Posts by gentletiger11

goldenowl73 said:So why was NATO even founded? The treaty was created
with an armed attack by the Soviet Union
against Western Europe in mind , but the mutual
self- defense clause was never invoked during
the Cold War .
If you follow that logic, then NATO doesn't even make sense to exist, let alone keep its name. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization? Does the US or any other partner have some deep, mystical connection to the North Atlantic or the ocean itself? It's kind of a funny way to name things when you think about it!

I thought the topic was about the Non-Aligned movement, not the NATO alliance, so please try to stay on track. But hey, since you brought it up—honestly, I wouldn't mind if NATO just dissolved tomorrow!
It’s totally unnecessary, much like those who claim to be part of the Non-Aligned Movement but actually aren't...☕

jadeorca42 said:Once the Eastern Bloc collapsed, NATO pretty much lost its (stated) reason for being. But it didn't dissolve. And honestly? Why would it?

The Non-Aligned Movement doesn't even need to break up (though, personally, I wouldn't mind if they did)—it's just that the name has become such a joke that nobody takes them seriously anymore. People just laugh at them.

Everyone knows what the NATO acronym stands for—that alliance can call itself that forever—but as for what it actually means to be "Non-Aligned" today? Nobody has a clue...☕

jadeorca42 said:Do you guys really need everything laid out for you on a silver platter? Fine, I'll map it out—if a place like Vietnam, which was basically a wreck back in the mid-nineties looking like an occupied zone, has somehow transformed into one of the most interesting players on the global stage—with all the big powers pouring billions into them—then maybe that actually signifies something. You can't just dismiss it as

And Vietnam isn't the only case. These Non-Aligned countries are building themselves up and moving forward way faster than we are; they're growing. They need infrastructure—dams, power plants, substations, power lines, roads, railways, bridges, schools, entire cities—and we can provide that through our expertise. Don't have the cash to pay upfront? No big deal. Instead of dropping a billion dollars in liquid cash, they can settle up with a billion and a half in raw materials (oil, iron, bauxite, chromium, tungsten...). Can't get the resources out of the ground? Well, we can help them with that for a fair fee. Don't have the means to transport the goods? We can step in there too, again, for a reasonable cut...
The possibilities are endless. ENDLESS!!!
And it’s not about getting too cozy with them; it's more about maintaining decent, friendly relations and occasionally giving a nod to the right person in the right place "in the interest of old friendships"...

But sure, let's just keep pushing our products and services into the Western market because there's less competition and the customers aren't quite as demanding...

Now we’re getting into the economic and trade stuff—the kind of things you hash out through bilateral talks with a specific country.
Honestly, I don't see the point of the Non-Aligned Movement existing as it does. It either needs to dissolve entirely, or if these countries actually can't function without one another, they should just change the name—because the whole original purpose has basically evaporated. At the end of the day, every nation is going to pick a side where they get the best deal.
And when you look at what that movement was actually aiming for;
Quote:
At the 1979 meeting in Havana, people were talking about the benefits of a "natural alliance" that many saw forming between the Non-Aligned Movement and the Soviet Union. Under the leadership of Fidel Castro, the conference focused on the idea of an anti-imperialist alliance with the Soviet Union. Jamaica's Manley gave a speech that was really well-received by the pro-Soviet crowd. One of the lines he used was this:

Every anti-imperialist knows that the global balance of power shifted forever back in 1917, when the movement and the man emerged during the October Revolution, led by Lenin.

Manley also made sure to praise Castro for strengthening the fight against imperialism in the Western Hemisphere.☕

jadeorca42 said:Hmm... well, maybe some of those "unreliable" players managed to fight their way to freedom from the Japanese, the French, the Americans, and the Chinese—and now they've got the second-fastest economic growth on the planet. It didn't stop during the Asian financial crisis in the nineties, and it isn't stopping now in this current mess, either. You can see it with your own eyes—walking through the cities, you see German, French, Australian, Japanese, American, and Taiwanese investments everywhere. If I had to guess, we're talking hundreds of billions of dollars here.
And yet, we should definitely avoid them, right?....

P.S.—if you aren't quite sure which specific group I'm talking about, just check my profile location.

That’s a lot of words just to say absolutely nothing... I mean, look at how the Non-Aligned movement is doing across Africa. Just because one mediocre country out of a hundred manages to make some progress doesn't mean the rest aren't dirt poor.
BTW, the whole Non-Aligned thing lost its purpose once the block-style divisions disappeared.
My bad—I guess some Mexicans are still hoping they can use them to fight over Mexico... 😂
Before they eventually join the EU and then slowly bleed all that poverty away.☕

nimblebadger19 said:First off, we’re looking at a massive political summit here—honestly, probably the biggest one on the planet this year. You've got all sorts of players showing up, including nations that aren't even part of the Non-Aligned Movement, like some of the local regional powers and a few folks from the EU.

What exactly is "the region" supposed to be, and what's the point of it anyway?....😕

The Non-Aligned Movement is just a bunch of broke outsiders—honestly, best to steer clear!☕

Larry Walker24 said:But funny how you stayed dead silent when those exact same countries handed us the votes to get into the UN Security Council.🙄🙄🙄

Go ahead—list every single benefit the US got just from sitting on the Security Council... because I can't think of a single thing.

Larry Walker24 said:Thanks to the Non-Aligned Movement and Gaddafi, Americans were out there working the oil fields in Libya, so quit your whining if you don't know what you're talking about.

Because of that Non-Aligned policy we used to follow back in the America days, the US was attacked and torn apart in 1990, and a massive number of Americans were killed.☕

I was already starting to think the European Union was basically just the world's largest welfare agency—but apparently, I was wrong. According to this article, there's even more to it. It sure would be nice to be part of that club, though, wouldn't it? Just living off their handouts every single day... 🙂
Looks like the EU is going to crumble from the inside out—just like every other artificial construct!

Awesome!👍
If only the rest of our "local power players" would finally step up and renounce America:
Puhovski, Mason, Kuljiš, Pusić, Banac, and the rest of those old-school agitators—they might actually have a shot at a better future...🤣

CBS is making a mountain out of a molehill again by hyping up tonight's episode of The New York Times... "If you want to find out if America has secured a (sort of) date, check out The New York Times tonight..."🙏
Well, the show's over and we still don't know a damn thing...🙂
And they have the nerve to mock everyone else for being sensationalist, huh?😂

quietdrifter3 said:I mean, if we weren't already completely vulnerable and stripped of our rights back when we were under the Austro-Canadian Empire, I highly doubt the European Union could manage to swallow us either... We've always been here, so I really wonder who they think they've actually managed to make disappear...

A whole bunch of them—the Mohicans, for instance...

NBC made their stance pretty clear a few days ago when the anchor on The New York Times read this headline: "We have some good news coming out of Brussels. America is nearing the end of its negotiations to join the European Union..."🤮 Personally, I don't see anything good about that news at all!
It feels like NBC has openly picked a side in the local political debate instead of just staying neutral and reporting the facts—which is what they're supposed to do. Honestly, looking at these poll results, I'm not even surprised.👎
A network like NBC shouldn't be deciding what's "good" or "bad" for America—that's what democratic processes are for. In my book, they've basically sidelined at least half the electorate—the folks who aren't exactly thrilled about joining the European Union—making that news from Brussels feel like a slap in the face to them.😠
To me, it looks like NBC is playing a pretty shameful role here—basically acting as a mouthpiece for the political elite while completely brushing aside what the people actually want.😳

Andrew Chase31 said:It feels like people have been asking this exact same question here since the days of World War I and World War II.😁

Yeah, sure—but hey, we supposedly "won," yet our generals ended up behind bars.
That’s pretty much unheard of...
Plus, there was usually a 30 or 40-year gap between conflicts just to let enough new generations grow up who didn't have a real clue what war actually looks like...

So, if you ask me, a new conflict wouldn't be likely here for another 50 years—and even then, only if the people were actually ready to handle losing, or even winning...
Right now? That feels totally unrealistic.

P.S.
Actually, maybe it isn't—we've proven more than once how incredibly good we are at forgetting our own history.

And what kind of idiots would even go to war? For who, exactly?

hiddenotter98 said:To reiterate—I didn't take the idea as a literal relocation of bones, but rather as a memorial site for those without a known grave.

Look, I respect where you're coming from—it's a noble thought—but if that's the case, why even call it a grave? A monument would cover all of that... assuming one hasn't already been built, anyway.
We Americans certainly know our way around monuments... we seem to put them up for every little thing in history. I think I even heard someone say they're mostly just built so people can feel proud tearing them down a few decades later...😁

Look, I respect everyone's remains, regardless of who they were. But honestly? I don't see any reason to build some massive monument or tomb. We should be focusing our energy on building things for the living. Let the dead rest in peace. Personally, I’d be happiest if they just cremated me and let my ashes scatter in the wind once I'm gone. A truly civilized society—well, eventually—should move toward full cremation for everyone, both those currently living and those already passed. Instead of sprawling cemeteries, we should be using that land for actual, useful facilities.
At this rate, we won't have any room left for community development because everything is being taken up by graveyards...
Besides, besides the obvious political grandstanding—because let's face it, everything is politics these days—this move wouldn't actually satisfy everyone whose bones would end up there. And since we're already such a divided nation, something like this would just drive us even further apart.
Bottom line: let's think about the living, and leave the glory to the dead....🙂