|
|
Post by limey² on Oct 19, 2022 17:51:42 GMT
Peace, or rather, the absence of war, between West and East is ascribable to NATO.
Yeah. That's what I said.
The United States.
To a large extent, yes. Seeking to hold any future wars supporting capitalism/democracy in the face of autocracy on the away pitch. Self interested and yet also altruistic. Like supporting Ukraine against Putlerism. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,199
|
Post by demos on Oct 19, 2022 18:06:08 GMT
Really? Or is ideology tinkering here? If every nation managed its affairs similarly to how Belgium does, would any nation be under sanctions for brutally attacking Ukraine? Yes. Again, Belgium is making policy based on its interest and its capabilities. Or are they not? If they aren't doing that, then how does one explain seeking exemptions for Russian diamonds?
If Belgium was powerful enough to brutally attack anyone - like say, in the Congo - then yes, it probably would have a more aggressive foreign policy in pursuit of its interests, such as the United States.
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Oct 19, 2022 19:15:32 GMT
Really? Or is ideology tinkering here? If every nation managed its affairs similarly to how Belgium does, would any nation be under sanctions for brutally attacking Ukraine? Yes. Again, Belgium is making policy based on its interest and its capabilities. Or are they not? If they aren't doing that, then how does one explain seeking exemptions for Russian diamonds?
If Belgium was powerful enough to brutally attack anyone - like say, in the Congo - then yes, it probably would have a more aggressive foreign policy in pursuit of its interests, such as the United States.
So do you think a representative full suffrage social democracy with strong rule of law and a free press will ever attack another representative full suffrage social democracy with strong rule of law and a free press with whom it has intricate mutually beneficial economic and cultural links and free movement of population? Because that's what I'm asking. You're answering a different question. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2022 19:18:04 GMT
Bollocks indeed. You are doing a Fiddler. Creating a strawman and reinterpreting what I said so you can dismiss it. At least you're not sharing studies on whether or not tobacco causes cancer produced by Phillip Morris to try to prove tobacco doesn't cause cancer the way Fiddler does. So that leaves you a notch above.
Centuries after Rome first encountered the Belgae and gave the region it's name ... Belgium still exists. Why? Because of their "renowned policy of mediation." I'll just link to wiki for convenience for you limey.
As I said, wouldn't that have been delightful if Ukraine had used Belgium as a role model as you suggest? Trying to keep its head down and not annoy its more powerful neighbors? And as I also said, starting in the early 19th century ... Belgium maintained a policy of neutrality. AGAIN a perfect role model for Ukraine. You show surprising wisdom with the selection of Belgium as a role model for how European nations should comport themselves. Why are you trying to backtrack on it? You really should know this stuff limey. Considering your nation was involved in establishing the neutrality for Belgium that they refused to establish with Ukraine Germany broke that neutrality in WW1 and WW2.
Why was England so willing to sign a neutrality agreement over Belgium with its European Great Power adversaries but not willing to do so with Ukraine?
No oil in Belgium maybe?
The Begiques (both Cloggies and Froggies versions) have, mediation or not, been trampled over by foreign armies more often than they've slurped fruity beers. As, indeed, have most European territories. Not recently though.... what's changed.... oooh.... We've been over this.
The European nations were defanged and the USA has acted as a traffic cop ever since. Duh.
Why else would we have hundreds of military bases all over Europe?
Did you know we once had over 200 bases in Germany? We still have 40 and they haven't been jiggy in a long time.
This isn't a dick measuring contest limey. I'm not trying to piss on the British military. And I'm not trying to impugn your manhood or soldierhood. We've been over this too. You have benefited far more than I by the "liberal world order" America built following WW2. I don't say this to piss you off I say it to try to get you to understand why what is going on in our country is going on.
This isn't a new topic of discussion for us over here in the states.
This is a problem for a lot of people in our country limey. Hence the "heightened debate" as we went into the 2016 election.
Our elites and politically connected have benefited tremendously.
Our citizenry not quite as much. Remember? Trickle down doesn't work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2022 19:21:21 GMT
Yeah. That's what I said.
The United States.
To a large extent, yes. Seeking to hold any future wars supporting capitalism/democracy in the face of autocracy on the away pitch. Self interested and yet also altruistic. Like supporting Ukraine against Putlerism. Once again, for the benefit of everyone but the American citizenry ... and the citizens of the 3rd world countries being starved by first our pandemic responses and now our profit seeking desire to perpetuate the disaster going on in Ukraine. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,199
|
Post by demos on Oct 19, 2022 19:33:47 GMT
So do you think a representative full suffrage social democracy with strong rule of law and a free press will ever attack another representative full suffrage social democracy with strong rule of law and a free press with whom it has intricate mutually beneficial economic and cultural links and free movement of population? Because that's what I'm asking. Is that what we're asking? Because that's not what Ukraine is.
You might argue that's what it can become, but that's not what it currently is.
And democratic peace theory does have some merits, but historically, we have seen instances when democracies attack one another. So it's not outside the realm of possibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Oct 19, 2022 20:03:07 GMT
The Begiques (both Cloggies and Froggies versions) have, mediation or not, been trampled over by foreign armies more often than they've slurped fruity beers. As, indeed, have most European territories. Not recently though.... what's changed.... oooh.... We've been over this.
The European nations were defanged and the USA has acted as a traffic cop ever since. Duh.
Why else would we have hundreds of military bases all over Europe?
Did you know we once had over 200 bases in Germany? We still have 40 and they haven't been jiggy in a long time.
This isn't a dick measuring contest limey. I'm not trying to piss on the British military. And I'm not trying to impugn your manhood or soldierhood. We've been over this too. You have benefited far more than I by the "liberal world order" America built following WW2. I don't say this to piss you off I say it to try to get you to understand why what is going on in our country is going on.
This isn't a new topic of discussion for us over here in the states.
This is a problem for a lot of people in our country limey. Hence the "heightened debate" as we went into the 2016 election.
Our elites and politically connected have benefited tremendously.
Our citizenry not quite as much. Remember? Trickle down doesn't work.
It is eminently possible for more than one thing to be true at the same time. Here, I submit, are a few: 1. The US presence in Europe post-45 was to keep the "liberal world order" and its vibrant support for US economic/political pre-eminence nurtured 2. The US military is so absurdly bloated in part because of backscratching politics/business 3. The effect of (1) above has, in part, been to fertilise the development of genuinely beneficial political structures- beneficial to populations- in Western Europe. See, I get the feeling that because (1) and (2) are not particularly pure and noble, you're prepared to discard them as entirely without merit. Thus, by extension, because there's every chance that a serious commitment to medium term Ukranian support will benefit numerous dead eyed rapacious amoral commercial entities, you call a curse on all their houses. Despite (3). |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Oct 19, 2022 20:12:19 GMT
So do you think a representative full suffrage social democracy with strong rule of law and a free press will ever attack another representative full suffrage social democracy with strong rule of law and a free press with whom it has intricate mutually beneficial economic and cultural links and free movement of population? Because that's what I'm asking. Is that what we're asking? Because that's not what Ukraine is.
You might argue that's what it can become, but that's not what it currently is.
And democratic peace theory does have some merits, but historically, we have seen instances when democracies attack one another. So it's not outside the realm of possibility.
I can't think of an instance of a modern democracy attacking a modern democracy; 1914 Germany was a semi-authoritarian state with significant monarchical/aristocratic control over policy. Since then? Turkey/Cyprus, 1974? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2022 20:22:22 GMT
We've been over this.
The European nations were defanged and the USA has acted as a traffic cop ever since. Duh.
Why else would we have hundreds of military bases all over Europe?
Did you know we once had over 200 bases in Germany? We still have 40 and they haven't been jiggy in a long time.
This isn't a dick measuring contest limey. I'm not trying to piss on the British military. And I'm not trying to impugn your manhood or soldierhood. We've been over this too. You have benefited far more than I by the "liberal world order" America built following WW2. I don't say this to piss you off I say it to try to get you to understand why what is going on in our country is going on.
This isn't a new topic of discussion for us over here in the states.
This is a problem for a lot of people in our country limey. Hence the "heightened debate" as we went into the 2016 election.
Our elites and politically connected have benefited tremendously.
Our citizenry not quite as much. Remember? Trickle down doesn't work.
It is eminently possible for more than one thing to be true at the same time. Here, I submit, are a few: 1. The US presence in Europe post-45 was to keep the "liberal world order" and its vibrant support for US economic/political pre-eminence nurtured 2. The US military is so absurdly bloated in part because of backscratching politics/business 3. The effect of (1) above has, in part, been to fertilise the development of genuinely beneficial political structures- beneficial to populations- in Western Europe. See, I get the feeling that because (1) and (2) are not particularly pure and noble, you're prepared to discard them as entirely without merit. Thus, by extension, because there's every chance that a serious commitment to medium term Ukranian support will benefit numerous dead eyed rapacious amoral commercial entities, you call a curse on all their houses. Despite (3). Let me add a 4th.
The American citizenry have been funding it at the expense of their own wellbeing.
1, 2 and 3 are all true limey. I'm not disagreeing with any of it.
The problem is 4. The American people have been doing without the benefits those Western European countries have been giving their citizenry so that those numerous dead eyed rapacious amoral commercial entities can profit long, long, loooonng before Putin even became the ruler of Russia. So much so in fact that we ... the American people ... thought that now finally we had defeated the Soviet Union we could start looking after our own.
But the Establocrats and the European elitists they have more in common with have other plans.
Your elitists had a chance to care about the American citizenry instead of their own profits when we sent a democratically elected president over there to start telling them we were getting tired and they'd have to start funding their own. (A guy who at the same time spent a great deal of time warning you all about your overreliance on Russian energy.) Their response was, to almost no one's surprise by then, identical to our own anti American Establocrat Party with just as much of a connection to the American people as your elites have ... mockery and laughter.
How's that been working out? It's gonna get worse.
This is what it's like to live at the end of a golden age limey.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,199
|
Post by demos on Oct 19, 2022 20:25:37 GMT
I can't think of an instance of a modern democracy attacking a modern democracy; 1914 Germany was a semi-authoritarian state with significant monarchical/aristocratic control over policy. Since then? Turkey/Cyprus, 1974? Well, not necessarily modern. I did say historically. The Peloponnesian War for example. Rome and Carthage (republics, technically not democracies - though Rome had some democratic elements). Italian republics as well.
If Europe's current democracies weren't in an economic/political union and a military alliance dominated by a hegemonic power (important factors here), it would be interesting to see how conflicts were handled. Probably more like ancient Greece and Renaissance Italy than one might imagine.
And given Turkey's military's involvement in coups and changes of government, not sure it really counts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2022 20:33:29 GMT
Is that what we're asking? Because that's not what Ukraine is.
You might argue that's what it can become, but that's not what it currently is. And democratic peace theory does have some merits, but historically, we have seen instances when democracies attack one another. So it's not outside the realm of possibility.
I can't think of an instance of a modern democracy attacking a modern democracy; 1914 Germany was a semi-authoritarian state with significant monarchical/aristocratic control over policy. Since then? Turkey/Cyprus, 1974? I always think this is an interesting blind spot given your association with this conflict...
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,453
|
Post by thor on Oct 19, 2022 20:41:20 GMT
Off the top of my head (just the big ones) - Romans, Franks, France, Burgundy, Habsburgs (part of the eastern bit), France again. Amazing that Que-Anon can spend so much time 'researching on the Internet' and still fuck up this badly. Shh. Adults are talking. Indeed. See yourself out. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,453
|
Post by thor on Oct 19, 2022 20:43:34 GMT
The Begiques (both Cloggies and Froggies versions) have, mediation or not, been trampled over by foreign armies more often than they've slurped fruity beers. As, indeed, have most European territories. Not recently though.... what's changed.... oooh.... We've been over this.
The European nations were defanged and the USA has acted as a traffic cop ever since. Duh.
Why else would we have hundreds of military bases all over Europe?
Did you know we once had over 200 bases in Germany? We still have 40 and they haven't been jiggy in a long time.
This isn't a dick measuring contest limey. I'm not trying to piss on the British military. And I'm not trying to impugn your manhood or soldierhood. We've been over this too. You have benefited far more than I by the "liberal world order" America built following WW2. I don't say this to piss you off I say it to try to get you to understand why what is going on in our country is going on.
This isn't a new topic of discussion for us over here in the states.
This is a problem for a lot of people in our country limey. Hence the "heightened debate" as we went into the 2016 election.
Our elites and politically connected have benefited tremendously.
Our citizenry not quite as much. Remember? Trickle down doesn't work.
Que-Anon - you just got your ass handed to you. Again. All that 'research' and you are still fucking this up. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,453
|
Post by thor on Oct 19, 2022 20:48:50 GMT
I can't think of an instance of a modern democracy attacking a modern democracy; 1914 Germany was a semi-authoritarian state with significant monarchical/aristocratic control over policy. Since then? Turkey/Cyprus, 1974? Well, not necessarily modern. I did say historically. The Peloponnesian War for example. Rome and Carthage (republics, technically not democracies - though Rome had some democratic elements). Italian republics as well.
If Europe's current democracies weren't in an economic/political union and a military alliance dominated by a hegemonic power (important factors here), it would be interesting to see how conflicts were handled. Probably more like ancient Greece and Renaissance Italy than one might imagine.
And given Turkey's military's involvement in coups and changes of government, not sure it really counts.
Are you serious? You're trying to define Athens (Delian League), Sparta (Peloponesian League), the Roman Republic and the Republic of Carthage as 'historical' democracies? |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,453
|
Post by thor on Oct 19, 2022 20:50:59 GMT
It is eminently possible for more than one thing to be true at the same time. Here, I submit, are a few: 1. The US presence in Europe post-45 was to keep the "liberal world order" and its vibrant support for US economic/political pre-eminence nurtured 2. The US military is so absurdly bloated in part because of backscratching politics/business 3. The effect of (1) above has, in part, been to fertilise the development of genuinely beneficial political structures- beneficial to populations- in Western Europe. See, I get the feeling that because (1) and (2) are not particularly pure and noble, you're prepared to discard them as entirely without merit. Thus, by extension, because there's every chance that a serious commitment to medium term Ukranian support will benefit numerous dead eyed rapacious amoral commercial entities, you call a curse on all their houses. Despite (3). Let me add a 4th.
The American citizenry have been funding it at the expense of their own wellbeing.
1, 2 and 3 are all true limey. I'm not disagreeing with any of it.
The problem is 4. The American people have been doing without the benefits those Western European countries have been giving their citizenry so that those numerous dead eyed rapacious amoral commercial entities can profit long, long, loooonng before Putin even became the ruler of Russia. So much so in fact that we ... the American people ... thought that now finally we had defeated the Soviet Union we could start looking after our own.
But the Establocrats and the European elitists they have more in common with have other plans.
Your elitists had a chance to care about the American citizenry instead of their own profits when we sent a democratically elected president over there to start telling them we were getting tired and they'd have to start funding their own. (A guy who at the same time spent a great deal of time warning you all about your overreliance on Russian energy.) Their response was, to almost no one's surprise by then, identical to our own anti American Establocrat Party with just as much of a connection to the American people as your elites have ... mockery and laughter.
How's that been working out? It's gonna get worse.
This is what it's like to live at the end of a golden age limey.
And yet you are going all-in for a Fascist enterprise like the GOP. Interesting. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,199
|
Post by demos on Oct 19, 2022 20:54:58 GMT
Are you serious? You're trying to define Athens (Delian League), Sparta (Peloponesian League), the Roman Republic and the Republic of Carthage as 'historical' democracies? Read my post again.
1) Athens is a historical democracy. It wasn't just fighting Sparta during the Peloponnesian War; read Thucydides. And I didn't say Sparta was a democracy.
2) I specifically said Rome and Carthage were republics (though again, the Roman Republic did have some democratic elements).
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,453
|
Post by thor on Oct 19, 2022 21:02:18 GMT
Are you serious? You're trying to define Athens (Delian League), Sparta (Peloponesian League), the Roman Republic and the Republic of Carthage as 'historical' democracies? Read my post again.
1) Athens is a historical democracy. It wasn't just fighting Sparta during the Peloponnesian War; read Thucydides. And I didn't say Sparta was a democracy.
2) I specifically said Rome and Carthage were republics (though again, the Roman Republic did have some democratic elements).
At the point of the Peloponesian War, the Delian League was an empire in all but name. And in the city of Athens itself, democracy was severely limited, and not at all analogous to what Ukraine, Belgium or other places that actually practice it would consider to be democracy. There is a scale, thus your analogy fails. And I HAVE read Thucydides. ALL of it. Tough reading, and I'm certain that is why you are drawing the wrong conclusions. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,199
|
Post by demos on Oct 19, 2022 21:08:47 GMT
At the point of the Peloponesian War, the Delian League was an empire in all but name. And in the city of Athens itself, democracy was severely limited, and not at all analogous to what Ukraine, Belgium or other places that actually practice it would consider to be democracy. There is a scale, thus your analogy fails. And still, Athens is a historical democracy.
And I'm not making an analogy. I made a statement of fact; historically, democracies have fought one another. The fact that both states were democratic did not prevent conflict.
Then I posed a hypothetical about how conflict among the democracies of Europe would be resolved if they were not in an economic/political union or a military alliance dominated by a hegemon. In suggested answer to that hypothetical, I think you'd be more likely to see wars between democratic states.
The fact of the matter is that - at present - they are organized in what amounts to a federation that allows for resolution of conflict without resorting to violence. As such, Europe more closely resembles a federated republic than an anarchic situation. I'm sure you have, and I'm sure you do.  |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,453
|
Post by thor on Oct 19, 2022 21:12:02 GMT
At the point of the Peloponesian War, the Delian League was an empire in all but name. And in the city of Athens itself, democracy was severely limited, and not at all analogous to what Ukraine, Belgium or other places that actually practice it would consider to be democracy. There is a scale, thus your analogy fails. And still, Athens is a historical democracy.
And I'm not making an analogy. I made a statement of fact; historically, democracies have fought one another. The fact that both states were democratic did not prevent conflict.
Then I posed a hypothetical about how conflict among the democracies of Europe would be resolved if they were not in an economic union or a military alliance dominated by a hegemon. In suggested answer to that hypothetical, I think you'd be more likely to see wars between democratic states.
The fact of the matter is that - at present - they are organized in what amounts to a federation that allows for resolution of conflict without resorting to violence. As such, it more closely represents a federated republic than an anarchic situation. I'm sure you have, and I'm sure you do.  Poor demos. Since Thucydides was too rough for you, you can try Plutarch and Tacitus. Might be easier. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,199
|
Post by demos on Oct 19, 2022 21:18:48 GMT
Poor demos. Since Thucydides was too rough for you, you can try Plutarch and Tacitus. Might be easier. As usual, you don't have anything to offer.
You couldn't even read and understand my earlier post, so I don't believe you've ever tackled Thucydides. Not sure you can tackle a Far Side comic.
|
|
