Politics

[scoobos 297]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

China is going to try to take Taiwan in the next 10 years IMO based on the developments in Hong Kong, and if Russia is allowed to take the Ukraine it'll be a signal to them that the US will be too weak to stop it. The Ukraine themselves have already suffered violence at the hands of Putin, so you can see why they'd be concerned.

 

And the argument about who is responsible for the most death and violence etc I do take on board, but we obviously have no way of knowing what an alternative landscape would have looked like in which the US was a benign actor in regional conflicts. Who knows what the cost of that might have been. Probably consolidation into bigger regional blocs, in which smaller states are stifled and eliminated. Russia and China both have imperialist pasts and both believe in their right to be global super powers. China believes it should be where the US is.

 

Pre-Trump I would have been totally with you both on this, but him pulling the US back on the world scene has noticeably harmed the balance of things, and IMO has led to the US being challenged here. This less stable world is a taste of what things will look like if the US loses here.

I just don't buy it - Taiwan has been going on for Centuries.

China is into winning the world via debt locking and is doing very well, it owns strategic positions everywhere.

The USA has and always will be a warmonger imo.

[spongebob toonpants 3855]

Scoobos is making some great points here. Propaganda works and we have been bombarded by West is Best since birth. The picture is much more balanced than that

[scoobos 297]

7 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

I loved Havana when I was there, but it was no utopia by any means and despite the weather I wouldn't want to live there. 

Yeah Havana, like any major city is dirty , busy and horrible. The rest of the country is properly amazing and people are VERY happy. 

New Zealand is another - the country is measured on people's happiness or a Standard of Living questionnaire, not GDP .

[Rayvin 5127]

Just now, scoobos said:

I just don't buy it - Taiwan has been going on for Centuries.

China is into winning the world via debt locking and is doing very well, it owns strategic positions everywhere.

The USA has and always will be a warmonger imo.

 

China is also into cultural genocide, annexing independent countries, mass censorship, and generating a nationalism so fervent in their populace that even the government struggles to keep a lid on it at times.

 

The current Taiwan issue has been going on for a few decades but every single Chinese person I spoke with while living out there was happy for their government to rain hellfire down on the island if it ever declared independence. The only thing stopping it happening IMO is the US.

 

I mean we can't know for sure, but I'm convinced that the Ukraine is a watershed moment for the US as a hegemonic state - assuming Putin actually goes for it.

[spongebob toonpants 3855]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

The current Taiwan issue has been going on for a few decades but every single Chinese person I spoke with while living out there was happy for their government to rain hellfire down on the island if it ever declared independence. The only thing stopping it happening IMO is the US.

 

 

What do you think the US would do if this happened

[scoobos 297]

7 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

I'm fascinated by nuclear weapons and personally would say, with some reluctance, Hiroshima was a necessary evil. Not sure where you are going with here with the "experimental reasons", they were used to end the war quickly before Russia joined the fray and to (hugely) reduce the US casualties that would have happened otherwise. I also think the nuclear deterrent has prevented inevitable (major) war in Europe since (so far). 

You should have a little more faith in me, I wont make bold statements like that without some factual backup.

They were ordered to drop them, not to "end the war" but to take the only opportunity they (the manhatten project) thought that they had to finish the research.  They knew if they didn't the enemy would.

Two bombs, two different types - which was safer to drop and carry and which was most effective?

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 1945 | Atomic Heritage Foundation
Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb | Harry S. Truman (trumanlibrary.gov)

to be fair though, the USA had no knowledge at all about radiation fallout etc and its long term effects.
But to show the otherside, no one talks about the deliberate firebombing of civilian towns beforehand either - which the Japanese often say drove the war to last longer .

Final thing on that - is there is an excellent documentary with footage of the Enola gay . The things that went on are incredible (like putting the bomb together shortly after , or during takeoff as they were so worried of it accidentally detonating!)

[Rayvin 5127]

Just now, spongebob toonpants said:

What do you think the US would do if this happened

 

Really good question - I don't know, would probably depend how quickly it happened. I recall most Taiwanese are ok with being conquered when compared to being killed so it's possible that a Chinese invasion will be rapid. If it's over before it starts, the US would likely do nothing. That said, if all of Taiwan's US made defensive weapons made it last more than 24 hours, I think the pre-Trump US goes to bat for Taiwan, probably draws in a few regional players as well - Japan likely remilitarises due to China becoming a real threat rather than a theoretical one. The threat of the US doing -something- is the only reason nothing has happened though - what other explanation could there be? China has vowed to take it back after all.

[Renton 20421]

11 minutes ago, scoobos said:

Yeah Havana, like any major city is dirty , busy and horrible. The rest of the country is properly amazing and people are VERY happy. 

New Zealand is another - the country is measured on people's happiness or a Standard of Living questionnaire, not GDP .

 

I didn't find Havana busy really, just very poor with personal freedom clearly lacking. The state was set up such that taxi drivers who received tips from westerners earned more than hospital consultants. Having said that its a wonderful country to visit, I'd recomend it over Jamiaca, Barbados and many other destinations. 

Completely agree with your latter point, see also Scandinavia. It seems to me that to maximise happiness we need a blended political system, with some countries getting this more right than others. I'm sure its what people want here but its not possible with FPTP and constant gaslighting. 

[ewerk 29491]

12 minutes ago, scoobos said:

 I wont make bold statements like that without some factual backup.

 

Oh really?

 

On 28/08/2015 at 22:25, scoobos said:

Anita is a great player

 

[spongebob toonpants 3855]

7 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Really good question - I don't know, would probably depend how quickly it happened. I recall most Taiwanese are ok with being conquered when compared to being killed so it's possible that a Chinese invasion will be rapid. If it's over before it starts, the US would likely do nothing. That said, if all of Taiwan's US made defensive weapons made it last more than 24 hours, I think the pre-Trump US goes to bat for Taiwan, probably draws in a few regional players as well - Japan likely remilitarises due to China becoming a real threat rather than a theoretical one. The threat of the US doing -something- is the only reason nothing has happened though - what other explanation could there be? China has vowed to take it back after all.

Still buying into the US as saviour.

You genuinely can't think of any other reason

Economically it makes much more sense not to invade

[Renton 20421]

6 minutes ago, scoobos said:

You should have a little more faith in me, I wont make bold statements like that without some factual backup.

They were ordered to drop them, not to "end the war" but to take the only opportunity they (the manhatten project) thought that they had to finish the research.  They knew if they didn't the enemy would.

Two bombs, two different types - which was safer to drop and carry and which was most effective?

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 1945 | Atomic Heritage Foundation
Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb | Harry S. Truman (trumanlibrary.gov)

to be fair though, the USA had no knowledge at all about radiation fallout etc and its long term effects.
But to show the otherside, no one talks about the deliberate firebombing of civilian towns beforehand either - which the Japanese often say drove the war to last longer .

Final thing on that - is there is an excellent documentary with footage of the Enola gay . The things that went on are incredible (like putting the bomb together shortly after , or during takeoff as they were so worried of it accidentally detonating!)

Without looking up from memory Hiroshima was bombed with a uranium gun type weapon (Little Boy) which was pretty much guaranteed to work. However, enriching uranium is incredibly time consuming and expensive and it was therefore a one off. Nagasaki was destroyed with Fat Man, a plutonium bomb similar to Trinity, therefore also pretty much guaranteed to work. It had a higher yield. And yes, nuclear technology was always going to happen so it was crucial to get there first, had Hitler developed these weapons first the consequences would have been unimaginable. IMO the US were certainly a force for good in WW2 and we're lucky it turned out the way it did. The post-second war hegemony is increasingly fucked now though and this is a huge concern to me. 

[scoobos 297]

32 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

Occupy tried to co-opt the march to save Lewisham Hospital A&E a few years back. Absolute pack of whoppers.  

Better than doing F-All though.

[scoobos 297]

5 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

Oh really?

 

 

Haven't you got beans to count ? Still using the abacus?

[scoobos 297]

10 minutes ago, Renton said:

. IMO the US were certainly a force for good in WW2 and we're lucky it turned out the way it did.

Something that also annoys the Russians. They gave so much and were the ones to overthrow the Reichstag, but the US won it .. joining in at the end, after , with the help of GM and IBM assiting both the mechanical war effort and the background final solution.

There's two sides of course, the US joining definately contributed, but I think Hitler ended the war by his own hand, trying to fight on two fronts and starting a war with Russia, who may well have just appeased them, the same way the US , UK and France originally did.

Ford & the Nazi War Efforts | corpwatch
General Motors & the Third Reich (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)
IBM and World War II - Wikipedia

 

Edited February 11, 2022 by scoobos
fuck me sorry, autocorrect

[Renton 20421]

3 minutes ago, scoobos said:

Something that also annoys the Russians. They gave so much and were the ones to other throw the Reichstag, but the US won it .. joining in at the end, after , with the help of GM and IBM assiting both the mechanical war effort and the background final solution.

There's two sides of course, the US joining definately contributed, but I think Hitler ended the war by his own hand, trying to fight on two fronts and starting a war with Russia, who may well have just appeased them, the same way the US , UK and France originally did.

 

On the other hand, Normandy was a huge distraction for the Germans and made it a lot easier for the Russians to take Berlin. Also Germany weren't an existential threat, at least immediately, to the US, so you have to recognise with some gratitude the sacrifices they made. Only an utter fool would not recognise the sacrifice of mothe Russia of course, but they really had no choice. And ultimately, the soviet system was a failed one which has been outlived by the western model for decades now. How long this remains true we'll soon see is my guess. 

[scoobos 297]

11 minutes ago, Renton said:

. And yes, nuclear technology was always going to happen so it was crucial to get there first, had Hitler developed these weapons first the consequences would have been unimaginable. 

I'm not an angry keyboard warrior, just enjoying the forward and back here.

That line - do you think that requires a "Live human being" test though? Did they need to kill actual people or could they have just dropped it at a test site?

Someone somewhere wanted to see what happened to humans - not just buildings or the Richter scale.

If hitler had developed those weapons, he'd have used them on the jews as his final solution , or hook them onto his V2 rockets that could hit most of europe. so thank god he didnt.

[scoobos 297]

2 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

On the other hand, Normandy was a huge distraction for the Germans and made it a lot easier for the Russians to take Berlin. Also Germany weren't an existential threat, at least immediately, to the US, so you have to recognise with some gratitude the sacrifices they made. Only an utter fool would not recognise the sacrifice of mothe Russia of course, but they really had no choice. And ultimately, the soviet system was a failed one which has been outlived by the western model for decades now. How long this remains true we'll soon see is my guess. 

Im going to keep biting though, as it is in my view a bit of propaganda again.

Normandy was not the US and the UK - with it being impossible without the USA.

Canada, India etc etc all on other beaches.

But, the one that doesn't get mentioned but is proper legend in the army is Pointe du Hoc - that team were superheroes (I think that's band of brothers ? too)

Edited February 11, 2022 by scoobos

[Rayvin 5127]

19 minutes ago, spongebob toonpants said:

Still buying into the US as saviour.

You genuinely can't think of any other reason

Economically it makes much more sense not to invade

 

So China hasn't invaded Taiwan for the past few decades because it was economically counterproductive, but continues to feel that flying 150 warplanes over Taiwan's airspace, building up military forces in the south of China, and repeating commitments to take it back by force if necessary, are part of this strategy. The logic presumably being that this is done for domestic consumption and that they'll never actually do anything about it. We'll see, but Taiwan itself thinks the invasion will come this decade, 2025 in fact based on the current escalation of Chinese forces. Of course, they're probably just saying whatever the US tells them to say, I assume.

 

You apparently look at China and see just the economic powerhouse it is/can become. You are not seeing the disgraced former imperial power that it considers itself to be. Chinese rhetoric around nationalism is standing up people who insult China and cause it to lose face. Every time China is insulted anywhere in the world, her people are up in arms, boycotting anything to do with the country in question and harassing/attacking foreigners from that country. They view the restoration of China in the global scene as an inevitability, and they will take back everything that was 'historically' theirs along the way. As they did with Tibet.

 

They will also eradicate the varying ethnicities and cultures they claim as part of this, as they've been doing for the past 30 years anyway.

 

I dunno what China did to earn the 'benign' label from some people on the left, I really don't - if the same government was set up over here it would be a far right fascist hellscape. As for "the US as saviour". I stopped buying that in university ffs. Then I spent the next ten years talking like you. Then I spent 5 years watching what the US pulling back from the world stage under Trump, and concluded that we're in a 'better the devil you know' situation. I am under no illusions that the US is a violent and imperialist state. I am also under no illusions that Russia and China would be any better if they could get away with it. And more importantly, I fundamentally do not think that a world in which all 3 exist in this state at the same time, is better than the one we have.

[Craig 6581]

1 hour ago, Meenzer said:

 

Construction has started, to the satisfaction of very few people who actually live in the area, but there we go. Who needs breathable air anyway?  

 

Fucking morons. I said at the time it was a fucking stupid call.

[Meenzer 15115]

19 minutes ago, scoobos said:

Better than doing F-All though.

 

There's such a thing as reading the room, but at least the end result was the right one anyway  

[spongebob toonpants 3855]

I'm in no way saying China is benign, I'm just don't think the US is a force for good either.

Again apologies for brevity. I've not got the time to engage properly so I'll leave it there

[Rayvin 5127]

1 minute ago, spongebob toonpants said:

I'm in no way saying China is benign, I'm just don't think the US is a force for good either.

Again apologies for brevity. I've not got the time to engage properly so I'll leave it there

 

You're fine  

 

I agree on the US, genuinely. But I don't think a declining version of itself with two alternates of similar destructive capability is a positive outcome for the world.

[Craig 6581]

3 minutes ago, Craig said:

 

Fucking morons. I said at the time it was a fucking stupid call.

Mind you a lot of that comes down to the amount of ordnance that is apparently buried under the Thames there. The projected costs of the enabling works was fucking mental!

[scoobos 297]

6 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

So China hasn't invaded Taiwan for the past few decades because it was economically counterproductive, but continues to feel that flying 150 warplanes over Taiwan's airspace, building up military forces in the south of China, and repeating commitments to take it back by force if necessary, are part of this strategy. The logic presumably being that this is done for domestic consumption and that they'll never actually do anything about it. We'll see, but Taiwan itself thinks the invasion will come this decade, 2025 in fact based on the current escalation of Chinese forces. Of course, they're probably just saying whatever the US tells them to say, I assume.

 

You apparently look at China and see just the economic powerhouse it is/can become. You are not seeing the disgraced former imperial power that it considers itself to be. Chinese rhetoric around nationalism is standing up people who insult China and cause it to lose face. Every time China is insulted anywhere in the world, her people are up in arms, boycotting anything to do with the country in question and harassing/attacking foreigners from that country. They view the restoration of China in the global scene as an inevitability, and they will take back everything that was 'historically' theirs along the way. As they did with Tibet.

 

They will also eradicate the varying ethnicities and cultures they claim as part of this, as they've been doing for the past 30 years anyway.

 

I dunno what China did to earn the 'benign' label from some people on the left, I really don't - if the same government was set up over here it would be a far right fascist hellscape. As for "the US as saviour". I stopped buying that in university ffs. Then I spent the next ten years talking like you. Then I spent 5 years watching what the US pulling back from the world stage under Trump, and concluded that we're in a 'better the devil you know' situation. I am under no illusions that the US is a violent and imperialist state. I am also under no illusions that Russia and China would be any better if they could get away with it. And more importantly, I fundamentally do not think that a world in which all 3 exist in this state at the same time, is better than the one we have.

And whilst a lot of this is correct, especially about residents of Bejing - it begs the question, have you visited yet?

Most Chinese dont give a damn about the international situation.

no ones saying its "benign" and using labels like "the left" shows that something to maintain the status quo of neo-liberalism, "acceptable war" , and the continued expansion of late state capitalism - is working.

No war should be acceptable unless you are defending yourself . We've faught wars for "democracy, peoples freedoms" etc and its all been bullshit - its money and resources every single time.

[Meenzer 15115]

2 minutes ago, Craig said:

Mind you a lot of that comes down to the amount of ordnance that is apparently buried under the Thames there. The projected costs of the enabling works was fucking mental!

 

Hah. I suppose hitting that wouldn't do much for the air quality either.