+! Q @mnet1514 6 months ago A long-time follower of Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer here. I've leaned more and more to Sachs as my exposure and research on geopolitics and economics expanded. Mearsheimer's "containing China" stand became increasingly aligned with the disastrous US government's policy since Obama's "pivot to China" days. I kept asking and arguing, WHY? China worked super hard to get to where they are now. They elevated over 800 MILLION of their citizens out of poverty just in the past few decades. They're one of the oldest civilizations, they're smart, they're innovative, they work hard, they're entrepreneurial, they're pragmatic, they hate wars, they don't intervene with other countries' politics, they don't bomb, nuke, regime-change other countries, they have only one military base outside China (to primarily protect their interest in a critical trade route in the international waters), they've advanced their educationl system, infrastructure and status of their society, etc., etc. What business does the US have in containing this unprecedented endeavor to a betterment of a billion and half lives? China has the absolute right to become a powerful nation because they damn well worked hard for it and achieved it peacefully (unlike the West that prospered by of course hardwork but also by genocide of natives, slavery, colonization, and unimaginable brutality). I have therefore lost interest lately on Mearsheimer's "realism" of choosing one nuclear war over the other. Sachs is always on point, reasonable, respectful to the sovereignty of the Global South countries and their leaders he works with, and truly passionate about peace and development. I'm with Sachs! UQ
<杰弗里·伯顿·罗素等学者认为，冲突的根源可能并非严格地来自宗教，而是冲突背后的世俗权力、种族、社会、政治和经济原因的掩护。[1]> Q A religious war or a war of religion, sometimes also known as a holy war (Latin: sanctum bellum), is a war and conflict which is primarily caused or justified by differences in religion and beliefs. In the modern period, there are frequent debates over the extent to which religious, economic, ethnic or other aspects of a conflict are predominant in a given war. The degree to which a war may be considered religious depends on many underlying questions, such as the definition of religion, the definition of 'religious war' (taking religious traditions on violence such as 'holy war' into account), and the applicability of religion to war as opposed to other possible factors. Answers to these questions heavily influence conclusions on how prevalent religious wars have been as opposed to other types of wars. According to scholars such as Jeffrey Burton Russell, conflicts may not be rooted strictly in religion and instead may be a cover for the underlying secular power, ethnic, social, political, and economic reasons for conflict.[1]Other scholars have argued that what is termed "religious wars" is a largely "Western dichotomy" and a modern invention from the past few centuries, arguing that all wars that are classed as "religious" have secular (economic or political) ramifications.[2][3][4] In several conflicts including the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the Syrian civil war, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, religious elements are overtly present, but variously described as fundamentalism or religious extremism—depending upon the observer's sympathies. However, studies on these cases often conclude that ethnic animosities drive much of the conflicts.[5] UQ
感慨现代战争还在用几十年前的方式，大炮坦克轰炸。我以为都是无人机代替人去送死。
以前战争是抢地盘，占领别的国家的地盘，抢占资源，抢钱，被占领的地区老百姓有的被归化了，有的被屠城。俄罗斯战略中国的土地上都没有中国人了。这种情况下，被占领的地方剩下的东西越多越好，相当于给侵略国留下财富，建筑也不用建了。这个过程中杀人是为了使屈服不抵抗。
现代战争让无人机和机器人上战场，如果进行轰炸，侵略国占领的土地上啥都没了，毛都不剩。无人机互殴，人员伤亡也少。我就不太理解，现代战争图啥啊？感觉不是图以前那些实际的东西，而是一些虚的东西。是不是因为这样，俄乌战争才还是用传统方式打仗？
自己国家都是强制征兵的
看看俄乌后，欧洲资本把美国股市推到多高，版上大妈401k 翻了几番。
你就知道打仗的好处了
我记得战争刚开始那年股市低迷啊。
如果是为了股市，干脆让两边机器人互殴，人远程操控，何必让人送死
太幼稚 不死人钱会流入美国避险吗？
没懂
你说的机器人对战，不就相当于国际象棋吗。 能分配财富吗？ 战争终极目标是为了财富，动人家的财富，必然流血
胜利者意志得到贯彻，失败者被迫接受。
个人加入战争，或者被迫，或者自愿。
自愿的是为自己的理念而战。
这个视频几个月前在华人有激烈讨论。值得细看。
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/uvFtyDy_Bt0?si=zAfVc80Lw9JSDid3
这就是我纳闷的地方啊，用机器人打仗，跟打游戏差不多，人在背后操控。打几轮游戏，国家大事就定了，不用流血牺牲，不用炸毁建筑，省了钱啊。
用机器人打彰显实力，警告一下对方，你不签条约我们的实力肯定会流血。点到为止。
战争太残酷了。
战争贯穿人类历史
和平年代 是比较少见的
我不想经历战争。各国领导人们把精力放在怎么带老百姓致富上，别总想着抢别人的。
不到黄河心不死啊 哪个沙盘推演可以推出乌克兰战胜俄罗斯的？又是哪个沙盘推演可以推出西欧那几个国家可以战胜俄罗斯的？ 正在结束的这一周 欧洲不还在说 俄乌之战必须以俄罗斯失败终结吗 我实在看不出来如何以俄罗斯战败终结 欧洲战场 拿破仑 二战 都是入侵俄罗斯后失败了 同时俄罗斯也从来没有实力入侵英法 也是联手美国才有东西德 几百年的历史还不够彰显彼此实力的均势吗 如果双方实力彰显 就能不打仗 早就不用打仗了
这个 视角好像没意义
乌克兰 多出 一堆寡妇来， 那些 乌克兰大妈 可不觉得 打仗有好处，
接受这个 牺牲家人的结果那是另外一说。
很有意义啊 英国殖民，成为日不落 美国建在印第安和黑奴的白骨之上。二战让美国成为世界霸主。 不就是一部分人白骨累累，一部分人纸醉金迷吗？
二战没有美国，
我们现在在说日语，向天皇磕头呢
美国做了件好事情
都是人的贪嗔痴 贪心不知足 永远觉得自己拥有的名利 情欲 不够
你说的对，美华不但感谢美国，还应该感谢黑奴印第安人，否则怎么会赚到美元呢？
我直系家人是参战打了日本人的，我外公，差点不止一次 差点被抓住，抓住就完蛋，
我爸这边 非直系亲属里，还有一位林彪部队 出来的离休干部，都是直接上战场的，
我只说和我有关的，印第安人和我有啥关系？？ 提印第安人就是抬杠，
日本军国主义有多疯，有多强大 你也知道，她的海军有多猛！最后都被美国干死，
所以 美国这个 世界超级大国的地位是 打出来的，日本军国，德国纳粹，一手打一个，德国纳粹 靠苏联牵制了不少力量，但是美国对苏联的 军援 至关重要
所以，美国做了一件好事，你最好 show 一些 respect , 更不要说，你在美国生活在这里养家纳税，
我不喜欢川普还有那一堆内阁啥的，各种各样五花八门的 政治的东西，但是 我用 常识 说话，
选择在美国生活，入籍，养娃，纳税，说明在一些基本价值观上是认可美国的，
不要再这些上面 耍嘴皮子，挺没意义的，
我也同意一点，在一些基本价值观上不认可美国的，就不要美国生活，赶紧走，哈哈，我是不是 上去 很 MAGA
+!
Q @mnet1514 6 months ago A long-time follower of Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer here. I've leaned more and more to Sachs as my exposure and research on geopolitics and economics expanded. Mearsheimer's "containing China" stand became increasingly aligned with the disastrous US government's policy since Obama's "pivot to China" days. I kept asking and arguing, WHY? China worked super hard to get to where they are now. They elevated over 800 MILLION of their citizens out of poverty just in the past few decades. They're one of the oldest civilizations, they're smart, they're innovative, they work hard, they're entrepreneurial, they're pragmatic, they hate wars, they don't intervene with other countries' politics, they don't bomb, nuke, regime-change other countries, they have only one military base outside China (to primarily protect their interest in a critical trade route in the international waters), they've advanced their educationl system, infrastructure and status of their society, etc., etc. What business does the US have in containing this unprecedented endeavor to a betterment of a billion and half lives? China has the absolute right to become a powerful nation because they damn well worked hard for it and achieved it peacefully (unlike the West that prospered by of course hardwork but also by genocide of natives, slavery, colonization, and unimaginable brutality). I have therefore lost interest lately on Mearsheimer's "realism" of choosing one nuclear war over the other. Sachs is always on point, reasonable, respectful to the sovereignty of the Global South countries and their leaders he works with, and truly passionate about peace and development. I'm with Sachs! UQ
战争的目的当然也不一样， 美国阿富汗是为了找 宾拉登。 轰炸巴格达是为了找 核武器。 俄乌战争的目的是什么？ 一个是北约的威胁， 一个是俄乌东部亲俄罗斯人的安全。
战争是残酷的， 又是愚昧的， 大部分的战争是没有任何意义的。 希望永远没有三战。
打过日本人就不要在美国人面前说了。美国国防部长都把二战日军当英雄般纪念，就差改写历史了。
为了利益啊！ 美国的武器商估计是赚得盆满钵满! 美国多少次校园/公共场所mass shooting， 都控不了枪。就可以知道美国的武器商势力有多大。连美国本国人自己死了， 都不会在乎， 又怎么会在乎别的国家人的死伤？华尔街也是赚了很多。还有乌克兰的高官， 也贪了很多很多。 不死人, 有权有势者到哪里去找这泼天的富贵? 另外战略上也帮美国干掉了俄罗斯这个以前的对手。 应该50年-100年不会有威胁了。
什么虚的东西 战争说白了都是为了钱啊……
鸦片战争就是清王朝和欧洲抢银子 南北战争也不是为了解放黑奴 欧洲历史上的各种推翻君王的大革命也不是为了人民独立 口号都是幌子 浪漫渲染说给你听让动感情的。。。 不动感情怎么会有人傻到去拼命跟着打仗呢？
钱！
我也不想要战争，觉得那个台湾人已经有战争创伤了，才会回去
这个说法不准确。你去看看ftse， dax这三年的走势。美国这波大行情还是归功于fed放水和inflation，covid之前就是了，covid短暂跌了的三个月，之后放水更猛，涨的更凶。俄乌战争影响不大，也就对原油天然气走势影响大些。
炮灰必须要是月薪3000以下的。。。
當崛起的大國威脅要取代現有霸主地位時，由此產生的結構壓力使暴力衝突成為必然。
为了钱显然不对。 不为了钱的战争多了去了。 钱不是唯一的利益。
可以说为了捍卫自身的利益， 可以是地缘政治， 可以是经济利益， 可以是军事利益， 可以是其他莫名的利益。
所有利益最后都指向 钱： 人为财死
以前我也这么认为，国家领导不是应该让老百姓生活好吗？现在不这么认为了，这些都是为了让自己更好
侵略者都是说是为了本国老百姓过好日子。你相信是为了祖国统一？哈哈
不过打不起来的， 一打就路线了， 就像泰国的高楼一样， 还发了论文说是抗震标榜， 一个余波就路线
的确，是回美国了，但也就留在美国了，以后在美元外用美元的机会也不多了，暂时还是计价单位。
破解热力学第二定律
现在上来的都是70后，60后，这些人没有经历过第二次世界大战，对战争之残酷没有刻骨铭心的记忆
所以战争是不可避免的
楼慢慢就歪了，祖国统一是必须的。暗戳戳的就给洗到台海这边来了。
Q A religious war or a war of religion, sometimes also known as a holy war (Latin: sanctum bellum), is a war and conflict which is primarily caused or justified by differences in religion and beliefs. In the modern period, there are frequent debates over the extent to which religious, economic, ethnic or other aspects of a conflict are predominant in a given war. The degree to which a war may be considered religious depends on many underlying questions, such as the definition of religion, the definition of 'religious war' (taking religious traditions on violence such as 'holy war' into account), and the applicability of religion to war as opposed to other possible factors. Answers to these questions heavily influence conclusions on how prevalent religious wars have been as opposed to other types of wars.
According to scholars such as Jeffrey Burton Russell, conflicts may not be rooted strictly in religion and instead may be a cover for the underlying secular power, ethnic, social, political, and economic reasons for conflict.[1] Other scholars have argued that what is termed "religious wars" is a largely "Western dichotomy" and a modern invention from the past few centuries, arguing that all wars that are classed as "religious" have secular (economic or political) ramifications.[2][3][4] In several conflicts including the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the Syrian civil war, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, religious elements are overtly present, but variously described as fundamentalism or religious extremism—depending upon the observer's sympathies. However, studies on these cases often conclude that ethnic animosities drive much of the conflicts.[5] UQ
战争可能由多种因素的复杂相互作用引发，包括对资源、政治权力、领土争端、宗教或意识形态差异以及历史恩怨的竞争，当和平解决失败时，往往会导致武装冲突。
以下是战争常见原因的更详细分析：
经济因素： 资源稀缺：对土地、水、矿产和能源等基本资源的竞争可能升级为冲突。
经济不平等：国家内部或国家之间财富和机会的巨大差距可能加剧怨恨和不稳定，可能导致战争。 贸易争端：贸易路线、关税和经济主导地位的冲突也可能爆发为武装冲突。
政治因素：
权力斗争：国家内部和国家之间对政治权力的竞争可能导致战争，因为各个团体试图获得或保持控制权。
意识形态差异：对立的政治意识形态之间的冲突，例如共产主义与资本主义之间的冲突，可能导致代理人战争甚至直接对抗。 领土争端：边界、主权和领土控制方面的分歧是战争的常见原因。
社会和文化因素：
宗教差异：宗教极端主义和不同信仰之间的冲突在历史上一直是战争的原因。
种族和民族主义紧张局势：种族或国家之间的争端，往往因历史恩怨或明显的不公正而加剧，可能导致冲突。 侵犯人权：在人们为自决和正义而战时，持续不断的侵犯人权和压迫可能导致暴力冲突。
历史因素：
过去的冲突和恩怨：未解决的争端和历史恩怨可能会恶化并导致未来的冲突。
帝国主义和殖民主义：殖民主义和帝国主义的遗产可能在前殖民者和被殖民国家之间造成持久的紧张和冲突。
其他因素：
外交失败：当和平解决失败时，冲突可能升级为战争。
误判和升级：判断失误或意外的冲突升级可能导致战争。 治理薄弱：缺乏有效的治理和机构可能为冲突和战争创造条件。
UQ