Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It might be on the contrary.
Just imagine - the american MSM is very energetically brainwashing americans that the russians are brainwashed by their state propaganda.
It's not. The United States does not censor the internet like Russia does and I'm not aware of the United States government owning any media outlets in the United States. The Russian government on the other hand owns almost all media in Russia.
It actually it does unfortunately considering what Putin wants to do.
Actually, I don't think it does. Russia can't hope to compete with the US or even the EU and they're well aware of it. After Obama became President, when talking about Russia, he said he didn't believe in spheres of influence. Unfortunately, Russia doesn't see it that way and sees the United States as digging in its backyard. Get out of Russia's backyard and see how fast our relations improve.
The threat of groups like ISIS, and Al Qaeda would never have been possible if not for the U.S.'s interventionist foreign policy. U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is what has motivated the Jihad against the U.S., and has expanded it across the Middle East and North Africa.
If Iran wants nukes it is of no threat to the U.S. Iran is not a threat to the U.S., it is a third rate military power. North Korea has nukes, but no one is proposing lets go invade and take them.
The solution to the threat of the Jihad is to alter U.S. foreign policy. Stop supporting dictators and governments(Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, etc...), stop intervening in conflicts that are of no interest to the U.S. (Israel/Palestine, Syria, Libya, Iraq, etc...), and quit trying to force our way of government down their throats. If the Afghans want a Islamic regime ruling their country let them have it, it is not and never was the job of the U.S. to spread democracy by force around the world.
The U.S. should follow the Constitution, and adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy.
If Iran gets nukes and decides to nuke Saudi Arabia (which the Saudis fear) for example that would cause a global depression due to the ungodly spike in oil prices around the world.
Osama Bin Laden came to power because the US backed him in fighting the Soviet Union. They came to power because of the cold war.
As far as spreading democracy goes please give one example of a democracy going to war against another democracy?
Actually, I don't think it does. Russia can't hope to compete with the US or even the EU and they're well aware of it. After Obama became President, when talking about Russia, he said he didn't believe in spheres of influence. Unfortunately, Russia doesn't see it that way and sees the United States as digging in its backyard. Get out of Russia's backyard and see how fast our relations improve.
1. We didn't enter there backyard. That was Europe's doing not the United States with expanding the EU and wanting to expand Nato as well.
2. It doesn't matter at this point since Putin's intentions are clear and we are where we are.
3. They have been trying to compete with the US. Why do you think Putin considers the fall of the Soviet Union to be the biggest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century? It's not for benevolent reasons that's for sure.
He wasn't lying to himself like you are. If the US packed it's bags and became completely isolationist the world would go to ****.
*Japan would become a nuclear power to keep China at bay...that is if China doesn't nuke Japan first. The conflict over the south china sea would lead to a giant war shortly in Asia between China and it's neighbors rather quickly.
The chances are greater that Japan will acquiesce to Chinese demands rather than go to war. Japan is old and far too dependent on trade with China. The last time they tried something against China, the Chinese cut off the rare earth metals and boycotted their goods plunging Japan into a small recession. Japan simply does not have the resources to develop itself into a major military power. Nuclear weapons are useless when it comes to Japan since China already has nuclear weapons and is far ahead of Japan when it comes to nuclear weapons.
*North Korea would invade South Korea and about 10 million people would die within hours since Seoul is right there by the border and the civilians there would be caught in the crossfire.
China also has its military on North Korea's border. If the North Koreans did invaded South Korea, expect the Chinese to march in and take over the country. The Chinese don't want Korean refugees and they certainly don't want a unified Korea regardless of whether it is ruled by the Kim family or by a US backed democracy. Unified Vietnam has proven to be a huge headache for China and they most certainly wouldn't want a unified Korea since a unified Korea would make territorial demands.
*The middle east would fall apart almost instantly. Israel and several middle eastern countries would be dropping nukes on each other. Oil production would slow down if not cease altogether plunging the entire world into a depression.
Almost no Middle Eastern country with the exception of Iran has the capability of developing a nuclear weapon (both missile and nuclear weapon). Also none of the Islamic Middle Eastern countries have a modern military which makes it incredibly difficult for them to wage war on Israel. With the exception of 1948, almost all the Arab countries who attacked Israel were backed by the Soviets and received Soviet training. Currently, there is no such benefactor for the Arab states which means they will continue to have a backwards military and lack the capability of developing a nuclear weapon.
*Russia would invade countries that were once part of the Soviet Union trying to reclaim them which would lead to multiple wars and millions dead before it was over.
Russia is incapable of conducting a wide scale military operation and it most certainly wouldn't be able to stomach the casualties from a massive war. With the exception of a few former Soviet states (Georgia, the Baltics, and Ukraine), Russia has strong relations with most of the former Soviet states. The Russians have not made any claims to the former Soviet states and in fact it gave up some land such as Crimea and Northern Kazakhstan when the Soviet Union fell apart. Crimea is back in Russian hands but previously it did give it up.
*Since the US Navy would no longer keep the seas and oceans in the world open you will see a breakdown of international trade due to piracy and governments trying to enforce there own agendas on international trade causing it to collapse.
This is somewhat true but even then most countries would develop its navy to deal with piracy. International trade would not collapse just because the US Navy isn't there. Trade will continue since it is beneficial for most countries to continue to trade.
So to put it bluntly the world would be ****** without the US military.
1. We didn't enter there backyard. That was Europe's doing not the United States with expanding the EU and wanting to expand Nato as well.
NATO is a bigger issue than the EU and the US could easily block any expansion of NATO. The US basically runs NATO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa1984
2. It doesn't matter at this point since Putin's intentions are clear and we are where we are.
Actually, I don't think we're going to agree with what Putin's intentions are. You're the same person that just posted the possibility of Iran just up and nuking Saudi Arabia, which patently absurd. You clearly don't have a realistic view of the world. Instead, you probably call yourself a "realist" while in fact underestimating the rationality of the countries we're opposed to, preferring to believe an almost cartoonish caricature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa1984
3. They have been trying to compete with the US. Why do you think Putin considers the fall of the Soviet Union to be the biggest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century? It's not for benevolent reasons that's for sure.
lol
This proves the point I just made. Putin's #1 goal is to maintain his own power in Russia. That's it. The US don't enter into it. That beats everything else. Of course he's going to say that, Russians like to hear that, that's exactly why he says it. It reminds them of when they used to be powerful and respected. There is no realistic possibility of Russia ever attaining that again (and Putin is well aware of this), they're a shell of their former Soviet selves. Basically they're now a petrostate who's economic outlook relies largely on the price of oil and natural gas.
The UN is the world's police, not the US. That's why they have peacekeeping forces. Also, the US, Russia, and the EU have agreements for cooperation in combating terrorists. It's a global issue. Also, the Russian FSB shares information with the CIA and other intelligence services to prevent terrorist attacks.
Trust me, there have been recent and serious terror attacks in Russia too. Especially last New Years at the train station and in the bus in Volgograd. And problems in Chechnya.
Btw, the FSB warned the CIA about the Tsarnaev brothers before the Boston Marathon bombing. My question - why didn't the US listen?
The UN is about ******* useless at being the world policeman and always will be because no country is going to give up it's sovereignty and have the UN become a world government. Not to mention the UN is in no way shape or form set up to be a world government.
If Iran gets nukes and decides to nuke Saudi Arabia (which the Saudis fear) for example that would cause a global depression due to the ungodly spike in oil prices around the world.
Osama Bin Laden came to power because the US backed him in fighting the Soviet Union. They came to power because of the cold war.
As far as spreading democracy goes please give one example of a democracy going to war against another democracy?
With Bin Laden you have proved my point that the U.S.'s interventionist foreign policy has backfired on itself.
If Saudi Arabia fears being nuked by Iran it is a problem for Saudi Arabia, not the U.S. North Korea, far more insane and totalitarian than Iran, has nukes and could nuke South Korea, but no one is saying lets invade North Korea and take them, like what has been proposed for Iran. The more the U.S. threatens Iran the more likely Iran will build a nuclear weapon, and become more aggressive towards its perceived enemies (U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc...)
It is not the job of the U.S. to install, or support governments around the world. A lot of governments the U.S. supports (Saudi Arabia) are totalitarian, which makes any message the U.S. supports democracy and freedom hypocritical.
The chances are greater that Japan will acquiesce to Chinese demands rather than go to war. Japan is old and far too dependent on trade with China. The last time they tried something against China, the Chinese cut off the rare earth metals and boycotted their goods plunging Japan into a small recession. Japan simply does not have the resources to develop itself into a major military power. Nuclear weapons are useless when it comes to Japan since China already has nuclear weapons and is far ahead of Japan when it comes to nuclear weapons.
It's very unlikely Japan will acquiesce to China due to continued conflicts between them that are still on going and the fact Japan has been building up it's military and government officials there are trying to figure a legal way to acquire aircraft carriers.
Quote:
China also has its military on North Korea's border. If the North Koreans did invaded South Korea, expect the Chinese to march in and take over the country. The Chinese don't want Korean refugees and they certainly don't want a unified Korea regardless of whether it is ruled by the Kim family or by a US backed democracy. Unified Vietnam has proven to be a huge headache for China and they most certainly wouldn't want a unified Korea since a unified Korea would make territorial demands.
Even more reason for the United States not to pull out of South Korea.
Quote:
Almost no Middle Eastern country with the exception of Iran has the capability of developing a nuclear weapon (both missile and nuclear weapon). Also none of the Islamic Middle Eastern countries have a modern military which makes it incredibly difficult for them to wage war on Israel. With the exception of 1948, almost all the Arab countries who attacked Israel were backed by the Soviets and received Soviet training. Currently, there is no such benefactor for the Arab states which means they will continue to have a backwards military and lack the capability of developing a nuclear weapon.
Develop? They might just buy them. Pakistan is not a stable country at all and that is where North Korea got it's ability to develop nuclear weapons. Pakistan would likely sell nuclear weapons to terrorist groups and different countries in the middle east if it wasn't for the United States. Saudi Arabia has a modern military and so do several other middle east countries although that is do to fear of Iran then wanting to destroy Israel...on the other hand if the United States drops all support for Israel the region would all turn on Israel.
Quote:
Russia is incapable of conducting a wide scale military operation and it most certainly wouldn't be able to stomach the casualties from a massive war. With the exception of a few former Soviet states (Georgia, the Baltics, and Ukraine), Russia has strong relations with most of the former Soviet states. The Russians have not made any claims to the former Soviet states and in fact it gave up some land such as Crimea and Northern Kazakhstan when the Soviet Union fell apart. Crimea is back in Russian hands but previously it did give it up.
Russia gave up some land when the Soviet Union fell apart because it was broke and had it's own internal problems to worry about. As far as stomaching massive casualties goes I would agree with you when Russia briefly had a free media but now that the Russian government runs the media I don't agree with you because they will just lie about how many would die. Just like the Soviet Union did under Stalin.
Quote:
This is somewhat true but even then most countries would develop its navy to deal with piracy. International trade would not collapse just because the US Navy isn't there. Trade will continue since it is beneficial for most countries to continue to trade.
For a while perhaps until global order falls apart and everyone tries to start taxing every vessel in the oceans for being in it's "waters" and trying to restrict what vessels can and can't be in there "waters".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
