• 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!

US: Russia violated 1987 missile treaty

Invading neighboring countries, using treaty banned weapons. Why does that so so familiar?

US: Russia violated 1987 missile treaty « Hot Air

The Russians are not friends. But that is not the problem. They are trying to shape a world in which nations must compete militarily instead of helping to create an international architecture for security that will make that unnecessary. That is a problem.
 
Invading neighboring countries, using treaty banned weapons. Why does that so so familiar?

US: Russia violated 1987 missile treaty « Hot Air

As Putin has noted, the treaty is antiquated, doesn't serve Russian interests as it may have the old Soviet Union and besides, treaties are good until one country decides they aren't and withdraws. Just ask the Whitehouse.
 
The Russians are not friends. But that is not the problem. They are trying to shape a world in which nations must compete militarily instead of helping to create an international architecture for security that will make that unnecessary. That is a problem.

I suppose that you think that US foreign policy has those aims? We're talking about having just supported the violent overthrow of an elected and legitimate Ukrainian government, to plant our man Yat's in the Ukraine. Working with and supporting terrorist groups in an attempt to overthrow president Assad, overthrowing president Saddam Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi. Your bored today, and you figured you'd thrust a stick in and stir, or you're just suggesting that the US seeks to achieve an "international architecture for security" just for ****s and giggles. Ok, it worked.
 
Last edited:
The Russians are not friends. But that is not the problem. They are trying to shape a world in which nations must compete militarily instead of helping to create an international architecture for security that will make that unnecessary. That is a problem.

He's a KGB moron whose mind is stuck in the Soviet Union and not Russia.
 
I suppose that you think that US foreign policy has those aims? We're talking about having just supported the violent overthrow of an elected and legitimate Ukrainian government, to plant our man Yat's in the Ukraine. Working with and supporting terrorist groups in an attempt to overthrow president Assad, overthrowing president Saddam Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi. Your bored today, and you figured you'd thrust a stick in and stir, or you're just suggesting that the US seeks to achieve an "international architecture for security" just for ****s and giggles. Ok, it worked.

I know that you don't think so, but you will find that there is a higher probability than you think, if you read up on it. There was a rather lengthy discussion in the better foreign policy journals and the r2p thing introduced by the UN in 2005 was a direct result of US urging to initiate the necessary steps.
 
True. But does that contradict what I said?

No it was me agreeing with you in a way that also allowed me to get rid of all the rage inside me from losing some games.
 
Deleted
 
Last edited:
No it was me agreeing with you in a way that also allowed me to get rid of all the rage inside me from losing some games.

I hate losing games. ;)
 
I know that you don't think so, but you will find that there is a higher probability than you think, if you read up on it. There was a rather lengthy discussion in the better foreign policy journals and the r2p thing introduced by the UN in 2005 was a direct result of US urging to initiate the necessary steps.

What are the "better foreign policy journals", the Weekly Standard, National Review, American Spectator, New American, Christian Science Monitor?
 
Last edited:
What are the "better foreign policy journals", the Weekly Standard, National Review, American Spectator, New American, Christian Science Monitor?

More like Foreign Affairs. That kind, though, it did spill over into magazines like The Economist or even into the NY TIMES or the Washington Post sometimes.
 
Glad you had a good laugh there. Always makes me feel better. But you do know he is right, don't you?

No dude! C-mon, you know I don't.
 
The Russians are not friends. But that is not the problem. They are trying to shape a world in which nations must compete militarily instead of helping to create an international architecture for security that will make that unnecessary. That is a problem.

Maybe the Russians are still bitter over Reagan fooling them into an arms race that helped to collapse their economy and break up the U.S.S.R.


...or maybe they're nostalgic, I dunno.
 
Maybe the Russians are still bitter over Reagan fooling them into an arms race that helped to collapse their economy and break up the U.S.S.R.

...or maybe they're nostalgic, I dunno.

The Eastern Europeans I have met were often nostalgic as we drank beer they would sing sorrowful songs and weep.
 
Maybe the Russians are still bitter over Reagan fooling them into an arms race that helped to collapse their economy and break up the U.S.S.R.


...or maybe they're nostalgic, I dunno.

They are just imperialistic and nobody is standing in their way.
 
Sounds like the US for the last century.

What countries has the U.S. attacked and absorbed in the last century? All the countries we attacked are still independent countries. There has been no imperialism. Stupid and pointless use of military yes but no imperialism.
 
What countries has the U.S. attacked and absorbed in the last century? All the countries we attacked are still independent countries. There has been no imperialism. Stupid and pointless use of military yes but no imperialism.

Imperialism doesn't necessitate annexation of real estate.

Imperialism, as it is defined by the Dictionary of Human Geography, is an unequal human and territorial relationship, usually in the form of an empire, based on ideas of superiority and practices of dominance, and involving the extension of authority and control of one state or people over another.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism


: the effect that a powerful country or group of countries has in changing or influencing the way people live in other, poorer countries.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imperialism
 
Back
Top Bottom