Why do "they", the British, care?
Is it climate change, or is it another cover for not wanting to raise little brats? I don't want kids because: 1. "Cost of living." 2. " I never met the right man." (Despite being sexually active). 3. "Nobody pays for my childcare."
Why do they care? They want solar panels and wind turbines. Fossil fuels are killing people.
Well, isn't that counterintuitive; if we make bats extinct, that means no more coronavirus, if we exterminate mosquitos, no more malaria, if we exterminate the Tsetse fly, no more spread of parasite, if you exterminate birds, no more bird flu. You don't want rats or cockroaches living in your house, you kill them. I think they study is absurd. Urbanization reduces disease because there is less biodiversity. Just another study among many.
I love it how motherjones insinuates the dreaded right wing is an evil cult.
-
Latino is not a race. They are Spanish speakers, foremost.
-
The author of the article presumably thinks that Latinos should want open borders, because they are the same race, or something of that nature.
-
The author assumes that American Latinos should be proud of a country they were not born in, don't live in, and perhaps no family in.
-
Latinos, Hispanics, Latinx, whatever liberals decide to call them, are not necessarily foreign to the soil of the US. Latinos been in the US since before the US expansion toward the West. They existed inside Texas when it was a republic. The Hispanos, that is what they call themselves of the American Southwest, are not Mexican, they have been around during the days of Spaniards. Do you really expect them to identify with a country for which they have no ancestral ties to? Furthermore, Mexican isn't a race. Mexico is a country where you have Mexican Jews, Mexican sub-Saharan Africans, Asian-Mexicans., and Amerindians.
-
Some points the author gets mostly right: Yes, an invisible caste system does exist in a lot of Latin America, but not ALL of Latin America. Cubans and Dominicans are racially integrated while at the same time Dominicans are nationalist, and even pan-latin. You can't blame the continued existence of a caste system on white folks. You can't blame racial-ethnic tensions in South America between the Amerindians and mestizos on white folks, either. There are no white folks teaching Bolivians to be prejudice against each other.
-
Hispanics may not like a country like Mexico, not because they're racist; they genuinely think the country sucks. That is rational. There is good nationalism and there is bad nationalism. Good nationalism seeks to improve the quality of the nation in economic well-being, or happiness, and security, through achievement. Bad nationalism is tribalism, and you will find a lot of that in Latin America as well. That is irrational because you imagine some special quality of being a national, but you can't quite figure out what. It is an issue of substance.
-
What about the politics of Latinos? They do they like the US because it is a country of laws, or do you expect them to look onto a lawless country more favorably? Migrants vote with their feet.
What motherjones wants is to imagine is ourselves as communist, where we ignore our differences and assume we are all equal or the same. Motherjones wants you to think simply of right wing latinos as being influenced by the Ku Klux Klan. They miss the mark so often, I don't read them. Of course, it is about race, that is what motherjones is about.
Putin wanted the civil war resolved, and he thought he could trust NATO to resolve it. Instead, as Angela Merkel pointed out, the Minsk II Accords were merely to buy time to arm Ukraine.
In her interviews with Alexander Osang, which took place over a period of a year and in various locations, Merkel insisted that her stance on the Minsk agreement – which brought a ceasefire after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula – had been right. Key points of the Minsk peace talks, including disarmament and supervision by an international body, were never followed through. But Merkel said the agreement had nevertheless helped buy Kyiv time to arm itself better against the Russian military.
Angela Merkel says she lost influence over Putin as a lame duck leader https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/angela-merkel-says-she-lost-influence-over-putin-as-a-lame-duck-leader Minsk agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements Real intention behind Minsk agreements further destroys credibility of the West https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202212/1281708.shtml No apologies: Germany’s Merkel defends approach to Ukraine https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-politics-berlin-germany-20b29c43618d4d711d62c07b589de4b1
I deal with facts and logic. Putin does not want to fight NATO, but NATO clearly wants to fight Putin without initiating a nuclear war. Using Ukrainians to fight their war for them, which is the reason for arming them in the first place, and to use Ukraine as a NATO bulwark against Russia. Ukraine is in trouble today because of the refusal to handle the situation diplomatically. The motive is obvious, the US wants Ukrainians to fight Russia, and plotted to agitate Russia to invade Ukraine. NATO has absolutely no interest in any peace. They're not fighting it, and they promote Ukrainians as fighting their war. A war which they can't win. The US does not care about NATO. Caring would involve saving the lives of Ukrainians and to ensure peace and prosperity through diplomacy. If Lindsey Graham had his way, he would lower the draft age to 14 years old. It is an unhinged foreign policy; it is a war that did not need to be fought if there was a compromise. It is foolish to reject compromise because of valiant defiance. Bravado alone is not enough. The case in Ukraine shows there is irrational leadership in Ukraine. Zelenskyy was naive not acknowledge interests of other countries, especially a neighbor. Ukraine was ill-equipped, by all metrics, weaker than Russia. Russia was weak in the first year of the war, because the military was not prepared to go to war, but now Russia has a much better military, and they have the resolve to win. This shows a lack of reason on the part of the Ukrainians who seem romantically obsessed of joining NATO, which is a political alliance, and the EU, which has a military component.
Tell us, what did the evil Chinese do to Hong Kong? Please inform me. Hong Kong belongs to China, that is why the British gave it back to them. It is the British colonialism, the reason why Hong Kong was under British control. China does not take too kindly to Western imperialism by historical experience. You bet they are not giving up Taiwan to the United States.
MOST NATO countries did not pay the mandatory 2% minimum. So, yes, the European states were not that considered their own security. Another thing to consider is the capabilities of Russia; Russia has no ability to project power across Europe. It is physically impossible for the Russians to conquer Europe, and it is illogical that Russia would attack a NATO country. That is a myth created to create hysteria as to garner more support against Russia. Ukraine is a security concern for Russia, not for the United States, or the rest of Europe. The US is more fascist than the Russia, since it wants to control the world and export its culture. Fascist believe in autarky and see every single nation or country as a threat. Balance of power politics is not fascism, it is rational, and common sense. The US has toppled far more governments than the Russians did in their entire history. When you are forcing other countries to become liberal, that is fascism.
Of course, it does. When your enemy is arming your neighbor to be against you, that is more enough justification for any country, including the US. You act as if the US obeys international law and never staged a coup, or invaded a country. What is the US doing in Syria now? The US has up to 800 bases around the world, and you talk about Russian imperialism as if that is real. The US wants to dominate Europe via NATO. NATO is how the US exercises influence on Europe. This is power politics by Russia, it is not about conquering anything, but keeping US influence in check. You have no evidence to support your claims.
Not all countries in the EU support Ukraine. It is not in their interest to support the conflict in Ukraine. If Russia was such a looming threat, they would have paid their fair share in NATO military funding. Barack Obama pointed this out, not just Trump. Obviously, they preferred to get rich, instead of spend money on the military. Viktor Orbán is the sanest leader in the EU because he tells it like it is. A Russian threat is greatly inflated with myths of a new USSR. Russians are not ideologically communist, and they have no interest in controlling other European people. They have been there and done that. The Soviets had to deal with uprising and insubordinate leaders when they controlled Eastern Europe. Uprisings in Romania and Hungary. Ukraine is a security matter for Russia. There is no imperial motivation for it. It was well established long before this conflict that NATO expansion into Ukraine would be a disaster. Angela Merkel and Sarkozy said this much including Bill Burns as Secretary of State, and ambassador. Bill Burns still works in the US government.
Germany will be highly reliant on other countries for their energy needs. Wind and solar are intermittent energy. With no cheap Russian piped gas, Germans would be paying higher for peaker plants and backup natural gas plants. Green energy isn't reliable for heavy industry. This is a permanent deindustrialization. Wind doesn't always work and some weeks there is extensive cloud cover. Sure, a desert would be consistent with solar because it has minimal cloud cover all year long, and you plan for that, but Germany is not ideal for that.
Joe Biden is a Zionist, he has admitted this. He loves Israel more than America. Look how he is trashing America's image for Israeli nationalism. The Israeli government considers Palestinians subhuman. I wonder if Genocide Joe considers them subhuman as well.