Politicians and Government Cringe Thread

Terthna

Professional Lurker
It is also true that cutting aid or support for Ukraine at this point is not going to happen without those doing so or advocating for it getting called Russia-appeasers. More than one thing can be true at the same time, and it feels like many parts of the Right don't get that supporting Ukraine does not necessarily mean supporting Biden or his admin.
Speaking as someone who has already been called a Russia-appeaser several times, I don't really give a damn. You either have principles, or you don't; sacrificing them in the name of "winning" the political game is just your ticket to becoming another useful idiot for the establishment.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
And? Does that mean everyone should automatically recognize territorial claims made by nuclear powers?
Nice try Xi.
Umm, yes nuclear powers have a large advantage over non nuclear ones. Do you think France would not launch it's nukes against Germany or Russia if they were able to somehow beat their conventional armies and take Alasce Lorraine? If Ukraine beat Russia so bad and decided to march to Moscow and their conventional army couldn't stop, do you think they would just let it happen? Well the same applies to more than just the capitol Alsace is not Paris. Yet France is still willing to use canned sunshine to keep it French, how do we know the Russians won't do the same to these provinces?

Putin can say all he wants. Few will actually listen. And if Ukraine can take it back by force then what he says means nothing if he can't back it up. The Ukrainian counter offensive these past weeks has shattered the myth of Russia as a competitive super power state. I'm not even sure they're in a position to hold on to what they have now. Time will tell.
Again nukes count as force. Let's pretend the Chinese were actually much superior conventionally to us and they destroyed our entire navy, and took over Hawaii and Alaska. Do you think America in that case won't use nukes? Even if Washington D.C. is left alone? Again nukes are a game changer, nukes prevent a nation from ever facing occupation. The only way a nuclear nations government can be out of power is if it is taken down internally. And letting territory be taken just leads to salami slice tactics, that's why what Putin is doing now is so dangerous and stupid.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Umm, yes nuclear powers have a large advantage over non nuclear ones. Do you think France would not launch it's nukes against Germany or Russia if they were able to somehow beat their conventional armies and take Alasce Lorraine? If Ukraine beat Russia so bad and decided to march to Moscow and their conventional army couldn't stop, do you think they would just let it happen?
To this point we are talking of the "normal" defensive nuclear weapon use. A nation state is invaded and uses tactical nuclear weapons to defend what's at least widely recognized to be its territory, since ages immemorial.
Well the same applies to more than just the capitol Alsace is not Paris. Yet France is still willing to use canned sunshine to keep it French, how do we know the Russians won't do the same to these provinces?
What happens if Macron wakes up in a bad mood one day and decides that Algeria is still French territory whether it likes it or not and France will defend it by any means necessary?

What happens if one day Xi wakes up in a bad mood and decrees that Vladivostok is a Chinese city, and China will defend it by any means necessary?

Then we aren't talking about defensive use of nuclear weapons anymore, we are talking of childish shenanigans trying to hide offensive use of nuclear weapons in a war of conquest behind the former.
Again nukes count as force. Let's pretend the Chinese were actually much superior conventionally to us and they destroyed our entire navy, and took over Hawaii and Alaska. Do you think America in that case won't use nukes? Even if Washington D.C. is left alone? Again nukes are a game changer, nukes prevent a nation from ever facing occupation. The only way a nuclear nations government can be out of power is if it is taken down internally. And letting territory be taken just leads to salami slice tactics, that's why what Putin is doing now is so dangerous and stupid.
Putin has stuck his nose into it very much intentionally, considering the timing. He can't claim that he has no choice, he has just made the choice, except absolutely no one important recognizes his annexation.
His legal shenanigans have no validity outside of Russia, and if he decided to use nuclear weapons or not, everyone will see that in own context, not as mere defense of vital territories, as no one is recognizing his legal shenanigans.
Are you trying to imply that all it would take for USA to decisively win the Vietnam War would be to declare South Vietnam a US state?
It's not like nuclear powers never lose border territories without resorting of nukes. Like the abovementioned France. Nevermind the constant minor changes on India's borders with China and Pakistan, and the fall of Soviet Union itself.
These controversies about recognition of territories can get extremely complicated and long lasting, with Taiwan as the example - and that's with the economic and military behemoth of China on the side of claimant, not Russia with it's resource economy and rapidly waning international influence.
 
Last edited:

King Arts

Well-known member
To this point we are talking of the "normal" defensive nuclear weapon use. A nation state is invaded and uses tactical nuclear weapons to defend what's at least widely recognized to be its territory, since ages immemorial.
Was Alsace considered part of France since Time immemorial? I'm sure there are people that remember when it was German. lol.

What happens if Macron wakes up in a bad mood one day and decides that Algeria is still French territory whether it likes it or not and France will defend it by any means necessary?
Well Algeria can't do anything because it's not a nuclear power. The only protection against a nuclear power is either having your own nukes, OR having an offical alliance with another nuclear power. I don't think Algeria has either of those. But if France did this you can bet we'd sanction the hell out of them. But yes strong nations have the ability to do what they want like America with Iraq. It's not morally right, but the consequences for anyone interfering are too grave.

What happens if one day Xi wakes up in a bad mood and decrees that Vladivostok is a Chinese city, and China will defend it by any means necessary?
Well many people here would laugh as then the two big rivals to the western nations would destroy themselves. Notice how Russia and China are nuclear powers. They can't move on each others territory any more. After 1945 borders remained static ESPECIALLY among nuclear powrers.

Then we aren't talking about defensive use of nuclear weapons anymore, we are talking of childish shenanigans trying to hide offensive use of nuclear weapons in a war of conquest behind the former.
Yes? Again nukes allow that, the only protection our your own, or an alliance with a nuclear power who is willing to intervene on your behalf.

Putin has stuck his nose into it very much intentionally, considering the timing. He can't claim that he has no choice, he has just made the choice, except absolutely no one important recognizes his annexation.
His legal shenanigans have no validity outside of Russia, and if he decided to use nuclear weapons or not, everyone will see that in own context, not as mere defense of vital territories, as no one is recognizing his legal shenanigans.
Are you trying to imply that all it would take for USA to decisively win the Vietnam War would be to declare South Vietnam a US state?
It's not like nuclear powers never lose border territories without resorting of nukes. Like the abovementioned France. Nevermind the constant minor changes on India's borders with China and Pakistan, and the fall of Soviet Union itself.

These controversies about recognition of territories can get extremely complicated and long lasting, with Taiwan as the example - and that's with the economic and military behemoth of China on the side of claimant, not Russia with it's resource economy and rapidly waning international influence.
If the US decided to use nukes in Korea, or Vietnam they might have very well won those wars and those nations would not have been communist, of course then the Soviets would have used nukes on Afghanistan. It would have meant that nations are only truly safe in NATO or Warsaw Pact.
 

Ixian

Well-known member
Considering the shit that went down in South Korea with the feminist misandrist (but I repeat myself) cult, I wouldn't be surprised if he had opinions on women that the ancient greeks would've nodded and agreed with.

I'm out of the loop, what's this about a feminist cult in south korea?
 

King Arts

Well-known member
@Marduk
The reason we haven't done that brutality is because we are much more moral in general than Russia. But we don't go to war just because someone is immoral.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
@Marduk
The reason we haven't done that brutality is because we are much more moral in general than Russia. But we don't go to war just because someone is immoral.
You could argue that with the western nuclear powers... But places like India or China (imagine how many nice island colonies China could get nearby, some not even closely allied to any nuclear power) couldn't care less about western sensibilities, and they don't do it either. Even Vietnam didn't get itself nuked back when they had a war. It's because the foreign policy consequences of that move would be at least expected to be pretty damn serious, which is also the only reason why Putin is not rushing to such measures.

Was Alsace considered part of France since Time immemorial? I'm sure there are people that remember when it was German. lol.
Close enough. Centuries, then 47 years under Germany after conquest in Franco-Prussian war of 1870.
More importantly, the whole world recognizes it now as part of France.

Well Algeria can't do anything because it's not a nuclear power. The only protection against a nuclear power is either having your own nukes, OR having an offical alliance with another nuclear power.
What nuclear power is protecting the Taliban, the Palestinians, Syria and Vietnam?

I don't think Algeria has either of those. But if France did this you can bet we'd sanction the hell out of them. But yes strong nations have the ability to do what they want like America with Iraq. It's not morally right, but the consequences for anyone interfering are too grave.
Except America didn't do it alone. America has put a lot of effort into justifying this stuff to its international partners, got a whole lot of countries, some quite important, to actively support these efforts, and that's a ME shithole we are talking about (what goes on in third world stays in third world?), not part of Europe.

Well many people here would laugh as then the two big rivals to the western nations would destroy themselves. Notice how Russia and China are nuclear powers. They can't move on each others territory any more. After 1945 borders remained static ESPECIALLY among nuclear powrers.
Go tell that to Pakistan and India.

Yes? Again nukes allow that, the only protection our your own, or an alliance with a nuclear power who is willing to intervene on your behalf.
Nukes aren't the be all end all of even war, nevermind international politics.
If the US decided to use nukes in Korea, or Vietnam they might have very well won those wars and those nations would not have been communist, of course then the Soviets would have used nukes on Afghanistan. It would have meant that nations are only truly safe in NATO or Warsaw Pact.
Which demonstrates clearly that your idea of the place of nuclear weapons in international politics does not track at all with the historical use of them.
If it worked like you think it does, and the nuclear powers could do it with the impunity you are implying, then it absolutely would have happened.
If the world worked as you think it does, North Korea would be undergoing its golden age of colonialism in whatever non-aligned SEA island countries Kim thinks would make the best vacation spot.

Also an unexpected player has entered the game:
 
Last edited:

Urabrask Revealed

Let them go.
Founder
I'm out of the loop, what's this about a feminist cult in south korea?
These links should answer most questions:


In summary, the then-president of South Korea, Park Geun-hye, and her colleagues were revealed to have been influenced and outright controlled by the daughter of a cult-leader called Choi Tae-min. She was basically the figure behind the throne. People were furious; and since the reputation of feminism in South Korea was already down, it went even further into the dumpster.

Many south korean men now believe (and are probably correct) that this cult was responsible for the various radical feminist parties enjoying the tacit approval and protection of the South Korean government. Needless to say, there's now plenty of hostilty between the femnoids and the men who are sick and tired of their maltreatment.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder


Not the time to be pulling this shit, North Korea.

Edit: Wrong link went up initially.

Edit 2:


Warning canceled, missile impacted the ocean.
 
Last edited:

Pocky Balboa

Well-known member
I'm out of the loop, what's this about a feminist cult in south korea?

These links should answer most questions:


In summary, the then-president of South Korea, Park Geun-hye, and her colleagues were revealed to have been influenced and outright controlled by the daughter of a cult-leader called Choi Tae-min. She was basically the figure behind the throne. People were furious; and since the reputation of feminism in South Korea was already down, it went even further into the dumpster.

Many south korean men now believe (and are probably correct) that this cult was responsible for the various radical feminist parties enjoying the tacit approval and protection of the South Korean government. Needless to say, there's now plenty of hostilty between the femnoids and the men who are sick and tired of their maltreatment.

Adding to what Urabrask has said, the original conspiracy theory, The Eight Goddesses or The Eight Heavenly Fairies, was, according to my friends and acquaintances in SK, the type of thing that you treat as a joke before this all went down. So when one of the suspects of this shadowy cabal of 8 women controlling SK was proven true? Ohhhhh boy.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
I'm out of the loop, what's this about a feminist cult in south korea?
Beyond what @Urabrask Revealed and @Pocky Balboa noted, you can look up Megalia and Womad, two prominent Korean Feminist sites that stirred up a lot of controversies. I'm not linking because they get... pretty extreme. One fairly famous meme came from Womad that had a picture of a cat being strangled. There were also cases of posters boasting that they'd murdered men in various ways, and in one other famous case, a Womand member boasting that she'd raped a boy in Australia. Megalia is slightly less extreme than Womad but still has really nasty NSFW stuff posted on it regularly involving femdom pedophilia, castration, and the like.

This kind of behavior has kinda poisoned the well as far as feminism in Korea.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
[
I
And that's a good thing imo because it makes turning the clock back easier.

honestly I think thats kind of envitable at this point.

Young men are the demographic that historically speaking you least want to piss off and the modern left has been litterally doing everything they can to demonize them and treat them like shit. My money is that when things get bad, when these men who have been treated like shit their entire lives see any weakness.

Their going to strike hard, and fast and with great anger and rage.

The question isnt how far the clock goes back for women its how much.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
So what was that South Korean cult? Like what made them a cult, wikipedia did not have much. Like I can look up the beliefs of Mormonism and see what they are about I can't even find this cults name.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
So what was that South Korean cult? Like what made them a cult, wikipedia did not have much. Like I can look up the beliefs of Mormonism and see what they are about I can't even find this cults name.
The cult was the Church of Eternal Life, New Mindset, or the Church of the Spirit World depending on the translation and which year you go with. There are probably a few more names in there too since the cult constantly rotated names to keep ahead of bad press and authorities. It was a group that essentially combined Buddhism, Presbyterianism, and certain traditional Korean Shaman teachings together. Choi Tae-min himself called himself "Future Buddha" which... actually is a pretty awesome name. He claimed to have various supernatural powers such as speaking to the dead, being able to sever other shamans from the spirit world, and divination.

To get any details yourself you're going to have to do a lot of digging and a lot of translating, because this goes very hard again The Message and the links to the crazy feminism side are heavily suppressed by MSM in the US, and things like Megalia are frequently whitewashed. Since that was most of it, this basically led to them suppressing everything related to the cult's beliefs as you've noticed by now.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member

Very stunning and brave of them but how's that going to do government work?
Politicians and whores are exactly the same except for one thing--power. I mean whores will do anything for money but politicians will do anything for money and power. -Davood Ghalajouri
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top