I would like to see a more balanced view of the Force and how the jedi’s complacency/rule has been a fertile ground for corruption and injustice. And/or how a lot of jedi concepts especially regarding human relations and emotions are unhealthy.
Basically a more modern approach to how a jedi theocracy is problematic as fuck. Kotor 2 tried to lean a little bit on that and had the option of being “neutral”.
They wanted to use the geographical definition of Europe, so they cut off everything beyond the Ural mountains and Caspian sea.
It is. Europe is commonly defined all the way to the Ural mountains, which are located somewhere in the middle of Russia. Most of russian population lives in Europe.
Thats what Hillary thought about Trump and look where we are now. Underestimating and even promoting far right fringe personalities because you think that will push moderate right wings and centrists towards the left is a risky and historically failing strategy.
Google pied piper Hillary.
Yeah, the lack of microtransactions and theme are its strong points. It even has some light story stuff.
But if you want to play a game of that style, you might be better off playing Star Rail(from the dev that made Genshin Impact), which is a f2p game with tons of microtransactions but you can really enjoy it without spending a dime. And Star Rail’s design and production values are unrivaled.
I havent played the game but from what i understand it seems like your typical mobile gacha game, where you collect characters and they autofight enemies. Except it isnt f2p and doesnt have any microtransactions. It is just a paid game, with all the trappings, design and progression of a f2p mobile game.
Cleopatra wasnt an egyptian, she was a macedonian greek. Alexander the Great conquered the “entire” world, then died and his general Ptolemy got the kingdom of Egypt. Egypt was ruled by the Ptolemy dynasty and was infamously isolated and incestuous. Their court was mostly greeks or hellenized(greekified) egyptians/jews. In fact, Cleopatra was the first(and last) Ptolemy ruler to even bother to learn egyptian, in 200 years of their rule.
Also egyptians arent black, even today they have all kinds of skin colours. Primarily they fucked other mediterranean people, greeks, carthaginians, romans, phoenicians, hittites. Most black people live(lived) below the Sahara desert, so while there was some trade traffic towards/from that direction, it was pretty limited in comparison. You did have things like the kingdom of Kush but for the most part Egypt had more to do with mediterranean(and middle east) states than with subsaharan ones(Sudan/Ethiopia).
So i dont think egyptians are black for the most part and i think most racists would agree.
One state solution isnt viable. We cant even get one state in Cyprus, where there is less bad blood, basically 0% chance of anyone killing anyone and no “religious prophecies” about who owns the place.
Belgium is without a government 50% of the time. Yugoslavia is no longer a thing.
One state solutions are hard to work even at the best of times. How do you balance the power? Just through democratic votes? Then the majority can easily suppress the minority. If you give the minority extra benefits(ie veto), then why would the majority even agree to be part of that and give away their power?
It is genocidal when either side uses it, since it implies that the other side does not exist. It is a catchy phrase though, which is why both sides use it.
You’re also giving an outdated historic example that doesn’t make sense in the modern world where WMD are everywhere. Those numbers don’t mean anything in case those weapons play a role.
Most countries, including Germany, dont have WMDs or even want to have WMDs. Also WMDs are super expensive to acquire and maintain. And then you just need to keep making more and more.
And you have no escalation capability, you either nuke or you dont. So do you use a nuke if someone grabs 100sqm of your land? Especially since they can retaliate with their own nukes? Would you risk getting your entire country nuked for 100sqm?
Or what if 1000 green men just walk into your governmental buildings and occupy them. And they have guns. Do you nuke them? Do you send the police?
Aside from that, there’s also plenty of historic examples where a smaller army won over (much) bigger one.
And for every one of those examples, there are 100000 examples where the numerically superior army won. One of the main reasons that those early ukrainian breakthroughs were possible was because Russia didnt have enough soldiers. Once Russia conscripted more soldiers, they managed to stabilize the situation and build defenses.
One of the reasons Ukraine hasnt won is because instead of being given thousands of tanks and airplanes, they are given a couple dozen.
All in all, a person should have full control over his own choices in life.
So should a person also have the choice of not paying taxes? How about wearing a seatbelt while driving a car? Or wearing clothes when outside. Or wearing a mask.
Protecting your state is one of the most fundamental things you need to adopt, if you have any interest in living in it. And giving some basic education on how to use and maintain a rifle or do some basic guard duty is useful.
With a globalized world (and more and more cosmopolitans), the choice to disconnect yourself from a country and move to another one and start a new life is also easier as ever.
So your argument is “just leave lol”? Even if we ignore reality(people have houses, jobs, friends, environments, societies that they love and no money to move), what will happen if that strongman comes after to where you run? You keep running? Till you run out of space and neohitler has conquered the entire planet?
The main reason that Putin invaded Ukraine was because he thought your attitude was prevalent in the West. Conscription and helping Ukraine are 2 big signals that show to Putin that he was wrong.
So what is the alternative? Let any authoritarian asshole who has managed to convince many boot lickers to join him, take over your country?
You are confusing concepts. Conscription does not mean bullying needs to be thing. Also ultimately, wars are about numbers and the amount of soldiers(or potential solders) one has, can affect the outcome and actively prevent war.
One of the main reasons Napoleon conquered most of Europe was because he used conscription and had an army of many millions fighting against a few thousand “volunteer” professional armies of other countries.
South Korea absolutely needs conscription. Maybe you are lucky to live in a country that doesnt face a legitimate direct invasion threat. But many, most people arent that lucky.
I mean ultimately, thats how wars are.
The existence of your people or not in an area should not be relevant. If it is relevant, that only leads to genocide and ethnic cleansing. Because noone would want to have a potential casus belli in their land, so they would eliminate all those that would enable something like that.
There are 2 kinds of countries in the world. Those who are satisfied with the current status quo and those who arent. The US, EU, etc are satisfied with the current status quo. Russia, China, Turkey, Venezuela, etc arent. They have issues and they think the current status quo is unfair. And they have irredentist views.
Why would you “freeze” the borders as they are now and not as they were 20 years ago, or 100 years ago or 500 years ago. What i am saying is that India is part of Greece, as per Indo-Greek kingdom of 2000 years ago.
This war is totally different, it’s a country fighting for it’s land.
You could make the same claim for the Russia, that it is considers that land its own and it is fighting for it. Ultimately, yes, this is a different war but my point is that kill ratio isnt always indicative of who is winning.
Ukraine could lose all their territory and Russia will still lose this war. They already have.
Maybe but 500 years from now, who would remember what happened. Eventually things become “it is what it is” and people move on. Borders can last for a long time, especially if one side(the EU) isnt willing to go on the offensive. Strongmen like Putin think of this as weakness, people in the West think of it as “learning from the past”.
I agree with what you are saying but you have to realize that this is partially copium. The Americans had great kill ratio in Vietnam but they still lost.
What happened in the past is in the past. Atm Russia has the initiative and seemingly the will and means to continue. Ukraine’s means largely depend on the West.
In EU you have the typical bureaucracy and relactancy of reducing the peace dividends by investing in military equipment production. And thats on top of Hungary sabotaging everything and other major economic issues, like agricultural ukranian products and their effect in EU.
In the US, the republicans are blocking everything and Trump is ahead in the polls.
So it is only natural that with all this uncertainty, Ukraine is reluctant in risking an offensive. If the war ends now, Russia has still gained territory, even if it suffered losses, setbacks and failed to achieve its minimum stated goals(securing Donbass). Though at least they have a landbridge to Crimea so thats something.
I mean atm, Russia is on the offensive and has gotten some actual results. They conquered Marinka, a 10k population village(before war), which defined the line of conflict, and Avdiivka, a major fortress town that has been holding through the entire war, since 2014, is being threatened with encirclement. Zaluzhnyi even said that they might be forced to abandon it within the next couple months. This would be a significant win for the russians if it happens, much more important than Bakhmut.
It is important to note that this government was the party that prevented the previous leftist government from making gay marriage legal(they could only get gay civil union passed). So there is no actual political opposition, they are the opposition but decided that making gay marriage legal deprives a strong weapon from the opposition.
Cyrillic is literally greek+glagolitic and it was partly a diplomatic creation of the Eastern Roman Empire(aka Byzantine Empire), in order to bring the slavs culturally closer to them.
Russians have nothing to do with it, other than them claiming they are the continuation of Eastern Roman Empire, something which is kinda laughable but whatever dont let your dreams be dreams.