• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Sweden, Finland, and Ukraine joining NATO?

And what you're saying here is "It's okay for Russia to do bad things, because these other motherfuckers have done bad things too."

Pointing out hypocrisy isn't an excuse for bad behavior. Stop saying that it is.

First off all; you haven't pointed out any hypocrisy, just made false equivalencies.

Secondly, if you don't want people thinking you're excusing Russia's behavior; then stop fucking excusing their behavior! What you may think you're saying and what you're actually saying are two very different things. Farmer Rob doesn't sound very convincing when he tells us that, "oh, I'm not excusing my neighbor Bob's murderous ways, no not at all! I'm just pointing out that constable Steven is an asshole who firebombed an orphanage last spring."


Besides, nobody is calling on the *US* specifically to stop Russia.

:rolleyes:

Feel free to come up with a quote of someone saying they do. And no, NATO is not synonymous with the US.
 
The Apocalypse is nigh! I actually agree wholeheartedly with Jason.

Luckily, the teabagger loons who want Murkkka to go Kick Putin's Butt are an impotent frothing minority. But it's important to recognise that they exist, and to remember how quickly their opinions became mainstream after 9/11. This twisted underbelly of Murkkin lunacy is always there, waiting for events to boil the pot until the scum rises to the top.

Fortunately, neither the opinion of teabagger loons nor the opinion of self-serving isolationists matters when it comes to what NATO will do. If Russia screws with say the Baltics; the US will respond as a part of NATO regardless of what the isolationists want, but NATO will not act on the hawkish whims of the tea party.
 
The Apocalypse is nigh! I actually agree wholeheartedly with Jason.

Luckily, the teabagger loons who want Murkkka to go Kick Putin's Butt are an impotent frothing minority. But it's important to recognise that they exist, and to remember how quickly their opinions became mainstream after 9/11. This twisted underbelly of Murkkin lunacy is always there, waiting for events to boil the pot until the scum rises to the top.

Fortunately, neither the opinion of teabagger loons nor the opinion of self-serving isolationists matters when it comes to what NATO will do. If Russia screws with say the Baltics; the US will respond as a part of NATO regardless of what the isolationists want, but NATO will not act on the hawkish whims of the tea party.

It's a good thing that Obama is still President. Can you imagine the reaction to the invasion of Ukraine if the Bush/Cheney-types were in charge? *shudder*
 
It's a good thing that Obama is still President. Can you imagine the reaction to the invasion of Ukraine if the Bush/Cheney-types were in charge? *shudder*

I very much doubt it'd be an overly different response. That's just partisan factionalism/word wars making you convinced that the "other guy" would start WW3. As low an opinion as I have of the types you mentioned, I don't for a second believe they'd have done anything remotely similar to what you seem to be imagining they would've. Beating up on smaller countries, sure; starting the war that may end all war as we know it? Not so much.
 
It's a good thing that Obama is still President. Can you imagine the reaction to the invasion of Ukraine if the Bush/Cheney-types were in charge? *shudder*

I very much doubt it'd be an overly different response. That's just partisan factionalism/word wars making you convinced that the "other guy" would start WW3. As low an opinion as I have of the types you mentioned, I don't for a second believe they'd have done anything remotely similar to what you seem to be imagining they would've. Beating up on smaller countries, sure; starting the war that may end all war as we know it? Not so much.

I'm not so sure. First of all, just for background, i was still a right-wing Fundamentalist Christian in 2000 and 2004. I voted for Bush, twice. So My opinions are informed by having been on both sides of the partisan divide.

Having said that, what I find most disturbing about Bush et al is how much they seemed to believe their own narrative. Invading Iraq was supposed to end with the Iraqi people welcoming us as liberators, like WWII soldiers liberating France. Dancing in the streets and a wholehearted embrace of democracy was sure to follow. It would not at all surprise me if these clowns honestly believed they could invade Russia and keep the war from going nuclear.
 
Russia sees itself as the inheritors of the Roman Empire, whose capital was Constantinople. They want it back! their religion - Orthodoxy - is the true one!

Everyone else needs to work with that, that we are all Barbarians. It does track back to Darius and Alexander and Marathon!
 
I'm not so sure. First of all, just for background, i was still a right-wing Fundamentalist Christian in 2000 and 2004. I voted for Bush, twice. So My opinions are informed by having been on both sides of the partisan divide.

That really only adds to my suspicions. I'm not blaming you, or anything; but it's a pretty straightforward fact that when a society gets divided between two political/ideological factions, these become lightning rods and the opinions of their adherents become increasingly polarized even if the actual positions and behavior of the faction leadership is virtually identical. It becomes far more about identity than anything else. "We" are right, sane, rational, good. "They" are the opposite. As a more objective outsider, I won't claim that they're equal. They clearly aren't; but I've certainly noticed that those on the American "Left" are themselves just as susceptible to black and white thinking as those on the right. By and large, they tend to be more reasonable; but not when they're implying nonsense like how if Bush had been in charge he'd have started WW3. That sort of a belief is just an expression of oppositional thinking born from factionalism.

As to why that just adds to the suspicion; it's quite natural for those who have strongly held a particular political/ideological/philosophical position to swing to an oppositional extreme when they get disillusioned. Having been on 'both' sides of the partisan divide doesn't make you more likely to be unbiased; but rather less likely.

Having said that, what I find most disturbing about Bush et al is how much they seemed to believe their own narrative. Invading Iraq was supposed to end with the Iraqi people welcoming us as liberators, like WWII soldiers liberating France. Dancing in the streets and a wholehearted embrace of democracy was sure to follow. It would not at all surprise me if these clowns honestly believed they could invade Russia and keep the war from going nuclear.

While I don't disagree with the believing their own narrative bit; the democrats are really no different in that regard. And there's a huge difference between believing that Iraq would welcome them as liberators, and deciding to invade Russia. You're subconsciously employing the same fear-mongering tactics the Republicans often engage in: "If these guys (who I just happen to be on the other side of in the political divide) were in power... IT WOULD SPELL OUR NUCLEAR DOOM". There's more than enough material to criticize the republicans with without having to devolve the discussion to the level of an average paranoid-laden slice of Fox News.
 
That really only adds to my suspicions. I'm not blaming you, or anything; but it's a pretty straightforward fact that when a society gets divided between two political/ideological factions, these become lightning rods and the opinions of their adherents become increasingly polarized even if the actual positions and behavior of the faction leadership is virtually identical. It becomes far more about identity than anything else. "We" are right, sane, rational, good. "They" are the opposite. As a more objective outsider, I won't claim that they're equal. They clearly aren't; but I've certainly noticed that those on the American "Left" are themselves just as susceptible to black and white thinking as those on the right. By and large, they tend to be more reasonable; but not when they're implying nonsense like how if Bush had been in charge he'd have started WW3. That sort of a belief is just an expression of oppositional thinking born from factionalism.

As to why that just adds to the suspicion; it's quite natural for those who have strongly held a particular political/ideological/philosophical position to swing to an oppositional extreme when they get disillusioned. Having been on 'both' sides of the partisan divide doesn't make you more likely to be unbiased; but rather less likely.

Having said that, what I find most disturbing about Bush et al is how much they seemed to believe their own narrative. Invading Iraq was supposed to end with the Iraqi people welcoming us as liberators, like WWII soldiers liberating France. Dancing in the streets and a wholehearted embrace of democracy was sure to follow. It would not at all surprise me if these clowns honestly believed they could invade Russia and keep the war from going nuclear.

While I don't disagree with the believing their own narrative bit; the democrats are really no different in that regard. And there's a huge difference between believing that Iraq would welcome them as liberators, and deciding to invade Russia. You're subconsciously employing the same fear-mongering tactics the Republicans often engage in: "If these guys (who I just happen to be on the other side of in the political divide) were in power... IT WOULD SPELL OUR NUCLEAR DOOM". There's more than enough material to criticize the republicans with without having to devolve the discussion to the level of an average paranoid-laden slice of Fox News.

Well, having been both rabidly liberal and rabidly conservative, one thing I learned is that most people on either side of the divide are decent people, often swayed by the propaganda of their side to embrace indecent positions. The left is just as nuts as the right, but less likely to start wars. Riots, yes, wars no.

If Bush/Cheney or their allies were in power today, I think it's safe to say that at they very least they would be escalating the rhetoric and sabre-rattling. And the problem with that scenario is that we would have demagogues on both sides - Russia and the USA - who just might talk themselves into a corner. Even if the conflict did manage to stay non-nuclear, a ground war in Crimea would be seriously ugly.

I honestly think there are times when we need hawks in power. Right now is not one of those times.
 
I very much doubt it'd be an overly different response. That's just partisan factionalism/word wars making you convinced that the "other guy" would start WW3. As low an opinion as I have of the types you mentioned, I don't for a second believe they'd have done anything remotely similar to what you seem to be imagining they would've. Beating up on smaller countries, sure; starting the war that may end all war as we know it? Not so much.

I'm not so sure. First of all, just for background, i was still a right-wing Fundamentalist Christian in 2000 and 2004.
Oh boy, I was arguing with a former right-wing Fundamentalist Christian.
 
I honestly think there are times when we need hawks in power. Right now is not one of those times.

We certainly don't need appeasers in power either. That didn't work out very well the last time. What we need is to show a united front; which is difficult to do when you A) have Americans expressing isolationists sentiments (sentiments which always, frustratingly, seem to flare up right when it seems like they might get called on for something a little more serious than bombing a much weaker country), and B) have populist xenophobic/anti-eu parties and politicians in Europe "inexplicably" voicing support for Russia (I say inexplicably, even though it's now increasingly clear that many of them receive rather substantial amounts of money from Russia).
 
Russia did not invade anybody.
Same with Cuba, they did nothing wrong (at the time anyway) and yet US have bullied them for 60 years.
As for the british then fine. It was British who started this mess in ME by drawing arbitrary border lines between arbitrary countries. Mess in Iran is british work too.
Russia took something back which should have never been taken from them in the first place.
And they did not even take it, it left Ukraine fair and square.

The two bolded statements are incompatible.
 
Russia did not invade anybody.
Same with Cuba, they did nothing wrong (at the time anyway) and yet US have bullied them for 60 years.
As for the british then fine. It was British who started this mess in ME by drawing arbitrary border lines between arbitrary countries. Mess in Iran is british work too.
Russia took something back which should have never been taken from them in the first place.
And they did not even take it, it left Ukraine fair and square.

The two bolded statements are incompatible.

I seem to recall someone around here talking about how following the rules was important, or something. Like the rules for calling a referendum, and the like. Rules that keep Alaska or Hawaii from simply calling an ad-hoc referendum and seceding from the USA to join Canada or Japan. Rules that say that when part of a neighboring nation calls an illegal referendum, it's not an invitation to roll tanks and send illegally-dressed troops in to help the minority secede.

At least, I'm pretty sure someone was using 'follow the rules' as a justification for police brutality. I guess 'the rules' only apply to situations where you agree with the rules, eh?
 
Who has in the last 20 years been expanding more and engaging in conflicts worldwide, Russia or NATO/USA?
 
Who has in the last 20 years been expanding more and engaging in conflicts worldwide, Russia or NATO/USA?

Borders of USA have not changed since 1970. NATO is not a country so its "expansion" is hardly the same thing as Russia's invasion. I'm not sure whether NATO's member countries have annexed more territory combined, but I'm guessing they haven't.
 
Back
Top Bottom