Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Implications of the GOP Primary

YYW
Posts: 36,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 1:15:09 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
http://www.independent.co.uk...

David Cameron mocked Donald Trump, openly.

Russia, China, Germany, and France are watching too.

They really don't want to deal with Hillary.

They are hoping a Republican will win.
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 4:01:05 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/17/2015 1:15:09 AM, YYW wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

David Cameron mocked Donald Trump, openly.

Russia, China, Germany, and France are watching too.

They really don't want to deal with Hillary.

They are hoping a Republican will win.

Why the *expletive* would China and Russia want a Republican to win?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
YYW
Posts: 36,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 4:02:02 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/17/2015 4:01:05 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/17/2015 1:15:09 AM, YYW wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

David Cameron mocked Donald Trump, openly.

Russia, China, Germany, and France are watching too.

They really don't want to deal with Hillary.

They are hoping a Republican will win.

Why the *expletive* would China and Russia want a Republican to win?

Because they will weaken the United States in the long run, most likely by destroying the tremendous progress that Obama has made.
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 4:04:42 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/17/2015 4:02:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/17/2015 4:01:05 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/17/2015 1:15:09 AM, YYW wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

David Cameron mocked Donald Trump, openly.

Russia, China, Germany, and France are watching too.

They really don't want to deal with Hillary.

They are hoping a Republican will win.

Why the *expletive* would China and Russia want a Republican to win?

Because they will weaken the United States in the long run, most likely by destroying the tremendous progress that Obama has made.

This is highly questionable logic at best, and even if true in the short term it'd mean Russia and China would have a much more difficult time getting away with squat (I.e. Russia could be forced out of Crimea, China's bases in the South China Sea could be attacked by the U.S. navy, etc).
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 4:10:45 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
That is, a GOP president would have a far more aggressive policy towards Russia and China.
China wants a "peaceful rise" (with the world accepting due to economic ties with China that China rules the South China Sea and that Taiwan is not to be recognized diplomatically as a sovereign state) and Russia's military doctrine relies upon extreme recklessness under the assumption that the West will generally back down first because it'd be more wary of risking escalation and loss of lives. These things are jeopardized by an aggressive U.S. president.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
YYW
Posts: 36,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 10:08:47 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 4:10:45 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
That is, a GOP president would have a far more aggressive policy towards Russia and China.

lol you are so naive.

China wants a "peaceful rise" (with the world accepting due to economic ties with China that China rules the South China Sea and that Taiwan is not to be recognized diplomatically as a sovereign state) and Russia's military doctrine relies upon extreme recklessness under the assumption that the West will generally back down first because it'd be more wary of risking escalation and loss of lives. These things are jeopardized by an aggressive U.S. president.

Do you want me to explain why you are wrong, on, like, every conceivable level?
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 10:14:00 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 10:08:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/17/2015 4:10:45 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
That is, a GOP president would have a far more aggressive policy towards Russia and China.

lol you are so naive.

Okay, let's start with this first statement. Why am I naive to believe that a Republican president will be much more aggressive towards China and Russia than the current administration?

China wants a "peaceful rise" (with the world accepting due to economic ties with China that China rules the South China Sea and that Taiwan is not to be recognized diplomatically as a sovereign state) and Russia's military doctrine relies upon extreme recklessness under the assumption that the West will generally back down first because it'd be more wary of risking escalation and loss of lives. These things are jeopardized by an aggressive U.S. president.

Do you want me to explain why you are wrong, on, like, every conceivable level?

When you're finished with the above you can explain your reasoning for this section as well.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
YYW
Posts: 36,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 10:24:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 10:14:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/17/2015 10:08:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/17/2015 4:10:45 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
That is, a GOP president would have a far more aggressive policy towards Russia and China.

lol you are so naive.

Okay, let's start with this first statement. Why am I naive to believe that a Republican president will be much more aggressive towards China and Russia than the current administration?

You are assuming that the Obama administration has not been aggressive, in curtailing China's rise and Russia's imperial conquests, which is demonstrably false.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the largest economic treaty in the course of human history, and it strategically includes virtually all pacific rim, south pacific, coastal Asian, and North American countries together under one economically integrated structure, EXEPT China. The whole point of that agreement was to lay the foundation for American political and economic domination of the ENTIRE pacific ocean region, at China's direct economic expense. And that's exactly what happened.

America has been economically destroying Russia, as well, at a more aggressive rate than any president since Reagan; essentially, the US is driving the Eastern Bloc (not just Russia; every Former soviet country that has not expressly allied economically with the United States) into economic recessions at a rate that is historically unparalleled, and Obama --the architect behind this strategy-- has critically weakened specifically Russia's economic infrastructure by unprecedented sanctions (in response to Crimea), and entirely restructuring global oil markets (by flooding the market with domestically produced oil) thereby forcing the OPEC countries into a "race to the bottom" thereby drastically undercutting petrol revenues that Russia once enjoyed a near monopoly over.

The whole point is that Obama is playing a geopolitical game with both Russia and China to do two things: (1) de-industrialize Russia and remake it into a third world country that will eventually return to the servient position it once held relative to the United States, and (2) prevent any kind of a lasting economic alliance between Russia and China from ever coalescing, while (3) economically isolating both Russia and China.

No president has done that, or created global structures that have even remotely close to the deleterious effects of what Obama has done to both Russia and China. Obama is at the same time baiting Russia into going to war in the Middle East to weaken it even further.

China wants a "peaceful rise" (with the world accepting due to economic ties with China that China rules the South China Sea and that Taiwan is not to be recognized diplomatically as a sovereign state) and Russia's military doctrine relies upon extreme recklessness under the assumption that the West will generally back down first because it'd be more wary of risking escalation and loss of lives. These things are jeopardized by an aggressive U.S. president.

Do you want me to explain why you are wrong, on, like, every conceivable level?

When you're finished with the above you can explain your reasoning for this section as well.

You have no understanding of why Russia invaded Ukraine. The whole reason Putin did that was because he was trying to ward off riots in Moscow and St. Petersburg, because the Russian people (like the American body politic) can be easily distracted from how terrible things are at home when we all have to rally 'round the flag because the country is going to war.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 10:27:08 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Obama is a ruthless, geopolitical tactician. Putin is a myopic, aggressive guy who can barely stumble from one crisis to the next.

Each and every Republican candidate is exactly like Putin, in that regard. Clinton is the only person who has even remotely close to the capacity to extend what Obama is doing, and every person on earth outside the United States understands this.

The Republicans are going to drag the country into another war that will critically weaken us in the long term. Obama could care less about other people's problems; he just wants to keep the United States as the unquestioned global military and economic leader.
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 10:38:55 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 10:24:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/17/2015 10:14:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/17/2015 10:08:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/17/2015 4:10:45 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
That is, a GOP president would have a far more aggressive policy towards Russia and China.

lol you are so naive.

Okay, let's start with this first statement. Why am I naive to believe that a Republican president will be much more aggressive towards China and Russia than the current administration?

You are assuming that the Obama administration has not been aggressive, in curtailing China's rise and Russia's imperial conquests, which is demonstrably false.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the largest economic treaty in the course of human history, and it strategically includes virtually all pacific rim, south pacific, coastal Asian, and North American countries together under one economically integrated structure, EXEPT China. The whole point of that agreement was to lay the foundation for American political and economic domination of the ENTIRE pacific ocean region, at China's direct economic expense. And that's exactly what happened.

America has been economically destroying Russia, as well, at a more aggressive rate than any president since Reagan; essentially, the US is driving the Eastern Bloc (not just Russia; every Former soviet country that has not expressly allied economically with the United States) into economic recessions at a rate that is historically unparalleled, and Obama --the architect behind this strategy-- has critically weakened specifically Russia's economic infrastructure by unprecedented sanctions (in response to Crimea), and entirely restructuring global oil markets (by flooding the market with domestically produced oil) thereby forcing the OPEC countries into a "race to the bottom" thereby drastically undercutting petrol revenues that Russia once enjoyed a near monopoly over.

The whole point is that Obama is playing a geopolitical game with both Russia and China to do two things: (1) de-industrialize Russia and remake it into a third world country that will eventually return to the servient position it once held relative to the United States, and (2) prevent any kind of a lasting economic alliance between Russia and China from ever coalescing, while (3) economically isolating both Russia and China.

No president has done that, or created global structures that have even remotely close to the deleterious effects of what Obama has done to both Russia and China. Obama is at the same time baiting Russia into going to war in the Middle East to weaken it even further.

China wants a "peaceful rise" (with the world accepting due to economic ties with China that China rules the South China Sea and that Taiwan is not to be recognized diplomatically as a sovereign state) and Russia's military doctrine relies upon extreme recklessness under the assumption that the West will generally back down first because it'd be more wary of risking escalation and loss of lives. These things are jeopardized by an aggressive U.S. president.

Do you want me to explain why you are wrong, on, like, every conceivable level?

When you're finished with the above you can explain your reasoning for this section as well.

You have no understanding of why Russia invaded Ukraine. The whole reason Putin did that was because he was trying to ward off riots in Moscow and St. Petersburg, because the Russian people (like the American body politic) can be easily distracted from how terrible things are at home when we all have to rally 'round the flag because the country is going to war.

And you believe that in the face of losing a "Second Crimean War" that support for Putin and the UR would be stronger? Wouldn't the Russians more likely abandon the party that lead Russia to a humiliating defeat? The sanctions are definitely helpful. But any national unity stemming from a conflict would be countered 10-fold in the event of Russian defeat.
Also, our current path is causing Eastern European nations to question whether or not they're really safe in NATO because in the very least it appears that NATO isn't doing squat about Ukraine. Strong action would reassure these nations that NATO actually will defend them from Russian aggression.

I must admit, though; you raise some really good points about Obama's policies. Never really saw it that way.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 10:42:21 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
As a British conservative, I wholeheartedly agree with David Cameron and I just wish the GOP will sort their sh*t out and elect a respectable candidate, hopefully one that can beat Hilary.

I'm thinking maybe Cruz or Rubio, but I'm not too fussed so long as it isn't Trump.
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 11:05:33 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 4:02:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/17/2015 4:01:05 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/17/2015 1:15:09 AM, YYW wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

David Cameron mocked Donald Trump, openly.

Russia, China, Germany, and France are watching too.

They really don't want to deal with Hillary.

They are hoping a Republican will win.

Why the *expletive* would China and Russia want a Republican to win?

Because they will weaken the United States in the long run, most likely by destroying the tremendous progress that Obama has made.

What, lol that is so funny. They would hate it if a super conservative republican came into office, the republican party is the one who oppose them the must here in the us.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 11:08:39 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 10:27:08 PM, YYW wrote:
Obama is a ruthless, geopolitical tactician. Putin is a myopic, aggressive guy who can barely stumble from one crisis to the next.

What you've said Obama has done was the Trans-Pacific Partnership and sanctions against Russia (I see no reason why a GOP candidate couldn't do likewise). However, what I'm alleging is that we could do a lot more, and our failure to do so could result in Russia retaining control over Crimea and China being able to assert itself in the South China Sea.

Each and every Republican candidate is exactly like Putin, in that regard. Clinton is the only person who has even remotely close to the capacity to extend what Obama is doing, and every person on earth outside the United States understands this.

Lollipop

The Republicans are going to drag the country into another war that will critically weaken us in the long term. Obama could care less about other people's problems; he just wants to keep the United States as the unquestioned global military and economic leader.

Wars are naturally damaging. However, if it results in the elimination of a threat then such a war could be considered worth it for the U.S.
For instance, it is absolutely true that the U.S. would sustain massive costs from a war with Iran. Russia might want to support this. At the same time, however, if the strong possibility existed that Iran planned on developing and then using nuclear weapons against the U.S. or one of its allies then Russia would find it much more beneficial to its geopolitical interests for the U.S. to elect a person who would not go to war. I'm not going to argue here that this is necessarily what they plan on doing, but it serves as an example of how it may be in the best interests of Russia to support a candidate who would not go to war.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 11:11:17 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
1. Republicans support increasing spending on the us military and usally supports the use of the us military.

2. Republicans are much. Ore aggressive then democrats, look at the list of us wars and major us military operations. When it is a republican we use more troops, spend more and we do not back down.

3. If we get a republican then must likly we would send troops to fight Isis and maybe the Syrian goverment and support our allies even more and try to get the Sunni Islam nations to unite with us. This would hurt Russia's goal. Plus there is a chance the republican would support Georgia and Ukraine and try to get them to join NATO this would hurt Russias goals.

4. If a republican comes in then we will send more warships to the south china sea to make sure china backs off. If you do not believe this then one watch the republican debates, two read the news, and three listen the republicans talk about this stuff.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 11:13:20 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
America experienced major harm from the Iraq War. But Russia also saw a much closer Iraqi alignment with the U.S. as a result of the war. That is, what Iran is to Russia now Iraq used to have that same kind of relationship with Russia. The Iraq War really couldn't be called a victory for Russia.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 11:14:46 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 11:13:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
America experienced major harm from the Iraq War. But Russia also saw a much closer Iraqi alignment with the U.S. as a result of the war. That is, what Iran is to Russia now Iraq used to have that same kind of relationship with Russia. The Iraq War really couldn't be called a victory for Russia.

The War in Afghanistan, likewise, strengthened US-Afghan ties.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 11:23:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
U.S. military interventions do, while causing a lot of people to be radicalized, also result in a net increase in the number of Pro-US governments and a net decrease in the number of anti-US governments.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
YYW
Posts: 36,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 4:57:39 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 11:11:17 PM, stargate wrote:
1. Republicans support increasing spending on the us military and usally supports the use of the us military.

Republicans support arbitrary military spending; Democrats support smart defense spending. That's the difference. Throwing money at a problem doesn't solve the problem. If it did, Jeb Bush would be leading, lol...

2. Republicans are much. Ore aggressive then democrats, look at the list of us wars and major us military operations. When it is a republican we use more troops, spend more and we do not back down.

Republicans are more reckless in going to war than Democrats, which is injudicious both in the short term and the long term. Wasting resources does not make you either a better leader, or a person who advocates a more aggressive foreign policy. It means that you do stupid sh!t because you let your emotions get the best of you.

3. If we get a republican then must likly we would send troops to fight Isis and maybe the Syrian goverment and support our allies even more and try to get the Sunni Islam nations to unite with us. This would hurt Russia's goal. Plus there is a chance the republican would support Georgia and Ukraine and try to get them to join NATO this would hurt Russias goals.

We absolutely should not send troops to fight ISIS. Too much risk, too little reward. What we should be doing is trying to bait the Russians into fighting ISIS for us, so that we don't have to deal with the problem ourselves.

We gain nothing by having Georgia or Ukraine join NATO, and lose a great deal.

4. If a republican comes in then we will send more warships to the south china sea to make sure china backs off. If you do not believe this then one watch the republican debates, two read the news, and three listen the republicans talk about this stuff.

Sending ships to the South China Sea does nothing to, at present, advance our strategic interests, and there is no reason to provoke China into acting militarily, which is what sending war ships to the south china sea would do.

We should be economically isolating China, and consolidating our diplomatic and economic power, to prevent war from even happening, while strengthening ourselves and weakening China, which is exactly what Obama is doing.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 4:58:39 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 11:14:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/17/2015 11:13:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
America experienced major harm from the Iraq War. But Russia also saw a much closer Iraqi alignment with the U.S. as a result of the war. That is, what Iran is to Russia now Iraq used to have that same kind of relationship with Russia. The Iraq War really couldn't be called a victory for Russia.

The War in Afghanistan, likewise, strengthened US-Afghan ties.

lol... no it did not. It made the Afghanis hate us, and get uncomfortably close to the Chinese, who are now exploiting Afghanistan's mineral resources, while we are wondering why we ever invaded in the first place.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 5:01:23 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 4:04:42 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/17/2015 4:02:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/17/2015 4:01:05 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/17/2015 1:15:09 AM, YYW wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

David Cameron mocked Donald Trump, openly.

Russia, China, Germany, and France are watching too.

They really don't want to deal with Hillary.

They are hoping a Republican will win.

Why the *expletive* would China and Russia want a Republican to win?

Because they will weaken the United States in the long run, most likely by destroying the tremendous progress that Obama has made.

This is highly questionable logic at best, and even if true in the short term it'd mean Russia and China would have a much more difficult time getting away with squat (I.e. Russia could be forced out of Crimea, China's bases in the South China Sea could be attacked by the U.S. navy, etc).

You really aren't thinking tactically here, and you're missing the big picture. There is no reason why the US should "retake" Crimea. We literally gain nothing, and would lose blood and treasure while risking an outright war with Russia, in Europe. That's like the dumbest idea ever. Especially considering even once we got Crimea, we would not exploit its mineral resources, but just return it to Ukraine. If Ukraine wants it back, they should take it back themselves. It is not our problem.

China's bases in the South China Sea are not our problem, either.
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 5:02:28 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 4:58:39 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/17/2015 11:14:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/17/2015 11:13:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
America experienced major harm from the Iraq War. But Russia also saw a much closer Iraqi alignment with the U.S. as a result of the war. That is, what Iran is to Russia now Iraq used to have that same kind of relationship with Russia. The Iraq War really couldn't be called a victory for Russia.

The War in Afghanistan, likewise, strengthened US-Afghan ties.

lol... no it did not. It made the Afghanis hate us, and get uncomfortably close to the Chinese, who are now exploiting Afghanistan's mineral resources, while we are wondering why we ever invaded in the first place.

There was virtually no security cooperation between Afghanistan and the U.S. prior to October 7 2001. Now it's a fairly normal thing.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
YYW
Posts: 36,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 5:05:46 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 5:02:28 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/18/2015 4:58:39 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/17/2015 11:14:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/17/2015 11:13:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
America experienced major harm from the Iraq War. But Russia also saw a much closer Iraqi alignment with the U.S. as a result of the war. That is, what Iran is to Russia now Iraq used to have that same kind of relationship with Russia. The Iraq War really couldn't be called a victory for Russia.

The War in Afghanistan, likewise, strengthened US-Afghan ties.

lol... no it did not. It made the Afghanis hate us, and get uncomfortably close to the Chinese, who are now exploiting Afghanistan's mineral resources, while we are wondering why we ever invaded in the first place.

There was virtually no security cooperation between Afghanistan and the U.S. prior to October 7 2001. Now it's a fairly normal thing.

Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 5:10:59 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 5:01:23 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/17/2015 4:04:42 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/17/2015 4:02:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/17/2015 4:01:05 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/17/2015 1:15:09 AM, YYW wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

David Cameron mocked Donald Trump, openly.

Russia, China, Germany, and France are watching too.

They really don't want to deal with Hillary.

They are hoping a Republican will win.

Why the *expletive* would China and Russia want a Republican to win?

Because they will weaken the United States in the long run, most likely by destroying the tremendous progress that Obama has made.

This is highly questionable logic at best, and even if true in the short term it'd mean Russia and China would have a much more difficult time getting away with squat (I.e. Russia could be forced out of Crimea, China's bases in the South China Sea could be attacked by the U.S. navy, etc).

You really aren't thinking tactically here, and you're missing the big picture. There is no reason why the US should "retake" Crimea. We literally gain nothing, and would lose blood and treasure while risking an outright war with Russia, in Europe. That's like the dumbest idea ever. Especially considering even once we got Crimea, we would not exploit its mineral resources, but just return it to Ukraine. If Ukraine wants it back, they should take it back themselves. It is not our problem.

China's bases in the South China Sea are not our problem, either.

There are more benefits than you think. By taking the "FON is good" stance in the South China Sea we strengthen ties with the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, etc. Also, China controlling the South China Sea will definitely confer advantages upon China, and as a nation striving to compete against China this is undesirable.
Like I said, retaking Crimea would strengthen faith in the willingness of NATO leaders to actually do stuff to defend NATO. I could see the big problem with this emerging from the fact that Ukraine is not part of NATO, but a "We give you back Crimea and in exchange you join NATO" deal could make it worth our while. As you yourself said the Russian government is acting out to increase approval ratings at home; having thousands Russian soldiers die and billions wasted for no gain for Russia may be just what's needed to oust the United Russia party from power.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 5:13:35 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 5:05:46 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/18/2015 5:02:28 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/18/2015 4:58:39 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/17/2015 11:14:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/17/2015 11:13:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
America experienced major harm from the Iraq War. But Russia also saw a much closer Iraqi alignment with the U.S. as a result of the war. That is, what Iran is to Russia now Iraq used to have that same kind of relationship with Russia. The Iraq War really couldn't be called a victory for Russia.

The War in Afghanistan, likewise, strengthened US-Afghan ties.

lol... no it did not. It made the Afghanis hate us, and get uncomfortably close to the Chinese, who are now exploiting Afghanistan's mineral resources, while we are wondering why we ever invaded in the first place.

There was virtually no security cooperation between Afghanistan and the U.S. prior to October 7 2001. Now it's a fairly normal thing.

Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

"According to a BBC 2012 poll the U.S. was the most favored country in Afghanistan."
"In the last decade, Afghan-American relations have become stronger than ever before."
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
YYW
Posts: 36,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 5:15:46 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 5:13:35 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/18/2015 5:05:46 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/18/2015 5:02:28 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/18/2015 4:58:39 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/17/2015 11:14:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/17/2015 11:13:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
America experienced major harm from the Iraq War. But Russia also saw a much closer Iraqi alignment with the U.S. as a result of the war. That is, what Iran is to Russia now Iraq used to have that same kind of relationship with Russia. The Iraq War really couldn't be called a victory for Russia.

The War in Afghanistan, likewise, strengthened US-Afghan ties.

lol... no it did not. It made the Afghanis hate us, and get uncomfortably close to the Chinese, who are now exploiting Afghanistan's mineral resources, while we are wondering why we ever invaded in the first place.

There was virtually no security cooperation between Afghanistan and the U.S. prior to October 7 2001. Now it's a fairly normal thing.

Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

"According to a BBC 2012 poll the U.S. was the most favored country in Afghanistan."
"In the last decade, Afghan-American relations have become stronger than ever before."

The Obama administration has strengthened US-Afghani relations to its highest point in history, but that wasn't your statement. Your statement was that there was virtually no security cooperation between the US and Iran prior to October 7, 2001, and the article proves that to be false.
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 5:17:05 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 5:15:46 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/18/2015 5:13:35 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/18/2015 5:05:46 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/18/2015 5:02:28 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/18/2015 4:58:39 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/17/2015 11:14:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/17/2015 11:13:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
America experienced major harm from the Iraq War. But Russia also saw a much closer Iraqi alignment with the U.S. as a result of the war. That is, what Iran is to Russia now Iraq used to have that same kind of relationship with Russia. The Iraq War really couldn't be called a victory for Russia.

The War in Afghanistan, likewise, strengthened US-Afghan ties.

lol... no it did not. It made the Afghanis hate us, and get uncomfortably close to the Chinese, who are now exploiting Afghanistan's mineral resources, while we are wondering why we ever invaded in the first place.

There was virtually no security cooperation between Afghanistan and the U.S. prior to October 7 2001. Now it's a fairly normal thing.

Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

"According to a BBC 2012 poll the U.S. was the most favored country in Afghanistan."
"In the last decade, Afghan-American relations have become stronger than ever before."

The Obama administration has strengthened US-Afghani relations to its highest point in history, but that wasn't your statement. Your statement was that there was virtually no security cooperation between the US and Iran prior to October 7, 2001, and the article proves that to be false.

I don't know which part of the article you were trying to point out. All the link did was take me to the article in general, not any specific part of it.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
YYW
Posts: 36,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 5:19:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 5:17:05 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/18/2015 5:15:46 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/18/2015 5:13:35 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/18/2015 5:05:46 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/18/2015 5:02:28 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/18/2015 4:58:39 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/17/2015 11:14:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/17/2015 11:13:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
America experienced major harm from the Iraq War. But Russia also saw a much closer Iraqi alignment with the U.S. as a result of the war. That is, what Iran is to Russia now Iraq used to have that same kind of relationship with Russia. The Iraq War really couldn't be called a victory for Russia.

The War in Afghanistan, likewise, strengthened US-Afghan ties.

lol... no it did not. It made the Afghanis hate us, and get uncomfortably close to the Chinese, who are now exploiting Afghanistan's mineral resources, while we are wondering why we ever invaded in the first place.

There was virtually no security cooperation between Afghanistan and the U.S. prior to October 7 2001. Now it's a fairly normal thing.

Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

"According to a BBC 2012 poll the U.S. was the most favored country in Afghanistan."
"In the last decade, Afghan-American relations have become stronger than ever before."

The Obama administration has strengthened US-Afghani relations to its highest point in history, but that wasn't your statement. Your statement was that there was virtually no security cooperation between the US and Iran prior to October 7, 2001, and the article proves that to be false.

I don't know which part of the article you were trying to point out. All the link did was take me to the article in general, not any specific part of it.

It irritates me when I try to provide people with background knowledge, and they say things like "but it's too long!"

While the Soviet Union was supporting Cuba's Fidel Castro, the United States was focusing on Afghanistan for its strategic purposes. This was mainly to counter the spread of communism and the strength of the Soviet Union into South Asia, particularly the Persian Gulf.
President Eisenhower made a state visit to Afghanistan in December 1959 to meet with its leaders. He landed at Bagram Airfield and then drove from there to Kabul in a motorcade.[8] He met with King Zahir Shah, Prime Minister Daoud and a number of high-ranking government officials. He also took a tour of Kabul. After this important visit, the United States began to feel that Afghanistan was safe from ever becoming a Soviet satellite state. From the 1950s to 1979, U.S. foreign assistance provided Afghanistan with more than $500 million in loans, grants, and surplus agricultural commodities to develop transportation facilities, increase agricultural production, expand the educational system, stimulate industry, and improve government administration.[5]
In 1963, King Zahir Shah of Afghanistan made a special state visit to the United States where he was met by John F. Kennedy and Eunice Kennedy Shriver. Zahir Shah also took a special tour of the United States, visiting Disney Land in California, New York and other places. Habibullah Karzai, uncle of Hamid Karzai who served as representative of Afghanistan at the United Nations, is also believed to have accompanied Zahir Shah in the course of the King's state visit.[9] During this period the Soviets were beginning to feel that the United States was turning Afghanistan into a satellite state. In 1965, Afghanistan and Cuba saw the establishment of communist parties, the Communist Party of Cuba and the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA).
Vice President Spiro Agnew, accompanied by Apollo 10 astronauts Thomas Stafford and Eugene Cernan, visited Kabul during an eleven-nation tour of Asia. At a formal dinner hosted by the Royal Family, the American delegation presented the King with a piece of lunar rock, a small Afghan flag carried on the Apollo 11 flight to the moon, and photographs of Afghanistan taken from space. By the 1970s, numerous American teachers, engineers, doctors, scholars, diplomats, and explorers had traversed Afghanistan's rugged landscape where they lived and worked. The Peace Corps was active in Afghanistan between 1962 and 1979. Many other American programs were running in the country such as CARE, American Scouting overseas (Afghanistan Scout Association), USAID, and others.

After the April 1978 Saur Revolution, relations between the two nations deteriorated. In February 1979, U.S. Ambassador Adolph "Spike" Dubs was murdered in Kabul after Afghan security forces burst in on his kidnappers. The U.S. then reduced bilateral assistance and terminated a small military training program. All remaining assistance agreements were ended after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Following the Soviet invasion, the United States supported diplomatic efforts to achieve a Soviet withdrawal. In addition, generous U.S. contributions to the refugee program in Pakistan played a major part in efforts to assist Afghan refugees. U.S. efforts also included helping the population living inside Afghanistan. This cross-border humanitarian assistance program aimed at increasing Afghan self-sufficiency and helping resist Soviet attempts to drive civilians out of the rebel-dominated countryside. During the period of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the U.S. provided about 3 billion US dollars in military and economic assistance to the Mujahideen groups stationed on the Pakistani side of the Durand Line. The U.S. Embassy in Kabul was closed in January 1989 for security reasons.
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 5:25:01 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 5:19:08 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/18/2015 5:17:05 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/18/2015 5:15:46 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/18/2015 5:13:35 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/18/2015 5:05:46 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/18/2015 5:02:28 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/18/2015 4:58:39 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/17/2015 11:14:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/17/2015 11:13:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
America experienced major harm from the Iraq War. But Russia also saw a much closer Iraqi alignment with the U.S. as a result of the war. That is, what Iran is to Russia now Iraq used to have that same kind of relationship with Russia. The Iraq War really couldn't be called a victory for Russia.

The War in Afghanistan, likewise, strengthened US-Afghan ties.

lol... no it did not. It made the Afghanis hate us, and get uncomfortably close to the Chinese, who are now exploiting Afghanistan's mineral resources, while we are wondering why we ever invaded in the first place.

There was virtually no security cooperation between Afghanistan and the U.S. prior to October 7 2001. Now it's a fairly normal thing.

Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

"According to a BBC 2012 poll the U.S. was the most favored country in Afghanistan."
"In the last decade, Afghan-American relations have become stronger than ever before."

The Obama administration has strengthened US-Afghani relations to its highest point in history, but that wasn't your statement. Your statement was that there was virtually no security cooperation between the US and Iran prior to October 7, 2001, and the article proves that to be false.

I don't know which part of the article you were trying to point out. All the link did was take me to the article in general, not any specific part of it.

It irritates me when I try to provide people with background knowledge, and they say things like "but it's too long!"

While the Soviet Union was supporting Cuba's Fidel Castro, the United States was focusing on Afghanistan for its strategic purposes. This was mainly to counter the spread of communism and the strength of the Soviet Union into South Asia, particularly the Persian Gulf.
President Eisenhower made a state visit to Afghanistan in December 1959 to meet with its leaders. He landed at Bagram Airfield and then drove from there to Kabul in a motorcade.[8] He met with King Zahir Shah, Prime Minister Daoud and a number of high-ranking government officials. He also took a tour of Kabul. After this important visit, the United States began to feel that Afghanistan was safe from ever becoming a Soviet satellite state. From the 1950s to 1979, U.S. foreign assistance provided Afghanistan with more than $500 million in loans, grants, and surplus agricultural commodities to develop transportation facilities, increase agricultural production, expand the educational system, stimulate industry, and improve government administration.[5]
In 1963, King Zahir Shah of Afghanistan made a special state visit to the United States where he was met by John F. Kennedy and Eunice Kennedy Shriver. Zahir Shah also took a special tour of the United States, visiting Disney Land in California, New York and other places. Habibullah Karzai, uncle of Hamid Karzai who served as representative of Afghanistan at the United Nations, is also believed to have accompanied Zahir Shah in the course of the King's state visit.[9] During this period the Soviets were beginning to feel that the United States was turning Afghanistan into a satellite state. In 1965, Afghanistan and Cuba saw the establishment of communist parties, the Communist Party of Cuba and the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA).
Vice President Spiro Agnew, accompanied by Apollo 10 astronauts Thomas Stafford and Eugene Cernan, visited Kabul during an eleven-nation tour of Asia. At a formal dinner hosted by the Royal Family, the American delegation presented the King with a piece of lunar rock, a small Afghan flag carried on the Apollo 11 flight to the moon, and photographs of Afghanistan taken from space. By the 1970s, numerous American teachers, engineers, doctors, scholars, diplomats, and explorers had traversed Afghanistan's rugged landscape where they lived and worked. The Peace Corps was active in Afghanistan between 1962 and 1979. Many other American programs were running in the country such as CARE, American Scouting overseas (Afghanistan Scout Association), USAID, and others.

After the April 1978 Saur Revolution, relations between the two nations deteriorated. In February 1979, U.S. Ambassador Adolph "Spike" Dubs was murdered in Kabul after Afghan security forces burst in on his kidnappers. The U.S. then reduced bilateral assistance and terminated a small military training program. All remaining assistance agreements were ended after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Following the Soviet invasion, the United States supported diplomatic efforts to achieve a Soviet withdrawal. In addition, generous U.S. contributions to the refugee program in Pakistan played a major part in efforts to assist Afghan refugees. U.S. efforts also included helping the population living inside Afghanistan. This cross-border humanitarian assistance program aimed at increasing Afghan self-sufficiency and helping resist Soviet attempts to drive civilians out of the rebel-dominated countryside. During the period of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the U.S. provided about 3 billion US dollars in military and economic assistance to the Mujahideen groups stationed on the Pakistani side of the Durand Line. The U.S. Embassy in Kabul was closed in January 1989 for security reasons.

By security cooperation I meant U.S. and Afghan forces engaging in missions side by side, but you've made your point here loud and clear.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 3:37:26 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
You are assuming that the Obama administration has not been aggressive, in curtailing China's rise and Russia's imperial conquests, which is demonstrably false.
It's demonstrably fact that Russia's imperial conquests have not been curtailed at all under Obama.

Do you know what responsibility means to competent people? It means "It is necessary that I succeed." If Obama's responsibility is to aggressively curtail Russian conquest (I'm not so sure it is), he has failed.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.