Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[Nea Byzantia]

Yes..John McCain, I presume?

John McCain was based if a bit crazy.
Dugan just totally insane.

Anyways the Eastern Roman Empire was for most of its history a naval power.
Rome and Carthage were not that much different.
Sparta was also a major naval power. And beat Athens at sea.

So those are not even good examples.

The Eastern Roman Empire SHOULD'VE BEEN a Naval Power; would've definitely helped them in the long-term...Actually, they were too reliant on their Army, and neglected their Navy at times. Also, the Roman Republic didn't become a proper Naval Power until after they defeated Carthage.

And you called John McCain "based"...lol...You have any idea how much innocent blood that man has on his hands?

[Conserative Morality]

First of all that map is not even accurate.
We no longer have bases in the Philippines for example.

And since when is Singapore near Russia?
However those bases are almost all in places who WANT them there!

I mean I understand Russia believes letting countries near Russia have sovereignty and make alliances with countries other than Russia is “aggression” but that is not how it works.

Russia: "How dare you let OUR countries make their own decisions!"

What a diseased nation.

[Conserative Morality]

Iran is heavily dependent on Russia; but to assume that its just an extension of Russia is ridiculous. Iran and Russia have similar geopolitical goals, and the same rivals and adversaries - same goes for China. What binds those nations together is hatred of the Anglo-American Power Bloc that has dominated the World for the last couple of hundred years. Its the formation of a rival Power Bloc; a Eurasian Power Bloc; a Land Power to oppose the Atlantic-based Sea Power.

This sort of historical theme has come up in history before:

Rome vs Carthage

Sparta vs Athens

Byzantium vs Venice

for example.

[drinking in history major]

[Nea Byzantia]

First of all that map is not even accurate.
We no longer have bases in the Philippines for example.

And since when is Singapore near Russia?
However those bases are almost all in places who WANT them there!

I mean I understand Russia believes letting countries near Russia have sovereignty and make alliances with countries other than Russia is “aggression” but that is not how it works.

Russia: "How dare you let OUR countries make their own decisions!"

What a diseased nation.

Meanwhile...

[Conserative Morality]

The Eastern Roman Empire SHOULD'VE BEEN a Naval Power; would've definitely helped them in the long-term...Actually, they were too reliant on their Army, and neglected their Navy at times. Also, the Roman Republic didn't become a proper Naval Power until after they defeated Carthage.

And you called John McCain "based"...lol...You have any idea how much innocent blood that man has on his hands?

Yes, I remember when McCain rambo'd his way through the innocent nations of the world, M60 under each arm, spraying innocent villages with lead and laughing over the corpses of his helpless victims.

[Conserative Morality]

Meanwhile...

(Image)

(Image)

>> when you don't even try to get your facts right

lol

[Nea Byzantia]

The Eastern Roman Empire SHOULD'VE BEEN a Naval Power; would've definitely helped them in the long-term...Actually, they were too reliant on their Army, and neglected their Navy at times. Also, the Roman Republic didn't become a proper Naval Power until after they defeated Carthage.

And you called John McCain "based"...lol...You have any idea how much innocent blood that man has on his hands?

Yes, I remember when McCain rambo'd his way through the innocent nations of the world, M60 under each arm, spraying innocent villages with lead and laughing over the corpses of his helpless victims.

Ikr, wouldn't it have been great if he actually led any of the wars he advocated for?

But why would such a Cancer do such a thing? No,no,no, its the average Americans who have to send their sons, brothers, cousins, fathers, etc, go fight and die in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because FREEDOM...Because 'MERICAN APPLE PIE

At least the Roman Patricians had to sense to go fight in the wars they pushed for.

[Nea Byzantia]

Iran is heavily dependent on Russia; but to assume that its just an extension of Russia is ridiculous. Iran and Russia have similar geopolitical goals, and the same rivals and adversaries - same goes for China. What binds those nations together is hatred of the Anglo-American Power Bloc that has dominated the World for the last couple of hundred years. Its the formation of a rival Power Bloc; a Eurasian Power Bloc; a Land Power to oppose the Atlantic-based Sea Power.

This sort of historical theme has come up in history before:

Rome vs Carthage

Sparta vs Athens

Byzantium vs Venice

for example.

[drinking in history major]

You know, I enjoy our longstanding rivalry across many different threads and topics...Makes life more interesting, you know...always waiting for CM to ride in and f*ck sh*t up (or at least try to)

[Conserative Morality]

Ikr, wouldn't it have been great if he actually led any of the wars he advocated for?

No, not really. But I understand that the idea of separation of powers is quite foreign to apologists for totalitarian shitholes like Russia.

But why would such a Cancer do such a thing? No,no,no, its the average Americans who have to send their sons, brothers, cousins, fathers, etc, go fight and die in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because FREEDOM...Because 'MERICAN APPLE PIE

Remember that McCain served and suffered in his nation's foremost war of his era, for half a decade, and ended up permanently wounded because of it?

Oh, right, that's inconvenient to remember, sorry.

At least the Roman Patricians had to sense to go fight in the wars they pushed for.

[drinking in history major again]

[Novus America]

John McCain was based if a bit crazy.
Dugan just totally insane.

Anyways the Eastern Roman Empire was for most of its history a naval power.
Rome and Carthage were not that much different.
Sparta was also a major naval power. And beat Athens at sea.

So those are not even good examples.

The Eastern Roman Empire SHOULD'VE BEEN a Naval Power; would've definitely helped them in the long-term...Actually, they were too reliant on their Army, and neglected their Navy at times. Also, the Roman Republic didn't become a proper Naval Power until after they defeated Carthage.

And you called John McCain "based"...lol...You have any idea how much innocent blood that man has on his hands?

The Eastern Roman Empire again was a major naval power most of its history.
Yes it neglected it later with disastrous results (see sack of Constantinople) but to say it was never a naval power would be blatantly false.

It built its power on naval power, and when it neglected it of course being a predominantly sea based empire it suffered horribly.

Actually if the anything it was the Navy based ERE vs the land based Persians although this would still be a reductive to the point of falsehood dichotomy.

Carthage was the greater naval power at the beginning but Rome a rising one.
But Carthage fought mostly on land anyways. It was not a mostly naval war.

Your examples are really more an example of a rising newer naval power establishing naval superiority over a older naval power.

As such they are more examples of the importance of establishing naval superiority more than some manichean land power versus naval power battle. Except Rome Carthage was a land war really. Carthage fought as a land power, did not try to win via naval power.

McCain was never that powerful. Just one Senator of 100.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Yes, I remember when McCain rambo'd his way through the innocent nations of the world, M60 under each arm, spraying innocent villages with lead and laughing over the corpses of his helpless victims.

Ikr, wouldn't it have been great if he actually led any of the wars he advocated for?

But why would such a Cancer do such a thing? No,no,no, its the average Americans who have to send their sons, brothers, cousins, fathers, etc, go fight and die in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because FREEDOM...Because 'MERICAN APPLE PIE

At least the Roman Patricians had to sense to go fight in the wars they pushed for.

There's a reason politicians don't generally go into battle anymore. And it's not just unique to America.
Putin didn't march into Chechnya or Crimea with an AK in hand because that's not what his job is. "Soldier" and "administrator" are two completely different skill sets, and "general" is completely different from both, so I don't see why we should expect people to do more than one of these things effectively.

[Nea Byzantia]

The Eastern Roman Empire SHOULD'VE BEEN a Naval Power; would've definitely helped them in the long-term...Actually, they were too reliant on their Army, and neglected their Navy at times. Also, the Roman Republic didn't become a proper Naval Power until after they defeated Carthage.

And you called John McCain "based"...lol...You have any idea how much innocent blood that man has on his hands?

The Eastern Roman Empire again was a major naval power most of its history.
Yes it neglected it later with disastrous results (see sack of Constantinople) but to say it was never a naval power would be blatantly false.

It built its power on naval power, and when it neglected it of course being a predominantly sea based empire it suffered horribly.

Actually if the anything it was the Navy based ERE vs the land based Persians although this would still be a reductive to the point of falsehood dichotomy.

Carthage was the greater naval power at the beginning but Rome a rising one.
But Carthage fought mostly on land anyways. It was not a mostly naval war.

Your examples are really more an example of a rising newer naval power establishing naval superiority over a older naval power.

As such they are examples of the importance of establishing naval superiority more than some manichean land power versus naval power battle.

Its not necessarily a manichean battle; one could argue that even land powers transition to being naval powers when they become hegemonic (its a big part of dominating trade and thus international relations). I'm arguing more in the sense that Sparta, for example, started out as a land-power, that is to say, an agrarian society with a top-down power structure (unlike the more cosmopolitan, liberal Athens). The same generally goes for Rome vs Carthage, or the Eastern Romans vs the Venetians.

[Conserative Morality]

You know, I enjoy our longstanding rivalry across many different threads and topics...Makes life more interesting, you know...always waiting for CM to ride in and f*ck sh*t up (or at least try to)

I sometimes enjoy your posts, but you seem to have a blind spot on America and Russia. I don't expect everyone to love America or approve of it as I do, nor do I expect everyone to dislike Russia or oppose it as I do, but it seems to descend into demonization and hagiography, which is intensely frustrating.

[Nea Byzantia]

You know, I enjoy our longstanding rivalry across many different threads and topics...Makes life more interesting, you know...always waiting for CM to ride in and f*ck sh*t up (or at least try to)

I sometimes enjoy your posts, but you seem to have a blind spot on America and Russia. I don't expect everyone to love America or approve of it as I do, nor do I expect everyone to dislike Russia or oppose it as I do, but it seems to descend into demonization and hagiography, which is intensely frustrating.

I'll admit I'm a Russophile (at least when it comes to the Tsarist days), and I obviously am a huge fan of Byzantium; and I don't appreciate America (and Britain) sticking its nose where it doesn't belong (as both Powers have done in the last 250 years of World History). I have no problem with the United States as a nation (I quite admire their independent spirit, and courage to go their own way, and forge their own destiny); I just don't approve of their recent Imperial forays and prevailing Liberal, Globalist Ethic. As such, its natural, we're going to have disagreements you (and Novus America) and I.

[Conserative Morality]

Its not necessarily a manichean battle; one could argue that even land powers transition to being naval powers when they become hegemonic (its a big part of dominating trade and thus international relations). I'm arguing more in the sense that Sparta, for example, started out as a land-power, that is to say, an agrarian society with a top-down power structure (unlike the more cosmopolitan, liberal Athens). The same generally goes for Rome vs Carthage, or the Eastern Romans vs the Venetians.

The idea that Athens had a less hierarchical and more liberal power structure is purely an invention of Athenian propaganda.

>> proportion of Athenian citizens and Spartiates similar
>> entry of metics/perikoi to citizenship/Spartiate status similar
>> Spartans often spoke out against their government in the halls of their government; Athenians enjoyed exiling and killing people for the same
>> reliant on great mass of slaves/helots, in which Athenian slaves outnumber both numerically and proportionally Spartan helots

Argos or bust

[Conserative Morality]

I'll admit I'm a Russophile (at least when it comes to the Tsarist days), and I obviously am a huge fan of Byzantium; and I don't appreciate America (and Britain) sticking its nose where it doesn't belong (as both Powers have done in the last 250 years of World History). I have no problem with the United States as a nation (I quite admire their independent spirit, and courage to go their own way, and forge their own destiny); I just don't approve of their recent Imperial forays and prevailing Liberal, Globalist Ethic.

The idea that there's a place where a nation's nose doesn't belong implies that there's a place where a nation's nose does belong. Isolationism is a fool's game; spheres of influence are the cries of the weak who wish they could do more.

[Novus America]

Yes, I remember when McCain rambo'd his way through the innocent nations of the world, M60 under each arm, spraying innocent villages with lead and laughing over the corpses of his helpless victims.

Ikr, wouldn't it have been great if he actually led any of the wars he advocated for?

But why would such a Cancer do such a thing? No,no,no, its the average Americans who have to send their sons, brothers, cousins, fathers, etc, go fight and die in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because FREEDOM...Because 'MERICAN APPLE PIE

At least the Roman Patricians had to sense to go fight in the wars they pushed for.

Dude, CAPTAIN McCain, while retired by the time of 9-11 and rather too old to fight was a freaking decorated combat veteran!

[Nea Byzantia]

I'll admit I'm a Russophile (at least when it comes to the Tsarist days), and I obviously am a huge fan of Byzantium; and I don't appreciate America (and Britain) sticking its nose where it doesn't belong (as both Powers have done in the last 250 years of World History). I have no problem with the United States as a nation (I quite admire their independent spirit, and courage to go their own way, and forge their own destiny); I just don't approve of their recent Imperial forays and prevailing Liberal, Globalist Ethic.

The idea that there's a place where a nation's nose doesn't belong implies that there's a place where a nation's nose does belong. Isolationism is a fool's game; spheres of influence are the cries of the weak who wish they could do more.

Everybody is playing the Empire Game, I get that. But you don't think America is maybe pushing things too far?

[Conserative Morality]

Everybody is playing the Empire Game, I get that. But you don't think America is maybe pushing things too far?

In what way are we empire-building? Our game has always been loose hegemony to ensure the preservation of American, and more broadly Western, interests. Especially since the 90s, our foreign policy has been heavily PR-centered because, in the sense of having real competitors, we've already won on the international stage. There's no more major anti-capitalist power looking to close off markets. Nowadays our primary goal is to continue looking like the big (and preferably good) guy on the world stage, not carving up pieces to add to our collection.

[Nea Byzantia]

Everybody is playing the Empire Game, I get that. But you don't think America is maybe pushing things too far?

In what way are we empire-building? Our game has always been loose hegemony to ensure the preservation of American, and more broadly Western, interests. Especially since the 90s, our foreign policy has been heavily PR-centered because, in the sense of having real competitors, we've already won on the international stage. There's no more major anti-capitalist power looking to close off markets. Nowadays our primary goal is to continue looking like the big (and preferably good) guy on the world stage, not carving up pieces to add to our collection.

Serbia (formerly Yugoslavia) would beg to differ, Afghanistan too, and while we're at it, Iraq. So would Eurasian Powers like Russia, China and Iran; as well as the Latin American "Troika of Evil": Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.

[Old Tyrannia]

In what way are we empire-building? Our game has always been loose hegemony to ensure the preservation of American, and more broadly Western, interests. Especially since the 90s, our foreign policy has been heavily PR-centered because, in the sense of having real competitors, we've already won on the international stage. There's no more major anti-capitalist power looking to close off markets. Nowadays our primary goal is to continue looking like the big (and preferably good) guy on the world stage, not carving up pieces to add to our collection.

Serbia (formerly Yugoslavia) would beg to differ, Afghanistan too, and while we're at it, Iraq. So would Eurasian Powers like Russia, China and Iran; as well as the Latin American "Troika of Evil": Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.

America's geopolitical rivals don't like America, news at 11.

[Novus America]

The Eastern Roman Empire again was a major naval power most of its history.
Yes it neglected it later with disastrous results (see sack of Constantinople) but to say it was never a naval power would be blatantly false.

It built its power on naval power, and when it neglected it of course being a predominantly sea based empire it suffered horribly.

Actually if the anything it was the Navy based ERE vs the land based Persians although this would still be a reductive to the point of falsehood dichotomy.

Carthage was the greater naval power at the beginning but Rome a rising one.
But Carthage fought mostly on land anyways. It was not a mostly naval war.

Your examples are really more an example of a rising newer naval power establishing naval superiority over a older naval power.

As such they are examples of the importance of establishing naval superiority more than some manichean land power versus naval power battle.

Its not necessarily a manichean battle; one could argue that even land powers transition to being naval powers when they become hegemonic (its a big part of dominating trade and thus international relations). I'm arguing more in the sense that Sparta, for example, started out as a land-power, that is to say, an agrarian society with a top-down power structure (unlike the more cosmopolitan, liberal Athens). The same generally goes for Rome vs Carthage, or the Eastern Romans vs the Venetians.

Except this is a false dichotomy. Sparta never neglected trade and ships, and as such was not that much more agrarian. Sparta itself was also a large city. Athens was not liberal at all, it was a slave state that did not tolerate dissent.
Rome and Carthage were not very different. How exactly was Carthage more liberal than Rome at the time?
Despite the name Republic Venice was just an oligarchy that later became a de facto hereditary monarchy while the ERE was rather decentralized, and quite cosmopolitan and trade oriented.

None of those wars were ideological struggles. Simply two powers vying for dominance.
And cannot be easily divided into land vs naval power.

[Nea Byzantia]

Serbia (formerly Yugoslavia) would beg to differ, Afghanistan too, and while we're at it, Iraq. So would Eurasian Powers like Russia, China and Iran; as well as the Latin American "Troika of Evil": Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.

America's geopolitical rivals don't like America, news at 11.

I was just saying that to refute the idea that "America isn't an Empire"; obviously America's Geopolitical Rivals don't like her.

[Conserative Morality]

Serbia (formerly Yugoslavia) would beg to differ,

Sorry that allowing genocide is bad PR???

Afghanistan too,

Being a literal terrorist state hiding terrorists is very problematic.

Ahmad Shah Massoud tried to warn us; we should have listened. RIP Lion of Panjshir, you will always be a hero in our hearts.

and while we're at it, Iraq.

Though I will never mourn the loss of Saddam, Iraq was a mistake, and most American recognize that anymore. Really, we recognized that about a year into it when WMDs were not forthcoming.

So would Eurasian Powers like Russia,

Putin needs an enemy to focus on to keep his popularity afloat. The evil Western 'liberast' order is just a convenient target.

China

We're best frenemies with China, take that back.

and Iran;

The same Iran we were repairing relations with before some weird orange guy got two million votes less than his primary opponent and somehow won because of that?

as well as the Latin American "Troika of Evil": Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.

We've been close with Nicaragua ever since the 90s. Cuba has been under a slow process of reconciliation. Venezuela isn't a target of any kind of coherent foreign policy effort.

[Conserative Morality]

America's geopolitical rivals don't like America, news at 11.

I was just saying that to refute the idea that "America isn't an Empire"; obviously America's Geopolitical Rivals don't like her.

If we weren't an empire, would our geopolitical rivals like us??