Will war break out in Europe?

[Davino]

Will war break out in Europe?

There has been war in Europe since the 24th of February 2022.

You are just far away that's why you haven't thought about it. Now that your ass may burn by the war, like many families that are buried dead under ukranian soil, you give it a second thought.

If WW3 breaks out, you will find me in the Easter Island. Peace to all of you!

[rnd]

On 5/2/2024 at 6:49 PM, Davino said:

There has been war in Europe since the 24th of February 2022.

Rather from 2012 when Europe and US overthrown the current government in UA, as the 1st step -- which they even later on admitted themselves.
And when, shortly after, NATO began to send weapons to UA soldiers and train them, preparing for a conflict that would take place in ....

But the event of the 24th of February 2022, the TV in Europe and US claims, was a black swan. Tooooootally unexpected.

 

Edited February 7 by rnd

[bebotalk]

On 05/02/2024 at 3:52 PM, BlueOak said:

Though I would like to know where you think you get your information from if not your mind? Cereal boxes?

I don't agree with you. As I said, you're citing subjective beliefs as facts. 

Why then is MY view not valid? or don't you "learn" from me?? I don't have to agree with you, nor you with me. it's not human to "agree outright" with anybody. we all have free will. 

Your lived experience and those of your friends cannot relate by definition to all. Moreover, socialism is one worldview/ideology. It's by no means an objective ideology. 

No society is perfect, nor can be,. 

By citing pre-WW2 Britain as "idyllic" is false. 

There was no state-run healthcare then. 

Far less social mobility.

No protections against discrimination. Racism, sexism, anti-Semetism, etc. were the norm and weren't questioned at all. 

A society where there were defined "betters" and "lessers". 

A growing fascist party that was only curbed when WW2 started.

Immense slums in big cities. 

Pre-WW2 Britain didn't work for the many. It does now. Or at the least, we strive to be this way. It was accepted that many should "know their place" back then.  Most nay all have a chance to go to university now. That wasn't the case back then. Women are free today to do and achieve as they please. That wasn't the case back then. Whilst Britain didn't have racism to the degree of the United States, it still was a time of "white man's burden" and thus used as a justification for the British Empire which at that point still existed. 

It was only really the sacrifices of WW2 that led to the NHS and the welfare state.  This is in large part why Labour won the 1945 general election because they offered something new and built on the need for change after six years of war. 

Not everybody has to be a socialist, and there is no "best" political ideology. Nobody needs to be a political science scholar to note that.

So that's my view - I believe life in Britain in pre-1945 was arguably worse for many than it is today. 

there's no reason why my view is lesser than yours.

but I doubt you'd say "ok that's your view!" and move on.

You said your views, and I disagree, since I believe it's a subjective reading of how things were back then. 

But your perspective that is based purely on subjective experience/reasoning of hard-left people is not anything that a person disagree with. ever. looool. 

If there is war, then human nature hasn't changed. Because the post-WW2 order has been relatively benign in that only the USSR and now Russia have been major threats in Europe, it doesn't mean this will remain forever. 

And yes, current Britain isn't perfect. Neither was pre-WW2 Britain. And imho, Britain today is far better in many ways and for more people. Though as presumably a white male, you will only see it from your own standpoint. 

 

Edited February 7 by bebotalk

[BlueOak]

On 2/7/2024 at 4:19 PM, bebotalk said:

I don't agree with you. As I said, you're citing subjective beliefs as facts. 

Why then is MY view not valid? or don't you "learn" from me?? I don't have to agree with you, nor you with me. it's not human to "agree outright" with anybody. we all have free will. 

Your lived experience and those of your friends cannot relate by definition to all. Moreover, socialism is one worldview/ideology. It's by no means an objective ideology. 

No society is perfect, nor can be,. 

By citing pre-WW2 Britain as "idyllic" is false. 

There was no state-run healthcare then. 

Far less social mobility.

No protections against discrimination. Racism, sexism, anti-Semetism, etc. were the norm and weren't questioned at all. 

A society where there were defined "betters" and "lessers". 

A growing fascist party that was only curbed when WW2 started.

Immense slums in big cities. 

Pre-WW2 Britain didn't work for the many. It does now. Or at the least, we strive to be this way. It was accepted that many should "know their place" back then.  Most nay all have a chance to go to university now. That wasn't the case back then. Women are free today to do and achieve as they please. That wasn't the case back then. Whilst Britain didn't have racism to the degree of the United States, it still was a time of "white man's burden" and thus used as a justification for the British Empire which at that point still existed. 

It was only really the sacrifices of WW2 that led to the NHS and the welfare state.  This is in large part why Labour won the 1945 general election because they offered something new and built on the need for change after six years of war. 

Not everybody has to be a socialist, and there is no "best" political ideology. Nobody needs to be a political science scholar to note that.

So that's my view - I believe life in Britain in pre-1945 was arguably worse for many than it is today. 

there's no reason why my view is lesser than yours.

but I doubt you'd say "ok that's your view!" and move on.

You said your views, and I disagree, since I believe it's a subjective reading of how things were back then. 

But your perspective that is based purely on subjective experience/reasoning of hard-left people is not anything that a person disagree with. ever. looool. 

If there is war, then human nature hasn't changed. Because the post-WW2 order has been relatively benign in that only the USSR and now Russia have been major threats in Europe, it doesn't mean this will remain forever. 

And yes, current Britain isn't perfect. Neither was pre-WW2 Britain. And imho, Britain today is far better in many ways and for more people. Though as presumably a white male, you will only see it from your own standpoint. 

 

I don't learn anything if you say nothing. Interacting just to say you are wrong, while offering nothing in return is useless for both parties involved. What you've done here is expand your point so I can learn either from it and/or the interaction. Thank you for most of this, minus your judgmental tangent at the end. BTW even when I argue I learn. Someone can argue till they are blue in the face, and then slowly reflect or have the words represented to them in another experience later down the line. 

The disparity here is you are speaking exclusively of the 40's or pre WW2. I am speaking mostly of the 60's, 70's and 90's with some points relevant to the 40's and other eras where we had a more interwoven class system, which was represented in our politics, rather than this huge divide we now have.

First-hand experience is exceptionally useful, more so than second-hand referential experience told to us via the filter of text or media. It all adds up though. What we learn from a book, video, how it applies to our lives, what we see and experience, that forms understanding. A historian looking at the 90s could tell me the sky was pink, but I never experienced it, I might still take his word for it if what he says doesn't contradict what I have experienced, or I see examples of it before me. When other people offer their insight we see if and how it relates to that experience we've had. It can help widen our perspective, and help dissolve these subjective biases. - Which you certainly also have.

I will not debate things improved from the 40's to the 90's. That's 100% true. That is what I am talking about. If you'd have cut off the world in the 60's 70's or 90s and asked me to fight for it'd be signing up tomorrow. Right now its a corporate world, so they can pay a professional army like they did in times gone by, or lose the petty kingdoms they've carved out that us peasants labor in for peanuts.

There is no best political ideology true, all 4 in balance generally work best. I have authoritarian views. I have liberal views, I have socialist views, and capitalist views. I would certainly smile if you consider me advocating for the restoration of the middle class 'hard left' lol, hard left would be the opposite.

Then after that you fall on your face. This is the part of you that's lesser (whatever that means) It's certainly unuseful judgmental nonesense.

I am not racist for being in a certain color of skin, I can't think of why else you'd mention skin color. We all only see it from our perspective, that's where there is conversation or sharing of information. You sound bitter that I asked for your perspective, so I apologize for asking, that is my preference not yours. I can do without your repeated passive-aggressive or dismissive attitude at the end as a send-off.  - It doesn't do justice to you as a person or what you are trying to communicate. But you are right we are very different people so communicating is problematic. 

We can at least say we tried. All the best.

[Basman]

There is a general trend globally of countries increasing their spending and expanding their military since the start of the russo-ukraine war. The western hemisphere wants to rely less on US military power for their security and countries are expanding their own militaries. Japan is, so is S. Korea. Poland wants to be a major military force in East-Europe and harbor security in the region for it and its neighbors. Most European countries are spending more on their militaries.

From my uneducated perspective, it seems the aim of military expansion among western countries is to better contain the imperialists ambitions of Russia and China. These stage blue countries would gladly conquer their neighbors formally if they could. The invasion of Ukraine upset the world balance to a certain degree, in my opinion. The need for increased security is driving these changes.

The UK considering reintroducing conscription I'm guessing might be due to the poor economy over there, assuming that conscription is cheaper than a volunteer military and that the UK intends to expand its military. It might not necessarily mean that we are certainly going to war. It signals a lack of resources in my opinion. That is just my impression however.

[bebotalk]

3 hours ago, BlueOak said:

I don't learn anything if you say nothing. Interacting just to say you are wrong, while offering nothing in return is useless for both parties involved. What you've done here is expand your point so I can learn either from it and/or the interaction. Thank you for most of this, minus your judgmental tangent at the end. BTW even when I argue I learn. Someone can argue till they are blue in the face, and then slowly reflect or have the words represented to them in another experience later down the line. 

The disparity here is you are speaking exclusively of the 40's or pre WW2. I am speaking mostly of the 60's, 70's and 90's with some points relevant to the 40's and other eras where we had a more interwoven class system, which was represented in our politics, rather than this huge divide we now have.

First-hand experience is exceptionally useful, more so than second-hand referential experience told to us via the filter of text or media. It all adds up though. What we learn from a book, video, how it applies to our lives, what we see and experience, that forms understanding. A historian looking at the 90s could tell me the sky was pink, but I never experienced it, I might still take his word for it if what he says doesn't contradict what I have experienced, or I see examples of it before me. When other people offer their insight we see if and how it relates to that experience we've had. It can help widen our perspective, and help dissolve these subjective biases. - Which you certainly also have.

I will not debate things improved from the 40's to the 90's. That's 100% true. That is what I am talking about. If you'd have cut off the world in the 60's 70's or 90s and asked me to fight for it'd be signing up tomorrow. Right now its a corporate world, so they can pay a professional army like they did in times gone by, or lose the petty kingdoms they've carved out that us peasants labor in for peanuts.

There is no best political ideology true, all 4 in balance generally work best. I have authoritarian views. I have liberal views, I have socialist views, and capitalist views. I would certainly smile if you consider me advocating for the restoration of the middle class 'hard left' lol, hard left would be the opposite.

Then after that you fall on your face. This is the part of you that's lesser (whatever that means) It's certainly unuseful judgmental nonesense.

I am not racist for being in a certain color of skin, I can't think of why else you'd mention skin color. We all only see it from our perspective, that's where there is conversation or sharing of information. You sound bitter that I asked for your perspective, so I apologize for asking, that is my preference not yours. I can do without your repeated passive-aggressive or dismissive attitude at the end as a send-off.  - It doesn't do justice to you as a person or what you are trying to communicate. But you are right we are very different people so communicating is problematic. 

We can at least say we tried. All the best.

I'd argue you were fully judgmental. Are you the victim here? I thought you were a social master? said people never assume they're always right in discourse. 

I disagreed with your analysis, since I still believe it's too subjetive and not that factual. We all have opinions but they're distinct from facts. I believe then why fight for any country, since no country can be utopian. that's the essence of my point. 

[BlueOak]

12 hours ago, bebotalk said:

I'd argue you were fully judgmental. Are you the victim here? I thought you were a social master? said people never assume they're always right in discourse. 

Yeah I judged your dismissive and judgemental tone, that you constantly reply to me with. What do you expect people to do when you constantly dismiss and belittle them.

'A social master'  - Always looking for a rise out of people. You've got a real chip on your shoulder.  Nowhere do I claim to be anything least of all a victim.

Edited February 9 by BlueOak

[bebotalk]

People are entitled to disagree with you. Why assume your view is THE view that all must adhere to? For somebody so "wise", you don't get contexts well. I don't have a chip. I merely said I disagree with your view. I accept it's your view but i don't think it's factual and it's largely ideological. 

I'm amused though that me doing what's normal here, or should be normal here, bothers you that deeply. and you're selective on doing this. Who are you protecting? and why do you assume everybody else has to care aobut your sujective views and inclinations? the arrogance is comical. Maybe the person/people you're protecting should learn to be a bit more grown and resilient. 

[BlueOak]

17 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

People are entitled to disagree with you. Why assume your view is THE view that all must adhere to? For somebody so "wise", you don't get contexts well. I don't have a chip. I merely said I disagree with your view. I accept it's your view but i don't think it's factual and it's largely ideological. 

I'm amused though that me doing what's normal here, or should be normal here, bothers you that deeply. and you're selective on doing this. Who are you protecting? and why do you assume everybody else has to care aobut your sujective views and inclinations? the arrogance is comical. Maybe the person/people you're protecting should learn to be a bit more grown and resilient. 

Yes they are. I have great debates in here with people all the time with completely different views to my own and I value every word they've said or I've learned. You are projecting. You dismiss anything that isn't your view, belitte and mock the person giving it. You've done this time and time again.

I do not, I try in my posts to be respectful to others, but I am not a doormat for you to just talk like garbage to either.

If you are going to be a jerk to people repeatedly, expect it back.

Edited February 9 by BlueOak

[bebotalk]

I don't see what i've done wrong here. I guess merely using something in the proper context inflames people with inner subjective workings. 

Don't go to a supermarket and harass people who buy soy milk, cos you think soy milk is cringe or woke or namby-pamby. 

looool.

[BlueOak]

4 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

I don't see what i've done wrong here.

I know. I will do my utmost to never reply to you unless I have a forgetful moment.

I appreciate it if you offer the same courtesy from here out. Though I don't expect it.

[zazen]

@BlueOak @bebotalk Sometimes, the substance of the message isn't the issue but the style of it is - and if that style is bad faith, dismissive and mocking that stains the message.

Blueoaks description on the hollowing out of the middle class is spot on - and how the beast of corporatism has grown to devour its own people in the region from which it grew out of - the capitalist West. While the tide of capitalism may have lifted many boats in its ascent, it is now drowning many in its later stages. It reduces members of society to numbers on a screen - the separation of state and religion removes the moral dimension from state power and hands it over to the private sector of corporatism which lacks morality. Corporatism is amoral, anational - it's interest is solely in the material and multi-national and serves the board rooms push for profits over the citizens working as a cog in the machine who struggle to sleep peacefully at night knowing they have a sense of security - financially, socially, politically,

Bebo mentioning how the past was worse than the present is partially true in that whilst things have progressed in certain decades (which Blueoak provided the nuance for - 40-90's) they have devolved in others ways and times. The boomer generation often looks at the younger generations and says 'your life isn't even tough' but both generations can have it rough without invalidating the others suffering. One's suffering (the older generations) may be more physical, while the others is more psychological (younger gen) - but as we know the body and mind aren't two islands and psychological dis-ease spills over into the physical. 

The younger generation of today feel disillusioned, un-anchored, atomised, over stimulated and flooded with information they lack the wisdom to parse through, and distrustful of all the institutions their parents relied on for a sense of stability to make sense of reality. Their parents raised them with the expectations of a better future, and to inhabit a world oriented towards that but which hasn't transpired to meet those expectations. This makes them feel betrayed and sidelined. Civilization and buzzwords such as rights, progress, and democracy provide a veneer of improvement but what lies behind is a deep visceral distrust for the system, disorientation from a lack of social belonging, and disgust for a culture that condescends them.

Many people in the West who have a heritage elsewhere - aren't inclined to fight for it. A lot of them had their homelands colonized and pillaged. And the natives within the West feel forgotten and spat on by the state and system that hollowed out their quality of life through floods of migration lowering their wages and outsourcing to cheaper labor pools globally. This is the same system which would now like to use them as fodder for their wars. The people in general are far more aware of the stupidity of war, and who it really serves (the few over the many) and the propaganda that is exercised on them to brainwash them into a state of war. After the Middle East debacle and lies that led to it (weapons of mass destruction) - people are wary of war in general. That doesn't rule out war, its just more likely that the war won't be for the system or state, but against it. 

Edited February 9 by zazen

[bebotalk]

7 hours ago, BlueOak said:

I know. I will do my utmost to never reply to you unless I have a forgetful moment.

I appreciate it if you offer the same courtesy from here out. Though I don't expect it.

OK, I'll leave you to "win" and be the "righteous" party without proving such. 

I stand by my points, that you're inflecting subjective thoughts with reality and I don't agree with you. I have no obligation to do as such, nor does any human to any other human in principle. Healthy people don't cry false victim, nor think they're always right. 

Edited February 9 by bebotalk

[bebotalk]

6 hours ago, zazen said:

@BlueOak @bebotalk Sometimes, the substance of the message isn't the issue but the style of it is - and if that style is bad faith, dismissive and mocking that stains the message.

Blueoaks description on the hollowing out of the middle class is spot on - and how the beast of corporatism has grown to devour its own people in the region from which it grew out of - the capitalist West. While the tide of capitalism may have lifted many boats in its ascent, it is now drowning many in its later stages. It reduces members of society to numbers on a screen - the separation of state and religion removes the moral dimension from state power and hands it over to the private sector of corporatism which lacks morality. Corporatism is amoral, anational - it's interest is solely in the material and multi-national and serves the board rooms push for profits over the citizens working as a cog in the machine who struggle to sleep peacefully at night knowing they have a sense of security - financially, socially, politically,

Bebo mentioning how the past was worse than the present is partially true in that whilst things have progressed in certain decades (which Blueoak provided the nuance for - 40-90's) they have devolved in others ways and times. The boomer generation often looks at the younger generations and says 'your life isn't even tough' but both generations can have it rough without invalidating the others suffering. One's suffering (the older generations) may be more physical, while the others is more psychological (younger gen) - but as we know the body and mind aren't two islands and psychological dis-ease spills over into the physical. 

The younger generation of today feel disillusioned, un-anchored, atomised, over stimulated and flooded with information they lack the wisdom to parse through, and distrustful of all the institutions their parents relied on for a sense of stability to make sense of reality. Their parents raised them with the expectations of a better future, and to inhabit a world oriented towards that but which hasn't transpired to meet those expectations. This makes them feel betrayed and sidelined. Civilization and buzzwords such as rights, progress, and democracy provide a veneer of improvement but what lies behind is a deep visceral distrust for the system, disorientation from a lack of social belonging, and disgust for a culture that condescends them.

Many people in the West who have a heritage elsewhere - aren't inclined to fight for it. A lot of them had their homelands colonized and pillaged. And the natives within the West feel forgotten and spat on by the state and system that hollowed out their quality of life through floods of migration lowering their wages and outsourcing to cheaper labor pools globally. This is the same system which would now like to use them as fodder for their wars. The people in general are far more aware of the stupidity of war, and who it really serves (the few over the many) and the propaganda that is exercised on them to brainwash them into a state of war. After the Middle East debacle and lies that led to it (weapons of mass destruction) - people are wary of war in general. That doesn't rule out war, its just more likely that the war won't be for the system or state, but against it. 

Society may not work for some today. Did it work for those in the past? Not so much.