161–170 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It absolutely is sinister. Everything about the military is, when you decouple the rhetoric from the actions and consider what it is that those organisations actually do.
This is a luxury belief that requires the privilege of being unbombed. I invite you to explain this to Ukrainians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It absolutely is sinister. Everything about the military is, when you decouple the rhetoric from the actions and consider what it is that those organisations actually do.
Yes, the military is fed by the one thing all cultures have in common - their susceptibility to warrior narcissism - and indeed in the modern age any military is little more than a criminal murder-class protected by a thin line of paper. However, murder is meat. Wars feed people. Not often the 'right' people, but the moment one starts drawing another such thin line about who and who doesn't deserve to be fed, the nar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think anyone engaging in a good faith discussion would make the conclusion you just made.
Why not? What do you think an llm would say if you asked it: > Did the US and UK support Saddam Hussein when he was using weapons of mass destruction on Iranian civilians?
It's a motte-and-bailey fallacy that starts with countries and leaders having relationships in a global, interwoven world and ends with excusing a blood-thirsty dictator as if they had no agency.
1. Calling it the "defense sector" is already quite biased. Almost all of that sector's activity involves offensive activity. Or just call it the "arms industry" etc. If we were less charitable, we could well call it the "war industry". 2. Reading the article we note there's quite some overlap between arms industry links and links to Israel's fundraising and lobbying circles. I wonder whether UK media discloses those…
The UK doesn't have some imperialist policy of land grabs like Russia, or diplomacy through violence. In the current Iranian war the UK is only allowing it's bases to launch defensive missions, i.e. strike offensive capability or incoming missiles. So no, it is in fact the defense sector. What countries have a defense sector, if the UK doesn't?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They still own Falkland Islands.
Who "owned" it before? There were no people on that land before it was settled.
Why did British people decide to move from the Northern Hemisphere to this island? Because the climate looked similar?
And yes, here is a dispute between a historically imperialist versus a settler state. It’s weird.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a luxury belief that requires the privilege of being unbombed. I invite you to explain this to Ukrainians.
You can't deny Ukrainian military suffers from deep corruption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a luxury belief that requires the privilege of being unbombed. I invite you to explain this to Ukrainians.
You can't deny Ukrainian military suffers from deep corruption.
The pressures of fighting an existential war plus the demands of the public in a democracy have closed off most typical avenues for corruption, forcing a focus on battlefield results and effective supply to the front-line.
Nobody in the Ukrainian military is advocating for military spending for corrupt reasons, but for the country to remain independent in the face of a Russian military invasion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“This research does not suggest that any individual cited in this report deliberately concealed their commercial affiliations from journalists. Rather, it highlights a recurring failure by news organisations to disclose potentially relevant industry interests when presenting former senior military figures as independent expert commentators on defence, conflict, and national security issues.” “Of course, holding priva…
They are anticipating a flood of complaints from various well-connected groups and individuals that it's an unfair hit piece. They want to be able to point to all the "Hey, we didn't say this ACTUALLY MATTERED" disclaimers they front-loaded it with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> The British empire has been completely wound down, other than a handful of small overseas territories. Just because Britain couldn't afford it anymore. And after bloodshed, in India, Kenya, Cyprus, Malaysia, and elsewhere. Not out of the bigness of their heart. And the post-colonialism never ended. The same grabby hands get everywhere they can get. And why exactly are those "small overseas territories" unquestionab…
Historically I’ve found your comments informative, well thought out, and entertaining.
Here’s the Wikipedia article on the BOTs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories
I’m willing to acknowledge those locales probably remain British territories, at least some of them, as an spect of projecting force, in addition the to historical quirks.
I probably don’t know enough.
And, ultimately, it would be nice if everyone got along and was generally content to stay in their lane.
Would the former British colonies be doing better or worse had they never been colonised? Quite possibly better. We’ll never know. At least some of the former colonies have failed spectacularly. That’s probably a good enough reason to never try any of that again.
I’m trying to steelman your arguments here Mr coldtea. Not only that, I have also raged against what happened in a similar manner from time to time.