• 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!

Is WW3 imminent? I'm growing concerned.

Abbazorkzog said:
But that is still broad-brushing and generalizing hundreds of millions of people and lumping them all into one box. What about the ISIL fighters from France (a NATO country), Belgium (also NATO) and the rest of Western Europe (which beats the former-USSR in terms of total fighters exported to ISIL by around a 1000 soldiers)?

If the Iraq invasion was so justified, what about the widespread Iraq War opposition in Europe? In Germany? Britain's House of Commons? Does UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's declaration of the Iraq War being illegal automatically make the UN an 'evil' organization? Did the majority of the world having a negative view of the U.S. c. 2003 make THEM 'evil'? Did Nelson Mandela's warning to the world that the U.S. could threaten world peace make him and South Africans 'evil'? Now, you see why you can't just lump the world into two major factions. There are thousands upon thousands of factions in a very grey world that make it impossible to broad-brush an entire demographic of hundreds of millions (potentially billions) of people simply because of the fact your argument is going to contradict itself and it is going to fall apart.
Click to expand...

You're actually the one doing the dumping into categories. NATO = good. Russia = evil. Nothing else is in play. Btw, Iraq was not a NATO operation.
 
Jack Hays said:
You're actually the one doing the dumping into categories. NATO = good. Russia = evil.
Click to expand...

What is this?

Jack Hays said:
NATO = good. Russia = evil.
Click to expand...

Generalization. That is a generalization.

The point is this, your argument falls apart because - for example: Iraq - NATO countries don't always see eye-to-eye with the U.S. I use Iraq as an example because it is the most blatant and in-your-face example of the Western Bloc being more divided than you like to believe.

You can't simplify geopolitics like that. It doesn't work that way, all it does is promote bigotry and ignorance:

Jack Hays said:
NATO = good. Russia = evil.
Click to expand...

^s not only bigotry and ignorance, it is dangerous.
 
Jack Hays said:
Btw, Iraq was not a NATO operation.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. That is so, but: if you're going to broad-brush anyone who opposes NATO as 'EVIL', then you must be consistent and refer to the U.S. as EVIL since it was opposed by the major NATO powers, such as Germany, Italy, France and Spain. Otherwise you are being a hypocrite. Do you see how asinine it is to lump the world into two major broad-brushed, generalized and bigoted demographics?
 
Abbazorkzog said:
What is this?



Generalization. That is a generalization.

The point is this, your argument falls apart because - for example: Iraq - NATO countries don't always see eye-to-eye with the U.S. I use Iraq as an example because it is the most blatant and in-your-face example of the Western Bloc being more divided than you like to believe.

You can't simplify geopolitics like that. It doesn't work that way, all it does is promote bigotry and ignorance:



^s not only bigotry and ignorance, it is dangerous.
Click to expand...

Iraq was never a NATO issue. NATO members disagreed over Iraq and were within their rights to do so. That would never have been allowed by either the Soviet Union or Russia. Thank you for illustrating my point. Bigoted? You bet I'm bigoted, and proudly so. I'm an anti-tyranny bigot.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
You're missing the point. That is so, but: if you're going to broad-brush anyone who opposes NATO as 'EVIL', then you must be consistent and refer to the U.S. as EVIL since it was opposed by the major NATO powers, such as Germany, Italy, France and Spain. Otherwise you are being a hypocrite. Do you see how asinine it is to lump the world into two major broad-brushed, generalized and bigoted demographics?
Click to expand...

Not at all. Your example illustrates my point. Thank you.
 
Jack Hays said:
Iraq was never a NATO issue. NATO members disagreed over Iraq and were within their rights to do so. That would never have been allowed by either the Soviet Union or Russia. Thank you for illustrating my point. Bigoted? You bet I'm bigoted, and proudly so. I'm an anti-tyranny bigot.
Click to expand...

Smdh. See post #53.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
How? So you're going to say the U.S. is evil now since the Iraq War was damn-near opposed by all of NATO?
Click to expand...

NATO as an organization never took a position on Iraq. NATO members were free to follow their own courses. It's called freedom -- something Russia opposes.
 
Jack Hays said:
NATO as an organization never took a position on Iraq. NATO members were free to follow their own courses. It's called freedom -- something Russia opposes.
Click to expand...

Iraq war splits NATO
NATO and the 2003 campaign against Iraq (Archived)
NATO Wavering on War with Iraq

This also illustrates my point that just because a faction is opposed to NATO doesn't mean it is opposed to freedom, or is 'evil'.
Do you contest that?
I'm not saying Russia doesn't oppose freedom. But there are other ways to defeat Russia.
Iraq ALSO proves that.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
Iraq war splits NATO
NATO and the 2003 campaign against Iraq (Archived)
NATO Wavering on War with Iraq

This also illustrates my point that just because a faction is opposed to NATO doesn't mean it is opposed to freedom, or is 'evil'.
Do you contest that?
I'm not saying Russia doesn't oppose freedom. But there are other ways to defeat Russia.
Iraq ALSO proves that.
Click to expand...

Iraq proves my point, not yours. Members states were free to go their own way, and did. Opposing the Iraq war was not opposing NATO.
 
Jack Hays said:
Iraq proves my point, not yours. Members states were free to go their own way, and did. Opposing the Iraq war was not opposing NATO.
Click to expand...

If so, then why are you so afraid to source your arguments, like I am doing? You do it all the time in other debates, why not here? Oh, right, because this is an opinionated and partisan bias that clearly shows and is also the reason you have no substance or sources to counteract my rightfully-held suspicion of these being no more than partisan sound-bites and hot air.

You do realize your anti-Russian and aggressively pro-NATO propaganda helps Putin and the Kremlin... I mean, you do realize that, right? :lamo
 
Abbazorkzog said:
If so, then why are you so afraid to source your arguments, like I am doing? You do it all the time in other debates, why not here? Oh, right, because this is an opinionated and partisan bias that clearly shows and is also the reason you have no sources.
Click to expand...

Your sources are either irrelevant or actually support my argument. I have cited one work of history which you have thus far ignored. Refugees always have run from Russia and toward NATO. That's enough to make the case.
 
Jack Hays said:
I have cited one work of history which you have thus far ignored. Refugees always have run from Russia and toward NATO. That's enough to make the case.
Click to expand...

Running away from Russia =/= "toward NATO". :roll: Again, your bias is showing.
Nothing more than pro-NATO militarism and chest-pounding. The whole "US vs. Them" narrative tearing our species apart and destroying the global economy.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
Running away from Russia =/= "toward NATO". :roll: Again, your bias is showing.
Nothing more than pro-NATO militarism and chest-pounding. The whole "US vs. Them" narrative tearing our species apart and destroying the global economy.
Click to expand...

Running from nothing. I suggest you read Now We Know by John Lewis Gaddis.
 
One of the key concepts of the Cold War is proxy war, where neither country directly engages the other to avoid a nuclear war. I think NATO would avert a direct conflict with Russian troops by resorting to a proxy war in any circumstances. The end of the Cold War brought an end to many of the proxy wars but the current situation in Syria is often refereed to as a proxy war between Russia and the US, which is arming Islamist rebels in order to topple the Assad regime that is backed by Russia. In Ukraine, Russian troops aren't on the ground but pro-Russian Ukrainian troops in eastern Ukraine are serving as proxies for Moscow, while the US supports the right-wing government in Kiev, thus setting up another proxy war situation.
 
Last edited:
ThirdTerm said:
One of the key concepts of the Cold War is proxy war, where neither country directly engages the other to avoid a nuclear war. I think NATO would avert a direct conflict with Russian troops by resorting to a proxy war in any circumstances. The end of the Cold War brought an end to many of the proxy wars but the current situation in Syria is often refereed to as a proxy war between Russia and the US, which is arming Islamist rebels in order to topple the Assad regime that is backed by Russia. In Ukraine, Russian troops aren't on the ground but pro-Russian Ukrainian troops in eastern Ukraine are serving as proxies for Moscow, while the US supports the right-wing government in Kiev, thus setting up another proxy war situation.
Click to expand...

Those are Russian troops in eastern Ukraine, and the government in Kiev is no more right wing than the government in Berlin.
 
 
 
ThirdTerm said:
One of the key concepts of the Cold War is proxy war, where neither country directly engages the other to avoid a nuclear war. I think NATO would avert a direct conflict with Russian troops by resorting to a proxy war in any circumstances. The end of the Cold War brought an end to many of the proxy wars but the current situation in Syria is often refereed to as a proxy war between Russia and the US, which is arming Islamist rebels in order to topple the Assad regime that is backed by Russia. In Ukraine, Russian troops aren't on the ground but pro-Russian Ukrainian troops in eastern Ukraine are serving as proxies for Moscow, while the US supports the right-wing government in Kiev, thus setting up another proxy war situation.
Click to expand...

Hear hear.
 
Stop the press: Turkey's brutal crackdown on its media goes into overdrive

3904.jpg


Since the attempted coup, the government has ordered more than a hundred outlets to close and arrested 48 journalists


Turkey has intensified its crackdown on the media since last month’s attempted coup, with rights groups decrying a wave of decrees that have turned the country into the world leader in locking up journalists.

During Turkey’s current three-month state of emergency the government has the authority to rule by decree and has ordered the closure of 102 media outlets, including 45 newspapers, 16 TV channels, three news agencies, 23 radio stations, 15 magazines and 29 publishing houses.

Arrest warrants have been issued for more than 100 journalists, and, according to the independent journalism platform P24, 48 have been arrested since the investigation into the alleged coup plotters began.

Turkey's President Erdogan says he is prepared to bring back the death penalty

Capital punishment has been the source of much debate in the country, amid concerns that to introduce it could hamper attempts to join the European Union, as the death penalty is contrary to the EU's Charter of Human Rights.

The coup on 15 July represented a serious challenge to Mr Erdogan's presidency, however he resisted the attempt and remains in power. He blamed US-based cleric Fethullah Gulen for the coup and his supporters who are known as the "Gulen movement". It is critical of Mr Erdogan who they see as supporting a "political Islam" rather than a "cultural Islam" in his presidency.

Turkey's campaign against Kurds muddles war on ISIL

636079856865044152-AP-Turkey-Syria.jpg


Turkey's state-run Anadolu Agency, citing the Turkish military, said the attack was carried out against "terrorists groups" that had attacked Turkish troops supporting a Free Syrian Army operation targeting Islamic State militants. Five buildings used by the Kurdish rebels also were destroyed, the military said.

The Turkish military said it took “all necessary measures” to protect the local civilian population. The BBC, however, said the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported 35 civilian casualties.

The attacks reflect the increasingly complex, uneasy military alliances in the region. The U.S. considers Turkey a crucial ally in the fight against the Islamic State. But the U.S. also backs the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, which have waged successful battles against the Islamic State and also seeks to depose Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan claims the Kurds are scheming to create a Kurdish state along the Turkish-Syrian border. Vice President Biden, in Ankara last week, warned that the U.S. would cut support to its Syrian Kurdish allies if they don't withdraw from key areas along the Turkish border.

The U.S. also has pressed Turkey to show restraint against the Kurds.
​

As is evident (particularly by that last link) the authoritarian Turkish military-industrial complex is causing more problems than it is solving, and its growing extremism and radical disregard for the consequences of its actions - via a latent and deep-set paranoia through its perceived enemies - is enabling the Islamic State and further empowering an already dictatorial government. If NATO wants to maintain what little credibility it holds in the geopolitical realm, it needs to sanction Turkey immediately. Its cooperation with Russia should have been the first red-flag here, but obviously - since the U.S. wants Turkey in its orbit - NATO will continue to toe the pro-US party line with direct disregard and disrespect to its member-states that it is sworn to protect. Threatening them with exposure to a potential rogue state and authoritarian/militant regime such as Erdogan's Turkey is not a sustainable international strategy - particularly due to the leeway it is giving to ISIL via Erdogan's anti-Kurdish bigotry and fascism.
 
Last edited:
Russia says ceasefire at risk after US bombing of Syrian troops
Moscow’s decision to call a UN security council meeting to discuss US-led strikes that killed Syrian soldiers was ‘cynical’, US ambassador says


Russia has warned there is a “very big question mark” over a precarious ceasefire in Syria less than a week old after the US bombing of Syrian army positions in the east of the country.

The US has offered condolences and insisted that the airstrikes were a mistake. It said it had targeted Tharda mountain where a Syrian government offensive was seeking to capture Isis positions overlooking the Deir ez-Zour military airport. It said it would carry out an investigation.

Russia’s military said it was told by the Syrian army that at least 62 soldiers had been killed in the Deir ez-Zour air raid and more than 100 wounded. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least 90 soldiers were killed in the strike.​

United States being the ****ing morons they are.

 
Jack Hays said:
NATO stands for national independence and individual liberty. Russia stands for aggression and tyranny. It's good vs evil.
Click to expand...

This is typically the kind of "Us vs them" attitude that starts wars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom