• 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!

Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

Thoughts on Presidents Speech about ISIS and US Actions?

  • Positive

    Votes: 11 21.6%

  • Negative

    Votes: 18 35.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 22 43.1%
  • Total voters
    51
Dittohead not! said:
So, the Soviets were all for nuclear disarmament before they had nukes themselves?

That's not too surprising, now is it?

And, had the US destroyed its nukes, could we have trusted the Soviet Union not to have made their own? Oh, right, the phrase "trusted the Soviet Union" says it all.
Click to expand...

Sure, Ditto. I suppose one could argue the reverse then.
 
Montecresto said:
The Cold War was essentially an arms race, the assurance of MAD, and multiple proxy wars. You may wish to include Berlin, but that's pretty much not related to the Cold War and arms race.
Click to expand...

:doh

The first heightening of Cold War tensions occurred in 1948 when the Soviets imposed a partial blockade of Berlin in April, and then a full blockade in June...

Coming just three years after the end of World War II, the blockade was the first major clash of the Cold War...

It takes an interesting mentality to be able to twist through enough hoops to come to the conclusion that Soviet adherence to Communist Doctrine was part of their effort to prop up the US Defense Industry. :roll:
 
cpwill said:
:doh

The first heightening of Cold War tensions occurred in 1948 when the Soviets imposed a partial blockade of Berlin in April, and then a full blockade in June...

Coming just three years after the end of World War II, the blockade was the first major clash of the Cold War...

It takes an interesting mentality to be able to twist through enough hoops to come to the conclusion that Soviet adherence to Communist Doctrine was part of their effort to prop up the US Defense Industry. :roll:
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but I never made that claim. And you are wrong about the first heightening of Cold War tensions. That came two years BEFORE the Berlin blockade at the first UN assembly when the US REJECTED the soviet unions proposal of nuclear disarmament!
 
Montecresto said:
Excuse me, but I never made that claim. And you are wrong about the first heightening of Cold War tensions. That came two years BEFORE the Berlin blockade at the first UN assembly when the US REJECTED the soviet unions proposal of nuclear disarmament!
Click to expand...

Wait. The USSR demanded that we unilaterally disarm, while they continued to build their program, and we declined?!? Color me shocked!?!

Because, when we proposed that not only should we unilaterally give up nuclear arms, but that all Atomic energy should be placed under the guidance of the UN and that everyone be inspected to make sure they weren't creating any atomic weapons in secret, the Soviet Union rejected the proposal.

That proposal was in June 1946. You know what else happened about then?


...In 1946, the Soviets cut off food shipments from their zone into western Germany. This was problematic as eastern Germany produced the majority of the nation's food while western Germany contained its industry. In reply, General Lucius Clay, commander of the American zone, ended shipments of industrial equipment to the Soviets. Angered, the Soviets launched an anti-American campaign and began to disrupt the work of the ACC. In Berlin, the citizens, who had been brutally treated by the Soviets in the closing months of the war, voiced their disapproval by electing a staunchly anti-communist city-wide government....​
 
TheDemSocialist said:
What are your thoughts on the Presidents speech about ISIS?
Click to expand...

I think it was tinged with the usual narcissism and half truths. I wanted to laugh when he suggested that "If you go after Americans, there is no place for you to hide.". Terrorists killed our ambassador in Libya and three other Americans and it took two years for the capture of just one of the terrorists. And his administration only went after that one because of all of the uproar over the scandal. And he is still attempting to blame Bush.
 
Lutherf said:
I was impressed that he figures we'll be as successful in Iraq as we have been in Somalia and Yemen.:roll:

In short, it sounds like he's doing pretty much exactly what Bush had planned 6 years ago even though he ****canned that plan back then when it might have prevented a lot of this crap.
Click to expand...

I agree. This criticism is not just aimed at Obama. This nation does need to go back to "declaring war" when it commits troops and giving the troops a clear objective. We also need to leave contingents of troops behind long enough for peace to take hold regardless of SOFA agreements. And we need to stop limiting rules of engagement on the battlefield during negotiations.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I agree. This criticism is not just aimed at Obama. This nation does need to go back to "declaring war" when it commits troops and giving the troops a clear objective. We also need to leave contingents of troops behind long enough for peace to take hold regardless of SOFA agreements. And we need to stop limiting rules of engagement on the battlefield during negotiations.
Click to expand...

The problem, as i see it, is that we have separated the declaration of war from being a conflict between the US (and perhaps allies defined by treaty/mutual agreement) and a defined nation (or group of nations) as the enemy to being a war on "crime" (currently mostly terrorism and drugs) wherever in the world it may be deemed to exist. War is not an excuse to engage in a global police action and our military should not become a global police force.
 
cpwill said:
Wait. The USSR demanded that we unilaterally disarm, while they continued to build their program, and we declined?!? Color me shocked!?!

Because, when we proposed that not only should we unilaterally give up nuclear arms, but that all Atomic energy should be placed under the guidance of the UN and that everyone be inspected to make sure they weren't creating any atomic weapons in secret, the Soviet Union rejected the proposal.

That proposal was in June 1946. You know what else happened about then?


...In 1946, the Soviets cut off food shipments from their zone into western Germany. This was problematic as eastern Germany produced the majority of the nation's food while western Germany contained its industry. In reply, General Lucius Clay, commander of the American zone, ended shipments of industrial equipment to the Soviets. Angered, the Soviets launched an anti-American campaign and began to disrupt the work of the ACC. In Berlin, the citizens, who had been brutally treated by the Soviets in the closing months of the war, voiced their disapproval by electing a staunchly anti-communist city-wide government....​
Click to expand...

You've already been corrected on this.

During the United Nation's first General Assembly in London in January 1946, they discussed the future of Nuclear Weapons and created the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission. The goal of this assembly was to eliminate the use of all Nuclear weapons. The United States presented their solution, which was called the Baruch Plan.[9] This plan proposed that there should be an international authority that controls all dangerous atomic activities. The Soviet Union disagreed with this proposal and rejected it. The Soviets' proposal involved universal nuclear disarmament.
 
cpwill said:
Wait. The USSR demanded that we unilaterally disarm, while they continued to build their program, and we declined?!? Color me shocked!?!

Because, when we proposed that not only should we unilaterally give up nuclear arms, but that all Atomic energy should be placed under the guidance of the UN and that everyone be inspected to make sure they weren't creating any atomic weapons in secret, the Soviet Union rejected the proposal.

That proposal was in June 1946. You know what else happened about then?


...In 1946, the Soviets cut off food shipments from their zone into western Germany. This was problematic as eastern Germany produced the majority of the nation's food while western Germany contained its industry. In reply, General Lucius Clay, commander of the American zone, ended shipments of industrial equipment to the Soviets. Angered, the Soviets launched an anti-American campaign and began to disrupt the work of the ACC. In Berlin, the citizens, who had been brutally treated by the Soviets in the closing months of the war, voiced their disapproval by electing a staunchly anti-communist city-wide government....​
Click to expand...

You've already been corrected on this.

During the United Nation's first General Assembly in London in January 1946, they discussed the future of Nuclear Weapons and created the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission. The goal of this assembly was to eliminate the use of all Nuclear weapons. The United States presented their solution, which was called the Baruch Plan.[9] This plan proposed that there should be an international authority that controls all dangerous atomic activities. The Soviet Union disagreed with this proposal and rejected it. The Soviets' proposal involved universal nuclear disarmament.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I agree. This criticism is not just aimed at Obama. This nation does need to go back to "declaring war" when it commits troops and giving the troops a clear objective. We also need to leave contingents of troops behind long enough for peace to take hold regardless of SOFA agreements. And we need to stop limiting rules of engagement on the battlefield during negotiations.
Click to expand...

Or.......................just stop instigating hostilities to begin with and become the arbiters of peace, novel I know, and you'll naturally twist your warmongering meme to suggest we aren't the aggressors in the ME, I'm sure.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The problem, as i see it, is that we have separated the declaration of war from being a conflict between the US (and perhaps allies defined by treaty/mutual agreement) and a defined nation (or group of nations) as the enemy to being a war on "crime" (currently mostly terrorism and drugs) wherever in the world it may be deemed to exist. War is not an excuse to engage in a global police action and our military should not become a global police force.
Click to expand...

And if it drags on, it becomes politicized. Pelosi, Reid, and gang for instance were hoping the US would lose the war in Iraq in hopes that the democrats would gain as well as the did in regards to Vietnam.
 
Montecresto said:
Or.......................just stop instigating hostilities to begin with and become the arbiters of peace, novel I know, and you'll naturally twist your warmongering meme to suggest we aren't the aggressors in the ME, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Perhaps when you grow past your indoctrination formed antiwar ideology, you will understand the above quote.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It was not the US that built the "Iron Curtain".

Of course, had the US simply gone back to isolationism and ignored the Soviet Union, then there wouldn't have been a cold war. The Soviets would still have their empire, though, and it would be a lot bigger than it was back in the 1980s.
Click to expand...



I just read a book about Truman written while he was still alive.

It paints a picture of a president in over his head but is too arrogant to know it. He was obsessed with the Russians. Where his predecessor had been able to work with Stalin, Truman was terrified. He hinted to Stalin early on they had a "great weapon" to use against Japan. Stalin already knew and was months away from perfecting his own.

It makes you wonder who became weird first? The Russians, far more vulnerable than anyone suspect after the war saw themselves under attack, there had been so much anti_communism in the US THEY were scared.....add to that their spies knew of the Manhattan Project from the outset, they appear to have had reason to be. The US after all, actually used two...
 
Fearandloathing said:
I just read a book about Truman written while he was still alive.

It paints a picture of a president in over his head but is too arrogant to know it. He was obsessed with the Russians. Where his predecessor had been able to work with Stalin, Truman was terrified. He hinted to Stalin early on they had a "great weapon" to use against Japan. Stalin already knew and was months away from perfecting his own.

It makes you wonder who became weird first? The Russians, far more vulnerable than anyone suspect after the war saw themselves under attack, there had been so much anti_communism in the US THEY were scared.....add to that their spies knew of the Manhattan Project from the outset, they appear to have had reason to be. The US after all, actually used two...
Click to expand...

Of course they were afraid of their former ally, the US and its terrible new weapon. We had nukes, and had already shown willingness to use them. Stalin was no doubt afraid Moscow would be next.

We were not at war, however, with the Soviets and never have been. It's a good thing for them we didn't declare war right after WWII ended, and it's a good thing for both of us that the cold war never became a hot war.
 
Montecresto said:
At the first UN assembly, with the creation of the Atomic Energy Commission, the US argued for regulation of nuclear weapons while the Soviet Union argued for universal disarmament! The US rejected that proposal, and the arms race began.
Click to expand...

You are correct, the first item of business for the UN was Resolution 1.

But I believe you have that backward. The "Baruch Plan" called for the complete ban and disarmament of nuclear weapons.

On 14 June 1946, the United States representative to the Commission, Bernard Baruch, presented the Baruch Plan, wherein the United States (at the time the only state possessing atomic weapons) would destroy its atomic arsenal on the condition that the U.N. imposed controls on atomic development that would not be subject to United Nations Security Council veto. These controls would allow only the peaceful use of atomic energy. The plan was passed by the Commission, but not agreed to by the Soviet Union who abstained on the proposal in the Security Council. Debate on the plan continued into 1948, but by early 1947 it was clear that agreement was unlikely.[5]
United Nations Atomic Energy Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Long ago I studied where many in the upper echelons of the US military saw nuclear weaponry as too powerful for war, leading to the idea of "conventional warfare" a term not in use before. A I recall, the USSR was so terrified of the US, anti-commie rhetoric, HUAC et all, they simply could not allow for the US to be the only one...they could not believe the US would agree to destroy all they're own weapons as they wouldn't have; let's face it, the US was very naive
 
Montecresto said:
You've already been corrected on this.
Click to expand...

Funny that you say so, given that I have never pointed it out to you before.

During the United Nation's first General Assembly in London in January 1946, they discussed the future of Nuclear Weapons and created the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission. The goal of this assembly was to eliminate the use of all Nuclear weapons. The United States presented their solution, which was called the Baruch Plan.[9] This plan proposed that there should be an international authority that controls all dangerous atomic activities. The Soviet Union disagreed with this proposal and rejected it. The Soviets' proposal involved universal nuclear disarmament.
Click to expand...

That is correct. The US proposed "universal" (which practically at that point just meant the US) nuclear disarmament with inspections. That was the Baruch Plan. The Baruch Plan proposed:

1. extend between all countries the exchange of basic scientific information for peaceful ends;
2. implement control of nuclear power to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes;
3. eliminate from national armaments atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction; and
4. establish effective safeguards by way of inspection and other means to protect complying States against the hazards of violations and evasions​


The Soviet Union rejected that proposal, and instead proposed "universal" nuclear disarmament without inspections.

IOW, the Soviets wanted the US to give up its' nukes, but were unwilling to sign on to any regime which might keep them from then developing nukes.
 
Last edited:
Fearandloathing said:
You are correct, the first item of business for the UN was Resolution 1.

But I believe you have that backward. The "Baruch Plan" called for the complete ban and disarmament of nuclear weapons.



Long ago I studied where many in the upper echelons of the US military saw nuclear weaponry as too powerful for war, leading to the idea of "conventional warfare" a term not in use before. A I recall, the USSR was so terrified of the US, anti-commie rhetoric, HUAC et all, they simply could not allow for the US to be the only one...they could not believe the US would agree to destroy all they're own weapons as they wouldn't have; let's face it, the US was very naive
Click to expand...

Perhaps Wiki is in conflict.

Shortly after the end of the Second World War, the United Nations was founded. This international organization with the goal of stopping wars between countries was the world’s answer to replace the League of Nations. During the United Nation's first General Assembly in London in January 1946, they discussed the future of Nuclear Weapons and created the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission. The goal of this assembly was to eliminate the use of all Nuclear weapons. The United States presented their solution, which was called the Baruch Plan.[9] This plan proposed that there should be an international authority that controls all dangerous atomic activities. The Soviet Union disagreed with this proposal and rejected it. The Soviets' proposal involved universal nuclear disarmament. Both the American and Soviet proposals were refused by the UN.

Still trying to find out why the UN refused both proposals.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Funny that you say so, given that I have never pointed it out to you before.



That is correct. The US proposed "universal" (which practically at that point just meant the US) nuclear disarmament with inspections. That was the Baruch Plan. The Baruch Plan proposed:

1. extend between all countries the exchange of basic scientific information for peaceful ends;
2. implement control of nuclear power to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes;
3. eliminate from national armaments atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction; and
4. establish effective safeguards by way of inspection and other means to protect complying States against the hazards of violations and evasions​


The Soviet Union rejected that proposal, and instead proposed "universal" nuclear disarmament without inspections.

IOW, the Soviets wanted the US to give up its' nukes, but were unwilling to sign on to any regime which might keep them from then developing nukes.
Click to expand...

This plan was rejected by the UN as well. Perhaps we should just agree then that the Cold War was a natural occurrence given the two superpowers mutual distrust for one another.
 
Montecresto said:
This plan was rejected by the UN as well. Perhaps we should just agree then that the Cold War was a natural occurrence given the two superpowers mutual distrust for one another.
Click to expand...

:shrug: if you are willing to back down from your position that it was somehow the fault of the US, that pretty much fulfils my intended response. The Cold War was certainly a natural occurrence - there is a reason Thucydides became a source in it.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: if you are willing to back down from your position that it was somehow the fault of the US, that pretty much fulfils my intended response. The Cold War was certainly a natural occurrence - there is a reason Thucydides became a source in it.
Click to expand...

Well, if there were two parties engaged in the Cold War, and you deny that the US was the instigator, then either your position is that it was the USSR's fault, or you agree that it was a natural occurrence given the mutual distrust of both super powers, and therefore nobody's fault. But I will remain in the camp with those that believe we would have done better to retain the USSR as an ally, as opposed to running a race for the most nuclear weapons. And fighting the senseless proxy wars of the Cold War.
 
Montecresto said:
Well, if there were two parties engaged in the Cold War, and you deny that the US was the instigator, then either your position is that it was the USSR's fault, or you agree that it was a natural occurrence given the mutual distrust of both super powers, and therefore nobody's fault. But I will remain in the camp with those that believe we would have done better to retain the USSR as an ally, as opposed to running a race for the most nuclear weapons. And fighting the senseless proxy wars of the Cold War.
Click to expand...

ehhhh... you forget that in 1945 the soviet union occupied poland, the czech republic, and most of eastern europe.

are you saying that the soviet union should have kept those territories?
 
Montecresto said:
Well, if there were two parties engaged in the Cold War, and you deny that the US was the instigator, then either your position is that it was the USSR's fault, or you agree that it was a natural occurrence given the mutual distrust of both super powers, and therefore nobody's fault. But I will remain in the camp with those that believe we would have done better to retain the USSR as an ally, as opposed to running a race for the most nuclear weapons. And fighting the senseless proxy wars of the Cold War.
Click to expand...

Retaining the USSR as an ally was possible only if we were willing to allow them to take over our government, turn us into a soviet state, and submit our national policy to their "guidance". They were indeed the aggressor, both ideologically and on the ground post-WWII. Additionally, the Soviets were going to build nukes whether we did nor not (which is why they refused an inspections regime), and so the options were A) maintain parity or B) be overmatched.

It is indeed natural for the two strongest powers to see each other as threats; particularly culturally both the Russians and the Americans were inclined in this bent. That does not change the specifics of the conflict a whit.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
ehhhh... you forget that in 1945 the soviet union occupied poland, the czech republic, and most of eastern europe.

are you saying that the soviet union should have kept those territories?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that our ally at the time, the Soviet Union, lost far more, and suffered far more then we did, and that they learned some brutal lessons which caused them to rethink the security of their borders and the disposition of those states that lay upon it. And, that the very same thing is at play now with their justifiable concerns of NATO that has expanded six times to the east since its creation!
 
cpwill said:
Retaining the USSR as an ally was possible only if we were willing to allow them to take over our government, turn us into a soviet state, and submit our national policy to their "guidance". They were indeed the aggressor, both ideologically and on the ground post-WWII. Additionally, the Soviets were going to build nukes whether we did nor not (which is why they refused an inspections regime), and so the options were A) maintain parity or B) be overmatched.

It is indeed natural for the two strongest powers to see each other as threats; particularly culturally both the Russians and the Americans were inclined in this bent. That does not change the specifics of the conflict a whit.
Click to expand...

Oh, I totally reject the notion that to maintain our wartime relationship with them that we would have somehow been swallowed up by them.
 
Montecresto said:
Oh, I totally reject the notion that to maintain our wartime relationship with them that we would have somehow been swallowed up by them.
Click to expand...

:shrug: Reality doesn't care if you reject it or not. I would suggest you read up on the Comintern, and its successor directorates. These were people who very much did indeed believe what they said they did when it came to ideology. Corrupt Western bourgeoisie democracy was to be overthrown around the world and replaced. Like ISIS today, these people divided the world into two basic camps: Those who were subservient, and those who were enemies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom