Yes, it is my ideology that people have basic rights such as the ability to choose how they are ruled. I fully support the rule of the people rather than the rule of a single individual. I suspect most people in China, Russia, And Korea would want to have a say in how their country is run too. I bet you do too. Doesn't have to be democracy. Rule by sorti like the ancient Greeks had would work. Even communism in theory (not the dictatorships they all descended into which were more like feudalism) would be Ok if it was the people's will.
Sorry CK I'm going for the go to response on here - ignore what you posted and say they're warmongering tyrants! Tbf though they hold no moral high ground here to say anything to the Ruskies.
Interesting last line... "if it was the people's will" We weren't too keen on that during the elections in Algeria in 1991.
Their situation is actually pretty darn similar to Russia's. Take over the Golan heights and Palestine so that they can't be used against you. Pretty much Russia's excuse. Take over Ukraine so NATO can't attack their soft underbelly from the South West and host missiles there. Of course, in Israel's defence they were actually attacked. (Although I doubt Russia would treat the Ukrainians as bad as Israel has the Palestinians if they won the war. Even Russia isn't that bad).
You really don't get it do you, are you seriously suggesting that selecting between Biden and Trump is a choice, ffs you might as well just stick Kim Jung-un in power. Did Aber never teach you anything. So you had the choice between a raving lunatic, Trump or a guy that don't know what day of the week it is, great what a democracy. As for China and Russia, I doubt the majority of the people even give a thought to how they are ruled, they just get on with life, work, eat and sleep like the rest of us. What's wrong with your ideology is that you constantly think you are right and better than them, like most stupid Americans, or in your case Brits. all because of some choice you had between Trump and Biden. The biggest joke is people like you that think somehow America is great, the so called will of the people you admire, tried to burn down America's democracy in front of the World's watching eyes, not too long ago, let's not forget that. Now those same democratic people are ****ting their pants at the thought of taking on Putin, what a democracy. America should stick to bullying little countries, oh, of course, they do.
Seeing as this is the war thread, I thought I'd remind everyone of all the wars currently happening on this beautiful planet, so we can share the love. please log in to view this image The darker the colour the more fcked up it is. Major wars, 10,000+ deaths in current or past calendar year Wars, 1,000–9,999 deaths in current or past calendar year Minor conflicts, 100–999 deaths in current or past calendar year Skirmishes and clashes, 10–99 deaths in current or past calendar year There's a prize if you can name them all. A year's supply of WMD's and free membership of NATO.
Well, that was a pretty ill-informed rant... There was actually a lot more people than that running. Not just for different parties but in the primaries of different parties. Certainly America's two party system is highly flawed and is institutionally ingrained to prevent third parties rising up which I think is a mistake. Based on the number of protests and people arrested for protesting, plenty of people do care. I think we have a better system of government. Are British people inherently better than Russians? Absolutely not. I think I've said to the contrary many times. America is highly flawed and could do with a big shake up. In fact it's probably one of the least free democracies and poorest representation of public will in NATO. A small group of people who failed. Unfortunately, those people are probably supporting Russia in this.
Politics doesn't work based on moral high grounds though. Maybe in an ideal world it would, but we live in a world where even the most politically 'open' and 'developed' countries on Earth can still produce the most vile specimen of human beings as 'leaders'. Pragmatics has to take priority in situations such as these. I've seen "respected" journalists opine along these lines: Israel should not and cannot play any role as peace broker because of the ongoing problems it has vis-à-vis the Palestinians. This position is both cruel and so utterly detached from reality as to barely be countenanced. If let's say Kim Jong-Un could theoretically wave a magic wand tomorrow and bring a secure peace between Russia and Ukraine, thereby saving countless thousands of lives and the bulk of the world's economy from further collapse, would we turn him away from the negotiating table because domestically he doesn't have the moral high ground? To suggest such a thing is absurd and in itself shows a tragic moral myopia. And while I don't fully agree with the way @Blue and Yellow Potato framed the parallels, the truth may well be that Putin himself sees his own conflict as analogous to Israel's, rightly or wrongly, which might well be precisely why a political novice like Bennet seems to have his ear when the established juggernauts do not. I'm not advocating for peace at any price, I'm arguing that we tend to confuse and conflate costs.
I think it's time we looked for a message of peace and harmony...something to bring this marvelous world together This is what we're all about
It's an interesting map although worth pointing out most of those are internal struggles. Mexico, for example, I presume is referencing the drug gang caused deaths and the State's attempts to quell the drug gangs. Which, I'm sure if drug gang caused violence is a reason, I'd suspect more countries should show up as the lighter shade. (I'd be highly surprised if not at least 10 deaths in US related to drug gangs for example).
If I thought for a second that Israel or North Korea could achieve peace anywhere without it costing thousands of lives somewhere else I'd be all for it. Politics is politics. But realpolitik is more than what you say. Morally corrupt oppressors rarely do anything without it serving their interests which invariably only go to reinforce their corrupt oppressive actions elsewhere. Now you could argue any country seeking peace may be looking after their self interest to some extent. But it's the "extent" which matters. Ultimately my post about moral high ground is more than just double standards, but the fact we seem to rob Peter to feed Paul when we go down this route.
1 down 56 to go for your very own tactical nuclear missile! Fair point though. Ok so there are about 12 which involve more than one country. 6 you could class as major conflicts.
Mentioned something similar with Erdogan. Whilst he is far from being a savoury character, he could play a key part in any peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. The key for me is to always make sure you have channels of communication open, because ultimately, that's the only way you're going to be able to broker peace It's why I disagree with people who slated Corbyn for speaking with Sinn Feinn during the Ireland troubles. He was trying to carve out a route towards dialogue with the British Govt and ultimately a peace deal.
