One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Interesting parallels and who is who
Aug 2, 2022 15:10:27   #
LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago
 
An interesting thought hit me and I'll try to point it out in simple terms.

Country A is very corrupt. It is situated between many large and small countries. It should be able to profit well playing both sides to their best advantage. Country A is about to make a good deal with Group B led by Country C. Then its president gets a better offer from Country D. So, Group B decides to stage a coup in Country A. It is successful and the President flees. Then Country A starts dividing itself between People E and People F. People E start oppressing People F. People E and People F live in different parts of the country. So People F decide to leave People E and form their own republic, Republic G. They even offer to work within Country A as a self governing republic within Country A or they will go off on their own. So People E decide they can't do that and attack Republic G. Over many years, thousands of people are killed. Finally, Country D decides to back Republic G because they are ethnically the same and speak the same language. This escalates into war and Group B led by Country C starts arming Country A.

Now the parallel.

Country M has a massive civil war. It ends with the original Leaders N and their intact armies heading to an island. The Rebels O take over the mainland. Fighting stops. The world recognizes Leaders N as the rulers of Country M. Eventually the Rebels O get stronger with more resources and numbers and demand the world recognize them as in control of Country M. The world finally agrees, but demands that Leaders N still control as a separate and different system, the tiny island. Both Leaders N and Rebels O still claim it all as one country, and Country C backs Leaders N. Rebels O are getting more demanding and want the take over of Leaders N and the threat of war is constant.

Any guesses as to who is who?

The parallels are that a country was taken over by coup or revolution. Part of the country wants to remain independent of the newly created country that was not settled by democratic vote. They want freedom to go their own ways and settle their own fate. In both cases the larger part tries to use force of might to either directly or indirectly force the smaller part to cave to their revolution. In both cases the small part has a very strong mega country backing them, one actually dying for them, and the other vowing to maybe back them.

My country likes to think they are always right. In one case they back the former rulers of it all and may eventually involve us in a war we can't win because our leaders are weakening our own military from within. In the other case our country helped stage the coup and is backing the new oppressive corrupt regime as it fights to overcome the rebel sections, who are fighting for their freedom and self determination. I think my country has lost track of what our goals should be. Freedom and self determination. And they are doing this to encircle a former adversary who had no wishes to be an adversary and is helping these rebels as ethnic neighbors, and to try to keep my country away from its front door as was previously promised. A country that wants to compete in open markets and not over battle fields that could destroy us all.

There are large parallels. which is the right way to go on both issues. We are involved and it could be catastrophic. I am for the smaller parts that want freedom from the larger part and the right to compete on the market place and not battlefields. Freedom.

Logically Right

Reply
Aug 2, 2022 15:46:35   #
TruePatriot49 Loc: Rhode Island
 
LogicallyRight wrote:
An interesting thought hit me and I'll try to point it out in simple terms.

Country A is very corrupt. It is situated between many large and small countries. It should be able to profit well playing both sides to their best advantage. Country A is about to make a good deal with Group B led by Country C. Then its president gets a better offer from Country D. So, Group B decides to stage a coup in Country A. It is successful and the President flees. Then Country A starts dividing itself between People E and People F. People E start oppressing People F. People E and People F live in different parts of the country. So People F decide to leave People E and form their own republic, Republic G. They even offer to work within Country A as a self governing republic within Country A or they will go off on their own. So People E decide they can't do that and attack Republic G. Over many years, thousands of people are killed. Finally, Country D decides to back Republic G because they are ethnically the same and speak the same language. This escalates into war and Group B led by Country C starts arming Country A.

Now the parallel.

Country M has a massive civil war. It ends with the original Leaders N and their intact armies heading to an island. The Rebels O take over the mainland. Fighting stops. The world recognizes Leaders N as the rulers of Country M. Eventually the Rebels O get stronger with more resources and numbers and demand the world recognize them as in control of Country M. The world finally agrees, but demands that Leaders N still control as a separate and different system, the tiny island. Both Leaders N and Rebels O still claim it all as one country, and Country C backs Leaders N. Rebels O are getting more demanding and want the take over of Leaders N and the threat of war is constant.

Any guesses as to who is who?

The parallels are that a country was taken over by coup or revolution. Part of the country wants to remain independent of the newly created country that was not settled by democratic vote. They want freedom to go their own ways and settle their own fate. In both cases the larger part tries to use force of might to either directly or indirectly force the smaller part to cave to their revolution. In both cases the small part has a very strong mega country backing them, one actually dying for them, and the other vowing to maybe back them.

My country likes to think they are always right. In one case they back the former rulers of it all and may eventually involve us in a war we can't win because our leaders are weakening our own military from within. In the other case our country helped stage the coup and is backing the new oppressive corrupt regime as it fights to overcome the rebel sections, who are fighting for their freedom and self determination. I think my country has lost track of what our goals should be. Freedom and self determination. And they are doing this to encircle a former adversary who had no wishes to be an adversary and is helping these rebels as ethnic neighbors, and to try to keep my country away from its front door as was previously promised. A country that wants to compete in open markets and not over battle fields that could destroy us all.

There are large parallels. which is the right way to go on both issues. We are involved and it could be catastrophic. I am for the smaller parts that want freedom from the larger part and the right to compete on the market place and not battlefields. Freedom.

Logically Right
An interesting thought hit me and I'll try to poin... (show quote)



LR, I agree with you.

Reply
Aug 2, 2022 17:50:37   #
manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA
 
LogicallyRight wrote:
An interesting thought hit me and I'll try to point it out in simple terms.

Country A is very corrupt. It is situated between many large and small countries. It should be able to profit well playing both sides to their best advantage. Country A is about to make a good deal with Group B led by Country C. Then its president gets a better offer from Country D. So, Group B decides to stage a coup in Country A. It is successful and the President flees. Then Country A starts dividing itself between People E and People F. People E start oppressing People F. People E and People F live in different parts of the country. So People F decide to leave People E and form their own republic, Republic G. They even offer to work within Country A as a self governing republic within Country A or they will go off on their own. So People E decide they can't do that and attack Republic G. Over many years, thousands of people are killed. Finally, Country D decides to back Republic G because they are ethnically the same and speak the same language. This escalates into war and Group B led by Country C starts arming Country A.

Now the parallel.

Country M has a massive civil war. It ends with the original Leaders N and their intact armies heading to an island. The Rebels O take over the mainland. Fighting stops. The world recognizes Leaders N as the rulers of Country M. Eventually the Rebels O get stronger with more resources and numbers and demand the world recognize them as in control of Country M. The world finally agrees, but demands that Leaders N still control as a separate and different system, the tiny island. Both Leaders N and Rebels O still claim it all as one country, and Country C backs Leaders N. Rebels O are getting more demanding and want the take over of Leaders N and the threat of war is constant.

Any guesses as to who is who?

The parallels are that a country was taken over by coup or revolution. Part of the country wants to remain independent of the newly created country that was not settled by democratic vote. They want freedom to go their own ways and settle their own fate. In both cases the larger part tries to use force of might to either directly or indirectly force the smaller part to cave to their revolution. In both cases the small part has a very strong mega country backing them, one actually dying for them, and the other vowing to maybe back them.

My country likes to think they are always right. In one case they back the former rulers of it all and may eventually involve us in a war we can't win because our leaders are weakening our own military from within. In the other case our country helped stage the coup and is backing the new oppressive corrupt regime as it fights to overcome the rebel sections, who are fighting for their freedom and self determination. I think my country has lost track of what our goals should be. Freedom and self determination. And they are doing this to encircle a former adversary who had no wishes to be an adversary and is helping these rebels as ethnic neighbors, and to try to keep my country away from its front door as was previously promised. A country that wants to compete in open markets and not over battle fields that could destroy us all.

There are large parallels. which is the right way to go on both issues. We are involved and it could be catastrophic. I am for the smaller parts that want freedom from the larger part and the right to compete on the market place and not battlefields. Freedom.

Logically Right
An interesting thought hit me and I'll try to poin... (show quote)


I got lost at country Z

Reply
 
 
Aug 2, 2022 18:00:15   #
LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago
 
It did get a lot more confusing that I intended. Just looked at a map of China and thought how similar the situation is in Ukraine. You are smart enough to figure that part out. But I'm sure it confuses some.

One situation was started by coup, the other by revolution. One small province, Taiwan, the other the Donbass and neither want to submit to the tyranny of there bigger parts. One supposedly protected by America and the other by Russia.

Who do you support? I support Taiwan and the Donbass and their rights to self determination and freedom and not submitting to larger stronger forces that want to subjugate them. This was just an exercise to see the similarities.


Have a nice day.

Reply
Aug 2, 2022 22:37:55   #
manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA
 
LogicallyRight wrote:
It did get a lot more confusing that I intended. Just looked at a map of China and thought how similar the situation is in Ukraine. You are smart enough to figure that part out. But I'm sure it confuses some.

One situation was started by coup, the other by revolution. One small province, Taiwan, the other the Donbass and neither want to submit to the tyranny of there bigger parts. One supposedly protected by America and the other by Russia.

Who do you support? I support Taiwan and the Donbass and their rights to self determination and freedom and not submitting to larger stronger forces that want to subjugate them. This was just an exercise to see the similarities.


Have a nice day.
It did get a lot more confusing that I intended. J... (show quote)


=======================

My tired old brain refused to cope, so I took the odd way out. Cheers!

Reply
Aug 3, 2022 13:04:21   #
manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA
 
LogicallyRight wrote:
It did get a lot more confusing that I intended. Just looked at a map of China and thought how similar the situation is in Ukraine. You are smart enough to figure that part out. But I'm sure it confuses some.

One situation was started by coup, the other by revolution. One small province, Taiwan, the other the Donbass and neither want to submit to the tyranny of there bigger parts. One supposedly protected by America and the other by Russia.

Who do you support? I support Taiwan and the Donbass and their rights to self determination and freedom and not submitting to larger stronger forces that want to subjugate them. This was just an exercise to see the similarities.


Have a nice day.
It did get a lot more confusing that I intended. J... (show quote)


===========================

OK, I sorted it out, finally! The key question is what the people want in each instance. The Taiwan situation is quite clear, but the situation in the Ukraine in the Donbass is not clear. Elsewhere in the Ukraine, it seems to be very clear. I wonder what a referendum would show as to the Donbass population wanting to join Russia or stay with the Ukraine. Today, if you could round up all the Donbass citizens, I believe they would want to stay with the Ukraine, and the rest of that nation would agree, and even use force to get all of it back.

Reply
Aug 3, 2022 14:37:12   #
LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago
 
manning5 wrote:
===========================

OK, I sorted it out, finally! The key question is what the people want in each instance. The Taiwan situation is quite clear, but the situation in the Ukraine in the Donbass is not clear. Elsewhere in the Ukraine, it seems to be very clear. I wonder what a referendum would show as to the Donbass population wanting to join Russia or stay with the Ukraine. Today, if you could round up all the Donbass citizens, I believe they would want to stay with the Ukraine, and the rest of that nation would agree, and even use force to get all of it back.
=========================== br br OK, I sorted it... (show quote)


I think they made themselves clear with 8 years of fighting AZOV and the Ukrainian Army and 14,000 lives loss. After the 2014 Coup the new regime wanted to force them to give up their language, Russian, and speak only Ukrainian. There were other things that the west was trying to force onto the east. Ukraine had voted in a president, with their help, and now he was thrown out. They were being forced to live under someone they didn't want. A coup in a divided nation should give all sides a chance to re-establish the conditions of their country. They suggested two provinces in the east, staying within Ukraine, but having their own government and semi autonomy. The west wanted total submission and to align with Europe. Conflict and a lot of killing of civilians. Bombed by their own Ukraine government.

Was it all clean? No. Russia stood with those on the east, ethnic Russians, and even supplied their defense. Russia also had some other reasons for getting involved. That illegal coup ruined a good deal for Russia. Illegally. And the west absorbing Ukraine would lead to NATO. Russia had a good reason to object to that. NATO and American officials promised Russia they would never expand NATO to the east. Clinton ended that promise in the late 90s. Russia was not involved in what happened in Europe with the breakup of the USSR and the fall of Communism. But NATO did interfere and then absorb many of those now independent countries. Why? Russia was not making any moves to the west. It was NATO that was moving east, against promises and continually painting Russia as evil and even denying then the chance to unite with Europe and NATO for the betterment of the whole region.

I wish Russia never got to the point where they felt they had to invade, to protect the Donbass and ethnic Russians, and keep NATO away. NATO in Ukraine was seen as a serious threat. Every bit as bad as we saw missiles in Cuba as a threat. Diplomacy needed more time and less NATO and American interference. biden was arming Ukraine and so was NATO. A serious provocation. They were at the point of attacking now to protect the Donbass or give up because it would be to costly. They moved and America and biden keep escalating their arms shipments and quality. This is all costing more physical damage and lives lost then it ever needed to be.

What was needed was free monitored elections in the Donbass to determine if they, the only ones who mattered, wanted to be forced into a country set up by a coup, inhospitable to the Donbass, or independent provinces within Ukraine, or complete independence. We will never know now, how that would have worked out.

But if America and NATO stay out of it, Russia and Ukraine will finish this off quickly with a Russian victory that satisfies them, and then they stop. Set up what it takes for leadership in the Donbass, elections within a year, and letting the people of the Donbass to return, rebuild the Donbass new and better, and then let them set up their own fate. And Ukraine agreeing to stay neutral and never joining NATO. Russia was not interested in advancing Russia to the west, just keeping the militant NATO from advancing towards Russia. IMO.

Peace. Have a nice day. Meanwhile I am in a tornado watch area and may need to head for the basement.

Logically Right

Reply
 
 
Aug 4, 2022 12:58:20   #
nonalien1 Loc: Mojave Desert
 
LogicallyRight wrote:
I think they made themselves clear with 8 years of fighting AZOV and the Ukrainian Army and 14,000 lives loss. After the 2014 Coup the new regime wanted to force them to give up their language, Russian, and speak only Ukrainian. There were other things that the west was trying to force onto the east. Ukraine had voted in a president, with their help, and now he was thrown out. They were being forced to live under someone they didn't want. A coup in a divided nation should give all sides a chance to re-establish the conditions of their country. They suggested two provinces in the east, staying within Ukraine, but having their own government and semi autonomy. The west wanted total submission and to align with Europe. Conflict and a lot of killing of civilians. Bombed by their own Ukraine government.

Was it all clean? No. Russia stood with those on the east, ethnic Russians, and even supplied their defense. Russia also had some other reasons for getting involved. That illegal coup ruined a good deal for Russia. Illegally. And the west absorbing Ukraine would lead to NATO. Russia had a good reason to object to that. NATO and American officials promised Russia they would never expand NATO to the east. Clinton ended that promise in the late 90s. Russia was not involved in what happened in Europe with the breakup of the USSR and the fall of Communism. But NATO did interfere and then absorb many of those now independent countries. Why? Russia was not making any moves to the west. It was NATO that was moving east, against promises and continually painting Russia as evil and even denying then the chance to unite with Europe and NATO for the betterment of the whole region.

I wish Russia never got to the point where they felt they had to invade, to protect the Donbass and ethnic Russians, and keep NATO away. NATO in Ukraine was seen as a serious threat. Every bit as bad as we saw missiles in Cuba as a threat. Diplomacy needed more time and less NATO and American interference. biden was arming Ukraine and so was NATO. A serious provocation. They were at the point of attacking now to protect the Donbass or give up because it would be to costly. They moved and America and biden keep escalating their arms shipments and quality. This is all costing more physical damage and lives lost then it ever needed to be.

What was needed was free monitored elections in the Donbass to determine if they, the only ones who mattered, wanted to be forced into a country set up by a coup, inhospitable to the Donbass, or independent provinces within Ukraine, or complete independence. We will never know now, how that would have worked out.

But if America and NATO stay out of it, Russia and Ukraine will finish this off quickly with a Russian victory that satisfies them, and then they stop. Set up what it takes for leadership in the Donbass, elections within a year, and letting the people of the Donbass to return, rebuild the Donbass new and better, and then let them set up their own fate. And Ukraine agreeing to stay neutral and never joining NATO. Russia was not interested in advancing Russia to the west, just keeping the militant NATO from advancing towards Russia. IMO.

Peace. Have a nice day. Meanwhile I am in a tornado watch area and may need to head for the basement.

Logically Right
I think they made themselves clear with 8 years of... (show quote)


If only..

Too late for the proper actions. And Biden in charge almost guarantees disaster

Reply
Aug 4, 2022 16:00:15   #
LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago
 
nonalien1 wrote:
If only..

Too late for the proper actions. And Biden in charge almost guarantees disaster


Agreed and he keeps doubling down on his disastrous policies while kissing our real enemy, China's ass, and tearing down our military and our country's unity such as it was.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2022 IDF International Technologies, Inc.