Russia duo has up it's sleeve. Nothing will be perfect, and it is far from perfect now. There have been and will be significant US foreign policy blunders. However, asking our allies to "go it alone" is not going to help world peace.

Fair point. I’d still prefer minimal foreign entanglements, but I think you’re right that USA should do something to defend against Russian and Chinese (communist Chinese) geopolitics. 

[Patine 468]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I'm not going to dispute that. 

What do you think the US should do if China and Russia muscle their way into other countries, knowing that the US will just stick to economic power and "arsenal of democracy" tactics. I'm sure these two countries would take whatever advantage they could, so long as Putin and Xi are leading their countries. 

Who would you rather have if one of these three countries were intervening in Canada, predominately in your province.

I say this as someone who, like you, things almost all our boots on the ground interventions since WWII have been mistakes and who is mostly a pacifist.

A real big sticky point - a moral dilemna - is that Russia champions a lot of de facto and aspiring states who have very compelling claims to be independent, and how the nation who ended up with control of them in 15 Union Republic borders divide in 1991 were screwed and highly disadvantaged, even oppressed and endangered, by said national hegemony - Novorussiya, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh - but notably NOT Chechnya - and the Western World, I feel, make a big mistake declaring that they supported, inflexibly and with no negotiation - the 15 former Soviet Union Republics as solid and permanent national borders, even before Russia really firmly got their military, political, and economic hooks in those separatist movements. And now, the West's political view of who should be in what nation, and Russia's tactics, make it hard to say either is in the right or has any high ground, as it stands now. It's a mess! And military intervention will only make it WORSE - like it is wont to do in the post-WW2 era.

[vcczar 1,224]

6 minutes ago, Patine said:

A real big sticky point - a moral dilemna - is that Russia champions a lot of de facto and aspiring states who have very compelling claims to be independent, and how the nation who ended up with control of them in 15 Union Republic borders divide in 1991 were screwed and highly disadvantaged, even oppressed and endangered, by said national hegemony - Novorussiya, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh - but notably NOT Chechnya - and the Western World, I feel, make a big mistake declaring that they supported, inflexibly and with no negotiation - the 15 former Soviet Union Republics as solid and permanent national borders, even before Russia really firmly got their military, political, and economic hooks in those separatist movements. And now, the West's political view of who should be in what nation, and Russia's tactics, make it hard to say either is in the right or has any high ground, as it stands now. It's a mess! And military intervention will only make it WORSE - like it is wont to do in the post-WW2 era.

It reminds of when people like Capone would donate to orphanages and other charities. They have an incentive to make themselves look as good as they can, in the limited areas where they'll allow it. 

You bypassed my question to you about Canada. 

[Patine 468]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

It reminds of when people like Capone would donate to orphanages and other charities. They have an incentive to make themselves look as good as they can, in the limited areas where they'll allow it. 

You bypassed my question to you about Canada. 

The U.S. and China do already intervene heavily in Alberta - just purely economically. But it's noticeable. The U.S. wants the oil drilling and refining rights, and China's aggressively pushing their electronics.

[PoliticalPundit 284]

More and more I like Trumps' odds to win

 

These crowds look even bigger than in 2016 no @admin_270? 

 

Of course a bad debate and it goes all to shit lol 

[billay 163]

The polling for Biden in PA should be a little concerning. Explains why Obama will be campaigning there.

[admin_270 834]

2 hours ago, PoliticalPundit said:

More and more I like Trumps' odds to win

 

These crowds look even bigger than in 2016 no @admin_270? 

 

Of course a bad debate and it goes all to shit lol 

Might be! I haven't been reading estimates of crowd size. Saw a panorama of one in NV though ...

[admin_270 834]

Actually, it was Tucson, AZ I was thinking of.

 

[ThePotatoWalrus 471]

5 hours ago, Patine said:

"Only Sith think in absolutes." There are wiser ways of wielding great power than constantly hammering people with it, or endlessly threatening so to do. In fact, seeing that as being the sole way to use such power is the viewpoint of the barbarian warlord, even they lead an advanced and civilized nation.

You do realize "Only Sith think in absolutes" is an absolutist statement too right? Lol

[PoliticalPundit 284]

1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Might be! I haven't been reading estimates of crowd size. Saw a panorama of one in NV though ...

When Trump kept raving about crowds in 2016 I laughed and thought it was the most ridiculous concept.

 

Now I'm a total believer after 2016.

 

 

The hidden Trump vote AND Independents/African Americans/Hispanics who are not voting for Biden is gonna be enormous.

 

 

WE're in for another shock. 

 

Unless Trump blows the debate. 

 

[Patine 468]

4 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

You do realize "Only Sith think in absolutes" is an absolutist statement too right? Lol

It's a dramatic irony that proves a point, like, "never say never again," as another good example.