Russia is now bombing Ukraine

[Alcofribas]

2 hours ago, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

imagine if stalin was a pacifist

dude come on just stfu lol

[chenGOD]

6 hours ago, dcom said:

It's complicated. Very much so. Very.

I mean, the first link there says NATO and the EU have a strong partnership, Warsaw Pact has been defunct for 30 years - so I don't quite see the relevance - sorry, honestly not trying to be obtuse, and the EU common security and defense policy is a relatively new endeavour, so it still makes sense to me that NATO would be the primary defense mechanism. I just don't understand why this is a huge issue? It's not like NATO members are suddenly going to leave the EU isolated, and they have similar defense goals.

So I'm just not sure why there's such a panic about it all of a sudden. Maybe panic is too strong a word - but that's what it feels like from the material I'm reading...

[chenGOD]

 

4 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

2 hours ago, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

imagine if stalin was a pacifist

dude come on just stfu lol

 

He just needed some fat blunts and a little Boards of Canada.

[thefxbip]

35 minutes ago, trying to be less rude said:

dude's a shill. i'm calling it

Hermolia or Kasparov?

for you Hermolia

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by thefxbip

[chenGOD]

4 hours ago, thefxbip said:

I challenge this way of thinking.

The necessity is to strengthen democratic values and respect of human dignity. Neither of them will be achieved by military as the military as an institution, with its strict hierarchical and antagonistic way of seeing the world is precisely one of the very cause of the deep instabilities and atrocities in the world.

I fully agree that the ultimate goal is to strengthen democratic values and develop institutions that are less vulnerable to corruption through transparency and open government.

Unfortunately, as you can see - there are still actors in the world that challenge those ideals through the use of military force (and yes, I include the US in that category, although as noted, they haven't invaded a country for the purpose of annexation recently...). So military safeguards are still a sad necessity in the geopolitical reality we live in.

 

For you @thefxbip

 

4 hours ago, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

if dprk gave up their nukes they would immediately be invaded by the US like what happened before. 

When did the US invade North Korea before?

[thefxbip]

19 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

I fully agree that the ultimate goal is to strengthen democratic values and develop institutions that are less vulnerable to corruption through transparency and open government.

Unfortunately, as you can see - there are still actors in the world that challenge those ideals through the use of military force (and yes, I include the US in that category, although as noted, they haven't invaded a country for the purpose of annexation recently...). So military safeguards are still a sad necessity in the geopolitical reality we live in.

Sight... what can i say you're probably right to some extent.

I still think if we could use the totality of the ressources and energy and human potential wasted in military, great things could accomplished. Like, even for just a few years.

But eh human nature. War is not a new phenomenon.

But i'll be forever opposed to military as an institution even if only by principle. For the reasons i previously stated. I don't think the military culture is doing any good to us. I don't think it's a moral institution. You can one year be doing military safeguards and fast forward 10,20,30 hell even 100 years forward, and ooops now you are under a new regime and you are invading a country or bombing some places for political reasons or selling weapons to some rich dictator.

Anyway what can you do.

The absurdity of it all is unbearable. War is hell but yet, we can't seem to fully understand this and just simply stop going forward with them. It really isn't that complicated. It's the simplest law there is. Don't go and kill your fellow men. Every 5 year old, fully understand this, yet people age and somewhere along the way they get convinced it's acceptable. It's just insanity.

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by thefxbip

[chenGOD]

3 minutes ago, thefxbip said:

But i'll be forever opposed to military as an institution even if only by principle. For the reasons i previously stated. I don't think the military culture is doing any good to us. I don't think it's a moral institution. You can one year be doing military safeguards and fast forward 10,20 years forward, you are invading a country or bombing some places for political reasons or selling weapons to some rich dictator.

I don't disagree with any of that. The end goal of course is to be able to dissolve all military units and yes spend all those resources on scientific endeavours or social well-being. There's a lot to unwind though (especially the economic side of things in the US, where the military and the industrial complex that supports it is such a huge employer), so it's very doubtful we'll see that happen any time soon.

[thefxbip]

Human brothers, human beings killing each others for pieces of land, a flag, an idea. Story is old as the world.

But each time it gets more and more absurd and obscene really, because it has happened before yet it is forgotten and all of those who suffered, who told the stories of the hell they went through are forgotten...again and again... as the cycle continues and foolish men die and kill, for what?

Sorry for the rambling. Shit is just overwhelming me. I have a friend in Ukraine and it's just horrible.

Edited March 23, 2022 by thefxbip

[thefxbip]

33 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

 

For you @thefxbip

 

 

hahaha yes this is the version i need

[zlemflolia]

38 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

When did the US invade North Korea before?

is this a serious question?

https://apjjf.org/-Charles-K.-Armstrong/3460/article.html

Edited March 23, 2022 by ilqx hermolia xpli

[chenGOD]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44879/ukraine-just-captured-part-of-one-of-russias-most-capable-electronic-warfare-systems

Two interesting pieces on the war.

[usagi]

[ignatius]

5 minutes ago, usagi said:

blew up that old lady's shitter. 

[chenGOD]

3 minutes ago, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

is this a serious question?

https://apjjf.org/-Charles-K.-Armstrong/3460/article.html

Yes the American-led response to the North Korean invasion of South Korea was brutal. But they didn't invade North Korea. Not even the revisionist (this is not a bad word to use when describing historians) Bruce Cumings (who has written two of the most important books on the Korean War) goes as far as that (though he does use some broader context to paint the picture of the start of the war).

[zlemflolia]

https://imgur.com/a/Ud0dXpe

[zazen]

9 hours ago, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

imagine if stalin was a pacifist ...

 

6 hours ago, Alcofribas said:

dude come on just stfu lol

Sometimes hermolia makes reasonable points but then it seems some people misunderstand them because they're so used to him making extreme points

Hermolia is just saying that pacifism is a nice ideal but in reality a pacifist state would be quickly taken over by a non-pacifist one.

e.g. if the ussr had been communist and pacifist, what would have happened to them?

Thats a reasonable and fair question to ask and its not fair to dunk on it just because the question came from Hermolia.

 

I like the ideal of pacifism but I dont see how we get there ... if there's just one bad state and a load of pacifist ones, the bad state wins. 'Why do we need police' is the same sort of debate. I think my position is that 'collective action problems' need rules (and hence some kind of sanctions) rather than just trust to avoid suboptimal outcomes. Happy to talk about that, it might seem like a tangent but when there's a war on, its worth asking 'why war'?

Edited March 23, 2022 by zazen

[zazen]

11 hours ago, thefxbip said:

I challenge this way of thinking.

The necessity is to strengthen democratic values and respect of human dignity. Neither of them will be achieved by military as the military as an institution, with its strict hierarchical and antagonistic way of seeing the world is precisely one of the very cause of the deep instabilities and atrocities in the world.

Look around. How many coups do we need? how many invasions? how many genocides? how many colonial disasters? how many Generals turning into dictators? how many Dictators using the army and the police as his personal force to stay in power and crush democracy? how many military backed disasters before we learned that maybe the military IN ITSELF isn't a good idea? that it constantly throughout ALL of history, generates a very effective mean for destruction and atrocities?

Military spending and culture is symptomatic of giving up the true democratic ideals and means to a stable society.

Spend that money and energy elsewhere i say.

Alright, but how do we get there, given where we are now?

e.g Europe has been spending less on defence because it was leaning on the USA. Now it looks like Europe will start spending more on defense.

If you're saying 'as a citizen, work to strengthen stable democratic institutions in society and that will help' then I can get behind that, but it seems like the first step in a centuries long path

[zkom]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

e.g Europe has been spending less on defence because it was leaning on the USA. Now it looks like Europe will start spending more on defense.

It's also a bit more complicated. The shit happened in the 90s. The safety assurances, like mutual military assistance in case of war, were weakened for multiple purposes. First of all the EU countries that were also NATO members didn't want to weaken NATO influence. But also multiple countries that were outside NATO like Finland, Sweden, Ireland and Austria were against compulsory military help and would have probably not signed any agreements that would have implemented them. In the end there were no compulsory military help to keep the unity of EU.

There's another interesting thing.. The NATO collective defense agreement or Article 5 only covers attacks against NATO members only in Europe and North America. So now some EU countries are interested in making the EU safety assurances to cover all EU territory, which expands outside Europe also. For example there are the Spanish exclaves in North Africa and the French overseas territories all over the globe.

[chenGOD]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

Now it looks like Europe will start spending more on defense.

European countries (in general) had already started spending more on defense (only three countries spent less in 2019 than they did in 2014 - Albania, Belgium, and the UK). See the graph below - taken from here: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_11/20191129_pr-2019-123-en.pdf

We may see more spending for sure in the future, Germany has already promised to spend more - I linked an article upthread.

[zero]

8 hours ago, thefxbip said:

But eh human nature. War is not a new phenomenon.

exactly man. as much as I would like all the other peaceful stuff you said to happen, I don't seriously believe it ever will. I mean just look at the history of mankind. tribes battling it out with one another. white dudes sailing around slaughtering the locals. there is a part of human nature that this desire to fight with other groups is ingrained, comes from the animal part of our DNA. militaries are never going to go away as long as different countries, languages, ethnicities, etc. are all present. there is never going to be a global peace on this planet unless maybe one tribe conquers all, which is what these arrogant dickheads like Hitler or Putin think they can do.   

[Berk]

Putain is not gonna stop. Mariupol has been shot to shit. P doesn't give a flying shit.

NATO basically can't intervene because WWiii / nuclear war.

Zelensky and his people bravely continue to fight this agressor. It's commendable. But probably also prolonging this impasse and living hell.

It's really fucked up. Hope the Ukrainian Watmmer (and all others for that matter ofc) manages to escape the country if he/she hasn't done so already. Be safe.

[Alcofribas]

2 hours ago, zazen said:

Sometimes hermolia makes reasonable points but then it seems some people misunderstand them because they're so used to him making extreme points

Hermolia is just saying that pacifism is a nice ideal but in reality a pacifist state would be quickly taken over by a non-pacifist one.

e.g. if the ussr had been communist and pacifist, what would have happened to them?

Thats a reasonable and fair question to ask and its not fair to dunk on it just because the question came from Hermolia.

No, I disagree. He is not just making a simple, reasonable point about pacifism; he is producing an extremely problematic, potentially offensive example that requires a one-dimensional appreciation of the figure in question. Stalin is a very complicated figure to use as an example of someone who was right to not be pacifist - surely you can see this?

unlike others here, I don’t believe Hermolia is a troll and I’m not dunking on him to be part of the gang here. I think he’s genuinely sincere and isn’t trying to get attention or mess with people.  however, I do think over the years he’s revealed a tendency to share views that are irritatingly one-dimensional, impervious to counter-evidence, and unnecessarily antagonistic. I think the example of Stalin as justified non-pacifist is exactly the sort of thing I mean. 

 

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by Alcofribas

[zazen]

42 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

surely you can see this?

OK, when you put it that way, I can sortof see your objection. But any version of 'imagine [20th century figure] was a pacifist' is going to lead to fairly wild implications so personally the use of Stalin didn't bother me.

[brian trageskin]

1 hour ago, zero said:

 there is a part of human nature that this desire to fight with other groups is ingrained, comes from the animal asshole part of our DNA.   

[Satans Little Helper]

45 minutes ago, zazen said:

OK, when you put it that way, I can sortof see your objection. But any version of 'imagine [20th century figure] was a pacifist' is going to lead to fairly wild implications so personally the use of Stalin didn't bother me.

Ghandi?