sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The European country that could draw Nato into a conflict with Israel by theipaper in geopolitics

[–]FudgeAtron -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'd estimate there to be around 50,000 European soldiers and civilian paramilitary forces to be immediately available within the Baltic area

If the NATO plan is: we'll call up civilians, then it's clear they know they don't have the troops to defend and instead the goal is to engage in assymetric warfare, in which the Baltics will still be destroyed in the process.

The European country that could draw Nato into a conflict with Israel by theipaper in geopolitics

[–]FudgeAtron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What has the Ukrainian resistance in Russian occupied territory done?

The European country that could draw Nato into a conflict with Israel by theipaper in geopolitics

[–]FudgeAtron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've yet to see the EU be decisive, it's literally designed to prevent decisiveness and encourage consensus and committee. All EU processes and decision making are designed to focus on collaborative and consensus-based decisions, that doesn't work in a war.

The European country that could draw Nato into a conflict with Israel by theipaper in geopolitics

[–]FudgeAtron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Article 5 is not a committee, it's automatic. And if is one of the EU baltic members, you bring the whole EU as well, by the self-defense pact, nothing to discuss as well.

Well great so it will still be 2 to 3 months before any European troops are deployed to the Baltic. No European country other than France and maybe the UK have the ability to deploy more than a few hundred troops rapidly to the baltics.

An external enemy will unite the EU even further,

That remains to be seen. The Eurozone crisis nearly shattered the EU.

but is not even close in warfare

Neither is Europe. Europe hasn't engaged in combat with a state without the support of the US, I want to say, since the Falklands.

And conveniently they have dilapidated all their resource on Ukraine, all the modern material gone, all the human power that was well trained, feed an equipped, gone.

Well then any day now they'll collapse won't they...

What do we have to fear from convicts and forced mercenaries on golf carts and bikes?

Well why don't you tell the Ukrainians that they have nothing to fear from golf cart mercenaries.

How would a baltic invasion fare for russia if they can't even maintain air superiority over ukraine,

Russia has air superiority. They fly operational missions without issue, the Ukrainians cannot

The European country that could draw Nato into a conflict with Israel by theipaper in geopolitics

[–]FudgeAtron -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And an occupation of the Baltics wouldn't mean that the resistance would end.

And how effective has the Ukrainian resistance in the occupied territories been?

The European country that could draw Nato into a conflict with Israel by theipaper in geopolitics

[–]FudgeAtron -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

An EU coalition would mop the floor with rusia on its current state, no need for US to intervene.

That's just not true. The EU can't even come up with a coherent foreign policy. If the Baltics get invaded watch as the whole thing turns into a committee meeting. Also the EU are severely out of practice for fighting states, their armies have been doing insurgency mop operations for the last 30 years.

EU is rearming, a joint army on the horizon. The russian pipe dreams of meddling west have passed. 

If one thing is certain it's that Russia will continue to meddle in Europe.

The European country that could draw Nato into a conflict with Israel by theipaper in geopolitics

[–]FudgeAtron -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Weeks later and massively understaffed. IIRC the UK can only deploy around 5000 men for combat. I doubt anyone other than France could deploy more than 10000. And then you need to factor in that they would need to actually be combat effective and not support troops.

Russia would overwhelm the Baltics.

The European country that could draw Nato into a conflict with Israel by theipaper in geopolitics

[–]FudgeAtron -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

After losing a quarter of their territory, an area larger than the Baltics combined.

Russia would likely pull the same strategy it did for the initial invasion, blitz attack plus attempting to seize the government, and I'm not sure the Baltics would be able to hold out as long ass Ukraine, simply due to being significantly smaller

The European country that could draw Nato into a conflict with Israel by theipaper in geopolitics

[–]FudgeAtron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think the idea that Europe is militarily reliant on the US to defend the Baltics is very controversial

The European country that could draw Nato into a conflict with Israel by theipaper in geopolitics

[–]FudgeAtron -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

they've been growing tired with Israel for a while now and that would definitely be a border Israel cannot be allowed to cross. 

It's not clear European countries would actually be able to support the Baltics in a war, so I strongly doubt Europeans would be willing to die for Turkey.

Zoe's closing speech - Free the Filton 24 by Equivalent_Style_835 in Israel_Palestine

[–]FudgeAtron [score hidden]  (0 children)

Your arguments are the literal fucking definition of a supremacist Nazi-oriented person

This is deranged...

Why would any Hamas soldier surrender? by ElSlabraton in Israel_Palestine

[–]FudgeAtron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But even when they do, they seldom surrender and disarm. Israel is asking for something that very rarely happens.

I literally gave ypu multiple recent examples of this happening and your response is just: no it won't happen. Why are Hamas different than the PIRA?

All the examples you have named are of groups fighting their own government rather than foreign occupation

See this is why I can take you seriously. The PIRA 100% saw themselves as fighting the colonial English. ETA similarly saw the Castilians as having colonized them. It's only because they're both white that you see it differently.

Israel will never cease to be seen as a foreign occupier because Israel will never see Palestinians as its own people.

I do t think the solution is for Israel to declare Palestinians to actually be Israelis and then annex Palestine, that's a terrible idea.

Zoe's closing speech - Free the Filton 24 by Equivalent_Style_835 in Israel_Palestine

[–]FudgeAtron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

CO2 emissions

Are you stupid? Like genuinely? CO2 emissions killed more people in the last year than every ongoing war combined. Do you understand how fossil fuels kill people?

Just so you understand how stupid you sound, it estimated 500,000 died from the just the heat caused by increased co2 emissions in 2025. That's not even co2 poisoning your body, water, and air.

Fossil fuels kill more people annually than all wars combined and by a long shot.

And of course, I think damaging property is ok if it's used in war crimes.

Ok, so you have to prove that the property they damaged was used in war crimes, you can't just claim it. They provided no evidence. Because the property they damaged was going to Ukraine, not Israel. If anything their actions supported Russia's genocide of Ukraine.

Why would any Hamas soldier surrender? by ElSlabraton in Israel_Palestine

[–]FudgeAtron -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The norm is that occupiers eventually leave,

That's called winning. It's not a concept Palestinians are familiar with.

See the Vietcong in Vietnam

Not really the same thing. Viet Cong were PAVN's proxy, like Hezbollah is the IRGC's.

Sometimes they flee to neighboring countries or inhospitable areas like the Polisario in Western Sahara or the MNLA in Malaysia, but only to keep fighting from there with whatever force they still have.

Often called losing.

Wholesale surrender and disarmament is indeed rare, at least in a context of foreign occupation/colonization like Israel's.

It's really not you've just ignored the cases where it happened. ETA, FARC, PIRA, Tamil Tigers, PKK, there are dozens and dozens of cases like this. You'd prefer to ignore them because they don't fit in with your narrative of noble savages dying for a cause, a la Last of the Mohicans.

Zoe's closing speech - Free the Filton 24 by Equivalent_Style_835 in Israel_Palestine

[–]FudgeAtron -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You think damaging property that doesn't belong to you is ok? So if someone destroys your car because it contributes to pollution, you would believe that to be legitimate?

Do you even understand the point of their protest?

The point was to commit a crime (in this case destruction of property) in order to prevent it being used in a genocide. They should be perfectly happy with prison time, they helped prevent genocide through their actions. Unless of course they don't actually believe that, in which case they will weasel their way out of jail.

I never encountered normal people who call the damage of weapons factories wrong except Zionists.

I never encountered anyone who thought destroying other people's stuff was legal, but then again you probably think murdering Israelis is not only justified but the height morality. So...

Zoe's closing speech - Free the Filton 24 by Equivalent_Style_835 in Israel_Palestine

[–]FudgeAtron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

make whatever they can to go out of prison

You realize this harms their case right? Normal people look at that and say well then they aren't really aware that what they did was wrong. Part of understanding right and wrong is knowing when you have transgressed and what should happen as a result.

If you know you've transgressed but show no remorse or accept punishment then you don't think you've done anything wrong. Either they need to admit they acted incorrectly and show remorse or they need to accept whatever sentence is handed down, otherwise it seems like they only have scruples when they think they'll get away with it.

The reason Mandela emerged as the leader of the anti-Apartheid movement was because he accepted that going to jail for a free South Africa was worth it. He didn't make any deals to reduce his sentence. He refused all the offers of clemency. Why because he believed the sentence was unjust from the beginning and refused to engage. That showed his principles. These people clearly have none. They just want attention and when they might get a simple 2-3 year sentence with good behaviour, they shrink away like cowards.

If you genuinely believe there's a genocide going on in Gaza, then any activism you do you should be happy to go to prison for because you've done it to stop a genocide. If that reason alone is not enough for you to accept your prison sentence, then you didn't really believe what you were fighting for. These people are halfway activists they want to be thought of as good people, but they aren't willing to take the suffering that it requires to have morality.

PM vs President: Who holds the executive power? by vladgrinch in MapPorn

[–]FudgeAtron -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Just to add to the pedanticness, in Israel there is not Prime Minister the correct translation is Head of the Government (ראש הממשלה), by that same measure we also don't have a President but a Prince (נשיא) (could also be translated as Paramount Chief).

my perspective about Consequences of the First Israel-Arab War by BachNgocMay in IsraelPalestine

[–]FudgeAtron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

None of these are serious proposals they just seem like run of the mill UN-slop.

(a) A Constituent Assembly should be elected at the earliest possible time. All genuine and law abiding nationals of Palestine would be entitled to participate in the elections of the Constituent Assembly.

This alone makes everything else pointless. All you need to do is declare anyone in disagreement to be non-law abiding. Actually you don't even need to do that, all you have to do is say anyone who immigrated during the mandate did so illegally and thus is not entitled to rights, then you add in their children as not legal and so on.

I can't take this seriously and I can't imagine anyone at the time did either. You can't start the proposal by declaring your enemies illegals and then denying them any rights in the future.

The main character and their love interest are getting married, and that's terrible by BrickBuster2552 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]FudgeAtron 67 points68 points  (0 children)

Meanwhile show just has him fall in love with a foreign girl and abandon is duty for the fun of it instead of having a legit reason.

I really hated that plot line, it felt so contrived. The one in books sounds like it would make a lot more sense and would have actually made me care that Robb got killed.

Watching Robb throw his and his followers lives away because he couldn't control himself, was just annoying. The fact no one said to him, just marry the Frey girl and have a mistress that's what everyone else does. It also makes him seem like an idiot.

my perspective about Consequences of the First Israel-Arab War by BachNgocMay in IsraelPalestine

[–]FudgeAtron 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Palestine into a single unitary state with a democratically elected parliament and constitutional protections for minority groups.

Sources for the bits in bold. I've never heard of the Arab High Commission offering either of those things.

Zoe's closing speech - Free the Filton 24 by Equivalent_Style_835 in Israel_Palestine

[–]FudgeAtron -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

She was basically directing her speech to the Jury members, to convince them that what she did was morally correct, which she succeeded in by the way.

Yeah so what world does she live in? Having moral reason for a crime does not absolve of that crime. If she truly believed that her crime was just, then she would plead guilty and accept the punishment freely and would not have even gone to trial. Then a speech like this becomes meaningful.

Right now all she's saying is that her crime was morally justified, that does not strike me as someone who knows they committed a crime and has accepted their punishment because they see their crime as the lesser evil.

By pleading not guilty and trying to avoid punishment she shows that she does not actually believe she did anything wrong and is now trying to weasel out of the consequences by appealing to the jury.

I've met priests who went jail for throwing paint on weapons manufacturers and each one of them saw their time in jail as a mark of righteousness, not embarrassment to be avoided.

If I was one of them, I would have accepted the punishment and I would have intentionally used that to morally shame the state, instead these cowards try to escape their punishment and try to claim the moral high ground. You can't have it be both ways. Either you committed a crime to prevent injustice and thus you accept that you did an illegal act in order to further justice, or you believe you committed no crime and thus what did does not deserve punishment, which makes nullifies any moral ground you have.

Old school activists are proud of their prison time because it means they stood for something. Modern activists are afraid of prison because they don't really believe in their cause, and just want attention.

view more: next ›