Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

The World Events Thread


RUPERTKBD
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-47370608

 

Viewpoint: Balakot air strikes raise stakes in India-Pakistan stand-off

Sounds like one side (India) is saying they caused the other side (Pakistan) a bloody nose, and the other side (Pakistan) is saying no they (India) didn't. 

"Your nose is bleeding!".  "No it's not!"  

It's like kids playing dodge ball.  "I hit you!"  "No you didn't!"  

Will there be a proper fist fight to decide who's right after school? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Sounds like one side (India) is saying they caused the other side (Pakistan) a bloody nose, and the other side (Pakistan) is saying no they (India) didn't. 

"Your nose is bleeding!".  "No it's not!"  

It's like kids playing dodge ball.  "I hit you!"  "No you didn't!"  

Will there be a proper fist fight to decide who's right after school? 

We better hope not. Both these 'kids' have nukes. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said:

Wow. I have a lot to say, but I fear I may get banned if I do. Let's just hope nobody in your life ever falls victim to drugs, whether by choice or circumstance. 

 

PS. Recreational users don't need your idiotic sympathy, what they need are rational drug laws that allow people to get high safely. People will get high, whether you like it or not. The current laws are what put people into harm's way.

 

Well, I've hit my tolerance level of disgust for humanity, and it's not even noon. Thanks CDC.

Unless they are using drugs to self-medicate, there's basically no other reason to use an illicit drug which is hazardous to ones health.  

If self-medicating... then it's a mental health issue and they should be consulting with a medical professional.  Many in the DTES who are stuck in that cycle should be helped and maybe institutionalized until they can fully recover.  

 

Those just using "for fun".... it's the government (or society's) fault that they wish to engage is a very very risky behaviour?  I'm very libertarian in terms of morality, I can really care less what people do as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.... but that freedom to do whatever also requires a huge level of personal responsibility.  The cost to society is great, so their activities impact everyone.  Additional policing, more funding for emergency services, higher insurance premiums, re-allocating of hospital resources, impact to property prices, etc... it's not pocket change.  

 

They wish to get high, of course.  But just only caring about getting what you want is for children, not adults.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Sounds like one side (India) is saying they caused the other side (Pakistan) a bloody nose, and the other side (Pakistan) is saying no they (India) didn't. 

"Your nose is bleeding!".  "No it's not!"  

It's like kids playing dodge ball.  "I hit you!"  "No you didn't!"  

Will there be a proper fist fight to decide who's right after school? 

India and Pakistan have been feuding since the end of WWII. The only thing that changes are the types of weapons that can be deployed by each side.

 

This is actually a serious deal. Both countries are widely believed to be in the possession of nukes.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lancaster said:

Unless they are using drugs to self-medicate, there's basically no other reason to use an illicit drug which is hazardous to ones health.  

If self-medicating... then it's a mental health issue and they should be consulting with a medical professional.  Many in the DTES who are stuck in that cycle should be helped and maybe institutionalized until they can fully recover.  

 

Those just using "for fun".... it's the government (or society's) fault that they wish to engage is a very very risky behaviour?  I'm very libertarian in terms of morality, I can really care less what people do as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.... but that freedom to do whatever also requires a huge level of personal responsibility.  The cost to society is great, so their activities impact everyone.  Additional policing, more funding for emergency services, higher insurance premiums, re-allocating of hospital resources, impact to property prices, etc... it's not pocket change.  

 

They wish to get high, of course.  But just only caring about getting what you want is for children, not adults.  

Jesus Tap Dancing Christ. The fact drugs are illegal is what makes them so dangerous. Because they are illegal they carry such a great social cost. People won't overdose in droves if they can get clean, consistent heroin. People won't steal your $&!# if they can afford their fix. People won't stop because it's illegal, it'll just cost a lot more. How do you not understand this? 

 

And what's wrong with doing drugs socially? Do you drink alcohol? What's the difference? Alcohol is just as bad as heroin, I don't see anyone suggesting we let teens with alcohol poisoning die on the street instead of pumping their stomachs. 

 

Goddammit your opinion is so obtuse and ignorant it just pisses me off. We've tried your way for decades and more people are dying than ever. WTF will it take for people like you to grasp what the true issue is? &^@#.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lockout Casualty said:

Jesus Tap Dancing Christ. The fact drugs are illegal is what makes them so dangerous. Because they are illegal they carry such a great social cost. People won't overdose in droves if they can get clean, consistent heroin. People won't steal your $&!# if they can afford their fix. People won't stop because it's illegal, it'll just cost a lot more. How do you not understand this? 

 

And what's wrong with doing drugs socially? Do you drink alcohol? What's the difference? Alcohol is just as bad as heroin, I don't see anyone suggesting we let teens with alcohol poisoning die on the street instead of pumping their stomachs. 

 

Goddammit your opinion is so obtuse and ignorant it just pisses me off. We've tried your way for decades and more people are dying than ever. WTF will it take for people like you to grasp what the true issue is? &^@#.

If you argue that opiods are the same dosage threat to species homo sapiens as alcohol, i am sorry, you are COMPLETELY OUT TO LUNCH. 


Maybe the true issue would be to be instilled an anti-drug culture SINCE YOU ARE A KID IN A FAMILY. oh wait, i forgot. Western world doesnt believe in family values anymore and parents are just exes of each other who think raising kids is sharing babysitting time and costs. No wonder you guys have such a bad drug problem. 

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

If you argue that opiods are the same dosage threat to species homo sapiens as alcohol, i am sorry, you are COMPLETELY OUT TO LUNCH. 


Maybe the true issue would be to be instilled an anti-drug culture SINCE YOU ARE A KID IN A FAMILY. oh wait, i forgot. Western world doesnt believe in family values anymore and parents are just exes of each other who think raising kids is sharing babysitting time and costs. No wonder you guys have such a bad drug problem. 

 

Bit of an over-generalization there, wouldn't you say?

 

The "Western world" also doesn't believe in FGM, "honor" killings, or women being unable to travel without permission from a male, but we don't bring that up, because that would be unfair stereotyping.....

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Bit of an over-generalization there, wouldn't you say?

 

The "Western world" also doesn't believe in FGM, "honor" killings, or women being unable to travel without permission from a male, but we don't bring that up, because that would be unfair stereotyping.....

actually except for Indonesia, FGM is mostly a western world phenomenon. Islamists are part of your western ethics system and no amount of trying to disassociate yourselves from them would work.

Yes, it is a bit of a generalized statement, but it seems to be the biggest problem in the western world - the social collapse of family values for first time in history of species homo sapiens, since the rise of nuclear families 10-20,000 years ago.


Prior to that, at least humanity had the 'group raising' aspect you see in some African cultures. But kids raised predominantly by 1 parent, over-tired, not rich enough to afford nannies and such, bouncing between 1 parent and the other, who's primary concern is to keep the kids fed, clothed and physically safe only, is a reality for the majority of western raised people these days and the trend is accelerating, sadly. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, canuckistani said:

We better hope not. Both these 'kids' have nukes. 

 

3 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

India and Pakistan have been feuding since the end of WWII. The only thing that changes are the types of weapons that can be deployed by each side.

 

This is actually a serious deal. Both countries are widely believed to be in the possession of nukes.

Are these two countries so stupid to use nukes though, especially knowing they would each wipe each other off the map?  Leaders have pretty comfortable positions, so I can’t see them wanting to give up those lives by nuking each other.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said:

Jesus Tap Dancing Christ. The fact drugs are illegal is what makes them so dangerous. Because they are illegal they carry such a great social cost. People won't overdose in droves if they can get clean, consistent heroin. People won't steal your $&!# if they can afford their fix. People won't stop because it's illegal, it'll just cost a lot more. How do you not understand this? 

 

And what's wrong with doing drugs socially? Do you drink alcohol? What's the difference? Alcohol is just as bad as heroin, I don't see anyone suggesting we let teens with alcohol poisoning die on the street instead of pumping their stomachs. 

 

Goddammit your opinion is so obtuse and ignorant it just pisses me off. We've tried your way for decades and more people are dying than ever. WTF will it take for people like you to grasp what the true issue is? &^@#.

I'd like to challenge your statement about alcohol being as bad as heroin.  If your talking about people who abuse either of them, you may well be right.  But heroin is more addictive.  2/3rds of the users in the US report being addiction or abuse of heroin.  At best, one in five are addicted to alcohol.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/pubs/2018-cdc-drug-surveillance-report.pdf

https://www.alcohol.org/statistics-information/

 

Legalization does not get rid of illegal sources, either, especially when government is trying to tax it so much to help cover other costs.  Dealers still sell weed in Colorado and other "legal" states, and one of the reasons for this is cost.  Government taxation and dispensary overhead costs still have to be covered, things that dealers don't have (sure, they have other costs)

 

So, costs will still be high, so addicts will still steal our stuff.  Overdoses may drop due to better product, as you claim, but will it reduce the addictive nature enough to matter?  I doubt it.

 

As @canuckistani points out, the declining family culture in our countries is a factor that should not be ignored either.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said:

Wow. I have a lot to say, but I fear I may get banned if I do. Let's just hope nobody in your life ever falls victim to drugs, whether by choice or circumstance. 

 

PS. Recreational users don't need your idiotic sympathy, what they need are rational drug laws that allow people to get high safely. People will get high, whether you like it or not. The current laws are what put people into harm's way.

 

Well, I've hit my tolerance level of disgust for humanity, and it's not even noon. Thanks CDC.

I’m confident you can make a point without coming across like a drama queen.

 

give it a go.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

India and Pakistan have been feuding since the end of WWII. The only thing that changes are the types of weapons that can be deployed by each side.

 

This is actually a serious deal. Both countries are widely believed to be in the possession of nukes.

It's not widely believed it's a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Not to mention America funded one and Russia backs the other. 

 

Niether country would use nukes as Russia or the US if not together would wipe them off the map.

Err. 

Things have changed a lot. Russia is no longer the 'backer' of India, neither does India care much for Russia outside of military armaments deal. This is why they signed the MoU with USA where US can use India as a military port of call and vice versa.

Furthermore, for the past 2 years, India has completed its nuclear triad - it now has nuclear powered ballistic missile subs that will ensure that striking India will result in a garanteed response back with nukes. So as far as India goes, bullying it will not be easy. It will be akin to trying to bully a poorer China with less military hardware but way more military pedigree (thus less easily intimidated) and a much bigger naval power. But India is not the worry here, the worry is Pakistan. India has no reason to escalate to nuclear war with Pakistan, since : a) it is primarily concerned with Pakistani sponsored terrorism in Kashmir and sometimes its main cities and b) it has overwhelming conventional force superiority over Pakistan. The concern is Pakistan, since it has been acting immune to military action due to its 'nuclear deterrent' and has been sponsoring terrorism (especially towards India & Afghanistan but lately towards Iran as well) by using its 'nuclear deterrent' card. Well, India just called Pakistan's hand in the last 24-36 hours. Pakistan now risks showing its hand as a bluff or actually pressing the nuke button. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Err. 

Things have changed a lot. Russia is no longer the 'backer' of India, neither does India care much for Russia outside of military armaments deal. This is why they signed the MoU with USA where US can use India as a military port of call and vice versa.

Furthermore, for the past 2 years, India has completed its nuclear triad - it now has nuclear powered ballistic missile subs that will ensure that striking India will result in a garanteed response back with nukes. So as far as India goes, bullying it will not be easy. It will be akin to trying to bully a poorer China with less military hardware but way more military pedigree (thus less easily intimidated) and a much bigger naval power. But India is not the worry here, the worry is Pakistan. India has no reason to escalate to nuclear war with Pakistan, since : a) it is primarily concerned with Pakistani sponsored terrorism in Kashmir and sometimes its main cities and b) it has overwhelming conventional force superiority over Pakistan. The concern is Pakistan, since it has been acting immune to military action due to its 'nuclear deterrent' and has been sponsoring terrorism (especially towards India & Afghanistan but lately towards Iran as well) by using its 'nuclear deterrent' card. Well, India just called Pakistan's hand in the last 24-36 hours. Pakistan now risks showing its hand as a bluff or actually pressing the nuke button. 

You are giving India far to much credit. Their air force is one of the most outdated in the world, they still fly early 60s soviet jets.

 

I was more referring to yet another potential show down between the super powers. India helped alongside Russia building Russias new 5th gen fighter and Pakistan received huge funding from the US. Those are both facts.

 

I don't want to burst your bubble but India and Pakistan would be annihilated by the US or Russia. Again, neither would use a nuke as they would again be annihilated and just so you know both the US and Russia have the capabilities to stop either country from using a nuke.

 

Your guaranteed response is not fact at all and you spelled it wrong. I guess we are all human, even the academics.

Edited by Ryan Strome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

You are giving India far to much credit. Their air force is one of the most outdated in the world, they still fly early 60s soviet jets.

Sure. Their air force stands no chance vs NATO. but they don't need to. India is one of the toughest nations for NATO to launch air strikes against, simply because the use of Brahmos, a superior anti-shipping missile than any in NATO's arsenal, renders US A/Cs inoperable to target India. So their dinky air force doesn't really have to go up against anything legitimate of ours anyways. 

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

 

I was more referring to yet another potential show down between the super powers. India helped alongside Russia building Russias new 5th gen fighter and Pakistan received huge funding from the US. Those are both facts.

 

I don't want to burst your bubble but India and Pakistan would be annihilated by the US or Russia. Again would use a nuke as they would again be annihilated and just so you know both the US and Russia have the capabilities to stop either country from using a nuke.

 

Your guaranteed response is not fact at all and you spelled it wrong. I guess we are all human, even the academics.

Err, nobody in the world has the ability to stop ICBM MIRV-ed nukes launched from SSBNs. thats why nuclear powers invest 10-20 billion dollars per nuclear ballistic subs to have them operational, who's only job is to surface and shower its target with nuclear ICBMs. 


In reality, NATO has the power to annihilate anyone on this planet, but Russia, China and India are the only nations that can assure NATO or any other power is left standing as king of the ashes when the dust settles. All pretty much because of SSBNs. 


As far as Russia goes- well short of India and Russia getting into a 'who can launch more nuclear ICBMs faster' contest, Russia has no play in India either. Their air force will ironically fall prey to their own S-400 anti air missile defense system, it has no navy to speak of and good luck bringing russian troops from Russia to India anyways. China, despite being a far lesser power than Russia is a much bigger threat to India due to geo-political positioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Sure. Their air force stands no chance vs NATO. but they don't need to. India is one of the toughest nations for NATO to launch air strikes against, simply because the use of Brahmos, a superior anti-shipping missile than any in NATO's arsenal, renders US A/Cs inoperable to target India. So their dinky air force doesn't really have to go up against anything legitimate of ours anyways. 

Err, nobody in the world has the ability to stop ICBM MIRV-ed nukes launched from SSBNs. thats why nuclear powers invest 10-20 billion dollars per nuclear ballistic subs to have them operational, who's only job is to surface and shower its target with nuclear ICBMs. 


In reality, NATO has the power to annihilate anyone on this planet, but Russia, China and India are the only nations that can assure NATO or any other power is left standing as king of the ashes when the dust settles. All pretty much because of SSBNs. 


As far as Russia goes- well short of India and Russia getting into a 'who can launch more nuclear ICBMs faster' contest, Russia has no play in India either. Their air force will ironically fall prey to their own S-400 anti air missile defense system, it has no navy to speak of and good luck bringing russian troops from Russia to India anyways. China, despite being a far lesser power than Russia is a much bigger threat to India due to geo-political positioning.

Russia has no navy? By that you must mean the 2nd or 3rd best in the world?

 

You don't think Russia could target the s-400s beforehand? And do you really not think Russia and the US don't have the capabilities to stop those subs from launching attacks?

 

You are a smart guy try putting together what I'm saying.

 

Btw I'm not comparing military power I'm saying if either used a nuke one if not both of the big boys would make them pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Russia has no navy? By that you must mean the 2nd or 3rd best in the world?

Its a defensive navy. With a bazillion subs. Subs are worth nothing when invading as a navy. their ability to carry troops across is negligible. 

4 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

 

You don't think Russia could target the s-400s beforehand?

Well considering they are trucks that are completely on the move all the time and sometimes hidden in bunkers and stuff, no, i dont think so. If it was easy to do, everyone ould target them first and get rid of them. If Israel cannot get rid of the older gen S-300s in Syria, what makes you think S-400s would be gotten rid of in a country 300x the size of Israel ?!

4 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

And do you really not think Russia and the US don't have the capabilities to stop those subs from launching attacks?

No. Otherwise these countries wouldn't bother sinking billions in running those subs who's sole purpose is to launch ICBMs

4 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

 

You are a smart guy try putting together what I'm saying.

 

Btw I'm not comparing military power I'm saying if either used a nuke one if not both of the big boys would make them pay.

All depends on the context of the nuclear usage is i think where the fair bet would be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, canuckistani said:

actually except for Indonesia, FGM is mostly a western world phenomenon. Islamists are part of your western ethics system and no amount of trying to disassociate yourselves from them would work.

Yes, it is a bit of a generalized statement, but it seems to be the biggest problem in the western world - the social collapse of family values for first time in history of species homo sapiens, since the rise of nuclear families 10-20,000 years ago.


Prior to that, at least humanity had the 'group raising' aspect you see in some African cultures. But kids raised predominantly by 1 parent, over-tired, not rich enough to afford nannies and such, bouncing between 1 parent and the other, who's primary concern is to keep the kids fed, clothed and physically safe only, is a reality for the majority of western raised people these days and the trend is accelerating, sadly. 

 

Sorry, maybe you could expand on this a bit...

 

FGM is a Western phenomena? As I understand it, it's practiced predominantly in Africa. Is that considered the West? Also, although honor killings happen all over the world, they are predominantly an idea with it's roots in Asia, no?

 

I don't disagree that a single parent environment is less than ideal, but I disagree that it's the biggest cultural issue facing "western" civilization. I also disagree that systemic racism doesn't exist.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...