ThePest179

I know. Regards Ah, okay. There's a huge difference between a Muslim nation on the other side of the planet, and a christian nation right next door... Especially when the government is so corrupt that people are getting killed by the government for even reporting drug cartel activity. While the two nations are different, what is not different would be the reaction to an attempted annexation, even if the nation is extremely corrupt. So you're for corrupt governments... What's new? I do not support corrupt governments, but I also don't support needless and expensive wars of conquest like it's the 17th century. You're also trolling. For what? For being disappointed that a nation would not get invaded.

You do realize that I don't believe death camps or WW3 are likely, do you? I was being sarcastic when I said it.

Ahaha, but that's the best of it! You spend days and days in hell, until you stand up victorious! Dying for your country is the most honorable thing you could do, but it's winning the war that matters. Spending days, nights, even weeks or months fighting, surrendering, advancing, and retreating. It's all a glorious thing to behold! PTSD, death, destruction, misery. What if you waste your life in a war, or end up crippled and out of work, barely able to make ends meet, and worst of all, didn't even win? Honor is just a lie told to people to get them killed or maimed for something they otherwise wouldn't care about. Watching other human beings die is bad enough, killing them yourself is extremely traumatic.

No, we would not. We'd be killing their people over drugs, and with the stated end goal of annexation. Afghanistan, with much worse problems than Mexico, has had an insurgency against us which hasn't ended, and we're many steps above the Taliban and drug dealers, and aren't going for annexation. Mother of Christ..... Reported.

What is fun about possibly dying a slow, painful death? What's fun about bringing that misery to others? What's fun about having loved ones die? What's fun in witnessing other go through a slow, painful death?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/isil-us-iraq-timeline-of-fighting-113679.html Not very encouraging. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30539170 At least genocide's been partially averted. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30492064 http://www.english.shafaaq.com/index.php/politics/12492-first-ground-clash-between-isis-and-us-forces-in-iraq Other crap. EDIT: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/12/islamic_state_retake.php The Iraqis are proving themselves incompetent again.

I would be all for a war with Mexico. They're a large contributor to illegal drugs in the US and there have been reports of Mexican troops firing on US border patrol agents. Hell, if we annex them it would mean more tax money for the US, allow law enforcement to go full measure on the cartels, and increase the standard of living in the region. Which would be a political and military nightmare, with a conventional and unconventional warfare nightmare. The US would be looked down upon very much in the world. What you want is a war against the Cartels, not against Mexico. That would help Mexico, not a foreign occupation.

That's still horrible, don't you understand that? It only creates more problems than it solves, isn't guaranteed to solve this problem, and the problem you claim to be rampant might not even be a real problem!

Very optimistic. At this pace with 12-minutes in average, I say at least 20 more videos, probably 30. Someone probably lost a bet on this. He made it in ten videos, including the Half-Life Uplink interlude, not counting the .5 interlude.

Just caught up, and damn this has been amazing thus far. I look forward to more videos.

Exactly. One major benefit: People aren't nearly as complacent during and for several generations after a war. This is offset by the economic and human costs by a very large margin. In fact, people can actually become complacent because of the war. Take for example 1920's England, France, and the US.

Drawing Polandballs.

Stating that a country "needs" a war is still a very ugly thing to say.

You're a horrible person for wanting that. It's so inaccurate to the point where I'd only consider this is genuine if there was no hint of sarcasm.

If we use Versailles as a comparison, then Putin is going to start the next world war, and set up death camps for gays, Chechens, and other "non-Slavic" minorities. Even though I hate him, I doubt Putin would be that crazy. Regardless, this is an alarmingly accurate article.

It is quite possible for the US to fall behind as well. The Middle East clusterfuck keeps drawing the US in, so it may be steadily worn down by the burden of semi-constant war. Very true. Destroying the US economy=destroying the Chinese and European economies with it.

Okay, fine, that's fair, but don't expect me to believe you when your evidence is just your own text.

Here's what I do: -Make a claim A. If a source is on hand, use it, otherwise, step 2: -See if someone disputes said claim -Stand by it if no facts/sources/logic disputes my claim, or: -Admit I'm wrong if the facts/sources/logic show my claim is horseshit Are you going to dispute my claim with facts, or not? Hell, you can just quote Vapy* and I'll accept that as your source. *As he reasonably and logically disputed my claims.

Now you're resorting to veiled insults instead of showing sources. This started because you made a claim and didn't back it up. You're the one who needs to provide a source.

If you cannot provide me with evidence contrary to my position, then The only compelling evidence you have is your own text. And yet, you refuse to provide your sources to me... Epic fail. Vapy at least gave some reasonable analysis as to why. Instead, you pretend that people will be convinced by a sentence, which provides nothing compelling or convincing. German automobile, EU agricultural industries, winemakers, livestock producers - all are losing the market they were counting on for growth for the economic recovery. Germans have to forget about importing electricity from Ukraine for the foreseeable future as the fuel is either the Russian gas or Donbass coal. The French have built a whole aircraft carrier for which they may now not have a customer AND have to pay compensation for breach of contract. Not to say that never again anyone in the world will trust them with a contract like that if they finally reneg on the Russians (I doubt they will, though). Scoittish fisheries are losing mackerel supply contracts to Iceland (having supplied Russia since before the break-up of the USSR). UK hi-tech underwater ROV and exploration equipment manufacturers have lost contracts with Russia overnight. Sounds rational, and depressing. There is one big issue though: if Russia can't sell gas to the Europeans, then they have to sell to China, and at lower than normal prices. So Russia isn't going to come out of this unscathed, either. Everyone loses. We must just agree to disagree, because it isn't like we're going to get anywhere with each other. Truce?

Could you please go into detail? That is exactly how I think of you. I need to work on my "convincing" skills. I simply thought that they were discussing who they liked, not "how do we get him in power at all costs?" Just because an elected leader (who severly abused his power I might add) was overthrown bloodily does not = the Donbass elections as legitimate or trustworthy.

If you cannot provide me with evidence contrary to my position, then The only compelling evidence you have is your own text. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11266746/Capital-controls-feared-as-Russian-rouble-collapses.html More related to the oil price drop, but still relevant.

Last I checked, Russia's economy was on the mend, if not particularly strong. The EU economy is tanking like a boss, and the EU media is ignoring it, trying to make it look like it isn't as bad as it is. Many countries in the EU are going to be 3rd world if something isn't done soon. Where is your sources?

Oh, ummm, can you direct me to those, because I didn't get them. As long as you admit the "rebels" have committed war crimes, I'll admit the UA has committed them. We're just going to have to disagree on the scale and number of them. While they did not have to start military action, they were attacked first, just had Crimea taken over by Russia, and had areas out of their control declared independent under an untrustworthy referendum. If you think that they acted irrationally, that's fine, but I can understand why they would act like they did. A blatant lie for which you have little to no proof. Even though Russia's economy is the one dropping right now. An interesting position.

Not sure which country you're talking about... Iraq? Lybia? Afghanistan, perhaps? Apparently, it is for a lot of people. Easier to cling on to a convenient scary tale about some far-away land than to admit the unpleasant truth that your own place may not be much better morally, if not materially. Regards Are you referring to the West, or Ukraine? I know the West has done immoral things (and I'd name more than a few except it would derail the thread further) but that DOES NOT justify blind support of Russia and its actions. Something else I have to ask: how many war crimes/crimes against humanity has the Ukrainian side been committing? Aside from shelling civilian areas (which the "rebels" CHOOSE to fight in) the UA has done next to nothing. Where are the mass graves, the massacres, and all the other atrocities in areas that the Ukrainians have occupied? For that matter, there wasn't any real resistance against the UA when they occupied several areas, so what does that say about them?