Herochat

how important is nato

Panthergod

  • *******
  • 6696
  • +35/-72
    • View Profile
Re: how important is nato
« Reply #60 on: June 05, 2017, 05:03:51 PM »
Ukraine was the victim of a NATO backed coup that installed Nazis on Russia's border. NATO violate the terms of the treaty ending the USSR that haunted they would not expand into Russian satellite territory. NATO is the fascist and terrorist funding aggressor.

NeoGreenLantern

  • ********
  • 13239
  • +43/-15
    • View Profile
Re: how important is nato
« Reply #61 on: June 05, 2017, 05:09:15 PM »
PCD you're on a beach right now and your posting in debate? Jesus dude. When are you home? I'm gonna do you a favor and ban you until then.

superlurker

  • **
  • 437
  • +10/-0
    • View Profile
Re: how important is nato
« Reply #62 on: June 05, 2017, 07:04:06 PM »
Why would America and the Soviet Union going to war essentially end the world? Not because a few cities got nuked, but because country after country would join in due to alliances and pacts. Right now due to the situation the world is in (largely due to America), if the major powers went into war, it would look A LOT like World War 1 due to the alliances. I don't understand why you think being a bullet away from a nuclear world war makes us safer.

Because if either of those two countries decided to launch their nukes, it would be game over. Not just a few cities, but pretty much everything. Look into nuclear fallout and nuclear winter.

Quote
Who cares if we trade with everyone?

Right, so you're contradicting what you argued earlier about sanctions.

Quote
You have no idea what you are talking about regarding Cuba. I am 100% Cuban, if yo want a lesson on Cuba I'll provide you one. As far as North Korea booming LMFAO!!!! Okay, please provide ONE example of a genuine communist country thriving. Go on.

You really, really missed the point here. I'll elucidate, since you didn't seem to get it the first time.

1. You were arguing about sanctions reducing the benefits of trade.
2. I asked whether NATO had any effect on U.S. trade with a few countries, including North Korea and Cuba.
3. I demonstrated that the U.S. trade with most of those countries is pretty irrelevant.
4. I ridiculed the notion that a world without NATO, countries like Cuba or North Korea would suddenly become prosperous. Because logically, that is what you would have to argue in order for your contention about sanctions and trade to really make sense.

The hilarious part is that you got really riled up by a mockery of your own argument. Possibly because you didn't quite grasp the logical implication of what you were actually arguing.

Quote
Putin is not Hitler and is not trying to invade the world. The situation there is a lot more complicated and I actually believe a good argument can be made that NATO made the situation 10x worse. And Ukraine is no saint in the debacle as they have been responsible for escalating the situation as well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/an-outburst-of-violence-in-ukraine-may-be-trumps-first-test-with-putin/2017/01/31/497cc7a6-e7bf-11e6-903d-9b11ed7d8d2a_story.html?utm_term=.c268de4bd28e   Also we can have an entire discussion about America's non-stop intervention in that region, specifically involving regime change in Ukraine (including with democratically elected governments).

Uh, if by 'escalating the situation' you mean they defend their internationally recognized territory? Sure. I'm not quite sure what the article you linked is supposed to prove. And no, Putin doesn't appear to be out to conquer the world or anything stupid like that, though he does appear to be doing his bit to wage a new form of war against democratic governance by meddling in elections and fostering conflict situations like in the Ukraine. The situation in the Ukraine has also swung back and forth. You remember how the Russians poisoned one of their former presidents?

As for the rest of it, the whole situation with Russia and NATO is a mess. When the Soviet Union fell, promises were made that NATO would not expand eastwards, but it did anyway. On the other hand, it can certainly be argued that those countries in question are entitled to be free, and being in an alliance is the only way they can defend themselves against potential Russian aggression. Especially because you can just go farther back in history and argue that the Soviets did not really keep their end of the deal with the West at the end of WW2 and let those countries hold free and fair elections.

You can also go back a bit to what you were talking about previously. Being in NATO, for those Eastern European countries, is about them securing their freedom and prosperity, which makes them more valuable as U.S. partners in the long run, both in terms of trade and otherwise. One of the reasons why Putin is making a mess out of the Ukraine is to prevent them from joining NATO (since one of the preconditions for joining NATO is being free of border disputes and similar conflicts).

Quote
Japan attacked us directly and Germany declared war on us. Aside from those countries directly, we should have left the world alone.

Wait, what was that about isolationism and 'non-interventionism' being polar opposites again?

Or, for that matter, your previous argument about trade. In the scenario where the U.S. just rolls back after WW2 and doesn't give a fuck, it would probably be a lot worse off in terms of trade and markets, because Europe and Japan would get rolled by the Soviets.

nu-safado

  • ************
  • 4180
  • +3/-1
    • View Profile
Re: how important is nato
« Reply #63 on: June 06, 2017, 11:38:31 AM »
Going to jump in briefly here


Quote
Uh, if by 'escalating the situation' you mean they defend their internationally recognized territory? Sure. I'm not quite sure what the article you linked is supposed to prove. And no, Putin doesn't appear to be out to conquer the world or anything stupid like that, though he does appear to be doing his bit to wage a new form of war against democratic governance by meddling in elections and fostering conflict situations like in the Ukraine. The situation in the Ukraine has also swung back and forth. You remember how the Russians poisoned one of their former presidents?

As for the rest of it, the whole situation with Russia and NATO is a mess. When the Soviet Union fell, promises were made that NATO would not expand eastwards, but it did anyway. On the other hand, it can certainly be argued that those countries in question are entitled to be free, and being in an alliance is the only way they can defend themselves against potential Russian aggression. Especially because you can just go farther back in history and argue that the Soviets did not really keep their end of the deal with the West at the end of WW2 and let those countries hold free and fair elections.

You can also go back a bit to what you were talking about previously. Being in NATO, for those Eastern European countries, is about them securing their freedom and prosperity, which makes them more valuable as U.S. partners in the long run, both in terms of trade and otherwise. One of the reasons why Putin is making a mess out of the Ukraine is to prevent them from joining NATO (since one of the preconditions for joining NATO is being free of border disputes and similar conflicts).


Vladmir Putin is clearly demonstrating two things. The first is that he is under borrowed time, trying to reclaim as much Soviet buffer zone as he can while his internal support, buoyed by international action in the Middle East and nationalism, supports his efforts to reclaim classic security zones. Most of the existential battles fought by Russia in the Napoleonic Wars and World War 2 were held in Ukraine.

The West has organized several color revolutions, including the famous Orange revolution in 2004, which the Russians dedcuded successfully had no purpose other than to weaken the Russians. Putin isn't wrong.

During the Clinton Administration Nato acted clearly in Russia's classic sphere of influence in the Serb/Croatioan conflict and in Kosovo. Could you imagine a major Russian military operation in Central America or Mexico?

The US and allies have clearly encroached on Russia's sovereignty and presented a threat.

The second thing that is clear is that Russia's conventional military, which it would go to before nuclear weapons, is weak.

The result is that Russia is going around the world, meddling in elections and using disinformation techniques. That's fine by Russia. The more they can affect the outcome by manipulating media the better. If they had real conventional military power, they'd simply launch a carrier group and play a game of intimidation. Disinformation is a sign of overall weakness


I'm not sure who is arguing for isolationism but the Marshall plan was a speech given by general Macarthur that managed to define the why of US interventionism in 8 paragraphs that has built the world order that has kept the US economy at the top of the food chain for 70 years and the foreseeable future.

 In modern dollar terms it cost us 150 billion dollars and in treturn we got allies and bases in the Pacific and Europe, powerful economies to buy US exports and to buoy our economy and that won't change soon. The world order is changing because there is no common enemy anymore, at least not one the Europeans care about, and diplomacy will move us to the next stage. Nato will become a political organization with poor military means which it has been for a long time.

Pillow Biter

  • *****
  • 1727
  • +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: how important is nato
« Reply #64 on: June 06, 2017, 12:13:48 PM »
I believe your characterization of the costs of establishing the post-WWII order is too simplistic. Indeed, calculating the costs and benefits of operating and leading the current global architecture is incredibly complex and difficult. It's certainly far more than $150 billion, though--at least on the cost side. The US purposely let places like Germany and Japan and Korea and Taiwan have seemingly very advantageous trade deals for many years in order to make sure they were strong. The Gulf Wars, Afghanistan, and Vietnam cost trillions.

nu-safado

  • ************
  • 4180
  • +3/-1
    • View Profile
Re: how important is nato
« Reply #65 on: June 07, 2017, 11:07:36 PM »
I'm just referring to the basic costs of the Marshall plan and its inflation-adjusted cost. The marshal Plan was a brilliant reorganization of the world in favor of a system the US could benefit and dominate. Best ROI in modern history and paying dividends today

ProjectCornDog

  • *******
  • 4143
  • +1/-12
    • View Profile
Re: how important is nato
« Reply #66 on: July 06, 2017, 03:17:32 PM »
Why would America and the Soviet Union going to war essentially end the world? Not because a few cities got nuked, but because country after country would join in due to alliances and pacts. Right now due to the situation the world is in (largely due to America), if the major powers went into war, it would look A LOT like World War 1 due to the alliances. I don't understand why you think being a bullet away from a nuclear world war makes us safer.

Because if either of those two countries decided to launch their nukes, it would be game over. Not just a few cities, but pretty much everything. Look into nuclear fallout and nuclear winter.

That's the whole point. Having nuclear weapons is the most powerful war deterrent we have.

Quote
Who cares if we trade with everyone?

Right, so you're contradicting what you argued earlier about sanctions.

Quote
1. You were arguing about sanctions reducing the benefits of trade.

It does.

Quote
2. I asked whether NATO had any effect on U.S. trade with a few countries, including North Korea and Cuba.

It does if you base your trading partners on alliances.

Quote
4. I ridiculed the notion that a world without NATO, countries like Cuba or North Korea would suddenly become prosperous. Because logically, that is what you would have to argue in order for your contention about sanctions and trade to really make sense.

If anyone ever needed an example of a non-sequitur this would be a fine one to use.

Quote
Uh, if by 'escalating the situation' you mean they defend their internationally recognized territory? Sure. I'm not quite sure what the article you linked is supposed to prove. And no, Putin doesn't appear to be out to conquer the world or anything stupid like that, though he does appear to be doing his bit to wage a new form of war against democratic governance by meddling in elections and fostering conflict situations like in the Ukraine.

You do know the United States interferes in just as many, if not more, elections right? This isn't unique to Russia.

The situation in the Ukraine has also swung back and forth. You remember how the Russians poisoned one of their former presidents?

Quote
Wait, what was that about isolationism and 'non-interventionism' being polar opposites again?

They are.