I imagine that if the West was facing total annihilation, they would not want China to be the last man standing. Although that is just a hunch. Might also be true for Russia, also.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
Very much is a bad thing, I'd rather be the **** kicker if I'm being honest. Thats the kind of attitude we need to get rid of. Until we as a species is prepared to go on that journey together, human nature is human nature, dosnt matter how much we try, we keep reverting to form, and we need to be ahead of the curve unless as a nation we want to be just a moment in history.
Doesn't mean much if you are dead or slaves to a brutal regime.
Standing back and letting millions of people live under misery and oppression because of "good intentions" I don't really see that any different to the bad guys.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,581
China has a huge population, true. The thing is, with the one child policy, a family line ends if their son dies. This is probably in the minds of the party there.
The problem with pacifism is that it's the long road to being someone else's boy. People will never change, and that means you have to make hard choices to keep safe.
And yet, if everyone was a pacifist, it wouldn't be a problem. Obviously that is not the case, but it doesn't make pacifism wrong or immoral.
Or they're simply more aware of that a bunch of charlatans are running the show and aren't prepared to sell their soul to kill on the orders of the rich and powerful.
Successive governments have fostered a society of everyone for themselves, especially if you have money and then they want all hands to the pump when the **** hits the fan? **** that.
Last edited:
Soldato
Just a far off pie in the sky pipe-dream. Like a utopia that will never likely happen.
Of course, but you are (mostly) only responsible for your own actions. That others do not and will not follow suit is a problem, of course. But it's really, really hard to say that pacifism is morally wrong. Or to claim that pacifists are just as bad as warmongers.
Soldato
Unless humans have a mass evolutionary shift in their base instincts in the not too distant future, we will always need ‘stout men to man the walls and protect the rest of us from barbarians’ EDIT: paraphrasing (badly iirc) a line from a movie (I think)
The lust for power and greed is just too strong for some to ignore so there will always be ‘bad men’ - if the rest of the world danced round these bad men waving flowers and telling them to be nice it would be a blood bath. Metaphorically and literally.
Last edited:
Soldato
In the extreme, all that breeds is "**** That" in a different language with an unfriendly foreign government that cares less for you than the one that we have. Better the devil you know...
At best Pasificm is morally questionable. Not willing to make a stand for existence is the death of it. Seems ultimately defeatist.
Soldato
Sadly this is the reality we live and will be for the foreseeable future. We as a species is not all that advanced. Our tribal natures oozes out at every opportunity we give it.
I've done my share of "pointless" wars. I'd happily go forth in a situation where our nation requires. Not for "king or country" but for brothers left and right and for family, because ultimately thats what it comes down to. Precisely what Ukraine is fighting for right this moment.
I said it at the start of the thread and I’ll say it now, we should have nuked Russia from the start, made Japan 1945 look like a minor incident. For too long Russia has tried to bully and invaded its neighbours, they’ve killed on our shores, and they get away with it because everyone’s too cowardly to hold Russia and it’s people accountable for fear of starting WW3.
The reality is that a united show of force against Russia by the majority of the world would have ended things very quickly, and their retaliation would be as pathetic as their attempt to invade the poorest country in Europe.
We have messed up badly allowing the precedent of allowing Russia to push in our direction without immediately making them regret it. It was correct to nuke Japan, we would have Nuked Nazi Germany if we had the bomb on time, and we should be wiping Russia as we know it off the face of the earth.
The reality is that a united show of force against Russia by the majority of the world would have ended things very quickly, and their retaliation would be as pathetic as their attempt to invade the poorest country in Europe.
We have messed up badly allowing the precedent of allowing Russia to push in our direction without immediately making them regret it. It was correct to nuke Japan, we would have Nuked Nazi Germany if we had the bomb on time, and we should be wiping Russia as we know it off the face of the earth.
Japan didn't have nuke's to retaliate with, Russia does.
Your "Genius Idea" to have nuked Russia first, is without a doubt, the dumbest, most moronic idea ever.
Unless your plan was to wipe out all civilization by having Russia launch every single one of their nukes in retaliation.
This war is only about Putin's legacy - a dying man going off on a period of madness to seal his glorious reign in the history books as the new "Vladimir the Great". I saw an article earlier this week how they have started putting books in Russian schools saying how Putin saved Russia from the west
Hurfdurf is either on a wind up or furiously Googling how to make a nuclear bomb.
Caporegime
Nah it's fine. Just get rid of Putin, avoid nuking 10s of millions of people, make peace and get ready to fight china with our new EU russian Ally
How to prove were the good guys, kill babies.
Soldato
I believe that Churchill said we should.
- Status