• 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?

Reality is simply beyond your ability to grasp. It's OK, most people don't get it so you have a lot of company.

What's with all the "realists" I've seen recently running around excusing tolitarian dicatatorships?

First that one guy in the other thread claiming the USSR wasn't evil; now a "Assad is just misunderstood" individual.
 
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.

This is very concerning. For a candidate for President of the U.S. to want to get a foreign adversary involved in our country's politics. It shows that either he doesn't care about the country, or he's even more naive about foreign affairs and worldly matters than we thought. Can he see Russia from his front porch, too?

You just don't invite or get foreign governments in our government business. If Hillary had done such a thing, it'd be spoken about on Fox nonstop as bordering on traitorous talk.

Trump is dangerous. He could do all kinds of damage to harm the country and its citizens. It says a lot that Putin has said he likes Trump better than Clinton. That says a lot.
 
Well my oh my, I'm almost scared enough to vote for Shillary. Almost. Ok, not really.

Putin agrees with you. He is glad to know that you are following his direction, comrade.
 
What's with all the "realists" I've seen recently running around excusing tolitarian dicatatorships?

First that one guy in the other thread claiming the USSR wasn't evil; now a "Assad is just misunderstood" individual.

No, Assad isn't "misunderstood". He's not a "good" person. Most of the the leaders in the ME aren't good people. The problem is that peace and stability cannot be maintained in much of the Middle East without a heavy-handed autocratic form of government. I'm sorry that this seems to be beyond your ability to understand and therefor create a strawman of "misunderstood".
 
Putin agrees with you. He is glad to know that you are following his direction, comrade.

I'd rather think for myself. I don't fancy running back and forth in panic as one uber-evil after another herds me into voting a certain way. And you have to consider the source. The people pushing this don't exactly have a stellar record for honesty and trustworthiness.

You'll have to try harder if you want to scare me enough to vote for her. An unsupported conspiracy theory coming from a pack of corrupt liars doesn't do much to tip the scales.
 
I'd rather think for myself. I don't fancy running back and forth in panic as one uber-evil after another herds me into voting a certain way. And you have to consider the source. The people pushing this don't exactly have a stellar record for honesty and trustworthiness.

You'll have to try harder if you want to scare me enough to vote for her. An unsupported conspiracy theory coming from a pack of corrupt liars doesn't do much to tip the scales.

I'm not trying to scare anyone. As the Dragnet guy used to say, "Just the facts" is what I report. Those were comrade Trump's own words. He wanted Russia to hack American emails.

As my 8th grade civics teacher said, invasion of the country doesn't come in the form of an army. It starts with a politician sent or set up by an adversarial foreign government. Like Russia.

Just the facts.
 
Vladimir Poontang has a political party here? Has anybody seen both Poontang and Trump together at the same time? Uh huh. I thought not. It could be that Trump is really Poontang in disguise. Got one of those latex Trump faces and hair and everything....
 
No, Assad isn't "misunderstood". He's not a "good" person. Most of the the leaders in the ME aren't good people. The problem is that peace and stability cannot be maintained in much of the Middle East without a heavy-handed autocratic form of government. I'm sorry that this seems to be beyond your ability to understand and therefor create a strawman of "misunderstood".

Yeah. That makes good sense. There are so many blood feuds between various sects and tribes that it takes a heavy-handed autocratic government / tyrant to keep law and order. We can see the transition from one to the other in Libya as the results of Hillary's fine judgement and understanding of the Middle East.

Come to think of it. Bosnia and Serbia had to have a major blood letting before they found relative peace. I suspect the same in the Middle East before that's at peace as well.
 
Yeah. That makes good sense. There are so many blood feuds between various sects and tribes that it takes a heavy-handed autocratic government / tyrant to keep law and order. We can see the transition from one to the other in Libya as the results of Hillary's fine judgement and understanding of the Middle East.

Come to think of it. Bosnia and Serbia had to have a major blood letting before they found relative peace. I suspect the same in the Middle East before that's at peace as well.

It will take longer and a lot more blood to reach that point. I've been thinking the same line of thought as well but there has been so much blood spilled, and much of it is so normalized in the culture, that I don't see the end happening anytime soon. I mean, when you have people that will kill their own daughters and sisters, their own blood that they grew up with, because they talked to a boy or the wrong boy, there is a long ways to go.
 
... indicates that I am a realist.

It indicates that you're the one suffering from propaganda. The USSR was an evil empire.
 
It indicates that you're the one suffering from propaganda. The USSR was an evil empire.

Do you have any actual arguments against the premises underlying realism, the premises which have been guiding foreign policy for the last few centuries? Because nobody seems to ever be able to address them, despite contravening them blithely.
 
Do you have any actual arguments against the premises underlying realism, the premises which have been guiding foreign policy for the last few centuries? Because nobody seems to ever be able to address them, despite contravening them blithely.

I tell you what I got. A big laugh at anyone spewing idiotic crap like "the USSR was not an evil empire". That is some mush brained moronic BS right there.

Good day.
 
I tell you what I got. A big laugh at anyone spewing idiotic crap like "the USSR was not an evil empire". That is some mush brained moronic BS right there.

Good day.

That's about the calibre of argument I've come to expect in defense of the J. R. R. Tolkien school of international relations theory.
 
That's about the calibre of argument I've come to expect in defense of the J. R. R. Tolkien school of international relations theory.

Spare me the latest chapter from your undergrad textbook. Your claim that the USSR was not an evil empire is obviously ignorant and stupid.
 
That's about the calibre of argument I've come to expect in defense of the J. R. R. Tolkien school of international relations theory.

By most standards I think that it is pretty fair to use the word evil to describe the Soviet empire, if evil might be used for real human forms of government. What makes you think otherwise, I wonder.
 
Do you have any actual arguments against the premises underlying realism, the premises which have been guiding foreign policy for the last few centuries? Because nobody seems to ever be able to address them, despite contravening them blithely.

What exactly do you mean?
 
By most standards I think that it is pretty fair to use the word evil to describe the Soviet empire, if evil might be used for real human forms of government. What makes you think otherwise, I wonder.

My contention during this whole thread has been that, from a realist perspective, 'evil' doesn't describe any state, and that the Soviet Union was facing a peasant society which needed to be industrialized if they were to stay competitive, the typical schismatic Russian ethnic and cultural melange, and the perennial geopolitical necessity of expansion for strategic reasons. The combination of these factors led to the famines and gulags. Russia was acting in its own self-interest, and it behaved in a predictable manner. Here's my basic spiel:

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.

So, instead of anyone questioning the premises of realism, which would have resulted in a productive argument, or defending some other school of international relations theory as an alternative, which would have resulted in a productive argument, or offering a different take on Russian geopolitics and/or history, which would have resulted in a productive argument, people opted to say 'OMG I can't believe you said that ur stupid hahaha' (even though this is a very common stance among people who actually manage international affairs), which will never result in a productive argument and which I will never see as a position worthy of respect. At that point, someone's basically filing for intellectual bankruptcy.
 
What exactly do you mean?

Realism is a school of international relations theory founded on a few basic principles, though the many schools vary widely.

The most important ones are:

- The international system is anarchic, with all states ultimately being antagonistic (war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means). This basically means that there's no authority above that of the state.

- States are rational, self-interested actors which strive to maximize their resource gain.

- The first priority of all states are survival.

So, basically, that humans are more competitive than benevolent, and that, when in large groups, they behave predictably to gain as many resources as possible and to secure themselves against their competitors.

Personally, I am a defensive realist, but there are other sub-schools as well.
 
My contention during this whole thread has been that, from a realist perspective, 'evil' doesn't describe any state, and that the Soviet Union was facing a peasant society which needed to be industrialized if they were to stay competitive, the typical schismatic Russian ethnic and cultural melange, and the perennial geopolitical necessity of expansion for strategic reasons. The combination of these factors led to the famines and gulags. Russia was acting in its own self-interest, and it behaved in a predictable manner. Here's my basic spiel:



So, instead of anyone questioning the premises of realism, which would have resulted in a productive argument, or defending some other school of international relations theory as an alternative, which would have resulted in a productive argument, or offering a different take on Russian geopolitics and/or history, which would have resulted in a productive argument, people opted to say 'OMG I can't believe you said that ur stupid hahaha' (even though this is a very common stance among people who actually manage international affairs), which will never result in a productive argument and which I will never see as a position worthy of respect. At that point, someone's basically filing for intellectual bankruptcy.

Okay. If 60 Millions tortured or dead and mercilessly enforced subsistence of all but a very small part of the population is not evil, then we do not really need the word.
 
Realism is a school of international relations theory founded on a few basic principles, though the many schools vary widely.

The most important ones are:

- The international system is anarchic, with all states ultimately being antagonistic (war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means). This basically means that there's no authority above that of the state.

- States are rational, self-interested actors which strive to maximize their resource gain.

- The first priority of all states are survival.

So, basically, that humans are more competitive than benevolent, and that, when in large groups, they behave predictably to gain as many resources as possible and to secure themselves against their competitors.

Personally, I am a defensive realist, but there are other sub-schools as well.

In general, that might well be true. It does not really adapt for domestic and international organization, though. You see, these make a big difference in guaging, what behavior of the individuals or groups might be and how the sub and supra structures will function; what the results may be.
 
I'm not trying to scare anyone. As the Dragnet guy used to say, "Just the facts" is what I report. Those were comrade Trump's own words. He wanted Russia to hack American emails.

As my 8th grade civics teacher said, invasion of the country doesn't come in the form of an army. It starts with a politician sent or set up by an adversarial foreign government. Like Russia.

Just the facts.

If those Emails contain only personal stuff like she said, and zero emails related to her job as SoS, then it wouldn't be an act of espionage anyway. More like a personal attack, which still isn't ok, but a far cry from calling for a foriegn power to steal government secrets, or however your trying to spin this.

And are you seriously denying that this is full dial fear mongering? And then following with:

invasion of the country doesn't come in the form of an army. It starts with a politician sent or set up by an adversarial foreign government. Like Russia.

This is straight out of the McCarthy era! Should we start doing air raid drills in the schools again? Or are you just trying to get voters to duck and cover until after the election?


I've been bombarded with reasons to be afraid of the Trump-Putin ticket the republicans are running this fall for 4 days now. The DNC went from 0 to 60 in record time and has been in high gear the entire time spinning conspiracy theories that are, at best, very weakly supported. All in response to the obvious corruption exposed by the recent email dumps, in an attempt to smother the outrage with fear and to keep people's memories short.

Funny how this "Russia wants Trump to win" narrative only showed up this week. They've been attacking Trump ruthlessly for months. You'd think if there was so much evidence of the Trump-Putin ticket they would have been riding this horse for some time now. Or maybe they spun this on the fly when they needed to discredit the leaks.
 
It will take longer and a lot more blood to reach that point. I've been thinking the same line of thought as well but there has been so much blood spilled, and much of it is so normalized in the culture, that I don't see the end happening anytime soon. I mean, when you have people that will kill their own daughters and sisters, their own blood that they grew up with, because they talked to a boy or the wrong boy, there is a long ways to go.

Yes, this seems likely, that it's going to take a long time for these medieval social practices of these societies to work its way out of them.
Puzzling to me how so many who practice those medieval practices believe that this is somehow superior in any way, shape for form to Western social traditions.
 
Okay. If 60 Millions tortured or dead and mercilessly enforced subsistence of all but a very small part of the population is not evil, then we do not really need the word.

Well, the word is important if you're a moralist, but it's only really appropriate to be applied to people. Could you argue that Stalin was evil by most modern moral standards? Sure, that'd be relatively easy to do. But to argue that a state is evil doesn't really say anything, because state aren't moral actors. They are aggregations of huge numbers of people and the political structures which they've created to govern them, and are far too complicated to be slapped with a label meant for individual human beings.
 
In general, that might well be true. It does not really adapt for domestic and international organization, though. You see, these make a big difference in guaging, what behavior of the individuals or groups might be and how the sub and supra structures will function; what the results may be.

Could you be more specific about where, exactly, the contradictions occur, or use an example? I'm having a hard time grasping your criticism.
 
Well, the word is important if you're a moralist, but it's only really appropriate to be applied to people. Could you argue that Stalin was evil by most modern moral standards? Sure, that'd be relatively easy to do. But to argue that a state is evil doesn't really say anything, because state aren't moral actors. They are aggregations of huge numbers of people and the political structures which they've created to govern them, and are far too complicated to be slapped with a label meant for individual human beings.

That is true. "The state" is not the unethical entity. It is every person in it. So it makes sense to say the state is evil.
Also, one can construct a state to make it more difficult or less for the players to act like Stalin and the Russians of his system. And so it makes sense to speak of an evil political order.
 
Back
Top Bottom