Politics

Void · 2025-03-23 20:28:03

Robert,

Lincons primary job was to keep the republic safe, against potential or real enemies.

Slavery at that time was becoming viewed by many as a bad thing but it was mostly accepted around the world. Black Africans made huge money selling other Africans into slavery. If you were male and were sold into Muslim countries, you would most likely be castrated.

If Lincon protected slavery, it was a glass half full, as significant parts of the republic had prohibitions on slavery. The primary task was to keep the republic safe.

And despite propaganda, it was a fight between the federal government and rebellious regions of the country. In fact, they did not have a right to seize federal property such as military bases.

It was not a war of the north against the south. Some northern people went to the south, called wood ticks, I believe, and the reverse also occurred.

Many people of the North disliked slavery, because it was an unfair labor competition. It would allow rich plantation owners, to get all the good land, leaving nothing for family farmers. Both in Europe and the USA there were people who disliked slavery for various reasons.

In the south, if there was back-breaking labor to do, the plantation owners would hire "White Trash" to do it as they did not want to damage their property, slaves. The poor white person damaging their back or something else was welcome to go away and die in pain.

In part because the British and French were teetering in the valley of decision, the federal government decided to seize the plantation owner's slaves as property, war booty. I believe it was a legal maneuver. Once the federal government had claimed ownership, it could free them at an appropriate time. But that did not indicate that they intended to make them citizens. I guess they became citizens later because it was impractical to do anything else with them.

Brazil for instance kept their slaves longer, and parts of Africa are rumored to still have some slavery. And of course, we even catch people abusing other people like that in our country today. Psychos, and sometimes people imported from other parts of the world do that.

For those thinking they are to have reparations, I would suggest they go to sub-Saharan Africa, first and demand them. Then if they still live they can go to the Arabs and demand repatriations.

They don't disserve them anyway. Freedom was a gift granted by our government, after it seized their ancestors as property. War booty.

Ending Pending

As it happens the Russians could be useful to us at this point, and maybe they will be or not. We will find out. We can certainly be useful to them if they want to play it that way.

Life is down and dirty sometimes, it cannot be helped.

What the Russians are objecting to is reasonable, in Ukraine. During the Cuban missile crisis, they put missiles into Cuba, because we had missiles in Turkey threatening them. Our people generally don't know it, but the missiles in Cuba were removed on the condition that we remove the ones in Turkey.

The Russians were promised that Nato would not expand into Eastern Europe but expand it did.
Crimea was an essential naval base for them. It had aways belonged to Russia but was awarded to Ukraine before the breakup of Soviet Union. Russia was willing to rent bases from Ukraine but then the west did a coup to place a government in hostile to Russia.

As far as the other regions they have occupied, they were dominantly Russian in culture and the Ukrainians were oppressing them very badly, so Russia did what it has done.

Europe is not Europe. It is just part of Europe. Just because there is a Europe, the EU does not get to claim all parts of it as a possession. As for NATO, it is not intended at all for expanding the EU into the rest of Europe. Article 5 as I understand it is protective in nature, where a foreign power might attack a member. There is no license to kick a bear in the ass and lead it to war to the USA. We rightfully refuse that obligation.

Ending Pending

Knowing history and how Italy, Germany, and even for a time Russia could seek to reorder Europe and the world, I am very tempted to suppose that some actors in Europe and China, might like to see the USA and Russian wreck each other. A very dangerous gamble on their part, but some dummies might think they could make it work. Then possibly China is in Siberia, and North America is wrecked. Such a China might roll over North America under those conditions.

Better thinking is needed. Not simple minded thinking.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-03-23 20:56:45)

RobertDyck · 2025-03-23 23:08:14

kbd512 wrote:

COVID was a preview of things to come.

Yes, China would like to do that to the world permanently.

However, allowing Russia to conquer the world is not an option either. Pandering to Putin is inviting World War 3. Not exaggerating. Look at what happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed a non-aggression pact with Adolf Hitler. Europe let Nazi Germany take Czechoslovakia. What the Nazis did was use the weapons of the Czechs, use the military industry to manufacture more weapons, force-conscripted Czech citizens into the Nazi army, then invaded Poland. In 2022, prior to the full-scale invasion of February 24, 2022, Russian force-conscripted Ukrainian citizens in the occupied areas. They were given minimal weapons, no armour, and sent to attack the Ukrainian army. The untrained civilians fighting for Russia were treated as expendable meat, and were killed. As far as Russia was concerned, this was Ukrainians fighting Ukrainians. Russia wants to exterminate Ukrainians, genocide. Once they capture all of Ukraine, they will force-conscript all males age 15-65 who don't have a Russian passport, and those who do have a Russian passport but work in a job Russia does not consider vital infrastructure. Those are the people the force-conscripted before, but this time across all Ukraine. Then they'll invade Poland, and and the Baltic States (Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia). They'll also invade and annex Moldova. They'll take a strip of Romania between Moldova and the Carpathian mountains. They'll take Finland. And they want East Germany including Berlin.

All those countries other than Ukraine and Moldova are member of NATO. This means all-out war between Russia and NATO. Russia has nukes, but so does UK and France. Invasion of a NATO country means NATO troops will invade Moscow. NATO won't use a nuke first, but if Russia uses a nuke on any NATO country, expect retaliation. Russian pundits on a Russian TV political show hosted by Soloviov have already called for carpet bombing UK with nukes. UK has 4 nuclear submarines armed with Trident missiles. The submarines and the nuclear warheads are designed and built in UK. Those submarines have a total of 120 warheads, and UK has ensured all are 100% on station right now. Those submarines have orders that if UK is wiped out, to retaliate against Russia with everything they have. UK has a total of 225 nuclear warheads. France also has nukes. The way we prevent WW3 is to ensure Russia loses in Ukraine.

RobertDyck · Yesterday 01:04:07

Void wrote:

The Russians were promised that Nato would not expand into Eastern Europe but expand it did.

No one ever gave any such promise. That is Russian propaganda. When the Germanys reunited, an American negotiator promised no nuclear weapons on East German soil, and no new NATO bases on East German soil. That was all. Just East Germany. There never was any promise that NATO would not expand.

And NATO didn't "expand". That assumes east European countries do not have free will. They're not vassal states, they're independent with free will. They asked NATO to join because they needed protection from Russia.

Void wrote:

Crimea was an essential naval base for them. It had aways belonged to Russia but was awarded to Ukraine before the breakup of Soviet Union.

Not true. Russia under Catherine II (Catherine The Great) invaded Ukraine in 1764–1781, annexed East Ukraine. In 1853-1856 Russia invaded Crimea. At that time, Crimea was a client state of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). Russia took it from the Ottomans, built naval bases. Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. But Europe said no more wars. That means no one can take any land from any European country. Borders are inviolate. Ukraine kept Crimea when they gained independence in 1991. Crimea did not "always" belong to Russia. It did briefly, but most importantly they can't take it by military force.

Void wrote:

As far as the other regions they have occupied, they were dominantly Russian in culture and the Ukrainians were oppressing them very badly, so Russia did what it has done.

The southwestern states of the US are Latin in culture, and used to belong to Mexico. Does that mean they rightfully belong to Mexico? The northern half of the state of Maine is Canadian in culture, and used to belong to Canada. Does that mean Canada can take it? In the 1800 the colony of British Columbia had a dispute with Russia. BC claimed the pacific coast including what is now the Alaska panhandle. Rather than going to war, they thought they had a deal that Russia would sell it to BC. But in 1867, just months after Canada became a country, Russia sold Alaska to USA. BC was irate! Russia cannot sell something that was not theirs! BC was not part of Canada at that time, it was still a colony of Britain, so Britain negotiated the border with the US. Britain didn't even dispute the coast, they only disputed how far inland. Britain claimed a certain distance, the US claimed deeper, they compromised half way. BC was irate that they did this! BC considered the entire panhandle to be theirs. And Britain didn't even try to get it back! So BC decided to join Canada, so Britain can never negotiate anything on their behalf again. Does this mean the Alaska panhandle is rightfully Canadian?

Void wrote:

Europe is not Europe. It is just part of Europe. Just because there is a Europe, the EU does not get to claim all parts of it as a possession. As for NATO, it is not intended at all for expanding the EU into the rest of Europe. Article 5 as I understand it is protective in nature, where a foreign power might attack a member. There is no license to kick a bear in the ass and lead it to war to the USA. We rightfully refuse that obligation.

This again sounds Russian. Europe has thousands of years of war. Since the invention of writing, and who knows what happened before. One country takes land from it's neighbour. That neighbour gains strength, takes the land back. Borders constantly changed, back and forth. With every war, many people died. World War 1 was the first industrial war, millions died. Estimates of dead was 11 million, but with records from Russia released by Boris Yeltsin while he was President, and modern archaeology, the estimate has risen to 40 million, including both military and civilian deaths on both sides. Leaders after WW1 said this must never happen again, so created the League of Nations. It failed. WW2 resulted in more deaths. The estimate was 55 million dead, but modern records indicate it's something higher. That can't be allowed to happen again. So the United Nations was created. The UN was supposed to prevent war by engaging all the militaries of the world in a united response to any aggressor. That hasn't worked, because aggressors themselves veto UN response. NATO is required to protect Europe. Europe has a particular history, and war must stop!!! It can't stop as long as anyone attempts to use military force to take land. Europe would like to apply that rule to the whole world, but can't. So they focus on their own backyard.

Ukraine is not, and never has been part of Russia. Russia occupied it by military force. While Russia occupied it, Russia used various ways to abuse the locals, steal their resources, steal their money, and try to wipe them out. The same for all of eastern Europe. They cannot allow Russia to rule them ever again. With Ukraine, the Russian army stole so much food they created an artificial famine that killed millions of people: Holodomor 1932/'33. Official numbers were 10 million dead. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, estimates increased to 30 million dead. Now Russia is trying to claim "only" 7 million died. Only. As if that makes it alright. In Estonia, Russia shipped citizens to gulags in Siberia. From the beginning of World War 2 until breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, population of Estonians in Estonia dropped in half. Russia tried to replace them with Russians. For these people, rule by Russia is just not an option. For them, the only options are win or die. And that's not being stubborn, because they know if Russia wins, Russia will kill them.

The United States has tried to stay out of European wars before. World War 1 was 1914-1919, but the US didn't join until 1917. The Lusitania was a passenger ocean liner, before aircraft were able to cross an ocean. It was sunk by a German submarine. Most of the passengers were UK or Canadian, but 148 were American, including some very prominent citizens. Then Germany sent a telegram to Mexico encouraging them to invade the US. Mexico didn't even respond, just sent a diplomat with a copy of the telegram to the US. The US had already intercepted it. When the US learned Germany tried this, the US joined the war. World War 2 was 1939-1945, but the US didn't join until 1942. Not until after Pearl Harbor. Germany developed V2 rockets to attack London, but they had plans for a 2 stage ICBM to attack the US. Nazi Germans did have a program to develop a nuclear bomb, but the British RAF bombed the German research facility flat so many times they couldn't make significant progress.

Look, I agree with staying out of Middle East wars. But Europe is critical to the US, and the US always gets dragged into every major European war. If ballistic missiles with strategic nuclear warheads start flying, don't think the US can stay out of it. Wind does not respect national borders; radiation blown on the wind will affect you.

kbd512 · Yesterday 09:04:06

RobertDyck,

No one ever gave any such promise. That is Russian propaganda. When the Germanys reunited, an American negotiator promised no nuclear weapons on East German soil, and no new NATO bases on East German soil. That was all. Just East Germany. There never was any promise that NATO would not expand.

The Russians were given a promise of no eastward expansion of NATO, and I posted the link to all the relevant documentation, in this very thread, detailing the statements and notes made by all relevant western global leaders at the time the Soviet Union was dissolved. You are the one repeating propaganda here.

Calliban · Yesterday 09:33:04

There needs to be a negotiated peace in Ukraine. The country's infrastructure and demographics are shattered. There is no hope whatever for Ukraine to reclaim conquered territories by force. They just don't have the manpower to do it. If fighting continues, the Russians will ultimately crush them through weight of numbers. But it will cost them dearly in lives, and their own demographics point to an ageing and shrinking population. So there is certainly hope for a negotiated peace that will save Ukraine as a nation. Unfortunately, Zelensky isn't interested. That was made abundantly clear to the whole world during his visit to the white house. Then again, it isn't his people that are dying every day in this war. His people are in Isreal. So I wonder how much he really cares about Ukrainian bodies?

Russia's declining population makes their imperialism, whatever its motives, a short term problem. Very soon, their manpower resources will be insufficient to launch pre-emptive wars. The Ukraine war is likely the last such war they will be capable of launching. The idea that Russia is looking to do what Nazi Germany did in Eastern Europe doesn't hold much credibility. This is a country that has to rely on North Korean conscripts and Iranian moped drones. They are technologically backward and have always relied on strength of numbers to win conflicts. As their population shrinks, even that historical advantage is going away.

Last edited by Calliban (Yesterday 09:46:47)

kbd512 · Yesterday 09:45:29

There's a lot of tough talk from European leadership. That is fine, so long as it results in concrete military action. If it does not, then Ukraine's negotiating position with Russia will steadily worsen to the point that Russia won't negotiate a settlement with Ukraine. The nation of Ukraine, as Calliban already noted, is a destroyed remnant of its former self. It will take decades to rebuild what the fighting destroyed. The longer this insanity goes on, the fewer Ukrainians will remain in Ukraine. I don't want any Russians in Ukraine, but that ship has sailed. NATO had every opportunity to cut this nonsense out, but feckless leadership on our part led to Ukraine's demise as a functional nation-state.

I do not agree with any part of what Russia has done to Ukraine, but that won't bring all those dead young men back to life, nor will it rebuild all the destroyed infrastructure. It's time to stop the killing while there's still some young Ukrainian men and women left. It was a mistake to think that Russia would let this go, and an even greater mistake to renege on our promises when the Cold War ended. We had a golden opportunity to integrate Russia into Europe, and we blew it. I'm sick of ideologically motivated old men sacrificing the lives of young men and women for their broken dreams.

The Soviet Union is gone. Much of Ukraine is now gone. It's never coming back. The old men need to accept that and find something more productive to do with their time.

Void · Yesterday 09:47:25

Since kdb512 covered one item, I will deal with some others.

NATO basically took Kosovo from Serbia, breaking the "Never change borders" notion. And it was for very similar reasons. Just as the Russians claim that the west Ukrainians were persecuting the Eastern people, it was claimed that the Serbians were persecuting the Kosovars, if that is what they are called.

As for Alaska, that is sort of an outside item.

I was aware that the British had favored the USA in arbitration. I certainly cannot know the motives of the arbitrators, as they may likely be dead and from another era, and continent.

I speculate that they were looking at two future possibilities.
1) Canada is attacked by the USA. In that case they might be in a bad spot, so I am guessing they wanted to avoid that. Keeping the Canadian claim would not have helped to protect Canada.
2) They feared a future conflict with a Eurasian entity. Strategically, keeping only a "Peek-A-Boo" coast on the pacific would make it likely that the Americans would become involved on the side of Canada/British. In north BC, the mountains, would be protective of a Canada/British position, and a Eurasian enemy would almost have to wade through the Americans to get there. The case where America would be allied with a Eurasian invader is very unlikely, I think. A case where America stood neutral while a Eurasian invader breached the continent, is also unlikely, but if it did happen, as I have said, the forces of Canada/British would only have to protect a relatively small but useful position on the Pacific coastline.

Should I feel bad as an America that the British favored us? I don't think I will. The idea anyway was to keep western Canada subordinated to the hard position of East Canada. The British got what they wanted, and it may even have been the desire of the high powers in East Canada. That I cannot know.

The whole issue of Ukraine stinks because Ukraine is at a crossroad between worlds.

The Green Throne is West Europe. The Orange Throne has Russia at its core. The Purple Throne has Turkey sort of at its core. These are all large power that ebb and flow at each other. If the conflict in Ukraine were simply a family feud, we could let them settle it themselves. But these power centers all have an interest. A massive "Glorius" war will not end in anything except piles of rotting flesh, and terrible lives and ending of lives. And it is even harder for America to see why it should want to be involved in such a thing. This is not the time of the turning of the wheel of time for that. The sensible thing to do is to try to put out the fire, and indeed, good fences that each power may be satisfied with.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Yesterday 10:06:36)

Calliban · Today 09:50:53

As America embraces a new age of freedom, the Online Safety Act, passed by the UK's communist, Labour government, pushes the UK further down the path of censorship and oppression.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bri … licing-law

Leftwing movements always end up being censorous and totalitarian. This is because they are full of people who are dogedly attached to ideologies. But the ideas and concepts that they hold dear, tend not to do well on their own merits in the real world. They depend upon people not asking difficult questions and not talking about failures and obvious contradictions. So intellectual oppression becomes more and more necessary as leftwing social projects unfold.

It is this more than anything else, that turned me against leftwing politics in the UK before I was even out of my teens. I don't care how important pet political projects are to the people that believe in them. If a movement has to imprison or murder people for openly criticising bad ideas, then it clearly is not a force for good in any way. Leftwing people always seem to be bad people as well. Emotionally insecure. Spiteful. Unable to share a room with people that don't agree with them. I could see this from quite an early age because I was surrounded by these people. Even as an adolescent, it was clear to me that they were not people that shoukd be allowed anywhere near power. They were obsessed with control and viewed personal liberty as a problem that stood in the way of their reworking society. These movements always promote their authoritarianism as measures designed to protect people. But this is always the opposite of what they are trying to do. Leftwing movements are basically evil. They put cherished ideas above people and always leave a trail of broken lives in their wake.

Last edited by Calliban (Today 09:56:24)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#2826 2025-03-23 20:28:03

Re: Politics

#2827 2025-03-23 23:08:14

Re: Politics

#2828 Yesterday 01:04:07

Re: Politics

#2829 Yesterday 09:04:06

Re: Politics

#2830 Yesterday 09:33:04

Re: Politics

#2831 Yesterday 09:45:29

Re: Politics

#2832 Yesterday 09:47:25

Re: Politics

#2833 Today 09:50:53

Re: Politics

Board footer