1,920 Forum Posts by "Ranger2"
Note: I started this thread before Russian troops entered Ukraine.
Recent events have rendered what I said a few days ago obsolete. I really wonder if this could mean a new war. Unfortunately, I don't see the US willing to militarily fight the Russians in Ukraine, mostly because what's to stop Russia from then invading other countries in retaliation? Plus they have the bomb, something that Saddam didn't when he invaded a country with intent to annex it in 1990.
At this point the actual level of occupation is unknown. Russia claims that it is just sending troops to its own military bases. That being said, the pro-Russian militants that have taken over Crimea as well as the recent bill Russia's Duma is passing to make annexation of other territories *cough* Ukraine *cough* doesn't quite sit well.
The US has a tricky game to play. If the masked gunmen in Crimea are sent by Russia, then we cannot let this aggression stand. If Russia is truly behind this, the US, EU, and NATO have an opportunity to build their unity and act against Russia. The UN may even get on it (well, except Russia and China).
So this could potentially turn into Russia's Iraq War, at least diplomatically. But that all depends if Russia is actually invading Ukraine, and if they are how much will they defend it? So many unanswered questions at this point. All I know is that Russia is staring the West down, and we cannot blink.
At 2/25/14 08:06 PM, Knis wrote: How does atheism have blood on it's hands?
The Communist purges done by the USSR, for starters.
At 2/25/14 07:41 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Where in does the teachings of Buddha state that it is ok to initiate violence in the name of Buddha ?
You're missing the point. All religions and atheism have blood on their hands. You want to pick a side, fine, but don't act like your side is perfect and the other side is 100% evil.
At 2/25/14 12:03 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Christianity has allot of blood on it's hands so if they use the word Infidel meaning "one without faith" as a derogatory term then I see it as complement.
Every religion and atheism has blood on its hands. Your response shows your inability to look at things objectively.
At 2/25/14 08:55 AM, mojolot wrote: Overthrowing a democratic government might make the country unstable temporarily, but i dont think we can point fingers at Ukraine and say that what they are doing is wrong. Im no expert in Ukrainian government, but their prime minister pretty much hasn't done anything to change the situation there for the better. I think the only part of his job that he likes is the wage. it doesn't matter if his election was fair or corrupt, if the people feel that their leaders are so bad, that waiting for them to sit through is not an option, then "overthrowing them" seems perfectly sound to me.
But that undermines the stability of a country. Can you imagine if there were mass protests and riots when David Cameron took office? Or what if we had violently staged a coup against Herbert Hoover? Democratic leaders cannot fix things quickly because giving them that ability they would need near unlimited power. That's the price you pay for freedom of expression and the franchise. If overthrowing your leader when times are bad is a viable option, then no government would ever survive any type of economic downturn.
It's easy to say that overthrowing a bad president is a good idea when you don't like him. What if you do? Let's say that you like Obama's job in office (for the sake of argument.) Would you want the Tea Party trying to impeach a president you think is doing a good job?
At 2/24/14 04:15 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: So does Atheist. Infidel is actually a word use by Christians to describe those perceived as the enemies of Christianity.
So your defense in using a negatively-connotated word is that...it's negatively connotated? Atheist has no negative connotation because it is a widely-used neutral term. Infidel has a history of use as an insult, and it's improper to argue using that term.
At 2/24/14 01:10 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: I am no longer using the word atheist I am now substituting it with the word "Infidel - One without faith" so as to not confuse anybody.
I'd be VERY careful using that word, given that around the world it has negative connotations.
So it seems President Yanukovich is no more. The pro-Russian ex-president is out of power and now Ukraine can begin its transition towards the EU.
I am happy that the Ukrainian people have spoken up against Russia's influence and are moving towards the West. Just another blow against Russia and Putin is a-ok with me.
But is this revolution helpful to Ukraine's democratic government? It's really iffy, in my opinion.
Viktor Yanukovich, whether you like him or hate him, was democratically elected in what was deemed by the
EU to be a fair election. So Yanukovich was not exactly a dictator.
But he went against the will of the people, right? Well, turns out that Ukraine is a divided country; the western half of the country is pro-EU, while the Russophone eastern half of the country supports Yanukovich, and that there were actually some protests against his ouster.
But he committed acts of treason against the people, right? Well...nope. Nixing a pro-EU agreement you may have liked does not count as treason. You can protest against it, you can contact the opposition leaders against it, you can vote against it come election day, but violent revolts are not beneficial to the democratic process.
Choosing your leader is an essential part of democracy, but living with the leader chosen, even if you don't like him, is just as essential. Trying to overthrow a democratically elected president because you don't like him is a disservice to democracy and it undermines the stability of your system. Let's say that the new president pushes through that EU bill, but in a few short years the economy still isn't roaring. Do you overthrow him, then?
Revolutions are incredibly shortsighted, even when they try to be democratic. Yes, I'm glad that Ukraine will move more towards the democratic West than the fake-democratic Russia. But revolutions like these set a dangerous precedent. They give the new president an unofficial ultimatum: fix everything in a few years, or be removed. It's the same thing that happened to Morsi in Egypt. This is self-defeating, since the nature of a democratic leader is that they do not have enough power to fix everything in a few years (because to do that they'd need near unlimited power.)
Ultimately, I hope that if Ukraine does join the EU, it'll be a huge boost to its economy. Because I don't know if its government can survive another Euromaidan.
At 2/22/14 04:19 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Fact 1. We know that the IMF/Americans have a vested interest in Ukraine to the tune of more than $15 Trillion
$15 TRILLION? Where do you get your numbers? Ukraine's GDP is 176 billion; if we had $15 trillion in them they'd be richer than Russia.
At 2/21/14 03:58 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Please do research on what is and how the World Reserve Currency works.
You don't even know what that means. You use words like "world reserve currency" and "petrodollar" incorrectly because you read them in a pamphlet somewhere.
At 2/21/14 03:26 PM, lapis wrote: How? From what is China going to protect the Ukraine, and by what means? Seriously, what do you even mean?
Leanlifter1 thinks that even somebody sneezing in Papua New Guinea is the result of the US. I really wish the US was powerful as Leanlifter1 says it is.
Ukraine's president recently announced a deal has been struck with the protestors in Kiev.
The protests started with the Russian-friendly president of Ukraine stopping a deal that would lead to Ukraine's ascension to the EU. Protestors carried EU and Ukrainian flags symbolizing their desire for their country to move away from Russia's sphere of influence and ally with the West.
About 100 people have died in the crashes, and world leaders have weighed in on the matter.
Do you think that a deal can be reached, and that this is the end of the protests? Keep in mind that Ukraine is culturally divided between the Russophone east and the more EU-leaning western half of the country. Plus, while a ceasefire was declared last night, it lasted for several hours before violence broke out again.
So who knows? You weigh in.
At 2/18/14 12:50 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:
Not like the US hasn't used bizarre behavior and tactics before like in every war they have started and carried on in the past.
You don't know the rational actor theory.
More like every other country is threatened by the US. I hardly think that Korea has enough Military personal and highly trained personal in general let alone weapons and technology to make a stand against Canada let alone the US LOL.
leanlifter1 you have nothing but insults and attacks. Those are not substitutes for real arguments.
At 2/17/14 10:55 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
The US was funding Saddam with WMDs. Would not be a surprise if US is giving WMDs to kim. The US is in no way or form in danger of a radical Korean regime.
1: We didn't give him WMDs. We, the UK, France, and Russia armed him with conventional weapons in the '80s.
2: Why would we give WMDs to Kim if we have sanctions on him?
3: I don't believe we the US is directly threatened by NK either. I was telling Th-e that he needs to watch his rhetoric when arguing in favor of ousting Kim.
At 2/17/14 09:29 PM, Th-e wrote: Of course, the Iraq stuff was based on false evidence, whereas North Korea is a more legitimate concern. As for post-Kim Korea, I wouldn't care if North Korea became the next Tibet. If China still wants its buffer zone, fine. Just do away with the Kims and the nukes.
If by legitimate concern you mean a concern to US security, you're more correct. But both Kim Jong Un's North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq have had horrible humanitarian concerns. Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds in the north and south, ran a horribly efficient police state, and started two wars (first Gulf and Iran-Iraq war.) So keep in mind what your rhetoric is; are you asking should we "do something" about Kim Jong Un because you believe he's threatening the US, or because of humanitarian concerns?
At 2/17/14 04:56 PM, Th-e wrote: ...that quote coming from a country that forcibly repatriates refugees, well aware of what happens to them. Why are we supporting their economy, again? Oh, so the rich in America can save money.
The United States needs China as much as China needs the US. And frankly, it's not just us. China is the #2 economy in the world, soon to be the #1, so if people try to stop trading with it, everyone across the globe will feel it. You can talk about how horrible their domestic policy is, but as long as they have money and trade they will have the power, and every country, not just the US, is trading with them.
Yep, even with all this, Kim Jong Un and his regime are guaranteed to go unpunished, and the regime will go on...forever.
Oh, and they will be fully nuclear.
This smells an awful lot like the "take out Saddam!" rhetoric we all forgot was totally real in 2002 and 2003. I have no problem with making sure Kim Jong Un doesn't go nuclear (which is kind of too late) but keep in mind it's not as simple as taking him out. You think that South Korea would just go in and administer the freed North? I don't think China would let them.
It is SO easy to call for punishing dictators, but if you break a country, you buy it. Saddam, make no mistake, was as bad, if not worse than Kim Jong Il and Un. But the only way to knock him out was to invade and depose him. Would you recommend something similar in North Korea?
At 2/15/14 10:52 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:
So, what do I recommend for Scotland? Well, as with all answers, it depends, mostly on what kind of internal structures and institutions Scotland already processes. If they think they do enough trade with Europe and want to further promote that by all means they should try to adopt the Euro...Running your own currency may sound like a good idea too but try to first get people to invest in the new currency and show that it's not going to falter.
While the second option you gave (keep the pound) is certainly the most popular with the Scottish nationalists, it's no longer viable, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I doubt that Scotland's economy would do well by starting anew with its own currency. The reason why Scotland agreed to join England and Wales in 1707 was to gain overseas trade, and they'd have to start all over by seceding. I have no doubt Britain would try to hinder their progress in that regard too. And while you could say Scotland could survive because it has North Sea oil, are they really banking on that? It would not be able to compete with Russia, Canada, or the Arab States. The United States is (or will be soon) the world's largest producer of oil, and our oil imports (while still too large) have been steadily dropping like a stone.
I'm getting off topic. Main point is, I think secession would be terrible for Scotland's economy, but if it does secede, it better pray Germany lets it into the Eurozone.
I apologize for the double post, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced that if Scotland secedes, it cannot use the pound sterling. Looks like it's either the Euro for Scotland or its own currency.
I also wonder how Scottish foreign affairs would play out. Would they withdraw themselves from Britain's many overseas bases? Would they immediately withdraw from Afghanistan?
All in all I hope that Scotland doesn't secede.
I feel like it would be cheating for Scotland to declare its independence from the UK but to still want to keep the pound sterling. If you're going to secede, do it all the way and create a uniquely Scottish currency or get the Euro; otherwise don't act like being a part of the UK hasn't done anything for you.
Nobody's bothering with "freeing" North Korea because it's in nobody's best interests. North Korea is too isolated to survive any retaliation in the event that it attacks someone.
Yes, you're right, China is an ally of North Korea. But even so, China is not going to be on North Korea's side if it provokes war. Why? Because that would ruin China's trading relations with the United States and the West, and as much as we may rightfully dislike the current balance of trade, China needs us just as much as we need them. We are each other's meal ticket, and China would not want to ruin that to save its Communist brother. Plus, China has been getting more and more annoyed at North Korea's actions, in particular the shelling of Yeonpyang and the sinking of South Korean ships.
And while China is North Korea's #1 trading partner, North Korea is China's 82nd-largest trading partner. Now, who are China's biggest trading partners? From biggest to smallest, we have the EU, USA, Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea. Aka, "Western imperialist puppet enemies of the Juche ideals." China may not like Japan or South Korea but it's not going to declare war alongside North Korea on its enemies.
Second, North Korea is not going to attack the West anytime soon. We love to call dictators wackos and morons, but it is a mistake to underestimate them. Kim Jong-Un may be a horrible person, but he is not stupid. He knows darn well that any war he starts he will lose. Even if Kim Jong Un is not completely in control, the military has considerable power and they are not a bunch of looney tunes. They are smart enough not to start things they can't finish.
But of course, why not an international humanitarian invasion to overthrow evil Kim and install a democracy? Finally reunite Korea into one big happy family? Well, China wouldn't want a war on its doorstep, so no UN resolution would ever pass. Any attack done by NATO and South Korea and Japan would be seen as imperialist aggression, and frankly, the world has lost its idealistic view of spreading democracy. After Iraq and Afghanistan, and the lack of real results in bombing Libya, the West and the US in particular has lost its love for nation building. We are suffering from Vietnam syndrome. We're not willing to fight, we're not willing to free North Korea because we know we'd get so much crap for it and frankly we have enough problems as is.
So that's that. Nobody's going to free NK because those with the power are unwilling too. But also know that NK isn't going to hand us a situation where it would be justified, either. Kim Jong is here to stay, and the only way he's leaving is if the North Koreans rise up and kick him out.
So the dystopia is here to stay.
At 2/13/14 12:54 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures
Where in this does it say the government cannot let the Federal Reserve do this? Keep in mind it says what the government can do, not what it can't.
At 2/12/14 11:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Please don't try to play word games this time.
He's not playing word games. He's just stating facts and you think it's word games.
At 2/12/14 02:17 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
The US has never be attacked except for Perl Harbor. So what you think is security is actually acts of aggression and oppression/subjugation.
-Attacks on Concorde and Lexington by the British
-Washington DC bombed by the British in 1812
-Sinking of the Lusitania before WWI
-Sinking of the Maine 1898
-Attacks on US soldiers in Lebanon
-US Embassy bombing in Tanzania
-Japanese balloon bombs during WWII
-Anthrax attacks, 2001
Oh, and in case you forgot, September fucking 11th! 3,000 people dead in New York City. How can you forget that ever happened?
Wars are started by the US for material gain for example Oil and to try and get countries like Iran back on the Petro Dollar.
*facepalm* We want to get Iran on the petrodollar? Hello, we have sanctions against them. If we want to buy Iran's oil so much, why would we go to war when we could just nix the sanctions? Boom, you get Iranian oil, they're "on the petrodollar" and no lives are lost.
At 2/11/14 12:24 PM, TheMason wrote: Is it a waste of money? From an American perspective it does. We could easily sink them at the first provocation. On the other hand, it will show that they have the reach to put the US mainland within range of Tactical Ballistic Missiles (TBMs).
That is a very good point. I did not think about that. But, selling things like RPGs and guns are one thing, I don't think countries are as willing to part with advanced missile technology.
At 2/11/14 02:09 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: The Petro Dollar is a very well know concept. Bread and Milk do not cause oppression/subjugation and wars.
You obviously don't know the reason why wars are fought. They are fought for two things: security and/or material gain.
At 2/11/14 12:05 AM, TheMason wrote: 2) It is showing that their capabilities are improving (a transatlantic trip is good training, and does require some skill).
I'm sure any navy, given enough oil, could pilot their ship anywhere in the world. And it's not like Iran is going near the US border fighting us off the whole time. They're going to sail unmolested near our borders and just sit there doing nothing. And they'll be in international waters the whole time; they could have legally done this years ago too. It's really a waste of money and if anything shows how weak they are.
At 2/10/14 03:41 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Your opinion on the Petro Dollar in invalid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar
I swear to G-d are you that lazy that your research is a link to a Wikipedia article? And here's the first paragraph of that article.
"A petrodollar is a United States dollar earned by a country through the sale of its petroleum (oil) to another country.[1] The term was coined in 1973 by Georgetown University economics professor, Ibrahim Oweiss, who recognized the need for a term that could describe the dollar received by petroleum exporting countries (OPEC) in exchange for oil."
A petrodollar is just a concept. It's a US dollar that is used to buy oil. It's like calling what you hand the cashier at Walmart GroceryDollars. Or in your case, what you hand the dealer are 'ShroomDollars because copious amounts of mushrooms are the best explanation for where you get your crackpot ideas.
No, wait, petrodollars are obviously a real genuine currency. Can you please show me some pictures of a freshly printed petrodollar bill, or some petrodollar coins? Is there a US PetroDollar mint in DC alongside the regular USD mint? I don't see any vending machines that accept petrodollars, either.
In a display of naval power, Iran is sending some warships near the US maritime border on its eastern seaboard. This is no doubt just part of Iran's rise to power as a regional player in the Middle East, as well as the fact that US-Iran relations have been terrible for a long time.
There's going to be a lot of controversy about this, but frankly I don't think it's that big of a deal, and if anything, it shows that Iran is not quite the giant it wants to be compared the US.
First off, this is partially tit for tat. The US has had naval forces in the Persian Gulf for a long time now, both in international waters and in Saudi and Kuwaiti waters as part of military agreements and training exercises. This is not just a part of Iran's growth as a regional power, but also a reaction to US strength in the region.
But is this a bold show of dominance? Is Iran's message of "see you how you like our boats near your waters" going to be effective? Frankly, no. it isn't. They're not doing anything that they haven't been able to do for decades. Iran is just as capable of going into international waters now as it was for a long time. Any country can go where they are in international waters, ironically in no small part thanks to the US's navy combating pirates.
Iran thinks they're, to use a bad pun, testing the waters, but really they're not leaving the kiddie pool.
At 2/4/14 12:42 PM, ZJ wrote: Essentially it's going to be same old "Evolution is just a theory!" debate we've heard a bunch of times,
Evolution IS just a theory, that's why it's called the theory of evolution. Not even Bill Nye will call it fact because science is proof without certainty. It's a lot easier to know if something's wrong than if it's right, and evolution is nowhere near close to being proven as fact. It's just the best guess we have so far, which frankly is the level we're at for just about all of science.
At 2/4/14 11:21 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Back on topic this thread is useless. I guess that's the thing. Useless misinformation that is in bad taste.
I swear, Ayatollah "I feel nothing" Khomeini had more of a sense of humor than this guy.
