Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Im referring to the surrogacy bill. Marriage isn't the end all and be all of LGBT rights.In my country LGBT people can get married with each other.
In most of the Slavic world, LGBT can't even get married.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Im referring to the surrogacy bill. Marriage isn't the end all and be all of LGBT rights.In my country LGBT people can get married with each other.
In most of the Slavic world, LGBT can't even get married.
Good thing they didn't get their way in the end.Many wanted
to let Hitler carve out his piece of the globe
to avoid more violence.
And the weather.I guess it's just a matter of how one looks at it. But geography also plays a role in it as well.
China (with under 10% by weapons count)We've had a mostly adversarial relationship with both China and Russia for quite some time. Through most of that time, we have held the upper hand. We all have substantial nuclear arsenals.
Are you asking because you see none?Are there risks from China and Russia "being emboldened from seeing that conquest works"?
I imply nothing other than seeking to curbIt seems that what this implies is a test of power and resolve. If they have aspirations of conquest or territorial expansion, then the implication is that the West must respond in such a way so as to demonstrate that we have a force as strong as or stronger than theirs and that we have the resolve to use it if they cross the line.
Noted.It was similar during the Cold War. But there were some failures as well, such as with the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Nicaragua, stalemate in Korea. You win some, you lose some. But in the end, the West probably won a lot more, with the addition of the former Warsaw Pact states joining NATO, along with three former Soviet Republics. We can learn from this as well, but overall, I think the U.S. and Allied geopolitical position is in pretty good shape overall.
Also, in the Pacific Rim, the U.S. has been shoring up its alliances from Australia to Japan. But there are still a number of areas that are outside of our alliance system and might have warmer relations with China or Russia. Even within our own hemisphere. We can't control everything, but our geopolitical position is strong enough at present that the risks you refer to are extremely marginal. Unless Putin is a complete and utter madman, in which case we all probably would be glowing in the dark by now.
It's not a question of who "deserves to win." "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." It's more a question of what's actually happening and whether they can find some sort of peaceful resolution to this conflict.
Always tricky to predict in advance,Good thing they didn't get their way in the end.
And the weather.
See....I can make statements without meaning too.
China (with under 10% by weapons count)
doesn't compare to USA & Russia....yet.
Which Countries Have Nuclear Weapons?
- Russia — 6,257 (1,458 active, 3039 available, 1,760 retired)
- United States — 5,550 (1,389 active, 2,361 available, 1,800 retired)
- China — 350 available (actively expanding nuclear arsenal)
- France — 290 available
- United Kingdom — 225 available
- Pakistan — 165 available
- India — 156 available
- Israel — 90 available
- North Korea — 40-50 available (estimated)
Are you asking because you see none?
I look at Tibet, the S China Sea, & Taiwan.
Threat.
I imply nothing other than seeking to curb
violent expansion by other countries.
How to do this is the real issue.
Your posts are just so sophisticated thatAh, but there was meaning. There is meaning to everything I say. Just because you can't or won't discern the meaning is your loss.
The difference shouldn't be glossed over.Still counts as substantial in my opinion. Just for the record:
You may consider risks without buying into a caricature.It's not that I don't see any risks, and I acknowledge that they may pose some threat to U.S. interests (just as they might believe the same about us). But I can't really buy into the caricature of a couple of villainous madman looking at the globe and planning to conquer more countries.
Duh.China has been threatening Taiwan since 1949. They haven't invaded yet. Maybe they might still do so in the future.
You think that's as likely as China invading Taiwan?Maybe North Korea might invade South Korea again.
It's more productive to consider what's likelyWe can discuss all kinds of possible scenarios, but you were speaking about "meaningless" statements above.
Don't propose one.Well, we're not going to come up with a one-size-fits-all solution here.
Your posts are just so sophisticated that
they all fly over me head. Must be.
The difference shouldn't be glossed over.
You may consider risks without buying into a caricature.
Duh.
You think that's as likely as China invading Taiwan?
It's more productive to consider what's likely
than to dredge up every scenario you can imagine.
Don't propose one.
We've covered this already.I was merely pointing out that geography is a pertinent consideration. You said it was "meaningless," but I obviously disagree with that.
Perhaps my post was too sophisticated?"Glossed over"? I'm not sure I understand your meaning here.
I advise avoiding dwelling on caricatures.We can consider calculated risks, yes. But in order to do that, we need an accurate picture of who the "enemy" is, not a caricature or a parody. "Know your enemy," I've heard it said. Sounds like sage wisdom to me.
I can.I'm not a geopolitical oddsmaker, so I can't answer that question. Can you?
I see no clear winner to the war.So, what do you think is likely? Based on what is happening on the ground in Ukraine right now, how do you think this will end up?
OK.I'm not. My proposal for the moment would be an immediate cease fire and a beginning of peace negotiations. Neither side would have to give anything up or make any concessions to do that; they just pause the fighting and talk for a while. See what happens. They can always start up fighting later if they want to.
We've covered this already.
Perhaps my post was too sophisticated?
I advise avoiding dwelling on caricatures.
I can.
I see no clear winner to the war.
But Putin will be weakened.
You asked only if I can.I look forward to your sharing your prognostication someday.
You asked only if I can.
Not what it is.
Not in the case of Mussolini, or Hitler, or Franco, ...In Europe speaking of war or of sending weapons makes you lose the elections.
It has happened to every single politician who spoke of war, warfare, etc...
Mussolini was loved, cheered, praised for 18 years.Not in the case of Mussolini, or Hitler, or Franco, ...
Actually, you didn't. Here: Benito Mussolini - Fascism, Italy, WW2Mussolini was loved, cheered, praised for 18 years.
As soon as he entered the war, Italians hated him and then killed him in Milan, Piazzale Loreto.
So I basically proved my point.
Actually, you didn't. Here: Benito Mussolini - Fascism, Italy, WW2
Oops, I misread your post, so sorry.I did. Just tell me what I said wrong.
Poland...which is the protagonist in this EU-Zelensky little misunderstanding, belongs to the Visegrad group.
A group totally devoted to Christian Nationalism.
Christian Nationalists....ugh.
Imposing some rather unchristian values upon the unwilling.
What are your thoughts on these developments? Do you think they will have a moderate-to-major impact or only turn out to be relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things?
Ukraine has applied to join the EU.
Isn't the US the first world power?
The US alone can provide Ukrainians warfare.
You could count Europeans out.