• 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!

Why Do You People Want War With Russia ?

Helix said:
Clinton was a lousy candidate who won the popular vote. IMO, the electoral college should have prevented Trump from assuming office. since that did not happen, i support eliminating the electoral college, as this stopgap has failed its intended purpose.
Click to expand...

Good luck with your quest. :)
 
Helix said:
not very likely. however, that is my current position.
Click to expand...

Your position would hurt a lot of American businesses and we would loose a lot of middle class income jobs and the cost of living would go up faster, all to hurt Russia? Doesn't sound like a good trade off.
 
oneworld2 said:
Serious question , why do you people want war with Russia ?

I am sick and tired of this resurgence of the threat of the Big Red Bear in European and US circles. The truth is , to me at least , that the West has been racing towards the Russian borders by swallowing up nation after nation into the Nato sphere and framing the obvious and understandable response as " Russian aggression " in a classic case of international projection.

Why would people want and seek to add petrol to such a highly volatile situation ?

The problem isn't Russian aggression but rather US full spectrum dominance as set out in the Project for a New American Century. Iraq in the stone age. Afghanistan in turmoil. Libya full of Islamists. Syria in ruins. Iran and North Korea in the cross hairs but Russia is the country we need to curb the aggression with ?

Really ?

These constant calls for war and or the upping of tensions are like some Orwellian nightmare. You people who are calling for it should be the ONLY ones forced into fighting it instead of cheer leading for wars that will kill millions of people who are just trying to go about their daily business as best they can
Click to expand...

America will NOT go to war with Russia as long as Putin is trump's very best friend.

But as soon as Putin has no more use for the orange *****, he WILL invade and take over America. And while trump and his family are living in exile in some island Putin owns, the trump supporters will blame the democrats when Russian is being taught in US schools.
 
oneworld2 said:
Serious question , why do you people want war with Russia ?

I am sick and tired of this resurgence of the threat of the Big Red Bear in European and US circles. The truth is , to me at least , that the West has been racing towards the Russian borders by swallowing up nation after nation into the Nato sphere and framing the obvious and understandable response as " Russian aggression " in a classic case of international projection.

Why would people want and seek to add petrol to such a highly volatile situation ?

The problem isn't Russian aggression but rather US full spectrum dominance as set out in the Project for a New American Century. Iraq in the stone age. Afghanistan in turmoil. Libya full of Islamists. Syria in ruins. Iran and North Korea in the cross hairs but Russia is the country we need to curb the aggression with ?...
Click to expand...

NATO has not been swallowing up any nation, each of the Soviet Unions former satellite states have rushed to join Nato and the EU for their own protection. Once the Soviet empire collapsed, it took a micro-second for the newly freed countries to aspire to market systems and joining western Europe. I have no sympathy for the Russian Expansionists and former Communist totalitarians, and the fact that so many have joined NATO is their own fault. Had they not crushed eastern Europe repeatedly (East Germany, Hungry, Czechoslovakia), with decades of occupation forces they and the Baltic states might have not needed to flee to the western umbrella.

Under Yeltsin there was not need to be concerned about Russia's historic need to swallow adjacent states. Since Putin and his permeant status as dictator, the ex KGB officer has let it be known that he misses the old Soviet Union and will take calculated risks to reannex the freed peoples. And as with most bullying totalitarian dictators, appeasement and accommodation never works - to them its a sign of weakness and another opportunity.

We learned, or should have learned, that the Russian bear is always hungry. Give it you hand and you'll find your arm gone. It only understands the whip and Europe will never be freed from this curse until the country is occupied, its oligarchy imprisoned, and its secret police and their officers arrested, imprisoned, and some found guilty and executed. By avoiding the cleansing of utter destruction, it is a festering cancer never to be cured.

Hence, its long overdue for the West to show some backbone; the solicitation of Sweden, Finland, Moldovia and Austria to join the alliance, the massive increase of military aid to the Ukraine, the expansion of NATO bases in the Baltic, the threat of returning missiles to Poland.

Short of war, the only way to stop the Russians is to make life as miserable and insecure as possible. Should they then wish to remove this preesure, all they need do is withdraw their armies from the Ukraine.
 
Helix said:
um, they went on a massive hacking campaign to help the orange fool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

let's simplify this discussion before we go any further.

1. i don't have any problem with the average Russian.

2. i don't want war with Russia.

3. i don't want some war with Russia because Putin can't control his urge to rebuild the Soviet Union by force.

4. I don't think that the US is perfect. i don't support our interventionist efforts, either.

5. i want to see the orange fool expelled from office by legislative or elective means.

6. i am annoyed that Russia is helping him because they probably have him by the balls.

7. i am annoyed that a lot of people in my country support the orange fool.

hope that this clears it up.
Click to expand...



But read the small print Helix. There is no hard evidence, and when we hear phrases like 'was confident' or highly likely' that tells us that there is no hard evidence. Then perhaps you can explain why you trust such equivocal statements from the same intelligence community that told the world with unequivocal certainty that Iraq had WMD:


On October 7, 2016, the ODNI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that the U.S. Intelligence Community was confident that the Russian Government directed recent hacking of emails with the intention of interfering with the U.S. election process
 
maxparrish said:
NATO has not been swallowing up any nation, each of the Soviet Unions former satellite states have rushed to join Nato and the EU for their own protection. Once the Soviet empire collapsed, it took a micro-second for the newly freed countries to aspire to market systems and joining western Europe. I have no sympathy for the Russian Expansionists and former Communist totalitarians, and the fact that so many have joined NATO is their own fault. Had they not crushed eastern Europe repeatedly (East Germany, Hungry, Czechoslovakia), with decades of occupation forces they and the Baltic states might have not needed to flee to the western umbrella.

Under Yeltsin there was not need to be concerned about Russia's historic need to swallow adjacent states. Since Putin and his permeant status as dictator, the ex KGB officer has let it be known that he misses the old Soviet Union and will take calculated risks to reannex the freed peoples. And as with most bullying totalitarian dictators, appeasement and accommodation never works - to them its a sign of weakness and another opportunity.
Click to expand...


Having admitted that, can you explain why NATO's first wave of eastern expansion occurred in 1999 during the Yeltsin era, with Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary?


Broken promises, and all of it pre Putin.


Why?
 
Westphalian said:
Having admitted that, can you explain why NATO's first wave of eastern expansion occurred in 1999 during the Yeltsin era, with Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary?

Broken promises, and all of it pre Putin.

Why?
Click to expand...

There was no clear written agreement, memories differ as too who promised whom, and assurances for the immediate future were made by, and to, not actual states but by/to temporary politicians and actors whose ability to see or control future events were nill. The primary concern was East Germany, and as Gorbachev admits he didn't seek it clearly defined in writing because the idea that a Warsaw pact member would wish to join NATO was, in his mind, almost inconceivable (as was the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the termination of the pact).

The assurances of intent given the communist Soviet state at the time was true and avoided any near term Soviet excuse to re-invade one of its tributary puppet states (a real threat given Soviet history).

But intents are not cast in stone. Within a few years, under a new US administration, and a Russia with new borders and Goraby "retired", the newly freed countries clamored to join. NATO was not ready, nor interested. But over the decade they warmed to the idea and eventually did so (even as they kept up other formal joint agreements with Russia on European security).

Why did all the members warm to the idea? One supposes because it made sense in the long term for European Unity and joint Identity. And while Yeltsin was not a threat, it was obvious Yeltsin would not be in place forever.

Now it is clear that it was a good thing; for Putin is sabre rattling for a return to the subjection of countries back into a colonial (or reannexed) status. And one thing is certain, nobody promised to help rebuild the Soviet Union and restore its colonial empire if it fell apart.
 
maxparrish said:
There was no clear written agreement, memories differ as too who promised whom, and assurances for the immediate future were made by, and to, not actual states but by/to temporary politicians and actors whose ability to see or control future events were nill. The primary concern was East Germany, and as Gorbachev admits he didn't seek it clearly defined in writing because the idea that a Warsaw pact member would wish to join NATO was, in his mind, almost inconceivable (as was the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the termination of the pact).

The assurances of intent given the communist Soviet state at the time was true and avoided any near term Soviet excuse to re-invade one of its tributary puppet states (a real threat given Soviet history).

But intents are not cast in stone. Within a few years, under a new US administration, and a Russia with new borders and Goraby "retired", the newly freed countries clamored to join. NATO was not ready, nor interested. But over the decade they warmed to the idea and eventually did so (even as they kept up other formal joint agreements with Russia on European security).

Why did all the members warm to the idea? One supposes because it made sense in the long term for European Unity and joint Identity. And while Yeltsin was not a threat, it was obvious Yeltsin would not be in place forever.

Now it is clear that it was a good thing; for Putin is sabre rattling for a return to the subjection of countries back into a colonial (or reannexed) status. And one thing is certain, nobody promised to help rebuild the Soviet Union and restore its colonial empire if it fell apart.
Click to expand...

Now we know - western promises are worthless. Trust is gone. That's a bad thing.

But NATO has also failed to bring security to its members, some of whom are paranoid and insecure.

The security situation in Europe has declined following that expansion. The truth is that the demonisation of Russia can only increase insecurity. Russia is also insecure and must react to defend itself. Europe is regressing back to increased militarisation.

That's also a bad thing (except for the MIC). It's bad for people - all people of Europe. NATO expansion has played a large part in creating this situation.
 
jdog21 said:
Your position would hurt a lot of American businesses and we would loose a lot of middle class income jobs and the cost of living would go up faster, all to hurt Russia? Doesn't sound like a good trade off.
Click to expand...

being among the first countries to transition away from fossil fuels would be a big economic benefit. we could invest in our workers, as robots can't do those jobs yet. they built a wind farm right outside of my hometown, and it has been good for the community.
 
oneworld2 said:
Serious question , why do you people want war with Russia ?

I am sick and tired of this resurgence of the threat of the Big Red Bear in European and US circles. The truth is , to me at least , that the West has been racing towards the Russian borders by swallowing up nation after nation into the Nato sphere and framing the obvious and understandable response as " Russian aggression " in a classic case of international projection.

Why would people want and seek to add petrol to such a highly volatile situation ?

The problem isn't Russian aggression but rather US full spectrum dominance as set out in the Project for a New American Century. Iraq in the stone age. Afghanistan in turmoil. Libya full of Islamists. Syria in ruins. Iran and North Korea in the cross hairs but Russia is the country we need to curb the aggression with ?

Really ?

These constant calls for war and or the upping of tensions are like some Orwellian nightmare. You people who are calling for it should be the ONLY ones forced into fighting it instead of cheer leading for wars that will kill millions of people who are just trying to go about their daily business as best they can
Click to expand...

You mean country after country finally has the freedom to belong to NATO after having been occupied and forced to be in the Warsaw pact? Or that countries want to be part of NATO because of constant Russian aggression against it's neighbors?

It is not the Western Countries that are the issue, it is Czar Putin that is the issue, not the West. Russia is getting all it deserves when it comes to the West standing up and curbing the Russians aggressive stance on many issues.
 
Westphalian said:
But read the small print Helix. There is no hard evidence, and when we hear phrases like 'was confident' or highly likely' that tells us that there is no hard evidence.
Click to expand...

come on, man. Russia helped Trump, and everyone knows it. the chances that it didn't happen approach zero. the US messes around where it shouldn't, too, and i don't support that, either.

Westphalian said:
Then perhaps you can explain why you trust such equivocal statements from the same intelligence community that told the world with unequivocal certainty that Iraq had WMD:
Click to expand...

yeah, i do in this case. we should note that no WMDs were planted to support the cover story. the Iraq war is part of the reason that i no longer support interventionism or "exporting democracy by force." it's better to export democracy using blue jeans and rock and roll, IMO.

Westphalian said:
On October 7, 2016, the ODNI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that the U.S. Intelligence Community was confident that the Russian Government directed recent hacking of emails with the intention of interfering with the U.S. election process
Click to expand...

i'm not sure how this part supports your argument.
 
Helix said:
being among the first countries to transition away from fossil fuels would be a big economic benefit. we could invest in our workers, as robots can't do those jobs yet. they built a wind farm right outside of my hometown, and it has been good for the community.
Click to expand...

Any plant built outside your hometown would be a benefit to the community cause it provides jobs. That being said what would be that economic benefit of having "clean" energy over our current sources? I see less jobs, and less trade and higher energy prices with less reliability.
 
jdog21 said:
Any plant built outside your hometown would be a benefit to the community cause it provides jobs.
Click to expand...

ding ding ding. and guess where those workers spend their money.

jdog21 said:
That being said what would be that economic benefit of having "clean" energy over our current sources? I see less jobs, and less trade and higher energy prices with less reliability.
Click to expand...

there would be many benefits. one benefit is that we wouldn't have to support foreign dictatorships because they are sitting on oil. another benefit is that we could hire poverty stricken regions to build new infrastructure without removing mountaintops or cracking the seals of aquifers. we should do this now while we are still financially prosperous.
 
Helix said:
not very likely. however, that is my current position.
Click to expand...

Agreed. A more likely to be achieved goal would be to run a moderate Democrat who can work with Republicans.....if you can find one. :)
 
Rising Sun said:
Agreed. A more likely to be achieved goal would be to run a moderate Democrat who can work with Republicans.....if you can find one. :)
Click to expand...

ideally. however, the Republican party is now the Trumpist party. it will have find its way back. keep in mind that i mostly consider the Democratic party as the most effective way to vote against Trumpism.
 
Helix said:
ideally. however, the Republican party is now the Trumpist party. it will have find its way back. keep in mind that i mostly consider the Democratic party as the most effective way to vote against Trumpism.
Click to expand...

The "Trumpist party" is imploding. Their best hope is that Pence doesn't become dragged down with it. As for voting for any Democrat, no matter how corrupt, just to avoid voting for Trump is a non-starter for me since I didn't do that in 2016 either. I'm part of the 3 percent who voted third party. Run a good candidate and I'll consider voting Democrat in 2020.
 
Rising Sun said:
The "Trumpist party" is imploding. Their best hope is that Pence doesn't become dragged down with it. As for voting for any Democrat, no matter how corrupt, just to avoid voting for Trump is a non-starter for me since I didn't do that in 2016 either. I'm part of the 3 percent who voted third party. Run a good candidate and I'll consider voting Democrat in 2020.
Click to expand...

they need a good platform, well designed messaging, and a good candidate. i'm less than impressed with what i'm seeing. it seems that a lot of it is pushed off into "what are you going to do, vote for Trump? lol." i don't like only having one viable protest option.
 
Helix said:
they need a good platform, well designed messaging, and a good candidate. i'm less than impressed with what i'm seeing. it seems that a lot of it is pushed off into "what are you going to do, vote for Trump? lol." i don't like only having one viable protest option.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Let's hope they get their act together over the next year but I'm not seeing it. All I've seen is them floating a bunch of old has-beens. I like Biden but at 76 years old, he's too old to be President for up to 8 years. So is Trump for that matter which is why I suspect he won't run again.
 
Why would anyone want a war with anyone else?
I think what most people are hoping for is the day when Russians remove Putin to arrive sooner rather than later
 
Quag said:
Why would anyone want a war with anyone else?
I think what most people are hoping for is the day when Russians remove Putin to arrive sooner rather than later
Click to expand...

Agreed. The best thing for Russia is for a Russian patriot to remove Putin quickly and forever.
 
Rising Sun said:
Agreed. The best thing for Russia is for a Russian patriot to remove Putin quickly and forever.
Click to expand...

Disagree with you on the patriot bit. If one guy removes Putin then one of his cronies will just take his place and use it as an excuse for more repression and more theft. If the people rise up en masse to remove Putin and his cronies then there is a chance for an actual democracy with people who work to improve Russia and the lives of Russians instead of just themselves.
What they need is a revolution not a guy with a revolver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom