• 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!

State run medias vs. American apologist.

chad1389

Banned
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Messages
740
Reaction score
198
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Vladimir Putin: War with Ukraine would be 'apocalyptic' but unlikely - CNN.com

"The latest polls show 81% of Russians have a negative view of the U.S. -- the highest number since the collapse of the Soviet Union. State-run media reports the United States wants to encroach on Russia. And the Kremlin's propaganda campaign seems to be paying off."
"My attitude to America is bad," one woman said. "The way I watch the news, I realize the Americans want to get a hold of half of Russia."


Allure of Normalcy: What America Still Owes the World | The New Republic

"The conventional wisdom these days is that Americans are war-weary. But it may be more accurate to say they are world-weary. During the cold war, after all, Americans had much greater reason for war-weariness—Korea and Vietnam were 14 times more costly in terms of American deaths than Afghanistan and Iraq—but they never fully rejected the global anti- communist containment strategy that had gotten them into the wars. Today’s mood seems more analogous to the 1920s. More than 50 percent of Americans today believe that the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own”—the highest number ever recorded since Pew started asking the question 50 years ago.

If a countries government really wanted the United States to be a seen a certain way, they have the means to do so. One conflict over an issue and everything we've done to appease other nations for our improvement in their eyes could be tossed out of the window in a matter of weeks. I know not everything politically is not so much about acceptance, but it does play a role. Does it make sense to bow down from global issues, such as with strikes on Syria or not going after Iran's nuclear program, just to find acceptance from the world?
 
Vladimir Putin: War with Ukraine would be 'apocalyptic' but unlikely - CNN.com

"The latest polls show 81% of Russians have a negative view of the U.S. -- the highest number since the collapse of the Soviet Union. State-run media reports the United States wants to encroach on Russia. And the Kremlin's propaganda campaign seems to be paying off."
"My attitude to America is bad," one woman said. "The way I watch the news, I realize the Americans want to get a hold of half of Russia."


Allure of Normalcy: What America Still Owes the World | The New Republic

"The conventional wisdom these days is that Americans are war-weary. But it may be more accurate to say they are world-weary. During the cold war, after all, Americans had much greater reason for war-weariness—Korea and Vietnam were 14 times more costly in terms of American deaths than Afghanistan and Iraq—but they never fully rejected the global anti- communist containment strategy that had gotten them into the wars. Today’s mood seems more analogous to the 1920s. More than 50 percent of Americans today believe that the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own”—the highest number ever recorded since Pew started asking the question 50 years ago.

If a countries government really wanted the United States to be a seen a certain way, they have the means to do so. One conflict over an issue and everything we've done to appease other nations for our improvement in their eyes could be tossed out of the window in a matter of weeks. I know not everything politically is not so much about acceptance, but it does play a role. Does it make sense to bow down from global issues, such as with strikes on Syria or not going after Iran's nuclear program, just to find acceptance from the world?

I think the question is, whether we want to go on paying the full bill for international security. Syria, Ukraine or Iran are not our neighborhood and there are other countries there that should be pitching in and are not doing so. They have been free riding our expenditures of lives and treasure, while they use the money so saved to compete in markets for TVs and cars. Why go on paying the full price for the security of Germans, Chinese, Indians and Japanese?
We know that that will not be possible for ever and doing so now will only shorten the time we have to install a global security system.
 
Vladimir Putin: War with Ukraine would be 'apocalyptic' but unlikely - CNN.com

"The latest polls show 81% of Russians have a negative view of the U.S. -- the highest number since the collapse of the Soviet Union. State-run media reports the United States wants to encroach on Russia. And the Kremlin's propaganda campaign seems to be paying off."
"My attitude to America is bad," one woman said. "The way I watch the news, I realize the Americans want to get a hold of half of Russia."


Allure of Normalcy: What America Still Owes the World | The New Republic

"The conventional wisdom these days is that Americans are war-weary. But it may be more accurate to say they are world-weary. During the cold war, after all, Americans had much greater reason for war-weariness—Korea and Vietnam were 14 times more costly in terms of American deaths than Afghanistan and Iraq—but they never fully rejected the global anti- communist containment strategy that had gotten them into the wars. Today’s mood seems more analogous to the 1920s. More than 50 percent of Americans today believe that the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own”—the highest number ever recorded since Pew started asking the question 50 years ago.

If a countries government really wanted the United States to be a seen a certain way, they have the means to do so. One conflict over an issue and everything we've done to appease other nations for our improvement in their eyes could be tossed out of the window in a matter of weeks. I know not everything politically is not so much about acceptance, but it does play a role. Does it make sense to bow down from global issues, such as with strikes on Syria or not going after Iran's nuclear program, just to find acceptance from the world?

Not to "find acceptance from the world" but in the interest of peace, security and legitimacy. Russian news doesn't have to spin anything for Russian people to see the clarity of US/EU interference in Kiev. Russians didn't have to listen to Russian news spin anything to see that despite agreements not to, NATO has expanded eastward 11 times.


NATO's Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?

By Uwe Klußmann, Matthias Schepp and Klaus Wiegrefe

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has accused the West of breaking promises made after the fall of the Iron Curtain, saying that NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe violated commitments made during the negotiations over German reunification. Newly discovered documents from Western archives support the Russian position.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...est-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html
 
Last edited:
I think the question is, whether we want to go on paying the full bill for international security. Syria, Ukraine or Iran are not our neighborhood and there are other countries there that should be pitching in and are not doing so. They have been free riding our expenditures of lives and treasure, while they use the money so saved to compete in markets for TVs and cars. Why go on paying the full price for the security of Germans, Chinese, Indians and Japanese?
We know that that will not be possible for ever and doing so now will only shorten the time we have to install a global security system.

We agree joG!!!!!!!
 
I have always thought you had it in you to see the light, someday. ;)

Lol, what you posted has long been my position.
 
You use to argue with and are now denying my criticisms of USFP, hilarious.

Oh, but different situations call for different responses.
USFP must be appropriate to the very different circumstances out there.
Don't you think?
 
Oh, but different situations call for different responses.
USFP must be appropriate to the very different circumstances out there.
Don't you think?

Indubitably.
 
I think the question is, whether we want to go on paying the full bill for international security. Syria, Ukraine or Iran are not our neighborhood and there are other countries there that should be pitching in and are not doing so. They have been free riding our expenditures of lives and treasure, while they use the money so saved to compete in markets for TVs and cars. Why go on paying the full price for the security of Germans, Chinese, Indians and Japanese?
We know that that will not be possible for ever and doing so now will only shorten the time we have to install a global security system.

Just because other countries are not pitching in does not mean we should step away. That is what makes us America. I think the sooner we except the fact that we are, in truth, exceptional, the sooner we can stop worrying about what other countries think of us. We know they don't help. We also know they use the "American's love war" tactic as a false reason to hate us. It is jealousy that drives their heart. When I hear about those here, in the U.S, who apologize for us for being America, it kind of irks.
 
Not to "find acceptance from the world" but in the interest of peace, security and legitimacy. Russian news doesn't have to spin anything for Russian people to see the clarity of US/EU interference in Kiev. Russians didn't have to listen to Russian news spin anything to see that despite agreements not to, NATO has expanded eastward 11 times.


NATO's Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?

By Uwe Klußmann, Matthias Schepp and Klaus Wiegrefe

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has accused the West of breaking promises made after the fall of the Iron Curtain, saying that NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe violated commitments made during the negotiations over German reunification. Newly discovered documents from Western archives support the Russian position.

NATO's Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow? - SPIEGEL ONLINE

What peace does that bring to those who suffer from the hands of unjust dictators? And what does forcing your way into Ukraine have to do with the US breaking its promise to Moscow? Surely there is other means of doing things than by force.
 
Just because other countries are not pitching in does not mean we should step away. That is what makes us America. I think the sooner we except the fact that we are, in truth, exceptional, the sooner we can stop worrying about what other countries think of us. We know they don't help. We also know they use the "American's love war" tactic as a false reason to hate us. It is jealousy that drives their heart. When I hear about those here, in the U.S, who apologize for us for being America, it kind of irks.

There can be no intelligent question that the US has used its power in an exceptionally beneficial way for other countries. But it is important to understand that this is not sustainable and will lead to desaster, if we are unable to reorganize international security to a global communal responsibility.
 
Not to "find acceptance from the world" but in the interest of peace, security and legitimacy. Russian news doesn't have to spin anything for Russian people to see the clarity of US/EU interference in Kiev. Russians didn't have to listen to Russian news spin anything to see that despite agreements not to, NATO has expanded eastward 11 times.


NATO's Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?




By Uwe Klußmann, Matthias Schepp and Klaus Wiegrefe

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has accused the West of breaking promises made after the fall of the Iron Curtain, saying that NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe violated commitments made during the negotiations over German reunification. Newly discovered documents from Western archives support the Russian position.

NATO's Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow? - SPIEGEL ONLINE

It was described as "not fair". These countries joined the EU, implemented democracy, had been under the heel of the Russians since 1945, nothing was placed in writing, it was a natural progession of weaker States seeking an alliance to protect their sovereignty.
Just look to Ukraine as an example of why they were more than justified to fear the Russian bear.
Look to the Stans where Russia arms both sides in a conflict.
Look to the Stans and the Baltic's after Putin announce "protection of Russians in other countries"

The best place for Russia would have been to implement Democracy and become a member of NATO.
It is not NATO that Russia should be nervous about, and they sure as hell are nervous, but about China.
 
There can be no intelligent question that the US has used its power in an exceptionally beneficial way for other countries. But it is important to understand that this is not sustainable and will lead to desaster, if we are unable to reorganize international security to a global communal responsibility.

How so? Disaster to who exactly? Those who were not chemically sprayed by Syria? Do they not wonder what could possibly happen to them next?
 
It was described as "not fair". These countries joined the EU, implemented democracy, had been under the heel of the Russians since 1945, nothing was placed in writing, it was a natural progession of weaker States seeking an alliance to protect their sovereignty.
Just look to Ukraine as an example of why they were more than justified to fear the Russian bear.
Look to the Stans where Russia arms both sides in a conflict.
Look to the Stans and the Baltic's after Putin announce "protection of Russians in other countries"

The best place for Russia would have been to implement Democracy and become a member of NATO.
It is not NATO that Russia should be nervous about, and they sure as hell are nervous, but about China.

Agree.
 
Vladimir Putin: War with Ukraine would be 'apocalyptic' but unlikely - CNN.com

"The latest polls show 81% of Russians have a negative view of the U.S. -- the highest number since the collapse of the Soviet Union. State-run media reports the United States wants to encroach on Russia. And the Kremlin's propaganda campaign seems to be paying off."
"My attitude to America is bad," one woman said. "The way I watch the news, I realize the Americans want to get a hold of half of Russia."


Allure of Normalcy: What America Still Owes the World | The New Republic

"The conventional wisdom these days is that Americans are war-weary. But it may be more accurate to say they are world-weary. During the cold war, after all, Americans had much greater reason for war-weariness—Korea and Vietnam were 14 times more costly in terms of American deaths than Afghanistan and Iraq—but they never fully rejected the global anti- communist containment strategy that had gotten them into the wars. Today’s mood seems more analogous to the 1920s. More than 50 percent of Americans today believe that the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own”—the highest number ever recorded since Pew started asking the question 50 years ago.

If a countries government really wanted the United States to be a seen a certain way, they have the means to do so. One conflict over an issue and everything we've done to appease other nations for our improvement in their eyes could be tossed out of the window in a matter of weeks. I know not everything politically is not so much about acceptance, but it does play a role. Does it make sense to bow down from global issues, such as with strikes on Syria or not going after Iran's nuclear program, just to find acceptance from the world?

The United States shows similar poll results regarding the Russian Federation due to the fact that they are led by a war criminal ethnic cleansing fascist; and whereas, the majority of the world has a favorable view of the United States the exact opposite is true regarding global opinion of the cult of personality led Russian Federation.
 
The United States shows similar poll results regarding the Russian Federation due to the fact that they are led by a war criminal ethnic cleansing fascist; and whereas, the majority of the world has a favorable view of the United States the exact opposite is true regarding global opinion of the cult of personality led Russian Federation.

The world has a reason to view Russia as such. Russia has given its people no reason to view us as an enemy other than for wanting to stop their invasion. That's what I'm pointing out. If a country wanted to do something that was unjust, and we, as a leader of the world, wanted to stop it, the state run medias of that country could flip our favorable view of a country trying to keep peace in the world to a country that just wants to kill everyone. So people here in the U.S apologizing for the U.S being the U.S is pointless.
 
Not to "find acceptance from the world" but in the interest of peace, security and legitimacy. Russian news doesn't have to spin anything for Russian people to see the clarity of US/EU interference in Kiev. Russians didn't have to listen to Russian news spin anything to see that despite agreements not to, NATO has expanded eastward 11 times.


NATO's Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?

By Uwe Klußmann, Matthias Schepp and Klaus Wiegrefe

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has accused the West of breaking promises made after the fall of the Iron Curtain, saying that NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe violated commitments made during the negotiations over German reunification. Newly discovered documents from Western archives support the Russian position.

NATO's Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow? - SPIEGEL ONLINE

There was no actual binding commitment, provide the treaty the US signed with Russia which forbade NATO expanding to the East, I'll be waiting with baited breath.

Oh and again you people really need to learn the difference between NATO and an EU association agreement. :roll:
 
How so? Disaster to who exactly? Those who were not chemically sprayed by Syria? Do they not wonder what could possibly happen to them next?

I'm on a mobile and can't really reply in length. But the travers from a unipolar to a multi polar international security structure with the addition of proliferation creates a highly dangerous situation with the probability of nuclear war developing towards near certainty
 
I'm on a mobile and can't really reply in length. But the travers from a unipolar to a multi polar international security structure with the addition of proliferation creates a highly dangerous situation with the probability of nuclear war developing towards near certainty

Syria does not have nuclear weapons. But if it's about Syrian allies, I disagree. I couldn't see a country wanting to go into a nuclear war to save Syria. But in the case of major world players such as China, they'd have to be really convinced that anything we did was for pure gain and not out of peace to go that far with us. Any country carrying nuclear weapons I assume thinks the same way. Iran, on the other hand, is a different story. Stopping them from attaining nukes that would most likely just use for apocalyptic reasons is why they need to be stopped.
 
Syria does not have nuclear weapons. But if it's about Syrian allies, I disagree. I couldn't see a country wanting to go into a nuclear war to save Syria. But in the case of major world players such as China, they'd have to be really convinced that anything we did was for pure gain and not out of peace to go that far with us. Any country carrying nuclear weapons I assume thinks the same way. Iran, on the other hand, is a different story. Stopping them from attaining nukes that would most likely just use for apocalyptic reasons is why they need to be stopped.

Try thinking strategically instead of, well otherwise. ;)
 
The United States shows similar poll results regarding the Russian Federation due to the fact that they are led by a war criminal ethnic cleansing fascist; and whereas, the majority of the world has a favorable view of the United States the exact opposite is true regarding global opinion of the cult of personality led Russian Federation.

Actually, according to a recent Gallup poll, the US is seen as the largest threat to world peace. (In Gallup Poll, The Biggest Threat To World Peace Is ... America?) The specifics can be seen here (End of Year, George Gallup, WIN, WIN/Gallup International, GLOBAL BAROMETER OF HOPE AND HAPPINESS).
 
The world has a reason to view Russia as such. Russia has given its people no reason to view us as an enemy other than for wanting to stop their invasion. That's what I'm pointing out. If a country wanted to do something that was unjust, and we, as a leader of the world, wanted to stop it, the state run medias of that country could flip our favorable view of a country trying to keep peace in the world to a country that just wants to kill everyone. So people here in the U.S apologizing for the U.S being the U.S is pointless.

That's hilarious! NATO has actively been moving eastward to the point now that they are on Russia's doorstep. If I were Russia, I'd be quite alarmed.
 
That's hilarious! NATO has actively been moving eastward to the point now that they are on Russia's doorstep. If I were Russia, I'd be quite alarmed.

Who did we kill in the process of doing this? A pissed of Russia does not mean they can force their way in and cause a civil war.
 
Back
Top Bottom