Israel ðŸ‡®ðŸ‡± State of Israel Thread

Reader mode
SoliFortissimi said:
Ask the Japanese and Qing.
Click to expand...

The Japanese got to enjoy 200 years of internal peace after centuries of near none stop civil war, once they reopened the country they quickly industrialized and with in a short period of time became strong enough to kick russias ass in a war. Then they demolished them selves because they got too arrogant and made too many enemies.

Maybe a better lesson is that one should keep open to technological change but know when not to be too aggressive.
 
The world can function without the US and gives our adversaries the capability to encroach themselves onto our territory
 
A multi polar world seems best to me, none of the oligarchs in charge of the west/brics are people who should rule unopposed. Shame the west can't free itself, without the current mafia in charge the system would function far faster and be much more productive and able to compete.
 
Sir 1000 said:
A multi polar world seems best to me, none of the oligarchs in charge of the west/brics are people who should rule unopposed.
Click to expand...
A multi polar world has the "multi" referring to many head honchos each with their own retinue of oligarchs, fighting for supremacy in overt and covert ways, until it stops being a multi polar world. If you want the world to look like a setting for a 4x game in terms of how much shit is happening, choose multi polar world.
 
Marduk said:
A multi polar world has the "multi" referring to many head honchos each with their own retinue of oligarchs, fighting for supremacy in overt and covert ways, until it stops being a multi polar world. If you want the world to look like a setting for a 4x game in terms of how much shit is happening, choose multi polar world.
Click to expand...

That's pretty Hobbsian and "there can be only one".
 
Marduk said:
A multi polar world has the "multi" referring to many head honchos each with their own retinue of oligarchs, fighting for supremacy in overt and covert ways, until it stops being a multi polar world. If you want the world to look like a setting for a 4x game in terms of how much shit is happening, choose multi polar world.
Click to expand...
Multipolar could also just be DC, Paris, Warsaw, Tokyo, and Tel Aviv competing for market share against India and Brazil and the Saudi's in mostly peaceful and contained manners, like soccer riots during/after the World Cup or the Olympics.

No need for multipolar to include Beijing or Moscow or the IRGC/Ayatollah as power players in a 'multipolar' world.

Also, once Musk get's Mars going, and I expect Bezo's will try something somewhere else (best guess Ceres or Ganymede), the political axis might evolve a 3rd dimension that has to factor in off-planet and light-lagged politics.

American hegemony over the western hemisphere and Indo-Pacific will be tricky enough, and it may be simpler and easier to let France, Poland, and Israel handle a lot of the European theater.

Guess we might have to add Argentina back into the mix too for at least economic power, which is a pleasant surprise, with what Milie has accomplished so far.

Though I do expect the US will have to do a Day of the Rake eventually and save what we can of Canada from the CCP and socialists under Trudeau's cliche, with the way that place is going, and may need to deal with the situation in Mexico more 'directly' than we have since Pershing at some point.
 
Bacle said:
Multipolar could also just be DC, Paris, Warsaw, Tokyo, and Tel Aviv competing for market share against India and Brazil and the Saudi's in mostly peaceful and contained manners, like soccer riots during/after the World Cup or the Olympics.

No need for multipolar to include Beijing or Moscow or the IRGC/Ayatollah as power players in a 'multipolar' world.
Click to expand...
In theory. In practice whenever a westerner or non-western propagandist brings it up, he implies some anti-western shitsters getting a bigger influence in the world and whining at western powers for standing in the way of that.
Bacle said:
American hegemony over the western hemisphere and Indo-Pacific will be tricky enough, and it may be simpler and easier to let France, Poland, and Israel handle a lot of the European theater.

Guess we might have to add Argentina back into the mix too for at least economic power, which is a pleasant surprise, with what Milie has accomplished so far.

Though I do expect the US will have to do a Day of the Rake eventually and save what we can of Canada from the CCP and socialists under Trudeau's cliche, with the way that place is going, and may need to deal with the situation in Mexico more 'directly' than we have since Pershing at some point.
Click to expand...
All of these lack either will or scale to really go at making their own play, and politically the complainers in chief will always group them up into US "pole" anyway.
 
Marduk said:
A multi polar world has the "multi" referring to many head honchos each with their own retinue of oligarchs, fighting for supremacy in overt and covert ways, until it stops being a multi polar world. If you want the world to look like a setting for a 4x game in terms of how much shit is happening, choose multi polar world.
Click to expand...
The western oligarchs are the ones who picked the numerous fights precisely to prevent a multipolar world.

The west should have spent the last few decades spending its enormous fortune on infrastructure/industry and building stronger communities for its citizens instead of tearing them apart through toxic social engineering and milking the common person dry through inflation and taxes. All the trillions pissed away on foreign adventure after foreign adventure, while the quality of life has only deteriorated for the average American.

We wouldn't have need for a multipolar world either in that scenario, to continue your analogy they should have rushed economic/cultural victory and crushed it peacefully. The people in charge of the modern west don't want that however, almost religiously so you might say🤔
 
Marduk said:
In theory. In practice whenever a westerner or non-western propagandist brings it up, he implies some anti-western shitsters getting a bigger influence in the world and whining at western powers for standing in the way of that.
Click to expand...
The postmodern era (WW2 and onwards) really has brought about an end of honest discourse. You can't assess what someone thinks from their words, you have to muddle through several layers of Newspeak. And sometimes, what they say means the exact opposite of what it should mean.

I sometimes feel that Israel really is the linchpin of international politics. There are three powerful transnational factions fighting over that land, all trying to force their own conclusions to the conflict - in shifting alliances- and whoever wins will win the world. Or rather, two major factions and one third faction that has a bizarre relationship with the other two where it's aiding its enemy and hindering its allies.

I'm speaking of Marxism when I mention the latter part, of course.
 
Sir 1000 said:
The western oligarchs are the ones who picked the numerous fights precisely to prevent a multipolar world.
Click to expand...
And that's one of few of their choices i can agree with.
Sir 1000 said:
The west should have spent the last few decades spending its enormous fortune on infrastructure/industry and building stronger communities for its citizens instead of tearing them apart through toxic social engineering and milking the common person dry through inflation and taxes. All the trillions pissed away on foreign adventure after foreign adventure, while the quality of life has only deteriorated for the average American.
Click to expand...
It's not that simple, and "foreign adventures" were a rather small cost in the grand scheme of things like social welfare, healthcare, or even climate spending. Shit, if not for them, the military side of things would be left to rot even harder than it was already.
Sir 1000 said:
We wouldn't have need for a multipolar world either in that scenario, to continue your analogy they should have rushed economic/cultural victory and crushed it peacefully. The people in charge of the modern west don't want that however, almost religiously so you might say🤔
Click to expand...
No matter who convinced you otherwise, we are not trapped in a classic setup game of Civilization V, economic/cultural victory are not enabled. It's an indefinite sandbox that goes on until everyone dies for any reason.
 
Marduk said:
And that's one of few of their choices i can agree with.

It's not that simple, and "foreign adventures" were a rather small cost in the grand scheme of things like social welfare, healthcare, or even climate spending. Shit, if not for them, the military side of things would be left to rot even harder than it was already.

No matter who convinced you otherwise, we are not trapped in a classic setup game of Civilization V, economic/cultural victory are not enabled. It's an indefinite sandbox that goes on until everyone dies for any reason.
Click to expand...
However, like in a game of Civilization when the player goes "full retard" and crashes and burns his civilization while the other players laugh and take advantage of it all... Yeah.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top