By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - FBI Released Proof of Russian DNC Hacking - US expels 35 Russian diplomats & Sanctioned Two Compounds

DrDoomz on 05 January 2017
Soundwave said:
DrDoomz said:

As shouldn't you. I find the Saudis much worse than Russia tbh. Thus I see your joker/scarecrow analogy quite the opposite as you do. There is something about religion that brings the worst in people. The only thing Russia has over SA is that Russia is much bigger/more powerful. So you might see them as a more viable short term threat. I also see that their idealogical endgame is much much worse for the world (Sharia Law) than what Russia has in store. They just don't have the power. At least not yet.

Hell, if you wanna talk about dangerous required reading that hint at world domination, check theirs out.

I don't hand wave anything, actually, my point is that you are actually the one doing the hand waving. There are plenty of threats out there. Why focus on one? Maybe you're more worried because Russia may become a viable threat to American dominance? Well, I don't see complete dominance as a good thing. Having someone in close second nipping at its heels can keep America in check, and that is a good thing IMO.

Personally, I know that there is little I can do to affect the geopolitics of the world and I find worrying snd fearmongering to be a waste of time.

I think SA would like to have Sharia law in their neck of the woods, not even so much because I think the Saudi rulers even believe any of that shit, it's just a good way to keep the religious nutters in check. The Saudi rich wigs, they're partying it up in nightclubs and driving Lambos, they don't give a poop about Sharia. 

There's no realistic way anyone with a lick of common sense could think that Sharia could become some global thing ... I mean you can't even play music ... like lol, forget ideological warfare, that would just get laughed out of the majority of the world, I'd bet even a majority of Muslims deep down think it's a load of bollocks. 

I actually don't think having two forces is beneficial. The Cold War was far more dangerous than the worst threats we face today, a bunch of cave dwellers with a standing army smaller than the nation of Ethophia driving around in used Toyota trucks with no heavy infantry, like 5 tanks, no air force, no anti-air weapons, is laughable compared to things like the Cuban Missle Crisis where the world literally probably came within 30-40 minutes of a cataclysmic war that probably would mean that none of us who are typing on this forum would even probably be alive, because the course of human history would be so dramatically altered that none of our parents likely meet in the same way (and many of them probably would be dead in the ensuing conflicts). 

Like the US or not, but the 90s and even the 2000s IMO were a lot safer. Having two equal superpowers jockeying for position inevitably is going to lead to a war that's going to leave hundreds of millions dead (or one of two has to collapse upon itself). We're just too stupid as a species to avoid it. Maybe in 200-300 years we'll grow out of it. 

Yet SA is seen as one of the biggest financiers of Islamic terrorism in the world. So it looks like they spend their money on more than nightclubs and Lambos.

So you're saying it is impossible for Muslims to exploit immigration in order to flood into small first world countries with declining native birth rates and dominate via population growth?

I disagree. I find your cold war analogy to be out of touch with our current reality. We are in the information age. Annihilation via war between the US and Russia is not the reality we live in these days. This isn't the 60s or 70s where ppl in the 2 largest superpowers were paranoid, closed off and xenophobic (with hair triggers on the nuke button). Wars are fought via the economy and via influence in the world stage. Russia closing in will not guarantee another Cold War or a nuclear standoff. There are too many lines of communication/information for this to happen and there is no benefit to it for them to even hint at world war (a war that they know will have no winners) if they want their worldwide influence to grow. Unless, that is, the US instigates it to protect its position (but I doubt that, too). But the US is too powerful right now (relative to the cold war era). It is never going to happen anytime soon unless something drastic happens.



Around the Network
Soundwave on 05 January 2017
DrDoomz said:
Soundwave said:

I think SA would like to have Sharia law in their neck of the woods, not even so much because I think the Saudi rulers even believe any of that shit, it's just a good way to keep the religious nutters in check. The Saudi rich wigs, they're partying it up in nightclubs and driving Lambos, they don't give a poop about Sharia. 

There's no realistic way anyone with a lick of common sense could think that Sharia could become some global thing ... I mean you can't even play music ... like lol, forget ideological warfare, that would just get laughed out of the majority of the world, I'd bet even a majority of Muslims deep down think it's a load of bollocks. 

I actually don't think having two forces is beneficial. The Cold War was far more dangerous than the worst threats we face today, a bunch of cave dwellers with a standing army smaller than the nation of Ethophia driving around in used Toyota trucks with no heavy infantry, like 5 tanks, no air force, no anti-air weapons, is laughable compared to things like the Cuban Missle Crisis where the world literally probably came within 30-40 minutes of a cataclysmic war that probably would mean that none of us who are typing on this forum would even probably be alive, because the course of human history would be so dramatically altered that none of our parents likely meet in the same way (and many of them probably would be dead in the ensuing conflicts). 

Like the US or not, but the 90s and even the 2000s IMO were a lot safer. Having two equal superpowers jockeying for position inevitably is going to lead to a war that's going to leave hundreds of millions dead (or one of two has to collapse upon itself). We're just too stupid as a species to avoid it. Maybe in 200-300 years we'll grow out of it. 

Yet SA is seen as one of the biggest financiers of Islamic terrorism in the world. So it looks like they spend their money on more than nightclubs and Lambos.

So you're saying it is impossible for Muslims to exploit immigration in order to flood into small first world countries with declining native birth rates and dominate via population growth?

I disagree. I find your cold war analogy to be out of touch with our current reality. We are in the information age. Annihilation via war between the US and Russia is not the reality we live in these days. This isn't the 60s or 70s where ppl in the 2 largest superpowers were paranoid, closed off and xenophobic (with hair triggers on the nuke button). Wars are fought via the economy and via influence in the world stage. Russia closing in will not guarantee another Cold War or a nuclear standoff. There are too many lines of communication/information for this to happen and there is no benefit to it for them to even hint at world war (a war that they know will have no winners) if they want their worldwide influence to grow. Unless, that is, the US instigates it to protect its position (but I doubt that, too). But the US is too powerful right now. It is never going to happen anytime soon unless something drastic happens.

I'm saying the realistic notion of Sharia law being something that's globally feasible even is somewhat laughable. Are you even allowed to take shit under Sharia law? It's a laughably untendable, unworkable philosophy, the Saudi rulers push it because they want to keep clerics on their side, you can't have them preaching to overthrow the main government now can you? Religion is the opiate of the masses anyway, a religious population is always easier to control and manipulate so what motivation is there for an undemocratic monarchy to want to lose one of the trump cards? Obviously none. 

Two countries that about "evenly" matched is not good, I just don't believe in human naure that much, sorry. We're idiots. Give us two sides that are somewhat evenly matched and the only thing that's going to happen is evenually we'll find a way to get into a fight. Cause we're morons. Honestly speaking most human beings are fucking stupid. The species is pushed forward largely by a few exceptional people popping up and working incredibly hard and the rest of civilization then benefits tremendously from that.



UnderstatedCornHole on 05 January 2017
Soundwave said:
Rab said:

Fair enough, I’m Australian so my natural inclination is towards the US, but the US has done a lot of bad in the World, so I find it hard to reconcile with any propaganda that only highlights China's and Russia's ills

I guess for a most of us balanced fact based reporting would be nice for a change  

I think what is different and extraordinary about this situation is generally speaking the "major players" (of which there are usually only 2-4 at a time) don't ever dare to interfere *directly* in each other's political process. 

That's really dicey, like I don't think the US is messing with China's elections. Yes, big, powerful countries bully little smaller countries for their self interest, yes politicians who are greedy can be bought ... none of that is new. But a major power nakedly interfering into the election process of another major power ... that is a game changer. 

This is in a way an extremely dangerous escalation. 

There you go again, talking as if it's true before the fact has been proven.

Show some critique on your own judgements. Anything on the right that is negative you accept without question. Anything on the left attacking the right you accept without question. Anything from the right attacking the left you deny and anything from the right that could be construed as positive you downplay.

Do you know none of the major powers have been directly interfering with elections prior to now against other major powers?



Soundwave on 05 January 2017
UnderstatedCornHole said:
Soundwave said:

I think what is different and extraordinary about this situation is generally speaking the "major players" (of which there are usually only 2-4 at a time) don't ever dare to interfere *directly* in each other's political process. 

That's really dicey, like I don't think the US is messing with China's elections. Yes, big, powerful countries bully little smaller countries for their self interest, yes politicians who are greedy can be bought ... none of that is new. But a major power nakedly interfering into the election process of another major power ... that is a game changer. 

This is in a way an extremely dangerous escalation. 

There you go again, talking as if it's true before the fact has been proven.

Show some critique on your own judgements. Anything on the right that is negative you accept without question. Anything on the left attacking the right you accept without question. Anything from the right attacking the left you deny and anything from the right that could be construed as positive you downplay.

Do you know none of the major powers have been directly interfering with elections prior to now against other major powers?

The Russian economy has been crippled by sanctions over the last two years by the US and fallen into recession. There's nothing terribly surprising here either, Russia does this kind of thing all the time to neighboring countries (installing pro-Kremlin candidates and then pushing hard to make sure they get elected). 

There's nothing here that I see that is really that unbelievable at all, it's pretty much all textbook, the only exceptional thing about it is that it one superpower against another, but again those sanctions are costing Russia billions of dollars a year. Billions of lost dollars have an interesting way of motivating people.  



DrDoomz on 05 January 2017
Soundwave said:
DrDoomz said:

Yet SA is seen as one of the biggest financiers of Islamic terrorism in the world. So it looks like they spend their money on more than nightclubs and Lambos.

So you're saying it is impossible for Muslims to exploit immigration in order to flood into small first world countries with declining native birth rates and dominate via population growth?

I disagree. I find your cold war analogy to be out of touch with our current reality. We are in the information age. Annihilation via war between the US and Russia is not the reality we live in these days. This isn't the 60s or 70s where ppl in the 2 largest superpowers were paranoid, closed off and xenophobic (with hair triggers on the nuke button). Wars are fought via the economy and via influence in the world stage. Russia closing in will not guarantee another Cold War or a nuclear standoff. There are too many lines of communication/information for this to happen and there is no benefit to it for them to even hint at world war (a war that they know will have no winners) if they want their worldwide influence to grow. Unless, that is, the US instigates it to protect its position (but I doubt that, too). But the US is too powerful right now. It is never going to happen anytime soon unless something drastic happens.

I'm saying the realistic notion of Sharia law being something that's globally feasible even is somewhat laughable. Are you even allowed to take shit under Sharia law? It's a laughably untendable, unworkable philosophy, the Saudi rulers push it because they want to keep clerics on their side, you can't have them preaching to overthrow the main government now can you? 

Two countries that about "evenly" matched is not good, I just don't believe in human naure that much, sorry. We're idiots. Give us two sides that are somewhat evenly matched and the only thing that's going to happen is evenually we'll find a way to get into a fight. Cause we're morons. Honestly speaking most human beings are fucking stupid. The species is pushed forward largely by a few exceptional people popping up and working incredibly and the rest of civilization then benefits tremendously from that.

I don't see it the same way you do. The Saudis don't need to finance Islamic terrorism to keep the clerics happy.

I see humans differently as you. I see them being able to learn from their mistakes/history. Only the insane would annihilate themselves along with their enemies (kinda like what happens due to religious zealotry or North Korea). And right now we (the world) knows enough to not hold nuclear annihilation as a viabl option for settling fights that can be settled via economic/influential means.

Even in economics 101, we know monopolies are a bad thing. So how come you think it is ok in the geoplotical arena?



Around the Network
Soundwave on 05 January 2017
DrDoomz said:
Soundwave said:

I'm saying the realistic notion of Sharia law being something that's globally feasible even is somewhat laughable. Are you even allowed to take shit under Sharia law? It's a laughably untendable, unworkable philosophy, the Saudi rulers push it because they want to keep clerics on their side, you can't have them preaching to overthrow the main government now can you? 

Two countries that about "evenly" matched is not good, I just don't believe in human naure that much, sorry. We're idiots. Give us two sides that are somewhat evenly matched and the only thing that's going to happen is evenually we'll find a way to get into a fight. Cause we're morons. Honestly speaking most human beings are fucking stupid. The species is pushed forward largely by a few exceptional people popping up and working incredibly and the rest of civilization then benefits tremendously from that.

I don't see it the same way you do. The Saudis don't need to finance Islamic terrorism to keep the clerics happy.

I see humans differently as you. I see them being able to learn from their mistakes/history. Only the insane would annihilate themselves along with their enemies (kinda like what happens due to religious zealotry or North Korea). And right now we (the world) knows enough to not hold nuclear annihilation as a viabl option for settling fights that can be settled via economic/influential means.

Even in economics 101, we know monopolies are a bad thing. So how come you think it is ok in the geoplotical arena?

Do we really learn from our past mistakes? I'm not so sure. Partially because we aren't one monolith generation, people die, new people show up, new people don't give a fuck what happened 50-100 years ago. You have to have faith that each generation is successively smarter than past generations, and I'm not sure if that is realistically true. 

Nationalism is actually the most dangerous force we are just too stupid as a species, when there are two "superpowers" it always ends in some kind of conflict. Human history shows this to be virtually true ... every ... single ... time. 

If you have two friends that come over and every time they come over to your house they get drunk and then either get in a fight or end up trashing your house, at what point do you say "you know maybe this isn't a good idea". 

Unforutnately in human nature the concept of "you know I got enough power. I don't need any more" doesn't really work so great in actuality. Once 1 party tastes enough power, eventually the thinking becomes "well why the fuck does that other guy have more power than me? Something needs to be done" and then the predictable path to some kind of violent conforntation begins. 

We're just evolved apes. Don't forget that. Not only that, but I don't even think we're particularily far along in our evolutionary process, I'd liken the human species to like a child that's 12-13 years old ... they think they know the world and they certainly are more evolved than they were at 5 years old, but they're also extremely childish and stupid. 

To be honest in a military conflict, Islamic Exremist "forces" like ISIS if they had to actually match up one on one versus a *real* actual army would get their asses handed to them and blown clear off the planet in a weekend. They have no air force, no anti-aircraft, like 5 stolen tanks, like I said their overall numbers are smaller than the size of the Ethipoian army. Terrorism is a way for them to (as the name implies) create "terror" and make people think they are stronger than what they are. 



Sharu on 05 January 2017
Soundwave said:
UnderstatedCornHole said:

There you go again, talking as if it's true before the fact has been proven.

Show some critique on your own judgements. Anything on the right that is negative you accept without question. Anything on the left attacking the right you accept without question. Anything from the right attacking the left you deny and anything from the right that could be construed as positive you downplay.

Do you know none of the major powers have been directly interfering with elections prior to now against other major powers?

The Russian economy has been crippled by sanctions over the last two years by the US and fallen into recession. There's nothing terribly surprising here either, Russia does this kind of thing all the time to neighboring countries (installing pro-Kremlin candidates and then pushing hard to make sure they get elected). 

There's nothing here that I see that is really that unbelievable at all, it's pretty much all textbook, the only exceptional thing about it is that it one superpower against another, but again those sanctions are costing Russia billions of dollars a year. Billions of lost dollars have an interesting way of motivating people.  

Thats pretty much wrong. Russian economy has GROWN in fact. If you calculate it in the natural goods produced. But if you calculate it in USD - its crippled. Right. Because USD in Russia was 30 roubles before sanctions and its 60 now. 
But for average Joe its not so big difference. If I was buyng pork meat for 250 roubles (8 USD) 3 years ago. Now I'm buying it for 280. Which is 4.6 USD. But I still getting the same product.
Diesel price was around 33.2 in March of 2014. Now its around 37. So in 2 years in roubles its price grown 11%. But if you calculate it in USD its price fallen from 1 USD per 1 liter to 0.61 USD per liter. 
A lot of industries in fact grown STRONGER during last 3 years. Esp agriculture. 
Only thing which is hard - is buying iphones. Which is OK for me.

Don't listen to Obama. Cause its even harder to admit that 'weak regional country with corrupted authorities and crippled economy' was able to succesfully put in place next USA president it wanted.



Sharu on 05 January 2017
Soundwave said:

We're just evolved apes. 

Thats a very foolish and bold statement. If you'd read Darwin you'd know that he never said anything like that in his books.



Soundwave on 05 January 2017
Sharu said:
Soundwave said:

We're just evolved apes. 

Thats a very foolish and bold statement. If you'd read Darwin you'd know that he never said anything like that in his books.

It's a "bold statement"? What year is it? 1853?



Sharu on 05 January 2017
Soundwave said:
Sharu said:

Thats a very foolish and bold statement. If you'd read Darwin you'd know that he never said anything like that in his books.

It's a "bold statement"? What year is it? 1853?

Darwin in his works never said that apes are human's ancestors. Thats just oversimplistic re-saying of his THEORY. Which is still a theory, and not proven scientifically.