CH86 wrote:FishbellykanakaDude wrote:Cynic Hero 86 wrote:
Blah blah blah...
Blah blah blah...
Russia would be of far better use united
then divided, the problem is that boomers refuse to accept the legitimacy of Russia's political and social system.
Firstly: Please stop using "then" when you mean "than". Just a pet peeve. Now on with the show...
No country is "of use". Russia is not "of use" to anyone. Russia is a political entity that other political entities have to deal with. No country is a "tool" to be "of use" to another country.
There is no legitimacy necessary for a country's political and social system. It not a question.
Countries are the way they are, period, and are dealt with in any way that other countries decide to deal with them.
Your hyper-extended legalism is inappropriate for the domain that you are conversing within. There are NO "international laws and rules". There are only temporary agreements between countries that they choose to abide by,.. until they don't.
Your fantasy of "oughttas and gottas" is childish and counterproductive.
But, why should that be a surprise coming from a resentful adolescent with delusions of grandeur?
Even with China a basis of respect can be created however it is too late to create such a basis on the concept of Chinese suddenly embracing freedom which the boomers have declared "either that or war" to the Chinese. A Basis of equilibrium in Which the America reforms and militarizes then conquers Latin America and the Middle East while China attempts the conquest of its neighborhood with Russia and Europe doing their own thing is a possible solution ignored by the boomers. The boomers want a world democratic crusade and a star trek style world democracy government; something Xers and Millies have NO interest in.
I do agree with you, to an extent on this bit.
A "Star Trek" like world would be a horrible, and luckily impossible, thing to strive for.
But what you, as high priest and political head of the Church of Unreal Premises, fail to recognize is that you DON'T represent who you think you represent!
If you did, your revolution would be well underway and largely accomplishing it's (horrific) goals.
The fundamental problem is that the boomers have grown emotionally attached to the idea of America as "angel of the world", they tyrannically refuse any proposal in which the eventual outcome if implemented equals america ceasing to be "angel of the world".
But you're acting precisely the same way. You simply define "angel" in another way!
These boomer leaders hate the idea of Militarization and Nuclear proliferation solely because their boomer awakening was anti-military and anti-nuclear.
They weren't (other than a few wackdoodles) anti-military. They were anti-bad-guys-with-arms. And they weren't anti-nuclear (initially) but rather anti-prevent-us-from-getting-nuked.
The plethora of wars and proliferation of nuclear tech (by "them") negates your argument.
The boomers therefore implemented tyranny solely to maintain their preferred version of what America should be, and are destroying the substance of american democracy in the process.
Would you have them implement a system that they DON'T believe in?
Your demonstrated definitions of "tyranny" and "democracy" show us precisely who you are, and your visage as a wannabe warlord leading a "youthful" and phantasmagorical hoard that doesn't actually exist is quite amusing, indeed.
Wishin' aloha on you, as you obviously need it desperately, but you'll get less than no mahalo from me, you twisted pimply piece of shit. <shaka nui!>