• 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!

Ex NATO general: war with Russia highly likely [W:63]

Fastest Selloff Of U.S. Debt Since 1978
U.S. debt dump deepens in 2016
Central banks are dumping America's debt at a record pace.
By Patrick Gillespie
May 17, 2016
U.S. debt dump deepens in 2016 - May. 16, 2016

160516173150-us-debt-dump-780x439.jpg
You hit the wrong door or sumpin'?
 
Sure the US can. Russia is Europe's problem, Europe is Russia's. Neither are the US's.

Threats to our European allies are our problem.

Enough with the isolationist rhetoric. It's unrealistic and it's irresponsible.
 
Ex NATO general: war with Russia highly likely

not unless both countries are suicidal, which i don't consider a likely scenario.
 
:lamo

Can't. Breathe. Laughing. Too. Hard.

It. Is. So. Funny. That. Telegraph.com wrote this:

Russia and the West face a common enemy - Telegraph

Russia and the West face a common enemy

"Let’s put our differences aside and together fight the Islamist terrorists who threaten our way of life."



...because Muslim terrorism and the speed with which it is spreading are so haha funny.

Did you know that it was the Russians who told your FBI about the Boston bombers, and the FBI did nothing? Yeah, the FBI was spoon fed by Moscow about Muslim terrorists operating in....the USA.

Now, that's funny, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Threats to our European allies are our problem.

Enough with the isolationist rhetoric. It's unrealistic and it's irresponsible.

There is no such thing as "European allies". What you have is European dependents and back riders, but not allies. Same with Japan.

The only threat to Europe is Europe and their immigration policies.
 
Threats to our European allies are our problem.

Enough with the isolationist rhetoric. It's unrealistic and it's irresponsible.
No, they really aren't. The cold war ended a quarter century ago. The US is just being intrusive at this point. The EU is a larger economy than the US. It shouldn't need the US.

The way to stop being the world's policeman is to stop being the world's policeman.
 
No, they really aren't. The cold war ended a quarter century ago. The US is just being intrusive at this point. The EU is a larger economy than the US. It shouldn't need the US.

The way to stop being the world's policeman is to stop being the world's policeman.

Perfect.
 
There is no such thing as "European allies". What you have is European dependents and back riders, but not allies. Same with Japan.

The only threat to Europe is Europe and their immigration policies.

God help us.

No, they really aren't. The cold war ended a quarter century ago. The US is just being intrusive at this point. The EU is a larger economy than the US. It shouldn't need the US.

The way to stop being the world's policeman is to stop being the world's policeman.

Yeah, renewed Russian incursion is just a myth. We shouldn't care.

Indeed, we're being intrusive as European nations look to us for solidarity against the glare of the Russian bear.

Right.....

If I wanted us to stop being the world's policeman in every sense of the phrase, then you'd have a point.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Here are the topics that this thread is NOT about: Muslims, immigration, and anything else that doesn't concern itself with the thread title. I hope this is clear.
 
If NATO is smart they will stick to proxy conflicts and limited paramilitary/intelligence action.
Nobody wants WW3, could we please - for the love of God - keep WW3 out of the non-fictional genre.

There is no way to avoid a third great war through tactical behavior. The rules of the game must be changed or there will be war. The problem is, that it is not necessarily the case that Russia or even the US that will be involved. But the fall out of a conflict escalated to tit for tat nuking would destroy global civilization none the less.

But you are right that we should do everything possible to prevent Putin from putting us in a position, where we had to decide on maintaining the guarantee to protect an ally. That is why Nato absolutely must maintain a larger force along the Eastern front.
 
In an interview with the BBC he said, given the current tension, an attack on the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, is “entirely plausible”.

The Baltic countries do not need Russia. Absolutely. They will not bring any benefit. Even Donbass profitable for Russia as an independent state, South Ossetia, Transnistria or Abadzekhs. Otherwise, they would long ago have joined Russia.

The Baltic countries do not need Russia. Exactly. They will not bring any benefit. Even Donbass profitable for Russia as an independent state. Like South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria. Otherwise, they would long ago have joined Russia.
 
You hit the wrong door or sumpin'?

I responded to this quote:

Originally Posted by DaveFagan .....

The USA funds their cold war program with debt and all other Nations must use "real money." That is the trap and the economic War led by the USA is real. Perhaps if a solvent, large, independent National currency takes root in World economic circles, the end would be nigh for "debt money." It's disgusting that bad money policy in the USA must promote war to maintain continuity.
------

I attempted to show that People are walking away from U.S. Debt and that China is going to produce a "National Currency".

Calm
 
Yeah, renewed Russian incursion is just a myth. We shouldn't care.
Whether it's a myth, a fact, or the usual militaristic fear-mongering is irrelevant. It doesn't affect or concern the US, it's Europe's "problem".
Indeed, we're being intrusive as European nations look to us for solidarity against the glare of the Russian bear.

Europe is big enough and old enough to take care of itself. It should stop acting as if its living in the US 's basement.

If I wanted us to stop being the world's policeman in every sense of the phrase, then you'd have a point.

Well, that's one political view. There has been a history of popular support for adventurism, usually with a desire to keep shoveling money down the military-industrial sinkhole.
 
They are, in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea, in Venezuela, and other Central and South American territories.

Russian planes to patrol in Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico - BBC News

NORAD Head: Russian Bombers Send a Message

Intent of Russian military aircraft near U.S. shores remains unclear - LA Times

Russian armed forces returning to Latin America - PravdaReport

Putin’s quiet Latin America play | TheHill

Russia (Putin, et al) are not seeking peace. They are expanding and seizing territories.

NATO is not. The US is not. The US is cooperating with its allies, not invading or creating and arming a civil war so that we can create a satellite state of the US, as Russia has done in Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine.

The Baltics and the Balkans are on Putin's list as well. And yes, the general is correct. If Putin goes into the Baltics or the Balkans, NATO will respond militarily. And the possibility that Putin will use nukes in retaliation to NATO force is not a crazy exaggeration, because he's already threatened to do so over Ukraine - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/31/putin-threatens-nuclear-war-over-ukraine.html - and over Syria against Turkey and Saudi Arabia (one a NATO member and the other a US ally) - http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/did-russia-just-threaten-turkey-nuclear-weapons/ri12936

Russia is the problem, not so called provocations from the US or NATO.

In the last 18 months or so, if Russia were seeking conflict and war, it would have responded with force and anger when its jet was shot down by the dirty Turks. If they were seeking conflict and war, it would have responded in kind when their passenger plane out of Egypt was taken down by "ISIS".

In each case they have shown restraint, and that behavior seems to contradict your claims about their desire for provocation and conflict.

We, OTOH, drop bombs and missiles all over the place by way of our drones, overthrow legit governments all over the world, and all sorts of other belligerent actions.
 
War with Russia? In Eastern Europe? On Russia's door step with their supply lines very short and the memories of Hitler very long?

The U.S. couldn't win in Vietnam against an opponent who was not even a country but a bunch of peasants with AK-47. A war that was swayed by one picture of a naked girl running down the street crying.

The Russian casualties in Stalingrad alone were hundreds of thousands. This is their endurance to fight. The U.S. has no stomach for any casualties, the enemy's or its own. That is why the coffins are flown from Afghanistan when nobody is watching.

NATO is nothing more than U.N. with guns, funded and protected from its impotence by the U.S. - charitable and exploitable world cop with a messiah complex.
 
Last edited:
NATO is nothing more than U.N. with guns, funded and protected from its impotence by the U.S. - charitable and exploitable world cop with a messiah complex.

"Making the world safe for democracy" was a good slogan on a propaganda poster 50 years ago, but that PR campaign is old and tired now. I'm not sure how many people still buy it. Unfortunately, probably enough hero worshippers that it will remain foreign policy for the near to mid future, but one would think at some point USians would grow weary of body bags being shipped home from foreign pigstys while barrels of money are dumped in pits.

Personally, I don't hold out much hope: it's generally, finally, acknowledged that Iraq was a mistake, yet the US is slowly being dragged back in there with some amount of enthusiasm. When you have a ready-made adversary like the Russians, with generations of propaganda to draw on, it's not a hard sell at all. Play up the helpless Europe angle, and many are itching to don the spandex and play the hero.
 
Americans have been fortunate not to have wars at home, so the concept is known to you only from the war reporters and movies, as the dead tell no tales and the wounded don't want to.

The American mothers never see their kids blown into pieces or burnt alive as a result of the enemy hostile actions. Most could not wrap their minds around 1 million people slowly starving to death as it happened during the siege of Leningrad.

The lack of this kind of experience and the need to keep the war industry going, along with the benefits of employment, are the reasons why selling wars in the U.S. is so sickeningly easy.

The best proof and example of this addiction is how difficult it is to close any base or discontinue any weapons program - however useless. In the D.C., it's called "bringing bacon home". The fact that our kids and their kids will have to be slaves to the debt later mean s***.

One day, historians will notice that since the end of the big one in 1945, the U.S. has been in a constant state of war, with no other country coming even close to matching that infamous record. To make things worth a laugh, if humor can be found in such matters, the only two wars the U.S. won since were in Panama and Grenada.

Russia is not Grenada.
 
Americans have been fortunate not to have wars at home, so the concept is known to you only from the war reporters and movies, as the dead tell no tales and the wounded don't want to.

The American mothers never see their kids blown into pieces or burnt alive as a result of the enemy hostile actions. Most could not wrap their minds around 1 million people slowly starving to death as it happened during the siege of Leningrad.

The lack of this kind of experience and the need to keep the war industry going, along with the benefits of employment, are the reasons why selling wars in the U.S. is so sickeningly easy.

The best proof and example of this addiction is how difficult it is to close any base or discontinue any weapons program - however useless. In the D.C., it's called "bringing bacon home". The fact that our kids and their kids will have to be slaves to the debt later mean s***.

One day, historians will notice that since the end of the big one in 1945, the U.S. has been in a constant state of war, with no other country coming even close to matching that infamous record. To make things worth a laugh, if humor can be found in such matters, the only two wars the U.S. won since were in Panama and Grenada.

Russia is not Grenada.
Another factor is the virtual carte blanche the POTUS has to engage in casual bombing. Even under the war powers act, any POTUS can pretty much bomb anybody with impunity, at least for 30 days. When you have that kind of easy access ability, it's no surprise it gets used so frequently.

Compare this to pre ww2, when the US had to mobilize for every war it was involved, starting from if not scratch a very low point. Consequently, the US didn't get involved in every little thing all over the globe. It actually took effort, congressional oversight and agreement to get involved. Now, it's all fait accompli with the inevitable "you're either with us or against us", so almost any idiocy gets public support, at least at first.
 
And then there is this sick kind of circular logic.

POTUS sends the marines.

The marines start dying from the enemy fire.

POTUS send more marines.

To protect the marines.

I liked the movie. Especially when a Muslim scum turns into a wet spot on the wall. But the American Sniper was just another example of the circular logic syndrome.

I mean no disrespect to him and his widow. Both were victims of the national desire to be right, noble and charitable while flat broke.
 
Back
Top Bottom