• 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!

When will Biden stop the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and Hamas and Israel that he started? (1 Viewer)

Luckyone said:
Diplomacy that BREAKS norms we have supported for 276 years. That is aggressive
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. NATO hasn't even been around anywhere close to that long.
 
Opossum said:
No it doesn't. NATO hasn't even been around anywhere close to that long.
Click to expand...
No, NATO hasn't been around that long but our support for Democracy has been. If we allow a country that is based on Democracy and that is a key to the Democracy of our allies (Europe) to be threatened, we are not being true to who we are. We are part of NATO (the most integral part of that group) and if we do not support those that are trying to get into NATO because they believe what we believe, we would be traitors to our own principles.

You are being a traitor to those principles by suggesting we do not support a country such as Ukraine.
 
Luckyone said:
No, NATO hasn't been around that long but our support for Democracy has been. If we allow a country that is based on Democracy and that is a key to the Democracy of our allies (Europe) to be threatened, we are not being true to who we are. We are part of NATO (the most integral part of that group) and if we do not support those that are trying to get into NATO because they believe what we believe, we would be traitors to our own principles.

You are being a traitor to those principles by suggesting we do not support a country such as Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Oh really? Let me alleviate you of your ignorance.

“But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force … She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….” ― John Quincy Adams
 
Opossum said:
Oh really? Let me alleviate you of your ignorance.

“But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force … She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….” ― John Quincy Adams
Click to expand...
What BS and traitor you are. Using a quote from John Quincy Adams quote to this situation is treasonous, You are...........
 
Ganondagan said:
Biden isn't directly responsible, but he's a weak leader and the world sees it. That lossens the restraints on aggressor states.
Click to expand...
Horse shit. Biden isn’t responsible for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Putin is.

If you’re gonna point any fingers of responsibility for Ukraine’s current dire situation, that blame lies squarely with the legislators that have been doing their damndest to prevent sending aid to Ukraine.
 
Opossum said:
Oh really? Let me alleviate you of your ignorance.

“But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force … She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….” ― John Quincy Adams
Click to expand...
A dishonest or at least ignorant misrepresentation of the meaning/intent of Adams’ words, as part of his speech before Congress in 1812, when he was Secretary of State.

The world was very much different 200+ years ago than today. Much of North America wasn’t yet settled, and our new country wasn’t yet strong. Certainly not strong enough to protect our homeland security needs and support distant countries in their struggles for independence from tyrants like George III.

Adams position wasn’t that he wanted to isolate the United States. On the contrary, he fully supported establishing trade agreements with other countries, and expanding America’s border to the South.

His words that you misrepresent in your post, unintentionally or deliberately, were out of concern for overextending America’s resources, and becoming entangled in losing conflicts.
 
Luckyone said:
What BS and traitor you are. Using a quote from John Quincy Adams quote to this situation is treasonous, You are...........
Click to expand...
Rofl...it's treason to think Ukraine is a European problem? That's stupid. This was the best response you have because my quote has you dead to rights.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
A dishonest or at least ignorant misrepresentation of the meaning/intent of Adams’ words, as part of his speech before Congress in 1812, when he was Secretary of State.

The world was very much different 200+ years ago than today. Much of North America wasn’t yet settled, and our new country wasn’t yet strong. Certainly not strong enough to protect our homeland security needs and support distant countries in their struggles for independence from tyrants like George III.
Click to expand...
You said it was dishonest/ignorant but then went ahead and didn't actually demonstrate that it was, but just it was different times. Those are not linked arguments.
RaleBulgarian said:
Adams position wasn’t that he wanted to isolate the United States. On the contrary, he fully supported establishing trade agreements with other countries, and expanding America’s border to the South.

His words that you misrepresent in your post, unintentionally or deliberately, were out of concern for overextending America’s resources, and becoming entangled in losing conflicts.
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything about isolation in trade. You created that strawman. So it looks like the only misrepresentation that happened here is everything you wrote.
 
Opossum said:
You said it was dishonest/ignorant but then went ahead and didn't actually demonstrate that it was, but just it was different times. Those are not linked arguments.

I didn't say anything about isolation in trade. You created that strawman. So it looks like the only misrepresentation that happened here is everything you wrote.
Click to expand...
Your response to @Luckyone’s assertion of America’s historic moral obligation to assist Ukraine was to post a small portion of a speech Adams’, as Secretary of State, made to Congress in 1812, implying that he believed America shouldn’t become involved in other countries efforts to achieve/maintain their own democracies.

Whether or not you knew what you posted was false wasn’t the point.

Correcting/dispelling your false assertion was.

If you don’t want to be called out/corrected for posting inaccurate/false shit, don’t post inaccurate/false shit.
 
Last edited:
RaleBulgarian said:
Your response to @Luckyone’s assertion of America’s historic moral obligation to assist Ukraine was to post a small portion of a speech Adams’, as Secretary of State, made to Congress in 1812, implying that he believed America shouldn’t become involved in other countries efforts to achieve/maintain their own democracies.

Whether or not you knew what you posted was false wasn’t the point.

Correcting/dispelling your false assertion was.

If you don’t want to be called out/corrected for posting inaccurate/false shit, don’t post inaccurate/false shit.
Click to expand...
You can repeat yourself all you, but you've not actually shown where I was wrong. The fact is, Adams wasn't alone in his message, Washington's farewell address said the same.

 
Opossum said:
You can repeat yourself all you, but you've not actually shown where I was wrong.
Click to expand...
I have proven you wrong by providing the full context of Adams speech.

Adams was not preaching isolationism.
Opossum said:
The fact is, Adams wasn't alone in his message, Washington's farewell address said the same.
Click to expand...
And apparently in the same way you misunderstood Adams, you also misunderstand Washington.

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”

Two-thirds of the Address is devoted to domestic matters and the rise of political parties, and Washington set out his vision of what would make the United States a truly great nation. He called for men to put aside party and unite for the common good, an "American character" wholly free of foreign attachments. The United States must concentrate only on American interests, and while the country ought to be friendly and open its commerce to all nations, it should avoid becoming involved in foreign wars. Contrary to some opinion, Washington did not call for isolation, only the avoidance of entangling alliances.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
I have proven you wrong by providing the full context of Adams speech.
Click to expand...
No, you proved nothing.
RaleBulgarian said:
Adams was not preaching isolationism.
Click to expand...
Non-interventionism =/= isolationism. Stop conflating two entirely different things.
RaleBulgarian said:
And apparently in the same way you misunderstood Adams, you also misunderstand Washington.

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”

Two-thirds of the Address is devoted to domestic matters and the rise of political parties, and Washington set out his vision of what would make the United States a truly great nation. He called for men to put aside party and unite for the common good, an "American character" wholly free of foreign attachments. The United States must concentrate only on American interests, and while the country ought to be friendly and open its commerce to all nations, it should avoid becoming involved in foreign wars. Contrary to some opinion, Washington did not call for isolation, only the avoidance of entangling alliances.
Click to expand...
I didn't misunderstand anything. Nothing you've quoted contradicts me, while everything backs me up. It's like...there are words that exist that have no meaning to you at all.
 
Opossum said:
No, you proved nothing.
Click to expand...
I proved your implication wrong.

Irrefutably so.

Which is why you can only post nuh-uh’s in response.
Opossum said:
Non-interventionism =/= isolationism. Stop conflating two entirely different things.
Click to expand...
Stop lying/denying.
Opossum said:
I didn't misunderstand anything.
Click to expand...
Well then, that means you’re lying.
Opossum said:
Nothing you've quoted contradicts me, while everything backs me up.
Click to expand...
Everything I’ve posted completely defeats your pathetic denials.

Which, again, is why all you can post are pathetic nuh-uh’s.
Opossum said:
It's like...there are words that exist that have no meaning to you at all.
Click to expand...
It’s like you come from Bizarro World, where up is down, and wrong is correct.


* If all you’re gonna do is feebly deny the facts that I post, you should just save yourself the continued self embarrassment by shutting up and moving on.
 
PeacefulWarrior said:
*shrugs*

Not with me, I think he's been pretty solid actually.
Click to expand...
Not my first choice but I too have to admit, he's done an admirable job of governing an unruly America especially since we had to endure the COVID pandemic. I will happily vote for the old man this election.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
I proved your implication wrong.

Irrefutably so.

Which is why you can only post nuh-uh’s in response.

Stop lying/denying.

Well then, that means you’re lying.

Everything I’ve posted completely defeats your pathetic denials.

Which, again, is why all you can post are pathetic nuh-uh’s.

It’s like you come from Bizarro World, where up is down, and wrong is correct.


* If all you’re gonna do is feebly deny the facts that I post, you should just save yourself the continued self embarrassment by shutting up and moving on.
Click to expand...
You haven't posted a single fact. Not one. You've posted one quote and then spoke generally about it, and what you said didn't match the quote. In fact, you've provided quotes that support me, I even put it in bold for you (something you cannot do back to me). That you do not know the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism is no an ignorance that is my responsibility to alleviate. Make up whatever stupid shit you want. You'll still be wrong.
 
Opossum said:
Oh really? Let me alleviate you of your ignorance.

“But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force … She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….” ― John Quincy Adams
Click to expand...
Let ME alleviate you of YOUR ignorance.

John Quincy Adams famously proclaimed “America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy” in a speech that has been quoted ever since to justify noninterference by the United States in the affairs of other nations.[1] However Adams was not warning future presidents away from helping aspiring democrats, but rather giving his successors a lesson in the messiness of foreign policy and the necessary trade-offs it demands.
 
Luckyone said:
Let ME alleviate you of YOUR ignorance.

John Quincy Adams famously proclaimed “America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy” in a speech that has been quoted ever since to justify noninterference by the United States in the affairs of other nations.[1] However Adams was not warning future presidents away from helping aspiring democrats, but rather giving his successors a lesson in the messiness of foreign policy and the necessary trade-offs it demands.
Click to expand...
You did nothing. The words speak for themselves. An opinion piece written by an institute, that has their own motivations, does not get to redefine what was said.
 
Opossum said:
You did nothing. The words speak for themselves. An opinion piece written by an institute, that has their own motivations, does not get to redefine what was said.
Click to expand...

"Opinion piece by a research institute does not redefine what said", Right?

First of all, this research institute has a high rating for their opinions. Secondly and more importantly, what makes YOU an expert, to where we should believe you and not them?
 
Opossum said:
You haven't posted a single fact. Not one. You've posted one quote and then spoke generally about it, and what you said didn't match the quote. In fact, you've provided quotes that support me, I even put it in bold for you (something you cannot do back to me). That you do not know the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism is no an ignorance that is my responsibility to alleviate. Make up whatever stupid shit you want. You'll still be wrong.
Click to expand...
In your own post #83 you recommended what would clearly be an interventionist action.
Opossum said:
1. Taken a quick hard move to support Ukraine and moved troops in to deter the war because then Russia would've had to attack US troops directly, and that's never happened. It's always proxies.
Click to expand...
In your post #128, Adams does speak against interventionism. The “why” of his speech is the point though.

His main concern was that American should avoid becoming inextricably entangled in other countries conflicts.
Opossum said:
“But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force … She might become the dictatress of the world. She would
Click to expand...
In my post #136, Washington makes essentially the same case.
RaleBulgarian said:
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”
Click to expand...
 
Luckyone said:
"Opinion piece by a research institute does not redefine what said", Right?

First of all, this research institute has a high rating for their opinions. Secondly and more importantly, what makes YOU an expert, to where we should believe you and not them?
Click to expand...
I'm literally just reading the words and what they say.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
In your own post #83 you recommended what would clearly be an interventionist action.
Click to expand...
Yup. I wrote two strategies that would've been better than what Biden did, if they wanted to avoid war in Ukraine. One of them was interventionist while the other was not.
RaleBulgarian said:
In your post #128, Adams does speak against interventionism. The “why” of his speech is the point though.

His main concern was that American should avoid becoming inextricably entangled in other countries conflicts.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
RaleBulgarian said:
In my post #136, Washington makes essentially the same case.
Click to expand...
Correct. So now you're saying I've been correct all along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom