• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Stop rooting for war and mind your own life

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,660
7,735
126
Russia has a substantial vested interest in Crimea with its Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol. This is not our fight.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,660
7,735
126
War is good. We live in a world fun of hateful, destructive, corrupt people. Without war these people take over the world and shape to what benefits them. America is foolish to ever think otherwise. Our children will now pay for our pathetic politicians.
This argument only applies when you're fighting on the side of freedom. What America would be foolish to think is that that's what we always do.
In this case, we don't even have a dog in this fight.
 

OBLAMA2009

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2008
6,577
3
0
Russia has a substantial vested interest in Crimea with its Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol. This is not our fight.
what america wants is to create a us aligned country on russias border and so it helped overthrow the elected government to do so. russia doesnt want that just like we wouldnt want china overthrowing the canadian gov in order to install a pro-china regime. they have legitimate military, economic and ethnic concerns and the us gov needs to stay out of that situation and esp. keep our country out of any type of war. and quit doing provocative things like shipping arms, training terrrorists, imposing economic sanctions, having clowns like kerry making provocative speechs etc...simply not assuaging to u.s. demands and interests is not a violation of international law or human rights, jeez. this whole situation shows how important it is to have a balance of power in the world, you cant have one country like the u.s. bullying every other country on the planet, instituting sanctions, indicting leaders of other countries, etc...thats ridiculous
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,525
42
86
simply not assuaging to u.s. demands and interests is not a violation of international law or human rights, jeez. this whole situation shows how important it is to have a balance of power in the world, you cant have one country like the u.s. bullying every other country on the planet, instituting sanctions, indicting leaders of other countries, etc...thats ridiculous
Who are you, seriously?

I, for one, welcome other countries to be more involved in global politics, you can see it stated in many of my posts. I want Canada more involved. I want England more involved. Germany, France, Japan, Australia more involved in a proactive way.

But the current governments of China & Russia don't get to have the same level of influence as the U.S. Most of the governments & leaders the U.S. has "bullied" as you so kindly put it, don't deserve a lick of respect.

Russia invades Ukraine and attempts to annex part of their country into their own, and the U.S. is the bully? Seriously? It's not always a nice world out there, someone has to take on the responsibility to clean it up. If you don't like the method, then advocate for another country (not China or Russia) to take over the task. Don't just spew words without any actual substance to them because it makes you feel giggly inside when writing them.
 
Last edited:

AViking

Platinum Member
Sep 12, 2013
2,264
1
0
Nobody is saying that Russia is in the right here. Nobody but RT and crazy people. The point is that the USA has lost the moral high ground. We are hypocrites and quite frankly us crossing the Atlantic to get militarily involved in European affairs, after the last couple decades of us destabilizing countries and regions with no good planning, is not in anyones best interests over here.

If the USA wants to impress me on this issue then the Obama administration should be able to form a unified front with respect to sanctions and completely shutting down the Russian economy.

What the US needs is leaders capable of leading. George W Bush, Cheney, Obama, Biden, Mitt Romney, Kerry, Edwards, McCain, Palin, etc are all a giant joke as far as possessing actual leadership skills when it counts.
 

Sulaco

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2003
3,821
6
81
Really? Last I checked that's exactly what the US did.
Then you should really stop posting on Internet forums and educate yourself on the definition of "annex" before you make a bigger fool of yourself than you already have.
 

AViking

Platinum Member
Sep 12, 2013
2,264
1
0
Being a stickler about the US not "annexing" anyone is really detracting from the whole point which is that the US has illegally invaded and killed millions of people for "their interests". We gave the world the finger just like Russia is today.
 

Sulaco

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2003
3,821
6
81
Being a stickler about the US not "annexing" anyone is really detracting from the whole point which is that the US has illegally invaded and killed millions of people for "their interests". We gave the world the finger just like Russia is today.
It's not "detracting" from anything. It's simply not what happened. It's no excuse to abuse the language and relish ignorance of the word.

You can despise the Iraq war as many folks do, and rightly so, but that's not carte blanche for ignorance of basic vocabulary.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,204
126
So for the pro war people, how many millions of American lives are worth losing to wage a war with Russia? How many of your children are you willing to lost to starvation? Will you wave a flag while dying from radiation poisoning?

Only a fool courts an apocalypse for something like what we have going on now.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,525
42
86
Nobody is saying that Russia is in the right here. Nobody but RT and crazy people. The point is that the USA has lost the moral high ground. We are hypocrites and quite frankly us crossing the Atlantic to get militarily involved in European affairs, after the last couple decades of us destabilizing countries and regions with no good planning, is not in anyones best interests over here.
Iraq is usually the focus in these discussions. I don't think allowing Saddam to continue his reign over the country, after the Iran/Iraq war with chemical weapons (it was a shame we were aligned with Saddam against Iran), and the genocide against the Kurds, the posturing of having WMD's, gives anyone the moral high-ground in turning their heads and ignore the situation there.

The plan always was to remove Saddam from power, and have the fighting stop then. Other groups then took that opportunity to continue fighting against the U.S. We could have pulled out, gone home, and left the country in a violent mess. Some can claim the U.S. stayed to secure more oil money, but we also stayed there to try and leave Iraq with a peaceful government working for its citizens rather than against.

The moral high ground argument was used a lot throughout the region by people and groups who wanted to further destabilize the region for their own power gain. The moral high ground argument helps Iran send significant missile shipments to Palestine (as appears to be was the case couple days ago). Certainly Palestine deserves nuclear weapons because Israel has them, correct? The moral high ground argument is being used by Russia now to allow itself to annex Crimea without significant opposition from the citizens in the region.

I do believe that over time, and with positive pressure, guidance, and participation from other countries, the U.S. will do the right thing in the long run. When allies supply such negative pressure, countries like Russia gain influence and power.

If the USA wants to impress me on this issue then the Obama administration should be able to form a unified front with respect to sanctions and completely shutting down the Russian economy.
Sanctions hurt the commoners far more than it hurts the ruling class. We've had sanctions against Cuba since like forever and it hasn't done anything to alter the ruling class. Sanctions against North Korea, Iran...

What the US needs is leaders capable of leading. George W Bush, Cheney, Obama, Biden, Mitt Romney, Kerry, Edwards, McCain, Palin, etc are all a giant joke as far as possessing actual leadership skills when it counts.
It's all relative, and sometimes you have to make do with what you have. The U.S. is too big of a country for a single person to take charge and not be subject to a multitude of competing interests.






I think my bottom line really is, rather than directing disgust towards the U.S., I believe it is more productive, and more beneficial, to redirect it and instead advocate for Sweden to do a better job of bettering conditions for the commoners of troubled areas.
 
Last edited:

AViking

Platinum Member
Sep 12, 2013
2,264
1
0
Interesting, and feels out of place, piece at cnn:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/07/opinion/putin-western-hypocrosy/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

As far as Iraq you're spouting rhetoric from years past. Reality at the time of our attacks was that we had demanded weapon inspectors, they were in the country, and the US then attacked anyways since the weapons inspectors weren't producing the results George W Bush wanted. He then went on to try to find weapons after the fact but that obviously failed. We didn't attack because of the Kurd attacks. Those took place in 1988 and we attacked in 2003. The Iran-Iraq War was between 1980-1988. Iraqis posturing about having WMD? Saddam insisted that he didn't have them. The justification was that since he had lied about not having them before then it made sense that he would continue to lie about them forever. The USA was unable to do any kind of real intelligence work since every analysis they made and every decision they made was based upon the ASSUMPTION that Iraq was lying and had weapons of mass destruction. In other words: Our intelligence assumed he was guilty no matter. If he said he didn't have any WMD then he was lying. If we couldn't find them then they were hiding them. It was poor intelligence work and cost the USA dearly.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
5,915
1,206
136
Interesting, and feels out of place, piece at cnn:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/07/opinion/putin-western-hypocrosy/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

As far as Iraq you're spouting rhetoric from years past. Reality at the time of our attacks was that we had demanded weapon inspectors, they were in the country, and the US then attacked anyways since the weapons inspectors weren't producing the results George W Bush wanted. He then went on to try to find weapons after the fact but that obviously failed. We didn't attack because of the Kurd attacks. Those took place in 1988 and we attacked in 2003. The Iran-Iraq War was between 1980-1988. Iraqis posturing about having WMD? Saddam insisted that he didn't have them. The justification was that since he had lied about not having them before then it made sense that he would continue to lie about them forever. The USA was unable to do any kind of real intelligence work since every analysis they made and every decision they made was based upon the ASSUMPTION that Iraq was lying and had weapons of mass destruction. In other words: Our intelligence assumed he was guilty no matter. If he said he didn't have any WMD then he was lying. If we couldn't find them then they were hiding them. It was poor intelligence work and cost the USA dearly.
It feels out of place because it's a reprint from The Guardian. I am surprised however that it made its way to CNN at all. According to the comments it was on the front page for a few minutes before it was pulled down... :rolleyes:
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,204
126
Interesting, and feels out of place, piece at cnn:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/07/opinion/putin-western-hypocrosy/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

As far as Iraq you're spouting rhetoric from years past. Reality at the time of our attacks was that we had demanded weapon inspectors, they were in the country, and the US then attacked anyways since the weapons inspectors weren't producing the results George W Bush wanted. He then went on to try to find weapons after the fact but that obviously failed. We didn't attack because of the Kurd attacks. Those took place in 1988 and we attacked in 2003. The Iran-Iraq War was between 1980-1988. Iraqis posturing about having WMD? Saddam insisted that he didn't have them. The justification was that since he had lied about not having them before then it made sense that he would continue to lie about them forever. The USA was unable to do any kind of real intelligence work since every analysis they made and every decision they made was based upon the ASSUMPTION that Iraq was lying and had weapons of mass destruction. In other words: Our intelligence assumed he was guilty no matter. If he said he didn't have any WMD then he was lying. If we couldn't find them then they were hiding them. It was poor intelligence work and cost the USA dearly.

US intelligence gave the result it was tasked to do. Make no mistake, this wasn't "poor". The structure of the various agencies was changed to make them more accountable to the President, and there were various purges of analysts who didn't "get with the program".

This was a political misuse of the agencies for an agenda. "'Don't like it? Well get lost" was the administrations response.

FWIW this administration isn't a whole lot better at defining reality by agenda. Kerry has already played the hypocrite. This doesn't mean Russia is legitimate, but there's no reason to listen to our leaders wailing on and on about it.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,299
349
126
So for the pro war people, how many millions of American lives are worth losing to wage a war with Russia? How many of your children are you willing to lost to starvation? Will you wave a flag while dying from radiation poisoning?

Only a fool courts an apocalypse for something like what we have going on now.
I'd say at least 3 times the number of unemployed. It would be very good for the economy.

War has always been great for the middle and lower classes because of the shear number of lives lost. These current wars of Iraq and Afghanistan have very low body counts thus not benefiting the American people as a whole economically speaking. In order to really see a successful war with Russia I'm thinking somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 million. This also implies civilian casualties so there would need to be an invasion on American soil, hopefully China teams up with Russia in order to get the desired casualties.

That number may seem shocking but Russia during WW2 lost somewhere around 30 million with approximately half the population that the USA has. Germany lost about 10% of its population which is more the number I'd be shooting for if I was concerned about the economic well-being of the USA.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
I'd say at least 3 times the number of unemployed. It would be very good for the economy.

War has always been great for the middle and lower classes because of the shear number of lives lost. These current wars of Iraq and Afghanistan have very low body counts thus not benefiting the American people as a whole economically speaking. In order to really see a successful war with Russia I'm thinking somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 million. This also implies civilian casualties so there would need to be an invasion on American soil, hopefully China teams up with Russia in order to get the desired casualties.

That number may seem shocking but Russia during WW2 lost somewhere around 30 million with approximately half the population that the USA has. Germany lost about 10% of its population which is more the number I'd be shooting for if I was concerned about the economic well-being of the USA.
What's scary is that this really is how the oligarchs view the world. We should go invade Iraq! We should get involved in Vietnam! Think of how much money I can make from every dead American!
 

OBLAMA2009

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2008
6,577
3
0
What's scary is that this really is how the oligarchs view the world. We should go invade Iraq! We should get involved in Vietnam! Think of how much money I can make from every dead American!
its mind boggling why more people dont see it that way. its like, what reason do you, stupid-american-who-would-otherwise-be-working-at-mcdonalds, have for going to iraq or afghanistan and killing a bunch of people and getting ptsd and losing limbs. and why arent all the unemployed idiots of which there are apparently a lot, out in the streets protesting the amount being spent on wars and on assistance to places like ukraine, when it is needed here
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
11,836
140
106
You are correct on all terms, unfortunately the majority of people here are sadist, and feel like they are experts on politics because they watch the news at 6.

Majority of people don't look at history, they don't read up behind the scenes, heck the majority of people don't know anything other than what the news told them.

Its sad because this is how the media controls the "dummies" they tell you what they want, and they know in the end 99% of the people will believe it instantly without questioning it. You got your patriots who agree with their country no matter what the situation entails. You got your left, and right wingers....a bunch of brain dead idiots who side themselves with certain political parties. And then you got the other people who don't want to accept the fact that there is more than meets the eye.

Oh well, people will still root for war, root for foreign policies that benefit one side, root for imperialism and believe anything they hear. Nothing new, even the educated people fall prey to this kind of stupidity.
This seems to be the way of the world. We want to fix the external elements when the real problem is we, ourselves. Of course, that requires a lot of effort. It's much easier to follow the liberal or conservative ideologies. I think with more education is coming more conditioning of the human being, unfortunately. It was supposed to be the other way around in that it was meant to enlighten him but it's likely enslaving him to his own conditioning.

Just look at this thread. It's devolved into something discussing geo-political problems of Russia and Ukraine and whatnot. Something that we're theorizing rather than dealing with the issues of human violence, which is actually real. America, Russia, and all these countries spending trillions of dollars to annihilate each other. Yet they talk about "God." Yeah, right.
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
11,836
140
106
its mind boggling why more people dont see it that way. its like, what reason do you, stupid-american-who-would-otherwise-be-working-at-mcdonalds, have for going to iraq or afghanistan and killing a bunch of people and getting ptsd and losing limbs. and why arent all the unemployed idiots of which there are apparently a lot, out in the streets protesting the amount being spent on wars and on assistance to places like ukraine, when it is needed here
They are so conditioned that anything different is viewed as a threat to them. I am also conditioned so I am not above this level of thinking. Our society likes to brainwash people.

When you're taught as a youngster to worship the flag, worship the country, to "pledge allegiance" and to think of other people are competitors, how else would you view things? People wrap themselves in their little flags and support wars and violence. They have a certain image of Iraqis or anyone else that's based on what they've heard or what they believe might be true. They might believe, not on reality at all, that they are the "bad guys."

It takes a person of a certain mindset to question his/her beliefs. Unfortunately, a very, very small percentage of the world's population fall into this category.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,299
349
126
What's scary is that this really is how the oligarchs view the world. We should go invade Iraq! We should get involved in Vietnam! Think of how much money I can make from every dead American!
This is the way the world needs to be viewed. A world war with about 100m casualties would help the rest of the world out. It's like pulling straws to decide who gets to live a better life at the expense of a SMALL MINORITY!

Imagine if we could have the 50s, 60s, and 70s in terms of economic prosperity again and all we had to do was instigate another world war. The 2000s were a true bubble, but in those times it was a workforce smaller than the demand for work. It's simple economics, our workforce is too large and everybody but the elite are paying for it.

We need war, and we need it now.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
I seriously doubt any US mercs are in the Ukraine.

IMO, that move would be entirely uncharacteristic of Obama. I can't see any EU leader supporting that either.

I also can't see the Ukrainian govt supporting that. They have been remarkably disciplined in avoiding any conflict in order to avoid escalating tensions etc.

Fern
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
14,972
2,269
126
This is the way the world needs to be viewed. A world war with about 100m casualties would help the rest of the world out. It's like pulling straws to decide who gets to live a better life at the expense of a SMALL MINORITY!

Imagine if we could have the 50s, 60s, and 70s in terms of economic prosperity again and all we had to do was instigate another world war. The 2000s were a true bubble, but in those times it was a workforce smaller than the demand for work. It's simple economics, our workforce is too large and everybody but the elite are paying for it.

We need war, and we need it now.

Mass suicide would have the same effect; you wanna be a hero and go first?
:awe:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY