American Politics Discussion Thread

[Pindrich2]

As a final note, there's nothing stopping Pindrich from just creating a new account, if he actually sincerely wants to contribute to and/or participate in anything actually relevant to video gaming. It takes all of a minute to create a profile here; I spent way more time writing this stupid post.

You know, I was planning to respect the moderation's decisions regarding my ban, and not come back here, but this excerpt clearly implies that making a new account will not be interpreted as an act of defiance, and I only want to give some explanations before I leave for good, since it seems I'm still not welcome to participate in any political discussion (although, apparently, I would be welcomed into a gaming discussion, for what it's worth). Also, since you guys seemed to particularly value the moral side of things when analysing geopolitical events (a noble, yet misguided conception), it seems only logical that you would extend that concern to the more practical matters of mundane life, because since I was banned I've been attacked and wrongly accused of a multitude of things, while not having the right to defend myself, which is, I'm sure you'll agree, far from being fair.

However, I think Bing did a good job defending myself and my position - which, as he himself stated, is typical of Latin America and hardly eccentric, particularly when considered in light of tendencies that are historic and traditional to this region -, and for that I'm thankful. For that reason I limit my defense to a mere reiteration of what he has already said.

That you would find third world nationalism strange or even exotic shows only how narrow is your comprehension of the ways politics work outside of your limited sphere of experience. Might be hard to accept it, but I don't mean it offensively. It's only the statement of a fact. Similarly, while I may have used somewhat provocative language in some of my posts, that doesn't mean I was trolling or insincere, and the reason for that (again, it might be difficult to accept, but it is true) has a lot to do with the type of liberties that you may - and are even supposed to - take to successfully socialize in Brazil. As you can probably guess, even this type of extensive and composed apology of which I make use right now is extremely foreign, especially for the common people, and the very fact of this effort is proof of my good will.

Bing's devotion and efforts to convince you people, debate opinions and document the whole situation going on in Ukraine and Russia are laudable, it shows faith in the power of words, regardless of where in the political spectrum you find yourself, it is sad that you won't appreciate what he's doing. Being mad at him is one thing, an understandable thing, but appreciating (because the verb "to appreciate" has also the neutral sense of "to realize something matters/something is important" is the very presupposition of any and all discussion.

Also, I'm ranked 12th on Steamladder for Civ IV BTS playtime worldwide. That should be proof enough. You can add me on Steam if you want.

[BING_XI_LAO]

The thing is that the war has already been going on for eight years, in terms of border skirmishes with the rebels, and it seems like the first act of aggression was trying to force people to use a different language. Language rights and self-determination are probably basic rights in a UN charter or something - I don't much care for the UN but you do.

Why should Ukraine have been allowed to reconquer these territories in order to run discriminatory policies?

During all that time - 8 years - I didn't know why the Russians there rebelled exactly, and I'm the one sympathetic to them, so I'm guessing you guys didn't know either.
So we ignored the motives and situation of those Russians for this long, but now they're supposed to listen to us (I mean the West) lecturing them?
"If you don't like being forced to use a different language for government and business you should just leave" is a sentiment I've seen stated in this thread and in another forum - I mean, what would a Donbass Russian reasonably say to that except "cyka blyat idi nahui pidor"?

[Mjmd]

Should the US intervene anywhere there are oppressive dictatorships?

Should all Russian transgressions and oppressions be blissfully blown out the window? Should we just pretend Russia is a perfect entity only acting for its own good and the good of all people.

When is war justified? This one isn't. Again how much injustice and death gives 1 single nation of its own accord to say "I am the chosen entity to protect what I feel is right" This is a dangerous path always. Not necessarily wrong, but dangerous.

I know there is solid intelligence that the Russians rebels are being supported by Russia (they would have to be to stand a chance). I know the US often also supports groups it likes and then uses supporting those groups for war purposes. I know that puppet states, rebel groups, and vassal kings have been used for longer than writing has existed. I know all wars have "propaganda causes" and "actual causes" (sometimes the same, but usually propaganda blows even true causes out of proportion).

I am saying you are taking Russian actions at face value and you shouldn't be. I'm not saying you should take the west at face value either, but to me its at least a very clear land grab that is part of a bigger game Russia is playing.

[BING_XI_LAO]

I can agree with a lot of that post actually.

But I will say that this intervention is almost the absolute minimum intervention a state could do, short of never making any interventions at all.
It's an intervention that's right next door, in only a segment of a neighbouring country, in an area populated by the majority ethnic group of the intervening country, with the intent to integrate them into an existing state (Russia).
Compare that point by point with say Afghanistan - landlocked country as far away as it's possible to be from the US, completely different culture, intending to create a liberal democracy practically out of whole cloth.

Russia's other interventions have been quite minimal too - Abkhazia and Ossetia in Georgia are small regions right next to Russia which are populated by non-Georgians, Syria was an ally where Russia had existing military infrastructure, and Russia only intervened in a slow-moving way that works with the existing Syrian state and didn't try to reconquer the entire country in one go. Oh and Kazakhstan, where the intervention reinforced an existing authoritarian structure, came to an end in a matter of days, and ensured the already long-standing succession of Tokayev from Nazarbayev. 

I don't think I've actually denied that Russia is land-grabbing, in fact it's better in my eyes if the intervention has a pragmatic strategic benefit alongside the other motives, that makes it a solid strategic development which maybe morals and human rights and Russian public opinion don't.

[Boro]

"If you don't like being forced to use a different language for government and business you should just leave" is a sentiment I've seen stated in this thread and in another forum - I mean, what would a Donbass Russian reasonably say to that except "cyka blyat idi nahui pidor"?

The same thing that the old guy in sevastopol(? not 100%, its been a long time since I watched it) said when they rebelled against the maidan coup.

"We'll show these fascists and their judeo-masonic masters their place."

I personally hope that my home country, Hungary, will take advantage of the situation and after all the shit the kievan nazis and their govt did to the hungarians in Transcarpathia, at least force them to give our people autonomy. If not, Transcarpathia should be annexed.

[Miguelito]

And as part of the ensuing sanctions can the EU trade Selenskyj for Orbán? I mean I can imagine better bargains, but also worse ones...

[Ginger()]

And as part of the ensuing sanctions can the EU trade Selenskyj for Orbán? I mean I can imagine better bargains,  but also worse ones...

If we’re swapping leaders like club football players, can the US please buy a contract with Merkel, now that she retired?

[darrelljs]

Should the US intervene anywhere there are oppressive dictatorships?

I've concluded "no, never". The odds of improving the situation just seem too low given the cost is always high. I supported defending Kuwait against Iraq, but would not Ukraine against Russia (or Taiwan against China) simply because the cost we'd bear is regrettably too great.

Interestingly one of my managers is Russian heritage from Kiev. None of her relatives feel Russia is swooping in to save them from oppression, rather that all the trouble has been instigated *by* Russia and left alone they get along just fine with native Ukrainians. Just one person speaking about one family, but interesting nonetheless.

Darrell

[darrelljs]

And as part of the ensuing sanctions can the EU trade Selenskyj for Orbán? I mean I can imagine better bargains,  but also worse ones...

If we’re swapping leaders like club football players, can the US please buy a contract with Merkel, now that she retired?

She's got my vote.  My favorite 21st century leader, although I wonder if Obama had been in charge of Germany over the same time span and she had to deal with Mitch McConnell who would come out better.

Darrell

[Mjmd]

I can agree with a lot of that post actually.

But I will say that this intervention is almost the absolute minimum intervention a state could do, short of never making any interventions at all.
It's an intervention that's right next door, in only a segment of a neighbouring country, in an area populated by the majority ethnic group of the intervening country, with the intent to integrate them into an existing state (Russia).
Compare that point by point with say Afghanistan - landlocked country as far away as it's possible to be from the US, completely different culture, intending to create a liberal democracy practically out of whole cloth.

Russia's other interventions have been quite minimal too - Abkhazia and Ossetia in Georgia are small regions right next to Russia which are populated by non-Georgians, Syria was an ally where Russia had existing military infrastructure, and Russia only intervened in a slow-moving way that works with the existing Syrian state and didn't try to reconquer the entire country in one go. Oh and Kazakhstan, where the intervention reinforced an existing authoritarian structure, came to an end in a matter of days, and ensured the already long-standing succession of Tokayev from Nazarbayev. 

I don't think I've actually denied that Russia is land-grabbing, in fact it's better in my eyes if the intervention has a pragmatic strategic benefit alongside the other motives, that makes it a solid strategic development which maybe morals and human rights and Russian public opinion don't.

Lets see here, their group they supported during the Georgian war broke the cease fire and Russian troops were waiting for the Georgians to respond (sounds familiar). The group the Russians supported supposedly committed an ethnic cleaning among other civil rights violations. Also, resulted in a large number of displaced.

Syria they backed a brutal dictator. That one literally all groups have been accused of massacres and civil rights violations (including the US backed coalition).

Tokayev seems a middle of the road for a normal dictator. On one hand some reforms and has worked for nuclear non proliferation. On the other some human rights abuses and allegations of corruption. Again, quick glance I would rate maybe even above average authoritarian leader. I'll give you this one is probably better than a civil war, which certainly would have just ended in another dictator anyways.

I was honestly pretty surprised at your last statement as it was farther than I thought I would ever get! I will note, that Russian messaging has mainly been focused on "this land should be mine because of x" from what I can tell.

This youtube clip has been in my head recently for some odd reason. Just think of all the wars, all the "justifications". All the suffering and death.

Courtesy of Ginger in my PB62 thread