Jump to content

Ultranationalism

Is nationalism/racism going to destroy the current world order?  

47 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

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.

There's a huge difference between a Muslim nation on the other side of the planet, and a christian nation right next door... Especially when the government is so corrupt that people are getting killed by the government for even reporting drug cartel activity.

 

Mother of Christ.....

So you're for corrupt governments... What's new?

 

Reported.

For what?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

There's a huge difference between a Muslim nation on the other side of the planet, and a christian nation right next door...

You mean like the fact that a counter attack or even invasion into American soil is far more likely?

Or that the cartels are probably far more dangerous a threat to actually fight than the terrorists ever were?

Don't get me wrong, I do think that something is going to have to be done sooner or later.

I just think you are getting way too gung ho about what is going to be an incredibly messy, costly, and damaging conflict. It's gunna end up far more like Vietnam than it will WWII, if that's what you're hoping for.

Share this post


Link to post
I was being sarcastic when I said it.

 

I know.

 

Regards

 

Ah, okay.

 

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.

There's a huge difference between a Muslim nation on the other side of the planet, and a christian nation right next door... Especially when the government is so corrupt that people are getting killed by the government for even reporting drug cartel activity.

 

While the two nations are different, what is not different would be the reaction to an attempted annexation, even if the nation is extremely corrupt.

 

Mother of Christ.....

So you're for corrupt governments... What's new?

 

I do not support corrupt governments, but I also don't support needless and expensive wars of conquest like it's the 17th century. You're also trolling.

 

Reported.

For what?

 

For being disappointed that a nation would not get invaded.

Share this post


Link to post
It's gunna end up far more like Vietnam than it will WWII, if that's what you're hoping for.

Well, I do think that we pulled out of Vietnam way too soon, and for the wrong reasons... It might turn out that way, except that there is a much larger portion of the civilian population that would rather back us than they would their own government. (in Vietnam, it's estimated that around 1/8 of the population wanted nothing to do with us, and 1/2 didn't care what happened as long as they weren't directly affected by the war)

 

While the two nations are different, what is not different would be the reaction to an attempted annexation, even if the nation is extremely corrupt.

Is this coming from your own experience of actually talking to the Mexican general populace from various different states in Mexico, (which is where I'm getting my conclusion as to their reaction) or from your uninformed guessing?

 

I do not support corrupt governments, but I also don't support needless and expensive wars of conquest like it's the 17th century.

Why is eliminating a corrupt and oppressive government "needless"? Just because you aren't directly affected by it? I consider corruption anywhere to be an enemy worth fighting.

 

You're also trolling.

You are accusing me of trolling, and yet you are not providing anything except hyperbole and personal attacks as counters to my arguments.

 

For being disappointed that a nation would not get invaded.

And how does that violate the forum rules? I'm disappointed because the government of that country is still very corrupt, but because they are opening up, the corruption is able to stay in power.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I do think that we pulled out of Vietnam way too soon, and for the wrong reasons...

 

Explain.

 

It might turn out that way, except that there is a much larger portion of the civilian population that would rather back us than they would their own government. (in Vietnam, it's estimated that around 1/8 of the population wanted nothing to do with us, and 1/2 didn't care what happened as long as they weren't directly affected by the war)

 

Is this coming from your own experience of actually talking to the Mexican general populace from various different states in Mexico, (which is where I'm getting my conclusion as to their reaction) or from your uninformed guessing?

 

I need a source other than your own word.

 

Why is eliminating a corrupt and oppressive government "needless"?

 

Because it would kill far more than it would be worth, and wouldn't solve the problem.

 

I'm disappointed because the government of that country is still very corrupt, but because they are opening up, the corruption is able to stay in power.

 

You specifically stated you wanted to invade the country, which would by itself kill tens of thousands and kill any support we might have.

Share this post


Link to post
Explain.

Why? It's not like you're going to do anything except violently disagree, and then use veiled insults and requests for sources that I can't give you. (and you don't think that anonymous sources are worth anything)

 

I need a source other than your own word.

And I need one besides yours. Until you provide one, you're definitely not going to get one from me.

 

Because it would kill far more than it would be worth, and wouldn't solve the problem.

Where is your conclusive evidence that it would require excessive killing, or that it wouldn't be worth it?

 

You specifically stated you wanted to invade the country, which would by itself kill tens of thousands and kill any support we might have.

Again, where are you getting your conclusions from about the general populace's attitude towards the stated actions?

 

This comes directly from an anonymous source in the country, who is communicating with me at the risk of her freedom, and quite possibly her life: "Almost half the country would take up arms against the government if they actually had weapons available to them. You should get the USA to help us out."

 

http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/cuba

Share this post


Link to post
(and you don't think that anonymous sources are worth anything)

 

Correct. If you give me anoymous sources, then I can't verify them, and therefore aren't worth my time.

 

And I need one besides yours. Until you provide one, you're definitely not going to get one from me.

 

And what am I supposed to prove to you?

 

Where is your conclusive evidence that it would require excessive killing, or that it wouldn't be worth it?

 

The killing would come from collateral damage and possible war crimes. As for the latter statement, the "worth it value" is largely subjective. Your view on whether the deaths it would cause would be worth it or not is different from mine and others, obviously.

 

Again, where are you getting your conclusions from about the general populace's attitude towards the stated actions?

 

Common sense? If the US suddenly invaded it would, without any reasonable doubt, cause civilian deaths, even if purely unintentional. It would make us hated, and would more than likely be used to justify the rule of the Cuban government.

 

This comes directly from an anonymous source in the country, who is communicating with me at the risk of her freedom, and quite possibly her life: "Almost half the country would take up arms against the government if they actually had weapons available to them. You should get the USA to help us out."

 

http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/cuba

 

What she said (if I can trust you on this) is different than what you are advocating. She is saying that the people of Cuba, with US guns and money, can overthrow the regime. You're advocating for the US to invade the country wholesale, and then annex it. There's a difference.

 

Why did you bother putting up that source? I know the regime in Cuba engages in human rights abuses as casually and as callously as eating toast and stepping on ants. I don't really see any point you were trying to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Correct. If you give me anoymous sources, then I can't verify them, and therefore aren't worth my time.

So my anonymous sources aren't worth anything, but if you see one that goes to a media outlet, you'll trust it? Or if some person claiming to be a scientist makes a paper, then everything in said paper must be true?

 

And what am I supposed to prove to you?

That you're not just arguing to be an asshole.

 

The killing would come from collateral damage and possible war crimes. As for the latter statement, the "worth it value" is largely subjective. Your view on whether the deaths it would cause would be worth it or not is different from mine and others, obviously.

Ok, so you're saying that there's no possible way to avoid collateral damage, or possibly war crimes? That's a bit naive of you.

 

Common sense? If the US suddenly invaded it would, without any reasonable doubt, cause civilian deaths, even if purely unintentional. It would make us hated, and would more than likely be used to justify the rule of the Cuban government.

Again, you're assuming that the US invasion force would be spraying bullets all over the place, and not caring about civilian casualties. Do you truly believe there is no possibility that collateral damage could be avoided?

 

What she said (if I can trust you on this) is different than what you are advocating. She is saying that the people of Cuba, with US guns and money, can overthrow the regime. You're advocating for the US to invade the country wholesale, and then annex it. There's a difference.

There was more context, but I won't get into it... She essentially was asking for the USA to turn Cuba into a US territory.

 

Why did you bother putting up that source? I know the regime in Cuba engages in human rights abuses as casually and as callously as eating toast and stepping on ants. I don't really see any point you were trying to make.

Because you seem to think that there is no reason to be an anonymous source, or that an anonymous source can possibly be a reliable source.

Share this post


Link to post
So my anonymous sources aren't worth anything, but if you see one that goes to a media outlet, you'll trust it?

 

If the facts in the anonymous sources are found to be true, through whatever means, then they are true. Otherwise, I can't reliably trust it.

 

That you're not just arguing to be an asshole.

 

I don't understand.

 

Ok, so you're saying that there's no possible way to avoid collateral damage, or possibly war crimes? That's a bit naive of you.

 

Again, you're assuming that the US invasion force would be spraying bullets all over the place, and not caring about civilian casualties. Do you truly believe there is no possibility that collateral damage could be avoided?

 

Yes. You need only to look at the Gulf War to see how it would go down (and that's just for Cuba).

 

There was more context, but I won't get into it... She essentially was asking for the USA to turn Cuba into a US territory.

 

That would be a bad idea.

 

Does the rest of Cuba (or even a slim majority) feel the same way, and how can you prove it?

 

Now, see, since I can't determine the reliability of your sources, we're at an impasse. I'm getting tired of this, so I'm not going to continue this discussion beyond my next post.

Share this post


Link to post
So you're completely out of this thread now? lol

 

I could have worded that better.

 

OT:http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv-post-plus/ukraine-faces-threat-of-russian-air-power-as-conflict-takes-turn-for-the-worse-377818.html

 

From Kiev. Take with a grain of salt.

Share this post


Link to post

On a rather different direction, were people aware of Scottish Independence Referendum? What did you think of the whole thing?

 

Relevance: SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party) want Scotland to leave the UK.

Share this post


Link to post

Who hasn't heard of it? Being a Texan Nationalist I obviously didn't have the right vote since, you know, I'm in Texas. Really Scotland separating from the Union would of spelt the death of any hope of the empire coming back so I'm glad it hasn't left us. I honestly think the world would be better off under a handful of empires rather than hundreds of independent countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Who hasn't heard of it?

 

Apparently a fair few in England weren't aware of it until maybe a month before the vote. Which is hardly surprising as the majority of the country's media were dead against Independence.

 

Really Scotland separating from the Union would of spelt the death of any hope of the empire coming back so I'm glad it hasn't left us. I honestly think the world would be better off under a handful of empires rather than hundreds of independent countries.

 

Would these empires be able to coexist with each other in a way that wouldn't result in vast and bloody wars?

Share this post


Link to post
On a rather different direction, were people aware of Scottish Independence Referendum?

You could hardly avoid it. The BBC was full of it for a good whole year before the referendum itself.

 

What did you think of the whole thing?

 

Relevance: SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party) want Scotland to leave the UK.

 

I am pleased that people voted "NO". I believe that Scotland's secession would have benefited only a small group of politicians and their friends and would have turned out to be a big economic disaster for the rest of the people there. At least in the immediate to medium term.

 

Long term? In the long term people manage to fix the past mistakes and adjust and make do. But is independence a goal worthy of such sacrifice in the meantime? I think - not.

 

Also, it would have seriously weakened the UK's position on the international arena (not to say that of Scotland alone!).

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post

I voted Yes, mainly as a statement to show my dissatisfaction with most of what Westminster has been doing since before I was born.

 

And I say that with confidence because I knew that we wouldn't gain Independence. No matter what Salmond could pitch and promise, he had no chance of persuading the majority of Scots to vote Yes. Because it's simply too much of a change, and there are too many unknowns ("Instinct tells us that the unknown is a threat rather than an opportunity").

 

And of course, Cameron knew that keeping the third option - Devo max - would be a landslide result and he would be forced to comply.

 

To put it simply: people want change, but they don't want too much change. Independence is too much change, but Devo Max is a good shout - keep the Union, give us more powers. But break the Union? Balls to that. Dave and his peers were able to capitalise on that.

 

In the end, I was more saddened by how we reacted to the vote - a full-on riot in Glasgow. So much for optimism.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting reading...

 

The untold story of the Maidan massacre

 

A day of bloodshed on Kiev's main square, nearly a year ago, marked the end of a winter of protest against the government of president Viktor Yanukovych, who soon afterwards fled the country. More than 50 protesters and three policemen died. But how did the shooting begin? Protest organisers have always denied any involvement - but one man told the BBC a different story.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in the community.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.