The whole idea is to promote America's influence and reputation in Europe which is why America's enemies hate and fear it.
I do have some sources that say that there is divisions inside the NWO movement a small segment wanting America to be the leader in a tighter global community. Certainly that is preferable to an NWO where America is an equal partner. It is not superior to the sovereignty of every nation though. I'd like to see some evidence that the bilderburg group is not Europeans dictating to Americans what to do as opposed to your suggestion it is about America leading the globe.
But Ventura is a famously dishonest person- not just stupid or wrong but
lying under oath about talking shit about Navy SEALS at a Navy SEALS'
funeral in front of that dead man's mother.
The Jury did not think he was lying under oath. Chris Kyle claimed to have punched him in the face. It looks like Ventura proved this was bullshit and won 1.8 million from it. I think Chris Kyle over all is a proven bullshit artist and his war hero claims are easily disproven bullshit, particularly his kill count and the incident with Ventura who by the way was also in the Navy and supposedly an American hero for going overseas and putting his life on the line for Jewish foreign policy interests.
Who do you think you are talking to, chud? Your take on the Miami
Apartment Bldg collapse last summer was "cheap jews get what they
deserve" Your only approach to every topic is sensational propaganda.
I keep arguing with you, because I always think there is a chance you will be able to analyze my thinking and correct my presuppositions. You came close when you criticized the fact I think sensationalism and propaganda are the tools of liars, and brought up Jesus. However that is not going to persuade me because it doesn't address my premises for thinking that, only my conclusion.
I don't know if you realize this, but my priority on this site is not to teach, it isn't to spread information, it isn't even to debate, though I am better at it then you. It is simply to expose the parts of my thinking I think are most likely to be wrong. If I thought I was right, I wouldn't even share the opinion. The cheap Jews did not get what they deserve. maybe there is a lesson about being cheap in there, though.
I engage with you, because I sense you can unwrap that premise and tell me how it is wrong, as I intuitively sense that my premise is wrong. I just can't prove it.
Perhaps people can be honest in their general opinion, and engage in dishonest tactics like sensationalism and propaganda. However I would have to understand the reasoning behind somebody with the correct opinion doing so, to give them credit for being honest. Part of what I base my belief on is that, honesty should be the most important thing. If the truth is laid out, it shouldn't need to be sold or wrapped in pretty little bows. It should be shown. How am I wrong to think this?
If you want my analysis of the Ukraine situation, than it is as follows.
Russia desires a buffer zone between Nato and itself as well as access to the black see, so they can export oil for cheaper. Nato has made a strategic error by pushing too hard to bring Ukraine on board which has made Putin feel like his hand was forced. Nato should not have pushed so hard, and Putin should not have mounted an invasion.
Here is what we can pretty much assume will happen.
1. Putin will retreat from Ukraine after making his point and having zelensky promise to not join Nato, parts of the separatist regions will either be annexxed or create new states so the Ukraine can continue to be independent while Russia maintains a buffer zone by using the separatist regions.
2. Sanctions will be lifted on Russia when countries like Germany who depend entirely on foreign oil and energy push back against russian sanctions because it also harms their economy.
3. Russia will declare victory over Ukraine meanwhile Zelensky will be painted as a hero for having defeated Russia diplomatically, despite russia walking away with everything they wanted.
I think this is a very nuanced thing and I am supposed to be cheering for NATO, but I think the fact everyone is playing politics while a bunch of people are dying is disgusting. All sides should have seen this coming and could have resolved it diplomatically, sparing a bunch of lives, particularly the lives of innocent people just trying to live their day to day lives.
You ultimately are an imperialist for democracy and would like to see it spread. I think democracy is an illusion and the wealthy pull all the strings. I sense you come from the wealthy class, which is why you are fine with that sort of arrangement, but I am less fond of being ruled by rich people who are out of touch with reality and have zero empathy for the poor.
I have read several of Maddeline Albright's books, so I understand your POV. She gives a better defense of those exact principles than you do btw, and yet her analysis falls short because it is overly pragmatic, which is why she gets into hot water for saying the invasion of Iraq was worth all the civilian lives took. She gives pragmatic reasoning, but not moral. The only time she gives reasoning that is not pragmatic is when she talks about refugees. She imagines America has a duty to the world, instead of having a duty to it's citizens. Her justification is merely that she thinks spreading democracy is the right thing to do.
In her writings she differentiates between fascists and tyrants. Fascists as the leaders who are for the people and have the crowds stand behind them. Tyrants are another repressive type of ruler who uses doesn't have large swathes of citizens behind him, but just the government. Perhaps she spends her time ranting about fascists because she belongs to the ruling class and is fine with tyrants, perhaps she thinks tyranny is no longer a threat to the world.
ALl I know is that you have done very little to show me the mistakes in my reasoning by offering merely an alternate conclusion to mine instead of engaging in understanding my argument and addressing the premises
