The Trump Presidency

[Schmelzer]

According to the Schmelzer standard even the Vietnam War was legally ok.

I have not looked at the details of the legit status of the Vietnam war, but what would be the point? You can do horrible crimes in legit wars too.

The US, like Russia, has had no problem meeting the Schmelzer standard of "legit" or "legal" for its non-war wars - the standard you used to defend Russia's military operations in Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc, on this forum.

At least in this century they don't even try to meet them. A US which would at least try formally to meet the standards of international law would be less problematic than the actual US.
And don't forget that being legitimate according to international law is on one part of the standard I use. As you can see from my defense of Assad against those gas attack fakes, I don't consider gas attacks as acceptable, but have rejected the claims as obvious fakes. Similarly for the claims made 22 or so times about the last hospital in Aleppo being destroyed.

Russia and China have both been quite happy to start wars since recovering from WWII - no point in confusing incapability with morality. Even more to the point, both of those countries have expanded their territory by military conquest even after they became nuclear powers - the US has not done that.

I'm not aware of USSR territory increased by military conquest after 1949. Given that the first of China's nuclear weapons tests took place in 1964, you cannot have in mind Tibet or the war between China and India that occurred in 1962. The only idea I have is to consider the winner of the USSR-Chinese border conflict (USSR) as 'expanding [its] territory', resp. the China-Vietnam border conflict as China 'expanding [its] territory'. But both are too minor to consider them a reasonable point. So help me what you have in mind here.
The US not having done that is only formally. Kosovo is, essentially, a big US base with some local mafia gang officially ruling the environment. Formally an independent state, LOL.

But as is perfectly clear in Iran, and becomes clear with a bit of curiosity and search into the origins and prosecutions of the many other US military ventures, the domestic origin of most of this warmaking is the very US faction whose representation you abet and whose taking of power you welcome.

That in iceaura's view everything bad is the Reps fault is not interesting for me and not worth to be discussed. The US war which seriously changed my own mind, the Kosovo war, was started by Clinton, and even pro-Western Wiki writes

In 1998, the US State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organisation, and in 1999 the Republican Policy Committee of the US Senate expressed its troubles with the "effective alliance" of the Democratic Clinton administration with the KLA due to "numerous reports from reputable unofficial sources"

so that this does not look like a war prepared by the Reps which Clinton was unable to stop, iceaura's beloved excuse for wars started under Dem presidents.

genocide requires intent to destroy a people. there was none of that.

So, destroying "all buildings capable of affording shelter" is, according to that dude, not genocidal. Buildings capable of affording shelter are, last but not least, only buildings, if there are people inside, that's their own fault.

A one liner claims

there were no one liners.

LOL.

????????? what does that have to do with a cassus belli?

A casus belli not used to declare war is uninteresting.

i never said the us was never the aggressor., i said that the US always had a legit cause for war. you are embaressing yourself here.

If the US was, in this case, the aggressor in October 1989, the reaction of Panama will not give the US a legit cause of war.

i find it more interesting that you don't seem to understand what a cassus belli is.

Once you say so, let's look at the details:

A casus belli involves direct offenses or threats against the nation declaring the war, whereas a casus foederis involves offenses or threats against its ally—usually one bound by a mutual defense pact

Ok, this I have not known. You obviously too, given that supporting some ally against insurgencies was what you have used most of the time.

wikipedia is not biased toward the west. must be great to not have to think and just claim everything against is biased or proganda.

Feel free to believe so. I consider Wiki to be more or less reliable for scientific questions, as long as they have not been politicized. For everything else, it is sufficient to look at what sources are considered and accepted as reliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources That is simply the Western media bubble which is accepted as reliable, so that one can guess that your list is similar. My list of reliable media is quite different.

so you think countries do not have the right to respond to hostile actions against them?

They have the right - say, by diplomatic protests, by symmetrical reactions, and so on. But not with war, and even less with war-like false flag actions. Read the UN charta about how states (UN members) are allowed to respond to various hostile actions against them.

and having a legit cassus belli and a war being moral or ethical are 2 different things.

I know, and I have recognized this point. For me, too. I have made the same point above answering iceaura.

removing a hostile actor is a legit cause for war.

It was in the past. It is no longer for those who have signed the UN charta.

i get that you don't deal with reality and think russia invasions of its neighbors is peaceful but truth matters and the bullshit you spout is not truth.

Nonsense. I defend Russia against popular Western defamations, that's all. That Russian actions in Crimea were morally legitimate too, given the overwhelming support for this by the people living in Crimea is something I don't have to emphasize, because what the people of Crimea think plays no role in Western propaganda.

 

[Tiassa]

This is a quite empty argument. Because voting fraud makes sense only in very special circumstances, and with some organization behind this. What matters is the possibility, not if that possibility has been used in the past. (We can even ignore here that one knows only those cases which have been detected. Those which remained undetected remain unknown.)

At this point you're grasping after straws.

After all, what I said is that we know the affirmable history; and all you need is to keep inventing mysteries.

But we can be clear:

Let's see what this tells us. "Multiple" means how many? Certainly not "all" or "almost all". Because, if this would have been the case, one would write "all" resp. "almost all" instead of "multiple". So there are also multiple states which don't have reliable mail-in elections. Which is already a heavy failure, degrading the US as a whole, once it allows such things, to some banana republic. The link gives nothing better - it lists a lot of measures, but remains silent how many states use these measures. Are the critical swing states among those with reliable or with unreliable mail-in elections? Remains unclear.

No ... no, that's just you not reading the English language well enough:

• "'Multiple' means how many?" — Five; they're noted in the article extract: "In five states—Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington—mail balloting has been the primary method of voting."

• "Because, if this would have been the case, one would write 'all' resp. 'almost all' instead of 'multiple'." — No, that's just you either failing to understand the language or else grasping after a really desperate straw.

• "So there are also multiple states which don't have reliable mail-in elections." — No, that's just you making believe. You actually quoted this part: "An exhaustive investigative journalism analysis of all known voter fraud cases identified only 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud from 2000 to 2012."

• "Which is already a heavy failure, degrading the US as a whole, once it allows such things, to some banana republic." — Yes, yes, we're already aware of your rabid disdain for the United States of America. Still, maybe this wasn't the best time to pull it out, since the setup is you screwing up.

• "The link gives nothing better - it lists a lot of measures, but remains silent how many states use these measures." — We are not surprised that the link fails to satisfy your mysterious standards among which anti-Americanism is one of the scant consistencies.

• "Are the critical swing states among those with reliable or with unreliable mail-in elections? Remains unclear." — No, it does not remain unclear. Please understand the extradordinary discredit you show: Either you, who writes so many words in English, really are so bad with the language, or just that clumsy a troll.​

Moreover, a more general trend about your behavior asserts itself, here: You don't stage any real defense of a source you posted rather lazily, but you did find time to complain and accuse of other sources. It is hardly unfamiliar: Crackpots and trolls alike play at the basic routine of trying to keep an argument active not by affirmatively supporting anything, but accusing against whatever it disdains.

Circling back, remember, there is a question of fallacious standards. It's like saying, "to make my point I should have used a lower standard"; yes, perfection "sets the plank quite high". Recounts are in; we already know the recounts altered some final tallies. Remember, the Trump campaign's three million dollar recount in Wisconsin had the result of paying for an additional 132 votes in Joe Biden's column in one county, and 45 votes for Trump in another. A statewide election I voted in was overturned by recount↗, once upon a time. Compared to how American elections work, the conspiracism, presupposition of suspicion, and confusion—

• "voting fraud makes sense only in very special circumstances, and with some organization behind this"

• "What matters is the possibility ...."

• "'Multiple' means how many? Certainly not 'all' or 'almost all'. Because, if this would have been the case, one would write 'all' resp. 'almost all' instead of 'multiple'. So there are also multiple states which don't have reliable mail-in elections."​

—required to abide your crackpottery is just ridiculous. With nothing better than those arguments?

I mean, really. People around here don't actually believe you're that bad with the language. And for all the effort you spend complaining about Americans and the United States, it does actually get difficult to tell which pretenses of your ignorance about American society are genuine. But we're also aware you represent a cynical sales pitch not entirely foreign to an absurd American context of capitalism, which in its way does seem apropos of finding your place complaining about our society while promoting its most antisocial aspects. It's one of low-hanging jokes↑ of the so-called quantitative analysis, that you purported to attend how the election looks "to the outside world", and provided a report that, between its uncertain word usage and pretesnes of ignorance, could easily have been written by international hand. But that's just a joke compared to the likely, which is a poorly-written, desperately assembled bit of American crackpottery trying too hard to hide inside its words, and more reliant on a not-unfamiliar manner of egotism presuming to outplay the professionals. Another all-too easy joke would be to suggest that analysis was Sciforums-grade crackpottery, but that one isn't really fair, as the report required more effort to create and write than our potsherds generally manage. Still, though, the endnotes are a work of art°.

The bottom line, Schmelzer, is that you're supposed to be smarter than all this. Really. I mean, you posture yourself as such, and are willing to blow entire threads on the pretense. So, sure, we can reasonably accept you're aware of just how ridiculous you're being. You don't defend the analysis you offered in bitter retort↑ because that's all it was, petulant backtalk. Still, you're also supposed to be smart, which means you don't defend the report because you know you can't. And that's not simply some hit about you not being up to the task; you already know you're pushing indefensible fakery. So it's not a question of whether you're up to it, but, rather, why you bothered in the first place.

It's like that other cheap joke↑ about your masters or employers; the idea that you're a paid propagandist is hilarious because you read like a trollfarm washout. You even brought Cold War-era Boris and Natasha clownery:

"Multiple" means how many? Certainly not "all" or "almost all". Because, if this would have been the case, one would write "all" resp. "almost all" instead of "multiple". So there are also multiple states which don't have reliable mail-in elections.

No, seriously, it reads like like a bad American joke about a Russian oaf stereotype. Or, y'know, Count Chocula, but whatever.

As I said↑, there are a lot of American conservatives pitching cynically against history they already know, but there is a limit. As a question of what it takes to keep which tinfoil shiny, those are some well-buffed helmets. Never mind. The point is, you're supposed to be smarter than a Poe's Law joke.
____________________

Notes:

° Ordinarily, I would have said the endnotes are something else, entirely, but it remains unclear whether you would understand what that figure of speech means, or demand precise explication of just what that something else actually is.​

See also:

Vote Integrity. "Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020". vote_pattern_analysis. 24 November 2020. VotePatternAnalysis.Substack.com. 8 December 2020. https://bit.ly/3qfTG8V

Weiser, Wendy R and Harold Ekeh. "The False Narrative of Vote-by-Mail Fraud". The Brennan Center. 10 April 2020. BrennanCenter.org. 8 December 2020. https://bit.ly/2VG3Hhw

 

[iceaura]

I have not looked at the details of the legit status of the Vietnam war, but what would be the point?

None whatsoever - you were posting bullshit, is all.

m. A US which would at least try formally to meet the standards of international law would be less problematic than the actual US.

And yet you backed Trump for the Presidency.

I'm not aware of USSR territory increased by military conquest after 1949.

Russia, dumbass. It just got done annexing Crimea - the latest such expansion.

so that this does not look like a war prepared by the Reps which Clinton was unable to stop, iceaura's beloved excuse for wars started under Dem presidents.

It wasn't. That kind of crap is why the left in the US dislikes the Clintons, and has opposed their assumption of power. The fascist takeover of the Republican Party did not improve the Democratic Party - fascist movements corrupt everything they touch.

On the other hand, Clinton's joining (and backing) the NATO-allied bombing more ended than started the civil war in Yugoslavia. The US did not even invade. And Russia showed its colors in the aftermath - the first foreign soldiers on the ground were Russian, allied with the local fascists as has become the pattern.

That the Rep establishment was against Trump was obvious. The division I have seen was between nationalists and globalists. Trump's program was nationalist, the reality some strange and inconsistent compromise, name it as you like.

The Rep corporate backing was not against Trump's policies. You have not seen a division between nationalists and globalists - you are not able to identify either of those factions in the US, for the same reason you don't know what the Republican "establishment" is, thinks, or does.

Ideologically Trump is a standard, run of the mill, centrist Republican. His "program" was no more nationalist than any other Republican's. This is important, because the entire corporate rightwing media operation is currently trying to sell the idea that Trump was an aberration - not a real Republican - so they can get their pet politicians elected to pass some more tax cuts and deregulation.

The reason is simple - like every Republican administration since 1980, this one has been a disaster. The Reps cannot govern a modern industrial society. Their only hope - and their successful tactic so far - has been to disown the causes and consequences of their own behavior. Anyone who cares about the US as a country has a fight on their hands - how to get this reality into the awareness of the American public.

 

[(Q)]

Today, Youtube blocked the Right Side Broadcasting Network of further coverage of the March for Trump bus tour. Seems even Youtube is getting sick and tired of Republicans poisoning democracy.

 

[pjdude1219]

Today, Youtube blocked the Right Side Broadcasting Network of further coverage of the March for Trump bus tour. Seems even Youtube is getting sick and tired of Republicans poisoning democracy.

bout time

 

[Schmelzer]

None whatsoever - you were posting bullshit, is all.

You have tried to suggest this, without success, that's all.

And yet you backed Trump for the Presidency.

As less evil than mass murderer Hillary, of course.

Russia, dumbass.

The state which was "recovering from WWII" and which "became nuclear power[]" was the USSR, ruled by a Georgian politician, not Russia. So blame yourself for misleading others by your texts. Russia, which became independent 1991, did neither recover from WWII nor did it become a nuclear power, it was one from the start.

On the other hand, Clinton's joining (and backing) the NATO-allied bombing more ended than started the civil war in Yugoslavia. The US did not even invade. And Russia showed its colors in the aftermath - the first foreign soldiers on the ground were Russian, allied with the local fascists as has become the pattern.

No, the local fascists in Yugoslavia (the Croats) were supported by the West, and by the Clinton's too. Milosevic was the local communist. The obvious pattern is that you simply name all those you don't like fascists, even if this has nothing to do with reality.

The Rep corporate backing was not against Trump's policies. You have not seen a division between nationalists and globalists - you are not able to identify either of those factions in the US, for the same reason you don't know what the Republican "establishment" is, thinks, or does.

I do not claim to have seen that myself, I simply follow many different analyzers who agree about that point.

"'Multiple' means how many?" — Five; they're noted in the article extract: "In five states—Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington—mail balloting has been the primary method of voting."

The question was not about mail balloting being the primary method, but the mail-in being reliable. This is IMHO something different.

"An exhaustive investigative journalism analysis of all known voter fraud cases identified only 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud from 2000 to 2012."

The drunken driver argument. "I have done this many years, there was never an accident". I'm not impressed. Of course, even a heavily insecure voting procedure may be fine as long as no serious player tries to use the weak points to fake.

Moreover, a more general trend about your behavior asserts itself, here: You don't stage any real defense of a source you posted rather lazily, but you did find time to complain and accuse of other sources.

What is your problem with this? I have found that source quite interesting and found nothing to object myself. So I posted it. You found a lot to object. Fine. I'm not sure if I will find time to find the weak points in your conterarguments. If not, it means your argumentation was successful and has been accepted. This is what makes discussions useful. You have posted a source which you found reasonable, and I have explained why I don't find that source impressive. A symmetrical situation.

Note that this argument is about a different question: The first was about actual evidence that this election has been stolen, this was about insufficient safety of the mail-in voting. If you want to understand what I think would be necessary for a safe mail-in voting, read something about encryption, how the safety of various algorithms is discussed there.

It is hardly unfamiliar: Crackpots and trolls alike play at the basic routine of trying to keep an argument active not by affirmatively supporting anything, but accusing against whatever it disdains.

That's not even an argument. Don't forget to add that that I speak German language is also not unfamiliar, Hitler has spoken it too.

Compared to how American elections work, the conspiracism, presupposition of suspicion, and confusion required to abide your crackpottery is just ridiculous. With nothing better than those arguments?

First, I actually do not defend the thesis that the election has been stolen, for the simple reason that I don't have sufficient evidence for this. The polemical mirror "Only a misinformed, ignorant fool would think that the Dems have not stolen the election" which I have justified with that link I no longer defend. For me, stolen elections are only a possibility (even if it remains quite plausible for me). Then, of course, the thesis that an election has been stolen presumes some conspiracy and some suspicion. To use that itself as an argument is funny. As if I would have rejected that Russian-Trump conspiracy theory simply based on the observation that this requires some conspiracy.

I mean, really.

And I mean, not really. You have shown that you are able to make good arguments, and now you fall back to the typical Tiassa style answer.

Still, you're also supposed to be smart, which means you don't defend the report because you know you can't. And that's not simply some hit about you not being up to the task; you already know you're pushing indefensible fakery. So it's not a question of whether you're up to it, but, rather, why you bothered in the first place.

So you degrade here your own quite long argumentation against that analysis. The suggestion that I, supposed I'm smart, should have seen that it is faulty by myself, is somehow in conflict with the necessity to post many long posts of arguments, not? Then, iceaura has tried to find something wrong and not found anything, IMHO he has not even understood the point of the article. You have, and found some counterarguments. But if these are only counterargument which I should have seen myself simply supposed I'm smart, that would not be worth much.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You have tried to suggest this, without success, that's all.

he is only saying what every one else here is saying,, when he talks about your bullshit...
Is there any one else here that supports your bullshit? Nope!

 

[Schmelzer]

Is there any one else here that supports your bullshit? Nope!

I see that this forum is full of people out of the Western propaganda bubble who don't know how to behave in a civilized discussion. They seem to think that using stronger invectives makes an argument stronger or so, not recognizing that the information remains the same independent of the invectives used, and is usually only the same single bit which civilized participants would have expressed with "I disagree with you". Somehow funny, given that they are full of PC, and worry about poor women being seriously attacked by some quite general sexist jokes. But in discussions, where the classical rules of courtesy prescribe what is essential for a civilized discussion, namely not to use invectives, they behave in a completely inadequate way, as if they have never heard that to use invective is a childish, inadequate behavior is a civilized discussion.

 

[pjdude1219]

I see that this forum is full of people out of the Western propaganda bubble who don't know how to behave in a civilized discussion. They seem to think that using stronger invectives makes an argument stronger or so, not recognizing that the information remains the same independent of the invectives used, and is usually only the same single bit which civilized participants would have expressed with "I disagree with you". Somehow funny, given that they are full of PC, and worry about poor women being seriously attacked by some quite general sexist jokes. But in discussions, where the classical rules of courtesy prescribe what is essential for a civilized discussion, namely not to use invectives, they behave in a completely inadequate way, as if they have never heard that to use invective is a childish, inadequate behavior is a civilized discussion.

advocating and defending war crimes is not civilized maybe if you stopped doing that and referring to anything you disagree with as western "propaganda" you'd get a lot farther. your im right because i say so attitude is why everyone is tired of your shit.

 

[pjdude1219]

At this point you're grasping after straws.

After all, what I said is that we know the affirmable history; and all you need is to keep inventing mysteries.

But we can be clear:



No ... no, that's just you not reading the English language well enough:

• "'Multiple' means how many?" — Five; they're noted in the article extract: "In five states—Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington—mail balloting has been the primary method of voting."

• "Because, if this would have been the case, one would write 'all' resp. 'almost all' instead of 'multiple'." — No, that's just you either failing to understand the language or else grasping after a really desperate straw.

• "So there are also multiple states which don't have reliable mail-in elections." — No, that's just you making believe. You actually quoted this part: "An exhaustive investigative journalism analysis of all known voter fraud cases identified only 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud from 2000 to 2012."

• "Which is already a heavy failure, degrading the US as a whole, once it allows such things, to some banana republic." — Yes, yes, we're already aware of your rabid disdain for the United States of America. Still, maybe this wasn't the best time to pull it out, since the setup is you screwing up.

• "The link gives nothing better - it lists a lot of measures, but remains silent how many states use these measures." — We are not surprised that the link fails to satisfy your mysterious standards among which anti-Americanism is one of the scant consistencies.

• "Are the critical swing states among those with reliable or with unreliable mail-in elections? Remains unclear." — No, it does not remain unclear. Please understand the extradordinary discredit you show: Either you, who writes so many words in English, really are so bad with the language, or just that clumsy a troll.​

Moreover, a more general trend about your behavior asserts itself, here: You don't stage any real defense of a source you posted rather lazily, but you did find time to complain and accuse of other sources. It is hardly unfamiliar: Crackpots and trolls alike play at the basic routine of trying to keep an argument active not by affirmatively supporting anything, but accusing against whatever it disdains.

Circling back, remember, there is a question of fallacious standards. It's like saying, "to make my point I should have used a lower standard"; yes, perfection "sets the plank quite high". Recounts are in; we already know the recounts altered some final tallies. Remember, the Trump campaign's three million dollar recount in Wisconsin had the result of paying for an additional 132 votes in Joe Biden's column in one county, and 45 votes for Trump in another. A statewide election I voted in was overturned by recount↗, once upon a time. Compared to how American elections work, the conspiracism, presupposition of suspicion, and confusion—

• "voting fraud makes sense only in very special circumstances, and with some organization behind this"

• "What matters is the possibility ...."

• "'Multiple' means how many? Certainly not 'all' or 'almost all'. Because, if this would have been the case, one would write 'all' resp. 'almost all' instead of 'multiple'. So there are also multiple states which don't have reliable mail-in elections."​

—required to abide your crackpottery is just ridiculous. With nothing better than those arguments?

I mean, really. People around here don't actually believe you're that bad with the language. And for all the effort you spend complaining about Americans and the United States, it does actually get difficult to tell which pretenses of your ignorance about American society are genuine. But we're also aware you represent a cynical sales pitch not entirely foreign to an absurd American context of capitalism, which in its way does seem apropos of finding your place complaining about our society while promoting its most antisocial aspects. It's one of low-hanging jokes↗ of the so-called quantitative analysis, that you purported to attend how the election looks "to the outside world", and provided a report that, between its uncertain word usage and pretesnes of ignorance, could easily have been written by international hand. But that's just a joke compared to the likely, which is a poorly-written, desperately assembled bit of American crackpottery trying too hard to hide inside its words, and more reliant on a not-unfamiliar manner of egotism presuming to outplay the professionals. Another all-too easy joke would be to suggest that analysis was Sciforums-grade crackpottery, but that one isn't really fair, as the report required more effort to create and write than our potsherds generally manage. Still, though, the endnotes are a work of art°.

The bottom line, Schmelzer, is that you're supposed to be smarter than all this. Really. I mean, you posture yourself as such, and are willing to blow entire threads on the pretense. So, sure, we can reasonably accept you're aware of just how ridiculous you're being. You don't defend the analysis you offered in bitter retort↑ because that's all it was, petulant backtalk. Still, you're also supposed to be smart, which means you don't defend the report because you know you can't. And that's not simply some hit about you not being up to the task; you already know you're pushing indefensible fakery. So it's not a question of whether you're up to it, but, rather, why you bothered in the first place.

It's like that other cheap joke↑ about your masters or employers; the idea that you're a paid propagandist is hilarious because you read like a trollfarm washout. You even brought Cold War-era Boris and Natasha clownery:



No, seriously, it reads like like a bad American joke about a Russian oaf stereotype. Or, y'know, Count Chocula, but whatever.

As I said↑, there are a lot of American conservatives pitching cynically against history they already know, but there is a limit. As a question of what it takes to keep which tinfoil shiny, those are some well-buffed helmets. Never mind. The point is, you're supposed to be smarter than a Poe's Law joke.
____________________

Notes:

° Ordinarily, I would have said the endnotes are something else, entirely, but it remains unclear whether you would understand what that figure of speech means, or demand precise explication of just what that something else actually is.​

See also:

Vote Integrity. "Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020". vote_pattern_analysis. 24 November 2020. VotePatternAnalysis.Substack.com. 8 December 2020. https://bit.ly/3qfTG8V

Weiser, Wendy R and Harold Ekeh. "The False Narrative of Vote-by-Mail Fraud". The Brennan Center. 10 April 2020. BrennanCenter.org. 8 December 2020. https://bit.ly/2VG3Hhw

you notice how to him the us is wrong because its the us and russia is good because its russia there is no real examining of the behavior of the 2 countries. he is at worst trying to gaslight us, at best a victim of gaslighting by russian rewriting history. ive noted it is a thing for being under russian interests. i remember another russian poster trying to claim russia was morally and legally justified for the kaytn massacre.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I see that this forum is full of people out of the Western propaganda bubble who don't know how to behave in a civilized discussion. They seem to think that using stronger invectives makes an argument stronger or so, not recognizing that the information remains the same independent of the invectives used, and is usually only the same single bit which civilized participants would have expressed with "I disagree with you". Somehow funny, given that they are full of PC, and worry about poor women being seriously attacked by some quite general sexist jokes. But in discussions, where the classical rules of courtesy prescribe what is essential for a civilized discussion, namely not to use invectives, they behave in a completely inadequate way, as if they have never heard that to use invective is a childish, inadequate behavior is a civilized discussion.

It is really quite simple .... really!
When you start posting civilized discussion with truth finding at it's heart, then you may get civilized discussion in return.
So far you have attempted to manipulate all discussion to fit your agenda in a way that demonstrates severe contradiction, hypocrisy, malicious intent and dis-ingenuousness. Not one single argument has been put forth that has endured rebuttal. Surviving only because your have deliberately played the "Blatant lie card", the same one that Trump uses consistently. (no refutation is allowed or acceptable)

So when you ready to actually engage in discussion that has "truth finding"as it's goal and not insulting an entire nation that has granted you the freedom to do so, let us all know.

If the USA was empire building as you attempt to suggest, Australia 1945 would have been annexed along with Japan, Indonesia, China and a whole host of nations simply because they would not exist today if it were not for the efforts of the USA to ensure freedom and democracy. Imagine if the USA did as the Soviets did and occupy all nations rescued from the Nazi. The UN would not exist nor would the UDHR and the entire world would be in constant conflict.

In Australia we owe our freedom to the 700 odd USA sailors (Coral sea - 1942) that died fighting for it, for us, and the subsequent losses for our freedom from oppression. Our freedom today is only because the USA has heavily invested in that cause.
How dare you insult our intelligence with your Western propaganda nonsense.
Do you honestly believe that the members here are that stupid?
If so why bother posting at all...

 

[Write4U]

Any Americans (and our friends) scared yet?

Mark my words, I've said it before . This is going to end badly. Murder and Mayhem!

The crazies have been released and given permission.

 

[Schmelzer]

advocating and defending war crimes is not civilized

So please stop doing such things.

 

[Schmelzer]

It is really quite simple .... really!
When you start posting civilized discussion with truth finding at it's heart, then you may get civilized discussion in return.

In a civilized society, people will always behave in a civilized way in discussions. That's what education means. If the other side does not behave in a civilized way, one can stop the discussion, but if one behaves in an uncivilized way, one disqualifies only oneself.

Your further personal accusation against me have no base in reality, therefore I delete them without comment.

Imagine if the USA did as the Soviets did and occupy all nations rescued from the Nazi. The UN would not exist nor would the UDHR and the entire world would be in constant conflict.

First, the USSR has also participated in the UN, it exists because both US and USSR were interested in it. Then, the USSR has not occupied all nations rescued from the Nazis, it has helped to install there own regimes similar to that they had in the USSR, but they became formally independent states, without Russian troops there, except for the GDR, where on the other side were US troops too all the time. (Hungary and Czechoslovakia happened later). Similar like the US, which has also helped to install regimes of the same type they had at home, namely democracies. The USSR followed its own ideology doing this, similar to the US, which followed also its own ideology doing this.

The only difference was that the communist ideology was much worse than the liberal-democratic ideology of that time in the US.

In Australia we owe our freedom to the 700 odd USA sailors (Coral sea - 1942) that died fighting for it, for us, and the subsequent losses for our freedom from oppression. Our freedom today is only because the USA has heavily invested in that cause.

If you have freedom or not you will see if you decide to do something which the US seriously dislikes. As long as you fulfill all the wishes of the US almost automatically, with only minor pro-forma objections, you can feel free. Else, expect some color revolution or worse regime change. In your case, you would probably

If the USA was empire building as you attempt to suggest, Australia 1945 would have been annexed along with Japan, Indonesia, China and a whole host of nations simply because they would not exist today if it were not for the efforts of the USA to ensure freedom and democracy.

Sorry, but empires and the ways they rule differ and change with time. Dshingis Khan has rules in a different way than Ancient Rom, Ancient China, or the British Empire. The last has found out itself that the modern, US method of rule is superior in comparison with old colonial rule and simply thrown away its colonies installing there "independent governments" because this was a much more efficient way to rule - no necessity to protect those governments if their repression becomes too horrible - the new government would have to pay for the debts too.

How dare you insult our intelligence with your Western propaganda nonsense.

You have never shown any evidence that you know something from outside the Western propaganda bubble. You personally have made a claim that you have read, using google translator, Russian media, but in the following discussion you have shown to be so completely misinformed about the Russian media that I'm sure that this claim was a lie.

Do you honestly believe that the members here are that stupid?

It is part of the Western propaganda to name everything outside lies. If one believes this, and this is what victims of propaganda do, they will trust only Western propaganda sources. This is a behavior typical for a large majority of people. To name them stupid makes not much sense. Believing the propaganda of the own society, however foolish it may be in itself, will give you advantages in that society. In particular, they will not become victims of political repression, while those who doubt the own propaganda have to care about that and often fail to do this. Who is, then, stupid? Those who follow the Party line, or those who end up out of job or worse because they have underestimated the political persecution and overestimated "freedom of speech" propaganda phrases?
So, no, I don't think you are stupid if you distribute Western propaganda in a pro-Western forum living in Australia. This will be helpful for you in Australian society. If I would live in Australia, and would have something to lose there (like a good job), I would not distribute anti-American propaganda. I would simply remain silent about such questions.

 

[pjdude1219]

So please stop doing such things.

cute and only proving my point. you are incapable of dealing with reality. ive never defended a war crime unlike you.

 

[pjdude1219]

It is really quite simple .... really!
When you start posting civilized discussion with truth finding at it's heart, then you may get civilized discussion in return.
So far you have attempted to manipulate all discussion to fit your agenda in a way that demonstrates severe contradiction, hypocrisy, malicious intent and dis-ingenuousness. Not one single argument has been put forth that has endured rebuttal. Surviving only because your have deliberately played the "Blatant lie card", the same one that Trump uses consistently. (no refutation is allowed or acceptable)

So when you ready to actually engage in discussion that has "truth finding"as it's goal and not insulting an entire nation that has granted you the freedom to do so, let us all know.

If the USA was empire building as you attempt to suggest, Australia 1945 would have been annexed along with Japan, Indonesia, China and a whole host of nations simply because they would not exist today if it were not for the efforts of the USA to ensure freedom and democracy. Imagine if the USA did as the Soviets did and occupy all nations rescued from the Nazi. The UN would not exist nor would the UDHR and the entire world would be in constant conflict.

In Australia we owe our freedom to the 700 odd USA sailors (Coral sea - 1942) that died fighting for it, for us, and the subsequent losses for our freedom from oppression. Our freedom today is only because the USA has heavily invested in that cause.
How dare you insult our intelligence with your Western propaganda nonsense.
Do you honestly believe that the members here are that stupid?
If so why bother posting at all...

true. in his bizzaro world the us is constantly trying to invade and annex other countries despite the last time the us conquered territory in war was 1898. says russia and china are peaceful and never do despite the last times being johnsons reef for china in 1988 and we all know the last time russia did was 2014

 

[Quantum Quack]

true. in his bizzaro world the us is constantly trying to invade and annex other countries despite the last time the us conquered territory in war was 1898. says russia and china are peaceful and never do despite the last times being johnsons reef for china in 1988 and we all know the last time russia did was 2014

not to mention Tibet in 1951.
In all fairness though borders have always been historically fluid. Tibet declares independence in 1912. China reincorporates it in 1951, but only because the USA left China alone after wining the war with Japan. Similar could be said for Hong Kong and Taiwan will be next probably..It all depends on when/where the Chinese draw the line. Is it after massive empire building then collapse then wanting it all back again? Would Italy (Rome) have a claim on Britain?
The whole question of sovereignty is daft and broken IMO. What counts is the will of the resident people not some government making a historical claim based on BS. but perhaps that is just me...

 

[Schmelzer]

true. in his bizzaro world the us is constantly trying to invade and annex other countries despite the last time the us conquered territory in war was 1898. says russia and china are peaceful and never do despite the last times being johnsons reef for china in 1988 and we all know the last time russia did was 2014

LOL, as if the aims of the US wars is conquering territories. The way the US rules is different. They use bases, control the press, so that in democracies they can always get rid of politicians they don't like with a simple smear campaign. The US actually fights wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, they have finished the XX century with starting an aggression in Europe, where they occupied a large base with some environment named Kosovo, and started the next century with attacking Afghanistan. Permanent war since then.

not to mention Tibet in 1951. In all fairness though borders have always been historically fluid. Tibet declares independence in 1912. China reincorporates it in 1951, but only because the USA left China alone after wining the war with Japan. Similar could be said for Hong Kong and Taiwan will be next probably..It all depends on when/where the Chinese draw the line.

China recovers what was historically Chinese, that's all. So, yes, it pretends Hong Kong and Taiwan. These have been the parts it has lost during that horrible (for the Chinese) weakness which allowed the West to destroy and degrade China.

Is it after massive empire building then collapse then wanting it all back again? Would Italy (Rome) have a claim on Britain?

China was not building an empire, it was an empire much longer, for thousands of years. And it rebuilds what it has lost during essentially one century. You may not like this, but your comparison is completely off.

The whole question of sovereignty is daft and broken IMO. What counts is the will of the resident people not some government making a historical claim based on BS. but perhaps that is just me...

I would also prefer if the Chinese would leave Taiwan alone. That's a question where China behaves quite irrational, but as far as I understand, it would behave even more irrational and immediately start a war taking Taiwan if it would be a democracy with all those warmongering populists aiming for power. The Americans can compare this insanity with that of their own civil war. And, judging from the actual fight of BLM against Confederate flags and memorials, they are not that far from that same insanity today too.

But sovereignty is about something different. It means, that the state decides about everything inside its own territory, and all other states have to accept this. The US tried to get rid of it, but this is a principle which will be revived in the multipolar world.

 

[iceaura]

As less evil than mass murderer Hillary, of course.

So you accept Trump's wholesale violation of international law and custom - much worse than Clinton's record - despite its "worrisome" nature, because Clinton is "more evil" according to the Republican media feed.
From the point of view of someone who thinks a nuclear armed and highly militarized US would be less dangerous if it were crippled economically and diplomatically, that makes sense - why not go by those Hillaryhate videos and idiotic Republican smears you posted and support the guy your sources describe as a "businessman" and "nationalist"? Just keep in mind that Trump is a standard, centrist, run of the mill Republican - the Republican voters who loved the 2003 invasion of Iraq and chain of torture prisons like Trump even better than they liked W&Cheney. That silly crap about "globalists" doesn't even apply.

btw: Some numbers came out recently - Trump has been killing civilians with his CIA run drone assassination program at triple the rate of the Obama administration. Although a gross violation of international law (and US law), it's nowhere near the civilian kill of W's invasion at its height, of course (we're in the aftermath, all the little wars on the borders of the big one) and the virus interrupted things just as Trump was getting the bombing of Iran lined up and some kind of paramilitary incursion into Mexico arranged (or maybe just more drone killing, from behind his Wall. It also interrupted North Korea's projects whatever they were, just as the threat of a bioweapon missile hitting Japan was sinking in) so we are thankful for small favors.

In a civilized society, people will always behave in a civilized way in discussions.

Irrelevant. You don't participate in discussions here. (Reposting Republican media feed bs over and over is not "discussion".)

China recovers what was historically Chinese, that's all.

China uses military force to expand its territory. So does Russia. So does Israel. That's about it - the US does not and likely will not (at least, not if the latest Republican corruption is in fact removed from executive power.)

That's a question where China behaves quite irrational, but as far as I understand, it would behave even more irrational and immediately start a war taking Taiwan if it would be a democracy with all those warmongering populists aiming for power.

You don't understand representative democratic government. As with everything with which you lack personal familiarity, you rely too completely on the US rightwing authoritarian corporate media feed - their campaign to cripple US elections and the US political system requires a steady fountain of misinformation about elections and representation and so forth in general. They have to keep the rubes well mulched in feces, and your goal of crippling the US politically aligns well with their goal of seizing and holding power (that the US military will be the remaining power center, and enthusiastically backs this Republican agenda, is a fact whose implications you seem to have overlooked).

However: even as lost as you are, the term "warmongering populist" marks an opportunity for you (and thread relevance for me) - do you think you could recognize warmongering populism aiming at power in the US, if you saw it?

 

[pjdude1219]

LOL, as if the aims of the US wars is conquering territories. The way the US rules is different. They use bases, control the press, so that in democracies they can always get rid of politicians they don't like with a simple smear campaign. The US actually fights wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, they have finished the XX century with starting an aggression in Europe, where they occupied a large base with some environment named Kosovo, and started the next century with attacking Afghanistan.

you do know russia is in all those countries too right?

Permanent war since then.

again since you have trouble with this simple fact. the us mistakes and misdeeds do not absolve russia and china of their aggression and war crimes.

China recovers what was historically Chinese, that's all. So, yes, it pretends Hong Kong and Taiwan. These have been the parts it has lost during that horrible (for the Chinese) weakness which allowed the West to destroy and degrade China.

the PRC is a rebel faction. it has zero historic right to historically chinese territory. that is taiwans sole purview.

China was not building an empire, it was an empire much longer, for thousands of years. And it rebuilds what it has lost during essentially one century. You may not like this, but your comparison is completely off.

so war, aggression, and war crimes are ok if you think something is histrorically yours? the mental gymnastics you go through to support evil is mind boggling. i can't tell if you are a troll, stupid, or just insane?