Posts by gentleharbor3

darkjackal7 said:Just a blowhard with his head stuck in the clouds. How did he even land that job? Clearly, it was through protest movements, much like how a radical group like the Occupy movement would have taken over if Americans were just a little more unruly. He is completely unfit for the role; he’s nothing but a planted globalist figurehead, a useful idiot.
He could have actually sat down with Putin and hammered out the terms of the Minsk II agreement to prevent any of this from happening. But no, everyone acts like they're clueless and shocked, acting like Putin just lost his mind and decided to handle things his own way.

I agree with you.
Once Russia launched its aggression, the damage was already done.
We all remember back in 2014 when they were discussing cooperation models,
only for Nuland to block the European Union initiative and basically say "fuck the European Union."
That’s been the playbook for the last eight years.
The Ukrainians were fed false hope that they had our backing,
encouraging them to poke the Russian bear because of the whole "fuck the European Union," "fuck Russia" mentality.
Instead of being pragmatic,
leveraging their position to maintain neutrality,
their "Western partners" egging them on to play hero against a nuclear superpower.
Reading about a "right to NATO" is laughable.
You have as many rights as you have power. Even 30 million Kurds have a "right to a state,"
but they don't have the power to actually grab one.

Gregory Ramos3 said:Man... honestly, I think I'm sticking to what I figured out a while back. I truly believe we’re more likely to just wreck the entire planet than we are to actually evolve past this mindset that being the biggest bully in the room is the only way to feel secure.

☕

Exactly. It’s a grim realization, but it’s the truth.
At least from a realist perspective.

Gregory Ramos3 said:And hey, I think we finally hit the nail on the head regarding why we haven't learned a single thing in over 10,000 years.🙂

If there’s nobody around to call you out or hold you accountable, then you basically feel like you can just do whatever you want and grab whatever you want, because, well, who's going to stop you?

Yeah, that's how the system works at its foundation.
Cruel, but that's just life.
There is no authority higher than the state itself.
States operate in a basically Hobbesian state of nature.
In a desperate bid for survival, they hoard power because nothing else exists to
guarantee their existence except raw strength.
That's why it's pointless to try and apply laws designed for a hierarchy
to a state of anarchy.
The rules imposed by institutions only really apply to the small players.
Without the big players, there are no institutions to begin with. Consequently, the giants
have enough muscle to bend any rule to suit their own needs.

urbanotter said:I think we all feel the same way about the aggression itself—war is something that should always be condemned, and there's nothing worse than seeing it happen to any nation.
It really just comes down to how we differ in our perspectives on who or what actually triggered it.

Agreed. I’m hoping this war ends as soon as possible.
Nobody sane actually calls for or justifies war,
so I assume we are all unified in our condemnation of Russia.
But wars are just the final stage of an escalated conflict.
The questions we are raising here—at least some of them—revolve around how the
genesis of this conflict unfolded and which factors fueled the escalation.
Who, what, when, where, how, why... these are legitimate questions.

Charles Fox10 said:Tetris☕😁

That's if you ignore literature, science, and art.☕

The Tsar Bomba, oil, and gas. 😬

But seriously... jokes aside.
It’s obvious someone didn't even bother reading the required books in school,
yet they think they're an expert on superpower geopolitics.

brightviper29 said:It’s not just that Russia isn't a "flower," as you put it; they are a brutal aggressor that invaded a neighboring nation, leaving a massive trail of violence and war crimes in their wake. Ukrainians have every right to join whichever alliance they choose.

Why should Russia care where Ukrainians decide to go?

They simply want to break away and distance themselves from Russia, much like how various nations in the former America decided to break free from Mexico. So, in what way are the Ukrainians actually threatening Russia?

Isn't it just like living in a small town where your neighbor is a violent criminal, you decide to move away, and then he claims your departure is somehow a threat to him?
It's the exact same dynamic we saw during the breakup of America.

So, who is really the aggressor here?

a) Russia
b) Ukraine
c) USA
d) Poland
e) European Union

A lot of failed analogies here.

Ukrainians have all the rights in the world to go wherever they want
if they actually have the power to do so. If they don't, they're stuck dealing with the art of the possible.
They made a fatal miscalculation by thinking they could poke the Russian bear
assuming Americans would always have their backs.
Instead, the Americans egged them on and then left them to the mercy
of a rampaging nuclear superpower.
How can anyone be this foolish and short-sighted?

Like any other country, Russia cares about its own survival and security.
You can't expect a nuclear power with the most warheads
to just sit by while they are slowly but surely being "encircled"
simply because Americans invented this concept of a "right"
that serves as a proxy for global dominance.

Why is it legitimate for the USA to defend itself 5,000 miles from its shores,
while others aren't allowed to do the same at their own borders?

I feel for Ukraine. Like many other nations,
they are nothing more than pawns in this. I hope this war
ends soon and that an agreement is reached before things escalate further.

ironranger67 said:Yeah, I see the US is starting to gear up for an intervention in Venezuela. Or maybe Cuba.
Nicaragua has completely drifted toward China's orbit lately. When is the US going to move in on them? 😬

The US often plays dirty, sure—but I highly doubt anyone would actually prefer living under Russian or Chinese rule just to avoid it.

Jesus, what a pile of clichés. 🙂

Every war involves an information war too.
All sides involved in a conflict use it to varying degrees of success.
In this era of social media, the sheer volume of it has exploded,
so there’s really no reason to take every single
unverified Twitter profile and its posts as gospel truth.

NATO exists solely to serve American interests,
primarily through the massive sales and distribution of U.S. weaponry,
which we’ve seen firsthand during this whole mess regarding fighter jet procurement.
It’s all just a tool for advancing American geopolitical goals
by pushing eastward using liberal interventionism.
For instance, the only time Article 5 was ever actually triggered
was right after the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers.
Even American realists and international relations experts agree on NATO's true purpose;
it's as clear as day.
I honestly hope we never find out how NATO would react
if Article 5 were invoked by someone in Canada, the U.S., or the Czech Republic.
Once the Cold War ended, NATO lost its reason for being.
The current situation is a direct consequence of NATO refusing to fade away.
Instead of integrating with the West, Russia was pushed away
and forced toward the East.
NATO should have been disbanded in the 90s, allowing Europe to build
its own independent security framework.
I fear it might already be too late for any of that.

ironranger67 said:Sure, they’re poking the bear a bit too much—it probably would have been better if Ukrainians had played it smarter and opted for neutrality.

But I find it interesting that you bring up psychopathic neoconservative ideology while completely ignoring the Russian psychopaths who would pull the exact same moves if they were given half a chance.
From what I can see, Poles, Czechs, and the Baltic states actually prefer things exactly as they are—rather than having Russia install some local version of Lukashenko in Ukraine, who would just sit there waiting for the perfect moment to help them invade other countries that Russia thinks should be under their thumb.

The Russians suffer from the same complexes as Mexicans—they just have this deep-seated urge to slap everyone in their neighborhood.

Unlike Americans, who pulled all of this off back in the early 20th century under the motto "America for Americans"
securing exclusive hegemony over their own hemisphere 👍
We all remember how legitimate regimes were toppled and dictators were propped up in the USA
whenever it served the interests throughout the 20th century, right?
I’d argue that Russians, Americans, the Chinese, and every other aspiring
regional or global hegemon suffer from the "same syndrome."

Keith Williams3 said:If you and I were neighbors and I bought three lions and brought them into my apartment, you’d call the cops on me for being a threat, right? Even though it's my own place.

On a global scale, there isn't a police force or a court system to step in; it's basically anarchy where might makes right. In that scenario, it's just us. We either reach an agreement, or we fight until someone wins.

Exactly. International politics is just a constant struggle for survival.
Survival and security are achieved by increasing power.
You only have as many rights as you have the power to defend.
For any nation, security is the absolute priority.
Everything else is just how Marica imagines global politics should work.

That movie really hit the spot.
I loved the aesthetic—the color palette was great,
the score was solid, and the casting was spot on.
The ending felt a little predictable,
but yeah, I agree, it doesn't disappoint.

Full support for Larry Walker24! 👍
I’m trying to figure out what his actual crime is, and the furthest I've gotten is concluding that he just doesn't fit in with the crowd that
runs that controversial subforum like some kind of cult.
Judging by the tone of the users—at least the few posting on the Eurovision song contest PDF—there’s a blatant bullying attitude toward this
user that simply shouldn't be tolerated. I am disgusted by the tone and the arrogance shown not just toward Larry Walker24, but also toward the other moderators
who stepped up to support him in this thread.
It just proves how closed-off and cult-like that subforum is to everyone else on the site.
During the times I spent lurking there last winter, it was obvious they were counting who was "one of us" and who was just "here for Dora."
They nurture this incredibly unwelcoming vibe toward anyone outside their little inner circle.
By the rules, this is an open, public forum, and if people want private groups, they can go to private networks or chat channels. 🤷
It’s even more pathetic considering Larry Walker24 was clearly one of the main advocates for starting that subforum in the first place.
So it’s genuinely confusing why he's welcome everywhere except that one specific spot. Something doesn't add up.
By any logical standard, if he were truly so problematic that his partial ban is being repeatedly denied,
he would be causing issues across all the other subforums too. Aside from having a unique style that avoids direct insults, I haven't
seen any major offense. We don't all need to be identical and boring. Let there be variety; after all,
Eurovision has always prided itself on respecting diversity. 🥳
Plus, I thought subforums were moderated by the staff, but it seems like the users are the ones running the show here?!
Why is a female user telling Larry Walker24 "not to hope"? What role does she think she plays?
Ugh, so many questions for one chaotic PDF. 😲

Let’s keep this going. Capak confirmed that vaccinated people can still spread the virus, so why aren't they being tested and sent into isolation when a close
family member gets sick?

"What is absolutely certain, based on the literature and scientific studies, is that both vaccinated individuals and those who have recovered can also briefly carry the virus on their mucosa and transmit it to someone else, though certainly to a much lesser extent than vulnerable people who, because they are susceptible, may fall ill and then—whether symptomatic or asymptomatic—spread the virus to others. To my knowledge, no one in the world has mandated testing for vaccinated people unless they are working with immunocompromised patients. In those cases, if exposure to a sick person is proven, they must be tested, which is clearly stated in our guidelines. We always maintain that regardless of vaccination or prior infection, standard epidemiological measures must still be followed, as these measures are essential for reducing the risk of spreading the infection to others," said Capak.

Forget about "to a much lesser extent." That's total BS. The bottom line is whether they can transmit it or not, and the answer is: yes, they can!
It's the same logic as being able to get infected and develop symptoms; if you can catch it and feel it, you can pass it on.
The severity of the symptoms doesn't change the fact. There is only one truth here: vaccination
might protect YOU from the worst outcomes, but it doesn't stop the infection itself! It is high time this was clearly and publicly defined.
Besides, this guy is a terrible communicator. He's so bad at it he sounds like he has zero clue what he's doing and is just making it up as he goes.
He is literally contradicting the very information posted on his own agency's website.
And then people wonder why vaccination rates are so low. After all this, I wouldn't believe Capak if he told me it was raining outside.

Someone explain the logic here. If vaccinated people are confirmed to be able to spread the virus and
their shot only protects THEM, why aren't they required to isolate when a family member tests positive?
Is this just some kind of moralistic spite directed at everyone who isn't vaccinated? Like, "Oh, you didn't get the shot, so we're going to make SURE you catch it"
even if you're following all the rules, being careful, and EVEN IF you have medical conditions that prevent you from getting vaccinated in the first place?