Comments by "William Davis" (@williamdavis9562) on "CaspianReport" channel.

  1.  @InimicusXII  The major difference being most other western nations aren't situated in a geography where most of their neighbors are small and poor. Less chances to do these types of things. You do see it though far off their shores. Look how France is using Greece to do to Turkey what Australia did to Timor. Unlike Australia their policy doesn't seem to be working.
    1
  2. If you look at French actions over the past 10 years, watching them fumbling around trying to gain global influence has been nothing short of delusional on their part. France would be better served to understand their role in the international system and work within that understanding. Instead of attempting hardball tactics only to have it blow up in their face. You can only do this so many times before you become a laughing stock on the international stage anytime you try to push something. France will always be outproduced by Germany and out influenced by England. Hell even Turkey is starting to score goals on France when they butt heads. So the idea of French hegemony is ridiculous, even talking about it makes me laugh.
    1
  3. @S.J. Whit, Good comment. I was thinking the same thing. I'm going to go out of my way to use that phrase lol
    1
  4. After being bullied this terribly by Australia, if I were the president of Timor the first thing I'd do would be to invite the Chinese to build a military base looking straight at Australia. Seems like they deserve it. Maybe they too can get a taste of what it feels like to be bullied by a wealthier more powerful nation out to steal their resources. Obviously they'll be screaming bloody murder when it's done to them.
    1
  5. @Arvind Talukdar, No article 5 will not be triggered. How do we know? Because Turkey has already been attacked in Syria.
    1
  6. @Paul Routh, Russia doesn't have the stomach or the stamina to even try occupying Poland. Poland should still prepare themselves for anything though. The real threat to Poland actually comes from the west but not in military form.
    1
  7.  @NadeemAhmed-nv2br  If such a decision is put forth, I'd imagine the Pollacks would opt for sovereignty even with the threat of Russian incursion. If the EU takes such a step Poland essentially becomes occupied by Germany. With the sovereignty option at least there is a probability that Russia won't invade them, a very large probability at that. Long term I doubt it will matter much, the EU will collapse just like the Soviet Union did.
    1
  8.  @KeyserFHT  Oh so your entire argument is based on two things. You live in Poland and I must be on the Kremlin payroll. Wow that's one hell of an argument, I'm completely convinced. lol
    1
  9.  @KeyserFHT  Based on an adhoc attack which itself is based on nothing? You really are a terrible debater. You haven't addressed even 1 of my points. You literally just shout "I'm Polish listen to me, if you don't agree with me you work for Russia." That's pretty childish.
    1
  10.  @paul1979uk2000  I'm sure that plays a role but for the most part Eastern European nations want to join the EU because they're dirt poor and mismanaged and hope some help in doing things right will benefit them.
    1
  11.  @paul1979uk2000  You do realize Poland and Hungary have issues with the EU due to the EU's own authoritarianism no? Also Poland and Hungary aren't dominated by Russia not because of the EU but because of Nato. The EU itself has no ability to defend itself, it's Nato (USA military might) which keeps Poland and Hungary out of Russia's orbit. The EU does not offer any sort of physical security. What those mighty armies of Germany and France are going to defend Poland? lol
    1
  12. France might turn a bigger profit if they sold India toilet bowls. God knows they need them.
    1
  13.  @Hwje1111  Yea because trying to stay out of a conflict is such a Nazi move right? lol
    1
  14. Feels like an extremely invested yet small group of people. Every time I see a video about Turkey I see them in the comments section. It feels like it's a religion for them lol
    1
  15. I'd love to live long enough to see the day where France gets colonized. It's going to happen but I probably won't see it.
    1
  16.  @t19-k4z  It was probably more about exploiting people under the guise of ideology. If they believed in a universalist idea they wouldn't have done such terrible things to these people over and over again.
    1
  17.  @Briselance  Some are better some are worse, what's nice is to give them the opportunity to decide which to be. It's almost like the argument you're making is that because some other African nations aren't doing well that somehow gives France the right to rob these nations? Is that the argument you're making?
    1
  18.  @Briselance  Worse, a lot worse than any modern colonial power. Just ask the people living in these nations. In a perfect world France would be an international pariah on the international stage and their regime in Paris sanctioned for crimes against humanity. Not to mention reparations for the huge sums of money and resources extracted from these nations. But they're black who cares right? I love your mind set, I really do.
    1
  19.  @skeletorlikespotatoes7846  If that was the case you'd think a world power would figure this out and disengage? Well England eventually did when the cost to benefit ratio didn't make sense anymore. France however has been very prolific in controlling and exploiting it's former African colonies. Nor have any of these nations under the French boot benefited in any meaningful way. It's essentially been death, destruction and poverty the entire way. Germany really doesn't fit into this conversations because they were never really a large colonial power.
    1
  20.  @skeletorlikespotatoes7846  Once that level of colonial corruption sets in, it's hard to get rid of. Getting rid of France is probably step 1 to recovery. Getting rid of corruption is step 2 (which will take longer) But you can't start step 2 until you complete step 1.
    1
  21.  @mathieuraymond9356  There were obviously places where England slaughtered the inhabitants and no one is excusing that. What we're primarily discussing here are their behaviors in Africa. Secondly I can't believe you said something like "France developed the countries." France did nothing to developpe any of these nations, all it did was kill it's people, destroy their culture, foster corruption in officials and steal resources. Not to mention all the slaughtering France did the millions it killed during it's genocide in Algeria (which wasn't that long ago.) Fact of the matter is, these nations eventually have to stand up and kick France and it's influence out of their nations. It's a lot like killing cancer. To be healthy it must be done.
    1
  22.  @mathieuraymond9356  Really, you're going to turn into one of those war crimes deniers? You probably think the holocaust was made up too. I didn't think I'd come across a real live one like you here in these comments sections.
    1
  23.  @Marianofortepiano  When you do terrible things, it makes sense people will call it out. France is no stranger like any other nation to spit on others when they do terrible things. So it's okay for you to spit on everyone but it's a huge problem when you're spit on? You're not special. Also are you seriously going to claim France brings benefits to Africa? That would be like me going to my neighbors house, stealing everything, killing his family and then saying i'm a positive influence because I then gave him a loaf of bread. Then I can complain no one talks about the good things I did for my neighbor. Do you not realize how insane your post is?
    1
  24.  @joey199412  The European Union will collapse long before his grandchildren even understand the concept of what you're claiming will happen.
    1
  25.  @wertyuiopasd6281  Yea and that third party offered a better deal.
    1
  26.  @MrRikouz  If it wasn't a better deal It's doubtful they'd go with it. Not to mention doing a deal with a global power is always better for your security than doing a deal with a third rate power which has no ability to project any sort of power that far from it's shores. You can have an emotional meltdown over this but pulling out a deal with France which is a country known to screw nations over in military deals can't be a bad thing. Second rate equipment at huge cost isn't usually a good way to go.
    1
  27.  @MrRikouz  Australia has no means with which to defend itself. Australia is in an area with expanding Chinese influence which it simply cannot withstand. Obviously it's going to buy defense and it's going to have dependence on others. Who the hell do you think Australia is?
    1
  28.  @MrRikouz  I don't doubt that Australia is a country known for incompetent decision makers. But that doesn't change the fact that Australia must go with a deal where protection from a superpower comes with it. China will eventually gobble you guys up, it's that simple.
    1
  29.  @MrRikouz  Trying to appease China would have been one way to go, I won't argue against that policy. But Australian leaders seemed too proud to bow to China and went the other route. And if you're going to go the other route, America is really the only option here. Not France who can barely defend itself let alone Australia.
    1
  30.  @MrRikouz  If Australia wanted the go the route of being protected, it would make sense to pick the United States over France no? Also France doesn't have the ability to defend itself, many of their X generals have come out and said France only has about 4 days worth of munitions in a war. 500000 nukes isn't going to solve that problem. This isn't any sort of phobia, this is a case of reality. A simple reality for what ever reason you seem to have trouble accepting.
    1
  31.  @MrRikouz  If the Aussies are hell bent on "buying" protection. Better to pay a high price for American protection than paying a high price for French protection which will never come.
    1
  32. @Goncalo Teixeira, when blind ideology becomes the mechanism through which decisions are made at the expense of reason and logic, that civilization is doomed.
    1
  33. lol
    1
  34.  @mrslowne6103  And who exactly would be funding these "anti France" bots. France isn't important enough on the world stage for anyone to spend that kind of money. The question you should be asking yourself is why do so many people around the world feel this way about France?
    1
  35.  @mrslowne6103  Was France opposing war when it destroyed Libya along with the United States? Oh so France opposed war once, so we should completely ignore everything else it did and does? Bush was a psychopath for invading Iraq and should be in jail. Just like many members of the French regime should be in jail for what they've done in Libya, Algeria and literally most of Africa. You claiming France's role in Africa is causing stability is just as insane as Bush claiming the invasion of Iraq freed the Iraqi people. The sheer insanity of these statements makes me shake my head. When put under any sort of microscope the arguments that war mongers like you make fall apart.
    1
  36.  @pierren___  Sure they do. Just like how France holds on to their reserves to help them right? What kind of nonsense is this? Do you also believe the earth is flat and the moon doesn't exist?
    1
  37.  @markusz4447  Yes but it surely makes it worse. France has been known to be in bed with shady terrorist organizations for their interests. Kind of like when that large French company got caught in Syria funding ISIS with the French government trying to cover it up. They were literally convicted in court for it. That is how the French establishment with help from the regime in Paris conducts it's business. They should be put under sanctions in my opinion by the rest of the world.
    1
  38.  @M414-q6o  Difference being France is a dying and waning power, so all these shenanigans probably won't work. They are slowly going to get kicked out of Africa and they seem to know it. Why do you think the leaders of this regime are having a meltdown over it.
    1
  39. @Wizzzer1337, they can only profit so much here. Greece is dead broke and Turkey produces most of it's own weapons. They will however find other ways to profit. Such as America turning Greece into a network of military bases, Greece will allow this as they see it as protection.
    1
  40. The Monroe Doctrine has already failed. The moment China was able to put up duel use ports in South America the Monroe Doctrine died. Nor was it a spectacular death either. It went quietly into the night.
    1
  41. No one outside of Tallin and Vilnius knows or cares to know how these irrelevant corners of the world are spelled. Also eastern European nations have a negative view of Russia because they're terrified of Russia, who can blame them considering the history. So it was only natural for them before the war in Ukraine to bring Russia into the European fold which would make them A LOT less likely to show aggression toward them.
    1
  42.  @mikevarga6742  Irrelevant to 99% of the planet. Your emotions on the issue won't change this reality. This has nothing to do with a Brit point of view, you can take a poll of the entire planet and you'll find this to be the case.
    1
  43. @Kyle Prather I'm not really sure Iraq is in better shape post intervention. In fact I'm fairly certain it is far worse off. It's more fragmented, it's lost most of it's best and brightest either due to brain drain or death and has been in turmoil since the invasion. The limitations you speak of isn't with the military. The military knows how to do their jobs, they've been built to defeat armies. Something they're extremely efficient with. The real limitation is policy makers trying to turn an army which was built to fight wars into a police type occupation force. It simply doesn't work.
    1
  44. @Kyle Prather It's been 20 years since the invasion. Their economy is dead, over one million civilians are dead, social cohesion has been destroyed. There has been nothing but misery and instability there. This idea that it's "too soon to tell" if the invasion helped them or hurt them is insanity. As far as dictators backed by the west being powerful in that region are a thing of the past. Iraqi and Syrian regimes will an extremely hard time regardless of who is backing them if they don't have good relations with their immediate neighbors. Lets assume for a second a dictator emerges in Iraq which is anti Iran and completely backed by the west. That regime will have very little wiggle room if for example lets say Turkey decides to destabilize it. The world is changing and it is changing VERY FAST. Invasions and occupations under the guise of freedom and democracy simply won't work. America will eventually realize it is not in the interests of it's citizens to go on these adventures and public pressure will eventually put an end to all this nonsense. Once that happens this idea of "being backed by the west" becomes irrelevant. Because without America no western nation has the ability to project that kind of power that far from it's shores. Who is going to do it? France? lol
    1
  45. @Kyle Prather I can't think of any instance under which one can claim the American invasion of Iraq was a good thing for the Iraqi people. They've literally had nothing but death and misery for the last 20 years, not sure a bit of unlikely upside 20 years from now will erase that. Besides there is a very high probability Iraq in it's current form won't even survive as a state. As far as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE stepping up and making the presence felt in the region even more would be asking some of the most evil regimes in the world to spread their influence. Sure they throw their weight around these days basically bribing more powerful nations like America to protect them but once that western protection is gone (and it will be someone soon) these nations are dead in the water. Even though they have the most advanced weapons money can buy, their military prowess is below third world standards. Without superpower protection regional rivals like Turkey or Iran would steamroll all of those gulf nations on a weekend. By then the world will have probably switched to cleaner energy so these nations are going to look like Somalia in 100 years. Which will probably be a good thing for that entire region as they won't be spending trillions pushing insane ideologies which cause chaos. On the topic of France, you seem to think too much of them going forward. Once their perceived military might is exposed and America pulls out of the middle east and Africa, France will be pushed out of Africa. The French economy (in it's current form) cannot survive without the neo colonization of these African nations. France will not be able to exert any influence on any of these nations in anyway, shape or form in the future. Russia is another dying power and once the world switches to renewable energy in 50 years or so Russia will go into an economic meltdown and break up. Your comments about China I agree with, it's possible they might turn into the major player in that region if only to secure trading routes.
    1
  46. @Kyle Prather Yes money talks but what happens under these two conditions. 1. The United States eventually completely pulls out of the middle east. If it isn't politically viable no amount of bribes from the gulf nations can bring that big military machine back. 2. What happens when they start running out of money because the price of oil is tanking due to all the renewable energy which is probably coming down the pipeline in the next 20 years? Balkanization is horrible and it's horrible for Iraq. Which is why the invasion really screwed that country over because it was the invasion which opened up the divisions which will cause the balkanization of Iraq. No matter how you slice it or dice it everyone lost out in the war. Iraq's neighbors, the Iraqi people and the American tax payer. The only winners were Saudi Arabia which got rid of a rival and the military industrial complex which had billions of dollars funneled from the taxpayers into their pockets.
    1
  47. @Kyle Prather Considering what the people have been going through for the past 20 years? Yea, Saddam wasn't just better he was 1000x better. You can't just assume because someone is a tyrant that invading that country and making the lives of people 1000x worse than the tyrant did is actually helping them. As far as people wanting or not wanting someone, there is always a segment of society which doesn't want their current leaders. Invading the country or giving resources to said groups to overthrow a current government isn't really a good thing to do. Simply claiming Saddam was a Tyrant doesn't even come close to the amounts of people who have died since the invasion, the damage to the economy, the loss of brain power due to brain drain and the soon to be Balkanization of the country. Saddam on his most prolific Tyrant streak wouldn't have been able to do this much damage and kill this many people even if he tried.
    1
  48. @Kyle Prather Governments don't happen in a vacuum, it's essentially a group of humans deciding how their society should be governed. This idea that democracy is a one size fits all solution is extremely naive. Evolutionary biology is always at play and different people evolved with slightly different evolutionary instincts plus extremely different cultures and ways of thinking. For some groups of people society simply cannot function with certain types of governance. Most Arab nations will surely always have authoritarian governments because that is the only way to keep stability there. That is what works for them. Under Saddam for example Iraq had: 1. A decent economy (relative to middle eastern standards) 2. High quality of life (relative to middle eastern standards) 3. One of the best educational systems in the entire region and a literacy rate of over 95%. 4. Iraq a fully functioning modern healthcare system where everyone was insured. 5. The nation had stability, you didn't have to worry about being blown up in a car bomb while walking to the grocery store. Iraq for 20 years since the invasion. 1. Economy is shattered and 70% of people live under the poverty line. 2. On the quality of life index Iraq plummeted by 70 spots, meaning 70 nations which had a lower quality of life than Iraq now have higher. 3. Their educational system is in tatters and literacy rates among people under 25 is only 72% 4. There is barely a functioning healthcare system and the few good hospitals are so expensive only the rich can afford it. 5. Zero stability with all the infighting between the difference groups, you simply know know when you go to the grocery store if you're going to make it home. When looking at these aspects of life, I find it extremely insane when people are still claiming invasion might be a net positive for these people. The invasion was a crime against humanity, it was no different than me walking into your, murdering half your family and forcing the other half into a life of poverty.
    1
  49. @Kyle Prather When you say it was never good, it's all relative if you remember. Also those times you're referring to was when we the United States forced the world to put an embargo on them right after the first gulf war. Even during this embargo they were in better shape than they are today. Also this sharia law thing is far overblown, less than 2% of Muslims worldwide live under such a thing. You only really see Sharia law in those gulf nations we talked about earlier and the unfortunate really poor nations which have fallen under their influence (Taliban and ISIS being two prime examples) No one anywhere really wants sharia law, it's something the scare mongering media took and ran with in the early 2000s. If we simply stepped back and let the gulf nations collapse, the idea of sharia law anywhere on this planet would vanish in 50 years.
    1
  50. @Kyle Prather This isn't about being biologically more inclined to live under tyranny. This is about different groups of people going about different ways to organize their societies in ways that work for them. It would be ridiculous and arrogant for group to assume what works for them will work for everyone.
    1