So if I understood correctly, Putin is interested in conquering Italy too?
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Same old Vlad the Merciful - as if!
- Thread starter Mock Turtle
- Start date
Was it ever part of Russia or the USSR?
Perhaps it's cuz you guys are such commies.
I just would like Americans to understand that Europeans are over the notion of war, and the European nations will be forced to decline.
Well, I do understand that the wars fought in Europe have been far more devastating than anything we've had on our continent. But are all Europeans in every nation over the notion of war? I'm not so sure of that. There's always old scores to settle. Ancient blood feuds can always be revived.
As the saying goes, no one ever forgets where they buried the hatchet.
One way the U.S. was able to minimize involvement in foreign wars was - to not get involved. If two other countries had a fight, our general tendency was to stay out of it. We didn't get involved in the Napoleonic Wars or the Crimean War or the Franco-Prussian War. What was it to us? It was actually advantageous to our national interests that we sit back and let the Europeans fight each other, as that would mean they would leave us alone.
Some people call that "isolationism," although in practice, that wasn't really the case. We still welcomed countless immigrants from Europe who were escaping war, upheaval, and autocratic governments, and this also strengthened and enhanced America.
But nowadays, I'm not so sure where things stand. I truly wish there were no wars anywhere, but I also recognize that this is the world system that humans have chosen. Some people attribute our violent, warlike tendencies to "human nature," although that can be curbed and restrained.
The feuds that there can be are those peoples vs elites. Meaning...the French, Italian, German commoners united against the financial elites.
As it was demonstrated throughout these 2 years.
I think some people were thinking along those lines back during WW1. They thought the working classes and the foot soldiers would stop fighting each other in a pointless, bloody war and turn the guns back on their oppressors (capitalists, imperialists, financial elite, nobility, aristocracy - whatever one wishes to call them). They did so in Russia, and it was thought that the proletariat in other countries would follow their example. The idea appealed to some people, but it was clear that in many European countries, nationalism still had a very strong hold on the hearts and minds of the people.
Another hedge against dividing the peoples vs elites was that, at least in the Western liberal democracies, many elites recognized the value in at least giving some accommodation to the needs of the common people. Greater tolerance of labor unions and protecting the right to collectively bargain was a key factor in gaining the loyalty of the common people to the national government. Social programs, better housing, healthcare, education - all of these things reduced any desire for working against the system, as long as people saw some tangible benefit.
As long as people believe they have a stake in the system, they won't seek to overthrow it. That's how they were turned away from the more internationalist view of "workers of the world, unite!" In that sense, the liberals and progressives should be credited with saving Western capitalism from almost certain demise.
One can clearly recognize the difference between then and now. Back then, liberals and progressives had a certain common sense, practical wisdom which seems conspicuously absent nowadays.
Well...I think that war is detrimental and self-destructive. Peace, diplomacy, international agreements bring us advantages. War brings nothing but destruction and turmoil. Europeans have understood it 77 years ago. They have said "no more".
Except in Yugoslavia back in the 90s, but at least it didn't spread throughout Europe. However, I get your general point that Europe has remained relatively stable and peaceful. Though they have still participated in wars outside of Europe, as the U.S. has done. Some of it has been due to the wreckage caused by colonialism in Africa and Asia. Then, there are other times when there's some "rogue nation" that pops up out of the blue, such as Iraq or Afghanistan. The US alliance with Europe was very helpful in carrying out those affairs.
So, they're not totally against war. It's just that they've learned, as we Americans have learned, it's better to have wars fought on other countries' soil than on your own.
It deals with wars that are outside of the EU. Started by others.
If my country has participated in proxy wars either directly or indirectly, it has violated its own constitution, the art 11 more precisely.
Which states:
- Italy rejects war as instrument to settle international conflicts.
- international conflicts can only be solved through peace. In order to achieve peace Italy delegates its own sovereignty to international organizations that promote peace and safety among nations.
Nato does not promote peace so it is not one of them.
Augustus
…
I just would like Americans to understand that Europeans are over the notion of war, and the European nations will be forced to decline.
The Russians aren't against the notion of war hence they repeatedly start them.
The Eastern Europeans who were colonised by the Russians are very much up for the notion of war against Russian aggression rather than capitulation and appeasement.
It's not a fun little Internet game for them as it is for you. It's easy to sit in a safe country and pretend it's about Soros, but none of your family are being threatened. It's just fun for you.
Sorry to break it to you, but the Americans better understand the people of Poland and Lithuania and Estonia than you do.
You know nothing.
Eastern Europeans like Orbán's Hungary?
The same Orbán who cordially met Putin last January?
Last edited:
Augustus
…
Like I said, a game to you that you play from safety.
Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czechia, Slovakia rather than a Quisling
All these countries you have mentioned are light years away from the lounge-loving and carefree Brussels elites. Brussels elites wo are okaying the destruction of old Europe through mass immigration and financial dictatorship of Eurocracy.
They are racist and xenophobic in the eyes of Brussels. Because they demand the preservation of what they call "Christian Caucasian Europe".
So...when the time of picking side comes, I strongly doubt they will choose the Brussels side.
Last edited:
Augustus
…
What is certain is that they hate Putin and his apologists and Quislings far more than they hate the EU.
For them it isn't a game like the one you play.
The idea Poles and Estonians think like you do is insane.
I am not playing any game. It is the Brussels elites who are shamelessly gaming with the life of millions of Europeans, by making this conflict escalate through sanctions and shipments to weapons.
It deals with incredibly wealthy elites who couldn't care less about the populace, whom they despise.
They just enjoy their billions of euros sipping cocktails in luxurious villas.
I am a very serious person. And unlike others who want all Russians to die, I love both Ukrainians and Russians (my country is welcoming so many Ukrainian refugees) and I want this war to end today, so no Ukrainian and no Russian dies.
So, as you can see, I am good.
I don't know if Italy participated in any of those wars, but the U.S. has, and the U.S. has bases in Italy.
I remember an argument I had with someone from Germany, who was complaining about U.S. military bases in his country. I don't know if he actually used the word "imperialism," but I've sensed a good deal of resentment from Europeans over the perceived US hegemony over their continent (at least the Western half). France, for example, didn't allow US bases anymore, and they also severely limited their involvement within NATO. Western European nations didn't want to be considered satellites of the US any more than the Eastern European nations wanted to be satellites of the USSR. I've even talked to people from the UK who seem to be resentful of the US.
What I've told all of them is, "Look, if you don't like the US military being in your country, then tell your own government to kick us out." There are many Americans who don't like the idea of having troops all over the world, but the reason most accept the idea is because they believe the U.S. government when it says that the European nations want us there and need us to remain. It's treated more as an obligation - something we don't want to do, but we do it out of a sense of obligation to the world. Personally, I think it's a load of BS, but that's what our government tells us, and it's why Americans go along with it.
I just wish that Europeans would make it clear in no uncertain terms: "Yankee go home!" That way, at least our government can't get away with lying about it, and it might help change public opinion in the U.S.
American bases or NATO bases are useful, if NATO has the purpose of defending countries.
There is a very strong connection between NATO and EU, some even speculate that they are the same thing.
So, I think the NATO should be more about promoting peace all over the world.
Soldiers can protect civilians from being attacked. Peacekeeping operations.
Augustus
…
Of course you are.
Ukraine gets to defend itself. It doesn't have to capitulate just because of your love for Saint Vladimir the Good.
The EU, especially Germany, is actually holding back armaments out of their own self-interest. Before the war they even prevented weapons being flown in via German airspace.
The Eastern Europeans would give them whatever they wanted if they had more support form the EU.
But this doesn't fit into your worldview as the Eastern Europeans have been the victims of centuries of Russian aggression and oppression and thus can't pretend that Putin is a benign and kindly teddybear simply because they subscribe to a ridiculous conspiracy theory about George Soros.
You have to blame Soros and the EU, and paint Putin as the hero regardless of the facts.
I think you are a good person too. I just think you happen to be delusional on this topic.
Russia could end the war and the suffering at any time it chooses. Just remove their invasion force and stop killing the people they claim to be protecting and stop destroying the cities they claim to be liberating.
On the other hand, George Soros and the EU have no ability to stop the war.
Augustus
…
Who does that?
One of the reasons for NATO was to weaken European militaries and capability to act independently of the US.
It was basically a quid pro quo, the US subsidises European defence and in exchange it buys greater political power.
Yes, there is a way. By compromise. By bargaining. By finding a diplomatic solution, even if temporary. But this should have been done in February, before all those people died.
So...in other words, I am convinced certain Brussels elites do want war. And are doing anything to make the war escalate.