Ultranationalism

Cmon people extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. All of you list sources and have a civil debate and please take each others evidence into account and not just biased personal views.

There is one big issue though: if Russia can't sell gas to the Europeans, then they have to sell to China, and at lower than normal prices. So Russia isn't going to come out of this unscathed, either.

Yes, China will definitely get the most out of their upper hand negotiating position. Maybe that will finally break the back of Gazprom, which won't be a bad thing, actually.

Regards

An interesting opinion piece on the BBC...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30483873

Regards

An interesting opinion piece on the BBC...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30483873

 

Regards

If we use Versailles as a comparison, then Putin is going to start the next world war, and set up death camps for gays, Chechens, and other "non-Slavic" minorities.

Even though I hate him, I doubt Putin would be that crazy.

Regardless, this is an alarmingly accurate article.

I don't know about the next world war and death camps. I hope it won't come to that. But just as Versailles made the Second World War inevitable, so the Western policies towards Russia and the FSU countries have led to this crisis - that's the gist of Prof. Sachs's opinion and I tend to agree with him on that.

Regards

Honestly, I think most of the people in the USA need a war... They're all complacent, lazy, slaves right now.

Honestly, I think most of the people in the USA need a war... They're all complacent, lazy, slaves right now.

You're a horrible person for wanting that. It's so inaccurate to the point where I'd only consider this is genuine if there was no hint of sarcasm.

Honestly, I think most of the people in the USA need a war... They're all complacent, lazy, slaves right now.

 

You're a horrible person for wanting that. It's so inaccurate to the point where I'd only consider this is genuine if there was no hint of sarcasm.

At what point did I say that I wanted it? I never said that. Quit looking for implied 'wants' in a very plainly stated opinion.

At what point did I say that I wanted it? I never said that. Quit looking for implied 'wants' in a very plainly stated opinion.

Stating that a country "needs" a war is still a very ugly thing to say.

At what point did I say that I wanted it? I never said that. Quit looking for implied 'wants' in a very plainly stated opinion.

 

Stating that a country "needs" a war is still a very ugly thing to say.

There can sometimes be benefits to war. They are not entirely negative things although they are indeed very ugly.

There can sometimes be benefits to war. They are not entirely negative things although they are indeed very ugly.

Exactly.

One major benefit: People aren't nearly as complacent during and for several generations after a war.

There can sometimes be benefits to war. They are not entirely negative things although they are indeed very ugly.

Exactly.

 

One major benefit: People aren't nearly as complacent during and for several generations after a war.

This is offset by the economic and human costs by a very large margin.

In fact, people can actually become complacent because of the war. Take for example 1920's England, France, and the US.

The USA wasn't at war in the 20's, and weren't anywhere near as complacent as the general populous is right now. As for it being right after WWI, it was still fresh, but didn't take place on our own soil.

I seem to have forgotten to specify earlier, we need war on our own soil to help fight this trend of complacent entitlement.

I seem to have forgotten to specify earlier, we need war on our own soil to help fight this trend of complacent entitlement.

That's still horrible, don't you understand that? It only creates more problems than it solves, isn't guaranteed to solve this problem, and the problem you claim to be rampant might not even be a real problem!

...we need war on our own soil to help fight this trend of complacent entitlement.

I would be all for a war with Mexico. They're a large contributor to illegal drugs in the US and there have been reports of Mexican troops firing on US border patrol agents.

Hell, if we annex them it would mean more tax money for the US, allow law enforcement to go full measure on the cartels, and increase the standard of living in the region.

...we need war on our own soil to help fight this trend of complacent entitlement.

I would be all for a war with Mexico. They're a large contributor to illegal drugs in the US and there have been reports of Mexican troops firing on US border patrol agents.

 

Hell, if we annex them it would mean more tax money for the US, allow law enforcement to go full measure on the cartels, and increase the standard of living in the region.

Which would be a political and military nightmare, with a conventional and unconventional warfare nightmare. The US would be looked down upon very much in the world. What you want is a war against the Cartels, not against Mexico. That would help Mexico, not a foreign occupation.

...we need war on our own soil to help fight this trend of complacent entitlement.

I would be all for a war with Mexico. They're a large contributor to illegal drugs in the US and there have been reports of Mexican troops firing on US border patrol agents.

 

Hell, if we annex them it would mean more tax money for the US, allow law enforcement to go full measure on the cartels, and increase the standard of living in the region.

 

Which would be a political and military nightmare, with a conventional and unconventional warfare nightmare. The US would be looked down upon very much in the world. What you want is a war against the Cartels, not against Mexico. That would help Mexico, not a foreign occupation.

Actually, we'd likely have the support of the general populous in Mexico... The Mexican government, law enforcement, and military is so corrupt that almost anything would be better. That's why there's such a problem with illegal immigration.

Hey, now we've got at least 1 viable target for a war.

Fortunately Cuba is already opening up, so unfortunately we can't add them to the war... Many of the central/south american areas are where the drugs are coming from, so maybe we could spread the war down to there after Mexico.

Actually, we'd likely have the support of the general populous in Mexico... The Mexican government, law enforcement, and military is so corrupt that almost anything would be better. That's why there's such a problem with illegal immigration.

No, we would not. We'd be killing their people over drugs, and with the stated end goal of annexation. Afghanistan, with much worse problems than Mexico, has had an insurgency against us which hasn't ended, and we're many steps above the Taliban and drug dealers, and aren't going for annexation.

Hey, now we've got at least 1 viable target for a war.

 

Fortunately Cuba is already opening up, so unfortunately we can't add them to the war... Many of the central/south american areas are where the drugs are coming from, so maybe we could spread the war down to there after Mexico.

Mother of Christ.....

Reported.

I don't know about the next world war and death camps. I hope it won't come to that. But just as Versailles made the Second World War inevitable, so the Western policies towards Russia and the FSU countries have led to this crisis - that's the gist of Prof. Sachs's opinion and I tend to agree with him on that.

 

Regards

You do realize that I don't believe death camps or WW3 are likely, do you? I was being sarcastic when I said it.

I was being sarcastic when I said it.

I know. But I was serious when I said "I hope". To my mind - if a civilised European nation could descend to the depths of madness like Germany did, that means no nation or people in the world is completely immune to that.

Regards