EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3503
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13955 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21700 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13955 Posts
How much is your republic worth to you? A few thousand euros? | ||
micronesia
United States24690 Posts
On February 13 2022 22:20 Sermokala wrote: Christ the euros really are just going to let the Russians walk over them and let putin rebuild the Soviet union. I wouldn't judge what all Europeans think based on what a couple of users in this thread happened to say. On the other hand, I agree that capitulation and appeasement doesn't seem like the right answer to Russia blatantly invading Ukraine. As was discussed earlier in this thread, allowing nations to seize other nations tends to escalate. I would also expect the USA to learn from the mistakes of 1939-1941 and not try to remain neutral while aggressive nations are invading other nations and voluntarily escalating global events into a world war. | ||
|
stilt
France2749 Posts
On February 13 2022 23:27 Sermokala wrote: No one's asking for a war with Russia but they don't seem to understand why they should even be inconvenienced for their Democratic traditions or international freedom. How much is your republic worth to you? A few thousand euros? You slaughtered 1 million iraqis for a bunch of lies and now usa is ready to start of World war by breaking treaties and manages once again to portray themselves as the victims. Murica is a special kind of country, I hope the chinese put you down where you belong. As part as freedom goes, "freedom" is always for the countey whoch are dumb enough to bend over, the other end up with economical sanction, dictatures (south america) and terrorism funding (the whole middle east for the whole second part of the last century and then you cry about terrorism while you're creating it bunch of hypocrites). Freedom with a hegemonic power which can convince his whole populace on going at war at any day is not freedom. | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1056 Posts
On February 13 2022 22:20 Sermokala wrote: Christ the euros really are just going to let the Russians walk over them and let putin rebuild the Soviet union. Our government already inofficially declared that no weapons or ammunition will be sent, this will be the final decision. The far right and parts of the far left are Russias buddies. Germany doesn't even allow Estonia to send 50 year old east German howitzers we sold them and which they would like to help out with. Reportedly the request is just being ignored and yes, it's shameful and being powerless sucks. I expect protests and humanitarian help, after the dust has settled, IF it happens. That will be it.  | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria818 Posts
On February 13 2022 22:20 Sermokala wrote: Christ the euros really are just going to let the Russians walk over them and let putin rebuild the Soviet union. You don't understand Europe one bit, at all, really. You need to read some history about Europe. This continent has had way too many wars over the years, I'm sure I speak on behalf of many Europeans that we're tired of more wars. However, don't make a mistake that this is a capitulation or appeasement. We've enjoyed relative peace since 1989 (yes, I include end of Cold War). This is why going with diplomacy first is the right approach. What NATO currently does is the right approach. Negotiate, negotiate and negotiate and leave sanctions as a last resort. Yes, this situation is very similar with how it started with Hitler and Europe, Putin isn't much better than him, he is only more restrained because there are nuclear weapons now. This is why Europe can't go head first to war with Russia. It's easy to promote war in Europe when it's not in your country, heck, not even on your continent. You should put yourself in our shoes really. You can't blame EU here when US hasn't committed to helping Ukraine actively on the ground either. At best, that's hypocrisy and it only serves Russia to argue here. Instead, we should focus on a unified response against Russia to prevent weak links. For the record, Russia *cannot* rebuild USSR due to NATO. They know and respect article 5 all too well. That is exactly why they try to gain some concessions. As long as NATO says Russia's demands are non-starters, I think we're good. No Iron Courtain 2 should appear again this way, at least not in the previous form. My personal opinion is that this crisis can be resolved if NATO and Russia enter serious, mutually respected agreements without going overboard with demands. Sort of what Reagan and Gorbachev negotiated back then, that should be enough. If Russia doesn't like it, we shouldn't move an inch, as long as that line is drawn that has to be enough. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On February 13 2022 21:03 SC-Shield wrote: By the way, I just want to share anti-corruption investigations by Navalny and his team: https://www.youtube.com/c/АлексейНавальный Once you watch these videos (they have EN subtitles), you'll likely realise how incredibly corrupt senior Russian politicians are. Relation to the Ukraine crisis is, you can't trust a word they say like "it's western hysteria", "we won't invade", etc. I probably don't need to persuade any of people here since it's western community, but if there is media you should be skeptical of, that's Russian state media for sure. The sheer number of troops and where they are positioning should tell anyone with a brain that this is a serious threat and not "western hysteria". Maybe they could get away with that story if it weren't for aerial and satellite surveillance. | ||
|
justanothertownie
16318 Posts
On February 14 2022 00:31 Starlightsun wrote: The sheer number of troops and where they are positioning should tell anyone with a brain that this is a serious threat and not "western hysteria". Maybe they could get away with that story if it weren't for aerial and satellite surveillance. Of course it is a threat. But if every situation where Russia stationed large numbers of troops on a boarder lead to a war then we would have had a lot of them in recent memory. People should talk to each other without all the stupid grandstanding for political gain and when no suitable compromise can be achieved then the harshest possible sanctions should be employed (which I am sure is a lot more then has been done so far, even if it should have been after Crimea). | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13955 Posts
On February 13 2022 23:41 stilt wrote: You slaughtered 1 million iraqis for a bunch of lies and now usa is ready to start of World war by breaking treaties and manages once again to portray themselves as the victims. Murica is a special kind of country, I hope the chinese put you down where you belong. As part as freedom goes, "freedom" is always for the countey whoch are dumb enough to bend over, the other end up with economical sanction, dictatures (south america) and terrorism funding (the whole middle east for the whole second part of the last century and then you cry about terrorism while you're creating it bunch of hypocrites). Freedom with a hegemonic power which can convince his whole populace on going to war at any day is not freedom. So you'd rather the Chinese boot than the American one? No one's stating they want to start a war but no euro country I can see is even willing to pay any economic cost to hurt Russia for what they are talking about doing to Ukraine. Negotiations aren't happening with Russia because they see Ukraine as already as good as joining nato. The only thing that can stop them is a committed and extensive series of consequences for them if they cross the line. Europe seems to have learned nothing from the world wars and seems to wish to repeat them. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8986 Posts
On February 13 2022 16:15 Introvert wrote: This post actually makes me think of the "success breeds optimism" from a different angle. Whether or not everyone here agrees, I'm sure most people have heard the saying that unlike almost every other country on earth, America is a creedal nation. While it obviously had heavy influence from those people and ideas that were most familiar to its founders from before it's inception, at the moment of its creation it was new and unique. If this is true, AND it's true that Americans are more ideological than some of their western counterparts (perhaps the former is somehow the cause of the latter) I suppose I could see the argument that it's ideological back and forth that hampers "progress." I wonder if the relative success and prosperity in some ways drives all these arguments. Over its history America has spent more time arguing and fighting with itself than those outside and perhaps that, combined with racial, geographical, and cultural diversity, means it's simply harder to agree, because there are far too many groups to all agree. Now to be fair, Madison actually liked this idea of the "extended republic." No one group would be large so they would have to compromise. I view this as a feature, as I am greatly concerned with stopping bad things. It may be that things have to become very bad before enough people agree to compromise for a solution. If I recall my history correctly, at the time of the founding it was believed a republican form of government only really worked for small, homogenous [city] states. Madison thought it could work on a much bigger scale, but maybe he was wrong  But as I said, I am generally a fan of "gridlock" although I suppose a further complication is that having such a high bar for action means that by the time events necessitate action, it's too late to give an issue the thought and cool heads it may require. But that's a (long) aside. Is America slow to change because of its constitution, or is its constitution slow to change because of Americans? Do they reinforce each other? While I don't agree exactly, I think you may be on to something that ideology really does play a role. So maybe 1) federalism 2) ideological diversity (perhaps a result or at least supported by the federalist system) and 3) an optimistic, forward looking disposition, again maybe driven or reinforced by good times. Sorry if that was kind meandering, it's getting late (for me). Thanks for expanding upon your thoughts. I agree with much of what you're saying. And as recent posts have shown from users all over, Americans view of the world aren't coherent with what reality is based in. We can see Russia doing what they're doing and go "Shit, I'd be damned if I just let them walk to my door and threaten to kick it in. We shooting over here." But that is from a place of privilege. Red Dawn, although fictional, is something to think about. What would happen if America was invaded? Would we be so quick to jump off and start fighting, or would we be as hesitant as the Europeans knowing the ramifications? Would we have gotten to that point if progress had occurred earlier? Or if that violent upheaval had occurred earlier and necessitated change? Is it truly the constitution that is hampering progress? It's been amended a thousand times already. Why not amend it more? Is it time for Constitution 2.0 where we wildly reimagine it for a technologically advanced nation? At what point do we take our political leaders to task? What would you deem an appropriate level of action to start manifesting said change? Does it need to be a diverse group or a single monolithic group (minorities and under-represented are probably the groups to take action first) to spark it? I guess all of the questions I'm asking can be boiled down to: In the discourse of American politics, when is enough, enough and when do we the people, force the nation to be reflective and attentive to the needs of our people, knowing we can literally provide for all without batting an eye? | ||
|
justanothertownie
16318 Posts
On February 14 2022 01:09 Sermokala wrote: So you'd rather the Chinese boot than the American one? No one's stating they want to start a war but no euro country I can see is even willing to pay any economic cost to hurt Russia for what they are talking about doing to Ukraine. Negotiations aren't happening with Russia because they see Ukraine as already as good as joining nato. The only thing that can stop them is a committed and extensive series of consequences for them if they cross the line. Europe seems to have learned nothing from the world wars and seems to wish to repeat them. Because trying not to let a war happen is "wishing to repeat the world wars" while going to war/posturing against russia is not. Clearly a reasonable take on this one. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21700 Posts
On February 14 2022 01:15 justanothertownie wrote: Everyone wishes for a war to not happen. That is why they all say to Russia 'Do not invade Ukraine'.Because trying not to let a war happen is "wishing to repeat the world wars" while going to war/posturing against russia is not. Clearly a reasonable take on this one. The problem is that sanctions have had no real effect after Crimea, we're here with Russia wanted the rest after all. Throwing Ukraine to the wolves and hoping Russia is satisfied afterwards is 'repeating the world wars' because "we really don't want a war, lets avoid conflict at all costs" didn't stop Nazi Germany from being satisfied after taking Sudetenland. The problem is that after sanctions fail, and they have failed (again, see Crimea) the next option is the threat of violence. And if Russia calls the worlds bluff and invaded Ukraine we either respond, or we fold and Putin gets to grab whatever country he wants. Now note, respond doesn't mean we need to start trading nukes with Russia right away. If Putin invades the first step would be a strike on the invading forces to drive them back out of Ukraine. We don't want to invade Russia itself. Avoiding war takes 2. If Russia keeps pushing there may well be no other option. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On February 14 2022 01:15 justanothertownie wrote: Because trying not to let a war happen is "wishing to repeat the world wars" while going to war/posturing against russia is not. Clearly a reasonable take on this one. That's the irony about military buildup and brinksmanship isn't it? You need posturing to prevent Russia from expanding one separatist region at a time, but posturing also pushes everyone towards escalation. But maybe you're right, stepping back is probably best. Sure, maybe at some point Russia will recognize the independence of the Donbas republics, will quickly churn out a referendum there to join the Russian Federation, and send troops to the new border (well, official troops, I mean), but maybe Putin will stop there, so it's all good. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7241 Posts
If you told me there was 0 chance of nuclear or biological weapons being used id be all for heavy intervention. The fact is Russia is a nuclear power and that needs to be considered when response and escalation is considered. We should tell them Ukraine wont join NATO and mean it. If they refuse to fuck off we have lost nothing and are at the same situation we have today. If they do fuckoff we avoided a horrific war with untold costs for all sides. It honestly feels like a dick measuring contest with nuclear weapons involved. | ||
|
justanothertownie
16318 Posts
On February 14 2022 01:36 Gorsameth wrote: Everyone wishes for a war to not happen. That is why they all say to Russia 'Do not invade Ukraine'. The problem is that sanctions have had no real effect after Crimea, we're here with Russia wanted the rest after all. Throwing Ukraine to the wolves and hoping Russia is satisfied afterwards is 'repeating the world wars' because "we really don't want a war, lets avoid conflict at all costs" didn't stop Nazi Germany from being satisfied after taking Sudetenland. The problem is that after sanctions fail, and they have failed (again, see Crimea) the next option is the threat of violence. And if Russia calls the worlds bluff and invaded Ukraine we either respond, or we fold and Putin gets to grab whatever country he wants. Now note, respond doesn't mean we need to start trading nukes with Russia right away. If Putin invades the first step would be a strike on the invading forces to drive them back out of Ukraine. We don't want to invade Russia itself. Avoiding war takes 2. If Russia keeps pushing there may well be no other option. I am familiar with german history. I am quite certain that a lot harsher sanctions that would actually hurt russia are possible. Being firm about doing that and following through with it seems a lot more sensible to me than bluffing about properly going to war against them and then not doing that. Will Putin quietly back down if Biden is sable rattling? I have my doubts. This is not something he can sell to his populace while remaining his strongman image. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On February 13 2022 22:27 Gorsameth wrote: Some of us don't, but I can't blame people for being worried about a possible war with Russia. The mistake they are making is assuming they have a choice between “yes” or “no”, when in reality it is “when they are weaker” or “when they are stronger”. People are so spoiled by peace they can’t grasp the idea of actual evil intent for war | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 14 2022 00:31 Starlightsun wrote: The sheer number of troops and where they are positioning should tell anyone with a brain that this is a serious threat and not "western hysteria". Maybe they could get away with that story if it weren't for aerial and satellite surveillance. Yeah, remember the last time they massed this many troops on the border? It's truly unprecedented. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21700 Posts
On February 14 2022 01:44 Sadist wrote: Ukraine wants in NATO because its their only defence against Russia. If Russia wasn't aggressive towards its neighbours Ukraine wouldn't need NATO.People need to remember hitler and ww2 did not involve nuclear weapons. If you told me there was 0 chance of nuclear or biological weapons being used id be all for heavy intervention. The fact is Russia is a nuclear power and that needs to be considered when response and escalation is considered. We should tell them Ukraine wont join NATO and mean it. If they refuse to fuck off we have lost nothing and are at the same situation we have today. If they do fuckoff we avoided a horrific war with untold costs for all sides. It honestly feels like a dick measuring contest with nuclear weapons involved. And Russia's word is not worth the toilet paper its written on. Remember, their annexation of Crimea already violated the Bucharest memorandum to protect Ukraine's sovereignty, signed after the later gave up their nukes in the 90's (boy are they regretting that now...) | ||
| ||
