Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "RealLifeLore" channel.

  1. 123
  2. 23
  3. 19
  4. 18
  5. 15
  6. 14
  7. 13
  8. 13
  9. 12
  10. 12
  11. 12
  12. 12
  13. 11
  14. 10
  15. 9
  16. 8
  17. 8
  18. 7
  19. 7
  20. 6
  21. 6
  22. 6
  23. 6
  24. 5
  25. 5
  26. 5
  27. 5
  28. 5
  29. 4
  30. 4
  31. 4
  32. 4
  33. 4
  34. 4
  35. 4
  36. 4
  37. 4
  38. 4
  39. 3
  40.  @pepperVenge  No, I'm not grasping. I'm explaining why certain lines, even in the US' case, won't be crossed. I'm not sure how else to explain it to you: I think that the US still believes- especially given how recklessly it has acted recently- that Russia would actually attempt a nuclear attack, consequences be damned. I also did address that point on China, though indirectly, in the first comment. Pure capability works in tandem with plausible defensibility. That is to say, if Russia's sea lanes within its own EEZ are actively blocked, it will be much more willing to counter because there is plausible reason to do so. There will be much less, if any, backlash from the "international community" because, whatever they may think of Russia, they are all party to agreements that state a country can counter-attack when its sovereignty is violated. To willingly disregard the norms that they themselves abide by and benefit from would be politically untenable. Now back to the China point. In the late 1990s, the US sent warships right next to China's border with Taiwan to defend it. This would be unthinkable today because, in the eyes of the world, China would be justified in protecting its borders- so the economic and political fallout of aggressively preventing another US encroachment would be reduced compared to, say, Russia in Ukraine. The US knows this- which is why it hasn't done anything like that since, despite repeat violations. Regarding Ukraine, you're ignoring that the US hasn't done many other things, despite repeat calls from Western countries. The vast majority of the rejections follow the same core logic: doing this would bring us in direct conflict with Russia, which (despite what you said, which is true) we don't want. If you're convinced that Russia would lose, why the American hesitation? Why might that be? Because I'm right. MAD works, and doing something that gives Russia plausible reason to respond indiscriminately (and defend those actions) is politically /unthinkable, even in the US. For example, despite lots of Baltic, Polish, Lithuanian, and European pressure, the US has refused to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Washington also makes Ukraine promise every time it sends weapons that it won't fire beyond Ukraine's own borders. Consider what they are avoiding here.
    3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49.  @jdeuraud1096  China did not build them all. And you are trying to shift away from my point: the US, despite all of its wealth and power, is unable or unwilling to provide basic services for most of its citizens. The wealth and power just makes the fact much more pathetic. "when Africa defaults on their loans China is going to take that" By whatever means necessary. The US must be brought back down to earth. It gained most of its overseas bases and territory from Europe in WWII. The Europeans got them through colonialism. I see that as far, far less moral than a "debt trap" (not exclusive to China, and never called that when France does this is Africa, or US does in Micronesia). "The US has the #1 commercial rail system in the world" Why do Americans have a psychological need to both rank everything, and insist they are #1? I think it is projecting some kind of insecurity. No country self-assured in its achievements would need to scream it at everyone so much. The US has the longest rail network, yes. But it is not as efficient as other countries, because it is older, and it is not even necessary. You have many rivers and could use barges for cheaper. "the reason we do not have a major passenger rail system is because we like our private automobiles to much" This reminds me of our nationalists who say, 'we don't need your silly Western technology, we have our own things here!" A very nativist, "look how much cool stuff we have" sentiment. And it is not even true. Zoning laws simply disallow any infrastructure to exist which could eventually be connected with a transit network. Would you like to know how I know you're wishfully thinking? The areas that have been grandfathered in (before the zoning codes) are usually the highest-selling. Those dense, non-American styled places are the most valuable and the most popular. You do not even allow a free-market, which you love so much, to dictate what type of housing you have. And here you sit typing to me about what every American wants. Maybe they want a Soviet-style microblock neighborhood? Too scary?- let me rename it: a Lisbon-style "megablock" neighborhood, fancy!! "(My first new vehicle was when I was in the US Navy.)" Well, this explains a lot about how you think. Did they tell you that the US has never lost a war, like they do in the Army? Well, if not, I see your spending habits are just as sensible. Was it a Charger or a Mustang?? :) "I’ve owned 5 properties and my top pay was 65K per year" This is not the majority of Americans. It is like telling Marie Antoinette about the starving French, and having her list you her dinner menu. Your problem is country-wide, it is not solved just because you have it good "You ever done this on your own property?" Not mine, a friend's dacha. We have bears instead of quail)) "that has become an issue in every developed nation" Whose fault is that? Which event usually causes obesity to spike? Maybe, the introduction of certain companies, from a certain country?... "you can be so fucking ignorant of the US after watching this vid" Me, ignorant? I have lived there. I do not understand why immigrants come. Unless you are dirt poor, it is no country to build a life. It seems you are ignorant-- every problem I stated, you replied with your single, individual experience. You seem unable to consider that there are 330M population, and trends persist across them.
    3
  50. 3