Comments by "antonyjh1234" (@antonyjh1234) on "SnowStorm | Russians Entered Ivanivske | Ukrainian All-In Counterattack. Military Summary 2024.01.26" video.

Why? Apart from the financial system of debt is money what other nation would rule better with their philosophy?
6
I looked up the dictionary and what do you think polar means? Which nations would rule better? How do you know this reality is real? I'm not saying they aren't ruining the world we know, but this has gone on for thousands of years, which has been better? the issue is they are trying to maintain what they have, they know oil is life and they also have an army equal to the next 9 countries put together, which other nation, because of the position ww2 put them in would be better, be specific? The reality is we don't know and by saying one group is the enemy without knowing what another would have done is just hypothetical based on no reality @nunliski
3
I'm of the west and we are all sick of profit over value, the issue is you don't know what it means to behave. You probably use fuel and products from oil Syrian, Afghan, Iraqi families have been....displaced over to go for a drive, you are the customer of these people, if you haven't behaved by choice how will the rest of the world teach it to you? @bak2back
2
This is the problem, competing interests directly help the US. Every single dollar is based on debt, it's all meaningless if our time debt is not put towards things that make it better for the next generation in my opinion but there are problems with trying to achieve something somebody already has instead of actually going a new way. "WE" have all agreed money entering the world can be based on the amount of energy this debt represents. "WE" cannot afford this energy to be spent environmentally, we are all the customers of this energy that is based on debt. As long as the dollar can still buy energy, and it doesn't matter which central banks that create it or whose dollar it is, as long as it can buy energy then you do need some controls. Competing interests when the US has an army that is supposed to be equal to the next nine countries put together and USA puts debt ( money) into the economy through war which would give the normal world thoughts of "Oh the stock market is up, they are doing ok". The average person in the west lives in a media bubble so they wouldn't know what " competing interests" mean except what they are told. There should only be one army and that's the UN, or let me put it another way, if 1% of the world disagree, you do need a way to stop 80 million people being how they are sometimes, or in this case 320 million. @fred4687
2
We are all humans and everything is influence of how we evolve as a world, together. I agree with you that peoples should be able to follow their philosophy, to a point, but how far are you willing to go? Do you think we should still throw people into volcanoes so the sun comes up? I think there should be allowed to be ISIS, as long as people can leave but do I want ISIS to take over the world? No way. We are all evolved primates and everything has been taught to us, it doesn't make any of it right and a very good argument to get rid of all of the reactions to outdated beliefs that we all still have, but don't kid yourself, this is about oil and you consumption of it in the many different ways that you do. @godmode5738
1
How do you know any other country in the same place would have been fairer? If Japan or germany had been the victor after ww2 do you think more fairness would have been shown in the last 80 years? When in all of history after large battles has there been more fairness and respect? You can go back the last hundred thousand years if you want? @zani1106
1
Ahhh but I'm asking for one better? If you don't know what you are going towards, isn't this the definition of ignorant? @Kneejair
1
How do you know, Chine let millions of their own people die through starvation in the early 60's. Would they have treated foreign people better, would another religion across the country being forced on people along with genital mutilation and prayers to dead people be better? How do you know? @mirba6933
1
Let me explain as I'm getting called names now. We are all products of our environment, to say anybody would have been better in the same place is incorrect as no other people in the same place has been better. Of all the people that think the west is against them, this is also incorrect, the people of the west don't want this, the people of the west want to maintain their freedom from religious nut jobs, in USA and the rest of the world, a lot of people want freedom FROM religion. So in as far as they must not rule alone, what does it mean? It means you have a better alternative and I would agree the American idea of profit over value is atrocious but again, what new rules of how parts get to you etc, like an iphone has parts from 43 countries, the world order means these parts get around the world, will a multi polar world still allow trade, should a multi polar world stop trade so we all become humble? I do not know and I agree with "must" but tell me what we are going towards 1st, because we are never closer to ww3 than now, does anybody want to go to war because americans might have meant the most peaceful time after ww2 comparatively?
1
Would that have been different for any other country in the same place after coming through ww2 fairly unscathed? @Acolyte_of_Cthulhu * The west, and USA seem to get conflated often.
1
The concept of rule is mistaken. There never can be a system of "Basically an equitable system where everyone gets a say and every state is subjected to international law" because then what happens if people disagree? This is not a multi polar world, this is one order. Force is violence, depending on what side you are then. @Screaming-Trees
1
So do away with the UN? The international court of justice? What about the Hague? At what stage if another country is slaughtering its people with machetes should other countries get involved or never? @bigmoe9856
1
Uk the way it is and by default USA is because of Rome. China is going to lose 5-600 million people over the next 80 years, Japan another 50 million, the west mainly, is going to lose 50% of their populations due to old age. Africa is supposed to be almost half the world by 2100, considering USA is 4% of the world now, things never were going to stay the same but will any country in the future offer more hope and peace...we will have to wait and see. @Chungalhunga
1
A replacement of the current system is what is being talked. When you say dominate what control do you assume happens? When you say a parallel system of respect and equity, how do you think this will happen and when? @MnemonicCarrier
1
Don't get me wrong I and all the people in the west would like that too, but what part of history are you relying on as an example and if you do want to move forward to a new system, which of course needs to happen, are yopu going to keep on repeating the same old mistake of blaming one people and then when they are gone the problem will be resolved when you haven't changed the system at all? *We as a world are having to head towards a very low energy world, these people doing this because they are scared, mean's it's no good calling them the enemy. If they really were the enemy, 6 billion people wouldn't have been born under their watch. @MnemonicCarrier
1
If the world superpower were equal and fair there would be nothing wrong with the system, but force would still be needed. @fred4687
1
Multi means multiple. I'm not here to defend USA, I'm asking which nation in it's place would have been better. Western people live in a media bubble but they have also had peace for 80 years. You have a lot of different points that USA is "bad" but I'm asking who do you think would have been good in the same position of having a war machine that must be fed? I've followed Ukraine for the 8 years before it started, but you are talking about one political system of neo liberalism, which a lot of Americans disagree with, and then say all USA bad. Now that it's getting to the pointy end of the oil supply and 49 years is not a long time, would you with the worlds largest military be sitting back and say " sorry america, no more petrol, no more diesel, propane?" I doubt it, which makes me believe they are products of their environment. something because it's been so much of the west's lives, that they beat evil so that must make them the good guys, it's a huge learning experience for americans to know their govt isn't what the propaganda is. But again, if they are products of their environment then why do you think anybody else in the same position would be different? When you give your opinion about what is best insofar no system of somebody dictating rules, it's just that, if you have ever been in any group there is a disagreement, if it depends on who uses oil and who doesn't, it will always be the one with the biggest stick, no matter which race and when Africa is almost half the world by 2100 I don't know if they will be any better unless we can change the oil based debt system we all believe in. @SarielSol
1
The US is an arms dealer. * any conflict is going to create chaos, chaos is fantastic for raising prices and as long as you control the money supply they will be customers one way or the other. If it's two people fighting amongst themselves it doesn't matter. If USa can pump money into their military machine it's more of the same, no matter who wins. @fred4687
1