Ukraine II: The Fight Against Russian Aggression

I hadn't given this much thought, but it's a bit surprising, given the Amazon River and it's 2015 and all.

But what else can one make of this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Brazil

While the Amazon river is mostly navigable, it overlaps dense rainforests and jungles. This means that, while a magnificent river system to look at, it really services no one. Nor will it ever, unless you want to raze the entire Amazonian rainforest and import millions of people, who will then have difficulty making crops work in year-round 90-110 degree heat.

Brazil will always work. It has the right dynamics for that, but it will never project. And, as we know, Iraq 2003 being our best evidence, working and projecting are two entirely different things.

In the circles I run around, and even on here, as conservative as this forum tends to be, people often act surprised or even with ridicule when I say that the US is truly an exceptional nation and that I'm an American exceptionalist.

I don't say these things out of ignorance or dogma. Although I like to joke a lot on here and sometimes resort to name-calling, I'm not an ill-informed mouthbreather. Americans are Americans. They're no different, really, from anyone else. They have dreams and aspirations, prejudices and failures. They **** and fart, just like anyone else. However, the republic of the United States of America is truly exceptional for multiple reasons:

1. It's the first country (and perhaps the only one ever) to be founded largely upon morality. Yes, economics played a huge role, and our textbooks often try to ignore the fact, but you still can't work around the American moral project as a stark reality on the world stage.

2. As a result of being a moral project, the US both functions well and faces grave threats. When it fails to live up to these expectations it has admittedly set for itself, it falters a bit. And yet, inexplicably, it still makes things work. Geography not only helps the moral mission but also helps the practical one, a suitable terrain and climate helping sustain enough jobs to keep folks relatively happy. It makes extreme diversity work, even despite the completely inorganic nature of this diverse wedding.

3. Practically speaking, the geography. The US is just different. It has more navigable waterways than the rest of the world combined. It is oriented towards not two, but three oceans. It has the largest contiguous collection of arable land in the world. It is nearly impenetrable to a foreign invasion, or at least a foreign invasion that is worth half a damn. American citizens are actually concerned about such questions as "How does the rest of the world view us?" Just sheer exception and privilege. And it's not America's fault. It just is.

I remember watching a George Friedman lecture, wherein he recalls, as a Jewish immigrant escaping the Holocaust, how his father once came into his room in their house in Queens (I imagine some setup similar to Archie Bunker's house) as young Georgy was playing the Pete Seeger "Little Boxes" folk tune about how everyone was losing their individual identity in post-WWII, consumerist America. Apparently, his father, who didn't speak English, heard the tune and walked into his room, asking what it was all about. George responded that it was about losing one's identity. His father, incredulous, asked, "Is that what Americans are concerned about?" In other words, his father's primary concern was keeping his family safe. He couldn't give a damn about the privilege of individual statements and self-expression.

America, it truly is exceptional. I don't care what anyone says otherwise. Besides the moral/philosophical project, I have geography (which never lies) on my side.
 
Florida and Texas access to waterways wouldn't be an issue.

Middle Canada is a waterway issue, as well as terrible climate.

Oregon and Washington have some rivers.

Depends when you are talking about as far as settlement.

Prior to 1830s (railroads) inland development was all about rivers. Florida and Texas are limited on that score. Plus they are very hot--not comfortable places to live before air conditioning.
 
Depends when you are talking about as far as settlement.

Prior to 1830s (railroads) inland development was all about rivers. Florida and Texas are limited on that score. Plus they are very hot--not comfortable places to live before air conditioning.

texas hosted a good population before joining up. and certainly 50%+ of Texas was probably useless but it still had some developed cities, along the waterways. I guess in florida the issue is too much water. swamp does not equal waterway so i will concede them in exchange for Louisiana
 

haha!

I admit I have the propensity towards bombast and arrogance.

But, as I state, I admit these things.

It's mostly for fun.

No one else in my life is concerned by such considerations as these, and it is a godsend that you and Louder provide me with some actually informed analysis on the situation, albeit admittedly skewed a bit towards the American side, like me.

I wish that Red would post more in here. I always like reading his posts, and I appreciate his calm, reserved analysis. It's nice to argue with someone who is a worthy opponent.

The tramps that denigrate this thread like a wormed, un-treated dog dumping in the dog park, however, make things very difficult. It's hard to have legitimate conversations, no matter our nation's faults (which I admit) with tramps that think everything that has ever happened in human history and everything that will happen is the result of American foreign policy.

I just want intelligent people to talk with. You and Louder (and Red, if he were to post more), provide that.

Thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
haha!

I admit I have the propensity towards bombast and arrogance.

But, as I state, I admit these things.

It's mostly for fun.

No one else in my life is concerned by such considerations as these, and it is a godsend that you and Louder provide me with some actually informed analysis on the situation, albeit admittedly skewed a bit towards the American side, like me.

I wish that Red would post more in here. I always like reading his posts, and I appreciate his calm, reserved analysis. It's nice to argue with someone who is a worthy opponent.

The tramps that denigrate this thread like a wormed, un-treated dog dumping in the dog park, however, make things very difficult. It's hard to have legitimate conversations, no matter our nation's faults (which I admit) with tramps that think everything that has ever happened in human history and everything that will happen is the result of American foreign policy.

I just want intelligent people to talk with. You and Louder (and Red, if he were to post more), provide that.

Thank you.


What about me? You didn't list my name....

I have feelings too....
 
What about me? You didn't list my name....

I have feelings too....

What is your general impression of this crisis? Who caused it? Where has it been? Where is it going?

I will interview you for my sympathy.

Make your best case.

:)
 
I just want intelligent people to talk with. You and Louder (and Red, if he were to post more), provide that.

Thank you.

Thanks. :hi:

It's too bad there isn't more interest here in geopolitics beyond the filter of U.S. domestic politics.

There's a little of it, of course. But a majority of the "analysis" doesn't get beyond the standard Obama = awesome or Obama = Satan tripe.

Our Kremtrolls don't seem to realize this, but the world increasingly operates outside the U.S. control.
 
CJdKKgoUsAAd_Rq.png:large
 
1. It's the first country (and perhaps the only one ever) to be founded largely upon morality.

2. As a result of being a moral project, the US both functions well and faces grave threats

3. Practically speaking, the geography. The US is just different.

Certainly geography is a factor--the thousands of miles of ocean protection being the largest part of that. Other places have nice rivers and arable land, but they didn't have that to keep invaders away while the nation state grew and matured.

I don't follow your argument on moral project. Was the U.K. not a "moral" empire in 1820? 1890? What's the difference?
 
Certainly geography is a factor--the thousands of miles of ocean protection being the largest part of that. Other places have nice rivers and arable land, but they didn't have that to keep invaders away while the nation state grew and matured.

I don't follow your argument on moral project. Was the U.K. not a "moral" empire in 1820? 1890? What's the difference?

I should probably clarify that I mean morality, as in a philosophical project, not necessarily whether or not the nation is "moral," if that helps explain the difference. As far as I can think of the US is the only nation to be founded largely (of course economics and other factors were there) as a philosophical project, rather than formed organically (European nations, Russia, China, etc., where collective consciousness, shared culture, etc. mostly informed by a shared language gathers the people into a coherent mass) or as a colonial economic project (pretty much every country in the Western Hemisphere, minus the US).

Of course the US largely started as a colonial economic project, at least in the American South, but there is a philosophical direction taken by the Founders (and radically different from anything else we had seen before) that makes the nation's formation fundamentally different, I think.
 
Look, I know that Russia has legitimate interests in Ukraine, in Eastern Europe, and other outlying areas. I get that. I get that, if the shoe were on the other foot, the US would behave the same way, perhaps even more aggressively. I get that Russia is a nation scarred by a thousand year history of invasions, a nation with no natural barriers to stave off attack, and a nation that is really only looking out for itself, not necessarily attempting to project power much beyond its so-called "sphere of influence." Most attempts to do something resembling a projection of power beyond this sphere have largely been efforts to combat perceived US aggression and influence.

That being said, enough with the subterfuge. It tires me. You stole Crimea from Ukraine, the first overt land grab in Europe since WWII. Your troops are fighting and dying in eastern Ukraine. We all know it (except for two people apparently). Just admit it, and get it over with. I would respect Putin and Russia much more if they were to just fess up to it and actively pursue their real interests openly, rather than all this hide and go seek nonsense they've been doing.

For a man who is supposed to be a man's man, you would think Putin would have a little more integrity and, well, balls, quite frankly, than what he has displayed thus far. But I guess the KGB man in him won't allow him to stop being a weasel sneak.
 
Last edited:
I would be interested to see if we do actually give them access to that information. no idea how it would happen, but it would be an interesting olive branch.
 
If the US is trying to trigger a war with Russia, it has (and has had) a few months to do so.

If?

Warmongers gonna warmonger.

Russia is biggest threat to US national security, Joint Chiefs nominee tells Congress

At the White House, press secretary Josh Earnest distanced Obama from the assessment, saying Dunford's comments reflected his own view and not necessarily "the consensus analysis of the president's national security team."

If Russia isn't, who is?
 
Besides rich, bigoted heterosexual white Southern males, I'd say our biggest national security threats emanate from the Middle East/Islamic world (although if we'd ever get the hell out of there, it could wind down considerably - what the hell do I care if Iran and Saudi Arabia, or anyone else there, want to wage a full-scale, massive war against one another because a US aircraft carrier battle group is no longer in the Persian Gulf) and from China, both for its cyber attacks/theft and its apparent willingness to militarize the South China Sea and watch East Asia burn. I still think it's just blustering, and they'll back down like the scarred dogs they've always been in the end, but I still don't particularly enjoy or appreciate their threats.
 
On a somewhat related note, I love reading mouthbreather forums, like those provided by RT. A common trend I've observed on such sites, most often employed by those with anti-American sentiments, to denigrate Americans and the American military, specifically, is to claim that the US has never won a war (at least by itself) and that it has been beat up on by much lesser foes.

Do you think such claims are the result of pro-Russian/pro-Chinese trolls who are so upset that it only took the US one attempt to do what Russia and China couldn't do in several centuries: beat the be-jesus out of Japan?
 
I wonder if China's beat dog syndrome you mention is because they focus so much on their internal issues that the world view comes second. instead of the US where we have to stick our nose in everything outward while ignoring most everything internal.
 
Besides rich, bigoted heterosexual white Southern males, I'd say our biggest national security threats emanate from the Middle East/Islamic world (although if we'd ever get the hell out of there, it could wind down considerably - what the hell do I care if Iran and Saudi Arabia, or anyone else there, want to wage a full-scale, massive war against one another because a US aircraft carrier battle group is no longer in the Persian Gulf) and from China, both for its cyber attacks/theft and its apparent willingness to militarize the South China Sea and watch East Asia burn..

Is this sentence over yet?

Unlikely scenario, but Pakistani nukes falling into the wrong hands is scary.
 
claim that the US has never won a war (at least by itself) and that it has been beat up on by much lesser foes.

I hadn't heard that one before. Should combine it with the Confederate apologism in a revisionist history class.
 
Advertisement





Back
Top