The All Things Political Topic - Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities

[HoonDing]

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

37 minutes ago, Malcador said:

This invasion of Ukraine is the Star Citizen of geopolitics.

It's crowd funded?

[Gorth]

6 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Okay I see, it makes sense now 

The risk is still their because what if  someone is unemployed or doesn't want to work?Should someone who isnt interested in working and contributing get all these benefits. Thats why in the UK they try to monitor and manage the unemployment benefits ...its not for free loaders 

Because their is no risk if your country can afford that as long as the majority of people are still working 

The only real risk (with things like UBI) is rampant inflation and the top 10% getting even richer, as that is where everybody's UBI ends up anyway. It may take a few weeks for the extra dollar to make its way up the food chain, but rest assured, it's where it ends up.

[Gorth]

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

You the only person on this forum whose  support of Russia in this Ukraine crisis   really makes sense  because of the history of how Serbia was treated. I may not agree with the support for Russia  but I do understand and if I was Serbian I would probably feel  the same way 

It's not long (it's tl;dr; after all), but it's an interesting view

 

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, KP the Torque Dork said:

It's crowd funded?

Promised but never occurring

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, Gorth said:

It's not long (it's tl;dr; after all), but it's an interesting view

 

I watched it and its objective and informative. But it also raises the inconsistencies with Putins views of NATO and how Russia has done everything that he claims is wrong with NATO

For example the video mentions  something similar to " NATO getting involved in bombing of foreign countries outside its borders  " as a reason not to trust  NATO

Since Putin came to power Russia has been involved in numerous conflicts outside its borders and has been responsible for the death of tens of thousands of civilians in places like Chechnya and Syria through its own bombing campaigns so out of all the reasons for Putin to dislike NATO this must be the biggest contradiction. So basically Putin is saying " I am opposed to NATO getting involved in other countries sovereignty but its okay if I do it " 

And then the video clearly mentions Putin is concerned with the " cultural influence of countries that join NATO" as its based on Western ideology which is based on things like "Democracy, individual liberty and rule of law " .......seriously that is exactly what I would expect every person on this forum to believe in since all of us live in countries that believe in these things. Whats the alternative? Undemocratic systems and governments that dont believe in the rule of law and order ?

By the way talking about videos where is the latest video from the hotties? You know I always agree with the girls  so if they said " we dont like or trust  NATO and support Russia  " I would be immediately convinced 

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, Gorth said:

The only real risk (with things like UBI) is rampant inflation and the top 10% getting even richer, as that is where everybody's UBI ends up anyway. It may take a few weeks for the extra dollar to make its way up the food chain, but rest assured, it's where it ends up.

Yes inflation is the potential risk as I mentioned and its a real concern as we can see with the factors that have contributed towards the current global inflation which is more about the lockdowns and the world coming out of the lockdowns but concern with UBI is similar

I think the concern with the 1%/10% is well meaning but misplaced as targeting them is not going to fundamentally change the reality on the ground for most people 

[Gorth]

13 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Yes inflation is the potential risk as I mentioned and its a real concern as we can see with the factors that have contributed towards the current global inflation which is more about the lockdowns and the world coming out of the lockdowns but concern with UBI is similar

I think the concern with the 1%/10% is well meaning but misplaced as targeting them is not going to fundamentally change the reality on the ground for most people 

Exactly. What is needed is something that improves the quality of life of people without moving truckloads of money from the middle class (through taxes) to feed the balance sheet bottom lines of the already wealthy.

 

As for Russia operating outside it's borders, last time I checked Google maps, Chechnya was still within the lines around the Russian Federation. Not trying to justify, but to understand why the west isn't to be trusted (i.e. them telling you, you can't do what they themselves have been doing for a long time, so why shouldn't we do the same)

[BruceVC]

8 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Own a corrugated iron shack. Have a dozen people living in it. Don't have power (or jack the lines to get free power). Get water from public access. That's how much of the world's population still lives.

No thats not how 30 million South Africans live but nice try. Its insensitive to live in a first world country and think that is how all people who live in poverty live. But I suppose NZ does have its own issues like KFC smuggling cartels so I shouldnt be dismissive 

9 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

I cant imagine 46% of the SA population is homeless, so how do they pay for rent / utilities / etc?

You right, the 46 % isnt homeless. Its complicated and their are different levels of state support and social programs that assist this 46% to survive. I support most of these social programs  in SA because some of the poverty is directly linked to Apartheid legacy and if it wasnt for these programs their would be many South Africans living in worse poverty like you see in many  other African countries

Also what Zora is talking about is not how most of the 46% live, he is referring to what we call squatter camps and they examples of the worst kind of squalor outside of homelessness

Many of the 46% are recipients  of free housing called RDP (reconstruction and development ) houses by government. These houses are small 2-3 bedroom places that arent great but better than  corrugated iron  shacks. Then we provide reduced rates for electricity and other services around what we call " indigent services". Also government provides free public sector healthcare and free public sector schooling in most cases. Unfortunately some of these public sector intuitions are not well run or administered so sometimes you find kids getting to grade 12 with a subpar education and they unemployable. Also in the townships you can buy food and goods generally cheaper compared to what we would pay for  food and goods from the malls and supermarkets

Then we have a real and  growing black middle class and they actively participate in what we call colloquially " black tax "and this is where most black people from the middle class and up help their family members financially. This an example of the kindness and humanity you see in SA 

https://www.justmoney.co.za/news/2018/03/01/understanding-black-tax/

So that is how the 46% survive in most cases, I hope this answers your question because it is a  good question and one that matters?

 

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

Exactly. What is needed is something that improves the quality of life of people without moving truckloads of money from the middle class (through taxes) to feed the balance sheet bottom lines of the already wealthy.

 

As for Russia operating outside it's borders, last time I checked Google maps, Chechnya was still within the lines around the Russian Federation. Not trying to justify, but to understand why the west isn't to be trusted (i.e. them telling you, you can't do what they themselves have been doing for a long time, so why shouldn't we do the same)

Sure, but I was referring to the criticism that the West has been involved in bombing campaigns and thats why we cant trust NATO. We also cant trust Russia to not be involved in bombing  campaigns and Chechnya is just one example 

[Gorth]

20 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Sure, but I was referring to the criticism that the West has been involved in bombing campaigns and thats why we cant trust NATO. We also cant trust Russia to not be involved in bombing  campaigns and Chechnya is just one example 

No. It's not why. The 'why' is because NATO breaks its own rules and it's own charter by attacking countries outside NATO, that are not a threat to NATO. I.e. it's no longer a defensive measure (as per the NATO charter (from 1949, hence the reference to occupation forces):

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6 ¹

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France ², on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Later amended:

1. The definition of the territories to which Article 5 applies was revised by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey signed on 22 October 1951.
2. On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962.
3. The Treaty came into force on 24 August 1949, after the deposition of the ratifications of all signatory states.

 

Tl;dr; The NATO charter never provided any options for offensive warfare against other countries "because we don't like them"

As for the "whataboutism", not sure what Russia is doing is any justification for NATO doing as it pleases, way beyond what's in its charter? It still means NATO is "can't be trusted" to be a strictly defensive organisation with no other motives.

All this could be solved by being honest. I suppose It may be a hard sell in some countries, if they just  told them we're a tool for a small group of countries to exert global military hegemony  in order to further geopolitical interests, which is what it has de-facto become in 2022.

[Elerond]

Technically NATO has only once attacked country outside of NATO and without approval from UN security council, In Serbia 1999.

As in other cases NATO members did attacking outside of NATO and NATO come later on to peace keeping with approval of UN Security Council. 

Although NATO has couple times participated in air campaigns approved by UN security council

In Bosnia 1995 they bombed forces of Army of Republika Srpska who where seen as threat to UN safe zones in Bosnia.

In Libya 2011, Nato enforced non-fly zone and bombing camping with approval of UN Security council in order to protect civilians after two Libyan fighter pilots fly their fighter to Malta after Muammar Gaddafi had ordered them to bomb civilian protesters.

And Nato participated in counter piracy mission in Red Sea between 2009-2016 to protect ships from Somalian pirates. 

[BruceVC]

31 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Technically NATO has only once attacked country outside of NATO and without approval from UN security council, In Serbia 1999.

As in other cases NATO members did attacking outside of NATO and NATO come later on to peace keeping with approval of UN Security Council. 

Although NATO has couple times participated in air campaigns approved by UN security council

In Bosnia 1995 they bombed forces of Army of Republika Srpska who where seen as threat to UN safe zones in Bosnia.

In Libya 2011, Nato enforced non-fly zone and bombing camping with approval of UN Security council in order to protect civilians after two Libyan fighter pilots fly their fighter to Malta after Muammar Gaddafi had ordered them to bomb civilian protesters.

And Nato participated in counter piracy mission in Red Sea between 2009-2016 to protect ships from Somalian pirates. 

Just to add to this, in Libya NATO helped prevent a massacre civilians in   the town of Misrata with their intervention. Without NATO Gaddafi would have happily killed about 50k civilians who were trapped in the town 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misrata_(2011)

 

 

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

In Libya 2011, Nato enforced non-fly zone and bombing camping with approval of UN Security council in order to protect civilians after two Libyan fighter pilots fly their fighter to Malta after Muammar Gaddafi had ordered them to bomb civilian protesters.

Except they didn't, they went for regime change which was not authorised. When the rebels attacked Sirte, or Tripoli, under the actual terms of the UNSC resolution (and relevant section quoted below) NATO should have started bombing the rebels, but didn't. That abrogation is why they never got a resolution that even approached allowing force in Syria. Of course, NATO likes to pretend that the resolution allowed regime change- but then that's part of the problem isn't it, NATO pretending it's allowed do stuff that it shouldn't. It's always a special case with special justifications when NATO does something against the rules, but somehow only when NATO breaks the rules.

Quote

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General,
acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in
cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures,
notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and
civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any
part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the
Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the
authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to
the Security Council

No mention of bombing only one side, it just says that civilians should be protected. Maybe the rebel grads and artillery etc fired only pot pourri and fluffy bunnies?

Oh yeah, and the NATO backed side used chemical weapons too, in Bani Walid.

Edited February 17, 2022 by Zoraptor

[Gfted1]

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Also government provides free public sector healthcare...

Does this mean UHC?

[ComradeYellow]

https://www.americanexperiment.org/climate-change-7-how-global-warming-is-both-a-hoax-and-a-legitimate-area-of-study/

Ought to ruffle some feathers.

[BruceVC]

43 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Does this mean UHC?

Well yes but you dont use the public healthcare unless you dont have medical aid. I cant stress  that point enough

The private sector healthcare is well managed and works but their are a long list of horror stories about bad service in PS healthcare but  its free and available to everyone for certain services, not all

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

https://thekingofstocks.com/2022/02/16/san-francisco-residents-overwhelmingly-vote-to-recall-three-far-left-school-board-members/

I saw  this on CNN so its not Fox news hyperbole  but liberal San Francisco has recalled 3 school board members  for focusing too much on progressive left ideology like wanting to change the names of 44 school names in the district. To quote that article 

San Francisco voters overwhelmingly approved a vote to recall three far-left school board members for putting toxic politics ahead of reopening schools.

“The voters of this city have delivered a clear message that the school board must focus on the essentials of delivering a well-run school system above all else,” Mayor London Breed said in a statement after the vote. “San Francisco is a city that believes in the value of big ideas, but those ideas must be built on the foundation of a government that does the essentials well.”

The recall effort started in January 2021 after the Marxist school board members were busy working to rename 44 schools that honored historical figures like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington rather than focusing on reopening schools.

This is an important development and hopefully sends an important  message about priorities and what matters and its not about CRT so need for anyone to get triggered 

@Hurlshot Not sure what you think about this but its in your state?

Edited February 17, 2022 by BruceVC

[Chairchucker]

4 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

https://thekingofstocks.com/2022/02/16/san-francisco-residents-overwhelmingly-vote-to-recall-three-far-left-school-board-members/

I saw  this on CNN so its not Fox news hyperbole  but liberal San Francisco has recalled 3 school board members  for focusing too much on progressive left ideology like wanting to change the names of 44 school names in the district. To quote that article 

San Francisco voters overwhelmingly approved a vote to recall three far-left school board members for putting toxic politics ahead of reopening schools.

“The voters of this city have delivered a clear message that the school board must focus on the essentials of delivering a well-run school system above all else,” Mayor London Breed said in a statement after the vote. “San Francisco is a city that believes in the value of big ideas, but those ideas must be built on the foundation of a government that does the essentials well.”

The recall effort started in January 2021 after the Marxist school board members were busy working to rename 44 schools that honored historical figures like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington rather than focusing on reopening schools.

This is an important development and hopefully sends an important  message about priorities and what matters and its not about CRT so need for anyone to get triggered 

@Hurlshot Not sure what you think about this but its in your state?

Do you have an article from a source that doesn't use laughable terms like 'Marxist school board members'?

 

EDIT: Side note while we're discussing terms. 'Triggered' is a word that refers to actual responses to recurring trauma, and does not mean 'provoked any kind of response.'

Edited February 17, 2022 by Chairchucker

[BruceVC]

4 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Do you have an article from a source that doesn't use laughable terms like 'Marxist school board members'?

 

EDIT: Side note while we're discussing terms. 'Triggered' is a word that refers to actual responses to recurring trauma, and does not mean 'provoked any kind of response.'

Nah, Marxist school board members is more appropriate. But you can find the same story on numerous websites

But you missing the point and getting " triggered " by the words. 

[majestic]

 

Welcome to the reason we no longer engage the posts, just the posters. Carry on.

 

[Gfted1]

36 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Well yes but you dont use the public healthcare unless you dont have medical aid. I cant stress  that point enough

Heh, that reminds me of the VA hospitals. I think any (honorably discharged) veteran can freely enroll for VA health care, but having been to the VA hospital in Chicago in the mid 1990's, I can tell you that it should only be used as a last resort.  But maybe things have improved since then.

[BruceVC]

3 minutes ago, majestic said:

 

Welcome to the reason we no longer engage the posts, just the posters. Carry on.

 

Just because you mentioned it, its revealing how you wont comment on the story and reality of what happened but only concerned by my choice of the word triggered

And it reinforces the observation how some of us comment on the poster and not the post ...thanks for confirming what has already been pointed out 

[majestic]

2 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Just because you mentioned it, its revealing how you wont comment on the story and reality of what happened but only concerned by my choice of the word triggered

And it reinforces the observation how some of us comment on the poster and not the post ...thanks for confirming what has already been pointed out 

Sorry that I triggered you.  I’ll try to be more considerate in the future.

[BruceVC]

3 minutes ago, majestic said:

Sorry that I triggered you.  I’ll try to be more considerate in the future.

Yes you did trigger me because I triggered you because I was triggered by....and so it goes on

I tell you what, I am  not going to use the word triggered anymore on this forum because I want to avoid these types of responses which end up missing the point of the story which is more important than who triggered who more

Happy ?