Posts by dustytiger8

Fine, name just one "successful dictatorship" from the last 200 years of human history. 😉

@Jose Clark2

Let’s stop painting with such a broad brush and try being specific for once. Let's use some precision. 🙂

Name one dictatorship from the last 200 years of human history that was actually "good."

Jose Clark2 said:There have certainly been effective dictatorships. Democracy is a relatively recent invention that wouldn't have moved civilization much forward through most of human history. Even in these so-called democracies, elites hold the reins; the idea of democratic choice is largely just a well-crafted farce.

👍

Listing them shouldn't be an issue then, right!? Or... !?

Democracy is a "new invention"!? Give me a break... !
Are you suggesting today's version of parliamentary democracy is some recent novelty!?
Hint: demos+kratein (Greek).

Well said... ! 👍

crimsoncyclist71 said:In your view, yes. Plenty of people would disagree with you, and many currently do.

So, according to you—and by "many," you mean who exactly?—there are such things as "good" dictatorships? Like some version of enlightened absolutism?

Give me an example from history or the present day. Name one.

Fine... so everything supposedly differs from the "properly named socialist" USSR, but how exactly does that work? Especially when you consider the subtle distinctions regarding National Socialism...

The difference between those two brands of socialism boils down to their relationship with the nation. The German model was nation-centric, while the Russian one was internationalist. It all stemmed from local political necessities, given the homogeneity of the domestic population. The Russian version lasted longer, but the end results were identical. Enslaving entire nations and purging anyone who dares to think differently.

Today, Russians are attempting to resurrect that exact same machine. This necessitates denying the very existence of the Ukrainian Nation.

Does absolutely nobody see the connection here?

I couldn't agree more. Garbage is garbage, no matter how you dress it up.
If two things result in the exact same outcome—in this case, a dictatorship—then their origins are fundamentally identical.

People usually try to rationalize it by trying to measure out degrees of evil, which is exactly what guys like lettow, bubi mir, and a few others over here are attempting to do. They love the line, "The idea was fine at first, but the guys just got a little carried away!"

Evil is evil. It shouldn't be subject to a scale. It either exists, or it doesn't.

Michael Davis9 said:If I'm following your logic, then the leaders in North Korea come to power through democratic elections held by the people.

At this rate, you'll probably start telling me that sharks bark, too.

In school terms, I'd say: see me after class.

Give me a break. You’ll need to explain the logical connection between your last two posts.

Hitler was "democratically elected" when he took power, you know? Mussolini, too. So, yeah... 🤣

And Putin today is also, how should I put this, "democratically elected"... for twenty-two years now. The people love him, clearly. He always has the best platform. 🤣

rowdytiger13 said:Nazism is a criminal ideology. Communism isn't inherently criminal. We can debate how impractical or utopian the idea is, but the concept itself isn't evil.
But... in practice, communism has always devolved into a dictatorship that was outright criminal.
It just doesn't work outside of small, self-sustaining communities. I always point to the Israeli kibbutzim as an example—they pulled Israel out of the sand and built the nation, and that spirit of communal living kept them going and defended them, but that way of organizing society has never truly scaled beyond the kibbutz, and for good reason.
The elders in a kibbutz live just like everyone else and have the same resources, regardless of how they lived or what kind of communist dictators were in power.
Unfortunately, equality just isn't part of human nature.
Unlike the kibbutzim, Nazi communes in the US were purely criminal, much like the ideology itself.

Nice try... 🙂

I'll tell you this much: the party in Germany was called the NSDAP—the "National Socialist German Workers' Party." So, Nazism is just shorthand for National Socialism. The only real difference between them and Russia (the USSR) was the focus on the national versus the international. You can see that clearly in the Hitler-Stalin pact signed right before the second war.
In both cases, the result was millions of dead people.

It’s good to remember that occasionally...

rowdyraven112 said:Who told you not a single Russian guard died? The Ukrainian side isn't out there blabbing about their losses either. ☕

Found this video:

So, the "fair" American justice system just sentenced a 21-year-old punk for murdering an old man. I guess they learned directly from Putin and the CIA, since we've seen plenty of scenarios like this in Moscow, right? I'm sure there was a promise involved: "confess and you can go home."☕
That's why I said... we'll count up who cut whose head off once the war is over.

And? You heard that one did? How many Russian guards were actually lost!?

brightheron64 said:That isn't "taking sides" at all; this is war, and honestly, shit happens...

By the way, I’m actually curious to hear what you think away from the chaos of Twitter—how exactly are the Russ supposed to have killed those prisoners? Did they plant a bomb, launch a missile, set them on fire...?

Did any Russian guard die? If not... then how? How does that work!?

As for the other question... hand grenades would be a fitting method, given the outcome!

Melissa Rivera5 said:He’s not being as extra as Zakharov or that idiot over at NASA. If you honestly think someone can just drop atomic bombs on Europe and nothing happens—besides some weird fantasy where the EU joins up with Russia—you're forgetting that France and the UK have nukes too. Not to mention China and India definitely wouldn't be happy about that.

Like, let me say it again: using any kind of WMD, not just nukes, would basically be proof that he *lost* the special operation and had zero choice left but to go the WMD route. By his own logic, it would be fratricide because he doesn't even admit Ukrainians exist, claiming they're all just Russians. People make jokes about Biden being a diaper baby, but this guy? He’d just be a total lunatic.

It would also be the ultimate sign that negotiations were *never* actually on the table, because the guy is apparently willing to walk straight into a holocaust just to get his way.

You really think those puppets have their own thoughts!?

It’s like you said: Putin hears Zaharov's "opinion" on TV and thinks to himself, "Well, that was unexpected!" 🤣

Where did she go after Chernobyl!?

Melissa Rivera5 said:Honestly, nobody is going to buy some story about a "accidental" tactical strike on Kyiv, even if it actually was an accident (which, I guess, would be the easiest excuse to make, because it implies it could have happened anywhere if there wasn't a war going on).

And who exactly is supposed to be buying this? Who even has the credibility to make such claims?

Is Ukraine under the US nuclear umbrella? On what basis?

Stop bringing up Putin and nuclear retaliation every five minutes without any actual context.

In an asymmetric nuclear standoff, Putin holds the upper hand. That is why US aid to Ukraine is being dripped out in increments rather than being unconditional. It is also likely why you see so much involvement from the Englishman; Americans clearly prefer to stay hands-off when possible.

Interesting situation.

Does dropping a single tactical nuke on Kyiv actually "solve the problem" locally—targeting the seats of power like the White House, the President, or the Pentagon?

You make a quick speech at the UN Security Council, point a finger to "find someone to blame," and call it an attempt to prevent escalation. You could just shell Kaliningrad or launch some conventional strikes instead...

In my view, Putin is crazy enough to pull the trigger... especially since time is running out...

There isn't any "necessary" symmetry in threat levels regarding a Western nuclear response if Russ uses nukes in Ukraine. Why would Americans even use them? What exactly was attacked!?

It’s a grim situation...

Precisely. If the Ukrainians just stopped resisting, this whole war would be over in a heartbeat. Simple as that.
The Russians just provide GPS coordinates for everything that belongs to them... and that's the end of the story.

But the Ukrainians have a different strategy for their own territory... and they have their own GPS coordinates, all located within their own borders.🙂

Unbelievable? Or perhaps...

Timothy Williams5 said:... and also:

The fairly influential Russian commentator Dmitriyev (who commands over 100k followers on Telegram) is weighing in on why the proposed solutions to counter Ukrainian missile strikes are essentially useless. His core argument is that the "decentralization" required by distributing ammunition runs directly contrary to the very nature of the Russian military and government structure.

You can find the source here.

A few more thoughts regarding the effectiveness of those Ukrainian missile strikes. There is a lot of chatter lately about how to minimize the damage from them. Beyond just beefing up air defenses, people are suggesting things like dispersing ammunition depots, avoiding clustering armored vehicles at a single base, making sure helicopters aren't lined up in neat rows, and generally embracing decentralization across the board. But here is the fundamental issue—you can certainly decentralize, but if you do, you end up with an entirely different kind of force, one that bears no resemblance to a Russian or Soviet-style military. Decentralization isn't just a tactical shift; it fundamentally clashes with the architecture of both the military hierarchy and the state apparatus itself. Furthermore, if you actually distribute ammo into various stockpiles and move vehicles into scattered forest locations, you would logically have to push decision-making authority down to those specific forests and depots. However, for centuries, that power has been meticulously concentrated in a single central point. That concentration is exactly how authority is preserved. To suggest decentralization in this context is to suggest something far more destabilizing than mere military losses.

Well, here we go... what was quoted is spot on. 🙂

Let’s cut to the chase...

Are you seriously suggesting that the corporate management division is micromanaging the ground floor? That they're calling the shots directly with the people actually doing the manual labor?

Nancy Gomez26 said:No, they aren't acting like any other major power. I don't recall the Americans, the Chinese, the French, or the British ever openly threatening the entire planet with nuclear weapons like this. It’s primitive. It doesn't even work; if anything, it creates a massive backlash. The current leadership in the Kremlin is clearly out of its depth in a situation they manufactured themselves. At this point, Russia’s rhetoric is on the level of an Iran that openly threatens to strike Israel once they secure an a-bomb—except Russia is making threats against the whole world. And look at Israel: they neither confirm nor deny having the capability, and they certainly don't want to discuss it, let alone use it as a bargaining chip. That is a far more disciplined policy. I don't remember people making these kinds of threats during the Cold War; there was talk about stockpiles, sure, but everyone understood that pulling the trigger would likely mean the end of everything. It seems like Putin RF made a little bit of progress, only to slam into reverse at full speed.

Officially, according to international law, Israel does not possess nuclear weapons. Not today, not ever. They maintain a separate "physical package" apart from what is actually delivered. So, by definition, there is no weapon. 🙂

Mordechai Vanunu exposed them because he provided photographic evidence confirming the existence of those "physical packages" within Israel. Those test detonations were carried out in coordination with Mossad... which, "coincidentally," the Americans confirmed by detecting the blasts without providing any rational explanation for how it happened.

The bottom line is that the threat exists, even if it's only known through secondary sources. 🙂

Well... no... that's just not how it works.

A thick slab of concrete is basically just a target for a bunker buster. Just Google "bunker buster bomb" if you don't believe me. A single BLU-109 is plenty to take out a bridge; it can punch through two feet of reinforced concrete without breaking a sweat.