Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "VICE News"
channel.
-
149
-
46
-
38
-
38
-
35
-
34
-
@Founderschannel123
The issue for Russia is access.
Let me pose a question: would you rather have land in Mongolia, or Hawaii?
Most people say 'Hawaii' for the weather, but it's also because of location.
Hawaii has free access to the ocean, while Mongolia has none. This creates an economic problem.
Russia has an enormous amount of land, yes, but most of it is frozen and its coastline in frozen 90% of the year. In reality, only about 36% of Russia is habitable.
That's about the size of Kazakhstan.
So what good is land if you can't trade with other places? You're isolated.
Russia is in that situation. Why does it expand? It wants to freely trade.
The West doesn't seem to understand, because all of the countries (US, Britain, Australia, Japan, European bloc) have access to the ocean 100% of the year. No advanced ice-breaking ships. They just have it all the time, for free, and expect it as granted.
They don't seem to understand that if Russia 'just follow the rules', they become placed in a permanent disadvantage, and have to make concessions to other countries just so they can do what other countries are guaranteed by sheer luck.
Geography makes things unequal, and Russia will not accept a fate as a landlocked resource mine.
Its people would forever be exploited by Western corporations taking its resources, and selling finished products back to Russians at a high price.
This already happened in the 90s once. It will not happen again.
26
-
20
-
17
-
17
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
@Proud Murtadd
I did.
Homosexuality was illegal in Greece until 1951. The only reason that same-sex marriage is legal is because, despite still not being legal in Greece, the European Court of Justice ruled that homosexual marriage is officially recognized in all EU member states.
They had to do this in 2018.
Just because Greece has a vibrant gay culture, doesn't mean that its laws are the same. Which is exactly my point.
In the Islamic world, the opposite is true. In Jordan, Bahrain, and Iraq (all of which have legalized homosexual practice), not everyone hates homosexuals.
To the same token, Nigeria, another very Christian country, has criminalized homosexual behavior and marriage. I don't think I need to tell you about Russia- it's the same case there.
You act is is tolerance of marginalized social groups is some inherently un-Islamic trait, but it should be pretty obvious that this isn't the case. Non-Islamic countries can be less tolerant than certain Islamic ones.
It's also not timeless. Like I said with Greece, a society has to work to get to the point of acceptance, no matter the religion. Give Islam time to mellow out, and secularism will win out every time.
15
-
14
-
12
-
11
-
@Raj-dy2cn
No, it's not. Nigeria has a larger population than Western Europe, so imagine Spain, France, Germany, Austria, and Italy in one country. And "sparsely populated" doesn't make sense because despite having a bigger population, Nigeria is much much smaller. Same with Egypt, Ethiopia, DRC, Morocco, etc., all very dense for their size, concentrated in a few cities or coasts.
And even THAT doesn't matter because I'm not talking about the number of people.
I'm talking about combining a bunch of historically rival tribes with conflicting interests forcing them to create a government together.
That's why I used so many large countries; Africa is more diverse so it has more variety of tribes in a smaller area.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
@hankbridges7824
No, you wackjob. You can't control a plant- a part of nature. It spreads too fast, too easily.
This has been going on fpr 40 years, Reagan said the same thing you just did. He failed. So did Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump. You can't contain it. Open clinics to get addicts away from cocaine, and allow businesses to operate legally. If someone's gonna make money from it, it can at least be them, instead of cartels
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
Mendoza Juan
You're asking me about my best argument, but won't respond to any of it.
Where in my post did I deny science? Neurons in fetuses develop at ~22 weeks. Nerves are what facilitate thoughts and feelings, so before ~22 weeks, they are physically incapable of feeling pain.
What is unscientific here? Please explain.
I'm saying your philosophy is subjective!!
You just repeated what you believe, you haven't added anything! What is the evidence that the sentence is true??
You need to define your terms, or you're just saying nothing. What specific criteria make something alive?
No, it's not. The fetus is not alive.
This is the problem, you're not explaining what specific things about the fetus make it "alive."
My point was- "alive" is subjective. Bacteria is alive, but nobody makes coughing illegal.
I gave you the biological reason a fetus is not considered alive.
By saying "neither should the mothers" you're already imposing your values. You think the mothers shouldn't be doing something- that is your belief... your value.
No one's asking for a special pass. Especially not "Stacy," who has to put up with your bullshit when she's forced to carry her rapist's baby to term.
I'm pathetic? Look in the mirror.
This is the world you want?
"How were you born?"
"My daddy raped my mommy, she didn't want me but the GOP said she has to!"
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@lamarmcalister2449
Oh, so the U.S. should become a theocracy, then?
I'm sure a small group of people (or, as you put it, one man) won't take advantage of that and proclaim themselves ordained by God to rule... oh, wait
You're fucking ridiculous. Secularism is not anti-theism. It is unconcerned with religion, not opposed to it.
The Founding Fathers wanted people to be free to believe whatever they so pleased, but to not let that influence their earthly political decisions— or at least as little as possible.
They went our of their way to not mention a Christian God, going so far as to say 'Laws of Nature and Nature's God' and 'endowed by their Creator' (all nouns were capitalized in that period) because Enlightenment values (and the example set by King George) compelled them to exclude the idea of a theocracy of any kind. No mention of Jesus, the Bible, Moses, nothing.
It wasn't one man making the choice, it was the entire team.
6
-
6
-
Mendoza Juan
Embryology and biology have not determined that is a human infant. The fact that you even used the term "infant" reveals how little you understand to begin with.
"Life" isn't a set thing; its exact boundaries are unclear. The Catholic Church believes that a zygote just after conception is equivalent to a human life, but doesn't explain on what basis it makes that claim.
Bacteria are "alive", are we all committing involuntary manslaughter by destroying millions of them every second, then?
No- it's about human life?
Okay, then what defines that? A cell with human DNA? What happens when in-vitro fertilization fails, should the doctor be sent to prison for involuntary manslaughter, too? Are the parents accomplices? Yes, no?
If yes, then people that can't naturally get pregnant are taking a huge gamble when deciding whether to have children, right?
If no, then what is human life?
You conservatives don't seem to understand- the things that seem obvious, upon close inspection, aren't at all. It's like your arm: look at it, touch it. Seems pretty real, right? Solid, even.
Look closer. It's full of pores, and dead skin cells constantly being recycled. Not so solid and your skin is constantly becoming 'another set' of skin.
Look even closer. It's made of molecules, none of which are 'skin', mostly water. Go even deeper, it's all atoms and nothing's even touching. 99% of atoms are empty space. So, how exactly is your arm solid and real, when only 1% of it is material?
Same with life. There is no set, objective definition. "Life" is a human label which generally works, but fails with specifics. So, we instead look at what's moral: if a thing cannot feel pain, then 'hurting' or 'killing' it is impossible. So, before the embryo's nerve cells develop at about 22 weeks, abortion is legal.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Firstly, it's very unlikely that we, the people, actually "run the show." Politicians need to make money and keep their jobs, and "donations" by corporations do that much better than a silly vote. Money rules, not law. Not you.
Secondly, the idea that your semi-automatic can stop the force of the U.S. military, is a fucking joke. What is a civilian-grade weapon going to do against an Abram? Or against a military grade weapon, for that matter? The classifications exist for a reason- civilians with the capacity to defend against the national military makes a very unstable country- one that can't defend your right to carry a weapon, period. Stop being delusional.
Gun restrictions need to be implemented based on type, and self-control of the customer. Or you can continue to support a status quo that lets children die. Your choice.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
@scruggs6633
Yes, they are. At least from the social point of view.
I don't see liberals pushing prayer and creationism in schools, setting up Ten Commandment statues in courthouses, blocking access to health clinics (not just for abortions, but because they don't want people using contraceptives), teaching abstinence without proper sex ed, opposing gay marriage, opposing nonwhite political representation, and spreading their asscheeks open for the rich in the assumption that they'll 'invest in the economy' instead of taking the simpler route of just taking the tax-cut money...
We might have an "overbearing" economic view, but at least we aren't busybodies obsessed with what goes on in others' bedrooms, or whether or not we take Adam and Eve Studies 101...
3
-
@Dan16673
Actually, it in some ways did. The term Karōshi ("overwork death") only first appeared in 1969, and became more prevalent in the '80s. The modernized pace of life of Japan, fueled by government investment into infrastructure, architecture, firms, etc, had introduced a new level of work stress the Japanese hadn't come across.
That aside, it doesn't matter who "tells them" that they should or shouldn't be proud of something. I just wanted to show you that being homogenous doesn't solve your problems. And praying that America does the same will not produce any results.
Nobody addressed my other points. Poland ranks 46th in the world on happiness, and they're disproportionately "pure" in terms of racial makeup.
Plenty of mixed countries have high happiness levels, as well.
This indicates that there is little to no actual benefit from being a homogenous society. There is simply no causation or even correlation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@АндрійКовальчук-о8ч
Because the agreement was kept private for decades, and has only now been de-classified, _after) the U.S. got what it wanted through lying.
Surely you can read English, yes?
These are American documents, conversations between Soviet Foreign Minister Эдуард Шеварднадзе and Secretary of State James Baker. Read the 2nd paragraph on page 3:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/dc.html?doc=4325678-Document-04-Memorandum-of-conversation-between
Baker guarantees Шеварднадзе that "there would, of course, have to be iron-clad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction of forces would not move eastward."
Or the conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Baker?
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/dc.html?doc=4325679-Document-05-Memorandum-of-conversation-between
Page 6, 2nd paragraph:
"If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction of forces for NATO one inch to the east."
Read the American documents, and tell me they're "Russian propaganda." Go ahead, do it. Try and convince yourself.
You're the one who's been fed propaganda. You might not like Russia, but that doesn't make America perfect just because they oppose Russia. The false promises were known to the U.S., England, France, and Germany.
They were just kept private because it would make them look bad. Of course the diplomats would deny it. You believed them?? You're as naïve as a child, then. Silly Ukrainian.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Omar_E11
"wE hAd nO iDeA"
The West has had decades of experience to draw upon, why don't Americans ever learn? Iraq, Afghanistan, Congo, Guatemala, all happened before Libya.
The U.S. just doesn't understand nation-building, fundamentally, because it has never seen true hardship.
Its land is easy to govern (flat, arable land with many rivers). It can never get through its thick skull, the fact that other places require strong, centralized, often brutal control to keep the territory from falling apart.
Progress happens slowly, and the Americans are like impatient little children.
The Obama administration just needed an enemy to grandstand against, one that threatened their economic interests, and it chose Libya.
Yes, Gaddafi was a brutal dictator. But he was the best that country had, and if the Americans were so thoroughly unaware of the difficulties governing a massive desert, then they should just stay out of others' affairs.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
SirVixIsVexed
LOL LOL LOL LOL
Am I speaking with a person, or a broken record player? It doesn't really help your credibility, if you were looking to convince me of anything. You remind me of me, at 12.
Anyway,
"LOL So what?!"
So, a justification is all you need. Irrespective of religion, history has shown us that religious dogma has little impact on the behavior of any single adherent. Conquistadors slaughtered millions of natives who resisted the spread of Christianity throughout the Americas.
Secular ideas haven't fared much better. Stalinism and Maoism have eradicated tens of millions and warped entire societies.
Why can't you understand that the capacity for murder and conquest is not bound or even amplified by religion? Even Buddhists have committed (rather, are committing) genocide, in Myanmar.
Scriptural text can and will be interpreted to a society's will. Islam is no exception to that. You ignored the fact that they were capable of maintaining stable, peaceful societies on their own.
Needlessly? You're making a strange distinction— which areas did the Muslims need to conquer? Why did Europe need to conquer that land?
"Taking back" is bullshit. Just because a region has people practicing your religion, doesn't make it yours. The Middle East wasn't even a part of Europe geographically.
To be frank, I found that last part rich, considering how much of the world Christian Europe would go on to conquer, colonize, and ruin.
As for the Westboro Baptist church, stop dodging. My point wasn't their scope, but the capacity for people to become extreme regardless of ideology.
I'm aware that all countries currently issuing capital countries are Muslim. Australia and Britiain did the same not long ago. Again, religion plays a smaller part than historical context.
And as for your last thing, I don't even know what to say. That's just completely the opposite of true. It's leftists that try to justify Islam being a 'normal' religion. It's usually rightists who can't see it as anything but a death cult, which certainly won't encourage Muslims to see your side of the story. They're doing the grueling work of de-radicalizing an entire Tori tomb religion, so please let them get to work. If you wanna keep speeding garbage go ahead, but we need to finish up. This either goes somewhere or it doesn't.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Shenzhou.
It's a simple explanation, but not a good one.
Your answer only told me how the barbed wire was put there, not why it was only recently installed when the government started to discourage practices like keeping a beard and speaking the Uighur language, which has nothing to do with Islam.
They say it is to combat extremism, but if it really was, they'd just discourage religion, not try to destroy their entire culture and replace it with Han.
And yes, I'm aware of the history of the area, but it has been independent from China for much, much longer.
Only during the Ching Dynasty was the entire area occupied. Before that, China had no control over the region, only the east. Why can't they be left alone?
They don't even travel to the Han portion of China, they live in the desert and could easily be contained there. Why are you bothering them?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Peter A.
You've hit the nail on the head, which is why we can't take a position on God, or (at best) assume he just doesn't exist.
By nature of being supernatural, no religious person can prove a god's/goddesses' existence- (s)he transcends the means by which we can prove anything, so to assert that "there is a god" is an unfalsifiable statement.
And since the natural world presents us with huge numbers of design mistakes, cruelty, and internal consistency (no breaking of natural laws), there is no reason to believe that any sort of agency is behind the universe.
Not to mention religious stories' strange conformity to the geographical location and human knowledge they were formed in, almost as if humans, and not a deity, made them up..
2
-
This is the alt-right calling card, don't you know?
Ever seen interviews with flat-earthers? Or Evangelicals?
They're always disingenuous- frame it as "oh, just a bunch of folks like you, hanging out, golly!"
They hide the agenda part of their meeting as much as possible, and try to turn it into "just a cool event for freethinkers like yourselves! Aaand if we come to some political conclusions, then that's just how things turned out!"
If people understood the end-goal of alt-right discord servers, or chat rooms, or livestreams, etc., they might not be so eager to join. Understanding that you're being played to the benefit of some fat, rich fuck's wallet, makes "the new counterculture," a lot less rebellious.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thanks for answering, but your reply is disappointing, to say the very least.
As I wrote before,
I don't remember the name of the place. Private dealers may have changed de facto policy now, but this was well before Sandy Hook, at a Polish-owned arms & blackpowder dealer. No questions asked, my relative just bought two long guns, showed ID, paid, and left.
The only regulation I could find in Wisconsin's stipulations to private guns sales were as follows:
'Wis. Stat. § 948.60, et seq: May not transfer firearms to anyone under the age of 18, or otherwise prohibited under state law.'
It's important to note the legal grey area of not mentioning federal law, despite its precedence over state, in writing. Private dealers don't need to disclose sales anyway, but it even allows for plausible deniability should a licensed dealer 'forget' to ask the customer to fill out a 4473 form, because (and I can't believe I have to tell you this) the law is not pristinely followed. Plenty of children are taught creationism in schools, weed is sold in stores in Colorado. Need I say more?
I'll, for the final time, repeat this in detail to get it through your thick skull.
The 'gunshow loophole,' as it is referred to, is a flaw in the regulatory reach of the U.S. government. Private dealers, at gunshows, don't need to have a FFL, or ask a customer to fill out a form. The law states thusly:
'(a) It shall be unlawful-
(1) for any person-
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce; ...'
The problem with that statement is, there is legal room to spare with the phrase 'engage in the business of.'
There is no system in place to make sure that private dealers know who they're selling to, or for the federal government, with its statutes, to evaluate which unlicensed persons are selling arms at quantities, frequencies, and within the boundaries of 'engaged in the business of.'
Assuming a busybody could instantly know the life story of a dealer, know that they're selling in legal limbo, and sue them for that, every time it happened, then the system would work fine.
It doesn't work like that.
A crazy person (or a Chicago gang member) goes out of state, and goes to a gunshow. The dealer, not being required to do a background check (only federally licensed, not private, dealers need to have you fill out a 4473 form), has no probable cause not to sell to a customer and doesn't want to stall the sale. He sells, crazy man has a gun.
Crazy man kills people.
In a normal country, the government would institute a tighter check on private gun dealers, requiring them to send all sales through a FFL specialist, background check and all. Even those who still don't comply would be deterred by the possibility that, if he sells to a murderer, and the sale is traced back to him, he could go to jail. Deterrent.
In the U.S., however, whenever a teenager goes and shoots up his school, the NRA swoops in saying "not all gun owners!" and Fox News tells you "let's not focus on the politics," and the private dealer never gets found out. No deterrent, so the (theoretically) massive amount of untraceable sales aren't incentivized to check their customers. Keep on shootin', y'all!
That is the loophole. No requirement to check, because no laws to check.
Got it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@glossygloss472
Lol, not really. Not for the vast majority of Americans. We spend almost twice as much per person and receive equal or worse health outcomes than other countries with single-payer systems.
Also, "most most health science patents" is bullshit because health science has little impact in a country with 40% obesity, almost 70% overweight population. Clearly it's failed, and patents don't translate to effectiveness. It just means companies have filed a lot of patents to make money off people's uninformedness on health.
More pharmaceutical companies isn't good either; most of the patents they file are tweaks of existing drugs to get around patent law. A larger number of companies doesn't guarantee better service, and in America's case there's really only a few.
"Innovation" Not sure what to tell you here, that's not quantifiable so it's not reliably comparable. What does that even mean?
"Cures" again, extremely vague. I get the impression you're speaking from your heart and not your brain.
"The only problem" you described is what we're trying to fix, but you insist that single-payer would do away with all of those benefits, which simply isn't true. Insurance companies might get the boot, but pharma companies will actually be forced to compete for customers and innovate instead of pocketing enormous sums for their executives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think you're conflating firsthand experience with deep understanding. Just because the world you live in doesn't immediately embrace, or actively discourages your propositions, does not mean that they are in fact useless, impractical, or ideologically flawed.
College campuses have, thankfully, been stalwarts against this type of mentality, and allowed their students to see America's flaws quite clearly. I wouldn't entrust a stressed-out, Mad Men style white-collar worker to improve our country- they're busy trying to get ahead, or just survive.
And I hope you haven't forgotten that without the Leftist Dreamland, we'd all still believe that Vietnam was a just war. Black people likely wouldn't be able to vote- nor would gay people. Weed would almost certainly still be severely illegal. A dreamland indeed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Windy Calyx 7
You're looking at this through a modern, rules-based lens. There is no "right" to do something, there is no ultimate arbiter of permission.
It is simply necessary for national survival, and it is done.
And, "yes", to all of your questions. The world, unfortunately, has given us limited resources, and geography is a zero-sum game. If (in your hypothetical) China did not have the ports, India would prosper, and leave China poorer.
Would that be fair to China, to stay impoverished for something completely out of their control?
In fact, the example with the US and Mexico is exactly what happened. Manifest Destiny sought to control both oceans, and the Mexican Empire was dangerously close to New Orleans (which controls all traffic of the Mississippi River Basin) and so the US looked for reasons to go to war and take their land. Not to mention, the West Coast is chock-full of natural ports for trading with Asia.
Russia simply hasn't had that luxury yet. We came very close— had we not sold Alaska, its southern tip has several warm water sea ports.
And in WWI, France secretly agreed to give Russia control of Constantinople to alleviate it's centuries-long search for a seaport (still not perfect, since it's only the Medditerranean, but still).
Had Russia taken Hokkaido from the Japanese in the 1900s, we'd be in a much better position right now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Windy Calyx 7
Yes, it had and yes, it was.
Though I think you're taking "nothing" very literally.
Of course Russia had something, it just had very, very little compared to what it was capable of as the USSR.
When I say "nothing", I'm talking about standing up to the American military, not some backwater little regions on Russia's borders.
You're acting like there's no difference.
You were the one who asked me why Russia agreed to the Security Council (which the US hasn't followed either, why don't you take your complaints to them?) because it had no means of negotiating with the still-standing US.
Again, are you okay with some countries staying poorer forever because of their geography?
It's completely out of their control, yet you seem to endorse the status quo, which would keep them poor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raducarpinisianu2483
You're right, Soviet consumer goods were lacking in quality-- though they have improved drastically since, and I think your judgement is based more in emotion than analysis.
Russia produces a huge variety of back-end goods, the fact that you measure a country's manufacturing capability based on whether it has its own version of an iPhone is very telling.
You simply don't understand supply chains.
As for your main point, you're wrong. Russia never had an unblocked port. All of the Black Sea ports are subject to pass through Turkey's Bosporus. The St. Petersburg ports need to pass through Denmark, and the Pacific ports pass through Japan's EEZ.
On the other hand, whenever Japan wants to trade, it doesn't need to worry about a foreign power having the potential to block its routes if the politics aren't good.
Same with the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia.... are you noticing a pattern? The privileged stick together and keep other out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SirVixIsVexed
It has a lot to do with Scripture.
Christianity does not explicitly call for war with other religions, but it certainly does not condemn it if there is a good reason (the problem being, that it is extremely up to interpretation).
One could look, for instance, at 1 Samuel 15:18 and use it as a justification for a modern enemy. Or Sodom and Gomorrah for attacks on gay bars. Or the story of Sem, Ham, and Japeth to justify slavery.
Or do away with logic altogether, like a Crusaders who, during their forth exposition, cried "because God wills it!" when motivating the soldiers to invade the Middle East.
That's not even my point.
Scripture and practice are very loosely connected. Only when you interpret it literally do you get ISIS, the Inquisition, and the Westboro Baptist Church.
All religions, and by extension people, cherry pick. Islam went through a scientific and medical Golden Age shortly following the collapse of (yes, I do know the history) the ruthless Umayyad Caliphate.
Things change. I don't see Christians beating their wives for wearing cotton-polyester blends. Give Islam time, and the wars will stop. I suppose the political destabilization by the West could also help things along, too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1