NATION

PASSWORD

Two Senators want Antifa labled domestic terrorists

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Kaltovar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 122
Founded: Jun 26, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby Kaltovar » Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:31 pm

Kubra wrote:Ah, war is the most effective method, insofar as other methods have proved wanting. We'll make a Clausewitzian out of you yet!

And what are these "sides"? we are of course to assume the western world, NATO, and the eastern, the Warsaw Pact/COMECON, yes?


No, that is literally not what I said. I said war is the most effective socially acceptable method. The most effective method of denying Russia a pipeline would be to irradiate the area to the point where it was not capable of sustaining life and then carpetseed the area with mines, which would not be an act of war but an act of geo-engineering and genocide simply because the Afghans would have no conceivable way to resist it.


COMECON and WSP did not include all of the nations that were aligned with the Soviets. Both of those entities also focused mostly on economic aid and intrastate trade law, with military defense being only one of their aspects. And even then, NATO and COMINTERN weren't "The sides" because there were larger more loosely defined alliances ... For example, even after the Sino-Soviet split the PRC occasionally worked with the Soviets for pragmatic reasons despite both claiming that the other was an unspeakable demon-state which was perverting the words of Marx. If the only reason, or even the PRIMARY reason for war was politics, we shouldn't see nationstates behaving in this way at all. On the NATO side we had nations like Finland who weren't part of NATO but were clearly part of the "US Side" in that they were anti-Soviet and collaborated with us in many ways.

If the sides were PRIMARILY political in nature, Yugoslavia would not have been at odds with the Soviets and the Caucasus region would not have been aligned with them (deeply religious area, full of devout Christians and Muslims. Chechnya is there.) The only reason the top decision-makers on both sides cared so much about politics is because it was a tribal marker that identified you as blindly loyal and willing to compromise your principles for handouts from a bigger country which meant you were a good pawn to give tasks to. This is why Yugoslavia was hated by the Soviet administration, it was a horrible pawn and constantly insisted on making it's own choices.

And yes, there were many American leaders who thought they were on a crusade from god and who still think this and their reasoning is clearly political. In the USSR there was many who clearly believed in the Soviet Project, and their reasoning was political. But what do these all have in common? They were the tools of their masters to be used and manipulated in endless resource wars. They were the pretty mask over the rotting face of the authoritarian corpse.
Last edited by Kaltovar on Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:35 pm, edited 4 times in total.
INB4 somebody uses my Iron Cross to Blues Clues out my SecretFascism™ the words immediately next to it are "From Many Peoples One Nation" and the Iron Cross is a symbol that has existed since 1813 which Nazis stole Prussian Valor by wearing because they couldn't fight and wanted to LARP as an army that could.

User avatar
Kubra
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11649
Founded: Apr 15, 2006
Libertarian Police State

Postby Kubra » Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:41 pm

Kaltovar wrote:
Kubra wrote:Ah, war is the most effective method, insofar as other methods have proved wanting. We'll make a Clausewitzian out of you yet!

And what are these "sides"? we are of course to assume the western world, NATO, and the eastern, the Warsaw Pact/COMECON, yes?


No, that is literally not what I said. I said war is the most effective socially acceptable method. The most effective method of denying Russia a pipeline would be to irradiate the area to the point where it was not capable of sustaining life, which would not be an act of war but an act of geo-engineering and genocide, simply because the Afghans would have no conceivable way to resist it.


COMECON and WSP did not include all of the nations that were aligned with the Soviets. Both of those entities also focused mostly on economic aid and intrastate trade law, with military defense being only one of their aspects. And even then, NATO and COMINTERN weren't "The sides" because there were larger more loosely defined alliances ... For example, even after the Sino-Soviet split the PRC occasionally worked with the Soviets for pragmatic reasons despite both claiming that the other was an unspeakable demon-state which was perverting the words of Marx. If the only reason, or even the PRIMARY reason for war was politics, we shouldn't see nationstates behaving in this way at all. On the NATO side we had nations like Finland who weren't part of NATO but were clearly part of the "US Side" in that they were anti-Soviet and collaborated with us in many ways.

If the sides were PRIMARILY political in nature, Yugoslavia would not have been at odds with the Soviets and the Caucasus region would not have been aligned with them (deeply religious area, full of devout Christians and Muslims. Chechnya is there.) The only reason the top decision-makers on both sides cared so much about politics is because it was a tribal marker that identified you as blindly loyal and willing to compromise your principles for handouts from a bigger country which meant you were a good pawn to give tasks to. This is why Yugoslavia was hated by the Soviet administration, it was a horrible pawn and constantly insisted on making it's own choices.

And yes, there were many American leaders who thought they were on a crusade from god and who still think this and their reasoning is clearly political. In the USSR there was many who clearly believed in the Soviet Project, and their reasoning was political. But what do these all have in common? They were the tools of their masters to be used and manipulated in endless resource wars. They were the pretty mask over the decaying face of Authoritarianism.
Well that's a bit much, surely we could simply annex the place as an insular territory without a path to statehood. Then it'd be a lot easier to throw money and soldiers at the war, no?

Yugoslavia? The guys who headed their own little entente of the NAM? On the Soviet side?
And hey, these russia fellows seem pretty formidable if we have to go to such lengths to contain them. Why not join em instead and antagonize those useless lumps in Europe? Lotta good dosh to be had doing that, they on two fronts.
a different line of questioning is necessary: what do you think is "politics"?
Last edited by Kubra on Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.
“Atomic war is inevitable. It will destroy half of humanity: it is going to destroy immense human riches. It is very possible. The atomic war is going to provoke a true inferno on Earth. But it will not impede Communism.”
-Comrade Posadas

User avatar
Kaltovar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 122
Founded: Jun 26, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby Kaltovar » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:00 pm

Kubra wrote:] Well that's a bit much, surely we could simply annex the place as an insular territory without a path to statehood. Then it'd be a lot easier to throw money and soldiers at the war, no?

Yugoslavia? The guys who headed their own little entente of the NAM? On the Soviet side?
a different line of questioning is necessary: what do you think is "politics"?


An annexation would be infinitely less efficient and a massive drain on our resources requiring a constant military presence, deployment of FBI and Sherrifs' Department assets, creation of several District Agencies and a Governor of Afghanistan, and extension of our welfare systems to include a nation which hasn't had decent medical care in it's entire history and has many people who would need emergency treatment. That is not efficient. An irradiation and carpetseeding of mines is a onetime deal with potential for occasional renewals.


You ... You have literally no idea about Yugoslavian history, do you? There was even a period where they tried to join NATO because of how much they hated with the Soviets, but after a couple years of trying they got disillusioned with the west too. That is why they lead a "Little Entente", which was not "On the Soviet side" but "On the side of non-aligned nations who also happen to believe in Marx but don't want Stalin telling them how to breath". The idea that they were "On the Soviet Side" is literal, actual NATO propaganda which you (I will presume a Marxist of some description, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) are now unironically parroting.

What do I think is politics? I think politics is a subjective term humans invented which can mean a great number of things, and that debating what they are is pointless and a sign that the participants lack understanding. I think you even asking me what I think politics are shows that you did not read my previous responses in good faith, because I've already explained that to you.

Since you're probably going to insist on discussing it anyways, I'll tell you that my personal definition is "actions which are chiefly aimed at altering the way in which a particular government or institution behaves, or preserving it's current behavior." - I do not accept the common use of the word politics in the context of when a weapons-system is cancelled and a general sighs and says "Politics ... ", to me that is just corruption disguised as politics. In fact, I think there's far more things out there calling themselves politics than should be reasonably defined as political (although remember, I think the entire exercise of defining what politics are is absurd anyways ... But if we WERE to get into that business). Like the Afghanistan war, for example -- Denying the Russians material resources under the guise of a political war on terror.
Last edited by Kaltovar on Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
INB4 somebody uses my Iron Cross to Blues Clues out my SecretFascism™ the words immediately next to it are "From Many Peoples One Nation" and the Iron Cross is a symbol that has existed since 1813 which Nazis stole Prussian Valor by wearing because they couldn't fight and wanted to LARP as an army that could.

User avatar
Kubra
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11649
Founded: Apr 15, 2006
Libertarian Police State

Postby Kubra » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:04 pm

Kaltovar wrote:
Kubra wrote:] Well that's a bit much, surely we could simply annex the place as an insular territory without a path to statehood. Then it'd be a lot easier to throw money and soldiers at the war, no?

Yugoslavia? The guys who headed their own little entente of the NAM? On the Soviet side?
a different line of questioning is necessary: what do you think is "politics"?


An annexation would be infinitely less efficient and a massive drain on our resources requiring a constant military presence, deployment of FBI and Sherrifs' Department assets, creation of several District Agencies and a Governor of Afghanistan, and extension of our welfare systems to include a nation which hasn't had decent medical care in it's entire history and has many people who would need emergency treatment. That is not efficient. An irradiation and carpetseeding of mines is a onetime deal with potential for occasional renewals.


You ... You have literally no idea about Yugoslavian history, do you? There was even a period where they tried to join NATO because of how much they hated with the Soviets, but after a couple years of trying they got disillusioned with the west too. That is why they lead a "Little Entente". The idea that they were "On the Soviet Side" is literal, actual NATO propaganda which you (I will presume a Marxist of some description, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) are now unironically parroting.

What do I think is politics? I think politics is a subjective term humans invented which can mean a great number of things, and that debating what they are is pointless and a sign that the participants lack understanding. I think you even asking me what I think politics are shows that you did not read my previous responses in good faith, because I've already explained that to you.

Since you're probably going to insist on discussing it anyways, I'll tell you that my personal definition is "actions which are chiefly aimed at altering the way in which a particular government or institution behaves, or preserving it's current behavior." - I do not accept the common use of the word politics in the context of when a weapons-system is cancelled and a general sighs and says "Politics ... ", to me that is just corruption disguised as politics. In fact, I think there's far more things out there calling themselves politics than should be reasonably defined as political. Like the Afghanistan war, for example -- Denying the Russians material resources under the guise of a political war on terror.
we didn't do that in the Philippines, devil knows why we'd have to do it here. As for constant military presence, well...

So, in short, they were not on the Soviet side? That aside, I wasn't aware Nasser was a marxist.

Man, you like Prussia, don't you? All I've done is paraphrase one of the most famous Prussians around, and you can therefore imagine my surprise at this pushback. I mean, with the Prussia and Germany having a good few wars for resources and such while teaching the guy, I'm certainly under assumption that they acknowledged the political dimensions of resource competition. Is that an unreasonable assertion? I mean if two political parties differ on a proposed healthcare plan, this is no doubt a political problem involving resource distribution, no?
Last edited by Kubra on Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:08 pm, edited 3 times in total.
“Atomic war is inevitable. It will destroy half of humanity: it is going to destroy immense human riches. It is very possible. The atomic war is going to provoke a true inferno on Earth. But it will not impede Communism.”
-Comrade Posadas

User avatar
Kaltovar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 122
Founded: Jun 26, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby Kaltovar » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:11 pm

Kubra wrote:
So, in short, they were not on the Soviet side?

Man, you like Prussia, don't you? All I've done is paraphrase one of the most famous Prussians around, and you can therefore imagine my surprise at this pushback. I mean, with the Prussia and Germany having a good few wars for resources and such while teaching the guy, I'm certainly under assumption that they acknowledged the political dimensions of resource competition. Is that an unreasonable assertion?


I'm pushing back because while I like Prussia (not least of which because it was an extremely progressive and racially inclusive society in it's golden age), I do not believe that systems invented in the middle ages are a good way to run a modern society. And I happen to know that military doctrine has advanced a lot in the past few thousand years.

We didn't do that in the Philippines because it's not socially acceptable, and we're not talking about NEED but MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY. Have you even been paying attention to the words I'm using? Not to mention nuclear weapons didn't exist at the time, and neither did aerially deployed mines ... Presuming you're talking about the period I think you are, which was 1900-1945

The TL;DR wouldn't be that they weren't on the Soviet side, but would be: "They started off on the Soviet side, then had a falling out when Stalin tried to repeatedly murder Tito for not doing what he was told. Then they went independent for a while, then they tried to join NATO, then they went back to independent. Then eventually they settled down and took aid from both NATO and the Soviet bloc while playing the sides off each other kind of like how Turkey works today with us and Russia until a US President decided fuck them and then they got most of their handouts from the Soviets while gritting their teeth and refusing to do anything of consequence in return for it. Then the Soviets cancelled their aid for not being good little boys, and not long after the USSR fell apart." And that really is the TL;DR, the actual situation would be it's entire own forum thread that would probably take months to sort out and where we would both learn that we're wrong because Yugoslavia is a fucking unicorn that resists your attempts to defy it.
Last edited by Kaltovar on Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
INB4 somebody uses my Iron Cross to Blues Clues out my SecretFascism™ the words immediately next to it are "From Many Peoples One Nation" and the Iron Cross is a symbol that has existed since 1813 which Nazis stole Prussian Valor by wearing because they couldn't fight and wanted to LARP as an army that could.

User avatar
Kubra
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11649
Founded: Apr 15, 2006
Libertarian Police State

Postby Kubra » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:15 pm

Kaltovar wrote:
Kubra wrote:
So, in short, they were not on the Soviet side?

Man, you like Prussia, don't you? All I've done is paraphrase one of the most famous Prussians around, and you can therefore imagine my surprise at this pushback. I mean, with the Prussia and Germany having a good few wars for resources and such while teaching the guy, I'm certainly under assumption that they acknowledged the political dimensions of resource competition. Is that an unreasonable assertion?


I'm pushing back because while I like Prussia (not least of which because it was an extremely progressive and racially inclusive society in it's golden age), I do not believe that systems invented in the middle ages are a good way to run a modern society. And I happen to know that military doctrine has advanced a lot in the past few thousand years.

We didn't do that in the Philippines because it's not socially acceptable, have you even been paying attention to the words I'm using? Not to mention nuclear weapons didn't exist at the time, and neither did aerially deployed mines ... Presuming you're talking about the period I think you are, which was 1900-1945

The TL;DR wouldn't be that they weren't on the Soviet side, but would be: "They started off on the Soviet side, then had a falling out when Stalin tried to repeatedly murder Tito for not doing what he was told. Then they went independent for a while, then they tried to join NATO, then they went back to independent. Then eventually they settled down and took aid from both NATO and the Soviet bloc while playing the sides off each other kind of like how Turkey works today with us and Russia until a US President decided fuck them and then they got most of their handouts from the Soviets while gritting their teeth and refusing to do anything of consequence in return for it. Then the Soviets cancelled their aid for not being good little boys, and not long after the USSR fell apart." And that really is the TL;DR, the actual situation would be it's entire own forum thread that would probably take months to sort out and where we would both learn that we're wrong because Yugoslavia is a fucking unicorn that resists your attempts to defy it.
What do you suppose I said we didn't do in the Philippines?
Has it evolved? The bloke is still on west points curriculum, no?

In 1948. Quite quick, you see. And as per a later edit, I was not aware that Nasser was a Marxist.

I've merely tried to have you answer a question in an organic fashion. It's a very simple question: why do certain people join together for resources, compete with others for resources, and why do these populations change hands?
Last edited by Kubra on Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Atomic war is inevitable. It will destroy half of humanity: it is going to destroy immense human riches. It is very possible. The atomic war is going to provoke a true inferno on Earth. But it will not impede Communism.”
-Comrade Posadas

User avatar
Kaltovar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 122
Founded: Jun 26, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby Kaltovar » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:29 pm

Kubra wrote:What do you suppose I said we didn't do in the Philippines?
Has it evolved? The bloke is still on west points curriculum, no?

In 1948. Quite quick, you see. And as per a later edit, I was not aware that Nasser was a Marxist.

I've merely tried to have you answer a question in an organic fashion. It's a very simple question: why do certain people join together for resources, compete with others for resources, and why do these populations change hands?


I suppose that you said we didn't engage in geoengineering a genocide with carpetseeded mines and nuclear radiation.

Yes he is, as is Sun Tzu Julius Caesar and Erwin Rommel. Westpoint goes well out of it's way to study all history of war, so it's recruits will be less likely to be surprised when their enemy pulls some weird shit.

Cool, cluster munitions weren't invented until the 1970s.

That's not the question you've been asking, you've been repeatedly asking me what politics are and asserting that all war is politics.

It's also not one question, it could charitably be called two and uncharitably called three. So here are three answer:

1: More likely to succeed in greater numbers, and moving to another group of people is a large investment of resources which (unless you REALLY hate the people around you) defeats the entire purpose of banding together to compete for resources
2: The more resources you have, the less likely you are to die and the more likely you are to have an unlimited supply of prostitutes and cocaine (or whatever else makes you happy)
3: Because some people want to live in another country, usually for economic reasons. Sometimes people move for political reasons too, not liking the structure of the government in their local area and preferring another.
INB4 somebody uses my Iron Cross to Blues Clues out my SecretFascism™ the words immediately next to it are "From Many Peoples One Nation" and the Iron Cross is a symbol that has existed since 1813 which Nazis stole Prussian Valor by wearing because they couldn't fight and wanted to LARP as an army that could.

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 56928
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:31 pm

Didn't the FBI director torpedo the whole rationale behind labelling antifa "domestic terrorists"?
be gay do crime


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
Kubra
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11649
Founded: Apr 15, 2006
Libertarian Police State

Postby Kubra » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:39 pm

Kaltovar wrote:
Kubra wrote:What do you suppose I said we didn't do in the Philippines?
Has it evolved? The bloke is still on west points curriculum, no?

In 1948. Quite quick, you see. And as per a later edit, I was not aware that Nasser was a Marxist.

I've merely tried to have you answer a question in an organic fashion. It's a very simple question: why do certain people join together for resources, compete with others for resources, and why do these populations change hands?


I suppose that you said we didn't engage in geoengineering a genocide with carpetseeded mines and nuclear radiation.

Yes he is, as is Sun Tzu Julius Caesar and Erwin Rommel. Westpoint goes well out of it's way to study all history of war, so it's recruits will be less likely to be surprised when their enemy pulls some weird shit.

Cool, cluster munitions weren't invented until the 1970s.

That's not the question you've been asking, you've been repeatedly asking me what politics are and asserting that all war is politics.

It's also not one question, it could charitably be called two and uncharitably called three. So here are three answer:

1: More likely to succeed in greater numbers, and moving to another group of people is a large investment of resources which (unless you REALLY hate the people around you) defeats the entire purpose of banding together to compete for resources
2: The more resources you have, the less likely you are to die and the more likely you are to have an unlimited supply of prostitutes and cocaine (or whatever else makes you happy)
3: Because some people want to live in another country, usually for economic reasons. Sometimes people move for political reasons too, not liking the structure of the government in their local area and preferring another.
Nope, that we didn't deploy civilian law enforcement, welfare systems, or a healthcare system. We did, however, annex it with no path to statehood.

Rommel? Caesar? We study their tactics and methods. Sun Tzu? Clausewitz? To explain the essence of war is a timeless thing. As I have said, in the periods before and after Clausewitz men have fought for resources, but men afterwards repeated his dictum's "war is the continuation of politics by other means.", "War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will." All the while, of course, fighting for land in the age of imperialism.

It is, of course, one question stated three ways: what is politics? Is what you have given not an apt description of politics?

That aside, you've misunderstood what I mean by population changing hands. It is to be understood as populations forming pacts with other populations and against others.
Last edited by Kubra on Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Atomic war is inevitable. It will destroy half of humanity: it is going to destroy immense human riches. It is very possible. The atomic war is going to provoke a true inferno on Earth. But it will not impede Communism.”
-Comrade Posadas

User avatar
The Greater Ohio Valley
Senator
 
Posts: 4073
Founded: Jan 19, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Greater Ohio Valley » Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:28 pm

Liriena wrote:Didn't the FBI director torpedo the whole rationale behind labelling antifa "domestic terrorists"?

Sauce pls? Cuz this sounds spicy.
27 year old pansexual H. sapien male who enjoys heavy metal and the classic PS1 Resident Evil games.
Hey, it's up to us to take out Umbrella.

Liriena wrote:anyone to the left of Pinochet: *exists*

right-wingers: wat about vuvuzelaaa lmao gottem

User avatar
Kaltovar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 122
Founded: Jun 26, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby Kaltovar » Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:04 pm

Kubra wrote: Nope, that we didn't deploy civilian law enforcement, welfare systems, or a healthcare system. We did, however, annex it with no path to statehood.

Rommel? Caesar? We study their tactics and methods. Sun Tzu? Clausewitz? To explain the essence of war is a timeless thing. As I have said, in the periods before and after Clausewitz men have fought for resources, but men afterwards repeated his dictum's "war is the continuation of politics by other means.", "War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will." All the while, of course, fighting for land in the age of imperialism.

It is, of course, one question stated three ways: what is politics? Is what you have given not an apt description of politics?

That aside, you've misunderstood what I mean by population changing hands. It is to be understood as populations forming pacts with other populations and against others.


I notice your careful use of the word civilian, because as you know we DID deploy LEO there but they were MPs. We didn't have the laws we have today, and the laws we have today require us to give annexed territories most of the rights that states have including full US citizenship which would then entitle them to all of the benefits of US citizens. There is no legal basis to deny a US citizen full privileges because they're existing outside of a state. We also had no public healthcare of any kind at the time (Medicaid and Medicare is "Of a kind", just shitty), and I honestly do not know if welfare even existed yet.

Believe it or not, before you mentioned Clausewitz, I actually made a bet with somebody for five dollars that you were going to use that quote "war is the continuation of politics by other means." as part of your argument. I don't worship Clausewitz or Prussia simply because I admire aspects of both. I'm not obligated to agree with everything Clausewitz says, just like I'm not required to support the period in which it was illegal to publish materials in French because Freddy G's dad got butthurt one time. I do think there is really some wisdom to the quote, but pretending that war or politics are simple enough to be summarized in a single sentence really misses the point of Sun Tzu and his "Essence of war" that you apparently understand so well. Sun Tzu views politics as an aspect of war and subordinate to it, with war itself being subordinate to and a function of the state. It is however in direct contrast with Clausewitz, who views neither as subordinate but both as equal parts of the same whole.

So which of these people distilled the correct "Essence of war", and which is a liar? My view is that they both propose models of reality and that both models provide useful insight, but that pretending a model is actually the real world that it claims to represent is like trying to navigate to India using a Columbian-Era map and then wondering why you rammed into New York half way through the trip.

I DO think that the idea "War is politics through other means" can be used to explain many conflicts through human history, but not all of them, and I'm realizing that I'm defending a position that I don't hold: That war is ONLY for resources. What I should be saying is that "I think sometimes war is only for resources and pretending it's for something else gives the belligerents way too much credit." ... You'll notice I already admitted that Afghans don't fight for resources, but politics.

I just think saying every single instance of war arises out of politics is a limited view that warps your ability to independently assess the real reasons for a given conflict ... Because you will always be far more likely to seek a political narrative, when there are many times that a certain critical resource is actually why the political groups were able to get the people who make decisions about where to bomb on their side.

The Pentagon is a great example ... You have a ton of Republicans crammed in sardine can together, and what do they decide after just a few years of thinking on it? That climate change is an existential national security risk, for which they got called "Bleeding Heart Liberals" by Fox News. If their primary concern was politics and not resources, shouldn't they be more likely to tow their party line?
INB4 somebody uses my Iron Cross to Blues Clues out my SecretFascism™ the words immediately next to it are "From Many Peoples One Nation" and the Iron Cross is a symbol that has existed since 1813 which Nazis stole Prussian Valor by wearing because they couldn't fight and wanted to LARP as an army that could.

User avatar
Kaltovar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 122
Founded: Jun 26, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby Kaltovar » Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:07 pm

Not that it has anything to do with anything, but I'm very upset that Puerto Rico and Samoa aren't states yet.

And honestly, I wish we had accepted Liberia and the Phillipines when they applied for statehood.

Extensions of full rights and patriotic duties to new populations makes me happy, as does giving them a reason to stand on my side if another big international resource war breaks out.
Last edited by Kaltovar on Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
INB4 somebody uses my Iron Cross to Blues Clues out my SecretFascism™ the words immediately next to it are "From Many Peoples One Nation" and the Iron Cross is a symbol that has existed since 1813 which Nazis stole Prussian Valor by wearing because they couldn't fight and wanted to LARP as an army that could.

User avatar
Kubra
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11649
Founded: Apr 15, 2006
Libertarian Police State

Postby Kubra » Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:16 pm

Kaltovar wrote:Not that it has anything to do with anything, but I'm very upset that Puerto Rico and Samoa aren't states yet.

And honestly, I wish we had accepted Liberia and the Phillipines when they applied for statehood.

Extensions of full rights and patriotic duties to new populations makes me happy, as does giving them a reason to stand on my side if another big international resource war breaks out.
the Philippines never applied for statehood. I mean, it was kind of conquered, so even if there was a path to statehood it would have probably not been taken.
And in any case, why take in another group of resource-consumers?
“Atomic war is inevitable. It will destroy half of humanity: it is going to destroy immense human riches. It is very possible. The atomic war is going to provoke a true inferno on Earth. But it will not impede Communism.”
-Comrade Posadas

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 56928
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:26 pm

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:
Liriena wrote:Didn't the FBI director torpedo the whole rationale behind labelling antifa "domestic terrorists"?

Sauce pls? Cuz this sounds spicy.

https://reason.com/2019/07/24/ted-cruz- ... y-the-fbi/

FBI Director Christopher Wray told Cruz the agency is "absolutely concerned about violence committed on behalf of any ideology." But "the key there," said Wray, is that "the FBI doesn't investigate ideology, we investigate violent criminal activity."
be gay do crime


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
Kaltovar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 122
Founded: Jun 26, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby Kaltovar » Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:32 pm

Kubra wrote:
Kaltovar wrote:Not that it has anything to do with anything, but I'm very upset that Puerto Rico and Samoa aren't states yet.

And honestly, I wish we had accepted Liberia and the Philippines when they applied for statehood.

Extensions of full rights and patriotic duties to new populations makes me happy, as does giving them a reason to stand on my side if another big international resource war breaks out.
the Philippines never applied for statehood. I mean, it was kind of conquered, so even if there was a path to statehood it would have probably not been taken.
And in any case, why take in another group of resource-consumers?



January 30, 1988 the Philippines and Puerto Rico sent their representatives to lobby Congress for a formal declaration of statehood for their respective territories. Long after Philippine Independence. Philippine Statehood is still a topic of debate today, and is actually growing in popularity.

https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/56 ... annexation

Because I believe that we're already fucked on our current path and the only way to save ourselves is through rapid advancement of technology, and the more people we have with better access to education and travel between the states the more chances we have to produce the scientists which will be capable of saving a nation that is already doomed. Also for strategic reasons, because they're both important air and naval bases for us. In short, tech is a resource too and it can't be consumed. I happen to think it's going to be the most important resource, if we want to avoid another big resource war. We will need to branch out into asteroid mining and advanced forms of nuclear power and reprocessing if we're going to survive the next 100 years.

That's not really why, it's my pragmatic justification. The reason WHY is because I feel like anyone who wants to call themselves American and loves my country enough to want to annex theirs into it is somebody who I'd be proud to call my fellow American and fight Nazis with in Hell.

Edit: To explain that I view technology as a resource and overcoming the limitations of "petty resources" like food and iron is the very challenge which faces us, not preserving those resources until they inevitably run out. If we follow the only path that can in my view save us, these won't be the limiting factors on our society anymore.
Last edited by Kaltovar on Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:51 pm, edited 6 times in total.
INB4 somebody uses my Iron Cross to Blues Clues out my SecretFascism™ the words immediately next to it are "From Many Peoples One Nation" and the Iron Cross is a symbol that has existed since 1813 which Nazis stole Prussian Valor by wearing because they couldn't fight and wanted to LARP as an army that could.

User avatar
Kassaran
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9956
Founded: Jun 16, 2013
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Kassaran » Fri Jul 26, 2019 1:37 am

So let's bring it back to Antifa being/not being terrorist fodder? How does Philippine statehood work into that?
Beware: Walls of Text Generally appear Above this Sig.
The Teutonic Republic wrote:"Hammer" in Russian means "Dicks" in Finnish.

This can't be a coincidence
Korva wrote:Q: How effective would this thing be if we assume it would be very effective?
A: Very effective
The Knockout Gun Gals wrote:
The United Remnants of America wrote:You keep that cheap Chinese knock-off away from the real OG.
Same goes for Task Force Rainbow.

bloody hell, mate.
that's a real deal. We just don't buy the license rights.

The following came from an interesting discussion regarding ANTIFA:
Kowani wrote:rights are bullshit.
Currently Enlisted in the United States Army.

User avatar
Hirota
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5593
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Hirota » Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:15 am

Liriena wrote:
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Sauce pls? Cuz this sounds spicy.

https://reason.com/2019/07/24/ted-cruz- ... y-the-fbi/

FBI Director Christopher Wray told Cruz the agency is "absolutely concerned about violence committed on behalf of any ideology." But "the key there," said Wray, is that "the FBI doesn't investigate ideology, we investigate violent criminal activity."
<nods>

He's got the right attitude. It doesn't matter why someone feels they are entitled to practice violent criminal activity.
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted, pedants and koi carp.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those affected by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.
Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Isn't it curious how people will claim they are against tribalism, then pigeonhole themselves into tribes?

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ameriganastan, Crockerland, Cyaah, Eternal Lotharia, Galloism, Google [Bot], Gormwood, Heloin, Loben The 2nd, Marossia, Philjia, United Muscovite Nations, Vikernia

Advertisement

Remove ads