the general standard of living in Ireland, as in all western countries (even in the UK) is quite good. We already mentioned the UK's problems before, and the overarching long term western recession (as a consequence of wars waged / foreign and domestic policy etc). I use the term "recession" loosely here. In terms of the middle east, one should remember that Qatar is in the Middle East and Ukraine is in Europe. Qatar is not ravaged, Ukraine is. I think the middle east, as with most places, would do just fine if certain countries were not hell bent on destabilizing the region, as is what happened to Ukraine.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 2 2024 08:10am

Yes definitely, Western Europe has enjoyed a century of prosperity coming back from the lows of the devastation of world war 2. There is a mild recession unfolding caused by a multitude of factors starting with forced energy transition, socialist agendas and proxy wars funded by debt, but in the grand scheme of things there is a lot of human capital and great geographical position that virtually guarantees long term prosperity.

Still one Ireland has fared much better than the other, which in my opinion has to do mostly with the ability to make their own decisions in their own best interest without a foreign hegemony deciding what’s best for their protectorates and subjects.



I did not mean Qatar or the UAE or the Saudis. These are not democracies and never had freedom bombs liberate their citizens from oppression of basic necessities such as drinkable water and food security.

What i had in mind as I was typing this out was Black Hawk Down movie which I loved as a kid growing up on all stuff American. It’s based on a real story that took place in one of those fuckaluckistans ravaged by “US foreign interests in global stability”. The tragedy is that 30 years have passed and folks liberated of their possessions then, still don’t have it quite as well as folks in a war torn Ukraine of 2024.

I’ve recently had a dinner with a former foreign minister of one of those fuckaluckistans (that said minister has had a pleasure of meeting POTUS and Mr Putin personally). The comment I got was “the things we could have done back home and the lives we could have saved if only the western countries gave us 1% of the foreign aid they are giving Ukraine every year…”.

This post was edited by Malopox on Feb 2 2024 08:46am

What about the Korean war that has lasted 70 years and is still ongoing, Vietnam, Iran Contra, the Iraq/Afghanistan forever wars, the toppling of Somalia and Libya and attempted toppling of Syria, the active animosity against Russia, blowing up the pipeline that provided natural gas to southwest Europe, or pretty much anything else done in the last several generations indicates the US is interested in, wants, or even would not fight against global order?

I already pointed out the lessons of the movie Charlie Wilson's War. If you have not seen that movie or remember the last comments in that movie, its well worth watching. TLDR: once interests are satisfied (or not) the country in question is often times left to pick up the pieces, if it can, and invariably, it cant.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 2 2024 09:56am

If you rephrase your question in a more straightforward way, I will try to answer it.
As it is you are basically asking me to make your point. Just make it yourself and ask any question.

These questions were asked directly to you.

This post was edited by Norlander on Feb 2 2024 11:40am

If you can interpret the question I'll happily answer it, thanks for your entirely impersonally structured comment.

And again congratulations

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Feb 2 2024 11:51am

just a minor point, global order as I understand it does not mean global peace. it means current global dominance by the current ruling countries (USA). Therefore the events that you are referring to help cement the "global order" but this does not equate to global peace and stability. Analytically, world order refers to the arrangement of power and authority that provides the framework for the conduct of diplomacy and world politics on a global scale.

i.e. it is not related to peace and stability but rather the geopolitical landscape (whereby the US is top dog, the dollar is top dog, and anyone seeking to undermine that, is by definition, undermining the current global order. This is not a positive or a negative associated with the current status quo, but rather a reflection on how current events are changing the current status quo, i.e. changing the current pre-existing world order. As or If we see a direct alternative to the current US dominance, this is the "destabilization of the world order". While the world destabilization is construed in quarters as a negative, in other quarters it is seen as a positive. From a historical standpoint the natural consequence of a new world order is war. sorry.

i trust this is understood.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 2 2024 11:54am

If you are bored. Just turn it on and listen when you are doing whatever.
Everything about USA, EU, China, Russia, Global South, Mass Migration, Muslim, Israel all that she bang she bang is stated here but you might need to tweak it a little bit to fit the current situation although I feel there is nothing much to tweak.
The first 10 to 15 mins and you will know why everything that was said here is happening up till now according as planned.

,



This post was edited by Hamsterbaby on Feb 2 2024 12:06pm

So after destroying ns2 uncle sam has:
Halted LNG export terminals
"Inflamed" Ansarallah causing qatar to suspend LNG to Europe(unconfirmed)

Was making Europe dependent on American energy, only to pull the rug, always part of the plan?