The Plan For World Peace?

[HeyYou]

1 hour ago, gabrielrock19 said:

Well, "we" also did that in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan and many more countries on our huge war scorecard. It's no secret the government wanted the oil stashed in the Middle East like a gold prize; the economic elite craved for it, and not a single dime actually went into our hands ("we, the people", as Abraham Lincoln would have wanted). At most the stolen oil served to keep the broken economy afloat and delay a massive crisis.

Russia invaded Ukraine for two key reasons: the first was strategic, to block NATO from expanding east and getting ever closer to their borders with advanced military equipment, including nuclear military equipment. The second one, economic. Ukraine is a natural resource diamond mine; they literally sit on trillions of dollars worth of minerals, ores, rare metals and other riches. Also, eastern ukraine was far more industrialized than the rest thanks to an old partneship between the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian State at the time. It only makes sense the area closest to the central power would become the most developed due to its proximity to important roads and etcetera. Russia wanted to secure and control this tiny industrial area again for military and economic purposes. That's also the reason why it moved to annex Crimea following a regime change in 2014; Crimea is extremely important for the deployment of the Russian navy in the black sea should the need arise.

They started the war, and weather you believe they had justification for it or not they're in a position of strength no one should defy so boldly. Unfortunately a crisis between superpowers that could lead to an irreversible WWIII trigger is the top priority to avoid. The US and Russia accumulated large stockpiles of nuclear warheads during the cold war and later prohibited every other country in the planet to do the same. These countries, China included, are in a special position of power that needs to be accounted for. They (including "us") impose their strength on other countries, that's how it works.

In order to avoid an all out hell-like war, regardless of who is mostly right or wrong, a reasonable settlement between nations must be reached. And finally, I strongly think we should focus only on ourselves. It's time to be a little 'selfish' and stop worrying about others. Isn't that what psychologists usually say?

PS: The US isn't seeing it clearly. Should it focus on its development, socially and economically, it would naturally rise to a better position of strength on any subject matter. But the top 1% refuse to share their wealth. It's simply unthinkable to them, it's beyond anathema. And as a result of these desperate measures of our failing society to impose a strategic defeat on a nuclear power, it has not only deflected them but risen above them completely. Russian economy didn't shatter in pieces as expected - the Chinese "saved" them from the international financial system and their HDI went up. There's no question their military is way more advanced than ours by now. They have hypersonic missiles and every sort of new deadly technological weapon. Have you seen the Oreshnik video, by the way?

So because we did it, even though we really shouldn't have, it's ok for everyone else to do it as well??

Iraq was a mistake, Daddy bush knew that, he booted Saddam out of Kuwait, but stopped short of of taking him all the way out. The reasoning? "No viable exit Strategy." He didn't want to get mire down in 'nation building' for a couple decades. Which is precisely what happened. We spent billions (trillions?) of dollars, and what did we get for it? Another country in league with Iran. That was a plan that backfired spectacularly.

Afghanistan. Yup, went there to get ONE guy. Spent a couple decades, couple more trillion dollars, and MANY american LIVES..... and what did we accomplish? We got the one guy, eventually. Though he was in a different country.... Afghanistan? We essentially got booted, and the country went right back to what it was when we arrived, within DAYS of our departure. All those lives, time, and money, for pretty much nothing.

Russia went into Ukraine for the resources. NATO expansion was just a good sounding excuse. They simply were not concerned about that, but, it made for a good sound byte. If you think we should simply allow Russia to have it, then you are part of the problem there.....

As for the rest? Presidents with itchy trigger fingers, wanting to 'make their mark' upon the world. Well, they did, and it was the equivalent of a childs scribbling on the wall. More waste.

The US at this point is a lost cause. The population is too ideologically divided to EVER come to any sort of compromise. It's only going to get worse. And Trump as president? He didn't run because he wants what's best for america, he is on a power trip, and he wants REVENGE for not getting re-elected back in '20. The next four years are going to be interesting, to say the least. I will be flat out STUNNED if things actually improve in the next four years..... I am certainly not going to hold my breath. Much as I hate to say it, Kamala likely would have been a better choice here. The lesser of two evils... What's even worse.... The republicans control all three houses, they can pass whatever legislation they want.......

A lot needs to change in the country for us to actually move forward. The problem there being, the only people that have the power to actually change things, benefit the most from NOT changing them. Therefore, nothing will change.

Edited November 24 by HeyYou

[gabrielrock19]

I mostly agree with everything, I'll just quote the part I didn't really get.

Quote

Russia went into Ukraine for the resources. NATO expansion was just a good sounding excuse. They simply were not concerned about that, but, it made for a good sound byte. If you think we should simply allow Russia to have it, then you are part of the problem there.....

Hey! Actually... you're part of the problem with this opinion. Think about it for a second. We should simply allow Russia to have... what? To annex Ukraine? Maybe that's what you said. But actually what you meant to say was something along the lines of...

"If you think our elite should simply let Russia get their hands on all that gold, then...". I don't mean that in a hostile way. This is simply what the phrase means. There is no "we" as in, if our beloved country imposes a strategic defeat on Russia, "we" will profit from it. No, we won't. Our lives will stay with the same abominable problems. Trump will assume office, assuming the little trick Biden did to extend the war won't create a direct US-Russia clash that will keep him in power - and if Trump contradicts his current peaceful (?) posture on the matter and magically defeats Russia, after his term ends another president will come to power and they will start another war (probably in Taiwan)... and so on and so forth. And we, as in "you and me" will stay exactly the same. Poorer, sicker and hungrier. Our elite will become richer with "our victory".

And to not allow them to "have it" at this point would require people like you and me to fight for Ukraine on the front lines. Fighting for a foreign country we have absolutely nothing to do with in a war that is lost from the start so in the miraculous event of victory we can remain poorer and our top 1% richer. This is horrendously insane. And all of this is assuming WWIII starts as a conventional war before it evolves into nuclear annihilation.

With that said, yes: I think our adversaries should have it. Let the war profiteers have a fury outburst of frustration and impotence so they don't send US to the front lines to fight for their fantasy! Let our real domestic enemies that threaten our wellbeing and our future taste defeat. Not us!

 

Edited November 24 by gabrielrock19

[HeyYou]

10 hours ago, gabrielrock19 said:

I mostly agree with everything, I'll just quote the part I didn't really get.

Hey! Actually... you're part of the problem with this opinion. Think about it for a second. We should simply allow Russia to have... what? To annex Ukraine? Maybe that's what you said. But actually what you meant to say was something along the lines of...

"If you think our elite should simply let Russia get their hands on all that gold, then...". I don't mean that in a hostile way. This is simply what the phrase means. There is no "we" as in, if our beloved country imposes a strategic defeat on Russia, "we" will profit from it. No, we won't. Our lives will stay with the same abominable problems. Trump will assume office, assuming the little trick Biden did to extend the war won't create a direct US-Russia clash that will keep him in power - and if Trump contradicts his current peaceful (?) posture on the matter and magically defeats Russia, after his term ends another president will come to power and they will start another war (probably in Taiwan)... and so on and so forth. And we, as in "you and me" will stay exactly the same. Poorer, sicker and hungrier. Our elite will become richer with "our victory".

And to not allow them to "have it" at this point would require people like you and me to fight for Ukraine on the front lines. Fighting for a foreign country we have absolutely nothing to do with in a war that is lost from the start so in the miraculous event of victory we can remain poorer and our top 1% richer. This is horrendously insane. And all of this is assuming WWIII starts as a conventional war before it evolves into nuclear annihilation.

With that said, yes: I think our adversaries should have it. Let the war profiteers have a fury outburst of frustration and impotence so they don't send US to the front lines to fight for their fantasy! Let our real domestic enemies that threaten our wellbeing and our future taste defeat. Not us!

 

Well, you know I am not likely to agree with ya here. Taking territory by force should never be considered 'acceptable'.... Though we allowed Russia to do it to Ukraine previously..... Yes, Russia wants the resources there. Do we? I don't think we are all that enthusiastic about them, otherwise, we would have been there already...... Too far away, unfriendly neighborhood, questionable stability, etc. etc.

The folks making the money here are the defense contractors, that produce the weapons our government is sending there..... Those companies are not providing them out of the goodness of their hearts.... (provided they even HAVE one....) Are folks making money off the war though? Yep. You bet. It's also providing jobs here.....

I really don't foresee a future where there are american troops on the ground in Ukraine.... The consequences of such a happenstance would be dire, long lasting, and most certainly unpleasant. Nobody wants that.

I suspect that Trump is going to cut of the aid to Ukraine though. He has always been buddies with Putin.... I really don't see a 'negotiated end' to hostilities there either. Russia will make demands that the Ukrainians simply can't accept... and the war will drag on.

[showler]

Be interesting to see how the opinion would change if Putin went forward with his ideas about reclaiming Alaska since that is also "historically Russian" according to him.

[HeyYou]

10 minutes ago, showler said:

Be interesting to see how the opinion would change if Putin went forward with his ideas about reclaiming Alaska since that is also "historically Russian" according to him.

Pretty sure that wouldn't go over very well. Even Trump might have some objections to that course of action.

[gabrielrock19]

So, uh... I just wanted to express myself and my heavy heart. See ya!

Time to go back to playing games and modding some bethesda games I still have.

[MatSpikeYinsen]

On 11/10/2024 at 9:03 AM, HeyYou said:

So long as humans are around, there will not be peace.

Who says humans aren't peaceful by nature?  Each of our causes for conflict could be solved, and we'd have nothing to fight about.  Granted, if I identify the things we need to remove, people who like those things will fight to prevent their removal, but once all of those individuals no longer live, no longer raise their children in the belief that those things should exist, then the potential for peace among the survivors has increased.  I think that if people have enough food to eat, someone to satisfy their need for love, and no ideological conflicts to pointlessly fight over, there's no reason why we can't all just get along.

[HeyYou]

10 minutes ago, MatSpikeYinsen said:

Who says humans aren't peaceful by nature?  Each of our causes for conflict could be solved, and we'd have nothing to fight about.  Granted, if I identify the things we need to remove, people who like those things will fight to prevent their removal, but once all of those individuals no longer live, no longer raise their children in the belief that those things should exist, then the potential for peace among the survivors has increased.  I think that if people have enough food to eat, someone to satisfy their need for love, and no ideological conflicts to pointlessly fight over, there's no reason why we can't all just get along.

Humans AREN'T peaceful by nature. Humans have been violent throughout their history. I don't see that ever changing.