• 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!

Americans Increasingly See Russia as Threat, Top U.S. Enemy

Yes, the Serbs.

You helped many former Yugoslav countries be liberated from Serbian hegemony. If left unchecked the whole of Yugoslavia might have today been annexed from Russia just like Ukrainian Crimea.

Not everybody views the breakup of Yugoslavia as a positive development.
 
Simpleχity;1064323222 said:
The constitutions of both Ukraine and Crimea stipulated that any change in Crimea's status must be approved by *all* of the Ukrainian people, not just the citizens living on the peninsula. How can it be that >1% of Ukraine's population of 46 million has the final say on what happens to land that belongs to all the Ukrainian people?

Totally irrelevant.

So, by that ridiculous law, if 100% of those in the Crimea want to leave but people that have never set foot AND have no direct interest there can deny them? That is whacked.

It is their region. It belongs to the people that live there...not to people that don't.

I don't even begin to care what their unjust laws say (there are TONS of unjust laws in the world), if the vast majority of a region want to leave the country, they should be able to...period.
 
Because somebody somewhere always has to be a threat to the all powerful United States. I don't remember a time in my life that we haven't been instructed that we were living under some threat. But then I suppose the big stick approach can create endless enemies.
 
Totally irrelevant.
Hardly. Constitutional law is the core and guiding mechanism of the entire rule-of-law subset.

It is their region. It belongs to the people that live there...not to people that don't.
You've never heard of national elections and national referendums? Nations in-toto belong to all of its citizens regardless of which region they happen to inhabit.

You seriously need to rethink your position. It is clumsy, impracticable, and counter to standard international norms.

This is precisely why the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted in favor of Resolution 68/262.
 
Not everybody views the breakup of Yugoslavia as a positive development.

Of course not.

Especially the stakeholders that lost their ability to grow hegemony and access to the Adriatic sea, such as: Serbia, Russia, and their allies. They definitely would not see this is a positive development.
 
The people of Crimea made their choice by voting to return to Russian umbrella. The UN is playing God and overturning the peoples decision.

That is because the "people's decision" was carried out non-transparently and illegally.
 
Oh boy, it's been the Germans and the Japanese and the Soviets and the Vietnamese, and the Chinese, and the Iranians and the Iraqis and the Syrians and the Libyans and........I'm sure I'm leaving somebody out. Main beneficiary to all this continual fear mongering and conflict, the MIC.

You can't justify arming against an enemy without having one.
 
Yeah, because none of those guys were ever a serious threat to anyone, right?


(/irony) :roll:

The Germans and the Japanese were, and the Soviets at one point. The Vietnamese and down the list were never a threat to the U.S.
 
Simpleχity;1064322252 said:
The February 2015 poll by Gallup strongly suggests otherwise.


The Cold War was indeed over until Putin decided to militarily invade and illegally annex a neighbor's sovereign territory in 2014. This has not happened in Europe since the end of WWII. If internationally recognized borders are no longer honored and respected, then no nation is secure from a more powerful and/or expansionist-minded neighbor.

Borders are not "mere suggestions". This tenat is a core principle of international relations and a cornerstone of the UN Charter.

No, the Cold War has been over since about 1990 and no maneuvering by Putin is ever changing that.

Putin's moves with the Ukraine appear to be blowing up in his face. Much to the chagrin, I might add, of our esteemed "patriots" who root for him over our own President.
 
Yes, the Serbs.

You helped many former Yugoslav countries be liberated from Serbian hegemony. If left unchecked the whole of Yugoslavia might have today been annexed from Russia just like Ukrainian Crimea.

The Serbs were never considered threats to America. They were considered threats to the stabilization of the Balkans, which is why Milosevic was dealt with.
 
Not everybody views the breakup of Yugoslavia as a positive development.

I do. Yugoslavia was the European equivalent of Iraq. Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, et al never should have been shoehorned into the same nation-state. Once Tito's bootheel was gone, that place went to hell with sectarian and ethnic violence.
 
The Serbs were never considered threats to America. They were considered threats to the stabilization of the Balkans, which is why Milosevic was dealt with.

Just like in WW1, they were being used as a pawn to bring WW3 according to Albright. The foreseen situation was that in the Dardania-Serbia war, Serbia would continue with ethnic cleansing and the rest of Albanians in Albania would eventually intervene. Greeks whom are loyal to Russia and friendlier to Serbia and use to be unfriendly to Albanians before Albania became a NATO member would attack Albania from below. Turkiye would then attack Greece, and Russia would attack Turkiye. That was the slippery slope argument that was tied to the Dardanian-Serbian conflict that made room for the intervention.

I argue that if US lead NATO interventions in Bosnia, Croatia, and Dardania did not occur, then perhaps Russia would behave just like it is doing to Ukraine. Sending "volunteers" and so on with the aim of annexing the territories wan from pro-Russian Serbs back to Russia, perhaps through Bulgaria. So good that that was avoided.

On a side note Kobie, I had imagined the actor in your avatar differently. But lately he seems to have lost his cord! :shock:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk3EAwwpATI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7zLthh85P8
 
I do.

Yugoslavia was the European equivalent of Iraq. Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, et al never should have been shoehorned into the same nation-state. Once Tito's bootheel was gone, that place went to hell with sectarian and ethnic violence.

It was ethnic violence, but why sectarian?
 
It was ethnic violence, but why sectarian?

Different types of Muslims, Muslim vs. Christian, etc. Mostly ethnic, but there was some sectarian violence in there.
 
Just like in WW1, they were being used as a pawn to bring WW3 according to Albright. The foreseen situation was that in the Dardania-Serbia war, Serbia would continue with ethnic cleansing and the rest of Albanians in Albania would eventually intervene. Greeks whom are loyal to Russia and friendlier to Serbia and use to be unfriendly to Albanians before Albania became a NATO member would attack Albania from below. Turkiye would then attack Greece, and Russia would attack Turkiye. That was the slippery slope argument that was tied to the Dardanian-Serbian conflict that made room for the intervention.

I argue that if US lead NATO interventions in Bosnia, Croatia, and Dardania did not occur, then perhaps Russia would behave just like it is doing to Ukraine. Sending "volunteers" and so on with the aim of annexing the territories wan from pro-Russian Serbs back to Russia, perhaps through Bulgaria. So good that that was avoided.

I see U.S. intervention in the Balkans as probably the only truly humanitarian (with few if any ulterior motives) efforts that we've engaged in during my lifetime.

On a side note Kobie, I had imagined the actor in your avatar differently. But lately he seems to have lost his cord! :shock:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk3EAwwpATI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7zLthh85P8

Good finds.
 
Different types of Muslims, Muslim vs. Christian, etc. Mostly ethnic, but there was some sectarian violence in there.

I guess the Bosnian (Muslim)-Croatian (Catholic) war, the Bosnian-Serbian (Orthodox Christian) war, as well as Serbian-Croatian war could be perceived as a sectarian war also, but I would argue that it was mostly ethnic in nature nevertheless. But, different types of Muslims fought against one another in the Balkan wars of 1990's? Do you have references for this?
 
I guess the Bosnian (Muslim)-Croatian (Catholic) war, the Bosnian-Serbian (Orthodox Christian) war, as well as Serbian-Croatian war could be perceived as a sectarian war also, but I would argue that it was mostly ethnic in nature nevertheless. But, different types of Muslims fought against one another in the Balkan wars of 1990's? Do you have references for this?

I'd have to look that up; you'd know better than I would. But yes, it was mostly ethnic in nature, you are correct.
 
I see U.S. intervention in the Balkans as probably the only truly humanitarian (with few if any ulterior motives) efforts that we've engaged in during my lifetime.

That is so true.

It is a bit disappointing that the majority of Americans would not recognize this like other NATO members do for some reason. Is it modesty? Is it that they do not want to put too much of a burden to our small country by recognizing their investment and asking for equal amounts of reciprocity? Is it media driven ignorance?

What I usually get from Americans about that is a very distant, ignorant, and neutral position starting from: a) What? b) Where is Dardania? c) What did we **** up this time!
 
That is so true.

It is a bit disappointing that the majority of Americans would not recognize this like other NATO members do for some reason. Is it modesty? Is it that they do not want to put too much of a burden to our small country by recognizing their investment and asking for equal amounts of reciprocity? Is it media driven ignorance?

What I usually get from Americans about that is a very distant, ignorant, and neutral position starting from: a) What? b) Where is Dardania? c) What did we **** up this time!

I don't think it's recognized because we didn't put any boots on the ground other than a few advisors, and never needed to; therefore it Doesn't Count. Airstrikes were the extent of the American intervention, other than probably a few SpecOps missions that are classified, so it didn't happen. As far as I'm concerned, staving off a nearly full-blown genocide with virtually no American casualties was Clinton's best accomplishment as U.S. president.

To be quite honest, I had only passing knowledge of what Dardania was before encountering you. That's basically in/near Kosovo, correct?
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's recognized because we didn't put any boots on the ground other than a few advisors, and never needed to; therefore it Doesn't Count. Airstrikes were the extent of the American intervention, other than probably a few SpecOps missions that are classified, so it didn't happen.

There were boots on the ground after the UN resolution :) . In fact the US army is still here in the camp named Bondsteel.
 
There were boots on the ground after the UN resolution :) . In fact the US army is still here in the camp named Bondsteel.

Well yeah; however, at the time they weren't firing too many shots. I edited my post above. Please tell me I'm right. :2razz:
 
Well yeah; however, at the time they weren't firing too many shots. I edited my post above. Please tell me I'm right. :2razz:

Okay :)

I don't think it's recognized because we didn't put any boots on the ground other than a few advisors, and never needed to; therefore it Doesn't Count. Airstrikes were the extent of the American intervention, other than probably a few SpecOps missions that are classified, so it didn't happen. As far as I'm concerned, staving off a nearly full-blown genocide with virtually no American casualties was Clinton's best accomplishment as U.S. president.

Yes you are right.

I would just like to evade this topic from turning it to a Dem vs Reps issue. Clinton certainly has merits because of that, we have his statue build from bronze in our capital in Prishtina. So Clinton as a democrat is seen as a fierce politician that used force by military means to stop the cleansing under a UN resolution that posited us under Serbia.

But republicans had a share in it too. Dubya was a very good negotiator, and during his reign we declared our independence away the UN resolution that posited us under Serbia.

So in a step by step basis both Dems and Reps contributed. No need to neglect the US lead NATO and US lead negotiations that both contributed in our favor. I just do not want Dems or Reps not recognizing the contribution of US due to partisanship.

To be quite honest, I had only passing knowledge of what Dardania was before encountering you. That's basically in/near Kosovo, correct?

Yes, where Dardania is can be found in my signature. The elaborate explanations why my country should no longer be called like that can be found in post 134 on that link. :)
 
Of course not.

Especially the stakeholders that lost their ability to grow hegemony and access to the Adriatic sea, such as: Serbia, Russia, and their allies. They definitely would not see this is a positive development.

Right, because Serbia and Russia were the only big "stakeholders" in Yugoslavia.


This report examines the roles played by Western International Financial Institutions (IFIs), intelligence agencies, militaries and strategic interests in the break up of the Yugoslav Republic.

Analysis

Background

The Yugoslav wars occurred between 1991 and 2001, and involved several conflicts leading to the breakup of Yugoslavia. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was created at the end of World War II, and consisted of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia and Kosovo.

Setting the Stage

A Political and Economic Crisis

In 1980, longtime dictator of Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito died, leading to a leadership crisis.

By 1982, the Yugoslav debt had grown to 20 billion dollars, so the US Ambassador in Belgrade, Lawrence Eagleburger, created a group of individuals known as the “Friends of Yugoslavia” who organized a set of “rescue loans” by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.[1] However, that same year, the IMF and World Bank had created a new loan agreement, entitled Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which gave the IFIs total control over a country’s economic and even many political decisions. The effect of the SAPs was that they “wreaked economic and political havoc… The economic crisis threatened political stability … it also threatened to aggravate simmering ethnic tensions.”[2]


http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/breaking-yugoslavia-936/
 
I do. Yugoslavia was the European equivalent of Iraq. Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, et al never should have been shoehorned into the same nation-state. Once Tito's bootheel was gone, that place went to hell with sectarian and ethnic violence.

Not everyone would have been happy with the breakup of the United States in the 1860's had it happened. But many would have been.

Post Tito, and pre Yugoslavian military conflict was much US/NATO/IMF interference aimed at the breakup of Yugoslavia.
 
Oh boy, it's been the Germans and the Japanese and the Soviets and the Vietnamese, and the Chinese, and the Iranians and the Iraqis and the Syrians and the Libyans and........I'm sure I'm leaving somebody out. Main beneficiary to all this continual fear mongering and conflict, the MIC.

Tell me when was the last time that any of those nations were flying patrols so close to our borders? Or annexing sovereign territory from another country, as Russia has now done TWICE in the last few years? I know Monte you are the resident Putin fanboy, but they've sure been up to a lot of provocative actions of late.

Not everyone would have been happy with the breakup of the United States in the 1860's had it happened. But many would have been.

Post Tito, and pre Yugoslavian military conflict was much US/NATO/IMF interference aimed at the breakup of Yugoslavia.

So all those mass graves didn't play any part in the NATO's decision then hmm?
 
Back
Top Bottom