I'm Sorry, But I have To Say Something

[GaryChildress]

Is anyone other than me disgusted with world leaders and journalists right now? All I see in the news are passive predictions of escalating war. Literally, that's all I see. I see ZERO (0) op-eds or articles saying, "DON'T GO TO WAR". Commentators are idiots. They comment on the current situation as though it's completely going on its own and out of our control. They're spineless and indifferent, little more than insects among us. NO ONE IS STANDING UP AND TELLING THE WORLD NOT TO GO TO WAR. WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH ALL THE SPINELESS WARMONGERING MORONS OUT THERE!!!!!!!

[ncc1701e]

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

[altipueri]

As Herodotus wrote 2500 years ago in his study of history and the cause of war between the Greeks and non-Greeks:

"Human happiness never remains long in the same place"

[GaryChildress]

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Countries have been "preparing for war" for millennia. Preparing for war gives the false sense that one is constantly threatened by another. When there is a sense of threat, security through "preventive" force is the logical result. Nations cannot afford to fight for "security". There are nations in this world that have rarely gone to war outside their borders. China is one of them. It can be done. It's a shame that China now feels that it must arm itself, but it's a defensive reaction against the constant wars and invasions that have happened on behalf of US foreign policy.

We should NEVER have gone to war with Iraq and Afghanistan. War solves nothing. That should be painfully evident by now.

[Orm]

There are nations in this world that have rarely gone to war outside their borders. China is one of them.

I do not think this is true.

[GaryChildress]

There are nations in this world that have rarely gone to war outside their borders. China is one of them.

I do not think this is true.

What would be some contradicting examples?

[ncc1701e]

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Countries have been "preparing for war" for millennia. Preparing for war gives the false sense that one is constantly threatened by another. When there is a sense of threat, security through "preventive" force is the logical result. Nations cannot afford to fight for "security". There are nations in this world that have rarely gone to war outside their borders. China is one of them. It can be done. It's a shame that China now feels that it must arm itself, but it's a defensive reaction against the constant wars and invasions that have happened on behalf of US foreign policy.

We should NEVER have gone to war with Iraq and Afghanistan. War solves nothing. That should be painfully evident by now.

History cannot be rewritten. What is done is done. Now look at Ukraine, look at Israel. Which side is the aggressor here? What's next Taiwan? Baltic States? Europe?

If you don't think there are threats out there and that we must not be prepared to be attacked, you are not understanding today's world. Dark is coming and it is coming quickly imo.

By the way, in Star Trek timeline, WW3 is starting in 2026. Enjoy your two last years of peace.

[GaryChildress]

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Countries have been "preparing for war" for millennia. Preparing for war gives the false sense that one is constantly threatened by another. When there is a sense of threat, security through "preventive" force is the logical result. Nations cannot afford to fight for "security". There are nations in this world that have rarely gone to war outside their borders. China is one of them. It can be done. It's a shame that China now feels that it must arm itself, but it's a defensive reaction against the constant wars and invasions that have happened on behalf of US foreign policy.

We should NEVER have gone to war with Iraq and Afghanistan. War solves nothing. That should be painfully evident by now.

History cannot be rewritten. What is done is done. Now look at Ukraine, look at Israel. Which side is the aggressor here? What's next Taiwan? Baltic States? Europe?

If you don't think there are threats out there and that we must not be prepared to be attacked, you are not understanding today's world. Dark is coming and it is coming quickly imo.

By the way, in Star Trek timeline, WW3 is starting in 2026. Enjoy your two last years of peace.

An idiot "LOLs" at the 'coming' of WW3. You must be an idiot. Do you have any sense at all that WW3 is NOT what you nor any of us want, nor SHOULD want? You are become idiot.

[altipueri]

If it wasn't for war we wouldn't have any of these great games.

[Nikel]

If you don't think there are threats out there and that we must not be prepared to be attacked, you are not understanding today's world. Dark is coming and it is coming quickly imo.

You are an optimist, like me. I fully agree with you.

And report the one insulting you, he will get at least a warning.

[Platoonist]

Alas, how does that sad and cynical quote go....?

"Only the dead have seen the end of war."
--Jorge Santanya.

Well, he's been dead for over seventy years, so he probably ranks as an authority by now.

[GaryChildress]

If it wasn't for war we wouldn't have any of these great games.

They are GAMES. However, the real thing is brewing as we speak. If someone wants to report me for speaking truth (I don't know who laughs at WW3) then so bet it.

[Curtis Lemay]

It may seem counter-intuitive, but the only way to prevent WW3 is through brinkmanship. "Mutual Assured Destruction" is the only policy that can stop a nuclear-tipped ICBM. The 1930's showed that appeasement is what ultimately leads to war.

[Curtis Lemay]

There are nations in this world that have rarely gone to war outside their borders. China is one of them. It can be done. It's a shame that China now feels that it must arm itself, but it's a defensive reaction against the constant wars and invasions that have happened on behalf of US foreign policy.

Naive. China enabled the North Koreans to launch their attempt to conquer South Korea - including providing their own counter offensive - which nearly drove the US off the peninsula. They invaded North Vietnam. They have obvious designs on Taiwan, but also on Manchuria. They hold Tibet by force against the will of the Tibetans. They are exterminating the Uyghurs. They reneged on their assurances to Hong-Kong. And they are claiming swaths of ocean via island building.

[Orm]

There are nations in this world that have rarely gone to war outside their borders. China is one of them.

I do not think this is true.

What would be some contradicting examples?

Plenty of examples. However, it depends on how one define things. One could claim that a nation doesn't go to war because it is always attacked. They are always the defender, and never the aggressor.

Attached are a list of wars, conflicts, and battles, that China has been involved in. And if China truly had ever only been the defender, then China would have been a small province in the region and not a huge world power that it is. Plenty of wars to create its current borders.

I can talk specific wars that China has been involved in, and the aggressor, if you so desire. However, I urge you to ponder on how China could become so huge if they didn't conquer other nations. Did other nations take a vote to join the Chinese nation peacefully?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... nd_battles

[Platoonist]

Attached are a list of wars, conflicts, and battles, that China has been involved in. And if China truly had ever only been the defender, then China would have been a small province in the region and not a huge world power that it is. Plenty of wars to create its current borders.

I can talk specific wars that China has been involved in, and the aggressor, if you so desire. However, I urge you to ponder on how China could become so huge if they didn't conquer other nations. Did other nations take a vote to join the Chinese nation peacefully?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... nd_battles

Based on it's current round of map-making, China seems to be aiming to get even bigger in the future.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/31/india/in ... index.html

China published a new version of its national map on Monday, as it has regularly done since at least 2006, to correct what Beijing has in the past referred to as “problematic maps” that it claims misrepresent its territorial borders.

The Philippines said Thursday it “rejected” the map because of its inclusion of a dashed line around contested areas of the South China Sea that was subject to an international tribunal ruling in 2016 that found in favor of Manila. [...]

India was the first to complain on Tuesday when it lodged a “strong protest” about the inclusion of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh and the disputed Aksai-Chin plateau in Chinese territory. [...]

Malaysia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also dismissed China’s “unilateral claims,” adding the southeast Asian nation “is consistent in its position of rejecting any foreign party’s claims to sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction on Malaysia’s maritime features.”

During a regular press briefing on Wednesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin dismissed the complaints, saying the revisions were a “routine exercise of sovereignty in accordance with the law.”

The article goes on to discuss China's territorial claims on India in more detail.

[ncc1701e]

An idiot "LOLs" at the 'coming' of WW3. You must be an idiot. Do you have any sense at all that WW3 is NOT what you nor any of us want, nor SHOULD want? You are become idiot.

You do not understand. You do not want WW3. But the other side dreams of what? The other side has had enough of Pax Americana. You said we should NEVER have gone to war with Iraq and Afghanistan. 100% agree with you. You could have added Libya into this list. But again, what is done is done. Now, if you do not understand threats are coming and that we must be prepared to defend ourselves, you don’t understand today’s world. Nothing more to say. There are always two sides in a war. This is not because one side don’t want to go to war that the other side wants to do the same. Try to think a little about this.

[Kuokkanen]

NO ONE IS STANDING UP AND TELLING THE WORLD NOT TO GO TO WAR. WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH ALL THE SPINELESS WARMONGERING MORONS OUT THERE!!!!!!!

There are people and even ones in media who speak against war and against intervention even if you haven't seen it. I can name Tim Pool.

[RangerJoe]

NO ONE IS STANDING UP AND TELLING THE WORLD NOT TO GO TO WAR. WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH ALL THE SPINELESS WARMONGERING MORONS OUT THERE!!!!!!!

There are people and even ones in media who speak against war and against intervention even if you haven't seen it. I can name Tim Pool.

Previously there was Neville Chamberlain, among others . . .

[warspite1]

Is anyone other than me disgusted with world leaders and journalists right now? All I see in the news are passive predictions of escalating war. Literally, that's all I see. I see ZERO (0) op-eds or articles saying, "DON'T GO TO WAR". Commentators are idiots. They comment on the current situation as though it's completely going on its own and out of our control. They're spineless and indifferent, little more than insects among us. NO ONE IS STANDING UP AND TELLING THE WORLD NOT TO GO TO WAR. WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH ALL THE SPINELESS WARMONGERING MORONS OUT THERE!!!!!!!

warspite1

I’m not sure what you are reading, but from what I’ve seen and read, I can’t agree with your initial post.

I assume you are talking about the tragedy unfolding in the Middle East – but if so, there are plenty of world leaders doing their best not to have things escalate. There are plenty of journalists responsibly reporting events too. Of course there are world leaders and journalists who are less than responsible and are pursuing their own agendas – but to say they are all spineless and indifferent, and that no one is trying to do the right thing is very unfair, and very simplistic.

But your posting then took a strange – and contradictory - turn by talking about China. You said that “Countries have been "preparing for war" for millennia. Preparing for war gives the false sense that one is constantly threatened by another”. A false sense? But apparently you feel that this doesn’t apply to China because “China now feels that it must arm itself, but it's a defensive reaction against the constant wars and invasions that have happened on behalf of US foreign policy”.

So you seem to be saying that China can legitimately prepare for war because of the US, but what? Certain other nations shouldn’t be preparing for war because they would be doing so under a false sense of threat? That is very selective thinking. Who gets to decide whether a threat is real or imagined then?

What appears to be a pro-China/anti-US rant continues. You say that “There are nations in this world that have rarely gone to war outside their borders. China is one of them. It can be done”. Apart from this comment being factually incorrect when it comes to China, it also ignores historical fact when it comes to others. Most nations, that have, or have had, the power to do so, at some point in their history, have fought aggressive wars outside their borders. One would be hard pressed to name a country – particularly (but not limited to) Europe, that hasn’t done so.

You also said “War solves nothing”. Well there’s a sentiment that most of us can agree on. But it’s also one that is easy to say….. You criticise world leaders for being spineless and not trying to stop war. Well I suggest you look at the efforts made by many world leaders in trying to persuade Russia not to attack Ukraine. But that fell on deaf ears didn’t it? What were Ukraine supposed to do in response? What are you saying the west should do in response?

Here we are in 2023. What have we learned – or rather what should we have learned from thousands of years of war and conflict? Yep, war solves nothing and ultimately there needs to be a political solution to try and resolve flash points.
But I don’t think we humans haven’t learnt that lesson. Of course we have. I think that sadly we often either choose to ignore it because political solutions are often too much on the difficult pile; political solutions need each side to buy-in, political solutions mean compromise and that makes them unpopular OR political solutions prove impossible because one or more sides simply aren’t prepared, under any circumstances, to compromise.

You dismiss world leaders (though apparently not the Chinese), journalists and commentators as idiots. I think things are a tad more complicated than you seem to realise.