who are our REAL allies?

Roger A. Shrubber said:

it's very strange that a lunatic living just about as far from a place as you can get on the planet, is still fixated on the "collecticve sins" of it's people. it also seems a little odd that according to this lunatic, this one place is to blame for the sins of the entire world...i wonder if he thinks that if that place is punished, it will absolve the rest of the world of their sins?...think we can find a cross big enough to crucify all of America at once? and who is big enough to hold the spear that will pierce the side of every American at once?...
you can consider us your whipping boy luke, but we fucking fight back...we aren't responsible for the ills of the world...it would be even more fucked up without our influence, and you should know that.

Click to expand...

Don't be jealous Roger. If you are very lucky and have value to Australia you to could live on my little sparsely populated carbon neutral island. You would love it here. Lots of Shrubs. Clean air, clean water and plenty of food. Did i mention shrubs? If America, China and Russia go nuclear on each other there's a great chance life won't change much here, much like every war apart from the frontier wars. Would be an interesting thing to live through and see what eventuates in lots of ways.

I don't really believe in sins as im not a religious nutter. Perhaps being a god botherer taints your judgement.
Of cause your responsible for some of the ills of the world. How do you think you are not? As an Australian I'm nearly as responsible as you for the illegal invasion of Iraq (Aust really should of done what the French did) and the stupid war in Vietnam for eg. And yes, agreed the world could be more fkd up if it wasn't for America's influence but damn you have caused more than a few fk ups as well.

Its one of the beautiful things of choosing to live where i do, the world could go to hell in a handbasket and it probably won't affect me much at all. I could never go back to living in a city or amongst a large population. I'm going to Sydney in a few weeks for the grand opening of a new boat bar/nightclub and I'm already dreading the smell of that much humanity squeezed into such a small area that is Sydney. Cities just stink.

I also answered your question about who you can trust, who your real allies are you paranoid man. Strange you totally ignored that to have a little winge and a whine instead.

I got this stupifying yet autistic haze right now that makes me produce so many questions while reading this thread. Questions about sets, subsets, and their members and how different brains construct and organize them in different ways. This fluid grouping everyone does, including me, is anthropologically fascinating. Dynamic tribe membership. Self-proclaimed and appointed.

”All” or “some” is inserted dynamically depending on the reader and context and feelings and political correctness and how high you are.

The Russians are attacking Europeans.
European nations depend on Russian gas.
Republicans are racists (I know, edgy stuff).
Americans elected Trump.
China puts millions in concentration camps.

I know that last one doesn’t match, by naming the set as an entity rather than referring to its members it becomes clear. Can’t say chinese cause that’s racist and makes them unsafe across the world. Surely not all of china, not all chinese want others to be in camps. America elected Trump. Everyone on the planet knows that doesn’t mean all americans voted for him. Despite that fact, I’m not aware of any ally that has become less of an ally because of it. I am also not aware of any country without politicians who’d rather not be allies. Would try extra hard to avoid war with some oil nation right now though.

Does seem some of Luke’s criticism that makes him look like a New Zealander whose Australian gf was stolen by an American tourist about this thread’s title is not entirely misplaced. You’re questioning the loyalty of a set (all allies) because in a subset (S. Korea) a single member (some politician) said something bad about your set where only a subset of members voted for Trump. A single korean politician is in any way representative for the loyalty of his country or other countries towards the US while the president with a majority in a direct election should not be considered representative for the country? That’s unreasonable. Assume people know nobody in the US wins an election with 100% of the votes and one single korean doesn’t represent what they all think.

I like to think my country and many others are not an ally to the US but of what they generally stand for, doing the right thing. If a Trump starts an illegal war we’ll hopefully be like fu crazy mericans. If you wanna fuck up some chinese after they attack Taiwan we got your back.

Sativied said:

I got this stupifying yet autistic haze right now that makes me produce so many questions while reading this thread. Questions about sets, subsets, and their members and how different brains construct and organize them in different ways. This fluid grouping everyone does, including me, is anthropologically fascinating. Dynamic tribe membership. Self-proclaimed and appointed.

”All” or “some” is inserted dynamically depending on the reader and context and feelings and political correctness and how high you are.

The Russians are attacking Europeans.
European nations depend on Russian gas.
Republicans are racists (I know, edgy stuff).
Americans elected Trump.
China puts millions in concentration camps.

I know that last one doesn’t match, by naming the set as an entity rather than referring to its members it becomes clear. Can’t say chinese cause that’s racist and makes them unsafe across the world. Surely not all of china, not all chinese want others to be in camps. America elected Trump. Everyone on the planet knows that doesn’t mean all americans voted for him. Despite that fact, I’m not aware of any ally that has become less of an ally because of it. I am also not aware of any country without politicians who’d rather not be allies. Would try extra hard to avoid war with some oil nation right now though.

Does seem some of Luke’s criticism that makes him look like a New Zealander whose Australian gf was stolen by an American tourist about this thread’s title is not entirely misplaced. You’re questioning the loyalty of a set (all allies) because in a subset (S. Korea) a single member (some politician) said something bad about your set where only a subset of members voted for Trump. A single korean politician is in any way representative for the loyalty of his country or other countries towards the US while the president with a majority in a direct election should not be considered representative for the country? That’s unreasonable. Assume people know nobody in the US wins an election with 100% of the votes and one single korean doesn’t represent what they all think.

I like to think my country and many others are not an ally to the US but of what they generally stand for, doing the right thing. If a Trump starts an illegal war we’ll hopefully be like fu crazy mericans. If you wanna fuck up some chinese after they attack Taiwan we got your back.

Click to expand...

I am envious. I remember when some shuperb shmoke would send my train of thought up and higher.

Where do cults and sects fit in @Sativied ?

Sativied said:

I got this stupifying yet autistic haze right now that makes me produce so many questions while reading this thread. Questions about sets, subsets, and their members and how different brains construct and organize them in different ways. This fluid grouping everyone does, including me, is anthropologically fascinating. Dynamic tribe membership. Self-proclaimed and appointed.

”All” or “some” is inserted dynamically depending on the reader and context and feelings and political correctness and how high you are.

The Russians are attacking Europeans.
European nations depend on Russian gas.
Republicans are racists (I know, edgy stuff).
Americans elected Trump.
China puts millions in concentration camps.

I know that last one doesn’t match, by naming the set as an entity rather than referring to its members it becomes clear. Can’t say chinese cause that’s racist and makes them unsafe across the world. Surely not all of china, not all chinese want others to be in camps. America elected Trump. Everyone on the planet knows that doesn’t mean all americans voted for him. Despite that fact, I’m not aware of any ally that has become less of an ally because of it. I am also not aware of any country without politicians who’d rather not be allies. Would try extra hard to avoid war with some oil nation right now though.

Does seem some of Luke’s criticism that makes him look like a New Zealander whose Australian gf was stolen by an American tourist about this thread’s title is not entirely misplaced. You’re questioning the loyalty of a set (all allies) because in a subset (S. Korea) a single member (some politician) said something bad about your set where only a subset of members voted for Trump. A single korean politician is in any way representative for the loyalty of his country or other countries towards the US while the president with a majority in a direct election should not be considered representative for the country? That’s unreasonable. Assume people know nobody in the US wins an election with 100% of the votes and one single korean doesn’t represent what they all think.

I like to think my country and many others are not an ally to the US but of what they generally stand for, doing the right thing. If a Trump starts an illegal war we’ll hopefully be like fu crazy mericans. If you wanna fuck up some chinese after they attack Taiwan we got your back.

Click to expand...

"Despite that fact, I’m not aware of any ally that has become less of an ally because of it."
https://thehill.com/policy/international/458455-here-are-the-us-allies-that-have-been-in-trumps-crosshairs/

" You’re questioning the loyalty of a set (all allies) because in a subset (S. Korea) a single member (some politician) said something bad about your set where only a subset of members voted for Trump."
That would be me, i'm the OP, so you're all one of my subsets...
You have to look at context. He's not just a single member of the country, he's the president of the country. Presumably, at least at this moment in time, the majority of his country supports him, at least enough to have chosen him their leader. This indicates to me that a majority of that countries population condones, if not outright supports, his statements.
Its been pointed out that i probably misunderstood the spirit behind his statements, and it's true, i probably did, but it sure has opened up some interesting discussion...

cannabineer said:

That fabricated collective again. Straw man.

Click to expand...

Thank you as well. “fabricated collective” sums it up well. It’s fabricated of a fluid material allowing for dynamic association, but works both ways, it’s assigned by self or others. I‘m with them when them did good, I’m not with them when them did bad. I’m blunty honest enough with myself to realize I do the same thing.

Tens of thousands of Russians fled to the EU. Should we accept them, shoot them, send them back to fight the set they belong to by nationality, go protest in Moscow and start a coup. Russians are attacking Ukraine. Surely others who decided to use “Putin“ because Russia implies all Russians to some readers realize it’s still not accurate, because a situation where Putin really decides everything by himself seems unlikely and he still needs the help of other russians. How many do that willingly we cannot know, we cannot accurately construct the subset. I’m an ally to any peaceloving Russian without malicious intent cause I know attributes of one or more members in a set do not necessarily apply to all members.

[

Roger A. Shrubber said:

"Despite that fact, I’m not aware of any ally that has become less of an ally because of it."
https://thehill.com/policy/international/458455-here-are-the-us-allies-that-have-been-in-trumps-crosshairs/

" You’re questioning the loyalty of a set (all allies) because in a subset (S. Korea) a single member (some politician) said something bad about your set where only a subset of members voted for Trump."
That would be me, i'm the OP, so you're all one of my subsets...
You have to look at context. He's not just a single member of the country, he's the president of the country. Presumably, at least at this moment in time, the majority of his country supports him, at least enough to have chosen him their leader. This indicates to me that a majority of that countries population condones, if not outright supports, his statements.
Its been pointed out that i probably misunderstood the spirit behind his statements, and it's true, i probably did, but it sure has opened up some interesting discussion...

Click to expand...

Korean war was just another proxy war. It should of been left alone for the country to stay whole. Its handy for the US to have manpower and bases and free use of ports etc for Americas projection of power in the region but South Korea isn't really an ally are they? They (the ruling class) used you and continue to do so and for that you get bases, ports and a projection of power. Its not like they help you in any of your many conflicts elsewhere is it?
In the grand scheme of things Korea as a whole is meaningless to the defence of American soil. Might come in handy to attack China from though and is a buffer for Japan from China. That works both ways of cause as Japan has attacked China before (and committed war crimes).

At times its not easy for any country to be an ally of America.

Sativied said:

Thank you as well. “fabricated collective” sums it up well. It’s fabricated of a fluid material allowing for dynamic association, but works both ways, it’s assigned by self or others. I‘m with them when them did good, I’m not with them when them did bad. I’m blunty honest enough with myself to realize I do the same thing.

Tens of thousands of Russians fled to the EU. Should we accept them, shoot them, send them back to fight the set they belong to by nationality, go protest in Moscow and start a coup. Russians are attacking Ukraine. Surely others who decided to use “Putin“ because Russia implies all Russians to some readers realize it’s still not accurate, because a situation where Putin really decides everything by himself seems unlikely and he still needs the help of other russians. How many do that willingly we cannot know, we cannot accurately construct the subset. I’m an ally to any peaceloving Russian without malicious intent cause I know attributes of one or more members in a set do not necessarily apply to all members.

Click to expand...

The only thing I can think of saying to that is to treat them and their cases individually.

Roger A. Shrubber said:

… Presumably, at least at this moment in time, the majority of his country supports him, at least enough to have chosen him their leader. This indicates to me that a majority of that countries population condones, if not outright supports, his statements.
Its been pointed out that i probably misunderstood the spirit behind his statements, and it's true, i probably did, but it sure has opened up some interesting discussion...

Click to expand...

I think we have had an object lesson in the bolded being unreliable. Between electoral vs. popular vote and the trappings of minority rule (gerrymandering, voter suppression, candidates carefully not disclosing their agenda, and “my judges”), we bore That Man, and now we bear maga electees emboldened to say what they think, from Graham to Greene and now Mastriano.

So I am not quick to chide South Korean voters.

Sativied said:

I’m an ally to any peaceloving Russian without malicious intent cause I know attributes of one or more members in a set do not necessarily apply to all members.

Click to expand...

peace loving russians who for 7 months, without malicious intent, sat on their hands and watched the war like it was a football game, as long as they didn't have to participate...now that shit has gotten real, they've embraced pacifism, and condemn putin's actions...but where were they when russian soldiers were killing civilians, robbing homes, raping women and murdering children?
were they throwing molotovs into government offices then? were they fleeing russia in protest of the evil crimes they were committing?
were they protesting in the streets? no, they were going to the store, going on dates, watching television, having dinner...
that is a sin of omission...and a fucking crime against humanity.

Roger A. Shrubber said:

peace loving russians who for 7 months, without malicious intent, sat on their hands and watched the war like it was a football game, as long as they didn't have to participate...now that shit has gotten real, they've embraced pacifism, and condemn putin's actions...but where were they when russian soldiers were killing civilians, robbing homes, raping women and murdering children?
were they throwing molotovs into government offices then? were they fleeing russia in protest of the evil crimes they were committing?
were they protesting in the streets? no, they were going to the store, going on dates, watching television, having dinner...
that is a sin of omission...and a fucking crime against humanity.

Click to expand...

Yea, something the American population has been guilty of in the not to distant past as well.
Tis human nature

cannabineer said:

I think we have had an object lesson in the bolded being unreliable. Between electoral vs. popular vote and the trappings of minority rule (gerrymandering, voter suppression, candidates carefully not disclosing their agenda, and “my judges”), we bore That Man, and now we bear maga electees emboldened to say what they think, from Graham to Greene and now Mastriano.

So I am not quick to chide South Korean voters.

Click to expand...

you're assuming that South Korea has he same electoral process we do, and the same societal problems. i have no idea if such is the case.

Roger A. Shrubber said:

you're assuming that South Korea has he same electoral process we do, and the same societal problems. i have no idea if such is the case.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_South_Korea
it would appear they elect their president by a plurality, so the majority does agree with him, at least generally, he wasn't crammed down their throats like trump was crammed down ours, they opened wide voluntarily.

https://thediplomat.com/2015/12/setting-the-rules-constitutional-and-electoral-reform-in-south-korea/
different format, different problems, same old shit. scroll down to where it says "a numbers game"...

Roger A. Shrubber said:

you're assuming that South Korea has he same electoral process we do, and the same societal problems. i have no idea if such is the case.

Click to expand...

Not really; there is more than one recipe for subverting the vote.

I’m not saying it is like that, rather floating the possibility.

Roger A. Shrubber said:

peace loving russians who for 7 months, without malicious intent, sat on their hands and watched the war like it was a football game, as long as they didn't have to participate...now that shit has gotten real, they've embraced pacifism, and condemn putin's actions...but where were they when russian soldiers were killing civilians, robbing homes, raping women and murdering children?
were they throwing molotovs into government offices then? were they fleeing russia in protest of the evil crimes they were committing?
were they protesting in the streets? no, they were going to the store, going on dates, watching television, having dinner...
that is a sin of omission...and a fucking crime against humanity.

Click to expand...

keep in mind they have six-plus cops per capita compared to US, which I’ve always thought as a bit police-heavy.

It’ll inhibit many a potential dissident.

Roger A. Shrubber said:

"Despite that fact, I’m not aware of any ally that has become less of an ally because of it."
https://thehill.com/policy/international/458455-here-are-the-us-allies-that-have-been-in-trumps-crosshairs/

Click to expand...

Those are merely examples of allies that have been in Trump’s crosshairs and doesn’t suggest those allies changed their position. Trump did fuel Macron’s desire for a European army but that was more about possibly not being able to count on the US with Trump at the wheel and carrying more themselves. Becoming a more organized stronger ally doesn’t mean less of an ally. I’m just saying I don’t think any allies quit after an impeached fuck up. Maybe 3 terms of Trump would do that but just as America voted Trump in, they voted him out.

Roger A. Shrubber said:

That would be me, i'm the OP, so you're all one of my subsets...

Click to expand...

lol right

Roger A. Shrubber said:

You have to look at context. He's not just a single member of the country, he's the president of the country. Presumably, at least at this moment in time, the majority of his country supports him, at least enough to have chosen him their leader. This indicates to me that a majority of that countries population condones, if not outright supports, his statements.

Click to expand...

No, I never believed the majority of the US condones, outright supports every of Trump’s statements. It’s why I never replied to your reply where you explained to me the attributes of a certain subset and a certain member in the US are not representative for the entire set - it’s implied for me, but your response implied an inserted “all”. Maybe they have some messed up electoral system where the winner doesn’t necessarily represent the majority‘s choice. Maybe a low turnout in a multiparty system and only 30% of eligible voters and 20% of population voted for him. Maybe he just happens to be the leader of a major party a lot of people voted for because that’s what their parents and friends do. Maybe they have some backward southern states with to much influence. In S.Korea I don’t know, in the US I happen to, somewhat, but I’m also aware many do not and would say about the US what you just said, verbatim.

Roger A. Shrubber said:

peace loving russians who for 7 months, without malicious intent, sat on their hands and watched the war like it was a football game, as long as they didn't have to participate...now that shit has gotten real, they've embraced pacifism, and condemn putin's actions...but where were they when russian soldiers were killing civilians, robbing homes, raping women and murdering children?
were they throwing molotovs into government offices then? were they fleeing russia in protest of the evil crimes they were committing?
were they protesting in the streets? no, they were going to the store, going on dates, watching television, having dinner...
that is a sin of omission...and a fucking crime against humanity.

Click to expand...

No, sins of the some members including leadership of the set are not automatically the sins nor the responsibility of every member. No, being a Russian does not mean you have a responsibility for whatever messed up shit Putin decides or should risk your life. Nah. There‘s not even fair elections in Russia. This “they they they” is just completely missing the point of my posts. Who is they? Russians? Cause they are born within Russian borders they are now all bad people and responsible for the crimes of everyone else born within those same borders? Nah.

cannabineer said:

The only thing I can think of saying to that is to treat them and their cases individually.

Click to expand...

Well it’s definitely not an easy situation but that’s exactly what needs to be done, not some sort of reverse nationalism where each individual is bad cause he or she belongs to a set we labelled Russians. Several countries in the east as in close to Russia reject them, saying avoiding civil duty / draft is not a legal reason to get asylum. Germany, NL, Norway and others in the west are like anyone who wants to get away from war is welcome to go through the proper channels. Which is probably a bit naïve but seems humane.

Sativied said:

I like to think my country and many others are not an ally to the US

Click to expand...

Along those lines...

"Countries" don't think in lockstep, although people are trained to use terms like "we" when they mean the plantation they are on and the decisions the masters of a given plantation have made etc. It's not "we", in reality it's "them" you and I have little to do with those decisions.

I am an ally of people who desire peaceful human relations as the default status. Nation states, by definition and the people who champion them, are by definition divisive and not peaceful.

If YOU are not an ally of the USA say that. I am not an ally of ANY government which acquires and holds it's serfs thru forcible means, why anybody would be is another thing to ponder.

Sativied said:

I’m an ally to any peaceloving Russian without malicious intent cause I know attributes of one or more members in a set do not necessarily apply to all members.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Sativied said:

I like to think my country and many others are not an ally to the US but

Click to expand...

Many others just like yours. Some countries HATE them. It's hard being an ally of America sometimes.

Lucky Luke said:

Many others just like yours. Some countries HATE them. It's hard being an ally of America sometimes.

Click to expand...

To be an ally of the USA , the governing body (not the people) is to embrace murder for money. Don't do it!!!