• 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!

Superpower: its a tough job but somebody's got to do it.

Who should has the job of World Police?

  • America is the world's remaining superpower. It's our job.

    Votes: 8 21.1%
  • Let Russia become the new world police

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • China as the most people so it should be their job

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Regional associations deal with regional matters; the Arab League, NAFTA, NATO.

    Votes: 5 13.2%
  • The UN with its own standing military, of which America also subjected to.

    Votes: 7 18.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 17 44.7%

  • Total voters
    38
The attempt to physically exterminate a whole nation or ethnic group.

So this does not applies to us because not the last of 2 million Albanians that live here were not killed yet right?
 
So this does not applies to us because not the last of 2 million Albanians that live here were not killed yet right?

It doesn't apply because there never was an attempt to systematically physically exterminate all Albanians. The number of real genocides is fairly limited, but in recent times the term genocide has been devalued by its mistaken application to any large-scale killing or massacre.
 
It doesn't apply because there never was an attempt to systematically physically exterminate all Albanians. The number of real genocides is fairly limited, but in recent times the term genocide has been devalued by its mistaken application to any large-scale killing or massacre.

How about "systematic large-scale (up to 6000) killings or massacres" conducted to Albanians then? That applies yes?
 
How about "systematic large-scale (up to 6000) killings or massacres" conducted to Albanians then? That applies yes?

Yes, just like it applies to the large scale killings and massacres conducted perpetrated by the KLA against Serbs.
 
Yes, just like it applies to the large scale killings and massacres conducted perpetrated by the KLA against Serbs.

Well here is where we disagree. First of genocide as defined by the dictionary is this:

the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Since Serbia was exterminating the 6000 Albanian civilians deliberately, systematically (see organized mass graves), and massively then it follows that is was a genocide. But moving on.

You tend to equalize mass murder of Serbs with those of Albanians? You have my sources that point out in detail how many were: displaced by force, looted, house burned, used as human shields, detained, executed, raped, stopped from receiving medical help, and had their identity cleansed.

Could we share notes on how many Serbs received the same attitude from us please? To be specific, what I am after, and please do not dodge this, is sources where Serbs were killed systematically, deliberately by the government, at a scale of 6000. Following on this source report of yours it should also mention other human right violations as mentioned above.

If you manage to find such a source then your equalization position that "Serbs conducted atrocities, but KLA and Albanians did also!" may be justified. Otherwise, data shows that Serbs conducted far more atrocities, were government organized, were systematic, and deliberate to the point of reaching genocide.

This time do reply with sources. You are otherwise losing credibility with mere opinions.

References:

Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo: An Accounting

Genocide | Define Genocide at Dictionary.com
 
Well here is where we disagree. First of genocide as defined by the dictionary is this:



Since Serbia was exterminating the 6000 Albanian civilians deliberately, systematically (see organized mass graves), and massively then it follows that is was a genocide. But moving on.

You tend to equalize mass murder of Serbs with those of Albanians? You have my sources that point out in detail how many were: displaced by force, looted, house burned, used as human shields, detained, executed, raped, stopped from receiving medical help, and had their identity cleansed.

Could we share notes on how many Serbs received the same attitude from us please? To be specific, what I am after, and please do not dodge this, is sources where Serbs were killed systematically, deliberately by the government, at a scale of 6000. Following on this source report of yours it should also mention other human right violations as mentioned above.

If you manage to find such a source then your equalization position that "Serbs conducted atrocities, but KLA and Albanians did also!" may be justified. Otherwise, data shows that Serbs conducted far more atrocities, were government organized, were systematic, and deliberate to the point of reaching genocide.

This time do reply with sources. You are otherwise losing credibility with mere opinions.

References:

Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo: An Accounting

Genocide | Define Genocide at Dictionary.com

What you refer to as "sources" are just some internet pages. If you google a bit you can find pages about the various massacre cites were mass graves were found of the many hundreds and possible thousands of Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. In addition, of course between 100,000 and 200,000 Serbs were driven from Kosovo in the KLA ethnic cleansing campaign that followed the NATO-attack on Serbia.

Calling what happened in Kosovo a genocide is to make a coplete mockery of the term. Your credibility is zero, by the way, as your bias and extremism is very obvious.
 
What you refer to as "sources" are just some internet pages. If you google a bit you can find pages about the various massacre cites were mass graves were found of the many hundreds and possible thousands of Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. In addition, of course between 100,000 and 200,000 Serbs were driven from Kosovo in the KLA ethnic cleansing campaign that followed the NATO-attack on Serbia.

Calling what happened in Kosovo a genocide is to make a coplete mockery of the term. Your credibility is zero, by the way, as your bias and extremism is very obvious.

No sources but BS to backup your statements noted. You are not an adversary for a debate for me. Goes to show the degree of influence RT has on some people. It seems once they grab you they never let you go, do they?

You are from Brussels. Why do you ignore this and favor RT?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SD7sEl1d-0
 
No sources but BS to backup your statements noted. You are not an adversary for a debate for me. Goes to show the degree of influence RT has on some people. It seems once they grab you they never let you go, do they?

You are from Brussels. Why do you ignore this and favor RT?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SD7sEl1d-0

I was around when this war happened. Many mass graves of Serbs and Roma were discovered by international troops later. All this is very much in the public domain and easily available if you don't have extremist blinkers on, like you do.
 
I was around when this war happened. Many mass graves of Serbs and Roma were discovered by international troops later. All this is very much in the public domain and easily available if you don't have extremist blinkers on, like you do.

The issue is not that it did not happen. The issue quantitatively speaking is: Are the samples in comparison enough to equalize what Serbia did to us?

BTW, should you respond with no sources and BS alone next time, please consider my lack of response to you as a sign that you are not a credible debater for me. Thank you.
 
So Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz would not be something you would intervene in? Meaning that we are not pursuing our interests.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Iran does not own the Strait of Hormuz like Egypt owns the Suez Canal. Iran only borders the strait to the north, Oman borders it on the south. Has Oman agreed to aid Iran by denying us passage through? NO!

Thus, should Iran unilaterally attempt to prevent our use by attacking any of our shipping that would constitute an act of war. As I've previously indicated, we can then defend our shipping by destroying their warships, and if deemed necessary Congress can also declare war.

Actually Syria has shot at both Turkey (a member of NATO) and Israel (a treaty ally) now, as well as served as a launchpad for attacks that cost thousands of American lives in Iraq. If Syria wants to claim a monopoly of force in her borders, then she has to accept responsibility for the force projecting from within her borders - meaning that she is already at war with us.

Turkey? Let's see now...:

Since the beginning of the two-year-long civil war in Syria, Turkey, which shares a 560-mile border with its southern neighbor, has grown increasingly vulnerable to the conflict’s violent spillover. To date, almost half a million Syrians have found shelter in the country, including about 200,000 in refugee camps. Turkish soldiers manning the border have recently had to fight off thousands of heavily armed petrol smugglers near the town Reyhanli, where a car bombing earlier this year that Ankara links to Syrian intelligence agents claimed 53 lives. Further east, they have looked on helplessly as a Kurdish militia that has waged war against Turkey for the last 30 years has taken control over an area stretching from Ras al-Ayn, just south of the border in Syria, to northern Iraq.

For Turkey, Planned U.S. Missile Strikes on Syria Not Good Enough | TIME.com

It appears that Turkey hopes for direct U.S. intervention because of REBEL activities, violent smuggling, and a refugee problem the current Syrian government seems unable to control. Is there any clear evidence the Syrian government has intentionally attacked Turkey during this recent civil war? NO! Just a Turkish allegation that Syrian intelligence was responsible for a car bomb, although why Syria would do that under the current circumstance is unclear.

As for Israel? Let's see...:

Israel has attacked Syria three times. After the last time, in May, Assad was finally moved to threaten retaliation in the event of a fourth.

Syria spillover violence threatens cease-fire with Israel - World News

Syria has not attacked Israel since the 1973 ceasefire after Israel captured the Golan Heights. However, Israel has attacked Syria three times since then. How many times has Syria attacked Israel since 1973? NONE!

Syria is involved in a civil war, and blaming the actions of the rebels on the Syrian government to justify an attack on that government is hypocrisy. Another member said virtually the same thing when he heard the possibility that the chemical weapons were used by rebels. He felt it was the Syrian governments fault, regardless of who used them, and this authorized us to attack that government. Hypocrisy!

Obama was wrong for drawing his "Red line in the sand." It is entirely possible the rebels used the chemical weapons intentionally to draw in American intervention. Another member points our (rightly) the rebels don't wear uniforms, so once survivors remove the weapons they carry from the picture they all look like civilians. Any Vietnam vets remember how that used to work as anti-USA propaganda during the War???

We are not the World's Policeman, and we do not have either a duty or the right to interfere in the internal affairs of any sovereign nation we are not at war with.
 
Last edited:
The issue is not that it did not happen. The issue quantitatively speaking is: Are the samples in comparison enough to equalize what Serbia did to us?

BTW, should you respond with no sources and BS alone next time, please consider my lack of response to you as a sign that you are not a credible debater for me. Thank you.

I don't think there is much point in discussing things with you since you are too much of a nationalist extremist who doesn't care about facts.
 
Back
Top Bottom