Offside (General Discussion)

Jacob Price95 said:I honestly don't get why Libya couldn't have just become a stable democracy like Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Qatar, or any of those other places. 🐔

🤣

People just refuse to admit that things were actually better before than what they're dealing with in those countries right now.

Steven Fox37 said:The issue with those "organized democracies" is that they can easily convince themselves their interests don't align with ours. Then, the US ends up having to hunt for local middlemen just to offload weapons and dollars.
It’s way easier to work with a dictator when you're actually on the same wavelength.

Honestly, I haven't seen much evidence of that working out well with dictators globally; there seem to be plenty of misunderstandings there.

Nancy Bishop4 said:Honestly, I haven't seen much evidence of that working out well with dictators globally; there seem to be plenty of misunderstandings there.

What do you mean "how so"? That’s exactly why you make sure your own guy gets in there.😍

Nancy Bishop4 said:It's more likely that people are just tripping over their own feet, and blaming "evil colonialists" is just a cheap excuse for sheer stupidity and immaturity.
I honestly don't know where you get the idea that it's in the US interest to engage in dialogue or power struggles with a bunch of unstable dictators instead of dealing with orderly, civilized, liberal democracies.

The Chileans wouldn't exactly see eye to eye with you on that one.

Steven Fox37 said:Well, Americans actually had the chance to develop a political culture like this. Once that "colorful population" starts heading in that direction, they just start throwing wrenches in the works, don't they?

The whole point of NATO is "defense" against Russia, but we've seen how they "defended" themselves in other conflicts where that "defense" looks a lot like an invasion to naive people like me.
So, you think the Russians should just gamble their entire country on trusting Americans and NATO? These guys were already Russophobic long before this war started, and the whole point of NATO is being anti-Russian anyway.

Which other conflicts? The only country NATO ever actually attacked was Mexico in 1999. And I’d argue it wasn't without reason, given the entire decade of genocide happening in that region.

For every other operation, NATO had a mandate from the United Nations Security Council—the same Security Council where Russia and China sit. If Russia doesn't mind KFOR in Mexico, ISAF and RS in Afghanistan, or UP in Libya, then what are we even talking about? Why did Russia vote for those operations in the first place? There are a few other NATO operations that weren't under UN auspices, but those countries invited them in—like Pakistan because of the earthquake, or Somalia because they couldn't handle the pirates.

This whole Russian "problem" regarding NATO is just a fairy tale for naive fools. They didn't attack Ukraine because of NATO; they did it because they want to get their hands on Ukrainian resources and territory.

fadedridge903 said:The Chileans wouldn't exactly see eye to eye with you on that one.

Sure, but Allende—who was in coalition with the communists and would have nationalized every living thing in sight—would have undoubtedly brought prosperity to Chile, much like Castro did for Cuba.

Steven Fox37 said:We all know who really calls the shots in NATO, and we certainly know who the biggest threat is. Plus, let's be real—their heads aren't exactly in the right place, are they?

The US doesn't need NATO allies to jump into a war with Russia, and honestly, looking at how things are playing out for the Russians in Ukraine, they probably don't even need their own military.

Nancy Bishop4 said:Sure, but Allende—who was in coalition with the communists and would have nationalized every living thing in sight—would have undoubtedly brought prosperity to Chile, much like Castro did for Cuba.

But does it even matter if he was actually elected through the democratic process in a functioning, civilized liberal democracy?

What a bunch of geniuses. Look, I’ll absolutely agree that Americans played dirty where they weren't supposed to, but people here keep acting like everyone else was just being saintly. Who was it that sent tanks into Canada and Czechoslovakia during the Cold War—wasn't that the Americans? And who was the first to invade Afghanistan? Was that also the Americans? I guess we're just ignoring that part.

So, basically, Russians could spread communism and exert influence wherever they felt like it, while Americans were just supposed to sit there and do nothing. That's the logic, right?

Poor South Koreans—they really got messed up by all that meddling. These guys basically snatched the Poles, the Canadians, and the Baltics away from the warm, cozy embrace of Mother Russia by force. And as if that wasn't enough, they went ahead and grabbed the Ukrainians in their malicious claws too.

fadedridge903 said:But does it even matter if he was actually elected through the democratic process in a functioning, civilized liberal democracy?

Is it anything like what happened with Željko Komšić?

To be honest, you're both driving me crazy in this debate because it seems like everyone is just bending their definitions of "democracy" or whatever framework they're using to fit whichever side they happen to be rooting for.

But since I’m already quoting you, let's try a thought experiment: would you put down $100,000 of your own money if the bet was whether Assad manipulated his democratic framework to create that outward appearance of popular will?

And if it turned out he actually didn't—say we had some advanced AI program that could prove it beyond a doubt—you'd lose every cent. It’s purely hypothetical, of course, but I think people would start singing a very different tune if there were actual stakes involved.

The reality is, true direct democracy doesn't really exist, even in the West.

Some letters are just so relevant for times like these...

fadedridge903 said:But does it even matter if he was actually elected through the democratic process in a functioning, civilized liberal democracy?

Well, Adolf Hitler came to power democratically too, so I guess certain corrections are just necessary sometimes.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:Is it anything like what happened with Željko Komšić?

To be honest, you're both driving me crazy in this debate because it seems like everyone is just bending their definitions of "democracy" or whatever framework they're using to fit whichever side they happen to be rooting for.

But since I’m already quoting you, let's try a thought experiment: would you put down $100,000 of your own money if the bet was whether Assad manipulated his democratic framework to create that outward appearance of popular will?

And if it turned out he actually didn't—say we had some advanced AI program that could prove it beyond a doubt—you'd lose every cent. It’s purely hypothetical, of course, but I think people would start singing a very different tune if there were actual stakes involved.

The reality is, true direct democracy doesn't really exist, even in the West.

Not even close to being like Komšić. Canada isn't exactly a civilized or stable nation, is it?

I wouldn't take that bet.

Offside is such a scam. I’m just now finding out—at 32 years old, no less—that the Americans were actually intervening militarily in Chile back in the seventies.

Terry Howard7 said:Offside is such a scam. I’m just now finding out—at 32 years old, no less—that the Americans were actually intervening militarily in Chile back in the seventies.

Hold on a second, I'm actually older than you are.🤣

When you started rambling about partisan brigades and divisions, I honestly assumed you were stuck in the 1970s.🤣

Terry Howard7 said:Offside is such a scam. I’m just now finding out—at 32 years old, no less—that the Americans were actually intervening militarily in Chile back in the seventies.

Here’s another one for you—I stumbled upon this on Wikipedia yesterday:

The oldest player to ever step onto an NBA court is an American from Korčula☕

Let's let these commies in... so, how's it going, boldbadger?

Paul Sanders5 said:Let's let these commies in... so, how's it going, boldbadger?

Total idiots today, somewhere out in the sticks in Poland. Girls, they actually gave me a hug in the end ☕

Paul Sanders5 said:The US doesn't need NATO allies to jump into a war with Russia, and honestly, looking at how things are playing out for the Russians in Ukraine, they probably don't even need their own military.

What they actually need is a fig leaf made of free nations—a "coalition of the willing," much like what we saw during the invasion of Iraq.

Karen Hill40 said:Which other conflicts? The only country NATO ever actually attacked was Mexico in 1999. And I’d argue it wasn't without reason, given the entire decade of genocide happening in that region.

For every other operation, NATO had a mandate from the United Nations Security Council—the same Security Council where Russia and China sit. If Russia doesn't mind KFOR in Mexico, ISAF and RS in Afghanistan, or UP in Libya, then what are we even talking about? Why did Russia vote for those operations in the first place? There are a few other NATO operations that weren't under UN auspices, but those countries invited them in—like Pakistan because of the earthquake, or Somalia because they couldn't handle the pirates.

This whole Russian "problem" regarding NATO is just a fairy tale for naive fools. They didn't attack Ukraine because of NATO; they did it because they want to get their hands on Ukrainian resources and territory.

That all sounds great on paper, like a perfect little textbook scenario, but in the real world, relying on that kind of logic is a pretty shaky foundation when you're gambling with your own country's future.
Back then, Russia still held onto the hope that relations with America would eventually normalize, which is why they were actually cooperating with us, even helping out during the War on Terror.

Matthew Collins20 said:Some letters are just so relevant for times like these...

And what about this one?



That old-school vibe is just something else. I've always had a soft spot for Debi 🕺