Would you take 8 more years of Obama?

That's two irrelevant posts.

Is your answer "Neither, and here's why"? If so, please explain. If not, I'm reporting this trolling.

 

As I answer this, I'm going to sound like a major hypocrite. But I'm going to answer anyway: It's because the US(and certainly not I if I were commander in chief today) would never use nuclear weapons. I do not however trust the Kremlin on that calculation. Indeed, I feel as though the Kremlin like North Korea is a hinge that could very well go unhinged if we make a few provocative mistakes.

It's why I want to take out North Korea before it gets to that point. Since Russia is more advanced, I want to see if I can reduce anti-US sentiment, rather than risk tensions there. Different approaches to the same thing; I believe it was called Encirclement in English circles. I simply do not want to see a nuclear power not named the United States.

 

You had posted a perfectly valid question, but if you wish folks to state whether they would vote to keep Obama as president, were that constitutionally possible, rather than having Clinton elected to succeed him, I'd be inclined to say, "Yes."

Known vs unknown.

If you do not wish to discuss any personal antipathies that may dictate such preferences, I won't discuss them.

 

That is intentional from Russia, to appear to be willing to use nukes for small provocations. As I've said, that's called the "madman" theory of deterrance: to appear irrational so that you scare your enemies into inaction. It obviously works on you, as you propose just backing away from seemingly crazy russia. I have said already, Putin is kgb, and good at manipulation.

Funny thing with nukes.. In order to avoid having to use them, you need to be prepared to use them. if no one believes you will ever use your nukes, they are completely useless. again, this is all about deterrance and credibility.. This is why we need to make it clear: We WILL use nukes under certain circumstances. By asserting our preparedness to use nukes, we lessen the risk of actually having to use them. Same can be said about force in general.

Russia actually does believe the US would use nukes. If they didn't believe that, Russia would already be trying to occupy the baltics by now. When Russia stops believing that though.. that's when things get really dangerous.

 

Money controls our system and our gov't.
I don't think the founders wanted it that way.
But eventually money seems to win all gov'ts.

 

It certainly does. When that happens that means we are probably in our last days as a great nation. To confirm that all one has to do is look at whom our two major parties nominated.

 

The only time I'd use nukes, is in response to an attack on the country. Or in the face of an imminent threat of said attack(See: North Korea.) That may perhaps be against the definition of a deterrence, but I do care for those Russian civilian lives. They're not Putin, what did they do? Sure, hate the Soviets but one would never approve of the Gulag and the murder of millions of its own citizens, right?

I see the civilians as different from the regime. That's why I find terrorist actions abhorrent. You consider yourselves at war with our government? Fine, then attack our military. A legitimate target in warfare(That in of itself is also sad, but another topic for another day.) When you attack civilians, those who are defenseless and pose no harm to you that's when you cross a very sacred line.

The very early rules of warfare, etched that concept into law and the likes of Al-Qaeda, etc break it with impunity. That's why I'm much, much tougher on terrorists. Probably, the kind of toughness you'd like to see from me on Russia.

With Russia. I don't necessarily care if it's a bluff or not, it's too risky. Risky to Russian citizens, to US Citizens and above all to the world. No one benefits from us raising the specter of conflict, with the only hope that Russians perceive it as a 'warning' sign. That's just not smart. Even if it's the way we did it in the past, or if it worked in the past. It's still not smart. We just lucked out.

I'd rather ally with the Russians on key issues, give the Russians 'stick' in the game to not be an aggressor and resolve it that way.

 

Here's why Mr. Sweden is so scared. If the US and Russia become "allies" or business partners, they think we won't be their big brothers anymore.

 

I am not a zombie. I can see the reality that exists today. That reality is that both Obama and Hillary are crooks. I say rid Washington of the lying cheating DNC.

 

And it doesn't have to be that way. Russia and Europe can co-exist. That's what I would want. That's what I need, since in order to remain a superpower, the US must either ally with or weaken other Superpowers in the foreseeable future. IE: The Russian-Chinese alliance. Breaking Russia away from China puts pressure on China, and vice-versa as well. But Russia-China-Iran(and to some degree, Turkey) together is a new hegemony for the future.

If the Pentagon is really serious about remaining a superpower, they would try to break up this bloc. From what I've read, that's why we're allies with regional Power India. Which is a mixed bag of a country. Rising Energy production and a modern military(they too, refuse to use nukes on an aggressive basis and have signed the NPT) but on the other hand, India's human rights record leaves to be desired.

India-Pakistan sort of has a thing going on, and in 2010-2011, China basically came on the side of the Pakistanis on that issue. Pakistan is an under-rated part of this whole ME issue, and being fair, Hillary Clinton talked about it. The loose nukes in that country(and the Islamic form of government) leaves for a dangerous prospect down the road if left unchecked.

As a Fascist-Technocrat, I do recall and concur with Mussolini that allies are formed based off military factions and their strength. And the general assumption is that peace deals are brokered to prepare for the inevitable next conflict. All of this can be observed in military history, even prior to the advent of the third position. However, it's my hope however slim to use the awesome powers of the United States to prolong this perpetuated peace.

We humans should move beyond killing each other to solve problems.

 

See, that right there is why you should not be CiC: that is, paradoxically, a very dangerous position. If you do care about the russian civilians, or civilians in any country including your own for that matter, you should, paradoxically, be prepared to nuke russian civilians. Why? Because as I've told you, deterrance relies upon strength and the will to use it. Without no deterrance, you invite to aggression. This is wisdom which has been known since roman times: Si vis pacem para bellum. The meaning is clear: those that want peace, must prepare for war. Not in order to actually fight, but to provide deterrance so that fighting is never necessary. if you care about civilians, you should read up on how to best avoid them getting hurt, how to best avoid war. As history would tell you, what you propose is actually more likely to start war, and thus harm civilians.

Well actually, since the US is a democracy... The government is chosen by the people, is it not? So, the actions of the government reflect wishes of the people, does it not? Were the US an absolute monarchy, or a dictatorship, it would be different.. But you actually pride yourself on that your government is "by the people, of the people, for the people".

so basically, anyone can threaten war and you will always yield? What makes you think anyone would want to ally you? First of all, what use would Russia have of an ally which would always yield for anyone threatening war? Secondly, why would they ally with you when they can get all their demands met just by threatening war?

"Fascism believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism — born of a renunciation of struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put a man in front of himself in the alternative of life and death". - Mussolini

It seems you and mussolini have some major disagreements on war and peace. In fact, you hold entirely opposite views. Are you sure you're a fascist?

 

And I'm saying that it's flawed logic. It only works insofar as any opposing countries/powers respect the US power and do not want to engage in conflict. You are entirely handing power to the 'others' by letting THEM decide whether we be for peace, or for war. Reagan was very lucky that the arms race did not result in conflict. He's lucky we didn't have another Cuban Missile-type of crisis.

We may not be that lucky the next time. As an example, precisely when GB/France declared war on Germany, the first few months were marked with silence because both troops were at the borders. If this theory were correct, then the war would have ended in 1939 when Hitler saw that Britain and France were serious. Instead, he was like "screw it, I'll beat them both."

The build up of arms and forces is not a call for peace. It is a miracle that we escaped relatively unscathed. The myth ends when the other side actually decides to push. Does that make us righteous? Well, we kind of perpetuated it by saying we're ready for a fight. So don't be surprised when the other guy throws a fist.

Every counter generates another counter. And the perpetuation continues until something snaps the twig. WWI was started with the assassination of the Archduke, the US Revolutionary War happened as a result of numerous British offenses to the US Colonies. I can go on. There has literally been NO good that comes out of aggression.

We were just lucky it worked once. That's all. It shouldn't have been a foreign policy philosophy. I argue the policy of Detente, and our signing things such the ballistic treaty(which needs to be renewed) did much more for peace and it actually gave Reagan a ground to stand on.

I'm not saying we should completely disarm(also an issue leading up to WWII. Everyone wanted Germany to disarm, and Germany's like "Wait, what about you guys?"). As long as other nations don't reciprocate and make the same steps, it'll never be feasible. I'm saying we shouldn't be so stupid as to present Russia with an aggressive stance and think that'll solve anything.

Sure, Russia may be impoverished. And you may be waiting for a coup of Putin to happen. But the thing is: The coup would happen sooner if Russia were left alone, then if Russia were antagonized. Because right now, guess what? The Russians don't see poverty, they see 'Mother Russia'. They don't see Putin strangling their rights, they see the 'accursed West' with its sanctions and building up its military.

Here's the major difference between Iran and Russia. Iran, however slight had political pressure at home to concede to the nuclear deal. There is no pressure inside Russia, and there literally won't be until Russia is either militarily defeated, or unless the pressure is off Russia and the situation hadn't improved inside of Russia itself.

The USSR collapsed on its own weight, we need to learn the right lessons from the collapse.

LOL, oh no. Quite a different discussion here, but one I'm happy to have. No. Here's the reality of the system: I, a lone US voter have one and by god, only ONE vote. My one vote, will not select the next President. I'm putting it in a group of other voters and hoping and praying the idiots actually make the right choice. Do you believe that the 'people' chose Trump/Clinton?

28% of the Electorate.

There you go. Just 28% of the electorate, made what many Americans conceive to be the two worst choices for the presidency seemingly imaginable. So much for 'for the people, by the people'. You'd argue that just means more people should participate. And indeed they should. But one person cannot motivate the other 72% of countrymen/women to join a party(or indeed, one big problem is that the primaries close out INDEPENDENTS. Of which, there's more of a share than the other two parties.)

Then there's the Electoral College, and by the nature of that system, a vote in Wyoming isn't the same as a vote in Pennsylvania. And so on it goes. It's uneven as opposed to a popular vote. There's alot of problems with the US voting system. And that's JUST with voting. I haven't talked to you about lobbyist influence(which I despise) and therefore, our politicians are just lifeless puppets. No different from most citizens in this country.

Consider: We had a government that forged the Great Compromise, a government that truly 'progressed' on meaningful subjects and over that time period of 150 or so years, the US was truly a thriving, wonderful place to be. Now, today, the US is regressing and it shouldn't be regressing.

a vast majority of Americans want English to be the official language

And yet it's not. The US Federal Government, by and large does not listen to its constituents, hell even the States are nerfed. It's been the Lobbyist show for 40-50 years.
Lobbyists and big businesses. We're a plutocracy in everything but name. I could go on about a lot of issues, but I'll just leave you with a couple of these. We aren't represented. That's why we're pissed as hell, depending on which side of the aisle you're on.

The main point, is that many Americans do not want to go into the Middle Eastern theater. We'd prefer to leave that alone too. But all we can do is vote. We could run,
but did I mention how money basically disfranchises voters, not only because of the lobbying but because of the sheer costs of running for office?

Of the 320+ Million Americans who could run, you have 435 members of Congress. And of those 435 members of Congress, I can argue that very few of them started off in the middle classes, etc. We live in a virtual serfdom, called a democracy. That's the state of our democracy. That's why the Bern.

Yes, I do have a fundamental disagreeance with Sir Mussolini. But that doesn't change the fact that I believe in the fundamental concepts of Fascism. Let me try to explain: Yes, sacrifice has its virtue, and yes human energies are aroused in warfare. But when it's over? Nothing but devastation and destruction.

Instead, I believe the noble deed of hard work and the virtue of hard work. I believe in being the economic superpower of the 21st century.(Hitler chose military power.) That doesn't mean I don't believe in the Nation-State or in centralized government. I just see warfare as a useless waste of productive man power. And when avoidable, to avoid it. That means with negotiations, not talking peace in one hand with a gun in the other.

"Talk quietly, but with a big stick"-Teddy Roosevelt. Now we're talking loudly, with the big stick. And it doesn't work well. It worked once. That's not a good application of force IMO.

So from a government structure standpoint, I'm a pro-Fascist. From even a spiritual-political viewpoint, I concur. I only choose to use a different tool of utilization for the productive energies of man .

 

Then I say you do not understand/read my argument. Yes, it depends on how credible the deterrance is. I've been saying that for a while now. That is why it is important that the US is respected, and that others do not want to engage in conflict with them (because they would use their military might to destroy them).

What? how?... I told you: prepare for war, but NOT in order to actually go to war, but to deter it.

No, you misunderstand what happened. If they were serious, they would invade Germany through the Rhineland when the Germans were busy in Poland. Germany was vulnerable on their flank with France. Hitler took a gamble, leaving himself exposed, because he rightly thought the allies were too scared to really do anything. Do you imagine that by doing exactly nothing as Poland was being invaded, the allies showed they were "serious"? Nonsense

Nonsense. Let establish some obvious facts: No one starts a war which they expect will cost more than is gained. No one starts a war they know they will lose. So, by showing your potential enemy your strength and willingness to use it if they attack, you allow your enemy to know the actual cost of a conflict. So, provided you have a sufficiently strong army, your enemy will know it is not a good idea to attack you. The only reasons anyone would "push" for a conflict is if they believe they can win, which is either because 1) they know they are stronger than you and can win or 2) they know you are unwilling to fight back and use your strength. if the other side pushes, it is thus because you are either too wear, or are perceived to be unwilling to fight. The remedy is thus a strong army and to show you are serious.

I don't see how those examples have anything to do with what we're talking about.

true, but we can't leave russia alone since they don't leave us alone.

little you know. there is plenty. from supressed pro western democracy groups, business interests who suffer from broken ties with the west, the common russian who suffers poverty..

the west contributed to its collapse. learn the right lesson: we can bankrupt russia.

an imperfect democracy from many perspectives, but still a democracy. the degree to which the people is responsible can be argued, but there's no arguing your government is of the people.

one of the fundamental concepts, many would argue, is of violence. Fascism is an inherently violent ideology. It glorifies it.

 

We're just going back in circles now on the theory of war. If every country viewed it as against their interests to fight a war, the world would be at peace. Unfortunately, not
every country views it that way. Every country is inherently self-defensive, until they perceive a threat. Then there are two actions a person can take.

Either to eliminate the presumptive threat, or be on the receiving end of the threat. That is all. In this particular situation both Russia and Eastern Europe see each other as threats and both have positioned themselves accordingly. It is ONLY Cold until one IDIOT shoots a trigger. This isn't smart, it's not strategic and it's not helping anybody.

And in this situation, both are at fault and yet both are also justified. If Russia is indeed expanding into Eastern Europe, the Eastern Europeans have a right to defend themselves. What the Eastern Europeans do NOT have the right to do, is to presume a threat and then act on that threat without evidence. Which is what's happening here..

Doomsday Clock

Seeing as the report was given before the escalation in tensions from Washington, I'd say we're at 90 seconds from midnight. It's the "status quo" that misunderstood the end of the Cold War, started a new one that has the danger and at this point the promise to become hot.

As for my Fascism. I've been consistent: I agree with the philosophy on the tenants of its social building. Where I disagree, was the need for violence to propel human spirit. We can now identify more constructive ways of using that spirit. That didn't exist in the 20th century, it does exist now. Your insistence that politics is perpetually the same, is the same insistence that now leads Russia and Europe to conflict.

"Those who don't fear their own sword, do not have the right to wield one." I fear the sword of the United States, and I fear the sword of Russia. And hell, even the developed nations of Europe like France, Germany, etc. If the world lacks fear but embraces foolishness, I should hope I at least survive the outcome.

 

Was Obama really that bad?

 

I doubt she would survive that long. The Presidency takes a big toll on people, and she's not a spring chicken.