• 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!

Unarmed Russian Air Force jet overflies the Pentagon, Capitol, CIA

Gonzo Rodeo said:
I want everyone to consider the politically baiting headline CNN decided to run with here.
Click to expand...
I did. This sort of thing is not uncommon.

I rank this about a 1 or 2, on a scale of 1-10, 10 being dangerous lying. It's annoying, and I think they don't need to do it personally. All news does this, really almost all media

In contrast, I caught some of Tucker Carlson last night harassing a climate scientist on his program, and it was nuts, every bit as crazy as Beck or Rush or Hannity. It was so embarrassing for Tucker that I really don't understand at all, how someone can compare CNN to Fox. To deride CNN for a cherry picked headline, vs what Fox does on a daily basis, is just crazy.
 
Although embroiled in an undeclared war, Russia and Ukraine both still allow Open Skies Treaty overflights.

In addition, Open Skies Treaty members (34 parties) can share flight observation data between fellow members.
 
Cardinal said:
I did. That seems really different to me than allowing each other's air forces to stroll into our respective airspaces.
Click to expand...

We have our own personnel aboard their aircraft and they have theirs aboard ours.
 
Mach said:
I did. This sort of thing is not uncommon.

I rank this about a 1 or 2, on a scale of 1-10, 10 being dangerous lying. It's annoying, and I think they don't need to do it personally. All news does this, really almost all media

In contrast, I caught some of Tucker Carlson last night harassing a climate scientist on his program, and it was nuts, every bit as crazy as Beck or Rush or Hannity. It was so embarrassing for Tucker that I really don't understand at all, how someone can compare CNN to Fox. To deride CNN for a cherry picked headline, vs what Fox does on a daily basis, is just crazy.
Click to expand...

The headline takes a completely innocuous non-story and heavily suggests that Trump is simultaneously working with the Russians while also losing to them.

The very real problem is two-fold:

1. Sloppy, suggestive reporting based on an intentional misrepresentation of the facts - be it from willful ignorance or malicious intent - descredits actual reporting and makes it harder to report real malfeasance.

2. It solidifies opposition (in this case, support for Trump) by serving as an obvious, incontrovertible example of intentional misrepresentation. It tells Trump's supporters that the elites really are out to get him.

Who do you think benefits in either scenario? Who do you think benefits from chaos?

Anytime your defense lies on "Fox does it too," that is not a strong leg to stand on. People, by and large, have whatever feelings they are going to have a bit a story after just the headline, often not reading any further. Then other outlets pick it up, perpetuating the drama.

It's bad. Call it what it is.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
Yes. That was why it was introduced. I am not sure that it any longer is required. Technology has moved on.
Click to expand...

Well, we must be getting something worthwhile from our flyovers as well if we keep doing it. All technology has moved on, including the surveillance technology in those aircraft.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
The headline takes a completely innocuous non-story and heavily suggests that Trump is simultaneously working with the Russians while also losing to them.It's bad. Call it what it is.
Click to expand...

Again, headlines are all like this, always, all the time. It's all click-bait. Have you ever known this not to be the norm?
You can call it bad, that's fine. Just don't act like this has ANYTHING to do with just CNN, or just anti-Trump.
If that's the case, then I'll unqualified agree that it's a bad tactic.
 
ecofarm said:
Sure, it's peaceful. I mean between the US and Russia. No one else is MAD, right?
Click to expand...

Now that Obama is out, our relations with Russia have already improved. Sure, there will always be little things but for the most part, we're much safer than we were a year ago. Those who think MAD is imminent are wrong.
 
Didn't know this either but it makes sense.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Well, we must be getting something worthwhile from our flyovers as well if we keep doing it. All technology has moved on, including the surveillance technology in those aircraft.
Click to expand...

If our military wants them, it's fine by me.
 
Mach said:
Again, headlines are all like this, always, all the time. It's all click-bait. Have you ever known this not to be the norm?
You can call it bad, that's fine. Just don't act like this has ANYTHING to do with just CNN, or just anti-Trump.
If that's the case, then I'll unqualified agree that it's a bad tactic.
Click to expand...

Extending it further, this is the kind of hyperbolic and self-perpetuating "fake news" that, most unfortunately, makes Trump correct in his broad criticism of the media.

Remember when CNN was a trusted name in news? Now it seems to be competing with sub-Fox conservative media like Drudge and Breitbart.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Now that Obama is out, our relations with Russia have already improved. Sure, there will always be little things but for the most part, we're much safer than we were a year ago. Those who think MAD is imminent are wrong.
Click to expand...

It's not about imminence, it's about assurances. It's not MID.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
It's not about imminence, it's about assurances. It's not MID.
Click to expand...

If it's not imminent (and it's not), why are some behaving as if it is? Why all the-sky-is-falling rhetoric? We're safer than we were a couple of years ago.
 
HowardBThiname said:
If it's not imminent (and it's not), why are some behaving as if it is? Why all the-sky-is-falling rhetoric? We're safer than we were a couple of years ago.
Click to expand...

Sky falling is fun, of course. Everyone wants to live in important times. We're not safer; Kim has reach for the first time. How does a regime going from warheads but no missile to capability and we're safer?

My concern is not as much what Kim will do with the nukes to us, but what he'll do to his nation behind that shield. Same in Iran.
 
Yes, this "news" is "hyperbolic", these flyovers were negotiated decades ago, they're supposed to add transperancy, assuage an adversary's concerns, promote understanding. In this specific instance, the fact they chartered a course over Trump's vacation spot is more a message (there's nothing military nearby).
 
They can fly over whatever they want, far as I'm concerned. We are never going to go to war with Russia, and it's not because of MAD. Our population centers are to well informed thanks to the internet, and neither would ever support war with the other.

Because whatever we think about Putin, and their government, their people are great. And honestly, it would have happened already if it was going to happen. Back in the height of the cold war when we were afraid of each other and information was bottle necked and steeped in propaganda. Now we can just hop on the internet find a Russian and go dude wtf? And he'll be like what? Why's Putin tripping? He'll be like, he stole a bunch of money and is trying to distract us with how awesome he is at dealing with America... Wtf is up with Trump? And we be like; You going to pretend Putin had nothing with Trump... He'll be like, you got evidence? We be like, whatever man he'll probably burn out by the end of next year.

And that's why we'll never go to war with Russia. And really they did us a favor, they exposed a weakness in our process, if we're dumb enough to fall for it again we deserve it.
 
ecofarm said:
Sky falling is fun, of course. Everyone wants to live in important times. We're not safer; Kim has reach for the first time. How does a regime going from warheads but no missile to capability and we're safer?

My concern is not as much what Kim will do with the nukes to us, but what he'll do to his nation behind that shield. Same in Iran.
Click to expand...

What more could he do to his own people that he doesn't feel entitled to do already?
 
Cardinal said:
What more could he do to his own people that he doesn't feel entitled to do already?
Click to expand...

Literally slaughter them, bad water or something else. Granted, having nukes at all is most of a shield against Western influence. Having nukes that can reach the US is a get out of The Hague free card, lifetime membership. Tyranny with that gives the people, the nation, no chance.
 
ecofarm said:
Literally slaughter them, bad water or something else. Granted, having nukes at all is most of a shield against Western influence. Having nukes that can reach the US is a get out of The Hague free card, lifetime membership. Tyranny with that gives the people, the nation, no chance.
Click to expand...

The chaos he can cause now with conventional means is already enough for a Get Out of Hague Free card. When they shot down an American spy plan killing all 31 aboard, Nixon said, "Oh...man, look at the time, CHiPs is on."

What he's already doing to his people doesn't exactly communicate restraint.
 
Cardinal said:
The chaos he can cause now with conventional means is already enough for a Get Out of Hague Free card. When they shot down an American spy plan killing all 31 aboard, Nixon said, "Oh...man, look at the time, CHiPs is on."

What he's already doing to his people doesn't exactly communicate restraint.
Click to expand...

The longer a tyrant sports the card, the bigger the social/human capital void gets. When the leader leaves, the void will be exposed. The longer we wait, the worse it gets.

Nukes that can reach the US means Kim is a god-king until death. He'll have kids and 25 million people will drift off into intellectual darkness, with tales of his heroism.

If Iran gets nukes, it will be like NK. Dark-age totalitarianism.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Literally slaughter them, bad water or something else. Granted, having nukes at all is most of a shield against Western influence. Having nukes that can reach the US is a get out of The Hague free card, lifetime membership. Tyranny with that gives the people, the nation, no chance.
Click to expand...

Then he would have no subjects, no one to man the military etc
 
ecofarm said:
The longer a tyrant sports the card, the bigger the social/human capital void gets. When the leader leaves, the void will be exposed. The longer we wait, the worse it gets.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a different dynamic in place than in other totalitarian regimes. The Kims seem satisfied with crushing laws and brutal work camps, whereas other countries might opt for all-out slaughter fields.* I don't know why this is, but it just seems to be the case here. As for "the longer we wait," we don't have any non-horrible options available to us.



*This said, I'm not claiming there aren't slaughter fields either.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Then he would have no subjects, no one to man the military etc
Click to expand...

Those willing to agree with him, at least openly, are kept. Yes-men. A few of Saddam's were missing fingers, it was kind of a thing for him. Basically a gang. No real civilian infrastructure, human capital, just fear.
 
ecofarm said:
Those willing to agree with him, at least openly, are kept. Yes-men. A few of Saddam's were missing fingers, it was kind of a thing for him. Basically a gang. No real civilian infrastructure, human capital, just fear.
Click to expand...

Which is how the entire country is pretty much run right now. The next mass death event will be the same as the last, famine. Not some perverse desire just to kill millions
 
Cardinal said:
There seems to be a different dynamic in place than in other totalitarian regimes. The Kims seem satisfied with crushing laws and brutal work camps, whereas other countries might opt for all-out slaughter fields.* I don't know why this is, but it just seems to be the case here. As for "the longer we wait," we don't have any non-horrible options available to us.



*This said, I'm not claiming there aren't slaughter fields either.
Click to expand...

That's despotic desperation. At some point, if not already, Kim needs to take cloths off mass graves.

The most horrible option is to allow the tyrant to destroy whatever human capital remains in the nation for another generation. We don't know for sure how much damage Seoul takes in the event of a (non-nuclear) strike.

I'm not green-lighting a strike on NK, certainly not without what would qualify for an "attack on the US" according to China, but I'm not convinced a barrage from poor troops with old artillery is inevitable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom