Let me know when the keel fails and the whole thing breaks in two.

You know fascism has a definition, right? It doesn’t mean “I don’t like it”.

Stopping the war industry and ceasing all sort of imperialistic activities, even on one side alone will put at end on most conflicts but every ruler is in for more wealth and power, they don’t want to stop. This does not mean that because someone is doing it everyone has to follow suit, it literally means that every corrupted politician and their government seek war.

I think this is overly naive and simplistic.

So do you agree that palestine should have the rights to defend themself against israel?

(I’m not as well versed in this conflict, but a few thoughts from my perspective)

The situation and power dynamics are quite different there. I don’t have any easy answer unfortunately.

• Palestine doesn’t have a conventional army or a means to fight Israel the same way Ukraine is fighting Russia.
• Israel’s reaction and occupation of Gaza Strip is horrible.
• Historically, Israel’s treatment of Palestinian people has been completely unacceptable.
• Hamas’ actions have been awful, both historically and with the first attack in October where they started this conflict. Their attacks routinely target civilians, which is unacceptable.

So, if there are people living in Palestine who want to fight the occupiers, that perspective makes sense to me. So, at the most basic level, yes – I think they should be able to defend themselves. However, Hamas historically seems prioritized only in hurting Israel, and their actions routinely hurt Palestine in a number of ways. Plus, supporting terrorist organizations (like Hamas) with arms/training/etc has worked out poorly for the US in the past.

So, unfortunately, I think there are no “good guys” here (besides the civilians caught up in this who want peace). I think both Israel and Hamas steered into this conflict when alternative course of actions existed. Conflict between these groups has been ongoing for decades and has no good or simple solution.

Generally, I’d agree with that sentiment. However, what path forward would provide the best way out of the situation and discourage further conflict in the region?

When we look at the lead up to WW2, we see a build-up of tension by Germany and attempted appeasement by the other major powers in an effort to avoid another breakout of war in Europe, only a few decades after the first great war ravaged these nations.

Notable events:

• Remilitarization of the Rhineland (Mar 1936) – this was a clear power move and violation of the Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1. With no real reaction from the France/Britain, this was a clear indication to Hitler he could continue to push things much further.
• Anschluss (Annexation of Austria, Mar 1938) - Germany was prepared to take Austria by force, but managed to do so with only the threat of violence. This was also against the Treaty of Versailles and also had no real reaction from the Allied powers.
• Sudetenland conquest (Sept 1938) - Germany pressures Czechoslovakia for pieces of it’s territory that border Germany. British PM finally gets involved, allowing the exchange of territory for a promise of peace. This is the famous " Peace for our time declaration.
• Annexation of territory from Lithuania (Mar 1939) - Lithuania pressed to give up territory under threat of war.
• Czech/Slovokia split and occupation/control (Mar 1939) - Under further pressure and threat of invasion, Czechoslovakia split and both come under German control.
• Invasion of Poland by Germany and USSR (Sept 1939) - First open conflict. France and Britain declare war on Germany, roughly a year after the “Peace for our time” negotiations/declaration that clearly made a difference!

As you can see, in the build-up to WW2, the European powers that opposed German expansion sought alternatives. They even allowed Germany to push its weight around on its neighbors, taking territory from others, and consolidating power. By the time the great powers were forced into conflict by open war in Poland, they were no longer in a position to hope to control Germany at all, doubly so with their apparent new cooperation with the USSR.

Knowing what happened, it’s easy to see that any intervention by France and/or Britain, whether it sparked violence or not, in the early days of German aggression would have almost certainly led to a less powerful Germany, perhaps one that could not have taken over most of Europe so easily.

I think the key take away from all of this is that, modern nations that have a desire for conquest are a danger to all. They are not to be believed, they should not be appeased, they should not be rewarded. Any violence against free nations should be resisted, supported by all free nations, but without escalation to full-blown nuclear war.

The danger of washing our hands of the conflict and saying something like, “Violence bad. End the war. They can have Ukraine/Donetsk/whatever.” is that Russia won’t stop there. They’ll get bigger, stronger, and move on to the next target when they’re ready.

The horrible part about all of this is that the apparent best way to keep long-term violence down is to continue the fighting now. The longer the conflict continues, and the more humiliated Russia becomes, the less likely Russia will chose to do a similar invasion in the future.

He often presents populist ideas, even when they aren’t in line with his normal rhetoric.

I think he does it to grab attention or appeal to people with that idea. He then spews a ton of well-polished half-truths and straight lies to make whatever point he was after in the first place.

It’s not uncommon for anyone to agree with a sentence or two from him out of context, but in context, it’s all garbage.

That’s assuming that they’re authentic and not propaganda pieces…

Correct. Amish are Mennonites who shun other Mennonites. The elders of their church decide for the local congregation what is and isn’t appropriate conduct. If you disagree, you are shunned.

I know this is pedantic, but that’s just not right. Amish and Mennonites are generally distinct. One group does not belong to the other, though some groups in the middle claim to be part of both. Regardless, the umbrella term for both is “Anabaptist”.

If the congregation down the road disagrees, those folks are shunned.

I’ve not known there to be much animosity between neighboring groups, but I guess I haven’t witnessed an Amish church split up close. I know they happen though, but all Anabaptist groups in my area are quite friendly with one another.

Shunning seems to be more of a way to have their own members conform to their local rules. They really don’t care what others in the community or neighboring Christian groups do. I think it really is a control mechanism – e.g. “Do things this way or you are going to lose your family/friends/community support”.

(Source: My dad grew up Old Order Amish, his family was kicked out of the church (over some farming rules). My grandpa transitioned to be Beachy Amish at some point, while my dad joined a (now progressive) Mennonite church that I grew up and remained in for a long time)

I know everyone is different, but I’ve been sleeping better while Vyvanse is still in my system. I have a much harder time getting to sleep super late or trying to get back to sleep after getting woken up.