Vance makes his debut as VP on the international stage at a high-stakes AI summit in Paris

[The Liturgist]

In another time and place - he has a right to say whatever he wants.

As an invited head of state to the European Munich summit - he was there to discuss European security.
Instead he tells Germany how to run their internal domestic politics? I don't know what you know about geopolitics - but that's not 'free speech' - that's meddling in domestic affairs.

EG: Should Zalenskyy have walked into the Oval Office, not made eye contact with Vance, and TOLD Trump to work with Kamala - and nationalise your healthcare to save money to boot?

Cause that's basically what Vance did in Europe.

My point was that responding to a criticism of your country’s policies regarding freedom of speech by saying that the critic had no right to make such an argument has the effect of proving their point.

Also, the remarks of Vance were germane, since the function of NATO was originally to defend the free world against the threat posed by the Soviet Union, but if the free world ceases to be free in a meaningful way, then NATO loses its raison d’etre. Freedom requires a robust defense of free speech and the freedom of religion which at present is unfortunately lacking in most first world countries other than the United States, and which was attacked in the United States as well during the pandemic, with bans on public worship which were in fact, according to the US Supreme Court, an illegal government overreach.

 

[eclipsenow]

In the Christian faith there is no such thing as men of low birth, since all are created in the image of God.

Oh boy. Please try going back and checking the context of why I quoted him - as you'll see this reply is way off base and unnecessary

 

[eclipsenow]

This kind of argument is spectacularly dangerous, because it ignores the grim reality of the Russian nuclear arsenal. We cannot treat Russia the way we treat a petty dictatorship. Countries such as Russia, the People’s Republic of China, India, Pakistan, and the US, and to a lesser extent Britain, France, Israel and North Korea, which have nuclear deterrents, cannot be provoked into a situation where they might be tempted to use them.

Since Communist China continues to establish itself as an economic and political threat to freedom in every continent in the world, with the benevolent policies of the likes of Hu Jintao being abandoned by the current dictator, it is in the best interests of NATO to make peace with the Russians and to create a wedge between Russia and China, as we did during the Cold War by exploiting the Sino-Soviet split to establish relations with the PRC. Now, the reverse is needed, since the PRC has grown too powerful.

The US by the way can be equally destructive in geopolitical terms. Every country with nuclear weapons has the ability to act with impunity to a certain extent owing to their ability to inflict incredible casualties on opponents. This is a moral criticism against nuclear weapons in general, but unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle as it were, and military doctrine that rests upon the idea of fighting a conventional war with a nuclear adversary runs the risk of terrible things happening.

This is why the Cold War was primarily fought with proxy wars, since it was understood direct military confrontation was simply too dangerous. But Ukraine likewise is too dangerous, since it is a proxy war on Russia’s doorstep.

We are in a situation like the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, yet few people seem to be aware of the actual danger. The risk of nuclear war did not end in 1991.

Ukraine is a proxy war.
If we just worked together - we could have worn Russia down as long as Ukrainians are prepared to keep fighting. Russia's economy is only the size of Texas.

By your way we should hand back all the eastern block countries in case Putin gets in a bad mood one day.

 

[The Liturgist]

Oh boy. Please try going back and checking the context of why I quoted him - as you'll see this reply is way off base and unnecessary

I did see the context of your post, but I don’t think your argument was particularly well articulated or a good use of Aristotle.

I myself prefer to avoid directly quoting the Greek philosophers, but instead, I quite the Church Fathers who made use of their writings, in the case of Aristotle, most notably St. Gregory of Palamas, in order to establish a buffer between myself and ancient Hellenism.

 

[The Liturgist]

Ukraine is a proxy war.

Yes, I acknowledged that. And I also said it was too dangerous, insofar as it was being fought on Russia’s doorstep. Furthermore, we should be forming an alliance with Russia to triangulate against the PRC, since the PRC is now the more powerful nuclear adversary, whereas Russia is a country with many shared values with the US in terms of the Christian faith and public morals.

 

[Helmut-WK]

One thing that was deeply ironic was the senior German government minister who responded to Vance’s eloquent remarks criticizing Europe for its recent failure in terms of defending freedom of speech and freedom of expression by saying “He had no right to say that!” It literally proved Vance’s point.

So any European has the right to demand that Trump would take half a dozen members of the democratic party as members of his administration (e.g. minster of justice) … or to make it more like Vance, lets think of an proposal to invite left-socialists (so leftist that you can doubt they will behave in a democratic manner) into Trump's cabinet. In the USA, there is a »firewall« against socialists, even democratic socialists.

No-one tried to stop Vance from delivering his speech - he had the right to say that.

But in the moral sense of »right«, he had no right to blow up facts, neglecting other facts to show a distorted picture, or to demand that enemies of democracy should be given the opportunity to reign in our country.

I would have expected a response to criticism of Europe on the issue of free speech to be met with denial,

Some details mentioned by Vance were true - but using them to attack an attempt to protect free speech on social media (i.e. against Musk & co.) is a no-go.

The US needs to pressure countries into adopting full First Amendment freedoms. The First Amendment with its guarantee of religious freedom and freedom of expression, is one of the greatest gifts that God has given this country through moving the Founding Fathers to adopt such a policy.

Well, why there is so little effort to do as Europe and write a law that stop Musk from deleting discretionary (or are there internal rules not known to the public?)? Why is next to no protest when Trump calls criticism of him »illegal«?

There is much more issue regarding freedom of speech in the USA than in Europe. Vance has used a technique he probably learned from Trump: If you are accused, accuse the critics of the very thing they (rightly) accuse you.

 

[The Liturgist]

By your way we should hand back all the eastern block countries in case Putin gets in a bad mood one day.

No, that is not my approach. Rather, we should act to create a scenario where Putin is incentivized to attack Islamic dictatorships that persecute Christianity, rather than European countries.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is much more issue regarding freedom of speech in the USA than in Europe.

That’s simply not true. In Europe, one can be arrested for making statements that are offensive. This is not the case in the US. In the US, one can only be arrested for obscenity or actual threats (for example, child pornography or threatening to murder someone). Expressing controversial opinions, or even immoral opinions, is legal, and this is actually of great benefit, since it encourages racists and others to expose themselves, and thus those who are opposed to racism can avoid patronizing such people.

 

[Larniavc]

because it ignores the grim reality of the Russian nuclear arsenal.

How many red lines that have been down by Putin have already been crossed without any nuclear war?

Putting isn’t going to use nukes.

 

[Larniavc]

Expressing controversial opinions, or even immoral opinions, is legal, and this is actually of great benefit, since it encourages racists and others to expose themselves,

But that just means they drum up support and get legitimised. Who wants that?

That’s why America has so many Nazis doing marches unopposed.

 

[Helmut-WK]

This kind of argument is spectacularly dangerous, because it ignores the grim reality of the Russian nuclear arsenal. We cannot treat Russia the way we treat a petty dictatorship.

Of course not. If Putin were a dictator without nuclear bombs, the NATO might well have invaded into Ukraine to drive Russia out.

Countries such as Russia, the People’s Republic of China, India, Pakistan, and the US, and to a lesser extent Britain, France, Israel and North Korea, which have nuclear deterrents, cannot be provoked into a situation where they might be tempted to use them.

This is the reason why no-one ever suggested to conquer Russia and remove Putin. This will not happen, no such attempt will be started.

Since Communist China continues to establish itself as an economic and political threat to freedom in every continent in the world, with the benevolent policies of the likes of Hu Jintao being abandoned by the current dictator, it is in the best interests of NATO to make peace with the Russians and to create a wedge between Russia and China,

How can you do it, When Russia always fiddle into your public opinion by disinformation (especially within Russian-speaking communities in eastern Europe), spends money for (mostly right-wing) parties, undermined the relations to African countries? China did nothing comparable to that in the 1970's or so.

This is why the Cold War was primarily fought with proxy wars, since it was understood direct military confrontation was simply too dangerous. But Ukraine likewise is too dangerous, since it is a proxy war on Russia’s doorstep.

It is a proxy war on Europe's doorstep either. This did not stop Putin from starting that war.

We are in a situation like the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, yet few people seem to be aware of the actual danger. The risk of nuclear war did not end in 1991.

Really? Cuba threatened to attack the USA with missiles (and nuclear bombs on them?). The Ukraine did not threat Russia, it was even denied to enter NATO - yet Russia marched in in order to vanquish the desire to enter NATO there.

When Putin took the Crimea, the West reacted mostly with words. The North Stream project went on as usual … which encouraged Putin to do more.

When the USA threatened the USSR with missiles in Turkey, the USSR reacted with the same on Cuba. That was far nearer to nuclear war than the present situation. In the end, it was resolved by putting the missiles out of Cuba, in public, and by putting the missiles out of Turkey (Kennedy did much to hide this aspect).

 

[Gene2memE]

I was wrong in my post #8. Today, most NATO countries spend 2% or more on defense. President Trump deserves credit for pushing this since 2017.

He doesn't. The credit for the 2% target goes to GW Bush, Gordon Brown and Barack Obama, support by the actions of Vladimir Putin's Russia.

For all the braying D Trump did about NATO and defence spending, the only extra commitments his administration managed to get were out of Canada.

Additionally, Russia's attack on Ukraine was a wake-up call for Europe to take their defense seriously.


View attachment 361238

European defence spending is up 50% per capita and on a proportion of GDP basis since 2014. US spending is down 10% over the same period.

The first Trump administration's use of ITAR as a political bludgeon slowed the growth of EU defence spending.

 

[The Liturgist]

How can you do it, When Russia always fiddle into your public opinion by disinformation (especially within Russian-speaking communities in eastern Europe), spends money for (mostly right-wing) parties, undermined the relations to African countries? China did nothing comparable to that in the 1970's or so.

Alas that is historically inaccurate.. Communist China actively involved itself in the politics of several African and Latin American countries, including Tanzania and Peru. They built railways, supported governments and engaged in geopolitical action, as they do now.

In retrospect, we should never have allowed the PRC to take the place of the Republic of China at the UN and in diplomatic relations, and the UK should never have returned Hong Kong to them.

But since that happened, this creates a strategic imperative to partner with Russia to counter the threat of an expanding China.

This situation will continue until India becomes a superpower. Once there are four legitimate nuclear superpowers (since Britain and France have neglected their nuclear arsenals to a large extent, although France less so than the UK), geopolitical stability should increase, since the incentive to triangulate will disappear. It is triangulation that makes groups of three so inherently politically unstable.

One famous American author remarked that in politics, no shape is as unstable as a triangle. As we can see from the collapses of the Roman Triumvirates.

 

[Helmut-WK]

No, that is not my approach. Rather, we should act to create a scenario where Putin is incentivized to attack Islamic dictatorships that persecute Christianity, rather than European countries.

This will only happen with a sober, well-meaning man.
Putin wants to get the USSR back, or as a song in Russia points it out, he want Russian domination from Berlin to Alaska (well, that goes down even to Tsarism). it has to do with the shock of the collapse of communism in 1989, and what happened then in the 1990's.

What incentive can you give to such a person that he will change the direction of his revenge? Any approach that promises to achieve your goal?

 

[The Liturgist]

European defence spending is up 50% per capita and on a proportion of GDP basis since 2014. US spending is down 10% over the same period.

Which is good, because frankly the US military engaged in wasteful overspending on failed weapons systems, particularly the US Navy with the dual disaster of the Littoral Combat Ship and the Zumwalt Class Destroyer.

 

[The Liturgist]

This will only happen with a sober, well-meaning man.
Putin wants to get the USSR back, or as a song in Russia points it out, he want Russian domination from Berlin to Alaska (well, that goes down even to Tsarism). it has to do with the shock of the collapse of communism in 1989, and what happened then in the 1990's.

What incentive can you give to such a person that he will change the direction of his revenge? Any approach that promises to achieve your goal?

There are many countries which would be better off if ruled by Russia, despite the problems that exist in Russia, than with their present Islamic fundamentalist governments. If we could persuade Russia to colonize countries such as Iraq, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Syria, it would be of enormous benefit to the US and to the persecuted Christians of the Middle East.

Indeed my greatest objection to NATO is that Turkey is a member, despite never having acknowledged the genocide against the Armenians, Syriac Christians and Pontic Greek Christians in 1915. Genocide denial is illegal in many European countries - the fact that Turkey is allowed to be a part of NATO despite engaging in genocide denial, supporting ethnic cleansing of Armenian lands by the Azeris, and also engaging in duplicitous behavior with Russia, and also continues to illegally occupy northern Cyprus, is a huge blow to the credibility of NATO as a whole.

Indeed every offense committed by the Russians since the downfall of communism pales in comparison with the course of conduct taken by Turkey since the end of the Ottoman Empire, even during the secular period started by Mustafa Kamal Ataturk, which affected a massive ethnic cleansing due to the forced population exchange with Greece. And despite the official secularization, there were pogroms against Christians across the country.

Now that Turkey is openly Islamist under Erdogan, it is difficult to see why the US and Europe should be prepared to defend such a country. Turkey is a cultural and geopolitical adversary of the West, not an ally of it.

 

[eclipsenow]

No, that is not my approach. Rather, we should act to create a scenario where Putin is incentivized to attack Islamic dictatorships that persecute Christianity, rather than European countries.

So when I quote Aristotle about democracy you lecture me about the value of every human, and when I point out how unworkable appeasement is you suddenly want more war - just against Muslims?

Oh but we'll betray the democracy that's under attack now. That's OK and ... Vance stands up in all this and apparently has a "moment" as we say in Australia - and starts to tell Germany they need to work with the neo-National Socialists?

The right to free speech is not the same thing as the right to be respected for saying something daft and inappropriate and telling a bunch of half-truths out of context.

Zelenskyy should have lectures Trump on free speech because your democrats are not even really Ordoliberal! There's a conspiracy of silence against true Ordo Liberal economics in your country! Even Bernie Sanders pleads for Medicare for all - and doesn't seem to understand Nationalising healthcare!

 

[The Liturgist]

and when I point out how unworkable appeasement is you suddenly want more war - just against Muslims?

No, I don’t want war, but Christians are being systematically exterminated in the Middle East and that needs to be stopped.

 

[eclipsenow]

There are many countries which would be better off if ruled by Russia, despite the problems that exist in Russia, than with their present Islamic fundamentalist governments. If we could persuade Russia to colonize countries such as Iraq, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Syria, it would be of enormous benefit to the US and to the persecuted Christians of the Middle East.

Indeed my greatest objection to NATO is that Turkey is a member, despite never having acknowledged the genocide against the Armenians, Syriac Christians and Pontic Greek Christians in 1915. Genocide denial is illegal in many European countries - the fact that Turkey is allowed to be a part of NATO despite engaging in genocide denial, supporting ethnic cleansing of Armenian lands by the Azeris, and also engaging in duplicitous behavior with Russia, and also continues to illegally occupy northern Cyprus, is a huge blow to the credibility of NATO as a whole.

Indeed every offense committed by the Russians since the downfall of communism pales in comparison with the course of conduct taken by Turkey since the end of the Ottoman Empire, even during the secular period started by Mustafa Kamal Ataturk, which affected a massive ethnic cleansing due to the forced population exchange with Greece. And despite the official secularization, there were pogroms against Christians across the country.

Now that Turkey is openly Islamist under Erdogan, it is difficult to see why the US and Europe should be prepared to defend such a country. Turkey is a cultural and geopolitical adversary of the West, not an ally of it.

How many American genocides has Trump acknowledged?

 

[eclipsenow]

No, I don’t want war, but Christians are being systematically exterminated in the Middle East and that needs to be stopped.

But it's got nothing to do with the ethics of Trump betraying Ukraine and snuggling up all cosy with a dictator. It's some kind of wishful thinking you're indulging in - the last thing Putin wants is a Jihad from the entire Muslim world launched against Russia?

It's irrelevant anyway.