• 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!

This has been the greatest threat to the US in the last 20 years and the Biden administration has been excellent.

Adults are in charge now.

That's why everyone but the Cult is happy that TFG is gone.
 
Not any more than we did in Syria or the numerous other conflicts where Russia fought the American proxy, America fought the Russian proxy, or America's proxy and Russia's proxy punched each other a lot.

The main difference, with this conflict, is that Ukraine is absolutely breathtaking when it comes to digital / information / social media warfare.
This is next to their border.
 
I think you meant to say "The Biden administration has been the greatest threat, yadda yadda.
 
I think you meant to say "The Biden administration has been the greatest threat, yadda yadda.
Why do you say that that. What should have been done different?
 
This is next to their border.
All the more reason why this is not the greatest to the United States in the last 20 years. As you said, it's not even anywhere near us.

Seriously, dude, if your thesis is that this is the top threat to America in two decades, then YOU need to list the potential competing threats and explain WHY this one happens to be so much worse.
 
All the more reason why this is not the greatest to the United States in the last 20 years. As you said, it's not even anywhere near us.

Seriously, dude, if your thesis is that this is the top threat to America in two decades, then YOU need to list the potential competing threats and explain WHY this one happens to be so much worse.
BS. You pick,
 
BS. You pick,
BS. I already picked five examples in post #6. Your response was a lame general subjective commend about 'world order'
 
Why do you say that that. What should have been done different?
Southern Border, Running mate, mask mandates, then no mandates-look weak much?
TOO many other things, biggest was 13 soldiers dead-is my watch still working?
 
BS. I already picked five examples in post #6. Your response was a lame general subjective commend about 'world order'
Not even close. This will be a change in the world order. And perhaps a nuclear war.
 
All the more reason why this is not the greatest to the United States in the last 20 years. As you said, it's not even anywhere near us.

Seriously, dude, if your thesis is that this is the top threat to America in two decades, then YOU need to list the potential competing threats and explain WHY this one happens to be so much worse.

One word. Miscalculation.

It's what has started about every major conflict in human history. One wrong move in this one could be the last in the series. For anyone who doubts me, I'll gave the same reading recommendation President Kennedy gave his advisors during the Cuban Missile Crisis - The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman... it's about how miscalculation lead to the First World War.

From Thirteen Days:

 
Last edited:
All the more reason why this is not the greatest to the United States in the last 20 years. As you said, it's not even anywhere near us.

Seriously, dude, if your thesis is that this is the top threat to America in two decades, then YOU need to list the potential competing threats and explain WHY this one happens to be so much worse.
No you list them and compare them to a major European war with our chief enemy Russia happening now.
 
No you list them and compare them to a major European war with our chief enemy Russia happening now.
No you list them and compare them to a war in a faraway land that threatens to exhaust 0.5% of our annual defense budget. It's your thread and argument to defend. If you want to make unsubstantiated claims and not feel the burden to defend them, perhaps a bullhorn and a street corner might be more suitable. Alternatively, a poster hung on a wall in some basement perhaps.
 
No you list them and compare them to a war in a faraway land that threatens to exhaust 0.5% of our annual defense budget. It's your thread and argument to defend. If you want to make unsubstantiated claims and not feel the burden to defend them, perhaps a bullhorn and a street corner might be more suitable. Alternatively, a poster hung on a wall in some basement perhaps.
I am not your bitch. Boohoo this is happening now, not when you decide to get off your couch.
 
One word. Miscalculation.

It's what has started about every major conflict in human history. One wrong move in this one could be the last in the series. For anyone who doubts me, I'll gave the same reading recommendation President Kennedy gave his advisors during the Cuban Missile Crisis - The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman... it's about how miscalculation lead to the First World War.
Fair enough and I don't disagree that the potential exists for the situation to become very ugly. That said, my position on this and the reason I disagree with the OP and his 'changing world order' argumentation is that I would posit that the world order has already changed, and Russia does not factor into it so significantly. The actual, new world order is China and its alliances/partners competing against the United States and its alliances/partners. I emphasize the 'competition' because at the moment and for the foreseeable future, it is about competition, not conflict, much less the destructive kind of conflict that makes competition irrelevant.

I truly believe that given where we are, neither the United States nor China want an open and escalating war. The United States absolutely has enough weight to pull NATO back from the edge. And likewise I believe--and perhaps I'm the only one but it's my position--that China has similar influence on Russia from a practical perspective. If matters start to escalate, China will intervene, and without its safety net, Putin does not last very long in power.

So, I agree there's a risk that this becomes a flash point. If it becomes one then the OP may be considered a prophet of the time and I will have been proven terribly wrong. But for now, I think odds are that it doesn't go there, and this conflict falls somewhere just above the California summertime wildfires on the list of threats to the United States in the past 20 years.

And yeah, that isn't to diminish the fact that this really, really sucks for Ukraine.

I don't disagree with the OP that it's great that Biden is in the Oval Office instead of Trump. What a cluster that would be.
 
Fair enough and I don't disagree that the potential exists for this to become very ugly. That said, my position on this and the reason I disagree with the OP and his 'world order' argumentation is that I would posit that the world order has already changed, and Russia does not factor into it so significantly. The actual, new world order is China and its alliances/partners competing against the United States and its alliances/partners. I emphasize the 'competition' because at the moment and for the foreseeable future, it is about competition, not conflict, much less the destructive kind of conflict that makes competition irrelevant.

I truly believe that given where we are, neither the United States nor China want an open and escalating war. The United States absolutely still has enough weight to pull NATO back from the edge. And likewise I believe--and perhaps I'm the only one but it's my position--China has similar pull with Russia. If matters start to escalate, China will intervene, and without its safety net, Putin does not last very long in power.

So, I agree there's a risk that this is a flash point. If it becomes one then the OP may be considered a prophet of the time. But for now, I think odds are that it doesn't go there, and this conflict falls somewhere just above the California summertime wildfires on the list of threats to the United States in the past 20 years.

One thing you're not taking into account in your China v. US global competition formulation. Both sides are relatively strong, wealthy, and content. They both has a vested interest in maintaining relatively peaceful economic competition.

Just exactly where does Russia fit into that? If there are four people at a Poker Table - I'll throw in the EU as well - and one player seem to keep getting losing hands.... which one do you figure is most likely to throw over the table and start blasting?
 
We wouldn't be IN this position if Trump were still President.

If Trump were president he would have been advocating that Ukraine should be with Russia.
 
One thing you're not taking into account in your China v. US global competition formulation. Both sides are relatively strong, wealthy, and content. They both has a vested interest in maintaining relatively peaceful economic competition.

Just exactly where does Russia fit into that? If there are four people at a Poker Table - I'll throw in the EU as well - and one player seem to keep getting losing hands.... which one do you figure is most likely to throw over the table and start blasting?
Russia needs to become a normal European country. They do not have an economy to maintain a super power military. Only the remains of a nuclear inventory.
 
Russia needs to become a normal European country. They do not have an economy to maintain a super power military. Only the remains of a nuclear inventory.

That's the rational way to look at it. Wars aren't started on rationality, though... they're started on emotions.

From Russia's perspective, they are a great power who is being cheated out of their greatness. They're that surly guy in the big black hat who feels like he's being hustled by the smooth-talking city slicks.
 
That's so idiotic.

Why is it idiotic? Trump supported de-legitimizing NATO and supported including Russia back into the G-7 despite them taking Crimea? I mean Trump was basically supportive of Russia's actions by that and this action by wanting them back in.

Do you think if Trump was against them annexing Crimea, then wanting them to be allowed back into the G-7 that he would be against this action? Trump has been an ally of Russia since before he was president.
 
That's the rational way to look at it. Wars aren't started on rationality, though... they're started on emotions.

From Russia's perspective, they are a great power who is being cheated out of their greatness. They're that surly guy in the big black hat who feels like he's being hustled by the smooth-talking city slicks.
What do you do with him? You stand up with your friends and say be reasonable because this will not end differently.
 
Why is it idiotic? Trump supported de-legitimizing NATO and supported including Russia back into the G-7 despite them taking Crimea? I mean Trump was basically supportive of Russia's actions by that and this action by wanting them back in.

Do you think if Trump was against them annexing Crimea, then wanting them to be allowed back into the G-7 that he would be against this action? Trump has been an ally of Russia since before he was president.
And more idiocy. Trump "de-legitmizes NATO" by scolding them for not paying their dues? Didn't Russia take Crimea during Obama's term? Didn't Trump send weapons and ammo where Obama only sent blankets? Didn't Trump move AA batteries back into eastern Europe after Obama pulled them out? Was he for or against Nord Stream 2?
 
And more idiocy. Trump "de-legitmizes NATO" by scolding them for not paying their dues? Didn't Russia take Crimea during Obama's term? Didn't Trump send weapons and ammo where Obama only sent blankets? Didn't Trump move AA batteries back into eastern Europe after Obama pulled them out? Was he for or against Nord Stream 2?

I always subscribed to the notion that politics ought to stop at the water's edge.
 
Back
Top Bottom