What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FIC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Modern Ducks in the sand. No Libyan War?

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
On another board, we had a discussion about the migrant mess and I thought about a potentially interesting PoD a decade ago or so. OTL, Ghadaffi pretty much humiliated then French president Sarkozy during his visit to Paris, setting up his tent in the palace’s gardens, and playing him along, then doing it again with the Bulgarian nurses’ affair. Sarkozy is currently being investigated for potentially - nothing proved at this time - having received funding from Ghadaffi in his successful presidential bid of 2007, and it is widely believed that the French push towards the 2011 Libyan War was caused by a feeling of personal revenge as well as a way to eliminate loose ends for Sarkozy while he was in trouble for having sold surveillance equipment to Tunisia’s dictator at the beginning of the Arab Spring (conspiracy theorists and economic illiterates think it was because Ghadaffi wanted to get a gold-backed money and that the US felt threatened by it - which is to economy what jet fuel cannot melt steel beams is to engineering). We know how it ended for everyone.

Now, the point of divergence. During the visit to Paris, Ghadaffi decides to push for better relations with France, having seen what happened to Iraq when Saddam was without strong relations to at least one Western power. So he actually holds an informal promise and gives Sarkozy a huge political present, buying 24 Rafale fighter jets. Sarkozy tried to sell them for years, unsuccessfully due to various blunders - it would be his successor, Hollande, who would sell a lot of them - and the plane was then perceived as a money hole in France. Cue a realignment of the relations, with Sarkozy scoring a very strong win through a highly visible success that brings billions at the time the Great Recession comes hard.

Now, let’s jump to 2011 and the Arab Spring. Tunisia’s street seller sets himself ablaze, shit go bad there and protesters start their stuff in Benghazi. But now, there are Libyan pilots and mechanics training on the first couple of planes produced for them in Southern France, and Sarkozy decides to make sure his guy on the other side of the Med should not be fucked hard. The first few planes are sent over to Libya, with the new pilots or maybe with some French pilots, without any weapon. But with the newest recon pods that, OTL, proved particularly successful over Libya, giving loyalist forces a much larger edge than they would have had OTL. There is some media campaign going both sides in France, some supporting the rebels, other portraying them as islamists thugs, to the point that no official intervention is decided on either side. Ghadaffi gets told to deal with this quickly and to offer some PR stuff to not look like a bloodthirsty maniac, and the rebellion implodes within a few weeks or months. Obama doesn’t want to touch an Arab war with a ten light-years pole given the ongoing mess in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Brits don’t give much of a shit either. Germany files some human rights protests.

What now? Libya doesn’t collapse to become a migrant staging grounds, but what would be the consequences for Europe, the US and possibly the Syria/ISIS stuff. And for those wondering what consequences it could ever have for the US, I have one word for you.

Benghazi.
 

ScreenXSurfer

Ain't no bitch who can do it like me
Tthe counterfactuals here are endless.

Does the entire spring putter out when the origin of it results in the dictator crushing the rebels? If so:
  • No Syrian civil war (or a short one)
  • ISIS stays weak
  • No refugee crisis out of Syria
  • Less fuel for right wing populism in Europe
Regardless of the arab spring
  • Clinton could be President
  • Does the US intervene somewhere else? Would Obama have acted when Syrian 'crossed the red line' and mobilized the US to intervene there?
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
God, the counterfactuals here are endless.

Does the entire spring putter out when the origin of it results in the dictator crushing the rebels? If so:
  • No Syrian civil war
  • ISIS stays weak
  • No refugee crisis out of Syria
  • Less fuel for right wing populism in Europe
Regardless of the arab spring
  • Clinton could be President
  • Does the US intervene somewhere else? Would Obama have acted when Syrian 'crossed the red line' and mobilized the US to intervene there?
Why do you think I selected this PoD? It gives some really interesting results. There are some nexii out there that deserve the thinking.
 

Vashon

Active member
Banned
On another board, we had a discussion about the migrant mess and I thought about a potentially interesting PoD a decade ago or so. OTL, Ghadaffi pretty much humiliated then French president Sarkozy during his visit to Paris, setting up his tent in the palace’s gardens, and playing him along, then doing it again with the Bulgarian nurses’ affair. Sarkozy is currently being investigated for potentially - nothing proved at this time - having received funding from Ghadaffi in his successful presidential bid of 2007, and it is widely believed that the French push towards the 2011 Libyan War was caused by a feeling of personal revenge as well as a way to eliminate loose ends for Sarkozy while he was in trouble for having sold surveillance equipment to Tunisia’s dictator at the beginning of the Arab Spring (conspiracy theorists and economic illiterates think it was because Ghadaffi wanted to get a gold-backed money and that the US felt threatened by it - which is to economy what jet fuel cannot melt steel beams is to engineering). We know how it ended for everyone.

Now, the point of divergence. During the visit to Paris, Ghadaffi decides to push for better relations with France, having seen what happened to Iraq when Saddam was without strong relations to at least one Western power. So he actually holds an informal promise and gives Sarkozy a huge political present, buying 24 Rafale fighter jets. Sarkozy tried to sell them for years, unsuccessfully due to various blunders - it would be his successor, Hollande, who would sell a lot of them - and the plane was then perceived as a money hole in France. Cue a realignment of the relations, with Sarkozy scoring a very strong win through a highly visible success that brings billions at the time the Great Recession comes hard.

Now, let’s jump to 2011 and the Arab Spring. Tunisia’s street seller sets himself ablaze, shit go bad there and protesters start their stuff in Benghazi. But now, there are Libyan pilots and mechanics training on the first couple of planes produced for them in Southern France, and Sarkozy decides to make sure his guy on the other side of the Med should not be fucked hard. The first few planes are sent over to Libya, with the new pilots or maybe with some French pilots, without any weapon. But with the newest recon pods that, OTL, proved particularly successful over Libya, giving loyalist forces a much larger edge than they would have had OTL. There is some media campaign going both sides in France, some supporting the rebels, other portraying them as islamists thugs, to the point that no official intervention is decided on either side. Ghadaffi gets told to deal with this quickly and to offer some PR stuff to not look like a bloodthirsty maniac, and the rebellion implodes within a few weeks or months. Obama doesn’t want to touch an Arab war with a ten light-years pole given the ongoing mess in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Brits don’t give much of a shit either. Germany files some human rights protests.

What now? Libya doesn’t collapse to become a migrant staging grounds, but what would be the consequences for Europe, the US and possibly the Syria/ISIS stuff. And for those wondering what consequences it could ever have for the US, I have one word for you.

Benghazi.
I have a better suggestion. Instead of the Panama Papers and the like getting leaked after his death, a month before Tunisia, Ghaddafi dumps a load of material to French and EU authorities, and Sarkozy is arrested outright, and while Ghaddafi is crushing the rebels, everyone finds it hard to openly move against him, and so he finishes off his rebellion by the end of 2013.

This has interesting effects of making it seem like the West still holds its end of the bargain, and Ghaddafi still dunks of some wine drinking ducks. Neat possible knock on effects for Iranian Nuclear Program and Geopolitics in general.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
I have a better suggestion. Instead of the Panama Papers and the like getting leaked after his death, a month before Tunisia, Ghaddafi dumps a load of material to French and EU authorities, and Sarkozy is arrested outright, and while Ghaddafi is crushing the rebels, everyone finds it hard to openly move against him, and so he finishes off his rebellion by the end of 2013.
Of course, the real world doesn't work like this, as a foreign power releasing what it claims to be clear proof never meant much until the judiciary system can get onto it and make sure it is real. This is what having a functional legal system means. I felt the precision was necessary, as you seem to not know what it involves and apparently believes police works like on TV.
 

Vashon

Active member
Banned
Of course, the real world doesn't work like this, as a foreign power releasing what it claims to be clear proof never meant much until the judiciary system can get onto it and make sure it is real. This is what having a functional legal system means. I felt the precision was necessary, as you seem to not know what it involves and apparently believes police works like on TV.
Except your suggestion has Ghaddafi act out of character, and worse still, implies he didn't seek better relations with the West. He did. Thats what surrendering his WMD was all about. He made every offer he really could to bury the hatchet, and it wasn't good enough. And his claims of it being Al Qaeda and the like, among other claims he made? Damned near prescient and right on the money. Disturbingly so.

And the point wouldn't even be to make anything happen, just make Sarkozy and buddies more hesitant to act.

I still say wacking Ghaddafi was the dumbest geopolitical move made by great powers in 50 years. And yes that includes escalating the Vietnam war with increased American intervention, and it includes the Cuban Missile Crisis. North Korean nukes? Iranian nukes? Even the vague possibility of those being eliminated in totality was gone when Ghaddafi was wacked. So much stuff was ruined by Clinton and Sarkozy being stupid and impulsive.

Tthe counterfactuals here are endless.

Does the entire spring putter out when the origin of it results in the dictator crushing the rebels? If so:
  • No Syrian civil war (or a short one)
  • ISIS stays weak
  • No refugee crisis out of Syria
The Syrian Civil War ends right about when Isis would have come into the picture, the ever so conveniently supplied Isis, who managed to pick all the juicy equipment that the Iraqi's just "left behind", especially the vehicles, choosing apparently to walk or run away instead, oh I don't know, drive away.

Right before that happened, the SAA with help from Russian advisors and Hezbollah manpower, was beginning to wrap up parts of the heavily populated parts of the country, and the east was still under SAA control.

I'm guessing that this results in Obama using the "Nope.jpg" button on intervening against the dictators in the Middle East and North Africa, really twisting some arms and having a USN detachment sail in between France and Libya in a training exercise. Probably doing an interview and making it clear that he was elected to walk away from this interventionist nonsense, and he is putting his foot down on multiple people who desperately want to bomb more stuff.
Regardless of the arab spring
  • Clinton could be President
  • Does the US intervene somewhere else? Would Obama have acted when Syrian 'crossed the red line' and mobilized the US to intervene there?
Clinton could easily be president right now had she not been Secretary of State and none of that stuff happened and none of hit touched her. Our diplomats in Benghazi would have been fine under Ghaddafi's protection, if anything happened, he would have been quick with an apology. Her health would be better without the DVTs, stroke and concussion.

And if we aren't acting in Libya, I doubt we'd act in Syria. If Obama is pressing the nope button hard and is enforcing it as strongly as possible, then the UK, which has no dog either way, would follow along, and China and Russia already didn't want intervention. That 4 out of 5 UNSC members with an opinion of Nope. Which leaves France unable to move against Ghaddafi. Without the idea of Western powers openly aiding rebels, and possibly without the Saudis and others almost openly funding ISIS and friends, and without the ever so convenient dump of Iraqi supplies into ISIS hands which allowed them to get a steam roller going for a little while, the Arab Spring is a dud, except for Tunisia.

It would be

Tunisia-Man on fire and then protest, but no civil war, some governance changes

Libya-Mass protest of a fuckload of the population, followed by civil war, which Ghaddafi won by securing his half of the country, then using his airforce and foreign mercenaries to augment his loyalist, then reconquering the other half

Egypt-Small protests, in proportion to population, then a change in power and some election. And Islamist got in and tried to do an Erdogan but faster, but the Egyptian Army deposed him because they aren't weak and lazy like the Turks got, same as real life

Syria-Protests that quickly turned violent, but without the looming threat of western intervention if he goes too hard, Assad moves even harder, escalating the civil war much faster. And ending it faster too. By 2014, most of the country back under control and at peace

Those were the biggest battlegrounds

Obama having kept us away from intervening, leaves the office fairly popular and well liked, having done what was asked by the people that vote for issues, keeping us out of war and getting us out of Iraq.

Landslide victory for Clinton. But somehow, I doub't she'd get re-elected, because eventually "not at war" wouldn't be enough.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
I still say wacking Ghaddafi was the dumbest geopolitical move made by great powers in 50 years. And yes that includes escalating the Vietnam war with increased American intervention, and it includes the Cuban Missile Crisis. North Korean nukes? Iranian nukes? Even the vague possibility of those being eliminated in totality was gone when Ghaddafi was wacked. So much stuff was ruined by Clinton and Sarkozy being stupid and impulsive.
Oh, it was stupid in hindsight. But then, Bush's war of aggression against Iraq was just as well, and Putin's invasion of Crimea.
 

Vashon

Active member
Banned
Oh, it was stupid in hindsight. But then, Bush's war of aggression against Iraq was just as well, and Putin's invasion of Crimea.
No it was several orders of magnitude dumber than Iraq, which was generally perceived as anywhere between finishing the job and a semilegitimate action. Saddam had very few friends at the time.

And Putin's Crimea war isn't stupid at all. The only stupid part is he waited so long to start reclaiming former USSR territory, when it should have been the first thing he did, starting with the Baltics, then Belarus and Ukraine in its entirety, then the Caucuses and at the minimum, Kazahkstan, possibly more of Central Asia. Kick the Chechens out entirely, let them join the Circassians, and side explicitly with the Armenians in their spat with Azerbaijan.

Now though, the ethnic Russian Slavic population is about to hit a massive demographic crunch, and the Russian Army and economy will be forced to rely on the incoming Muslim demographic more than it ever has before in its history, going back to the Rurikids.

Killing Ghaddafi though? It wasn't just stupid in hindsight, it was stupid in obvious apparency, especially with attempts at de-nuclearization going on. Assad wouldn't have been as stupid. In fact, going after Assad and leaving Ghaddafi alive would have went very well with established precedent, given that the Syrians never willingly gave up their WMDs and were still at war with Israel. Instead, the one guy who buried the hatchet and freely gave up his WMD ambitions was the one that got wacked. Which sent the message that it clearly doesn't matter if you cooperate, you will be murdered anyways.

Everybody who could think and knew about the history knew it was stupid.

But instead, a small victory was settled for that included,

leveling Syria, using its conflict as a magnet for jihadis

economically stressing Iran

bloodying Hezbollah

drawing the Russians in, attempting to bait them

showing what a Russian guarantee of security means(nothing)

showing how far Moscow has fallen in terms of capability

All for the small, small price of stressing the EU out hard enough that it is teetering on the brink of collapse with at least three countries on the theoretical verge of leaving, UK Italy and Greece.

Syria is a wreck and Russia is exposed, very nakedly, for how weak it has gotten. In 25 years, Syria will have most likely recovered, Putin and Lukashenko might very well have died and been replaced, but Iran will still be there, and Hezbollah will still be quite strong. And multiple countries might have left the EU by then, assuming the EU even exists by then. And Muscovy might well make a comeback.

What we could have had, is a Clinton presidency, and an EU that digests the financial crisis without another crisis hammering it, the Brexit vote never succeeds, the EU solidifies, and Moscow gets to continue proudly pretending how strong it is without having to reform itself, Nicholas the 1st style. And Iran has denukafied and North Korea has as well.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
No it was several orders of magnitude dumber than Iraq, which was generally perceived as anywhere between finishing the job and a semilegitimate action. Saddam had very few friends at the time.
Oi fuck, I now really, really wonder from which alternate universe you come to be so distant from the real world.
Syria is a wreck and Russia is exposed, very nakedly, for how weak it has gotten. In 25 years, Syria will have most likely recovered, Putin and Lukashenko might very well have died and been replaced, but Iran will still be there, and Hezbollah will still be quite strong. And multiple countries might have left the EU by then, assuming the EU even exists by then. And Muscovy might well make a comeback.
At this point, it's less an alternate universe and more a bizarro one. I guess you must be a follower of Zeihan.
 

Train Dodger

Choo Choo
On another board, we had a discussion about the migrant mess and I thought about a potentially interesting PoD a decade ago or so. OTL, Ghadaffi pretty much humiliated then French president Sarkozy during his visit to Paris, setting up his tent in the palace’s gardens, and playing him along, then doing it again with the Bulgarian nurses’ affair. Sarkozy is currently being investigated for potentially - nothing proved at this time - having received funding from Ghadaffi in his successful presidential bid of 2007, and it is widely believed that the French push towards the 2011 Libyan War was caused by a feeling of personal revenge as well as a way to eliminate loose ends for Sarkozy while he was in trouble for having sold surveillance equipment to Tunisia’s dictator at the beginning of the Arab Spring (conspiracy theorists and economic illiterates think it was because Ghadaffi wanted to get a gold-backed money and that the US felt threatened by it - which is to economy what jet fuel cannot melt steel beams is to engineering). We know how it ended for everyone.
Actually, if I remember that conspiracy theory correctly, it was Sarkozy who felt threatened by Gaddafi attempting to form a gold-backed currency, not because the hypothetical currency was viable, but because it could have started a bandwagon effect where numerous former French colonies in Africa abandon their ties to the CFA Franc:

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/gy9d49/libyan-oil-gold-and-qaddafi-the-strange-email-sidney-blumenthal-sent-hillary-clinton-in-2011

Two weeks after France began bombing Libya, in March, 2011, Hillary Clinton's old friend and advisor Sidney Blumenthal passed her an intelligence memo that supposedly revealed France's true — and quite unflattering— motivations for toppling Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi. While France's then-President Nicolas Sarkozy publicly said he wished to free the Libyan people from tyranny, Blumenthal's memo argues that he was driven by a cocktail of less lofty incentives, including a desire for Libyan oil, and a fear that Qaddafi secretly planned to use his vast supply of gold to displace France's primacy in the region.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/world/africa/africa-cfa-franc-currency.html

There are now two different versions of the currency: the C.F.A. franc of the West African Economic and Monetary Union, which has eight member countries, and one for the Central African Monetary and Economic Community, which has six. C.F.A. originally stood for “franc of the French Colonies of Africa.” Later, the two financial systems each renamed the currency to reflect their newfound independence.

These two unions represent 14 percent of Africa’s population and produce 12 percent of its gross domestic product, according to the International Monetary Fund. All but two of the countries are former French colonies.

Both versions of the C.F.A. franc are now pegged to the euro. In return for guaranteeing the currency, France holds 50 percent of the foreign exchange reserves of the C.F.A. franc countries in its treasury.
The general theory goes that if those countries abandon the Franc, then the system of France holding half of their foreign exchange reserves would be abandoned, which would supposedly impoverish France. Numerous activist groups in Africa are vying for colonial independence from the French economy, apparently.

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2018/01/27/francophone-africas-cfa-franc-is-under-fire

https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/africa/CFA-franc-France-Africa-controversy/4552902-4950882-r08s4t/index.html

https://africasacountry.com/2018/06/its-time-to-end-the-cfa-franc

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/torpedoing-africa-complaining-migration-180817133759141.html

It generally seems the case that whenever a former French colony in Africa has attempted to go off the Franc, the ones responsible for pushing in that direction have been allegedly killed in coups:

https://neweralive.na/2015/12/04/france-said-long-live-neo-colonialism/

Out of the 67 coups that have taken place in 26 African countries in the last 50 years, 61% of the coups took place in former French colonies with full support of the government of France in order to safeguard the Colonial Pact. One might be bemused as to why this narration should concern Namibians or Africans from non-French colonies.
With that possibility in mind, I think Gaddafi could only have avoided being deposed if he actively nurtured closer relations with France. An arms purchase would definitely help cement a relationship, but it might not be enough. He would have to abandon any pretense of economic independence, foster closer ties with NATO, and so on.

Provided that Libya can escape becoming a failed state, this has some interesting consequences for the Arab Spring. The outgoing migrants are vastly reduced. ISIS and Al-Qaeda lose a major staging point and recruiting grounds. Human trafficking and the flow of weapons and contraband are reduced. However, quite frankly, I don't see it having that much of an impact on events in Syria. Assad may find it easier to keep control, as he's dealing with fewer militants and their arms pouring into the country, but it's just a fraction of the whole. The immediate benefits are most strongly felt by the average Libyan civilian, who enjoys the advantages of functioning government, emergency services, utilities, and so on.

Gaddafi maintaining control of his country during the Arab Spring would inevitably lead to a cooling of relations with the West no matter how hard he tried cultivating them. He would probably retroactively find a way to blame the West for starting all of it, which would have unknown repercussions in the future. Even if Libya tried to get cozy with Russia instead of France, Libya is too far away and is of limited strategic importance to Russia, so it's unlikely they'd receive much aid.
 

Vorpal

Administrator
Administrator
Oh, it was stupid in hindsight. But then, Bush's war of aggression against Iraq was just as well, and Putin's invasion of Crimea.
The last of these had many bad consequences, but I can't see it as stupid or a mistake because come maidan, alternative courses of actions were worse. OTOH a lot of reactions to and handling of surrounding events, whether relating to Lugansk and Donetsk or otherwise, were apparently rather ill-thought-out gambles.

And Putin's Crimea war isn't stupid at all. The only stupid part is he waited so long to start reclaiming former USSR territory, when it should have been the first thing he did, starting with the Baltics, then Belarus and Ukraine in its entirety, then the Caucuses and at the minimum, Kazahkstan, possibly more of Central Asia. Kick the Chechens out entirely, let them join the Circassians, and side explicitly with the Armenians in their spat with Azerbaijan.
It this some sort of parody or are you serious? For one, the Baltics have almost zero strategic or economic value to Russia—even neglecting potential NATO involvement completely. The only thing Russia should have done earlier is develop their own ports and infrastructure much earlier, though it may have been more difficult then, because in the day of the ‘Baltic Tigers’, a huge chunk of their economics were on transit of Russian trade. This has shrunk down by a lot since then. Now having already committed to this policy of bypassing Baltics in favour of their domestic ports, there's nothing Russia needs out reven remotely that badly out the Baltics. What are they going to do? Subsidise them out of them own pocket like the EU does (but probably soon won't) when the population largely dislikes them? Not very smart.

As for the rest, well, you start with something pretty nuts and get worse for there.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Actually, if I remember that conspiracy theory correctly, it was Sarkozy who felt threatened by Gaddafi attempting to form a gold-backed currency, not because the hypothetical currency was viable, but because it could have started a bandwagon effect where numerous former French colonies in Africa abandon their ties to the CFA Franc:
The conspiracy theory collapses at the 'gold-backed currency' part, because the only people who will find it to be a threat to real currencies are people who think bitcoin can replace the euro or the dollar and people who think trickle-down works. That theory is, to put it simply, ridiculous.
With that possibility in mind, I think Gaddafi could only have avoided being deposed if he actively nurtured closer relations with France. An arms purchase would definitely help cement a relationship, but it might not be enough. He would have to abandon any pretense of economic independence, foster closer ties with NATO, and so on.
Usually. It's enough, particularly high profile deals as they involve decades-long industrial and financial partnerships. Look at how we tend to be busy combing our ponies and looking otherwise when Egypt does shit after it bought our stuff, duckies, frigates and an amphibious helicarrier.
The last of these had many bad consequences, but I can't see it as stupid or a mistake because come maidan, alternative courses of actions were worse. OTOH a lot of reactions to and handling of surrounding events, whether relating to Lugansk and Donetsk or otherwise, were apparently rather ill-thought-out gambles.
I still think it's stupid on the larger scale, AKA because it pretty much showed the emperor was naked when it came to WMD. Ukraine renounced the Soviet nukes for a guarantee by both sides that its territory would be respected. Like Libya, it was a situation where a country wilfully renounced WMD for a promise of safety that ended up broken. The logical conclusion to be taken there is that you cannot trust any of the UNSC P5 and that getting your hands on WMD is safer for your regime than renouncing them after caving under the political pressure.

Evidence A: North Korea.

These various wars were as many headshots in the NPT. And some city will pay the price for it one day.
As for the rest, well, you start with something pretty nuts and get worse for there.
I fear he comes from the Zeihan school of geopolitics, AKA 'Oh God where do we even begin' levels of wrongness.
 

Vashon

Active member
Banned
Oi fuck, I now really, really wonder from which alternate universe you come to be so distant from the real world.

At this point, it's less an alternate universe and more a bizarro one. I guess you must be a follower of Zeihan.
I forgot how butthurt you were and are about Peter Zeihan. Brexit is most likely to be delayed eternally with one extension after another. Italy might actually fucking do it though, or get kicked out.

The only real issue with Zeihan is him doing the thing a lot of people do about China, and assuming a demographic crunch will affect them in the same way it affects fully inudstrialized nations. It won't and can't. They will still have a larger group of working age adults coming into maturity than Russia and the USA+Canada combined, and even if they only mobilize the equivalent of 120% of American workers, thats still an obscene amount of economic activity. So even if they don't have the supermassive surge of pre-One Child Policy births to work with anymore, that super massive surge is still had children, some children, so China would still have a massive labor force, and now, a massive labor force with higher education. They can afford a demographic squeeze that results in longterm population decline. A 800 millon strong China (the 2050 projections iirc)with a modern economy is still outrageously wealthy and powerful, requiring the strength of two other super powers to counter act. Technically, Japan can too, 120 million people is an obscene overcrowding for the islands. It can let itself naturally decline to 80 million, and then its in Germany and France's ballpark. Thats still hefty.

And Rufus, Ukraine is far less stupid, since a lot of people see that as Moscow reclaiming prime Russian farmland, and a lot of people see zero reason to oppose Russia reclaiming the original Rus. Especially when they are still suffering the effects of the collapse in the 90s, and have no apparent plan for when Putin dies of old age.
Actually, if I remember that conspiracy theory correctly, it was Sarkozy who felt threatened by Gaddafi attempting to form a gold-backed currency, not because the hypothetical currency was viable, but because it could have started a bandwagon effect where numerous former French colonies in Africa abandon their ties to the CFA Franc:

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/gy9d49/libyan-oil-gold-and-qaddafi-the-strange-email-sidney-blumenthal-sent-hillary-clinton-in-2011



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/world/africa/africa-cfa-franc-currency.html



The general theory goes that if those countries abandon the Franc, then the system of France holding half of their foreign exchange reserves would be abandoned, which would supposedly impoverish France. Numerous activist groups in Africa are vying for colonial independence from the French economy, apparently.

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2018/01/27/francophone-africas-cfa-franc-is-under-fire

https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/africa/CFA-franc-France-Africa-controversy/4552902-4950882-r08s4t/index.html

https://africasacountry.com/2018/06/its-time-to-end-the-cfa-franc

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/torpedoing-africa-complaining-migration-180817133759141.html

It generally seems the case that whenever a former French colony in Africa has attempted to go off the Franc, the ones responsible for pushing in that direction have been allegedly killed in coups:

https://neweralive.na/2015/12/04/france-said-long-live-neo-colonialism/
Yeah, you don't have to be autistic to see the pattern here. Its been kind of a silly joke for decades now that Algieria is independent, and the rest of Francophone Africa is just natively managed.
 

Vorpal

Administrator
Administrator
Crimea had nothing to do with farmland. Moreover, the parts of Ukraine that are prime chernozem tend to be the most anti-Russian; rural fetishism, also displayed on the flag, is a feature of Ukrainian nationalism since the XIX century and heavily tilts westward. On the other hand, Don Basin region on the east has generally poor farmland but was once the most heavily industrialised region in the Soviet Union.

BTW since you mentioned forcibly absorbing Belarus and Kazakhstan, apparently seriously, it may be noted that both CIS and the Eurasian Economic Union were based on proposals by Nursultan Nazarbayev (Kazakhstan), while the Union State was a project between Lukashenko and the Russian communist party, who the time (1996) had a majority government, but for last twenty years they had only a small representation in government. This Union State relationship is pretty complicated and has substantial opposition from the population on both sides. For example, under Putin in 2001, Russia pulled out of the project first, and then rejoined a decade later under Medvedev.

The main thing the Russian elite seems to want out of Belarus is control over their industry (not farmland, heh). Unfortunately for them, Belorussian industry is nationalised; Belarus generally keeps the Soviet institutions intact. They're not particularly enthused by map-painting or taking responsibility for the territory and its peoples. It's also why it took five years to push through giving residents of Lugansk and Donetsk an accelerated track for Russian citizenship.
 

Vashon

Active member
Banned
Crimea had nothing to do with farmland. Moreover, the parts of Ukraine that are prime chernozem tend to be the most anti-Russian; rural fetishism, also displayed on the flag, is a feature of Ukrainian nationalism since the XIX century and heavily tilts westward. On the other hand, Don Basin region on the east has generally poor farmland but was once the most heavily industrialised region in the Soviet Union.
Im was talking why a lot of people find it incredibly stupid to bother opposing Russia on the Ukraine.
BTW since you mentioned forcibly absorbing Belarus and Kazakhstan, apparently seriously, it may be noted that both CIS and the Eurasian Economic Union were based on proposals by Nursultan Nazarbayev (Kazakhstan), while the Union State was a project between Lukashenko and the Russian communist party, who the time (1996) had a majority government, but for last twenty years they had only a small representation in government. This Union State relationship is pretty complicated and has substantial opposition from the population on both sides. For example, under Putin in 2001, Russia pulled out of the project first, and then rejoined a decade later under Medvedev.
I suggest that because its quite clear that the loss of control of all those territories cost Russia dearly, perhaps too dearly, and that in order to preserve their power and strength, it would have been better to fight to keep them, up to and including bringing back Stalinism and Lavrenty's train rides.
The main thing the Russian elite seems to want out of Belarus is control over their industry (not farmland, heh). Unfortunately for them, Belorussian industry is nationalised; Belarus generally keeps the Soviet institutions intact. They're not particularly enthused by map-painting or taking responsibility for the territory and its peoples. It's also why it took five years to push through giving residents of Lugansk and Donetsk an accelerated track for Russian citizenship.
And Belarus has done quite nicely for itself, compared to the Russian heartland. In fact, I find it to be generally true that outside of the post Soviet Wars themselves, many of the successor republics did much better and had less chaos and horrific disorder than Russia itself. Excepting, strangely, for Ukraine, which is an Argentinian situation, where they technically had everything they needed to become a major economy, but pissed it all away.

Now as for the thread, No Libya intervention and Obama keeping his promises, up to and including publically hammering the piss out of fuckpuppets? Hillary gets elected. If her health remains steady, she might get re-elected. Obama keeping his Foreign Policy promises means he might managed to snag a supermajority for Hillary to inherit, even if he can't enjoy it himself.

Which would force the Right and Far Right to focus on Congressional races later on. Could be interesting. But well....

If Hillary has the same health problems, and gets elected? I don't think she would have made it this far. I didn't vote at all, mainly because Fat Man didn't get nominated, but I also was surprised Hillary made it to the election. I strongly doubt she would make it the full term unless she curtailed the vast majority of international travel. So we should really be discussing whatever douchenugget was her VP.
 

Vashon

Active member
Banned
Called it! Church of Zeihan confirmed, lol. It's so easy to spot'em.
You do realize it was on of my socks that posted him right? It was what got Doc Holiday(who needs to chill with the copypasting) on his role of quoting Peter Zeihan. And watching nightmare just so things like "Nuh uh" with no actual response was amazing. Like he was literally angry at things like "America has fuckloads of navigable rivers" and "naturally interconnected" and was incapable of posting stuff in Europe like...canals. Im fairly certain that canals were counted for length and counted as connecting river systems, Central Europe would be a hell of a lot more competitive. And what Petey really does is explain how America got to where it was by 1914 and why it was so easy to industrialize and export food and goods around the place. Most everybody else on SB and Docs threads actually posted something. But nightmare just...had a brain shutdown.

Hell, you could even cheat a bit and call the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea to be "internal waterways" by claiming they are much harder to attack than Med stuff, and that links the Volga and Dnieper(which are linked by a canal) up to the Danube (which has canals to other rivers in Germany iirc).

And one of the things Peter glosses over for America, and Ive seen this mentioned in the comment sections of his vids, is personal household debt in America and other debt issues. Although thats the thing. He does his presentation to investors and industrialists, largely providing a grounded basis for his general advice. Which generally predicts massive capital flight to the USA. And advises to follow that trend. A lot of the rest is meh and optimism about "democratic" processes. The other thing he generally does is dogwhistling to the US State Dpt(and China) about what will happen if the will of the American people is ever allowed to decide Middle Eastern foreign policy and foreign policy in general.

The Saudi's burn, because everybody has a bone to pick with them and the only two things that would stop Iran from marching over there and wringing their necks like chickens is the possible threat of Israeli nuclear weapons and the involvement of Turkey, and the effects this would have on oil. On that bit and any theoretical Russian march on Poland(lolno) or brewed up conflict on Russian pipelines in general, he is spot on.

Peter's message on those is simple, if you pay attention. "America should be forced, if necessary to remain present, or the following occurs

"Europe will need to reach an accord with Russia or the pipelines could get disrupted, and thats bad for Europe and they know it"

"The completely calm and totally """ Cold""" War between Iran and the Saudis will go Hot, provoking a general war and large scale disruption of oil supplies. This is bad for Europe, but catastrophic for East Asia, of and China? Get the fuck on the ball and do so in a fucking hurry, you might not have much time"

Peter Zeihan admits to being an internationalists, an Atlanticist. His videos provide two functions. Telling people why capital flight is coming, and broadcasting quite loudly the potential "disaster" that happens if America leaves like it wants to. An EU-Russian Federation alliance and China crash militarizing even harder and sitting on the Middle East themselves. Locking the USA out of continental Eurasia. And both the UK and France have strategic optional outs.

So watch his videos, going back to 2011, and see if One Belt One Road and the most recent Russia-EU Northern Pipeline doesn't line up with Great Powers reassuring each other and preparing for an American exit, assuming it happens.

Zeihan isnt predicting American preminence globally, even though thats his claim and the words out of his mouth, he is predicting, had Trump been 10% of what he was voted for, that should America withdraw its global presence, that it will never have such a strong foothold again. And that there is a real danger of this temptation, because should the US do so? We'd still have 10 Supercarriers and the worlds most powerful navy, supported by an enormously wealthy continental scale economy that has already fully integrated. And with a single foothold in Venezuela for some gunky sour crude, have no need to step out.

Its a warning to the intel and security community that thanks to shale and the end of the Cold War, their jobs are in danger.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
You do realize it was on of my socks that posted him right? It was what got Doc Holiday(who needs to chill with the copypasting) on his role of quoting Peter Zeihan. And watching nightmare just so things like "Nuh uh" with no actual response was amazing. Like he was literally angry at things like "America has fuckloads of navigable rivers" and "naturally interconnected" and was incapable of posting stuff in Europe like...canals. Im fairly certain that canals were counted for length and counted as connecting river systems, Central Europe would be a hell of a lot more competitive. And what Petey really does is explain how America got to where it was by 1914 and why it was so easy to industrialize and export food and goods around the place. Most everybody else on SB and Docs threads actually posted something. But nightmare just...had a brain shutdown.

Hell, you could even cheat a bit and call the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea to be "internal waterways" by claiming they are much harder to attack than Med stuff, and that links the Volga and Dnieper(which are linked by a canal) up to the Danube (which has canals to other rivers in Germany iirc).
The issue with Zeihan is that he starts with the conclusion he is paid to sell (US uber alles) and then tries to justify it.
And one of the things Peter glosses over for America, and Ive seen this mentioned in the comment sections of his vids, is personal household debt in America and other debt issues. Although thats the thing. He does his presentation to investors and industrialists, largely providing a grounded basis for his general advice. Which generally predicts massive capital flight to the USA. And advises to follow that trend. A lot of the rest is meh and optimism about "democratic" processes. The other thing he generally does is dogwhistling to the US State Dpt(and China) about what will happen if the will of the American people is ever allowed to decide Middle Eastern foreign policy and foreign policy in general.

The Saudi's burn, because everybody has a bone to pick with them and the only two things that would stop Iran from marching over there and wringing their necks like chickens is the possible threat of Israeli nuclear weapons and the involvement of Turkey, and the effects this would have on oil. On that bit and any theoretical Russian march on Poland(lolno) or brewed up conflict on Russian pipelines in general, he is spot on.

Peter's message on those is simple, if you pay attention. "America should be forced, if necessary to remain present, or the following occurs

"Europe will need to reach an accord with Russia or the pipelines could get disrupted, and thats bad for Europe and they know it"

"The completely calm and totally """ Cold""" War between Iran and the Saudis will go Hot, provoking a general war and large scale disruption of oil supplies. This is bad for Europe, but catastrophic for East Asia, of and China? Get the fuck on the ball and do so in a fucking hurry, you might not have much time"

Peter Zeihan admits to being an internationalists, an Atlanticist. His videos provide two functions. Telling people why capital flight is coming, and broadcasting quite loudly the potential "disaster" that happens if America leaves like it wants to. An EU-Russian Federation alliance and China crash militarizing even harder and sitting on the Middle East themselves. Locking the USA out of continental Eurasia. And both the UK and France have strategic optional outs.

So watch his videos, going back to 2011, and see if One Belt One Road and the most recent Russia-EU Northern Pipeline doesn't line up with Great Powers reassuring each other and preparing for an American exit, assuming it happens.

Zeihan isnt predicting American preminence globally, even though thats his claim and the words out of his mouth, he is predicting, had Trump been 10% of what he was voted for, that should America withdraw its global presence, that it will never have such a strong foothold again. And that there is a real danger of this temptation, because should the US do so? We'd still have 10 Supercarriers and the worlds most powerful navy, supported by an enormously wealthy continental scale economy that has already fully integrated. And with a single foothold in Venezuela for some gunky sour crude, have no need to step out.

Its a warning to the intel and security community that thanks to shale and the end of the Cold War, their jobs are in danger.
I have to disagree, though. The guy tends to hammer "why the US will always win in the end thanks to superior geography", which is why people like Doc suck at his tits. Combine this with the nonsensical stuff published by Stratfor, his group (people here are still laughing at his pal Friedman's vision of the 21st century) and his wordy articles that demonstrate a complete absence of grasp on actual political processes and human element outside his immediate sphere (I advise you to check the article he published and that Doc posted - in-between being goaded in betraying his oath of service on the profit of Russian SB trolls and claiming he knew better than the SecDef - where Zeihan made bold claims about the legislative elections in France just after Macron's election), he is perceived as someone who sells a product rather than an actual expert.

Though I roughly agree with the part about withdrawing the global presence, I'll add that it's already irrecoverable by now. Russia had started planning and acting around the end of the US-centric system more than a decade ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_speech_of_Vladimir_Putin), China's development goal require the US to not be the core of the global system and the hegemon. The US has unconsciously accepted that situation by now, IMO, causing the huge psychological trouble it's facing right now (and that might very well end up with a war against China to try and reproduce the World War II scenario that ended so well for the States). The only countries that, IMO, have yet to move on from the pre-2000 paradigm are... most of the EU countries, first of all UK and Germany. Here, we're barely getting online with the new reality, and are facing quite a lot of push back from our neighbours who are still stuck in that old perception.
 

Vashon

Active member
Banned
The issue with Zeihan is that he starts with the conclusion he is paid to sell (US uber alles) and then tries to justify it.

I have to disagree, though. The guy tends to hammer "why the US will always win in the end thanks to superior geography", which is why people like Doc suck at his tits.
The US was dealt the best possible hand on the globe, and closest second best being a Russia that walks into the 20th Century with the Dardanelles and Bosphorus in its hand and being nearly as industrialized as Germany, for both consumer goods and heavy industry. The one problem with that, is that isn't real and never happened.
Combine this with the nonsensical stuff published by Stratfor, his group (people here are still laughing at his pal Friedman's vision of the 21st century) and his wordy articles that demonstrate a complete absence of grasp on actual political processes and human element outside his immediate sphere (I advise you to check the article he published and that Doc posted - in-between being goaded in betraying his oath of service on the profit of Russian SB trolls and claiming he knew better than the SecDef - where Zeihan made bold claims about the legislative elections in France just after Macron's election), he is perceived as someone who sells a product rather than an actual expert.
Oh he is. But I latched onto him and shilled him for one very good reason. Peter Zeihan took a big heaping shit on Dr Thomas Barnett and his Good Morning World speech and presentation. Barnett was pitching this wonderful globalized alliance that had America working with and accomodating absolutely everybody and using the Marine Corp as the muscle for a psuedo UN. Im having trouble finding the exact video, but Barnett was so cheerful and upbeat. And crowds at SB lapped it up, because a lot of it was advice on how we could have and SHOULD do Afghanistan better. Then, just a little after Peter Zeihan's "Soy Bean Council" thing made the rounds, and his predictions about Shale played out, and were exceeded in some cases, ole Barnett has another presentation.

He ain't so upbeat anymore. He even utters a line about never forgiving a certain sect for ruining America's taste for foreign interventions with Iraq and its attendant fuck ups. For the record, Thomas Barnett has been in Powerpoint presentation for quite a bit longer than Peter. And Peter just comes along and "SHALE OIL, WE AIN'T GOTTA DO THIS SHIT ANYMORE. NEENER NEENER NEENER". And so guys like Barnett are back to Square one of figuring out how to manipulate or force the issue of using American military power when doing so is now completely optional, and walking away is a legitimate strategic decision that does not in fact, compromise America's safety in an obvious fashion.
Though I roughly agree with the part about withdrawing the global presence, I'll add that it's already irrecoverable by now. Russia had started planning and acting around the end of the US-centric system more than a decade ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_speech_of_Vladimir_Putin),
Thats just good sense with Russian history with the West and general bullshit that has kept occuring since the Crimean War.
China's development goal require the US to not be the core of the global system and the hegemon. The US has unconsciously accepted that situation by now, IMO, causing the huge psychological trouble it's facing right now (and that might very well end up with a war against China to try and reproduce the World War II scenario that ended so well for the States). The only countries that, IMO, have yet to move on from the pre-2000 paradigm are... most of the EU countries, first of all UK and Germany. Here, we're barely getting online with the new reality, and are facing quite a lot of push back from our neighbours who are still stuck in that old perception.
Zeihan's new intro, revolving around Trump, is funny in this regard.

Japan and the UK-They get it
Germany-Can't beleive what is happening and is trying to reject reality

And it was even funnier to see people all across the internet laughing and mocking Trump for handing over a little note for Bill of Services Rendered. They didn't get it, or were panicking too hard to accept it. It meant that Yes, there was now a President of the USA that was perfectly fine with sabotaging NATO, and that Yes, it was a mainstream opinion to lessen American commitment even harder.

And Zeihan had a line about that. "You want us to defend you while you purchase even more Russian energy than you did during the Cold War? It just doesn't make any sense" I'd expand that. You want America to defend you from Russia when you are in the middle of trying to economically integrate even further with Russia, and the Russians aren't threatening to invade YOU, but are making noises towards Ukraine, which harbors and supplies Nazi's and has been engaging in systematic oppression of Russian speakers, they have never denied or hidden this, and has spent decades doing everything they can to make Ukrainian and Russian as different as possible?

You want us, over there, to defend you against a nation which is only barely your rival, much less enemy, isn't even 10% of the threat it once was, and both sides are working towards open and friendly economic integration as an alternate means of securing Eastern Europe against another war? While you are trying to rebuild economic relations of the kind that was had before WWI and only half heartedly don't want to be friends?

Like, thats fucking stupid. *I* may advocate for the logic of Russia recapturing all of the Soviet Empire as early as possible, but *I* also know the time for most of that has passed. The Russian ruling elite clearly doesn't advocate for full territorial recovery, and prefers the map as it is, and really would have preferred it as it was pre-Maidan, but with the EU recognizing certain boundaries. They are more than happy to secure certain areas through economics and alliances and other soft power means.

Moscow and Brussels not so secretly wants to be friends. Ok. Promise you can be left alone without an Austro-Spergarian taking the reigns or incest riddled militaristic douchenozzles getting into a tiff? Then why does NATO still exist? Russia's only concern is some abused autistic children coming over there and trying to murder them all after Russia, like, waved at them once. The EU wants to avoid Great Power war entirely. America is bored of Europe and tired of the Middle East.

Can we please look away and focus on Southern Asia, where China has built themselves a hydraulic empire over Indochina, might build one over India, and Pakistan might push one too many buttons and get India to throwdown to settle the score once and for all?
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Oh he is. But I latched onto him and shilled him for one very good reason. Peter Zeihan took a big heaping shit on Dr Thomas Barnett and his Good Morning World speech and presentation. Barnett was pitching this wonderful globalized alliance that had America working with and accomodating absolutely everybody and using the Marine Corp as the muscle for a psuedo UN. Im having trouble finding the exact video, but Barnett was so cheerful and upbeat. And crowds at SB lapped it up, because a lot of it was advice on how we could have and SHOULD do Afghanistan better. Then, just a little after Peter Zeihan's "Soy Bean Council" thing made the rounds, and his predictions about Shale played out, and were exceeded in some cases, ole Barnett has another presentation.

He ain't so upbeat anymore. He even utters a line about never forgiving a certain sect for ruining America's taste for foreign interventions with Iraq and its attendant fuck ups. For the record, Thomas Barnett has been in Powerpoint presentation for quite a bit longer than Peter. And Peter just comes along and "SHALE OIL, WE AIN'T GOTTA DO THIS SHIT ANYMORE. NEENER NEENER NEENER". And so guys like Barnett are back to Square one of figuring out how to manipulate or force the issue of using American military power when doing so is now completely optional, and walking away is a legitimate strategic decision that does not in fact, compromise America's safety in an obvious fashion.
Well, maybe both are stupid, TBH. Particularly if they think shale oil will solve all the problems right away rather than just maintaing a bit longer the delusion than the oil consumption habits of the US can be sustained in the long term.
Japan and the UK-They get it
UK never got it since World War II. It lived on the memories of the good old days and got deluded into thinking the "special relationship" was anything else than vassalization to the US. Which is why it acts so mighty now with Brexit and astonishes the rest of the planet by its complete idiocy.
And it was even funnier to see people all across the internet laughing and mocking Trump for handing over a little note for Bill of Services Rendered. They didn't get it, or were panicking too hard to accept it. It meant that Yes, there was now a President of the USA that was perfectly fine with sabotaging NATO, and that Yes, it was a mainstream opinion to lessen American commitment even harder.

And Zeihan had a line about that. "You want us to defend you while you purchase even more Russian energy than you did during the Cold War? It just doesn't make any sense" I'd expand that. You want America to defend you from Russia when you are in the middle of trying to economically integrate even further with Russia, and the Russians aren't threatening to invade YOU, but are making noises towards Ukraine, which harbors and supplies Nazi's and has been engaging in systematic oppression of Russian speakers, they have never denied or hidden this, and has spent decades doing everything they can to make Ukrainian and Russian as different as possible?

You want us, over there, to defend you against a nation which is only barely your rival, much less enemy, isn't even 10% of the threat it once was, and both sides are working towards open and friendly economic integration as an alternate means of securing Eastern Europe against another war? While you are trying to rebuild economic relations of the kind that was had before WWI and only half heartedly don't want to be friends?
NATO serves US interests moreso than it serves ours, the issue IMO being that many NATO countries haven't internalized it yet. So the perception of NATO on both sides of the Atlantic is, IMO, wrong in different ways, and leads to further and further misunderstandings. Notice how, here, we are pushing hard for getting out of NATO alignment in terms of equipment and doctrine? That's in good part because it is increasingly accepted that NATO isn't that fundamental to our interests.
 

Vashon

Active member
Banned
Edit: Ok, its automatic, the link embedding autocopies part of the article text. Neat
Well, maybe both are stupid, TBH. Particularly if they think shale oil will solve all the problems right away rather than just maintaing a bit longer the delusion than the oil consumption habits of the US can be sustained in the long term.
I do not disagree. We could also extend this with Plastic Thermal Deploymerization.
UK never got it since World War II. It lived on the memories of the good old days and got deluded into thinking the "special relationship" was anything else than vassalization to the US. Which is why it acts so mighty now with Brexit and astonishes the rest of the planet by its complete idiocy.
Now you are making the mistake of thinking they didn't understand this. English-speaking Belgium was a phrase to describe it. They knew. And know. They just thought they would get treated nicely as a vassal. Maybe their carriers should have been in a slightly heavier weight class and with CATOBARs as a minimum. Five Eyes is basically the White Dominions of the British Empire, and iirc, there has never been a real question as to whether the USA would defend Australia and New Zealand.

The real stupidity is not getting on with Brexit. They could be in NAFTA by now or in talks about NAFTA. Personally, I'd like it if they budged in with Canada and forced American food producers to up their fucking standards
NATO serves US interests moreso than it serves ours, the issue IMO being that many NATO countries haven't internalized it yet. So the perception of NATO on both sides of the Atlantic is, IMO, wrong in different ways, and leads to further and further misunderstandings. Notice how, here, we are pushing hard for getting out of NATO alignment in terms of equipment and doctrine? That's in good part because it is increasingly accepted that NATO isn't that fundamental to our interests.
It serves the interest of a very particular class of jobs programs. Nothing more anymore.

....

I'd already be warned and infracted on SB by now, in addition to a dogpile and button hoverers, regarding much of my content here. And yet, I've just been having discussions. About SB, Im going to copy a thread, for the purposes of laughter and maybe discussion.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
I'd already be warned and infracted on SB by now, in addition to a dogpile and button hoverers, regarding much of my content here. And yet, I've just been having discussions. About SB, Im going to copy a thread, for the purposes of laughter and maybe discussion.
You do seem to be currently more elaborate and polite than in my memories of SB, and it could be that this impression is the result of the less toxic atmosphere we have here compared to there.
Now you are making the mistake of thinking they didn't understand this. English-speaking Belgium was a phrase to describe it. They knew. And know. They just thought they would get treated nicely as a vassal. Maybe their carriers should have been in a slightly heavier weight class and with CATOBARs as a minimum. Five Eyes is basically the White Dominions of the British Empire, and iirc, there has never been a real question as to whether the USA would defend Australia and New Zealand.

The real stupidity is not getting on with Brexit. They could be in NAFTA by now or in talks about NAFTA. Personally, I'd like it if they budged in with Canada and forced American food producers to up their fucking standards
Some of their leadership knew it from the beginning, but I think they ended up drinking their own Kool-Aid and think themselves something they aren't anymore. As for the US not going along with it, I'd say it's mostly because the US is too busy looking at its own navel trying to get back its imperial glory without working for it (AKA people thinking that the US stumbled naturally on its imperium rather than working very hard for it).
I do not disagree. We could also extend this with Plastic Thermal Deploymerization.
Possibly, but it won't fix the issues of this way of life making global warming even worse with every passing year.
 

Vashon

Active member
Banned
You do seem to be currently more elaborate and polite than in my memories of SB, and it could be that this impression is the result of the less toxic atmosphere we have here compared to there.
I have bad reactions to perceived bias in authority figures and bias with rulesets, having acquired a specific distaste for "Evidence and Citation Trolling" where only one party or sect of parties is expected to provide links and citations while the otherside proffers no position and is expected to defend nothing, and the habitual use of the rules, usually "Anti Bigotry" rules, as a pen for cornering someone to get them banned as a so called method of "debate" or discussion. That last bit in particular has gotten so bad that you can't even explain or discuss politics at all anymore on certain sites, turning entire threads into fanciful +1 posting and every pretense of discussing something has been abandoned.

There gets to a point where there is clearly zero reason for further engagement, at which point, I don't bother anymore. My original account that held the name "Vashon" was doing mostly ok, just typical tempbans, then Dusel, an Eastern European whose national origin I can't recall, got banned and I socked to trigger a tempban. It wasn't my first account on SB, my first round of accounts up to and including "Das" is nothing to be proud of. It did get to a point that I could be profiled based on the followers I gathered and the ignore lists I ended up on.

And I never dropped certain habits one picks up on the Chans. And we aren't talking about much that we disagree on.
Some of their leadership knew it from the beginning, but I think they ended up drinking their own Kool-Aid and think themselves something they aren't anymore. As for the US not going along with it, I'd say it's mostly because the US is too busy looking at its own navel trying to get back its imperial glory without working for it (AKA people thinking that the US stumbled naturally on its imperium rather than working very hard for it).

Possibly, but it won't fix the issues of this way of life making global warming even worse with every passing year.
I agree. And an aspect that doesn't get enough attention for global warming is reduced snow and ice melt in the regions that rely on it. Every river that feeds from snowy mountains relies on it getting cold enough and receiving enough precipitation to build up those stores. And every river that feeds from snow melt relies on that during the winter. The recent chaos in the Midwest being an example of what is nearly normal in Russia.

I'd wager that as a percentage of exposed land not under ice, the Earth has significantly less green and fertile land than it did during the Ice Age. And when you understand this, you understand the long term devastation of too many mountains not freezing enough snow and ice and too many plains not stacking up enough snow melt during the winter. Its the kind of devastation that can't be fixed with rain, because rainfall just isn't as steady and continous as snow and ice melt. More water evaporated from the ocean means less frozen.

And then you get the double effect, of more lands being like the Sahara, so hot that even when rainfall hits, it often evaporated or withers before it hits the ground. Longer and hotter summers aren't the problem, its the shorter and hotter winters.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
I have bad reactions to perceived bias in authority figures and bias with rulesets, having acquired a specific distaste for "Evidence and Citation Trolling" where only one party or sect of parties is expected to provide links and citations while the otherside proffers no position and is expected to defend nothing, and the habitual use of the rules, usually "Anti Bigotry" rules, as a pen for cornering someone to get them banned as a so called method of "debate" or discussion. That last bit in particular has gotten so bad that you can't even explain or discuss politics at all anymore on certain sites, turning entire threads into fanciful +1 posting and every pretense of discussing something has been abandoned.

There gets to a point where there is clearly zero reason for further engagement, at which point, I don't bother anymore. My original account that held the name "Vashon" was doing mostly ok, just typical tempbans, then Dusel, an Eastern European whose national origin I can't recall, got banned and I socked to trigger a tempban. It wasn't my first account on SB, my first round of accounts up to and including "Das" is nothing to be proud of. It did get to a point that I could be profiled based on the followers I gathered and the ignore lists I ended up on.

And I never dropped certain habits one picks up on the Chans. And we aren't talking about much that we disagree on.
Well, if we can have polite discussions and trying to share our experiences and perception of the world without going REEEEEEEEEEEEEE on either side, I'd be more than glad of it, as, I think, most people around. :)
 

IndyFront

Hypershitlord
Author
*Skips through walls of text TLDR moving on*

The Avengers sequels are never released. Thanos materializes in real life (under a different name, probably MechaHitler or something similar) and exactly half of all lifeforms on earth are killed by 2012.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top