Refuting Ombugge's left wing rhetoric


I find it disingenuous for anyone in the USA to weigh in on how Europe should handle their mass influx of immigrants in recent years when it was the USA that stirred up the hornets nest in the middle east that caused much of the refugee and immigrant crisis. It would be understandable if Europeans demanded some compensation from the USA for the shit storm they caused in Europe’s backyard.


If course it’s how it works… Examples of what I’m talking about: in the 80’s when the Philippines and Panama kicked us out after we had invested billions of dollars in our bases and the Panama canal respectively, we left without incident. Simply walked away from our huge investment of time, money, and (in the case of the Philippines especially) American lives.

Think China will react the same if the newly elected leader of bumfukistan says "thanks for the billions of investment, but we’ve got it from here’. If you do then I think it’s you who’s sorely mistaken or hopelessly naive.


My comment wasn’t how they should do it rather to observe how they (Germany and Sweden specifically) ARE doing it and what an unmitigated disaster it has been for the native population.

The US went into the middle East alone? There was no UN team effort there? There weren’t British, German, and other member state’s armed forces there? Are you being intentionally disingenuous?

This statement of yours that we owe poor Europeans anything is laughable after how many BILLIONS we’ve poured into there in the last 70 years (part of the"accomplishments" bugge referred to). This mindset is right out of the “good times make weak men” playbook and is representative of what needs to change in this once great country of ours.


Every single one of the school shooters has also been legally in USA. In fact they have all been white American males, as are most of the other mass shooters in USA, as is most of the 30000 deaths caused by guns every year in USA.

Your phobia against foreigner is shining through. Maybe not to antagonize them with bigotry and racism would be better than to prove them right in their perception that all their problems are caused by the west?

Do you think that Germany, Sweden, Norway and the rest of Europe have problems with their migrants, refugees and asylum seekers? Are you implying that they are committing crimes and killing people en masse?
The facts doesn’t bear this out. Yes, there have been killings carried out in the name of Islam, but most by people born in Europe that has been radicalized by the way they are treated as second class citizens because of their race and religion. (perceived or otherwise)

Looks like an American to me. You sure this picture wasn’t taken in S.F.??
That just add one more phobia to the long list you suffer from.


And your status as the absolute poster child of a white guilt, cucked, globalist puppet to the left wing, pie in the sky agenda is also shining through on this and every other post you make.

Funny you mentioned San Francisco… Perhaps you should try it because you’d certainly fit right in.


Historically? Absolutely! Now you’re just being silly.

The trouble starts when those in power stop using their power. Look at the brutal civilizations of the past. They lost their empires once they went soft. The Mongols, Aztec and Romans, to name a few, didn’t create empires by winning hearts and minds.


No white guilt, puppet to the left wing, or with a “pie in the sky” agenda.
If by “globalist” you mean someone who have a global view of things, rather than a narrow minded nationalist view, yes I’m a globalist.

I also see where you come from with your reference to “cucked”:

But no, San Fransisco is not for me, Too many crazies with guns there.


The Mongols, Aztecs and Romans didn’t have bombs, but you are right, they did loose their empires because the got soft and decadent. That is how most empires and great families ends.

As for modern day bombing campaign, they may have scared some, but anger and embolden more. It won a short respite in Iraq, but created a much longer lasting problem, which isn’t over yet.

More bombs were dropped on North Vietnam than in all of WWII, but it did not win the war, or the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese on either side of the DMZ.

How many more wars and millions of people need to die before this simple fact dawn on people in power?


Assad will win in Syria because he is brutal. The United States has lost in Iraq because we were not brutal.

Imagine if the United States had nuked North Korea (or China) back in the 1950s. You think we would have this North Korea problem now?

Imagine if the United States had nuked North Vietnam. You think China or the Soviets would have nuked back?

Hell, imagine if the United States has nuked the Soviets in the 1950s and forced them, or any other country, to abandon the pursuit of nukes. We would be in a unipolar world and perhaps one without major wars.

But the United States didn’t and here we are.

By the way, China has been holding itself together and building itself up threw internal brutality, not peace, love and democracy. This is why they will win (until they go soft).


Not interested in moving to SF because it’s too right wing… The idealogy of all your posts summed up in a single statement.


I though SF was the ultimate of left wing cities by US standard??


Imagine if nobody threatened anybody else with nukes?
Imagine if we could dismantle all such weapons worldwide an unlearn how to make them?
That is “Pie in the sky” as long as we have people in power who think that the only way to protect yourself is by having the ability to kill everybody else.
The only good thing with nukes is that using them means getting killed as well. (MAD), thus only a megalomaniac, or totally ignorant fool would use them.

Let’s hope we don’t ever get anybody that crazy in a position of power to start a nuclear war.


No civilizations fails from any one cause. The more brutal authoritarian societies tend to not last long. Hitler and the third reich are a recent example. Roman Empire lasted about 500 years but was done in by military over reach and resultant economic problems, corruption, the spread of unrest from Christianity , dependence on slavery, privatizing the military thru the use of mercenaries and shifting populations. Empires don’t last long historically. The British know this and the USA will learn this. It’s an expensive lesson.


Absolutely it is… And yet it’s still too right wing for you due to your fear of it’s armed crazies…soooo, yeah


The Israelis are a perfect example. They bombed their neighbors (and murdered their scientists) to prevent them from getting nukes. Iraq in 1981, Syria in 2007, Iran from 2010-2012. Brutal and effective.

Of course now days the Israeli military has superiority with conventional means alone so it’s arguable the nukes aren’t needed anyhow. Either way it’s peace from the end of a gun.


Anybody that aren’t afraid of armed crazies are CRAZY!!


Well you’re closer to the truth than many by acknowledging that the US is a brutal empire, but the historical comparison is completely wrong. None of these empires was undone by “going soft”. The Mongols were a pastoral culture who had a pretty light touch once they were in control. They were never governance wizards and didn’t try to be. They conquered brutally but then pretty much just kept the peace internally, so they maintained Chinese governance structures in China, but the Golden Horde and Ilkhanate collapsed pretty quickly because they were ahistorical agglomerations of peoples with no legitimacy other than force propping up the ruler. Once dynastic successors
separated by thousands of miles took over there was no way to stop each other from seceding from the unified body. And the independent “Tartar” remnant states in Europe at least were plenty brutal until they were defeated by a strong Russian state that was able to subdue them systematically.

The (western) Romans, closest to the US today, certainly didn’t go soft. They had an increasing frenzy of coups and assassinations compounded by serious plagues in the third century, but strong emperors with a huge bureaucracy were able to turn things around in the fourth century to make up for the loss of autonomy and loyal governors in the provinces. Unfortunately this system of increased centralization worked with strong, competent, engaged emperors and not with, say, weird demented rich boys who had no idea what they were doing (as well as literal child emperors). There was a shortage of Romans willing to enlist in the military voluntarily leading to a dependence on “barbarians” who got citizenship and great pensions for 20 year terms of enlistment, but there’s no evidence they underperformed. The military was in fact the single largest institution by far, consuming 80% or so of their total budget. I’m sure none of this sounds familiar to the MAGA types in this thread.

The Aztecs, who maintained dominance by brutality alone, hated by all the peoples they dominated, turned out to be extremely susceptible to viral hepatitis or smallpox or whatever killed most of them off and destroyed a lot of the court’s ability to make a coordinated response to internal rebellion and really luckily-timed Spanish adventurers who showed up when Quetzalcoatl was supposed to, i.e. heaven-endorsed conquistadors.


[quote=“Hawespiper, post:122, topic:45759”]
Think China will react the same if the newly elected leader of bumfukistan says "thanks for the billions of investment, but we’ve got it from here’. [/quote]

Yes I do. China’s aid is attractive because it is strictly predicated on access to infrastructure and resources and does not engage or become involved in a recipient states domestic affairs. Nor does it create a military footprint. They swing the deal with whomever is charge and if the regime changes the Chinese still keep revenue flowing and reformulate the agreement. If they can’t find a middle ground they modify the “belt road” to go through a neighboring country that does want the investment.

The fact that large Chinese investments exist even in US aligned countries where we have a large military presence is a sign that their soft diplomacy is working. China can not globally project their military and is decades from doing so so they use the carrot as opposed to the stick. The only one going to war these days is us, and we all see how that’s working out.


It’s a very uneasy peace, with fear all around.
Living with fear of your neighbours and people of other races and religions are not the type of peace most people want.
To have to arm yourself for protection, whether personally or as a nation, is not an ideal situation. Unfortunately there are still too many places where people feel the need to do so.


We’ll see. Nobody’s challenged them yet. The only data point we have of someone challenging them is in the South China Sea where Vietnam, the Philippines, and others have challenged their overreaching territorial claims all the way to the international court. China’s response? Double middle fingers to those countries AND the international court as well as continued reef building.

I don’t see where you, bugge, or anyone else get your confidence that China will be this benevolent superpower once they get in the driver’s seat.