Comments by "afcgeo" (@afcgeo882) on "CNBC Television"
channel.
-
89
-
39
-
11
-
7
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@adangamez3608 You’re not very bright… are you a child? Also, the war in Ukraine is a civil war, not a war for independence. Oh and it’s still going on.
By the way, the US Air Force Air War College is a post-graduate level (master’s degree) senior professional military education institution. There are numerous areas of study, but all of them focus on joint force operations and strategic planning. What you think you know about war is like kindergarten to AWC graduates.
Having been born in Russia, with my mother’s parents from Ukraine, I chose to become an expert on Eastern European military and political affairs. It’s literally my field. You won’t win an argument with me, not on this topic.
I agree with most of what you originally said, except that military exercises of over 150 thousand troops near a border can be random. It takes a ton of planning, consideration and strategic thinking to execute a maneuver of that size, especially since it involves all of Russia’s branches of the military and some of its partners (Belarus).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Mark C That has nothing to do with law school. It has to do with our history.
North America was (and still is) a vast frontier land that was mostly uninhabited when Europeans came here. Guns were necessary for them to survive: to hunt and defend against native tribes that attacked them. I won’t get into the ethics of colonization here. Suffice to say that the average resident European needed a gun to protect himself and hunt. When America rebelled against England, King George decided to use regiments of the regular British Army to quell the rebellion, so the residents took their muskets and rifles and formed groups of militia. When our Constitution was first written, we were in the middle of that war. It was seen as a Brit against Brit by both sides, as a civil war. The reason why the Colonists fought was for freedom from the King and his abusive laws and rule. So the fear was of a totalitarian, abusive ruler. It was recognized that democracy was not that likely to succeed, as there were a lot of competing interests among the Colonists, they had no money, no power and no trade partners. An amendment to the Constitution (one of many) was passed to make sure the new government doesn’t take away guns from citizens, so they can have another revolution, if that one doesn’t work out. They were afraid that the new government would be as oppressive as the king, and wanted to preserve the ability to fight for themselves. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your beliefs), the amendment was seen as a justification of gun ownership in general, with no limitations, as it was vague. Because the United States had continued to be very rural, owning a gun was seen as normal, historically, at least for people in the rural areas. They had little police protection, lived on giant properties often miles from the closest neighbor and needed to hunt and protect themselves. Slowly, through urbanization, that is changing, but culture is slow to change and the Constitution is rather difficult to change.
Sorry for the long paragraph. It’s a long and complex historical topic. I’m a European immigrant myself and until college history and law classes, could not understand it either. Most governments on Earth are more authoritative. The US government is based on the power being built from the ground, up. It has many positives and negatives. Both systems do.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hitens4573 As well India SHOULD pay for its own infrastructure. Every nation should. The point was that the UK was the reason India ever got that infrastructure. When it was built, India had no means, resources, technology nor know-how to make these projects happen. You don’t get development out of a vacuum. Colonization has terrible repercussions, but ignoring the benefits is equally bad. Afghanistan was never colonized. India would have been equal to that today if it wasn’t for its history under Britain. Look at Macau/Hong Kong versus (real) China. Look at the Americas. They were all colonies.
Also, you have a very skewed perception of history. India DID NOT import much of anything it could make on its own from the UK. It only imported goods that wealthy Indians still wanted. India was also NOT a wealthy country right before colonization. That’s an absolute lie. India was a purely agrarian economy. Its exports were mostly via Europe, which is why the British colonized it so easily. Different factions within were constantly warring. In the early 1800s India was falling behind other nations because it was failing to industrialize. It had very vast natural resources, but failed to make use of them (a legacy it continues today).
You’re confusing the Indian wealth during the height of the Mughal Empire in the 16-17th centuries, which was vast, with its condition at the end of the Mughal empire in the early 19th century. By then, the Mughals lost control of most regions to the Sikhs, Marathas, Mysoreans, Nizams, Rajputs, Afghans, Jats, etc. and India lost most of its wealth through internal conflicts and a deterioration in trade. The Jats and Persians easily plundered all wealth from India. It was hundreds of years of foreign Islamic rule that actually destroyed India, not the British.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1