That's weird, when I quote your last post and preview,it looks fine.

[quote=orathaic post_id=233172 time=1618599183 user_id=64]
[quote=yavuzovic post_id=233113 time=1618528319 user_id=95]

I mostly meant the overall world because many developing countries are increasing their life conditions and civil wars aren't as common as before. Apparently the world has been in a constant state of war but there could be more hope if states didn't start a new invasion era. I don't think nation's really want invading foreign lands if asked democratically, their fault is supporting a government that wants it.
[/quote]

Have you read Steven Pinker's "Angels of our Better Natures"?
[/quote]

No but its Wikipedia page is interesting. I also got the main idea.
The fact is that people can now learn about what's going on in the world better than anytime in the history and at least 95% of people don't want to support violence regardless what it brings. Both in the history and today, people can support extreme views as long as they don't see its results. I haven't read "Men Against Fire" by S.L.A. Marshall but I read a summary of the idea he presented. Clearly people tend to respect other human beings which gives hope.

Edit: I tried but quote doesn't work?

yavuzovic wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:11 pm

I mostly meant the overall world because many developing countries are increasing their life conditions and civil wars aren't as common as before. Apparently the world has been in a constant state of war but there could be more hope if states didn't start a new invasion era. I don't think nation's really want invading foreign lands if asked democratically, their fault is supporting a government that wants it.

Have you read Steven Pinker's "Angels of our Better Natures"?

Octavious wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:13 pm

yavuzovic wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:08 am

orathaic wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:47 am

@ yavuzovic

Which we was supposed to end statism?

Humans were doing pretty well and the whole world started to increase it's living conditions. People should have realised that wars aren't only bad for the attacked.

It would be nice if it were true. However Azerbaijan just had a rather good war, and you could argue that Russia's act of aggression in Crimea was overwhelmingly positive for them. Syria's civil war is perhaps the most grim of all recent conflicts, but even then it's possible to argue that not fighting it would have been worse for the Syrian leadership.

I mostly meant the overall world because many developing countries are increasing their life conditions and civil wars aren't as common as before. Apparently the world has been in a constant state of war but there could be more hope if states didn't start a new invasion era. I don't think nation's really want invading foreign lands if asked democratically, their fault is supporting a government that wants it.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:21 am

yavuzovic wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:08 am

orathaic wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:47 am

@ yavuzovic

Which we was supposed to end statism?

Humans were doing pretty well and the whole world started to increase it's living conditions. People should have realised that wars aren't only bad for the attacked.

It is only a pity then that the one global super power never learned this..

Powerful people are not the ones who should worry about that. Those who gain behind the government would want chauvinistic nations so they can obtain even more power. I'm not against the idea that money can effect nation's democratic choices but the nation's mustn't lose their democratic power over the state tradition.

In an ideal world, no. But we don't live in an ideal world.

I think French assistance to former colonies fighting Islamic forces is an interest G example.

France wants to use it's military projection to gain influence over former colonies, those countries want to enhanced their own security. So far so mutually beneficial.

At which point you can begin to question the legitimacy of state violence. But given the common narrative of these Islamic groups being terrorists fighting them seems justified. They are choosing to use violence, so it seems justified.

How and ever, perhaps in the absence of French support these countries would find a peaceful solution (assuming neither side was able to gain an unbeatable advantage). The absence of an incentive to even try is something French intervention brings to the situation.

Assuming you disagree with the Islamic a terrorism narrative, you have to look deeper at Islamophobia, and how colonial and imperialistic influences have driven militant Islam to develop as a philosophy of violence tooppose the (mostly US driven) western imperialism.

Would the US be justified in intervening in China to end violence against Tibetans and/or Uyghurs populations? Almost certainly not. The reason isn't because these people's don't deserve protection, but because the US would only ever intervene be ause it is in the own interests.

Would Islamic terrorists be justified in fighting to ending Chinese genocide against the Uyghurs? Probably. But they have spent far too much time opposing other Imperial powers, and it seems unlikely to be an effective approach to ending the Chinese actions.

To look at the specifics of Taiwan and China. There is no reason to assume China needs or wants to invade. As Taiwan loses influence and falls behind China can simply apply political pressure to bring about unification. Using force seems completely unnecessary when they could just wait like they did with Hong Kong. I hope they have this much wisdom.

Russia on the other hand has demonstrated aggression against its neighbours used primarily to increase domestic popularity of the ruling party and secondarily to oppose expanding EU/US and NATO expansion. They are in a delicate position, declining population, combined with a weak opposition, and it is unclear that Putin has any plan for a successor to take over, if oil/gas revenues dry up they will be in trouble. Would US intervention be justified? I think it is pretty clear my answer will be no to this as well.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:21 am

yavuzovic wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:08 am

orathaic wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:47 am

@ yavuzovic

Which we was supposed to end statism?

Humans were doing pretty well and the whole world started to increase it's living conditions. People should have realised that wars aren't only bad for the attacked.

It is only a pity then that the one global super power never learned this..

I think we can all agree that many of the US interventions have been awful (e.g. Second Iraq War, Vietnam and many others).

Do you ever see a case where intervention is right...or are all overseas military interventions bad?

I really would like an intervention in Burma, I would see that as a good thing (I hear about the suffering every day from my wife)...though I understand the political realities make it extraordinarily unlikely.

yavuzovic wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:08 am

orathaic wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:47 am

@ yavuzovic

Which we was supposed to end statism?

Humans were doing pretty well and the whole world started to increase it's living conditions. People should have realised that wars aren't only bad for the attacked.

It would be nice if it were true. However Azerbaijan just had a rather good war, and you could argue that Russia's act of aggression in Crimea was overwhelmingly positive for them. Syria's civil war is perhaps the most grim of all recent conflicts, but even then it's possible to argue that not fighting it would have been worse for the Syrian leadership.

yavuzovic wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:08 am

orathaic wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:47 am

@ yavuzovic

Which we was supposed to end statism?

Humans were doing pretty well and the whole world started to increase it's living conditions. People should have realised that wars aren't only bad for the attacked.

It is only a pity then that the one global super power never learned this..

orathaic wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:47 am

@ yavuzovic

Which we was supposed to end statism?

Humans were doing pretty well and the whole world started to increase it's living conditions. People should have realised that wars aren't only bad for the attacked.

@ yavuzovic

Which we was supposed to end statism?

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:12 pm

What if China invaded Taiwan and Russia invaded the Ukraine simultaneously? How would the US and Europe react to a challenging situation that, even if they were under firm and decisive leadership, they would struggle to find the resources to effectively counter?

I place my bet on "They will do the exact thing that Britain and France did when Nazi Germany started to invade it's surroundings."

It looks logical to avoid conflict first because letting the "supposed villains" take some land causes less damage and death than immediately responding. However these countries tend to be very greedy and we end up having even more death and suffering at the end. And since some Ukrainian sides support Russian invasion, I can see a Russisch Anschluss justified in Russian nationalists' eyes.

We were supposed to eliminate statism and establish a liberal society away from the concerns of countries' greeds. Yet we kept worshipping the mother country and father government. Now we shoot and eat bullet for the family.

You posed the question "How would the US and Europe react?".

I'm attempting to discuss with you how you think they *should* react and your answer appears to be "they should consult with their advisors".

Well that's great. Thread finished. Congratulations.

You favour choosing the action first, and save finding out whether it's possible until later?

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:55 pm

Moi?

First I'd start wargaming some scenarios and consult with my advisors to try and build up a feel for what is and isn't possible.

That's a very non-committal answer, given you seem to feel very strongly that some kind of serious action is required.

Moi?

First I'd start wargaming some scenarios and consult with my advisors to try and build up a feel for what is and isn't possible.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:02 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 12, 2021 3:09 pm

On what basis do you assert that the United States, specifically, is under any obligation, moral or otherwise, to intervene in this situation?

In my opinion the USA's military adventures across the world usually lead to an increase in death, suffering, and injustice, in the regions involved.

I don't think Taiwan has significant oil reserves so presumably Uncle Sam will stay at home.

A permanent seat on the Security Council and being the only true superpower on the planet able to enforce the rule of law across the globe gives it a clear moral obligation. The desire and expectation to be seen as leader of the free world gives it the required domestic narrative. The necessity of countering growing Chinese dominance in Asia and Africa gives it plenty of self interest. Nailing your flag to pax America has to be seen to giving some clear benefit, otherwise there will be precious little motivation for currently friendly countries to keep doing it.

If you were the President of the United States, what would your response be to this situation, then? How would you propose to act?

What do you think is right for Ukraine then? You would prefer it to continue its vassal state status with Russia (like Belarus)...and the EU/US are wrong for providing any support which may question this status?

Not at all, being fascist supported by the EU because they are anti-Russia and pro-Ukraine doesn't make you any less fascists...

You just happen to fit a nice narrative for anti-Russia EU countries.

Weren't there diplomatic leaks where the US discussed how much the EU had balled things up, and we're in no position to actually sort out the shit they had started?

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 12, 2021 3:14 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 12, 2021 3:06 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 12, 2021 2:26 am

Meanwhile, Ukraine fascists learned that European soft power wouldn't be enough to prevent Russian nationalists claiming half their country. The EU would be well advised to negotiate a peaceful solution with Russia. I'm pretty sure the UK is already looking for a new ally to make them feel relevant again...

I don't understand - why are the Ukrainians fascists? I really hope that at some point Ukraine could become part of the EU. You would not want to see that?

There was a fascist coup in Ukraine in 2014. I'm surprised you haven't heard about it.

I vaguely remember the far right claims now. I just didn't think anyone took them seriously.

It was sort of orthogonal to the issue at hand though, wasn't it (Ukraine increasing ties with the EU)?

Or are you suggesting that being pro-EU is fascist?