Generational Dynamics World View News

[John]

** 27-Dec-2021 World View: Russian trolls

> So what he has written is "complete nonsense" and he's a troll,
> but you admit he's right about the Golan Heights? What did the UN
> do when Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1971 John?

Did you even read BP's post? You apparently have no idea what it
says. He was criticizing my characterization of Russia's invasion and
annexation of Crimea as "illegal." He gave several examples to
support his claim, and his presentation was actually quite clear and
logical -- unlike 99% of what you write, which is more like
gobbledygook.

The reason that it's "complete nonsense" is because it makes no
reference to international law, which is the basis for the claim that
Russia's actions were illegal. You may not like international law, or
you may have no ability to understand international law, but the
"illegal" characterization is correct under that law.

> You act like just because more recent globalization / world
> entities exist, they are legitimate in a way that is so different
> and departs from the historical realities Burner Prime points
> out. But we know they are all just about who barks the loudest or
> pays off the greatest number of people. That's why we haven't
> heard the cries of the "Holocaust" stop although it was 80 years
> ago, and Communists killed 10-20x the people in Russia and China
> (more), but Hitler was "pure evil" while Stalin and Mao (and don't
> let anyone know the Russian revolution was largely a "jewish"
> revolution, but I'm sure you know more than Solzhenitsyn does,
> John) were just sorta bad guys.

Once again, you appear to have no grasp of logic. None of this
mishmash or word blender words is even remotely relevant to BP's post
or my response. Try reading both of them again, perhaps 4-5 times
each, and maybe it will sink in.

> You call him a troll, agree with him in part, and don't address
> any other point of his. Come on, man, this is pretty low level
> stuff here.

I fully addressed the logic of his post, even if I didn't respond
to all his examples.

During most of the 2010s decade, I must have responded to hundreds
or maybe even thousands of comments from Russian trolls. So I
became pretty good at spotting a Russian troll.

• Russian trolls - Bruce Plante (Tulsa World, 11-Jun-2015)

And whenever you write anything about Russia or Syria, you sound like
nothing so much as a Russian troll. The only thing I don't know is
whether or not Russia's troll factory, the Internet Research Agency in
St. Petersburg, is paying you.

[Burner Prime]

** 27-Dec-2021 World View: Russian trolls

> So what he has written is "complete nonsense" and he's a troll,
> but you admit he's right about the Golan Heights? What did the UN
> do when Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1971 John?

Did you even read BP's post? You apparently have no idea what it
says. He was criticizing my characterization of Russia's invasion and
annexation of Crimea as "illegal."

The reason that it's "complete nonsense" is because it makes no
reference to international law, which is the basis for the claim that
Russia's actions were illegal. You may not like international law, or
you may have no ability to understand international law, but the
"illegal" characterization is correct under that law.

> You act like just because more recent globalization / world
> entities exist, they are legitimate in a way that is so different
> and departs from the historical realities Burner Prime points
> out. But we know they are all just about who barks the loudest or
> pays off the greatest number of people.
...

Once again, you appear to have no grasp of logic. None of this
mishmash or word blender words is even remotely relevant to BP's post
or my response. ...

> You call him a troll, agree with him in part, and don't address
> any other point of his. Come on, man, this is pretty low level
> stuff here.

I fully addressed the logic of his post, even if I didn't respond
to all his examples.

During most of the 2010s decade, I must have responded to hundreds
or maybe even thousands of comments from Russian trolls. So I
became pretty good at spotting a Russian troll.

Cool Breeze does get the gist of the point I was trying to make, unfortunately John doesn't and is stuck mired in the details of the example:

> You act like just because more recent globalization / world
> entities exist, they are legitimate in a way that is so different
> and departs from the historical

That is right. We can pick and choose timelines or the text of documents in place, or the ability of certain powers to enforce those laws at a given point in time. But the claims of legitimacy or moral superiority are always owned by the victors. And those claims die over time. Well that is except in the US over slavery reparations - but that's only because grifters are trying to milk the system, to shake the money tree by laying any claim however flimsy.

The point is you all choose whatever propaganda suits you to make your argument. But you neglect analyzing the whole situation from 40,000 ft. Whether legal, illegal, nonsense, BS, legit, illegitimate or however you want to label it, Russia has security concerns. They are not handling it as skillfully as Western Jewish lawyers might, but they have determined at some point they have to act to secure their interests, if even in a clumsy manner.

They needed full control of naval bases in Crimea for security reasons so they took it. You can label it 'illegal' all day long, but I don't care about your labels.

NATO has expanded unabated and is close to Russia's doorstep and they have reached the point where they see a serious threat, even an existential one. However clumsy or 'illegally' they're acting on Ukraine, they have a legitimate concern. I won't entertain Neocon arguments about how evil and selfish Putin is, because I don't care about Putin. You guys are the ones nutting over him. You guys try to simplify it in terms of Putin being a bad dude and just wanting territory for his own glorification and power, yet no one ever considers if Mexico decided to join China in some alliance, legally binding if the US ever attacked them.

No one ever considers if the shoe was on the other foot. But it was when Russia started moving missiles to Cuba and the US was not going to stand for it.

As for accusations of being a Russian troll, you guys are just petty and stupid and I won't even dignify it. It is just so childish and low IQ and such a lame ad hominem that serves try to de-legitimize my points. And if you really believe that then just delete my posts from here on. But I don't think you do, you're just hurling insults like a 4th grader.

The US heinously and "illegally" annexed Hawaii over their resources and is evil in this regard. The UN Security Council should declare it illegal make some resolution that they have to return it to the natives or face eviction by military force.

You may think that sounds absurd, but that's only because you pick and choose your propaganda as it suits you, within your cherry-picked time-frame, and try to claim moral superiority.

But John you should reflect on your own words that essentially there is a way the world operates "that's just how things are" and it isn't always in a legal context or follow your prejudices, but it does make sense as far as humans are concerned when you look at it from 40,000 ft. You are mired in the clouds at the 30,000 ft level and can't see everything clearly.

Finally, I would recommend this recently (how prescient) posted video of a Russian soldier describing the horrors they faced under Napoleon's invasion. The same thing happened under Hitler. The same happened under Genghis Khan. You have no idea how deeply ingrained their real fear of invasion is and the destruction they've faced over the centuries. Americans have never faced such a threat, always had it easy, and that's evident by their easy dismissal of Russian security concerns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdzkV5meLY0

[Guest]

Mostly, the powerful do what they want and if you live in a world where other people actually have instituted a reasonable civilization, the losers will be given a voice and thus, they complain. That's basically the trajectory of the USA once the transformation was complete - full reversal of european and Christian civilization now with the white (and jew) politicians selling out the country to the increasingly bizarre, detestable, and delusional minority groups (for votes). It doesn't hurt that the midwits also bought the propaganda, as they were bought and sold (white establishment/government workers/education, etc) in order to advance the agenda since they too were on the payroll. It's funny that they are trying to desperately keep it alive for a lame retirement of free money, health care and "golf" (or insert your meaningless activity) to live out their lives on the backs of others, freedom and sanity be damned.

I agree with this much. Yes, we have been sold out and now face our own South African future.

And Putin has helped facilitate it more than anyone with his weaponization of third world refugees into Europe--our homeland. I really wish that people like you would wake up and realize that Putin is not on your side. Putin wants to destroy the West, not save it.

Burner Prime is just a troll and you have fallen for his lies. So has Thomasglee.

Yes, we have been sold out. But you have also been sold out by the goat would promised to be your savior.

[thomasglee]

Mostly, the powerful do what they want and if you live in a world where other people actually have instituted a reasonable civilization, the losers will be given a voice and thus, they complain. That's basically the trajectory of the USA once the transformation was complete - full reversal of european and Christian civilization now with the white (and jew) politicians selling out the country to the increasingly bizarre, detestable, and delusional minority groups (for votes). It doesn't hurt that the midwits also bought the propaganda, as they were bought and sold (white establishment/government workers/education, etc) in order to advance the agenda since they too were on the payroll. It's funny that they are trying to desperately keep it alive for a lame retirement of free money, health care and "golf" (or insert your meaningless activity) to live out their lives on the backs of others, freedom and sanity be damned.

I agree with this much. Yes, we have been sold out and now face our own South African future.

And Putin has helped facilitate it more than anyone with his weaponization of third world refugees into Europe--our homeland. I really wish that people like you would wake up and realize that Putin is not on your side. Putin wants to destroy the West, not save it.

Burner Prime is just a troll and you have fallen for his lies. So has Thomasglee.

Yes, we have been sold out. But you have also been sold out by the goat would promised to be your savior.

Keep me out of this. Faith over fear is my only position.

[Tom Mazanec]

Novel of the coming war with China:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08BKSH9TF/re ... TF8&btkr=1

[DaKardii]

Laws, laws, so many laws. And many of them conflict with one another. It's literally impossible to enforce every single one of them, so we have to pick and choose which laws are supreme.

This dilemma exists even within our own country. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the subsequent order of precedence is typically federal statute, followed by state constitutions, followed by state statute, followed by local charter, followed by local ordinance. But that's not always the case, given the complexities of the respective constitutions of the federal government and of the states, as well as those of local charters. Hence why we have litigation concerning this dilemma going on every single day, with no signs of permanent settlement.

A grand question which can never be answered.

[John]

** 28-Dec-2021 World View: International law and invasions

> That is right. We can pick and choose timelines or the text of
> documents in place, or the ability of certain powers to enforce
> those laws at a given point in time. But the claims of legitimacy
> or moral superiority are always owned by the victors. And those
> claims die over time. Well that is except in the US over slavery
> reparations - but that's only because grifters are trying to milk
> the system, to shake the money tree by laying any claim however
> flimsy.

> The point is you all choose whatever propaganda suits you to make
> your argument. But you neglect analyzing the whole situation from
> 40,000 ft. Whether legal, illegal, nonsense, BS, legit,
> illegitimate or however you want to label it, Russia has security
> concerns. They are not handling it as skillfully as Western Jewish
> lawyers might, but they have determined at some point they have to
> act to secure their interests, if even in a clumsy manner.

> They needed full control of naval bases in Crimea for security
> reasons so they took it. You can label it 'illegal' all day long,
> but I don't care about your labels.

I take it back. I said that your previous post was clear and logical,
but now I see that I was completely wrong about you. The above is a
totally incoherent mishmash of ranting, name-calling, wokeism,
anti-Semitism, and illogic. No wonder you and Cool Breeze get along
so well. I don't even understand what point you're making, except to
say that Russia can invade anyone they want and it's all perfectly ok
with you.

So let's recap how Russia repeatedly violated international law in
Ukraine since 2014 -- by illegally invading eastern Ukraine, by
shooting down an unarmed passenger plane with a Buk missile, by
illegally invading and annexing Crimea, by illegally attacking
maritime traffic in the Sea of Azov, and so forth.

So these acts are clearly illegal, and in my opinion and experience,
anyone who says they're not illegal is self-identifying as a Russian
troll.

If you really believe the crap you've written, then you must think
that it would be perfectly ok for the US to invade Cuba. After all,
China, Russia and Venezuela have all promised to defend Cuba, and
those countries may decide to launch an attack on the US from Cuba.
So by your own reasoning, it's perfectly ok for the US to invade Cuba.

Mexico is even worse, as it's believed that China is installing cadres
and equipment in Mexico in preparation for an invasion of the US.

So it's perfectly OK for the US to invade Cuba and Mexico, for exactly
the reasons you've stated. Right?

I've actually written briefly about the annexation of Hawaii:

** 5-Jul-14 World View -- Activists demand restoration of the Kingdom of Hawaii
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e140705


But that's not relevant to today, because in the 1800s the world was a
very different place. The Europeans colonized African countries in
the "Scramble for Africa." France colonized French Indochina. Prior
to that, the UK colonized the British Empire, Magellan conquered
several nations on behalf of Spain, and the Muslims conquered the
Mideast and the region beyond.

In the 1900s, the world became traumatized by two world wars and
numerous other wars, and looked for ways to bring war to an end.
(Lol!) So they set up various refugee agencies, the world health
organization, the world bank, the IMF, the Food and Agriculture
Organization, the United Nations and they set up a system of
international law.

After WW II, most of these colonial empires disappeared. Europe gave
up its African colonies, France gave up Vietnam, Britain dissolved the
British empire, and the Soviet Union dissolved. The conquests that
were typical of the 1800s became illegal, and America became policeman
of the world, going to war to defend South Korea from North Korea,
going to war to prevent a Communist takeover of the democracy in South
Vietnam, going to war to eject Iraq from Kuwait, and so forth, with
some efforts more successful than others.

So now today we have new situations -- China annexing the South China
Sea, China threatening to invade Taiwan and Japan, Russia annexing
parts of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia annexing the Sea of Azov, and
Russia threatening a new invasion of Ukraine.

So all of these annexations and invasions can be justified by various
trolls, but they are all illegal under international law, and they all
threaten the international order. One of them will probably be the
trigger for World War III. Happy?

> No one ever considers if the shoe was on the other foot. But it
> was when Russia started moving missiles to Cuba and the US was not
> going to stand for it.

That's silly. It started right after WW II.

** President Harry Truman and the Truman Doctrine
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... 060919.htm

> As for accusations of being a Russian troll, you guys are just
> petty and stupid and I won't even dignify it. It is just so
> childish and low IQ and such a lame ad hominem that serves try to
> de-legitimize my points. And if you really believe that then just
> delete my posts from here on. But I don't think you do, you're
> just hurling insults like a 4th grader.

Methinks thou dost protest too much. And I do think you're a Russian
troll.

[DaKardii]

My standard for the legality of American wars falls upon three questions. First, was the war a domestic or foreign conflict? Second, if the conflict was foreign, then was military action authorized by Congress? And third, for post-WWII foreign conflicts, was military action authorized by the UN Security Council?

By these standards, here are my opinions on whether the following armed conflicts involving the US were legal. Only wars with over 1,000 US casualties are included.

Northwest Indian War (1785-96): Legal only for conflicts which occurred on established US territory, as conflicts on no-man’s land were not authorized by Congress.

War of 1812 (1812-15): Legal. Authorized by Congress.

Second Seminole War (1835-42): Legal only for conflicts which occurred on established US territory, as conflicts on no-man’s land were not authorized by Congress.

Mexican-American War (1846-48): Legal. Authorized by Congress.

Civil War (1861-65): Legal if you consider it a purely domestic conflict; illegal if you consider it a war between two countries. Not authorized by Congress.

Frontier Indian Wars (1865-98): Legal only for conflicts which occurred on established US territory, as conflicts on no-man’s land were not authorized by Congress.

Spanish-American War (1898): Legal. Authorized by Congress.

Philippine-American War (1898-1913): Legal. Purely domestic conflict.

World War I (1917-18): Legal. Authorized by Congress.

World War II (1941-45): Legal. Authorized by Congress.

Korean War (1950-53): Legal under international law, but illegal under US law. Military action was authorized by the UN but not by Congress.

Vietnam War (1955-75): Legal under US law only from 1964-73, when the Congressional authorization was in effect. Illegal under international law, as military action was not authorized by the UN at any point.

Gulf War: Legal. Authorized by both Congress and the UN.

War in Afghanistan: Legal under US law but not under international law. Authorized by Congress but not by the UN.

Iraq War: Legal under US law but not under international law. Authorized by Congress but not by the UN.

[FullMoon]

Russia has published a draft treaty to resolve the ongoing crisis over the status of Ukraine. Many in Western media consider this move to be a semi-formal ultimatum.

The draft treaty can be read here: https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/na ... 3/?lang=en

The proposals made include but are not limited to:

1) All NATO military installations located on non-NATO European territory on or after May 28, 1997 must be removed. This includes NATO military installations located on the territories of current NATO members which had not yet joined the alliance as of that date. In return, Russia will remove all military installations placed on non-Russian European territory on or after that date.

2) All NATO land-based missiles capable of striking Russian territory must be removed. In return, Russia will remove all land-based missiles capable of striking the territory of any NATO member.

3) NATO must not expand any further; no new members are to be admitted.

4) NATO forces are prohibited from entering the territories of any post-Soviet states, with the exception of the Baltic states.

5) NATO forces are prohibited from conducting military exercises above the brigade level within a yet-to-be-determined distance from the borders of Russia or any country that is in a military alliance with Russia (currently Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan). In return, Russia will not conduct military exercises above the brigade level within that yet-to-be-determined distance from the borders of any NATO member.

John, these requests seem reasonable and justified on the surface. Is there another way of looking at it?
Also, I used to think both Trump and Putin were petty tyrants. Trump showed otherwise, for the most part. I'm thinking Putin might actually not be as bad as we're shown in our delightful media. How much of this statement would you agree with?

[John]

** 28-Dec-2021 World View: Treaty for useful idiots

> Russia has published a draft treaty to resolve the ongoing crisis
> over the status of Ukraine. Many in Western media consider this
> move to be a semi-formal ultimatum.

> The draft treaty can be read here:
> https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/na ... 3/?lang=en

> The proposals made include but are not limited to:

> 1) All NATO military installations located on non-NATO European
> territory on or after May 28, 1997 must be removed. This
> includes NATO military installations located on the
> territories of current NATO members which had not yet joined the
> alliance as of that date. In return, Russia will remove all
> military installations placed on non-Russian European territory on
> or after that date.

> 2) All NATO land-based missiles capable of striking Russian
> territory must be removed. In return, Russia will remove all
> land-based missiles capable of striking the territory of any NATO
> member.

> 3) NATO must not expand any further; no new members are to be
> admitted.

> 4) NATO forces are prohibited from entering the territories of any
> post-Soviet states, with the exception of the Baltic states.

> 5) NATO forces are prohibited from conducting military exercises
> above the brigade level within a yet-to-be-determined distance
> from the borders of Russia or any country that is in a military
> alliance with Russia (currently Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan,
> Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan). In return, Russia will not conduct
> military exercises above the brigade level within that
> yet-to-be-determined distance from the borders of any NATO member.
>

> John, these requests seem reasonable and justified on the
> surface. Is there another way of looking at it? Also, I used to
> think both Trump and Putin were petty tyrants. Trump showed
> otherwise, for the most part. I'm thinking Putin might actually
> not be as bad as we're shown in our delightful media. How much of
> this statement would you agree with?

Are you kidding me? First off, this treaty would make all previous
illegal acts legal. So Crimea would legally be part of Russia.

And then, once Nato has made all the concessions, Russia would just go
ahead with its invasion anyway.

Putin and the Communists can always count on being supported by useful
idiots in the West.