Unipolar or Bipolar world? Why we need war.

Steelshot Scott

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
3,615
Reaction score
4,558
Location
NC
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You may think that makes you appear witty, but it just makes you look like a conspiracy nut.

You would be just as convincing in argument if you were posting Kim Kardashian videos. For Kim Kardashian is just as politically relevant as Russell Brand.

You are not allowing reality to color your opinion. You have taken your opinion and twisted the world to fit a reality that doesn't exist.

That is why none of your predictions ever come true.
 

WidgeonmanGH

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
6,107
Reaction score
4,305
Location
Gig Harbor
Hold on for a second. Just for clarity this is WIDGEONMANGH. I generally do not look to comedians for solid information (whether they be British or Ukrainian). However, I don't severely disagree with the videos presented. Especially in the second video where he suggests that when you iron out nuance you are essentially being manipulated.

it would be very cool if we were the only superpower. But, I will settle for being the undisputed most powerful superpower. You keep saying that like you don't agree that the US should be a superpower.
I am pretty sure you just defigned being a superpower. Only Superpower = Undisputed most powerful Superpower.

What I agree with or not is irrelevant, just like how I "want" things to turn out. This isn't about that since I have no power to influence anything, I am merely observing what those with power are doing and what they are likely to do. I want peace and security for all people of the world, but that is meaningless if the powers that be have something else in mind.

Should we be a superpower is a pointless discussion. We are.

The question is are we working (at all levels) to maintain that status, even to the point of fomenting a war? I would suggest that the true threats to our status as a superpower are not military threats but economic ones. Russia with a GDP that would put it fourth behind, California, Texas, New York if it were a state is not going to be able to conquer the Europe or the US. NOT EVEN IN THE SAME ZIPCODE. However, an alliance between the BRICS+ (include Iran and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Taiwan after being subsumed) economically setting up a different economic system that could not only challenge but bankrupt our government and cause us to lose that sole power.

Because you don't know your history, you don't understand the danger allowing a brutal dictator to invade his neighbors. It has happened before and will happen again. When a brutal dictator, bent on expansion, attacks his neighbor, he never stops with what he gets initially. Once that goal is achieved, they always attack again.

Name the war that was prevented by sanctions and a proxy war.

For instance when we blockaded Japan and seized its assets for its aggression in indochina how did that turn out?

The Neutrality Act didn't do much because the Britsh were already stopping the Germans on the seas so they could not do trade with the US anyway.

Sanctions in Iraq? Nope that didn't work. As an obvious existential threat to the US and invasion eminent a, we went to war to get rid of Saddam.

Sanctions in Lybia? Ultimately we did not need to go to war because the CIA was much more successful in destroying them from within thus insuring access to their oil. Thus we were able to whack Momar.

While we are currently fighting a proxy war against Iranian backed rebels in Yemen, vs US backed Saudi Arabia, no one cares about that (including who started what or war crimes). Some victims are truly more worthy of consideration and anything African or Middle-Eastern don't really qualify for concern in US politics.

When a brutal dictator, bent on expansion, attacks his neighbor historically the only solution has been war to remove said dictator, the difference is Nukes.

This is why your history while interesting, is not particularly relevant or comforting. Either we follow the historical narrative and go to war (something you say will not happen) or Russia is destabilized and we have a truly frightful situation with a group of small unstable governments having control over nukes?

Since history is your teacher, please share with me how our current policies have historically been successful in preventing direct war? (please cite examples)
 

Steelshot Scott

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
3,615
Reaction score
4,558
Location
NC
Hold on for a second. Just for clarity this is WIDGEONMANGH. I generally do not look to comedians for solid information (whether they be British or Ukrainian). However, I don't severely disagree with the videos presented. Especially in the second video where he suggests that when you iron out nuance you are essentially being manipulated.


I am pretty sure you just defigned being a superpower. Only Superpower = Undisputed most powerful Superpower.

What I agree with or not is irrelevant, just like how I "want" things to turn out. This isn't about that since I have no power to influence anything, I am merely observing what those with power are doing and what they are likely to do. I want peace and security for all people of the world, but that is meaningless if the powers that be have something else in mind.

Should we be a superpower is a pointless discussion. We are.

The question is are we working (at all levels) to maintain that status, even to the point of fomenting a war? I would suggest that the true threats to our status as a superpower are not military threats but economic ones. Russia with a GDP that would put it fourth behind, California, Texas, New York if it were a state is not going to be able to conquer the Europe or the US. NOT EVEN IN THE SAME ZIPCODE. However, an alliance between the BRICS+ (include Iran and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Taiwan after being subsumed) economically setting up a different economic system that could not only challenge but bankrupt our government and cause us to lose that sole power.



Name the war that was prevented by sanctions and a proxy war.

For instance when we blockaded Japan and seized its assets for its aggression in indochina how did that turn out?

The Neutrality Act didn't do much because the Britsh were already stopping the Germans on the seas so they could not do trade with the US anyway.

Sanctions in Iraq? Nope that didn't work. As an obvious existential threat to the US and invasion eminent a, we went to war to get rid of Saddam.

Sanctions in Lybia? Ultimately we did not need to go to war because the CIA was much more successful in destroying them from within thus insuring access to their oil. Thus we were able to whack Momar.

While we are currently fighting a proxy war against Iranian backed rebels in Yemen, vs US backed Saudi Arabia, no one cares about that (including who started what or war crimes). Some victims are truly more worthy of consideration and anything African or Middle-Eastern don't really qualify for concern in US politics.

When a brutal dictator, bent on expansion, attacks his neighbor historically the only solution has been war to remove said dictator, the difference is Nukes.

This is why your history while interesting, is not particularly relevant or comforting. Either we follow the historical narrative and go to war (something you say will not happen) or Russia is destabilized and we have a truly frightful situation with a group of small unstable governments having control over nukes?

Since history is your teacher, please share with me how our current policies have historically been successful in preventing direct war? (please cite examples)
It is kind of hard to answer the entire Encyclopedia Britannica, but I will endeavor to answer at least as much of it as I do before I lose interest.

1)I did not define a superpower like that. You can have several or even dozens of superpowers. Right now the Big 3 are the US,Russia(because they have nukes) and China(just because they are China). I just want to be stronger than them, you don't think they would abuse the situation were it reversed?

2)Never said a war was prevented by fighting a proxy war. But fighting a proxy war does do damage to your enemies. If you are supporting a country that is fighting for it's very freedom, so much better.

3)When a brutal dictator, bent on expansion, attacks his neighbor, sometimes he just needs his azz handed to him in a flaming paper bag. How you pulled that whole nuke thing out of your butt I have no idea. That is such a stretch it makes your Ukrainian Collusion stories seem almost sensical. Of course, it is that ability to pull connections out of thin air that makes a good conspiracy theorist.

4) With history as my teacher, I see great success under Trump. We didn't have to go to war, he was ending wars. He had a victory in Afghanistan, Biden threw it all away when he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
 

WidgeonmanGH

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
6,107
Reaction score
4,305
Location
Gig Harbor
So what is my proof that we are not going to war? History.
vs
2)Never said a war was prevented by fighting a proxy war. But fighting a proxy war does do damage to your enemies. If you are supporting a country that is fighting for it's very freedom, so much better.
? Evidently there is no example in history where our current policy of economic war along with a with proxy war ever succeeded in preventing a larger direct war. That is why I suggest we are probably going to war. These actions are merely preludes.

3)When a brutal dictator, bent on expansion, attacks his neighbor, sometimes he just needs his azz handed to him in a flaming paper bag. How you pulled that whole nuke thing out of your butt I have no idea. That is such a stretch it makes your Ukrainian Collusion stories seem almost sensical. Of course, it is that ability to pull connections out of thin air that makes a good conspiracy theorist.
There is a little country that we will not hit militarily even though they are a brutal dictator and oppress their people etc. N. Korea. Why? They have a nuke (It probably also helps that they do not have oil) Why does Iran want a Nuke? So that we can not pull a Iraq on them. Need further proof. Name the country with a nuke that has been invaded?

Nukes change the equation, period. We have yet to have a post WW2 direct confrontation of nuclear powers. We and others have regularly invaded and imposed our will on non nuclear states.

4) With history as my teacher, I see great success under Trump. We didn't have to go to war, he was ending wars. He had a victory in Afghanistan, Biden threw it all away when he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
I will agree with you that having a dementia patent as a president has not helped our standing in the world and may very well be why Russia (and I think ultimately China) have and will act now vs. later. Trump did play hardball and was in the process of redefingnqng a lot of American policy positions (with almost no help from congress) when the deep state decided that he needed to go. However, to classify anything in Afghanistan as a victory is a REALLY big stretch. Trump would have managed our withdrawal much better, but let's not call it a victory.

Back to the premises of this particular thread. We are acting to remain on the top of the heap able to have broad powers in establishing the ecconomic and military rules of the world. We control the finances (via the reserve currency, SWIFT, IMF, etc) of the world and we have the greatest military might that the world has ever seen. However, due to financial mismanagement all of that is at risk. Not just for us but for almost all of the Western world. Staying on top of the Superpower game means we continue to be able to print trillions and still have a meaningful currency. We cannot do that will oil at $380 a barrel and the BRICS+ having their own monetary system that does not involve US dollars. That is what is at stake and that is why we will ultimately not be able to let the Ukrainians lose.
 

Steelshot Scott

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
3,615
Reaction score
4,558
Location
NC
It doesn't matter what you think, we are not going to war in the Ukraine. Every prediction you have made has not come true and even the most convoluted conspiracy theory ever imagined will make it come true.
 

WidgeonmanGH

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
6,107
Reaction score
4,305
Location
Gig Harbor
I am rooting for you to be right. Not all theories are conspiracy theories and we will see. Your prediction is right for now, but the end of the story is not yet written.
 

widgeon

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
19,691
Reaction score
31,270
Location
Ga
The fact that many just can't seem to understand is that this is not a recent occurrence (the Ukraine conflict) but just a continuation of historical back and forth between the peoples in Europe. We are not going to stop it just because we don't like it. We are only making things worse.
 

Steelshot Scott

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
3,615
Reaction score
4,558
Location
NC
The fact that many just can't seem to understand is that this is not a recent occurrence (the Ukraine conflict) but just a continuation of historical back and forth between the peoples in Europe. We are not going to stop it just because we don't like it. We are only making things worse.
It is not a continuation of a historical back and forth in Europe. It is the outcome of when a tyrannical psychopath decides to conquer his neighbors. Doesn't matter where that happens.
 

WidgeonmanGH

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
6,107
Reaction score
4,305
Location
Gig Harbor
It is not a continuation of a historical back and forth in Europe. It is the outcome of when a tyrannical psychopath decides to conquer his neighbors.

But,...but.......history?!!!! (when it suits)
 

Top