• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kerry condemns Russia's 'incredible act of aggression' in Ukraine

ecofarm said:
Ignorance. Genocide is what kept Saddam in control of Iraq, what gave his absolute authority and an ability to stomp out any and all opposition. When you say things were better under Saddam you are -in fact- arguing for genocide as some kind of short-sighted, warped and sick version of "stability".
Click to expand...

I might be mistaken, but I believe his point was that the region was more stable. Certainly, the changes in Iraq led to a regional power vacuum and made it easier for Iran to seek regional hegemony. That vacuum has also been filled by numerous jihadist groups. It's too soon to know, but some arguments might even be made that it provided one regional shock that helped reanimate historic ethnic and religious rivalries.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I might be mistaken, but I believe his point was that the region was more stable.
Click to expand...

That's a myth told to intellectual children. The things Saddam did do not constitute stability. They constitute mass slaughter in desperate attempt to maintain absolute (and horribly barbaric) rule. Accepting that rule, in lieu of a handful of terrorists, is irrational. The source of such insanity can be a few angles... anti-war, religion, partisanship, just plain bonkers and/or a combination of any of these and other factors. However, the bottom line remains the same: those things do not, have not and never will represent stability in any intellectually honest sense.
 
PeteEU said:
Eh? Denmark has never been part of a Greater German Reich. Denmark was invaded and occupied by the Germans under WW2, but it has never been under German control otherwise. Plus the Danes dont speak German, nor do they have "German cultural" links.
Click to expand...
Your argument was that Ukraine was a part of Russia about 60 years ago and so Russia can do what it chooses to there, Im simply using your own logic since Germany conquered Denmark a decade earlier.

Again I dispute that there is an actual invasion.
Click to expand...
You seem to interpret English differently than I. When I see another countries' military taking over the territory of another thats an invasion in my books, I dont know what you call it over there.

Tell that to both sides. Right now it is the Ukrainians that are the ones trying for war it seems.
Click to expand...
Wow. You definitely have an Orwellian view of things- Ukraine gets invaded and they are trying for war. LOL

And military camo's can be bought anywhere. Hell I would say they look like US troops as well... does that mean the US has invaded Crimea?
Click to expand...
Youre obviously clueless when it comes to recognizing uniforms, I wonder if you can tell the difference between a pajama and a business suit.

LOL okay, keep your blinders on then. The fact that it shows the internal divide between the Ukrainian speaking and Russian speaking peoples is not important?
Click to expand...
There are Spanish speaking people in America but we dont go to war over it.
 
PeteEU said:
Can we trust the Ukrainians? How about not trusting anyone?
Click to expand...
You seem to trust whatever the Russians say and do. I bet if they occupied Copenhagen you'd be cheering them on as well. :roll:


PeteEU said:
I dunno, your country does it all the time, so maybe you can answer that yourself.
Click to expand...
So two wrongs make a right? Did you just admit that Russia did in fact violate Ukraine's national sovereignty?
 
ecofarm said:
That's a myth told to intellectual children. The things Saddam did do not constitute stability. They constitute mass slaughter in desperate attempt to maintain absolute (and horribly barbaric) rule. Accepting that rule, in lieu of a handful of terrorists, is irrational. The source of such insanity can be a few angles... anti-war, religion, partisanship, just plain bonkers and/or a combination of any of these and other factors. However, the bottom line remains the same: those things do not, have not and never will represent stability in any intellectually honest sense.
Click to expand...

He most definitely also played a destabilizing role (Kuwait, his earlier nuclear activities that precipitated an Israeli air strike, etc.). In addition, while the changed balance of power acted as a catalyst for the reawakening sectarianism, the structural roots preceded the war.

IMO, the U.S. would do well to consolidate its security commitments and collaboration with Egypt, Israel, and Jordan. Remarkably, even as it has a fresh opportunity for a viable Egyptian partner, its policy approach is largely indifferent to the new government and wholly inadequate. It continues to press Israel when, in fact, Israel has demonstrated far more flexibility than the Palestinians. When the Palestinians finally agree that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a right to settle in the historic land but specifically the new Palestinian state and not Israel, then progress on that front might be feasible. So long as they insist on a "right of return," a final settlement won't be feasible. That's the big barrier to peace, not a lack of unilateral Israeli concessions.

Finally, I believe the U.S. should be a little less idealistic and naive when it comes to sectarian uprisings. Time and again, it has believed that uprisings in Libya, Syria, etc., were democratic in nature. They were not. Syria's initial protests may have been. Those who took up arms had only sectarian ambitions. In neither state did they lay out goals that were compatible with U.S. regional interests and that omission speaks for itself. Not even the most "moderate" of the Syrian revolutionaries--and the quotes are deliberate--even signaled privately or publicly that they would establish any kind of partnership with the U.S., cooperate on combating terrorist movements hostile to U.S. interests and allies, or conclude peace with Israel. How Syria resolves its internal affairs is and should be its issue. None of the parties to the sectarian conflict rise to the level that would justify U.S. support. All have demonstrated excesses in brutality to the extent that their capabilities allow. The U.S. issue should concern working to ensure that no matter the outcome, American regional interests and allies won't be worse off.
 
Kobie said:
No, FEAR is what kept Saddam in control. Yes, he was an ASSHOLE. Nobody is arguing that he wasn't.

Were there Al Qaeda fighters bombing random civilians in Iraq when Saddam was in power? NO.
Were Christians being killed in Iraq when Saddam was in power? NO.
Was there rampant sectarian violence in Iraq when Saddam was in power? NO.
Did Iran attempt to fulfill its nuclear ambitions when Saddam was in power? NO.

That's ALL I'm saying. So take your "Advocating Genocide" garbage and cram it.



Bye.

And, btw, regardless of your opinion of Iraq, there is no way in hell you're going to convince me it was worth a trillion dollars and nearly 5,000 American lives to try to "fix." GOOD DAY.
Click to expand...

Apologists for Bush's Iraq lie can never concede this.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Finally, I believe the U.S. should be a little less idealistic and naive when it comes to sectarian uprisings. Time and again, it has believed that uprisings in Libya, Syria, etc., were democratic in nature. They were not. Syria's initial protests may have been. Those who took up arms had only sectarian ambitions.
Click to expand...

Of course the terrorists are the first to get arms, as such logistics are a matter of course for Iran and other suppliers. Where are those interested in democracy to acquire arms in a dictatorship slaughtering civilians with the military? In the case of Syria, a lack of support from the West resulted in a power vacuum that was occupied by radical elements. Perhaps you have another idea as to where and how democratic uprising are to be armed, with the West standing aside.

In neither state did they lay out goals that were compatible with U.S. regional interests and that omission speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

In the case of Syria, that is not true. The SNC made clear its intention for a transitional democratic government with human rights.

Not even the most "moderate" of the Syrian revolutionaries--and the quotes are deliberate--even signaled privately or publicly that they would establish any kind of partnership with the U.S., cooperate on combating terrorist movements hostile to U.S. interests and allies, or conclude peace with Israel.
Click to expand...

See above.

How Syria resolves its internal affairs is and should be its issue. None of the parties to the sectarian conflict rise to the level that would justify U.S. support. All have demonstrated excesses in brutality to the extent that their capabilities allow. The U.S. issue should concern working to ensure that no matter the outcome, American regional interests and allies won't be worse off.
Click to expand...

Leaving Syria to burn is a weak and unforgivable move by the West.

It astounds me that some who would tacitly support gassing the capital cry out against Russia in Ukraine, as if anything of the sort has happened.
 
joko104 said:
Kerry is a joke and symbol of cowardice and incompetency.
Click to expand...

Kerry is a decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam era. He is definitely not a coward and you probably confused him with the first coward GW Bush (AWOL/deserter?). I think he is a sellout of the scumbag variety to even carry the USA gov't litany of lies regarding Ukraine. We caused the unconstitutional coup with CIA intrigue and all you have to do to prove it is listen to Victoria Nuland's voice stating their man would be "Yats" after the coup is completed. Gee,, what a coinky-dink that she would utter the name of the new leader 3 weeks before the event. Wowser, deja vu, familiar spirits, or CIA inside information. Gosh, just what could it be?
 
Montecresto said:
Apologists for Bush's Iraq lie can never concede this.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed the memo. Saddam faked a wmd program. He had everyone fooled, most importantly the Iranians. It backfired on him. That's no one else's fault.
 
PeteEU said:
Well that airbase where the "first shot" was given, it seems that the Ukrainian men wanted their jobs back, and are now cooperating with the Russians.

As for the defection

BBC News - New head of Ukraine's navy defects in Crimea

I dont know what information is coming to American news viewers, but I suspect it is rather selective when it comes to what is actually happening and very pro Kiev and anti Russian.. that is the usual bull**** coming from American media. Now I despise Putin but the real question is would you rather have the devil you know, than the devil you dont? On that front Putin and Russia do have a point.. there some elements of the Ukranian opposition that are not exactly kosher (yes that is a pun since they are anti-semitc racists).

Fact is the situation on Crimea is hardly black and white. You have the new government in Kiev trying to assert its power over a part of Ukraine that has a lot of self determination. The same people that are in the new government tried not long ago to curb this self determination and that has resulted in some of (if not a majority) the local police, para-military and other security forces to jump ship and pledge intelligence to the Russian back locally elected parliament and Prime Minister. Hell there is a story that some of these forces were actually dismissed by the people in Kiev and are now demanding their jobs back.. see the airbase incident.

It is basically a huge mess, and the fire is being fanned from all sides including the US and the US right wing. Some commentators here in Europe are pointing out that the rhetoric coming from Washington is more designed for the domestic politics that actual real world politics, since the US has very little trade with Russia in the first place and any sanctions or visa restrictions would probably hurt the US more than Russia.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton told our congress that for "real news" we must go to Al Jazeera. That American news was failing in that. And she stated that we are in an information war, and that we are loosing that war. Your impression of what Americans are hearing is correct, save the ones that are listening to real news.
 
Montecresto said:
Hillary Clinton told our congress that for "real news" we must go to Al Jazeera. That American news was failing in that. And she stated that we are in an information war, and that we are loosing that war. Your impression of what Americans are hearing is correct, save the ones that are listening to real news.
Click to expand...

Monte keeps telling this lie. Hillary was talking about propaganda.
 
Paleocon said:
He's not a KGB member anymore.

Not that I expect anything to dissuade you from your blind hatred of all governments outside America and Western Europe (and westernized parts of Africa and Asia).
Click to expand...

Nope, you will never move the blind.
 
Kerry needs to shut his pie-hole and keep our nose out of it. Just my two-cents.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I might be mistaken, but I believe his point was that the region was more stable. Certainly, the changes in Iraq led to a regional power vacuum and made it easier for Iran to seek regional hegemony. That vacuum has also been filled by numerous jihadist groups. It's too soon to know, but some arguments might even be made that it provided one regional shock that helped reanimate historic ethnic and religious rivalries.
Click to expand...

Russia taking over The Ukraine will do exactly the same thing.
 
US Conservative said:
When you see this you are seeing back in time-to appeasers throughout history.
Click to expand...

Ya know, I wish it was just an appeasement mentality. I think the reality far more treacherous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom