Quote :

""So to expand that out and say "well if they take Crimea, there's no reason why they won't expand all the way across the Atlantic Ocean"" sounds more like a strawman"

^^

Quote :

"The United States withdrawing from world affairs will not suddenly cause Russia, China, and other competitors to do the same. They will fill that vacuum, they will become more powerful, and when they are powerful enough, they will come after us."

Quote :

"Any country will expand as much as it thinks it can get away with. There are no "good" or even really "peaceful" countries; there are only those countries which are so weak relative to their neighbors that war must result in their destruction. Nor are there any "evil" countries, but there's only a few that are powerful enough to seize their neighbors without credible fear of defeat. Those few are kept in check by each other. The only reason that Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states are currently independent is that Russia is aware that trying to take them would result in a response from the combined militaries of NATO, which it cannot defeat in the long term."

Quote :

"No, but Czar Alexander marched into Paris and Stalin took damn near half the continent for himself as soon as he had the opportunity. They've got a demonstrated ability to whoop Europe. The rest of this part of your rambling is an effort to build a straw man with more grass clippings than straw. Large scale regional expansion doesn't happen instantly and rarely happens quickly. Yes, conquering an unwilling populace is difficult and costly. That's why you don't do it all at once. You do it in steps, and that isn't something from the distant past, that's something we're seeing Russia do right now."

Quote :

"A few things here. One, I don't think the process of massive national expansion is a quick one. It's not like Russia takes over Europe in 2020 and then lands troops in Alaska in 2021. But all over the world, subjugated peoples have eventually been integrated into the armies of their conquerors, going back as far as ancient Rome. They probably didn't invent this integration, but they very nearly perfected it for centuries. For more recent examples, of course, you have the various territories occupied by the Axis powers, whose resources and, to an extent, even manpower were harnessed by the "overlords" in a fairly short period of time. As to the motives of this hypothetical world-conqueror, they couldn't be more clear. Why on Earth would you subjugate the entire planet except for one powerful country? Why would you leave one threat when you could eliminate all of them? A country that is neutral today is not guaranteed to be neutral tomorrow, and even today, it can play host to dissidents and opponents to your regime."

[Edited on December 4, 2019 at 3:26 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2019 3:25:42 PM

so on the topic of fear mongering, do you agree that NATO or other nations providing aid or putting a blocking force in place won't start a war with russia?

12/4/2019 3:31:32 PM

I'm not opposed to a blockade. Aid is a trickier situation and it depends on what kind you mean and how it's distributed. US aid historically tends to create much larger conflicts, and I think Crimea is better off being annexed than helped with "aid".

I'm not a complete non-interventionist and I'd have much more faith in a Sanders administration to assist Crimea in a humanitarian way.

12/4/2019 3:47:58 PM

give russia the donbass region too, or just crimea?

12/4/2019 3:51:08 PM

Quote :

"A Russian troll thinks we shouldn't be sending other countries military aid against Russia???"

We shouldn't be picking sides in border disputes on the other side of the planet. Its none of our business and we aren't capable of consistently determining which side is "in the wrong" even if that can be determined.

Quote :

"While we're engaging in wild counterfactual speculation, I submit to you that whichever side eventually won would be subject to the same miscalculations that the French and British were at the close of the war, imposing harsh terms that would embitter the other side. Perpetual stalemate was not a plausible outcome, and even a very protracted stalemate would have eventually resulted in Soviet/Communist domination of a devastated western Europe."

So now you're admitting that WW1 intervention was all about securing control over markets. The one thing we know for sure is that this intervention was costly, and did not achieve its stated goal of being 'the war to end all wars and achieve long-term peace and democracy'. It failed miserably and is evidence to my point that our interventions to "save the world" do not have a good track record since they usually are just water on a grease fire

Quote :

"But all over the world, subjugated peoples have eventually been integrated into the armies of their conquerors, going back as far as ancient Rome. They probably didn't invent this integration, but they very nearly perfected it for centuries. For more recent examples, of course, you have the various territories occupied by the Axis powers, whose resources and, to an extent, even manpower were harnessed by the "overlords" in a fairly short period of time. As to the motives of this hypothetical world-conqueror, they couldn't be more clear. Why on Earth would you subjugate the entire planet except for one powerful country? Why would you leave one threat when you could eliminate all of them? A country that is neutral today is not guaranteed to be neutral tomorrow, and even today, it can play host to dissidents and opponents to your regime."

Why don't you look at how all of the empires in history ended? We are not the only country with the ability to reflect on history and in the age of information, the entire world knows what is going on. China and Russia know that attempting to conquer the entire world or even large swaths of it would lead to their own internal collapse. Its a rule with no exceptions. Doing that in one country alone is nearly backbreaking. In no way would it be pleasant or beneficial for a Russia or China to try and occupy and suppress the entire world.

In the extremely unrealistic hypothetical where the dominating power was welcomed and accepted by the entire population of the rest of the world who then united against us, they would be the "good guys" and we would be the last remaining threat to world peace.

Quote :

"china is building islands "

OMG! NOT ISLANDS! They are probably planning to sail those islands across the pacific!

Quote :

"Do you support Russian incursions and even annexations in to sovereign nations? "

Its a border dispute between two countries on the other side of the world. Its none of his business and he has not the perspective to choose the winner or loser. Border disputes are a fact of life and will always be because borders are subjective, unnatural constructs that will continue to change and someday be obsolete.

Anyone who thinks they can or should maintain all world borders as they currently are today until the end of time is mistaking.

Quote :

"tell that to the other nations that claim rights to some of the same islands chain claims, or have claims to maritime rights in those areas "

between them and China. Its much more complicated than you think. There is no right answer.

Quote :

"The Philippines, Japan, and much of the Americas were once under our influence. So are they fair game for us to occupy?"

No they are on the other side of the world and don't have large American populations. The actual states being fair game are debatable. We're talking about if things more clear than if the US has a right to Alaska and Hawaii.

Quote :

"We're all just doing what countries do, which is strive for power relative to other countries."

No they don't all do that and that is not my interest. Some nations and peoples strive to make their country better internally while others strive to enrich themselves externally by exploiting people around the world who they view as "savage". We are the latter.

Quote :

"f we started moving little green men into the phillipines and landing tanks, and they asked japan or australia for help and they provided aid and some forces as a blocking force, it seems that daaave and earl would argue that this was bad imperialist expansion by japan/australia and should be stopped?"

Learn the map bro. Japan is near the Philipines while Ukraine is connected to Russia. Its not equivalent. Its almost the opposite

Quote :

"Israel has had control over the occupied territories for 52 years."

We shouldn't be propping them up either. We've made the conflict worse. Thanks for another example.

12/4/2019 4:05:46 PM

Quote :

"Learn the map bro. Japan is near the Philipines while Ukraine is connected to Russia. Its not equivalent. Its almost the opposite"

how did you miss that Japan is the US in that analogy, lol

[Edited on December 4, 2019 at 4:09 PM. Reason : or that israel is russia?]

12/4/2019 4:08:31 PM

Quote :

"We shouldn't be picking sides in border disputes on the other side of the planet. Its none of our business and we aren't capable of consistently determining which side is "in the wrong" even if that can be determined"

This right here sums up the problem. This isn't a schoolyard. Things happening everywhere on the planet are everyone's business. None of this shit happens in a vacuum. Russia's activities over there absolutely have an impact on us and matter. Stop being so one dimensional. And dtownral is making a pe fect point for anyone who wants to bring up Vietnam as an example. He's not talking about a full scale armed engagement. JFK was adamantly opposed to that but had no problem providing covert support among other things. Preventing Russia from annexing an ally should have and should always be done.

Same goes for China.

Look, if we pulled every single soldier back to the us, closed all foreign bases and pulled all of our money back in terms of foreign aid, etc., we would be at war within a decade, probably even sooner. The world does not operate on "if you don't do it then I won't.". It operates on "I assume you are doing it even if you say you aren't and therefore I will act accordingly just in case."

[Edited on December 4, 2019 at 5:15 PM. Reason : A]

12/4/2019 5:09:19 PM

I didn't miss anything. You just made a terrible analogy.

(Country A) invades (Country B) and (country C) defends (country B) against the incursion.

In real life Russia is country A, Ukraine is country B, and the US is country C.

You made a scenario where the US is Country A, Philippines is country B, and Japan is country C.

In real life A and B are neighboring countries with a border dispute being intervened by a far away country.

In your bad analogy B and C are neighboring countries defending against a far away country. You completely disregarded the pacific ocean and should have used Mexico as country B instead of the Philippines for an equivalent comparison. Your blind spot is in distinguishing border disputes from acts of imperialistic aggression on a global scale. Thats why I said you need to learn the map.

Quote :

"Russia's activities over there absolutely have an impact on us and matter."

Not nearly as much as they matter when we inject ourselves into the center of the conflict only to delay the inevitable outcome while indefinitely draining our own nation of resources.

[Edited on December 4, 2019 at 5:17 PM. Reason : its all about opportunity cost. ]

Quote :

"Look, if we pulled every single soldier back to the us, closed all foreign bases and pulled all of our money back in terms of foreign aid, etc., we would be at war within a decade, probably even sooner. The world does not operate on "if you don't do it then I won't.". It operates on "I assume you are doing it even if you say you aren't and therefore I will act accordingly just in case.""

Well we'd have to go further than just pulling back everything. We'd have to change our propensity to go to war. Get out of NATO and outdated defense pacts. We'd have to revert back to the constitution's rules of engagement. We'd have to reserve war declaration for direct attacks against the homeland which will basically never happen.

[Edited on December 4, 2019 at 5:21 PM. Reason : when was the last time we actually got attacked by another nation?]

12/4/2019 5:12:03 PM

You are entirely clueless. I mean that sincerely, not as a flippant insult. I'm telling you right now if we did all of what you're saying we'd be at war quickly. You simply cannot get it through your head that humans do not operate the way you want them to. We pull back and every single country everywhere will go crazy trying to advance. And the primary component of stability that's kept that from happening to the degree of world war has been us geopolitics which encompasses our allies. Educate yourself.

You want a blunt example of what I mean? The US and England STILL spy on each other. That sound like peace and love?

[Edited on December 4, 2019 at 5:34 PM. Reason : A]

[Edited on December 4, 2019 at 5:34 PM. Reason : A]

12/4/2019 5:27:16 PM

Quote :

"We shouldn't be picking sides in border disputes on the other side of the planet."

...especially when the dispute involves Russia.

--Russian Troll

Quote :

"We shouldn't be picking sides in border disputes on the other side of the planet."

....we should instead be asking nations on the other side of the planet to investigate our own citizens.


LMFAO!!!



Just give up already, son.

12/4/2019 5:37:23 PM

Too autistic to jump of the ship, he's made his argument and he's riding it to the bottom

12/4/2019 6:02:47 PM

i know youre a piece of shit but a "progressive" should probably come up with a better insult than "autistic."



[Edited on December 4, 2019 at 7:32 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2019 7:19:47 PM

will do stoner

12/4/2019 11:39:15 PM

Quote :

"So now you're admitting that WW1 intervention was all about securing control over markets."

I am? Where? Is it the same Imaginationland where I said Switzerland was great because of all of the white people? I don't recall offering a rationale for U.S. involvement in WWI in this thread, and if I did, I certainly didn't say "it was for the markets."

Quote :

"It failed miserably and is evidence to my point that our interventions to "save the world" do not have a good track record"

Who is talking about saving the world? Are you stuck in Imaginationland?

Quote :

"Why don't you look at how all of the empires in history ended?"

I've looked at a number of them in my time. Large-scale conquest isn't really a factor. To look at just one easy example, Rome reached its greatest extent in around 117. The Western Empire lasted another three and a half centuries, give or take, depending on your definition. The Eastern Empire lasted another millennium and a half. The reasons they collapsed are complex, but one thing is clear: they didn't just "overextend."

12/4/2019 11:57:30 PM

in regards to the "how empires end" comment, we have someone in this very thread saying it's okay for a country to be involved in a hot shooting conflict to retake land that they used to have because it was part of their previous empire

12/5/2019 12:08:21 AM

again, what the Russians are doing in the Ukraine isn't about rebuilding an empire. It's an obvious attempt to claim territory that would be instrumental in a war. It gives their Navy direct access to the Mediterranean.

The US had to react in this exact manner. It's only sad that we were not on the offensive.

12/5/2019 2:34:59 AM

That’s essentially a distinction without a difference. We know the strategic reason they want it. The point made doesn’t change at all.

12/5/2019 9:30:21 AM

also they already had the naval base

12/5/2019 9:58:15 AM

^^^^
I explicitly said it’s not okay. I made that point in reference to the claim that it means Russia plans to eventually invade Europe.

[Edited on December 5, 2019 at 10:51 AM. Reason : Not doing this again, reread my posts]

12/5/2019 10:41:36 AM

so you're implying no one should care if they just invade former soviet states?

12/5/2019 10:49:03 AM

Apropos of nothing, I just remembered Trump named his youngest son after the character he used as an alias to leak his dick size and sexual exploits to tabloid rags in NYC. That’s weird, huh?

12/5/2019 2:38:45 PM

nobody should be arguing that he isn't a bit...weird.

12/5/2019 6:22:46 PM

With all thats been said in this thread, I don't see why you all can't buy into the idea of a deep state (foreign policy/intelligence experts) trying to circumvent/usurp/eliminate Trump. It only requires belief that the institutions all share this world view, which they do. Its not far fetched to think they would all work together and stop at nothing against a president who, according to this world view, was trying to put the US in a position where it would soon be invaded.

The Mueller and Ukraine investigations take on an entirely different meaning through that perspective.

Quote :

"I'm telling you right now if we did all of what you're saying we'd be at war quickly. You simply cannot get it through your head that humans do not operate the way you want them to. We pull back and every single country everywhere will go crazy trying to advance. And the primary component of stability that's kept that from happening to the degree of world war has been us geopolitics which encompasses our allies. Educate yourself. "

I don't doubt that there would be some corrections due to the vacuum we leave but, unless you think the rest of the world are immature children, things would eventually reach equilibrium.

Quote :

"I am? Where? Is it the same Imaginationland where I said Switzerland was great because of all of the white people? I don't recall offering a rationale for U.S. involvement in WWI in this thread, and if I did, I certainly didn't say "it was for the markets.""

You said that letting WW1 play out would have resulted in them joining the soviet union.

Quote :

"so you're implying no one should care if they just invade former soviet states?"

Theres a difference between condoning an action and not thinking its worth draining money and lives into. The answer is no one here on the other side of the world should care enough to want to go to war over it.

12/6/2019 2:08:31 PM

tHa dEeP sTaTe iS uSuRpIng tHe pReSiDeNT

12/6/2019 2:14:40 PM

NOT CREDIBLE

12/6/2019 2:51:25 PM

Not a Trump fan, but even I gotta admit that the clapback of Macron and Tredeu, with their dismal economic news, is pretty hilarious.

12/6/2019 3:37:03 PM

the ‘ol “, but”

undefeated

12/6/2019 3:43:03 PM

Quote :

"Trump expresses frustration about water efficiency, says sinks don’t have enough pressure and people have to flush toilets multiple times. He says he has directed the EPA to look at opening up water standards. It’s called rain, he says, referring to states with lots of water. https://t.co/pwvzqULeGB"

OK +1 credibility here. I also have problems flushing and am sure it's the toilets and not my massive shits from eating nothing but well done steaks and KFC. Today Trump became president.

12/6/2019 5:20:56 PM

Liberal Limericks
@Libericks

The President’s terribly bitter
When poop will not go down the shitter.
And this is why Trump’s
Inclined to take dumps
And put them, instead, upon Twitter. ??

12/6/2019 7:54:20 PM

[Edited on December 6, 2019 at 7:54 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2019 7:54:20 PM

So I guess "election interference" is the new "fake news".

12/8/2019 2:45:38 PM

https://www.voanews.com/usa/pentagon-concerned-russia-cultivating-sympathy-among-us-troops

Russia has infiltrated the military by using trump and subsequently the rest of right wing media

12/8/2019 3:24:30 PM

I expected a stronger response to an Islamic terrorist attack against US troops on US soil.

12/9/2019 12:06:54 AM

I think it's strange democrats aren't making more of a big deal out of the fact trump has been gargling saudi balls recently, and this shooter was here under those auspices.

If the tables were turned, you wouldn't hear the end of this from the GOP.

12/9/2019 12:56:17 AM

It's hard since the man will lie without shame and is unaccountable to previous statements or basic facts.

But, yeah, I'd really like to see someone press the administration to reconcile their seeming disinterest in Alshamrani as a terrorist with Trump's campaign rhetoric, Muslim bans, etc.

12/9/2019 1:30:47 AM

Someone should also ask why we are training Saudi pilots while they are bombing Yemen

12/9/2019 7:35:49 AM

It's very difficult to swallow his "every Mexican could be a terrorist" when an actual terrorist attach occurs and you hear nothing from him regarding the Saudis. They, and the Russians, must be getting their blackmail material from the same source.

[Edited on December 9, 2019 at 9:06 AM. Reason : "]

12/9/2019 9:06:11 AM

If it makes you feel better, Trump did tweet that we should not let the actions of a few Saudis distort our thoughts on all Saudis.

12/9/2019 12:12:21 PM

Remember that time Saudi Arabians did 9/11 and everyone just pretended it was Iraq and Afghanistan in order to drain trillion of dollars out of our nation and kill millions of people? Good times.

12/9/2019 1:46:08 PM

So Bill Barr is a lot bigger threat to the country than Trump. The interview he is giving to NBC is bananas given his comments about the left.

How do Ds or the left at large combat a guy willing to burn down the system and enshrine counter-majority rule? That is where we are headed. Barr is not alone in that he sees all Dems and especially all leftists as completely illegitimate. When all your opposition is illegitimate how far a leap does it take to get to straight up fascism?

12/10/2019 12:39:30 PM

Agreed, Trump is frightening, Barr is terrifying.

12/10/2019 12:57:23 PM

now that trump's impeachment inquiry is wrapped up, start one against barr

12/10/2019 1:40:16 PM

This lavrov- pompeo presser is bananas.

Lavrov basically saying congress and American intel is wrong and pompeo gives a limp wristed retort that it’s not.

This is really scary actually. Trumps trying to realign the entire government around him with this lie.

12/10/2019 3:36:34 PM

No. What is scary is that our political system is completely broken at this point.

I don't see how we get it back.

12/10/2019 4:53:59 PM

Nope, not gonna bullshit both sides this one.

The GOP is the only side actively trying to blow up institutions. The Dems are too naive to fight back.

12/10/2019 7:55:22 PM

^

12/10/2019 9:54:21 PM

It’s ironic that Democrats have become the more conservative party in terms of approach to governance.

It used to be the Democrats picked an outcome then did whatever they could to get there. Now that’s what republicans do, while Dems look at what incremental advancements to existing processes are possible.

12/11/2019 1:24:45 AM

dems being too naive to fight back is evidence of a broken political system.

12/11/2019 7:17:47 AM

Seen slightly more chatter from trump supporters on social media recently. Going to be a very long election season...

12/11/2019 5:54:50 PM

I've zoned out the last few days but all the Trump people are saying the whole thing flamed out this week.

12/11/2019 8:54:51 PM