Why has NATO chosen Russia as its enemy instead of ISIS?

[frigidweirdo]

Not really. We know that military expenditure is an important part of some governments' policy. The US spends more than the next nine countries together, so much money in fact it's ridiculous. The need to have the enemy to provide the reason for this is clear.

After the Cold War (which supposedly Reagan won) the right were lost. Military spending was going down, and they didn't like it. So they decided they needed a war, and got TWO.

But now ISIS is coming about, the result of the war they wanted, Iraq, and they're not sure they like the outcome. Quite frankly in 20 years time China will give them all they want, and a new Cold War will ensue. However right now they need something. Why not Russia? Russia is up for it.

You "logic" is based in fantasy so yes it belongs in conspiracy theories.

Ah, the term "conspiracy theory" which is used to try and end someone's argument without even trying......

Do the Republicans not try and keep war going?

Number one the cold war never ended just one of the major players (Russia) temporarily dropped out.
Unfortunately our leaders played to politics and starting with Bush senior began downsizing the military and intelligence capabilities. Clinton accelerated that downsizing and also gutted our intelligence agencies partly the reason for 9-11.
Afghanistan was UN sanctioned as it was widely known to harbor terrorists and terrorist camps.
Bush II had some really bad intel from our foreign allies and some really bad advice from some clueless advisors and possibly some inner felt pressure to "finish the job" in Iraq.
China does not support ISIS and never will, nor does Russia, both see ISIS as a threat to themselves individually.
Like I said before, the cold war never ended and now as it's heating up even more we have not completely regained our intelligence capabilities and still to some degree rely on our allied to fill certain gaps, gaps that shouldn't exist.
Oh and why do we spend so much on the military? If you dropped your bias and took an honest look you get your answer.........
So you see you "logic" is faulty

So you're claiming the Cold War didn't end? I'd disagree. From 1991 onwards the world was looking like it was going to change for a positive. It didn't take long for Bush to change that though, did it?

Your argument could be like saying that WW2 never ended, just some of the participants dropped out, like Germany and Japan. The USSR didn't just drop out, it disintegrated and ended up with Russia suffering massively. While Russia has come back under Putin to a certain degree, it's not the same as it was, and China is rising, which is also different, and the EU emerging as a powerful force too. It's all changed, there might be similarities, but they're not part of the Cold War. A new Cold War will probably happen.

Being "UN sanctioned" doesn't mean anything. Everyone knows the UN is just a tool for the main political entities to play with to try and justify themselves and attack others.


As for Bush having bad intel, that's an understatement. He demanded bad intel. That's different to being given it. Bush used the intel KNOWING it was bad.
He had two branches of intelligence telling him two different things and he happened to choose the one that he knew was being very liberal with the truth.

No, China and Russia don't support ISIS, and....? ISIS is part of something new, that shouldn't have existed, it came out of a power vacuum the US made. It'll probably go away, and then they can get on with their new cold war (not the old Cold War).

So, no, I don't see that my logic is faulty at all. I see you have a different opinion, and I see some of the things you seem to think are a little out from the truth.

As per the Cold War you seem to be under the false impression that the Soviet Union was our only adversary, they weren't but they, at the time, were the biggest.
And while our misguided invasion of Iraq (no bush II didn't listen to a lot of us) planted the seeds of ISIS it was the misnamed Arab Spring that watered, fertilized and ultimately resulted in it's flowering.
One thing that many Americans can't or won't see is world politics is Machiavellian at best, always has been and there is an ongoing (seemingly eternal) struggle to determine who controls/protects worldwide commerce, mainly oil which is the life blood of the world. Who would you rather, us? The Chinese? Russia?

I seem to be under the impression, actually, that there were two sides. On one side the US leading at the head of NATO and a few other allies, and on the other the USSR with the Warsaw Pact countries and others.
Mozambique, Angola, Vietnam among others were Cold War wars. However once the USSR stopped existing, this broke up. Cuba might have remained Communist, and might have remained an enemy of the USA, but it's position in the world dropped dramatically.

But again, going back to WW2, while Germany and Japan were our biggest adversaries, and the USSR an ally, and things switched, you could potentially say WW2 never ended. But it did. And it ended because we decided it was a changing moment in history. Just like we decided that the Cold War had finished, no matter that some enemies remained enemies and some allies remained allies.

The Arab Spring came from where? From no where?
The reality is the Arab Spring didn't spread to many places. Why? Because the authorities weren't going to let it spread.
It spread to Syria because Syria was weak from having Iraq as a neighbor. Syria wouldn't have had an Arab Spring if the Iraq War hadn't happened. There'd have been no breeding ground for ISIS there. Afghanistan would have remained the battlefield and that would have stayed there.

There's always been a struggle to control whatever needs and wants controlling. Doesn't mean it's the same war.

 

[Ringel05]

You "logic" is based in fantasy so yes it belongs in conspiracy theories.

Ah, the term "conspiracy theory" which is used to try and end someone's argument without even trying......

Do the Republicans not try and keep war going?

Number one the cold war never ended just one of the major players (Russia) temporarily dropped out.
Unfortunately our leaders played to politics and starting with Bush senior began downsizing the military and intelligence capabilities. Clinton accelerated that downsizing and also gutted our intelligence agencies partly the reason for 9-11.
Afghanistan was UN sanctioned as it was widely known to harbor terrorists and terrorist camps.
Bush II had some really bad intel from our foreign allies and some really bad advice from some clueless advisors and possibly some inner felt pressure to "finish the job" in Iraq.
China does not support ISIS and never will, nor does Russia, both see ISIS as a threat to themselves individually.
Like I said before, the cold war never ended and now as it's heating up even more we have not completely regained our intelligence capabilities and still to some degree rely on our allied to fill certain gaps, gaps that shouldn't exist.
Oh and why do we spend so much on the military? If you dropped your bias and took an honest look you get your answer.........
So you see you "logic" is faulty

So you're claiming the Cold War didn't end? I'd disagree. From 1991 onwards the world was looking like it was going to change for a positive. It didn't take long for Bush to change that though, did it?

Your argument could be like saying that WW2 never ended, just some of the participants dropped out, like Germany and Japan. The USSR didn't just drop out, it disintegrated and ended up with Russia suffering massively. While Russia has come back under Putin to a certain degree, it's not the same as it was, and China is rising, which is also different, and the EU emerging as a powerful force too. It's all changed, there might be similarities, but they're not part of the Cold War. A new Cold War will probably happen.

Being "UN sanctioned" doesn't mean anything. Everyone knows the UN is just a tool for the main political entities to play with to try and justify themselves and attack others.


As for Bush having bad intel, that's an understatement. He demanded bad intel. That's different to being given it. Bush used the intel KNOWING it was bad.
He had two branches of intelligence telling him two different things and he happened to choose the one that he knew was being very liberal with the truth.

No, China and Russia don't support ISIS, and....? ISIS is part of something new, that shouldn't have existed, it came out of a power vacuum the US made. It'll probably go away, and then they can get on with their new cold war (not the old Cold War).

So, no, I don't see that my logic is faulty at all. I see you have a different opinion, and I see some of the things you seem to think are a little out from the truth.

As per the Cold War you seem to be under the false impression that the Soviet Union was our only adversary, they weren't but they, at the time, were the biggest.
And while our misguided invasion of Iraq (no bush II didn't listen to a lot of us) planted the seeds of ISIS it was the misnamed Arab Spring that watered, fertilized and ultimately resulted in it's flowering.
One thing that many Americans can't or won't see is world politics is Machiavellian at best, always has been and there is an ongoing (seemingly eternal) struggle to determine who controls/protects worldwide commerce, mainly oil which is the life blood of the world. Who would you rather, us? The Chinese? Russia?

I seem to be under the impression, actually, that there were two sides. On one side the US leading at the head of NATO and a few other allies, and on the other the USSR with the Warsaw Pact countries and others.
Mozambique, Angola, Vietnam among others were Cold War wars. However once the USSR stopped existing, this broke up. Cuba might have remained Communist, and might have remained an enemy of the USA, but it's position in the world dropped dramatically.

But again, going back to WW2, while Germany and Japan were our biggest adversaries, and the USSR an ally, and things switched, you could potentially say WW2 never ended. But it did. And it ended because we decided it was a changing moment in history. Just like we decided that the Cold War had finished, no matter that some enemies remained enemies and some allies remained allies.

The Arab Spring came from where? From no where?
The reality is the Arab Spring didn't spread to many places. Why? Because the authorities weren't going to let it spread.
It spread to Syria because Syria was weak from having Iraq as a neighbor. Syria wouldn't have had an Arab Spring if the Iraq War hadn't happened. There'd have been no breeding ground for ISIS there. Afghanistan would have remained the battlefield and that would have stayed there.

There's always been a struggle to control whatever needs and wants controlling. Doesn't mean it's the same war.

Based on your responses you seem to be misinterpreting much of what I'm saying and it appears you're reading into rather than reading.
Obviously the Arab Summer (the correct description) was a result of Iraq, what do you think "planting the seed" means? Oh and while WWII ended the fighting never stopped;

It was a continuation of WWII between former allies on a much more limited scale.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ah, the term "conspiracy theory" which is used to try and end someone's argument without even trying......

Do the Republicans not try and keep war going?

Number one the cold war never ended just one of the major players (Russia) temporarily dropped out.
Unfortunately our leaders played to politics and starting with Bush senior began downsizing the military and intelligence capabilities. Clinton accelerated that downsizing and also gutted our intelligence agencies partly the reason for 9-11.
Afghanistan was UN sanctioned as it was widely known to harbor terrorists and terrorist camps.
Bush II had some really bad intel from our foreign allies and some really bad advice from some clueless advisors and possibly some inner felt pressure to "finish the job" in Iraq.
China does not support ISIS and never will, nor does Russia, both see ISIS as a threat to themselves individually.
Like I said before, the cold war never ended and now as it's heating up even more we have not completely regained our intelligence capabilities and still to some degree rely on our allied to fill certain gaps, gaps that shouldn't exist.
Oh and why do we spend so much on the military? If you dropped your bias and took an honest look you get your answer.........
So you see you "logic" is faulty

So you're claiming the Cold War didn't end? I'd disagree. From 1991 onwards the world was looking like it was going to change for a positive. It didn't take long for Bush to change that though, did it?

Your argument could be like saying that WW2 never ended, just some of the participants dropped out, like Germany and Japan. The USSR didn't just drop out, it disintegrated and ended up with Russia suffering massively. While Russia has come back under Putin to a certain degree, it's not the same as it was, and China is rising, which is also different, and the EU emerging as a powerful force too. It's all changed, there might be similarities, but they're not part of the Cold War. A new Cold War will probably happen.

Being "UN sanctioned" doesn't mean anything. Everyone knows the UN is just a tool for the main political entities to play with to try and justify themselves and attack others.


As for Bush having bad intel, that's an understatement. He demanded bad intel. That's different to being given it. Bush used the intel KNOWING it was bad.
He had two branches of intelligence telling him two different things and he happened to choose the one that he knew was being very liberal with the truth.

No, China and Russia don't support ISIS, and....? ISIS is part of something new, that shouldn't have existed, it came out of a power vacuum the US made. It'll probably go away, and then they can get on with their new cold war (not the old Cold War).

So, no, I don't see that my logic is faulty at all. I see you have a different opinion, and I see some of the things you seem to think are a little out from the truth.

As per the Cold War you seem to be under the false impression that the Soviet Union was our only adversary, they weren't but they, at the time, were the biggest.
And while our misguided invasion of Iraq (no bush II didn't listen to a lot of us) planted the seeds of ISIS it was the misnamed Arab Spring that watered, fertilized and ultimately resulted in it's flowering.
One thing that many Americans can't or won't see is world politics is Machiavellian at best, always has been and there is an ongoing (seemingly eternal) struggle to determine who controls/protects worldwide commerce, mainly oil which is the life blood of the world. Who would you rather, us? The Chinese? Russia?

I seem to be under the impression, actually, that there were two sides. On one side the US leading at the head of NATO and a few other allies, and on the other the USSR with the Warsaw Pact countries and others.
Mozambique, Angola, Vietnam among others were Cold War wars. However once the USSR stopped existing, this broke up. Cuba might have remained Communist, and might have remained an enemy of the USA, but it's position in the world dropped dramatically.

But again, going back to WW2, while Germany and Japan were our biggest adversaries, and the USSR an ally, and things switched, you could potentially say WW2 never ended. But it did. And it ended because we decided it was a changing moment in history. Just like we decided that the Cold War had finished, no matter that some enemies remained enemies and some allies remained allies.

The Arab Spring came from where? From no where?
The reality is the Arab Spring didn't spread to many places. Why? Because the authorities weren't going to let it spread.
It spread to Syria because Syria was weak from having Iraq as a neighbor. Syria wouldn't have had an Arab Spring if the Iraq War hadn't happened. There'd have been no breeding ground for ISIS there. Afghanistan would have remained the battlefield and that would have stayed there.

There's always been a struggle to control whatever needs and wants controlling. Doesn't mean it's the same war.

Based on your responses you seem to be misinterpreting much of what I'm saying and it appears you're reading into rather than reading.
Obviously the Arab Summer (the correct description) was a result of Iraq, what do you think "planting the seed" means? Oh and while WWII ended the fighting never stopped;

It was a continuation of WWII between former allies on a much more limited scale.

I'm answering what you write. I am putting my own views on this. This is what debating is, by the way. I just disagree with you, you said my logic was out, you've shown nothing to get anywhere near this, you've just made some points and I've discussed those.

Also, the fighting hasn't stopped for thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands of years, doesn't mean we're still in the Hundred Years War, does it?

 

[Ringel05]

Number one the cold war never ended just one of the major players (Russia) temporarily dropped out.
Unfortunately our leaders played to politics and starting with Bush senior began downsizing the military and intelligence capabilities. Clinton accelerated that downsizing and also gutted our intelligence agencies partly the reason for 9-11.
Afghanistan was UN sanctioned as it was widely known to harbor terrorists and terrorist camps.
Bush II had some really bad intel from our foreign allies and some really bad advice from some clueless advisors and possibly some inner felt pressure to "finish the job" in Iraq.
China does not support ISIS and never will, nor does Russia, both see ISIS as a threat to themselves individually.
Like I said before, the cold war never ended and now as it's heating up even more we have not completely regained our intelligence capabilities and still to some degree rely on our allied to fill certain gaps, gaps that shouldn't exist.
Oh and why do we spend so much on the military? If you dropped your bias and took an honest look you get your answer.........
So you see you "logic" is faulty

So you're claiming the Cold War didn't end? I'd disagree. From 1991 onwards the world was looking like it was going to change for a positive. It didn't take long for Bush to change that though, did it?

Your argument could be like saying that WW2 never ended, just some of the participants dropped out, like Germany and Japan. The USSR didn't just drop out, it disintegrated and ended up with Russia suffering massively. While Russia has come back under Putin to a certain degree, it's not the same as it was, and China is rising, which is also different, and the EU emerging as a powerful force too. It's all changed, there might be similarities, but they're not part of the Cold War. A new Cold War will probably happen.

Being "UN sanctioned" doesn't mean anything. Everyone knows the UN is just a tool for the main political entities to play with to try and justify themselves and attack others.


As for Bush having bad intel, that's an understatement. He demanded bad intel. That's different to being given it. Bush used the intel KNOWING it was bad.
He had two branches of intelligence telling him two different things and he happened to choose the one that he knew was being very liberal with the truth.

No, China and Russia don't support ISIS, and....? ISIS is part of something new, that shouldn't have existed, it came out of a power vacuum the US made. It'll probably go away, and then they can get on with their new cold war (not the old Cold War).

So, no, I don't see that my logic is faulty at all. I see you have a different opinion, and I see some of the things you seem to think are a little out from the truth.

As per the Cold War you seem to be under the false impression that the Soviet Union was our only adversary, they weren't but they, at the time, were the biggest.
And while our misguided invasion of Iraq (no bush II didn't listen to a lot of us) planted the seeds of ISIS it was the misnamed Arab Spring that watered, fertilized and ultimately resulted in it's flowering.
One thing that many Americans can't or won't see is world politics is Machiavellian at best, always has been and there is an ongoing (seemingly eternal) struggle to determine who controls/protects worldwide commerce, mainly oil which is the life blood of the world. Who would you rather, us? The Chinese? Russia?

I seem to be under the impression, actually, that there were two sides. On one side the US leading at the head of NATO and a few other allies, and on the other the USSR with the Warsaw Pact countries and others.
Mozambique, Angola, Vietnam among others were Cold War wars. However once the USSR stopped existing, this broke up. Cuba might have remained Communist, and might have remained an enemy of the USA, but it's position in the world dropped dramatically.

But again, going back to WW2, while Germany and Japan were our biggest adversaries, and the USSR an ally, and things switched, you could potentially say WW2 never ended. But it did. And it ended because we decided it was a changing moment in history. Just like we decided that the Cold War had finished, no matter that some enemies remained enemies and some allies remained allies.

The Arab Spring came from where? From no where?
The reality is the Arab Spring didn't spread to many places. Why? Because the authorities weren't going to let it spread.
It spread to Syria because Syria was weak from having Iraq as a neighbor. Syria wouldn't have had an Arab Spring if the Iraq War hadn't happened. There'd have been no breeding ground for ISIS there. Afghanistan would have remained the battlefield and that would have stayed there.

There's always been a struggle to control whatever needs and wants controlling. Doesn't mean it's the same war.

Based on your responses you seem to be misinterpreting much of what I'm saying and it appears you're reading into rather than reading.
Obviously the Arab Summer (the correct description) was a result of Iraq, what do you think "planting the seed" means? Oh and while WWII ended the fighting never stopped;

It was a continuation of WWII between former allies on a much more limited scale.

I'm answering what you write. I am putting my own views on this. This is what debating is, by the way. I just disagree with you, you said my logic was out, you've shown nothing to get anywhere near this, you've just made some points and I've discussed those.

Also, the fighting hasn't stopped for thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands of years, doesn't mean we're still in the Hundred Years War, does it?

So you want to argue semantics?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So you're claiming the Cold War didn't end? I'd disagree. From 1991 onwards the world was looking like it was going to change for a positive. It didn't take long for Bush to change that though, did it?

Your argument could be like saying that WW2 never ended, just some of the participants dropped out, like Germany and Japan. The USSR didn't just drop out, it disintegrated and ended up with Russia suffering massively. While Russia has come back under Putin to a certain degree, it's not the same as it was, and China is rising, which is also different, and the EU emerging as a powerful force too. It's all changed, there might be similarities, but they're not part of the Cold War. A new Cold War will probably happen.

Being "UN sanctioned" doesn't mean anything. Everyone knows the UN is just a tool for the main political entities to play with to try and justify themselves and attack others.


As for Bush having bad intel, that's an understatement. He demanded bad intel. That's different to being given it. Bush used the intel KNOWING it was bad.
He had two branches of intelligence telling him two different things and he happened to choose the one that he knew was being very liberal with the truth.

No, China and Russia don't support ISIS, and....? ISIS is part of something new, that shouldn't have existed, it came out of a power vacuum the US made. It'll probably go away, and then they can get on with their new cold war (not the old Cold War).

So, no, I don't see that my logic is faulty at all. I see you have a different opinion, and I see some of the things you seem to think are a little out from the truth.

As per the Cold War you seem to be under the false impression that the Soviet Union was our only adversary, they weren't but they, at the time, were the biggest.
And while our misguided invasion of Iraq (no bush II didn't listen to a lot of us) planted the seeds of ISIS it was the misnamed Arab Spring that watered, fertilized and ultimately resulted in it's flowering.
One thing that many Americans can't or won't see is world politics is Machiavellian at best, always has been and there is an ongoing (seemingly eternal) struggle to determine who controls/protects worldwide commerce, mainly oil which is the life blood of the world. Who would you rather, us? The Chinese? Russia?

I seem to be under the impression, actually, that there were two sides. On one side the US leading at the head of NATO and a few other allies, and on the other the USSR with the Warsaw Pact countries and others.
Mozambique, Angola, Vietnam among others were Cold War wars. However once the USSR stopped existing, this broke up. Cuba might have remained Communist, and might have remained an enemy of the USA, but it's position in the world dropped dramatically.

But again, going back to WW2, while Germany and Japan were our biggest adversaries, and the USSR an ally, and things switched, you could potentially say WW2 never ended. But it did. And it ended because we decided it was a changing moment in history. Just like we decided that the Cold War had finished, no matter that some enemies remained enemies and some allies remained allies.

The Arab Spring came from where? From no where?
The reality is the Arab Spring didn't spread to many places. Why? Because the authorities weren't going to let it spread.
It spread to Syria because Syria was weak from having Iraq as a neighbor. Syria wouldn't have had an Arab Spring if the Iraq War hadn't happened. There'd have been no breeding ground for ISIS there. Afghanistan would have remained the battlefield and that would have stayed there.

There's always been a struggle to control whatever needs and wants controlling. Doesn't mean it's the same war.

Based on your responses you seem to be misinterpreting much of what I'm saying and it appears you're reading into rather than reading.
Obviously the Arab Summer (the correct description) was a result of Iraq, what do you think "planting the seed" means? Oh and while WWII ended the fighting never stopped;

It was a continuation of WWII between former allies on a much more limited scale.

I'm answering what you write. I am putting my own views on this. This is what debating is, by the way. I just disagree with you, you said my logic was out, you've shown nothing to get anywhere near this, you've just made some points and I've discussed those.

Also, the fighting hasn't stopped for thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands of years, doesn't mean we're still in the Hundred Years War, does it?

So you want to argue semantics?

Well, you're the one who made the argument that the Cold War hasn't ended, right? Now you're calling this semantics. I'm saying it ended because wars have labels to make it easier for us to understand them in their context. You're saying it hasn't ended because the fighting's not stopped.

Would seem you're the one who needs the semantics here. What did happen to your argument? Every post you just get less and less and less.

 

[Ringel05]

As per the Cold War you seem to be under the false impression that the Soviet Union was our only adversary, they weren't but they, at the time, were the biggest.
And while our misguided invasion of Iraq (no bush II didn't listen to a lot of us) planted the seeds of ISIS it was the misnamed Arab Spring that watered, fertilized and ultimately resulted in it's flowering.
One thing that many Americans can't or won't see is world politics is Machiavellian at best, always has been and there is an ongoing (seemingly eternal) struggle to determine who controls/protects worldwide commerce, mainly oil which is the life blood of the world. Who would you rather, us? The Chinese? Russia?

I seem to be under the impression, actually, that there were two sides. On one side the US leading at the head of NATO and a few other allies, and on the other the USSR with the Warsaw Pact countries and others.
Mozambique, Angola, Vietnam among others were Cold War wars. However once the USSR stopped existing, this broke up. Cuba might have remained Communist, and might have remained an enemy of the USA, but it's position in the world dropped dramatically.

But again, going back to WW2, while Germany and Japan were our biggest adversaries, and the USSR an ally, and things switched, you could potentially say WW2 never ended. But it did. And it ended because we decided it was a changing moment in history. Just like we decided that the Cold War had finished, no matter that some enemies remained enemies and some allies remained allies.

The Arab Spring came from where? From no where?
The reality is the Arab Spring didn't spread to many places. Why? Because the authorities weren't going to let it spread.
It spread to Syria because Syria was weak from having Iraq as a neighbor. Syria wouldn't have had an Arab Spring if the Iraq War hadn't happened. There'd have been no breeding ground for ISIS there. Afghanistan would have remained the battlefield and that would have stayed there.

There's always been a struggle to control whatever needs and wants controlling. Doesn't mean it's the same war.

Based on your responses you seem to be misinterpreting much of what I'm saying and it appears you're reading into rather than reading.
Obviously the Arab Summer (the correct description) was a result of Iraq, what do you think "planting the seed" means? Oh and while WWII ended the fighting never stopped;

It was a continuation of WWII between former allies on a much more limited scale.

I'm answering what you write. I am putting my own views on this. This is what debating is, by the way. I just disagree with you, you said my logic was out, you've shown nothing to get anywhere near this, you've just made some points and I've discussed those.

Also, the fighting hasn't stopped for thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands of years, doesn't mean we're still in the Hundred Years War, does it?

So you want to argue semantics?

Well, you're the one who made the argument that the Cold War hasn't ended, right? Now you're calling this semantics. I'm saying it ended because wars have labels to make it easier for us to understand them in their context. You're saying it hasn't ended because the fighting's not stopped.

Would seem you're the one who needs the semantics here. What did happen to your argument? Every post you just get less and less and less.

You see it getting less and less? If that's what helps you sleep at night then so be it. The difference is you see the Cold War as a singular event and I see it as a continuation. Now let's look at the descriptors, some claim the Cold War is heating back up (a reference that it never ended), some claim it's a new Cold War, I choose the former, you chose the latter. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I seem to be under the impression, actually, that there were two sides. On one side the US leading at the head of NATO and a few other allies, and on the other the USSR with the Warsaw Pact countries and others.
Mozambique, Angola, Vietnam among others were Cold War wars. However once the USSR stopped existing, this broke up. Cuba might have remained Communist, and might have remained an enemy of the USA, but it's position in the world dropped dramatically.

But again, going back to WW2, while Germany and Japan were our biggest adversaries, and the USSR an ally, and things switched, you could potentially say WW2 never ended. But it did. And it ended because we decided it was a changing moment in history. Just like we decided that the Cold War had finished, no matter that some enemies remained enemies and some allies remained allies.

The Arab Spring came from where? From no where?
The reality is the Arab Spring didn't spread to many places. Why? Because the authorities weren't going to let it spread.
It spread to Syria because Syria was weak from having Iraq as a neighbor. Syria wouldn't have had an Arab Spring if the Iraq War hadn't happened. There'd have been no breeding ground for ISIS there. Afghanistan would have remained the battlefield and that would have stayed there.

There's always been a struggle to control whatever needs and wants controlling. Doesn't mean it's the same war.

Based on your responses you seem to be misinterpreting much of what I'm saying and it appears you're reading into rather than reading.
Obviously the Arab Summer (the correct description) was a result of Iraq, what do you think "planting the seed" means? Oh and while WWII ended the fighting never stopped;

It was a continuation of WWII between former allies on a much more limited scale.

I'm answering what you write. I am putting my own views on this. This is what debating is, by the way. I just disagree with you, you said my logic was out, you've shown nothing to get anywhere near this, you've just made some points and I've discussed those.

Also, the fighting hasn't stopped for thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands of years, doesn't mean we're still in the Hundred Years War, does it?

So you want to argue semantics?

Well, you're the one who made the argument that the Cold War hasn't ended, right? Now you're calling this semantics. I'm saying it ended because wars have labels to make it easier for us to understand them in their context. You're saying it hasn't ended because the fighting's not stopped.

Would seem you're the one who needs the semantics here. What did happen to your argument? Every post you just get less and less and less.

You see it getting less and less? If that's what helps you sleep at night then so be it. The difference is you see the Cold War as a singular event and I see it as a continuation. Now let's look at the descriptors, some claim the Cold War is heating back up (a reference that it never ended), some claim it's a new Cold War, I choose the former, you chose the latter. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

No, I didn't say it was a singular event at all. You just made that up and decided that I think this.

What I said was the Cold War ended because the period of time we call the Cold War finished. That doesn't mean I think that little conflicts stopped, that everyone became friends, went for a drink and shagged for the next 50 years happily ever.

What you're saying is the Cold War carried on, as if we're still in the Cold War period. We're not. It's finished. We've made it finish because we use other labels for the time we're in now.

 

[Ringel05]

Based on your responses you seem to be misinterpreting much of what I'm saying and it appears you're reading into rather than reading.
Obviously the Arab Summer (the correct description) was a result of Iraq, what do you think "planting the seed" means? Oh and while WWII ended the fighting never stopped;

It was a continuation of WWII between former allies on a much more limited scale.

I'm answering what you write. I am putting my own views on this. This is what debating is, by the way. I just disagree with you, you said my logic was out, you've shown nothing to get anywhere near this, you've just made some points and I've discussed those.

Also, the fighting hasn't stopped for thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands of years, doesn't mean we're still in the Hundred Years War, does it?

So you want to argue semantics?

Well, you're the one who made the argument that the Cold War hasn't ended, right? Now you're calling this semantics. I'm saying it ended because wars have labels to make it easier for us to understand them in their context. You're saying it hasn't ended because the fighting's not stopped.

Would seem you're the one who needs the semantics here. What did happen to your argument? Every post you just get less and less and less.

You see it getting less and less? If that's what helps you sleep at night then so be it. The difference is you see the Cold War as a singular event and I see it as a continuation. Now let's look at the descriptors, some claim the Cold War is heating back up (a reference that it never ended), some claim it's a new Cold War, I choose the former, you chose the latter. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

No, I didn't say it was a singular event at all. You just made that up and decided that I think this.

What I said was the Cold War ended because the period of time we call the Cold War finished. That doesn't mean I think that little conflicts stopped, that everyone became friends, went for a drink and shagged for the next 50 years happily ever.

What you're saying is the Cold War carried on, as if we're still in the Cold War period. We're not. It's finished. We've made it finish because we use other labels for the time we're in now.

Uummm, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it. The Cold War because it had a beginning and end according to you and some historians is a singular even in that context so I made nothing up plus an example of what I meant by semantics.
WWII as a major, huge armies, massive destruction war ended but everything that came afterwards is a direct result to one degree or another like WWII was a direct result of WWI so it can be seriously argued that other than for our love of labeling and setting historical dates on events the wars from as far back as wars started are a continuation of the original wars. If you had seriously studied history you'd know that, cause and effect.
As for the Cold War ending, again we'll have to agree to disagree, yes our Cold War with the Soviet Union ended but the real Cold War didn't include just the Soviet Union and it's allies vs the USA and its allies, that is a perception put forth by the media and Hollywood.

 

[Kristian]

WWII as a major, huge armies, massive destruction war ended but everything that came afterwards is a direct result to one degree

Two West country has been herous when they won against Soviet Union and Nazis. Europe then all Germany get safety from eastern Imperium how later is Russian Federation. They vote yes or no from Soviet Union to Russian Federation and it is Russia today with smaller strenght communism. Russian nationalism are different Europe and Canada and USA with nationalists there is communism in Russia ... maybe 20 percent communism still left ... Soviet Union were at least 70 or 90 percent communism ...

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm answering what you write. I am putting my own views on this. This is what debating is, by the way. I just disagree with you, you said my logic was out, you've shown nothing to get anywhere near this, you've just made some points and I've discussed those.

Also, the fighting hasn't stopped for thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands of years, doesn't mean we're still in the Hundred Years War, does it?

So you want to argue semantics?

Well, you're the one who made the argument that the Cold War hasn't ended, right? Now you're calling this semantics. I'm saying it ended because wars have labels to make it easier for us to understand them in their context. You're saying it hasn't ended because the fighting's not stopped.

Would seem you're the one who needs the semantics here. What did happen to your argument? Every post you just get less and less and less.

You see it getting less and less? If that's what helps you sleep at night then so be it. The difference is you see the Cold War as a singular event and I see it as a continuation. Now let's look at the descriptors, some claim the Cold War is heating back up (a reference that it never ended), some claim it's a new Cold War, I choose the former, you chose the latter. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

No, I didn't say it was a singular event at all. You just made that up and decided that I think this.

What I said was the Cold War ended because the period of time we call the Cold War finished. That doesn't mean I think that little conflicts stopped, that everyone became friends, went for a drink and shagged for the next 50 years happily ever.

What you're saying is the Cold War carried on, as if we're still in the Cold War period. We're not. It's finished. We've made it finish because we use other labels for the time we're in now.

Uummm, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it. The Cold War because it had a beginning and end according to you and some historians is a singular even in that context so I made nothing up plus an example of what I meant by semantics.
WWII as a major, huge armies, massive destruction war ended but everything that came afterwards is a direct result to one degree or another like WWII was a direct result of WWI so it can be seriously argued that other than for our love of labeling and setting historical dates on events the wars from as far back as wars started are a continuation of the original wars. If you had seriously studied history you'd know that, cause and effect.
As for the Cold War ending, again we'll have to agree to disagree, yes our Cold War with the Soviet Union ended but the real Cold War didn't include just the Soviet Union and it's allies vs the USA and its allies, that is a perception put forth by the media and Hollywood.

My reading comprehension is just fine. Don't try and attack me for things when this has nothing to do with me.

Your argument here is that because we define a war within certain dates, that it has a beginning and an end, therefore it all just stops after the end of this date, that there's no continuation of anything at all. That's complete rubbish by the way. You're also assuming I think this. I can't think why, as you didn't actually ask me.

I do know what you meant by semantics, and it appears that you're the one playing the semantics game.

This is getting rather tiresome, with some people you actually discuss stuff, with you it's just a case of getting bogged down in shit.

I can't be bothered with this. You're clearly not willing to actually do this properly.

 

[Ringel05]

So you want to argue semantics?

Well, you're the one who made the argument that the Cold War hasn't ended, right? Now you're calling this semantics. I'm saying it ended because wars have labels to make it easier for us to understand them in their context. You're saying it hasn't ended because the fighting's not stopped.

Would seem you're the one who needs the semantics here. What did happen to your argument? Every post you just get less and less and less.

You see it getting less and less? If that's what helps you sleep at night then so be it. The difference is you see the Cold War as a singular event and I see it as a continuation. Now let's look at the descriptors, some claim the Cold War is heating back up (a reference that it never ended), some claim it's a new Cold War, I choose the former, you chose the latter. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

No, I didn't say it was a singular event at all. You just made that up and decided that I think this.

What I said was the Cold War ended because the period of time we call the Cold War finished. That doesn't mean I think that little conflicts stopped, that everyone became friends, went for a drink and shagged for the next 50 years happily ever.

What you're saying is the Cold War carried on, as if we're still in the Cold War period. We're not. It's finished. We've made it finish because we use other labels for the time we're in now.

Uummm, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it. The Cold War because it had a beginning and end according to you and some historians is a singular even in that context so I made nothing up plus an example of what I meant by semantics.
WWII as a major, huge armies, massive destruction war ended but everything that came afterwards is a direct result to one degree or another like WWII was a direct result of WWI so it can be seriously argued that other than for our love of labeling and setting historical dates on events the wars from as far back as wars started are a continuation of the original wars. If you had seriously studied history you'd know that, cause and effect.
As for the Cold War ending, again we'll have to agree to disagree, yes our Cold War with the Soviet Union ended but the real Cold War didn't include just the Soviet Union and it's allies vs the USA and its allies, that is a perception put forth by the media and Hollywood.

My reading comprehension is just fine. Don't try and attack me for things when this has nothing to do with me.

Your argument here is that because we define a war within certain dates, that it has a beginning and an end, therefore it all just stops after the end of this date, that there's no continuation of anything at all. That's complete rubbish by the way. You're also assuming I think this. I can't think why, as you didn't actually ask me.

I do know what you meant by semantics, and it appears that you're the one playing the semantics game.

This is getting rather tiresome, with some people you actually discuss stuff, with you it's just a case of getting bogged down in shit.

I can't be bothered with this. You're clearly not willing to actually do this properly.

Hey don't worry, I've dealt with enough people like you who refuse to see past their own nose (that's most of the board). You're a non-nuanced, black and white thinker, I feel pity for people like you. Have a nice life, hack.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, you're the one who made the argument that the Cold War hasn't ended, right? Now you're calling this semantics. I'm saying it ended because wars have labels to make it easier for us to understand them in their context. You're saying it hasn't ended because the fighting's not stopped.

Would seem you're the one who needs the semantics here. What did happen to your argument? Every post you just get less and less and less.

You see it getting less and less? If that's what helps you sleep at night then so be it. The difference is you see the Cold War as a singular event and I see it as a continuation. Now let's look at the descriptors, some claim the Cold War is heating back up (a reference that it never ended), some claim it's a new Cold War, I choose the former, you chose the latter. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

No, I didn't say it was a singular event at all. You just made that up and decided that I think this.

What I said was the Cold War ended because the period of time we call the Cold War finished. That doesn't mean I think that little conflicts stopped, that everyone became friends, went for a drink and shagged for the next 50 years happily ever.

What you're saying is the Cold War carried on, as if we're still in the Cold War period. We're not. It's finished. We've made it finish because we use other labels for the time we're in now.

Uummm, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it. The Cold War because it had a beginning and end according to you and some historians is a singular even in that context so I made nothing up plus an example of what I meant by semantics.
WWII as a major, huge armies, massive destruction war ended but everything that came afterwards is a direct result to one degree or another like WWII was a direct result of WWI so it can be seriously argued that other than for our love of labeling and setting historical dates on events the wars from as far back as wars started are a continuation of the original wars. If you had seriously studied history you'd know that, cause and effect.
As for the Cold War ending, again we'll have to agree to disagree, yes our Cold War with the Soviet Union ended but the real Cold War didn't include just the Soviet Union and it's allies vs the USA and its allies, that is a perception put forth by the media and Hollywood.

My reading comprehension is just fine. Don't try and attack me for things when this has nothing to do with me.

Your argument here is that because we define a war within certain dates, that it has a beginning and an end, therefore it all just stops after the end of this date, that there's no continuation of anything at all. That's complete rubbish by the way. You're also assuming I think this. I can't think why, as you didn't actually ask me.

I do know what you meant by semantics, and it appears that you're the one playing the semantics game.

This is getting rather tiresome, with some people you actually discuss stuff, with you it's just a case of getting bogged down in shit.

I can't be bothered with this. You're clearly not willing to actually do this properly.

Hey don't worry, I've dealt with enough people like you who refuse to see past their own nose (that's most of the board). You're a non-nuanced, black and white thinker, I feel pity for people like you. Have a nice life, hack.

That's hilarious....... thanks for the laugh.

 

[Ringel05]

You see it getting less and less? If that's what helps you sleep at night then so be it. The difference is you see the Cold War as a singular event and I see it as a continuation. Now let's look at the descriptors, some claim the Cold War is heating back up (a reference that it never ended), some claim it's a new Cold War, I choose the former, you chose the latter. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

No, I didn't say it was a singular event at all. You just made that up and decided that I think this.

What I said was the Cold War ended because the period of time we call the Cold War finished. That doesn't mean I think that little conflicts stopped, that everyone became friends, went for a drink and shagged for the next 50 years happily ever.

What you're saying is the Cold War carried on, as if we're still in the Cold War period. We're not. It's finished. We've made it finish because we use other labels for the time we're in now.

Uummm, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it. The Cold War because it had a beginning and end according to you and some historians is a singular even in that context so I made nothing up plus an example of what I meant by semantics.
WWII as a major, huge armies, massive destruction war ended but everything that came afterwards is a direct result to one degree or another like WWII was a direct result of WWI so it can be seriously argued that other than for our love of labeling and setting historical dates on events the wars from as far back as wars started are a continuation of the original wars. If you had seriously studied history you'd know that, cause and effect.
As for the Cold War ending, again we'll have to agree to disagree, yes our Cold War with the Soviet Union ended but the real Cold War didn't include just the Soviet Union and it's allies vs the USA and its allies, that is a perception put forth by the media and Hollywood.

My reading comprehension is just fine. Don't try and attack me for things when this has nothing to do with me.

Your argument here is that because we define a war within certain dates, that it has a beginning and an end, therefore it all just stops after the end of this date, that there's no continuation of anything at all. That's complete rubbish by the way. You're also assuming I think this. I can't think why, as you didn't actually ask me.

I do know what you meant by semantics, and it appears that you're the one playing the semantics game.

This is getting rather tiresome, with some people you actually discuss stuff, with you it's just a case of getting bogged down in shit.

I can't be bothered with this. You're clearly not willing to actually do this properly.

Hey don't worry, I've dealt with enough people like you who refuse to see past their own nose (that's most of the board). You're a non-nuanced, black and white thinker, I feel pity for people like you. Have a nice life, hack.

That's hilarious....... thanks for the laugh.

Any time.

 

[Maggdy]

Bryan MacDonald is an Irish journalist:
According to statements made at last weekend’s summit in Warsaw, NATO regards Russia as a bigger threat than ISIS.

The main reason is because there is very little profit in combating the, self-styled, ISIS. And NATO is primarily a money racket which provides a lot of influential people with a very comfortable lifestyle, flying around the globe on private jets and generating well-paid jobs, both directly and via the think-tank circuit.

Let’s be clear here. You don’t require submarines or nuclear weapons to engage ISIL, but you would in a putative conflict with Russia. It desires to use Moscow as a convenient bogeyman in order to maintain US defense spending, which grew 9 percent annually from 2000-2009 during the “war on terror.”
Why has NATO chosen Russia as its enemy instead of ISIS?

December 3, 2015
Putin: Russia has long been at the forefront of the fight against terrorism. This is a fight for freedom, truth and justice, for the lives of people and the future of the entire civilization.

International terrorism will never be defeated by just one country, especially in a situation when the borders are practically open, and the world is going through another resettlement of peoples, while terrorists are getting regular financial support.
Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly

Sep 4, 2015
Putin: together, and I would like to stress this word, together we need to combat terrorism and extremism of all sorts, primarily in the problem countries, to resolve this issue – without that any further progress is impossible.
Vladimir Putin answered Russian journalists’ questions

July 15. 2016
Putin: Russia knows terrorism and the threat it creates for us all. Our people have had to deal with similar tragedies many times. I would like to stress again that only through a united effort can we defeat terrorism.
Address to Francois Hollande and the French nation

Hey, the EU elites, would you ever listen to those who can and are willing to help? Or you prefer to wait till ISIS uses chemical weapons in the middle of Europe?

Who are you, the EU elites, and whose interests do you represent: the European people’s or ISIS”?

P.S. I guess, after that horrible Nice terror attack the British people are realizing: it was a good decision to vote for Brexit.

The Polish politician doing a pointless panic.

Witold Waszczykowski (He said when a visit to Slovakia, april 2016) : "Russia is more dangerous than Isis."
More: Russia is more dangerous than Isis, says Polish foreign minister

In my opinion, in Poland the situation is worrying, because the illegal marijuana consumption. All Polish suck the grass.

 

[Igrok_]

Because Russia is much more dangerous.

 

[StLucieBengal]

NATO is outdated. It was formed to confront the soviets and save Europe.

The reality is that NATO should be formed against Asian enemies now.

Middle East/China.

The Russians should be our partners. We could put the Middle East in the poor house quickly by allowing the Russians To supply Europe with energy.

Let the Middle East die off a slow economic death. Isolate them and China from modern world.

 

[StLucieBengal]

Bryan MacDonald is an Irish journalist:
According to statements made at last weekend’s summit in Warsaw, NATO regards Russia as a bigger threat than ISIS.

The main reason is because there is very little profit in combating the, self-styled, ISIS. And NATO is primarily a money racket which provides a lot of influential people with a very comfortable lifestyle, flying around the globe on private jets and generating well-paid jobs, both directly and via the think-tank circuit.

Let’s be clear here. You don’t require submarines or nuclear weapons to engage ISIL, but you would in a putative conflict with Russia. It desires to use Moscow as a convenient bogeyman in order to maintain US defense spending, which grew 9 percent annually from 2000-2009 during the “war on terror.”
Why has NATO chosen Russia as its enemy instead of ISIS?

December 3, 2015
Putin: Russia has long been at the forefront of the fight against terrorism. This is a fight for freedom, truth and justice, for the lives of people and the future of the entire civilization.

International terrorism will never be defeated by just one country, especially in a situation when the borders are practically open, and the world is going through another resettlement of peoples, while terrorists are getting regular financial support.
Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly

Sep 4, 2015
Putin: together, and I would like to stress this word, together we need to combat terrorism and extremism of all sorts, primarily in the problem countries, to resolve this issue – without that any further progress is impossible.
Vladimir Putin answered Russian journalists’ questions

July 15. 2016
Putin: Russia knows terrorism and the threat it creates for us all. Our people have had to deal with similar tragedies many times. I would like to stress again that only through a united effort can we defeat terrorism.
Address to Francois Hollande and the French nation

Hey, the EU elites, would you ever listen to those who can and are willing to help? Or you prefer to wait till ISIS uses chemical weapons in the middle of Europe?

Who are you, the EU elites, and whose interests do you represent: the European people’s or ISIS”?

P.S. I guess, after that horrible Nice terror attack the British people are realizing: it was a good decision to vote for Brexit.

The Polish politician doing a pointless panic.

Witold Waszczykowski (He said when a visit to Slovakia, april 2016) : "Russia is more dangerous than Isis."
More: Russia is more dangerous than Isis, says Polish foreign minister
View attachment 82589

In my opinion, in Poland the situation is worrying, because the illegal marijuana consumption. All Polish suck the grass.

The polish have an extreme view of the Russians from the soviet days. It's understandable.

 

[StLucieBengal]

Russia should be our allies in this mess. We could put the Middle East out of business by just buying oil from Russia instead of the Muslims.

We should be isolating Islam until they get their act together. Russians would be much better friends than the Muslims at this point.

Putin is a nationalist. He NEEDS an enemy to gain popularity. He uses the old enemy. Doesn't matter what you think should happen, it's not in Putin's plan.

So he would rather be isolated and have economic sanctions? Either you don't understand world affairs or you are just jumping on whatever line you were fed by cnn.

You slam Putin for being a "nationalist". Yet you are ok doing business with the human rights violators of the Middle East..... Makes sense..

 

[Stratford57]

- Russian President Vladimir Putin made the point that NATO needs a foreign enemy otherwise there would be no reason for its existence.

- In his speech on April 27, 2016 Trump was critical of NATO, in which only four of the 28 countries, besides the U.S., are spending the minimum required 2% of GDP on defense. More important, Trump called for the upgrading of NATO’s outdated mission and structure, stemming from the Cold War, which was designed to meet the threat from the Soviet Union that doesn’t exist anymore. That objective is obsolete. Together with Russia, NATO, he argued should confront shared challenges, especially migration and Islamic terrorism. NATO should be changed to fight terrorism.
Articles: Putin and Trump on NATO

In his speech at RNC Trump made it clear: if any country wants any help from USA, they will have to pay for it. Not a bad thought, I think. However I don't think EU "leaders" will be happy with that. No wonder they don't endorse Trump. EU "leaders", NATO generals and weapon makers will scramble to keep NATO [and thus their jobs and fat salaries] and to tell their people "how important and safe it is to be a NATO member" and all that BS about "Russian aggression". Think: if there are no aggressors, there will be no need for those clowns including NATO.