• 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!

Why is Russia an enemy?

Tigerace117 said:
Yeah, because all those ex East Bloc countries wanted insurance that the Russians wouldn't try to prop puppet regimes back into place, and frankly I don't blame them.

Russia is also a ****ing huge place. It takes up a huge chunk of the globe, and there's lots of land surrounding it.
Click to expand...

That doesn't negate the provocation that represents.
 
Tigerace117 said:
While I can understands the effect Barbarossa had on the Russian psyche, and sympathize, other countries have a right to own their own land too.
Click to expand...

'Course they do. But it's not just WW2 we're talking about. Some dude named Napoleon had the same experience. It is part of the Russian psyche but it's been there for centuries. They've always tried to exercise control of the nations around them to deter invasion, or at least make it as costly as possible. China does something similar, or has in the past.
 
Surrealistik said:
I very much doubt that Russian annexation of Crimea was in the interests of Europe, the States, or Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Europe, particularly the European sphere of influence, is not an involved party, because Crimea is not a part of it. The US is not an involved party, because it is inconsequential to Crimea, and the Ukraine is not an involved party, because its claim to Crimea is illegitimate. My point still stands.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Do tell:roll:

Just like getting swallowed up by Germany was in Czechoslovakia's "best interests", right?
Click to expand...

Ultimately, it was, because it helped incorporate the ethnic Germans of the Sudetenland back into their homeland, and prevented the inevitable falling-apart of Czechoslovakia along ethnic lines. However, the Third Reich is fundamentally different, in both objective and strategy, from Putin's Russia.
 
Iron Cross said:
Ultimately, it was, because it helped incorporate the ethnic Germans of the Sudetenland back into their homeland, and prevented the inevitable falling-apart of Czechoslovakia along ethnic lines. However, the Third Reich is fundamentally different, in both objective and strategy, from Putin's Russia.
Click to expand...

"Ok kids. Guess what? In order to keep us from falling apart twenty years down the line, the genocidal Dicatator has absorbed us into his empire! Isn't that....terrific? :roll:"
 
Tigerace117 said:
"Ok kids. Guess what? In order to keep us from falling apart twenty years down the line, the genocidal Dicatator has absorbed us into his empire! Isn't that....terrific? :roll:"
Click to expand...

Stability is, ultimately, better than democracy. The Reich provided stability to regions that lacked it. 'Genocidal dictator'? Well, I wouldn't go that far...
 
Iron Cross said:
Stability is, ultimately, better than democracy. The Reich provided stability to regions that lacked it. 'Genocidal dictator'? Well, I wouldn't go that far...
Click to expand...

Uh.....its Adolf Hitler. He's the most blatantly obvious genocidal dicatator in recent times.

And you don't democracy? Good. Go live in North Korea then.
 
Why do cats and dogs fight?

:lol:
 
Iron Cross said:
Stability is, ultimately, better than democracy. The Reich provided stability to regions that lacked it. 'Genocidal dictator'? Well, I wouldn't go that far...
Click to expand...

LOL.....there are not enough words to describe how ignorant your last sentence is, or the appropriate words to avoid a warning from the Mods.
 
Tigerace117 said:
So in other words, just existing relatively close to Russia is bad now?
Click to expand...

No...expanding a coalition who's purpose is to be anti-Russia right up to Russia is provocation. Hell, we still **** on Cuba to this day for their Russian ties in the past.
 
Fishking said:
Hey...I'm just pointing out how we have so much in common so we can be friends.
Click to expand...

With friends like the Russians one does not need enemies, you both in one package.
 
c0wardlyli0n said:
2267fc869e279926ccc4075ba4c3621e.jpg


Blue is US military presence and the red is Russia.
Click to expand...

This pretty much narrows it down.
The US is the most militaristic nation-state in the history of our species...
 
Casper said:
With friends like the Russians one does not need enemies, you both in one package.
Click to expand...

Can't be worse than Saudi Arabia.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Not even close dude.
Click to expand...

Name another country that has been at war close to as long as the U.S. has, and that simultaneously has fewer days that it has not than has, comparatively speaking.
I'll give you this, the Roman Empire and Empires of Antiquity (most of all the British) probably have it beat.
But they still will never be a fraction as powerful as the U.S.A. is and will ultimately become before all is said and done.
 
It isn't so much that Russia is our enemy. It's that Putin knows a chump when he sees one. He witnessed Obama's apology tour. He sees how ISIS is practically walking all over his administration. He sees how porous our borders are, and the abject refusal of the administration to secure them. He sees our government kowtow to countries not even in the same league as the U.S.

Obama's a chump, and this is Putin's chance to rattle his saber and keep up with the Joneses. Unfortunately the "Joneses" are too busy trying to cozy up with our enemies, instead of showing geo-political strength.
 
Fishking said:
You mean the illegal western backed government overthrow in Ukraine, a border nation to Russia? And Crimea, which really was never fully part of Russia and never rightly belonged to them and also held their only warm-water naval base?

That doesn't sound very aggressive to me.
Click to expand...

It was western backed according to what evidence (Viktor was almost certainly overthrown because he was a thoroughly corrupt puppet of Putin who literally embezzled and skimmed billions from his country)

Also, that naval base wasn't actually being threatened; even if it was though, it does not give the Russians the right to unilaterally invade.


Jack Fabulous said:
Worth noting that it WAS in the interests of Crimeans, though.
Click to expand...

According to?


Iron Cross said:
Europe, particularly the European sphere of influence, is not an involved party, because Crimea is not a part of it. The US is not an involved party, because it is inconsequential to Crimea, and the Ukraine is not an involved party, because its claim to Crimea is illegitimate. My point still stands.
Click to expand...

Nonsense and egregiously biased as to be beneath consideration; this essentially presupposes much of which is not true and starts out from a place of glaring bias.
 
Surrealistik said:
It was western backed according to what evidence (Viktor was almost certainly overthrown because he was a thoroughly corrupt puppet of Putin who literally embezzled and skimmed billions from his country)
Click to expand...

The the President of Ukraine was legitimately elected (internationally certified as legit). The people started going crazy merely because he didn't sign some kind of binding trade deal with the EU. If the next elections had come around and he lost and didn't leave office then there would have been cause for an overthrow.

As far as western-backed. That's easy to prove as we had our Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, over there handing out cookies and **** to the protesters and the head of the CIA was over there meeting with leaders of the opposition as well. That's more than enough evidence.
 
Fishking said:
The the President of Ukraine was legitimately elected (internationally certified as legit). The people started going crazy merely because he didn't sign some kind of binding trade deal with the EU. If the next elections had come around and he lost and didn't leave office then there would have been cause for an overthrow.
Click to expand...

Yes, he was democratically elected (though the election was highly controversial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_presidential_election,_2010#Fraud_suspicions_and_accusations ) and deposed in an uprising (in which corruption was also a factor, not merely rejection of the EU trade deal though that was the igniting element). That said, where is the justification for a Russian invasion of Crimea?

As far as western-backed. That's easy to prove as we had our Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, over there handing out cookies and **** to the protesters and the head of the CIA was over there meeting with leaders of the opposition as well. That's more than enough evidence.
Click to expand...

That's not evidence.
 
Surrealistik said:
Yes, he was democratically elected (though the election was highly controversial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_presidential_election,_2010#Fraud_suspicions_and_accusations ) and deposed in an uprising (in which corruption was also a factor, not merely rejection of the EU trade deal though that was the igniting element). That said, where is the justification for a Russian invasion of Crimea?
Click to expand...

Crimea was never fully part of the Ukraine and they had a military base there, already, so there was no invasion. Crimea has always been more Russian than it's been Ukrainian. The only reason it was even added to Ukraine was because it didn't really matter at the time as it was all part of the USSR. Yes, he was deposed by a segment of the population via a western backed revolutionaries via illegal and illegitimate methods. Again, if there was a problem with corruption or anything else they could either use the court systems or get rid of him in the next elections. Until the rule of law had been defied then actions taken against him are illegitimate. Rule of law > some small segment of society getting their panties in a bunch.

That's not evidence.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. You don't get to have top level officials working with the opposition and claim there was no involvement.
 
c0wardlyli0n said:
I would love an explanation as to why I should support any politician that instigates hostilities toward Russia.
Click to expand...

No worries, Mate. Obama is Putin's concubine. Like they say, "Politics makes strange bedfellows." In this case, truer words were never spoken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom