• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Putin's Party?

Oh, that's an astonishingly well-reasoned argument that tackles the nuances of international relations theory.

Can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
 

Can a nation-state be collectively evil, and can we regard them as irrational actors if that assessment is made? Was Imperial Spain evil? Was Imperial Rome evil? Was the British Empire evil? What about China? What about America? Does our history of chattel slavery make us 'evil', and does that make us irrational? At what point does a polity cease or begin to be 'evil'?

The realist answer to all of those questions, and to yours about the Soviets, is no. You ignore that the Soviet government also industrialized their economy in a relative blink of an eye, won equal rights for women, and destroyed an incredibly oppressive aristocracy. If you only focus on America's bad points (they destroyed dozens of native civilizations, they engaged in brutal chattel slavery, and they systematically oppressed black people and attempted to subject them to eugenics) we look pretty evil. Hell, the injection of human test subjects with syphilis without their knowledge, and then observing the subject without treatment is horrific, but that's not reflective of the whole of our society. Any categorization of any country or ethnic group as 'evil' is just emotion talking over reason. It's a marvellous propaganda tool, but it's damaging in the field of international relations, where cooler heads must prevails. Russia has always been geographically predestined towards autocracy, and that isn't going to change any time soon. Understanding why they behave in the way that they do makes them predictable and gives us an advantage on the world stage. Pretending that there's some mystical sense of evil involved just fogs up our glasses, so to speak.
 
Can a nation-state be collectively evil, and can we regard them as irrational actors if that assessment is made? Was Imperial Spain evil? Was Imperial Rome evil? Was the British Empire evil? What about China? What about America? Does our history of chattel slavery make us 'evil', and does that make us irrational? At what point does a polity cease or begin to be 'evil'?

The realist answer to all of those questions, and to yours about the Soviets, is no. You ignore that the Soviet government also industrialized their economy in a relative blink of an eye, won equal rights for women, and destroyed an incredibly oppressive aristocracy. If you only focus on America's bad points (they destroyed dozens of native civilizations, they engaged in brutal chattel slavery, and they systematically oppressed black people and attempted to subject them to eugenics) we look pretty evil. Hell, the injection of human test subjects with syphilis without their knowledge, and then observing the subject without treatment is horrific, but that's not reflective of the whole of our society. Any categorization of any country or ethnic group as 'evil' is just emotion talking over reason. It's a marvellous propaganda tool, but it's damaging in the field of international relations, where cooler heads must prevails. Russia has always been geographically predestined towards autocracy, and that isn't going to change any time soon. Understanding why they behave in the ways that they do makes them predictable and gives us an advantage on the world stage. Pretending that there's some mystical sense of evil involved just fogs up our glasses, so to speak.

Yeah, and how many died during that industrialization? How many starved to death in the Ukraine and later on?

America crushed slavery and put down the traitors at horrendous cost.

All of those empires existed during a time where their actions were normal. Doesn't make those actions any better, but it does girl them some slack.

The USSR was still slaughtering its own citizens in the 1980s, for comparison.

I suppose you also think Nazi Germany wasn't evil? After all, they did some pretty nice **** for Aryans. :roll:
 
The Clintons sold a fifth of the petroleum preserves in the U.S. to the Kremlin. Who's to say Hillary isn't working with Vladimir Putin as well?

Wow...when did the Clinton's own their own oil preserves?

Putin doesn't seem to like Hillary very much....and I think the feeling is mutual. So that's how we know she isn't working with him. But Putin sure likes Trump....and that why we need to see Trump's tax returns. Because if his self financed campaign comes from his financial dealings with Russia then I think we have a right to know.
 
Yeah, and how many died during that industrialization? How many starved to death in the Ukraine and later on?

A lot, but you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Industrialization and the end of a peasant class are always messy. There were dozens of peasant revolts in Europe, all brutally put down by the aristocracy, before feudalism came to an end.

America crushed slavery and put down the traitors at horrendous cost.

That's a charitable take on the civil war, but I don't want to get too off topic. Suffice to say that the North didn't have 'ending slavery' as their top priority, even if the south had 'preserving slavery' as one of theirs. Lincoln said that if he could preserve the union while keeping every slave in chains, he would.

All of those empires existed during a time where their actions were normal. Doesn't make those actions any better, but it does girl them some slack.

The USSR was still slaughtering its own citizens in the 1980s, for comparison.

A lot of countries were still industrializing in the twentieth century. You're arguing from a system of absolute morality, if you think that the Soviets were 'evil'. How does that jive with shifts in moral standards which apparently exculpate acts of 'evil' based on time period?


I suppose you also think Nazi Germany wasn't evil? After all, they did some pretty nice **** for Aryans. :roll:

No; Nazi Germany was a blunder of a state caused by bad statesmanship all around. That's why they were so short-lived. They did do great things for Germany economically, but their foreign policy was trash.
 
A lot, but you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Industrialization and the end of a peasant class are always messy. There were dozens of peasant revolts in Europe, all brutally put down by the aristocracy, before feudalism came to an end.



That's a charitable take on the civil war, but I don't want to get too off topic. Suffice to say that the North didn't have 'ending slavery' as their top priority, even if the south had 'preserving slavery' as one of theirs. Lincoln said that if he could preserve the union while keeping every slave in chains, he would.



A lot of countries were still industrializing in the twentieth century. You're arguing from a system of absolute morality, if you think that the Soviets were 'evil'. How does that jive with shifts in moral standards which apparently exculpate acts of 'evil' based on time period?




No; Nazi Germany was a blunder of a state caused by bad statesmanship all around. That's why they were so short-lived. They did do great things for Germany economically, but their foreign policy was trash.

"You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs"

Do you know how many times that saying has been used to try to wave away some of the most horrific atrocities? Far more then a few.

Even though ending slavery wasn't the North's top priority at the start of the war, it still got done handily.

Lost of those countries didn't shoot their citizens for imaginary or extremely minor offenses and they still managed just fine.
 
"You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs"

Do you know how many times that saying has been used to try to wave away some of the most horrific atrocities? Far more then a few.

A lot of horrific atrocities amount to growing pains in the end.

Even though ending slavery wasn't the North's top priority at the start of the war, it still got done handily.

Lost of those countries didn't shoot their citizens for imaginary or extremely minor offenses and they still managed just fine.

You should read up on history. They didn't shoot them. Imperial China practiced lingchi, or the death by a thousand cuts. People in Europe were drawn and quartered, burned at the stake, and tortured on the rack. Rome threw people into a pit with wild animals. The Persians practiced Scaphism, a form of execution called 'the boats'. The condemned was placed in the hollow space between between two boats and securely bound so that their head and limbs extruded, then forcefed milk and honey. Honey was drizzled all over them, especially their various orifices, including the eyes, genitals, and anus. The space between the boats would slowly fill with their feces, and the combination of this and the honey would attract insects and vermin which nested and laid eggs in the victim's flesh until they died of sepsis. The Soviet Union looks humane in comparison to some historical empires.
 
A lot of horrific atrocities amount to growing pains in the end.



You should read up on history. They didn't shoot them. Imperial China practiced lingchi, or the death by a thousand cuts. People in Europe were drawn and quartered, burned at the stake, and tortured on the rack. Rome threw people into a pit with wild animals. The Persians practiced Scaphism, a form of execution called 'the boats'. The condemned was placed in the hollow space between between two boats and securely bound so that their head and limbs extruded, then forcefed milk and honey. Honey was drizzled all over them, especially their various orifices, including the eyes, genitals, and anus. The space between the boats would slowly fill with their feces, and the combination of this and the honey would attract insects and vermin which nested and laid eggs in the victim's flesh until they died of sepsis. The Soviet Union looks humane in comparison to some historical empires.

Yeah, and guess what? All those empires existed back during a time period where that kind of **** was commonplace. The Soviets were randomly shooting people as late as the 1980s.

I'm sure all those poor bastards freezing to death out in Siberia or buried in a mass grave in a Polish forest appreciated that they were "only" shot:roll:
 
Wow...when did the Clinton's own their own oil preserves?

Putin doesn't seem to like Hillary very much....and I think the feeling is mutual. So that's how we know she isn't working with him.

Allies dislike one another all the time. It is obvious that there is a power-struggle going on between Washington and Moscow with regard to the Middle-East and elsewhere, but that doesn't mean there aren't individuals in both working together.

But Putin sure likes Trump....and that why we need to see Trump's tax returns. Because if his self financed campaign comes from his financial dealings with Russia then I think we have a right to know.

True. But I don't think Trump, the DNC Leaks, Putin and the NSA/Private Server/email fiasco is necessarily connected. Hillary is a serial liar anyway, why should I believe a WORD that comes out of her mouth? Give me one good reason.
 
Last time I checked, the Ukrainians weren't conducting terrorist attacks throughout Western Europe.

Last time I checked, having an unstable nation, that was being interfered with by an antagonistic nation, on your border isn't good for your strategic security.

Last time I checked, the Georgians didn't use chemical weapons in their own people.

Last time I checked, Georgia attacking an Russian ally will get your Russians.

Last time I checked, it was frowned upon to seize territory from your neighbors.

Last time I checked, a territory is allowed to vote to join another, especially when it's always been Russian.
 
Last time I checked, having an unstable nation, that was being interfered with by an antagonistic nation, on your border isn't good for your strategic security.



Last time I checked, Georgia attacking an Russian ally will get your Russians.



Last time I checked, a territory is allowed to vote to join another, especially when it's always been Russian.

Clearly, next thing you know the Ukrainians will be launching Barbarossa 2.0. Oh, wait.

As I recall, Russia arbitrarily decided that the South Ossetians were independent and Russian allies. That was news to the Georgians, I'm sure.

I suppose it was just a miracle that the Eastern Ukraine then erupted into rebellion, right? :roll:

Can you imagine the non stop whining that would happen if the US did something like what Russia did?
 
Clearly, next thing you know the Ukrainians will be launching Barbarossa 2.0. Oh, wait.

As I recall, Russia arbitrarily decided that the South Ossetians were independent and Russian allies. That was news to the Georgians, I'm sure.

I suppose it was just a miracle that the Eastern Ukraine then erupted into rebellion, right? :roll:

Can you imagine the non stop whining that would happen if the US did something like what Russia did?

Yeah...almost as if we haven't topple regimes in two countries that had nothing to do with us at all. Almost as if we haven't undermined the leader of another nation, which has resulted int he worst humanitarian disaster since the Holocaust.
 
Yeah...almost as if we haven't topple regimes in two countries that had nothing to do with us at all. Almost as if we haven't undermined the leader of another nation, which has resulted int he worst humanitarian disaster since the Holocaust.

Maybe if Bashir Al Assad hadn't been such an tolitarian asshole, his people wouldn't have despised him enough to rebel in the first place.

It's hard be a dictator these days. You can hardly crush the citizenry without the West complaining. Truly rough :roll:
 
Maybe if Bashir Al Assad hadn't been such an tolitarian asshole, his people wouldn't have despised him enough to rebel in the first place.

It's hard be a dictator these days. You can hardly crush the citizenry without the West complaining. Truly rough :roll:

It has nothing to do with Assad, really. I mean, he's not a saint or anything but this is 100% sectarian. It's the Saudi/Qatar/US backed Sunnis going against a minority religion President. In the war in Syria, Assad is the moderate.
 
It has nothing to do with Assad, really. I mean, he's not a saint or anything but this is 100% sectarian. It's the Saudi/Qatar/US backed Sunnis going against a minority religion President. In the war in Syria, Assad is the moderate.

So moderate he's bombing the crap out of his own cities. There's no way that'll play into ISIS' hands, right? :roll:

So moderate he's using Hezbollah and Iranian "volunteers" as his shock troops too. Putin pulled some strings for Assad.
 
So moderate he's bombing the crap out of his own cities. There's no way that'll play into ISIS' hands, right? :roll:

So moderate he's using Hezbollah and Iranian "volunteers" as his shock troops too. Putin pulled some strings for Assad.

Yup...he's the moderate over there. And *gaps* Putin "pulled some strings" to help an ally? No ****in way?!?!

Question: What does a post-Assad Syria look like to you?

a.) Democracy and freedom spontaneously break out and everyone works together to create a new and better Syria?

b.) Ethnic cleansing of minority groups commences and the whole country turns into a giant ****-hole way worse than it was under the previous 40 years of Assad family rule ala Libya?
 
Allies dislike one another all the time. It is obvious that there is a power-struggle going on between Washington and Moscow with regard to the Middle-East and elsewhere, but that doesn't mean there aren't individuals in both working together.
National defense agencies and foreign policy experts are extremely worried about Trump getting a security clearance in few days and having access to classified national security information because of what he said about our allies and NATO and his unbridled admiration for Putin...and his shady financial dealings with Russian oligarchs connected to Putin.

US officials worried about Trump national security - Business Insider


True. But I don't think Trump, the DNC Leaks, Putin and the NSA/Private Server/email fiasco is necessarily connected. Hillary is a serial liar anyway, why should I believe a WORD that comes out of her mouth? Give me one good reason.

I'm pretty convinced that Trump, Putin/Russia and the DNC email hack are connected. Trump let the cat out of the bag yesterday during his VFW speech when he gloated about his "good friends" the Russians hacking the DNC database to help him.
 
Yup...he's the moderate over there. And *gaps* Putin "pulled some strings" to help an ally? No ****in way?!?!

Question: What does a post-Assad Syria look like to you?

a.) Democracy and freedom spontaneously break out and everyone works together to create a new and better Syria?

b.) Ethnic cleansing of minority groups commences and the whole country turns into a giant ****-hole way worse than it was under the previous 40 years of Assad family rule ala Libya?

It only turns into Libya if the West is stupid and says "**** it, we don't care, it's your problem".

I'm sure being called a moderate warms the cackles of Assad's heart. Shows that no matter what you do, somebody will call you a moderate as long as your slaughtering your own people for the "right reason".
 
It only turns into Libya if the West is stupid and says "**** it, we don't care, it's your problem".

Oh really? So what do you suggest? A decade long occupation spending a trillion dollars only to have it go to **** when we leave anyways like Iraq?

I'm sure being called a moderate warms the cackles of Assad's heart. Shows that no matter what you do, somebody will call you a moderate as long as your slaughtering your own people for the "right reason".

You don't understand the situation there. Assad is no a moderate when compared to the U.S., Europe, or any number of other places in the world. He a moderate compared to the alternatives and when compared to some of the other leaders in the region. He's even more moderate than our good buddies, the Saudis, who sentence bloggers critical of Islam to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes.

It's OK. Most people don't have a good understanding of the Middle East.
 
Oh really? So what do you suggest? A decade long occupation spending a trillion dollars only to have it go to **** when we leave anyways like Iraq?



You don't understand the situation there. Assad is no a moderate when compared to the U.S., Europe, or any number of other places in the world. He a moderate compared to the alternatives and when compared to some of the other leaders in the region. He's even more moderate than our good buddies, the Saudis, who sentence bloggers critical of Islam to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes.

It's OK. Most people don't have a good understanding of the Middle East.

I'm sure Kim Jong Un is more "moderate" then some of his flunkies lurking the wings. Does that mean the West should prop him up?

As dictator of Syria, Assad is personally responsible for much of what has led to this.

Apparently, your solution to the Middle East is "find the worst dicatators possible, turn them lose, and watch the corpses pile up because hey, at least he isn't as bad as the Saudis"
 
I'm sure Kim Jong Un is more "moderate" then some of his flunkies lurking the wings. Does that mean the West should prop him up?

We wouldn't have needed to prop up Assad, we simply could have just stayed out of it and it would have been over in a matter of months.

As dictator of Syria, Assad is personally responsible for much of what has led to this.

Sectarianism is what lead to it, which includes Saudi and Qatar funding the Sunnis.

Apparently, your solution to the Middle East is "find the worst dicatators possible, turn them lose, and watch the corpses pile up because hey, at least he isn't as bad as the Saudis"

No, that's simply a lack of understanding the region and Assad is by no means the worst. When you come to a better understanding of the region you'll realize that it takes a heavier hand than what would be acceptable here, or other western nations, to maintain some semblance of peace and stability.
 
We wouldn't have needed to prop up Assad, we simply could have just stayed out of it and it would have been over in a matter of months.



Sectarianism is what lead to it, which includes Saudi and Qatar funding the Sunnis.



No, that's simply a lack of understanding the region and Assad is by no means the worst. When you come to a better understanding of the region you'll realize that it takes a heavier hand than what would be acceptable here, or other western nations, to maintain some semblance of peace and stability.

Sure it would have been. After all, if there's one thing the Syrians are good at, it's warfighting, right? Oh, wait.

Way to excuse the tolitarian dictatorship!
 
Sure it would have been. After all, if there's one thing the Syrians are good at, it's warfighting, right? Oh, wait.

Way to excuse the tolitarian dictatorship!

Reality is simply beyond your ability to grasp. It's OK, most people don't get it so you have a lot of company.
 
Simpleχity;1066126385 said:
Putin's Party?

The neo-conservative political analyst and commentator William Krystal bemoans Donald Trump steering the GOP closer to Vladimir Putin.
The GOP is not closer to Putin. Trump will soon find out that Putin wants satellite states - countries under Russia's boot to protect them from a European invasion.

Do not get hysterical. Obama would hand them all off in a heartbeat.
 
Back
Top Bottom