Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
Megan Thomas5 said:why
Because someone benefited from it, obviously.
Home ›
Jose Clark2 › Posts
Posts by Jose Clark2
123 posts shown.
Because someone benefited from it, obviously.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
Megan Thomas5 said:Isn't it a little embarrassing for Russia to admit their agent was basically loitering around for days, plotting, causing chaos, and finally taking out the target before slipping across the border into Estonia? 😁 So much for those "powerful" Russians.😁
What if they let her go on purpose just to see if she'd follow through? They might have known all along.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
Richard Wilson4 said:I love how some people are totally fine with a dictatorship if they actually like the guy in charge, but they'll start throwing fits the second the dictator doesn't share their specific ideology...
unhinged stuff...
Who says I’m advocating for a dictatorship? I am simply observing how things work—or rather, how they have functioned for most of our history. It is a matter of fact, regardless of my personal preferences.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
Dennis Price said:Don't sweat it. Just more talk about Russian collateral damage—some kid who rushed straight off to U.S. Steel to play hero. The only real tragedy here is that her father wasn't driving the car, along with the President.
Forgive me, but there is a distinction. There is one thing: being a journalist on the front lines and dying in combat. Then there is quite another: dying in an explosion involving a private vehicle far from the fighting. Most likely a mistake, and yet she still pushes the same agenda as her father.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
Nancy Gomez26 said:Americans don't really have a legal basis to prosecute that specific crowd operating those drones. Do you honestly believe an Iranian general feels obligated to respect American laws? I highly doubt it. On the flip side, if that same Iranian general targets American citizens anywhere on the globe, the US will simply take him out. Others can ponder their motivations and how they intend to deal with Americans all they want. Americans can be cooperative, certainly, but they can also be incredibly stubborn. The dilemma for Iran and similar adversaries is that the US possesses the technological reach to strike anyone, anywhere. They have this capability because they possess advanced technology, and they have that technology because they aren't a closed society; they aren't monolithic like Iran. In many ways, Iran is sawing off the very branch it sits on—their internal political structure drives away anyone with independent thought or the means to flee, leaving behind nothing but the dregs of society. That is, essentially, the current limit of their system's reach. There is little use in being overly burdened by ideology or faith; one must attempt to understand the world around them.
Iran has 84 million people. The "dregs" left behind? I have no further comments.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
dustytiger8 said:@Faro
What exactly did you provide? Give me a quote. You mention a dictatorship... whose? Maria Theresa was a MONARCH, not a dictator.
My apologies, of course, for failing to spot this dictatorship you’ve suddenly identified.
By the way, if there are no criteria—as you claim—on what basis did you decide that this specific dictatorship (the one you’re clearly implying) was actually "good"? 🙂
I defined a good dictatorship as a successful one where living standards for the average citizen actually improve. It's one where the state—or empire, or whatever is perceived as the common good—is strengthened. For instance, the Ottoman Empire had periods like this, with better and worse rulers who would fit this definition of a dictator. It depends. If you want something more recent, like the former America, and assuming you consider Josip Broz a dictator and that state a dictatorship, it also had its bright spots.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
dustytiger8 said:Jose Clark2... you're trying to apply logic to something fundamentally illogical. It’s a waste of breath to keep talking.
The fundamental question remains: in the last two hundred years of human history, which dictatorship has actually been a "good" one?
Name just one. "Give me one, Vasily, just one single example, please."
I already answered you above. Or do you honestly think they were running satisfaction polls on people's lives and their leaders? What metrics would we even use? GDP? Poverty reduction? Public health? Free education and healthcare? Wages?
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
Jessica Peterson2 said:Of course it exists.
In fact, they even have an official abbreviation, which happens to be RF, not to mention colloquial nicknames like Putinistan or Orkistan. ☕
The Russian Federation is constitutionally structured around a powerful president, making it a presidential federal republic rather than a de jure dictatorship. They hold democratic elections where the majority-supported option typically wins.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
dustytiger8 said:The British Monarchy was a dictatorship!?
Okay... I think we’re talking past each other here. A monarchy is a monarchy, and a dictatorship is a dictatorship. A Monarch and a dictator aren't the same thing. Look at the Swedes, the Norwegians... people like that.
I asked about dictatorships. A dictator seizes power through violence and maintains it through violence. Primarily against their own people. A dictator secures support through fear, not through the actual consent or acceptance of the majority. That is how you distinguish a monarchy from a dictatorship.
So, in the last 200 years, which one of these "enlightened" dictators actually existed?
Why would a dictator necessarily take power by force? Is Kim Jong Un a dictator, or just a communist monarch who inherited his position without a violent takeover?
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
dustytiger8 said:@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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Theresa
Maybe some more recent ones. We could even bring up FDR, though whether he qualifies as a dictator is debatable.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
Anthony Perez9 said:Is there even such a thing as a "mafia-style autocratic oligarchical democracy"? 🤔Take the USA, for example. We act like the world's beacon of democracy while hunting down ideological enemies with drones, usually leaving a trail of civilian casualties in our wake—all without ever giving anyone a fair shake in court.
Islamic terrorists don't get any rights to a democratic trial or due process. If there's collateral damage, that's on them. ☕
🤣🤣
No, you're mistaken. Who decided they are all terrorists? And why shouldn't they be entitled to a fair trial under the law? This feels more like ideological political executions.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
dustytiger8 said:@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."
Any successful dictatorship could be considered "good." It really just comes down to who it served—whether the net result for the citizens was positive or negative. I have little interest in romantic, moralistic fantasies about the sanctity of democracy, which doesn't truly exist anywhere anyway. 😉
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
dustytiger8 said:👍
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).
Most of human history didn't involve any semblance of democracy. The greatest milestones—organized empires, stable states, scientific breakthroughs—all happened under heavy-handed dictatorships. You can't run a functional democracy when surrounded by barbarians, much less with a population that's backwards and uneducated.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
Thomas Nelson25 said:It’s easy to talk big when you're living in a free democratic society.
Over there, they'll toss you in a cage and send you to Siberia for 15 years... all over something trivial.
Like calling it a war instead of a "special operation."
You're oversimplifying things. Claiming Russia is still a democracy ignores how laws actually function. Even here in America, minor offenses can land you behind bars for years or even life. It's all about the legal framework.
The reality is more nuanced than just the political system; you have the rule of law and the separation of powers to consider. Legal systems vary wildly. Then there's the matter of human rights. Take the USA, for instance—acting as a beacon of democracy while using drones to eliminate ideological enemies abroad, often resulting in civilian casualties and zero right to a fair trial.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
Anthony Hill5 said:And let us not forget that the daughter shared her father's exact worldview; she hosted her own radio and television programs where she faithfully peddled her father's fascist ideology along with relentless anti-Ukraine propaganda and disinformation.
So, was terrorism the necessary response?
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
dustytiger8 said: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.
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.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
feralhawk45 said:My take: I'll say what I've already said... The Germans should judge Schröder as a traitor and a wartime profiteer... Angela Merkel should just hide and stay quiet.
Schröder would be an American hero if he could just ensure his fellow citizens have cheap gas through the winter so they don't freeze or sink into a recession.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
Nathan Thomas12;93753089 said:If you can't see it, the roof is facing outward and the epicenter is in the bottom right corner of the object. If a HIMARS strike had actually pierced the roof and detonated inside the building, there wouldn't be a roof left, let alone that metal structure itself.]
It would have vanished, much like that bridge that was wiped out—the one where they tried patching those seven HIMARS holes with concrete, if I recall correctly.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
brightheron64 said:Do you honestly believe that much effort is worth it? A False flag involving Ukrainians killing their own people?
It’s roughly the same level of logic as if Americans had staged a scene to make it look like the Germans killed Goering instead of actually putting him on trial and hanging him like they should have (and did).
It’s just a lot of noise and a smoke screen that might last a couple of weeks before being swept away by the winds of war, because, unfortunately, there will likely be much more evil happening, and far worse than this...
Regarding this and similar claims, I don't take anyone's word for it—not one side or the other. Truth is the first casualty in war, as they say. Both sides have motives to spin events for their own benefit, just as they might suffer because of them. Many maneuvers eventually seem illogical or baffling. Deception is common; the psychological aspect of war is often just as vital as the kinetic one. A False flag is a frequent tactic in any conflict. Until an objective investigation proves otherwise, I trust no one.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5
in War in Ukraine ·
Timothy Williams5 said:As if there were anything remotely rational about this irrational war?
Is this just some vendetta over the HIMARS?
Aren't there plenty of military or infrastructure targets suitable for payback after losing an expensive precision missile? HIMARS supposedly hits military targets, not civilians, so why would the retaliation target civilians?