Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 104

Thread: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

  1. #11
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    Clearly a very anti-Russian article..

    1. Russian intervention in Georgia was justified, those regions wanted independence from a suppressive and insane Georgian state. Look at the Georgian leader for some symptoms of why they wanted to break free of Georgia.
    Unilateral Russian intervention in an area within the internationally recognized borders of Georgia? That is a stretch. As for Georgia being insane? That is obvious bias you have against the DEMOCRATIC state of Georgia. You really like dictatorships don't you, or are you going to similarly argue that Russia is a democracy like Iran?

    2. Clearly any view that Russia is the aggressor for responding aggressively to the US anti-missile shield in eastern Europe is anti-Russian and bias for the US and the west.
    Hold on, Russia invaded Georgia without reasonable provocation. That seems pretty aggressive to me. All of the fighting was on GEORGIAN soil, none on Russian. Georgia never attacked Russia, yet Russia attacked Georgia. Seems pretty aggressive on Russia's part to me.

    3. Not everyone understood that Russian unilateral intervention in Georgia was a warning to the west that it cannot do the same without giving Russia those rights, and referring to Iraq.
    Actually, Russia was referencing Kosovo more than Iraq. As for Iraq, there were several UN Security Council resolutions regarding it and there was legal authorization from the UNSC to invade Iraq - though some dispute that fact. There is no such resolution or authorization regarding Georgia.

    4. Not developing a closer relationship to Russia would be wrong of Europe, we should try to develop as good and as stable and influential a relationship with Russia as we can. Any statement against this is just anti-Russian and US bias.. Why in the world should we not seek good relations with Russia?
    We should see good and constructive relations if and only if Russia shows it wants to respect international norms. Invasions of small neighbors like Georgia doesn't cut it. Threats toward Ukraine also don't cut it. Russia is beginning to behave like it did in the old days. There is no reason to develop constructive relations with The Bear until it shows it can live within the international rule of law.

    5. The US stubbornness over the missile shield even when Russia threatens with nuclear war as retaliation is clearly a bad move from the US, not Russia.
    Russia manufactured the missile shield issue. It was clearly targeted toward rogue regimes in the Middle East. The small number of anti-missile bateries involved wouldn't even dent the Russian arsenal and is completely misplaces vis a vis possible Russian missile attacks on the US (which would follow the Great Circle route over the pole)

    None of these things were reflected in the article, just the opposite, the usual pro western bias that every UK and American paper takes, rather than a rational approach.. Russian newspapers are the same way, but even worse, so I still prefer a basket of media from many different nations in different languages to get a proper overview of the situation in an unbiased light.
    I agree that I prefer a variety of sources - I read English, French, Chinese, Indonesian, and Japanese sources with varying degrees of regularity. However, the rules state OP links must be in English and I believe most users of DP are mono-lingual and ENglish is the only common language we all have, so we have to stick with that. Unless, MZ, you would like me to start making posts in Traditional Chinese?
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Long list of lies and verbal fallacies, as usual.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    Clearly a very anti-Russian article..
    None of these things were reflected in the article, just the opposite, the usual pro western bias that every UK and American paper takes, rather than a rational approach.. Russian newspapers are the same way, but even worse, so I still prefer a basket of media from many different nations in different languages to get a proper overview of the situation in an unbiased light.

    You have to learn how to read newspapers. Russians have ability to read their papers you don't have ability to read yours. They used to read Soviet papers – and extract truth – between the lines, not in the lines. The article most likely refers not to the statements and positions of Western politicians, but rather to the positions of new members of NATO/EU = former members/satellites of the USSR. Many of them came to power on the wave of anti-Russian propaganda and they still use Russia as a escape goat for their failers as well as the leveler to extract money/help from the West.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    Why in the world should we not seek good relations with Russia?



    5. The US stubbornness over the missile shield even when Russia threatens with nuclear war as retaliation is clearly a bad move from the US, not Russia. .
    Because that would be appeasement to the idea of a multi-polar world where the US would loose its power to dictate its good and bad decisions to the rest of the world. The West first had that idea to resist the US by organizing into the EU, it did not work so well. Now when Russia emerges as a very powerful/smart player it undermines the idea of spreading democracy around the globe by the US. It is pity to see the US making pathetic moves.

  4. #14
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    09-07-17 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Unilateral Russian intervention in an area within the internationally recognized borders of Georgia? That is a stretch. As for Georgia being insane? That is obvious bias you have against the DEMOCRATIC state of Georgia. You really like dictatorships don't you, or are you going to similarly argue that Russia is a democracy like Iran?
    Whats your problem with anything else than the US and democracy? Do you think only the US and democracy is "right"? Russia went to Georgia to help the breakaway regions and avoid Georgian military suppression of those regions.


    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Hold on, Russia invaded Georgia without reasonable provocation. That seems pretty aggressive to me. All of the fighting was on GEORGIAN soil, none on Russian. Georgia never attacked Russia, yet Russia attacked Georgia. Seems pretty aggressive on Russia's part to me.
    The situation with the breakaway regions in Georgia and intra Georgian conflict was getting out of hand. Russia going there without the approval of the security council was a strong signal to the US that if they have those right, Russia will also have those rights. Georgia was in military conflict with those regions, Russia stopped that, and let the people have their independence as they wanted, from the horrible regime in Tiblisi.


    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Actually, Russia was referencing Kosovo more than Iraq. As for Iraq, there were several UN Security Council resolutions regarding it and there was legal authorization from the UNSC to invade Iraq - though some dispute that fact. There is no such resolution or authorization regarding Georgia.

    Your memory is clearly flawed, there was no approval in the security council for a war in Iraq. The Us effectively made the security council invalid, and thus allowing Russia the freedom to also take unilateral actions like the US did in Iraq.


    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    We should see good and constructive relations if and only if Russia shows it wants to respect international norms. Invasions of small neighbors like Georgia doesn't cut it. Threats toward Ukraine also don't cut it. Russia is beginning to behave like it did in the old days. There is no reason to develop constructive relations with The Bear until it shows it can live within the international rule of law.
    Perhaps it also time then for Europe to reconsider their relations with the US, since they are also not respect international norms.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Russia manufactured the missile shield issue. It was clearly targeted toward rogue regimes in the Middle East. The small number of anti-missile bateries involved wouldn't even dent the Russian arsenal and is completely misplaces vis a vis possible Russian missile attacks on the US (which would follow the Great Circle route over the pole)
    Are you sure about that? What if the US manufactured the missile shield issue? They were the ones who took the first steps and most likely to be the ones manufacturing the issue if anyone did that.. Why are you so blindly favorable for the US and to blindly against Russia? I am only trying to be rational here and say "open your eyes, Russia is not all bad, and the US is not all good".

    What would the US feel if Russia placed missile shields in Cuba? Or again placed missiles there?

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    I agree that I prefer a variety of sources - I read English, French, Chinese, Indonesian, and Japanese sources with varying degrees of regularity. However, the rules state OP links must be in English and I believe most users of DP are mono-lingual and ENglish is the only common language we all have, so we have to stick with that. Unless, MZ, you would like me to start making posts in Traditional Chinese?
    Lol.. I would love to learn Mandarine Chinese.. Actually I will embark on it some years from now. But having English as a main language on this forum do not mean we have to be blindly pro-US and blindly anti everything that is not like the US.
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  5. #15
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    09-07-17 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    You have to learn how to read newspapers. Russians have ability to read their papers you don't have ability to read yours. They used to read Soviet papers – and extract truth – between the lines, not in the lines. The article most likely refers not to the statements and positions of Western politicians, but rather to the positions of new members of NATO/EU = former members/satellites of the USSR. Many of them came to power on the wave of anti-Russian propaganda and they still use Russia as a escape goat for their failers as well as the leveler to extract money/help from the West.
    I wasnt talking about politicians but about media and journalists, reflecting the people.. You clearly misunderstood me..
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  6. #16
    Educator partier9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    A town in a country, on a planet
    Last Seen
    05-23-13 @ 11:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    972

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    Yeah, and that rusty pistol could destroy the US and the rest of the world, easily. Perhaps you could consider that before making ignorant comments.
    And if that rusty pistol tried to do that, him and all of his friends would be destroyed to.
    If I had a billion dollars?

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Would you be alive to see that? you or any of your friends?

  8. #18
    Educator partier9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    A town in a country, on a planet
    Last Seen
    05-23-13 @ 11:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    972

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Would you be alive to see that? you or any of your friends?
    Nope everyone would be dead, or at least most people in the world would be dead. But no sane person would launch nukes because they die after they launched theirs.
    If I had a billion dollars?

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    4 questions:
    So, it is better not to drive Russia insane, isn’t it?
    You do not want to apprach it like you have something better than its rusty pistol, do you?
    Such an apprach would be insane, wouldn't it?
    You are not insane like American, aren't you?

  10. #20
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Long list of lies and verbal fallacies, as usual.
    Non response signifying he has nothing to say and can't accept the facts - AS USUAL!
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •