Russian army under equipped?

[VladimirTarasov]

Of course geopolitics are the main reasons I'm just talking about the justification.

[Machor]

1 hour ago, hattori said:

We ignored Turkey for the longest time, until we needed them, then invited them in despite our previous concerns

 

Turkey joined NATO in 1952 along with Greece, only three years after NATO was founded. How is that "ignored for the longest time?"

[hattori]

Sigh, because I wrote it in a rush, and I have no idea wtf I was thinking when I put that line down, which now casts doubt on everything I have written once you get a basic fact wrong, so I will have to bow out.  Enjoy, I will keep reading.

[sburke]

1 hour ago, hattori said:

Sigh, because I wrote it in a rush, and I have no idea wtf I was thinking when I put that line down, which now casts doubt on everything I have written once you get a basic fact wrong, so I will have to bow out.  Enjoy, I will keep reading.

LOL and it is on the internet to be remembered... forever.

[VladimirTarasov]

2 hours ago, hattori said:

Sigh, because I wrote it in a rush, and I have no idea wtf I was thinking when I put that line down, which now casts doubt on everything I have written once you get a basic fact wrong, so I will have to bow out.  Enjoy, I will keep reading.

To be fair they were late to the game compared to the US , anyways your points on geopolitical ambitions from all countries are quite true. Some actions are justifiable some aren't anyways I think we should get the topic back to the military aspect.

So how long would it take for the US to be able to deploy a armored brigade combat team to say reinforce Kiev? 

[Battlefront.com]

16 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Vlad, I'd just give it up if I were you, truth, balance and accurate reporting of facts have no place here, they'll just be drowned out by the virtual equivalent of shouts of USA! USA! USA!

Er, no.  There's been a consistent attempt to hold Russia accountable for a war of aggression and a concerted effort to distract from that point.  There's been absolutely nothing like you describe happening.

16 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

To discover that a forum moderator is apparently 'Troll In Chief' just makes the whole situation (and this forum) laughable.....Steve, you have well and truly destroyed BF's credibility in my book, nice job! 

Obviously you don't understand how debates work and you certainly don't understand what was written here.  My sense is that it is you who holds a totally biased and unreasonably supported position, not I.  Heck, I'll give Vladimir 10 times more credit than you because at least he's trying to present a different point of view instead of sallying in here, making totally ridiculous and unsupported pronouncements, then attempts to rid off in the sunset on a white horse with a holier-than-thou shout.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, hattori said:

Just how it was played at the height of the cold war by both sides.  An event to dress up the geo-political decision enough for domestic consumption, and the veneer of just enough of an excuse to not trigger world wide action.  It is getting tiresome both sides are pretending this is not what is going on.

Er... I only see the "Russian" side claiming this.  Or can you point to an example of someone here saying that the West hasn't does things like this and only Russia has?

3 hours ago, hattori said:

Canada provides 40% of U.S. oil, among other vital resources.  If Russian influence spread in this country to the point where we might break off our exports and absolutely destroy the U.S. economy, I'm 100% certain the U.S. would act and prevent this.  

Another really bad analogy.  First, because there is a pretty balanced and fair trading relationship between the US and Canada, backed up by common ancestry and belief systems, there's zero chance that anybody will get inbetween the US and Canadian relationship.  It's silly, and I mean super duper silly, to suggest otherwise.  Which means the only two countries that could screw up the relationship between Canada and the US is either Canada or the US.  Since both have a lot to lose and nothing to gain from conflict, it's not going to happen.  Contrast this with Russia's ill treatment of Georgia, where it's troops already pried away a piece of Georgia and spent years provoking Georgia into a war.

The point here is that the US maintains it's place in the world, for the most part, through historically benevolent relationships.  Even when the US pisses off its allies (which it does quite frequently) and its allies piss off the US (which also happens quite frequently), the relationships continue to be peaceful, cooperative, and stronger long term.  Because Russia engages in one sided abusive behavior, the opposite is the case.

3 hours ago, hattori said:

Just like Israel has fought and will fight any country that tries to divert any of the Hasbani River -- anyone messing with the Jordan River water supply is a threat to their country, and will be dealt with.

oooo... that's a very different thing completely.  In this case you are, quite literally, talking about an attack on the very viability of a state by some other actor.  Unfortunately, water resources (aka Water Wars) will become more and more of a problem with the coming Climate Changes.  Not just between foreign countries but within.  A study of the US South West and California are excellent cases in point.

Steve

[sburke]

28 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

A study of the US South West and California are excellent cases in point.

Steve

wait, what?  oh crap, that retirement home in Washington is looking better and better!  Earthquakes I can handle, but not being able to flush the toilet, I draw the line there!!!

So is that any indication of the theme for a future CM:Water Wars?

[VladimirTarasov]

30 minutes ago, sburke said:

wait, what?  oh crap, that retirement home in Washington is looking better and better!  Earthquakes I can handle, but not being able to flush the toilet, I draw the line there!!!

So is that any indication of the theme for a future CM:Water Wars?

You've confirmed it! 

[Battlefront.com]

On 9/17/2016 at 1:41 PM, HerrTom said:

If you looked at the article I posted, it points to slightly different circumstances as well as, I believe.  Perhaps Germans aren't to be trusted!

Germans are a strange and mysterious people, but I do trust them Der Spiegel, on the other hand, has not been impressing me lately.  Some of the early Ukraine coverage in Der Spiegel was horrible.  Almost as bad as The Guardian.  But I think PzKraut straightened out the primary issue here, which is according to solid and verifiable documentation, in particular Gorbachev, there was no guarantee that NATO would not accept new members.  There was, as has been explained, an agreement about not putting NATO forces into the DDR territory prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.  It was an agreement that NATO did honor.

Quote

I didn't mean to be so vague as to let you make that huge assumption.  I did very much mean the Russian sponsored uprising in the Donbass. 

I had no intention of implying that.  What did I said anything about the evil west?

Alles klar

Quote

I like the reference!  So you're saying that absolutely everything about the situation is entirely manufactured by the Kremlin?  

Yes, 100% of the war in Ukraine is 100% manufactured by the Kremlin and 100% continued by the Kremlin.  There isn't any truth to any of its justifications at all at any level.  That is because in reality Ukraine had an internal political change of power, Russia didn't like it, Russia invaded to force things to its will.  There is no evidence to suggest there was any legal or moral justification for the invasion because there absolutely is no legal or moral justification for the invasion and continued violence.  The evidence for this is overwhelming and entirely consistent.

Quote

I mean, I've heard they're good at that sort of thing, but I think to that level is giving them a bit too much credit.  

Who said they were any good at it?   Pretty much nobody, except Russians and those who are anti-West, have bought into the Kremlin's reasons for invasion.  In fact, Russia has proven to be really bad at covering things up.  The MH-17 shoot down is an example of how incompetent Russian coverups are.

Quote

All I was saying is that that area of Ukraine was on its way to being powder keg already.  There was a lot of friction in that region before Russia agitated it.

Yes, there was a lot of friction there before.  But guess who caused most of it?  Yup, you guessed it... Russia.  It has been manipulating Ukraine for its benefit from long before the Soviet Union and it never stopped.  Not for the last 20 years an certainly not since 2010.  Russia has been deeply involved in undermining Ukrainian governance and internal harmony.

Quote

I have indeed read it, but I don't think even your story involves a several year long "civil war" causing tens of thousands of casualties and undue suffering on both sides, especially in the Donbass.

I was talking about the war itself, not the outcome.  The basic premise of Black Sea is that the minute Kiev ousted the pro-Russian government Russia would invade Crimea and then subvert southern and eastern Ukraine.  This is exactly what happened in almost exactly the same way it in fact happened.  That's the benefit of having studied Russia's behavior patterns over the last 100 years.  It certainly helps that Russia's current leadership isn't very creative, therefore it pretty much followed its own script nearly line for line until Spring 2014.  That is where our story diverged from the real war.

In the Black Sea story Russia forced it's "peace keepers" into Donbas, thus making an open war between it and Ukraine.  That in turn got NATO involved. In real life Putin got to that point and "blinked" because he correctly evaluated the circumstances and determined it wasn't going to work because the West and Ukraine said it would be an act of war.  Instead of what we expected (open invasion under the guise of "peace keepers"), Putin instead instructed the "peace keeper" symbols to be painted over in white or light green paint and sent the forces into Donbas as "captured Ukrainian" equipment which was manned by "coal miners".

The other thing we didn't anticipate is the annexation of Crimea.  We didn't think Russia would be so blatant with it's land grab.  Though once it announced a referendum, it was pretty obvious how that would go.

Obviously we also made NATO involved so we could have a game to play that put NATO vs. Russian forces.  In real life we thought NATO would stay out, as NATO has so far done.  I'm glad that is still the case.

Quote

Steve, I don't know why you have me pegged as an apologist or whatever you think of me.  Perhaps spending too much time around Russian immigrants has corrupted me into seeing everything wrong!

It's a subtle thing.  By purely objective standards there is no excuse for what Russia is doing to Ukraine except to excuse it as blatant imperialism (Realpolitik).  Giving any credibility to the Kremlin excuses, justifications, and outright lies about this war means in some way supporting Russia's war of aggression.

To put it another way, I fully and totally understand why Russia is behaving the way it is.  That is because I've been studying Russia's history for almost 30 years now.  It is how I was able to predict Russia's invasion of Ukraine years before it happened.  The several thousand hours of research and debate I've engaged in since the invasion has shown that I do understand what is going on very well.

Steve

 

[Battlefront.com]

On 9/18/2016 at 1:07 PM, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Russia of today can easily be compared to Russia of the past.  If there was a break in behavior, or suddenly Russia got a lot more open and friendly to Eastern Europe, then there's clearly a new day dawning or something, but your actual policies have not changed outside of the fact you have less control over Eastern Europe than you used to.  Heck in a lot of ways the Ukrainian situation is just a hybrid warfare rehash of what happened to Hungary and Czechoslovakia, a country broke too far from the official Soviet/Russian party line and tried to control it's own destiny, and it got invaded.  

You can't do the same thing you've always done, and pretend its different now because the country has rebranded.  

Yes.  This is why we were able to very accurately predict Russia's invasion of Ukraine in detail.  Russia of 2014 was no different than Russia of 2008 or of Russia 1998 or of Russia 1996, or Russia 1993, or Russia 1992, or Soviet Union 1991, or Soviet Union... so on and so forth.  The levels of aggression, dishonesty, disrespect, and deceit show that Eastern Europe, and the West generally, were correct that Russia had not changed it's ways.

Quote

This obvious and continued pattern of crimes and abuses makes joining a defensive alliance against Russian predatory behavior both attractive, and frankly as you all are showing right now, very pragmatic.  

Yes, and it's getting worse.  There's a report in a Russian newspaper report, backed up by Russia Today of all things, stating that Russia might very soon have KGB 2.0:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/19/russia-to-reinstate-the-kgb-under-plan-to-combine-security-force/

https://www.rt.com/politics/359851-newspaper-forecasts-all-enveloping-reform/

Because I've paid attention to current events and Russia's history, in particular Putin's rehabilitation of Stalin's image, this is not surprising.  I (as well as others, of course) predicted this sort of consolidation of security services many years before the Ukraine conflict.  It's the most logical progression of Putin's form of autocracy, especially given that he is an unabashed supporter of the KGB itself.

The current rumors might be what we call a "trial balloon" and not intended to go forward at this time.  Perhaps all that will happen now is a partial move towards the old KGB structure, and Putin saying "I'm not reconstructing the KGB".  However, at some point Putin's security apparatus will be consolidated and more resemble the old Soviet System than differ from it.  Could be now, could be next year, could be in a year or two later.  The direction Putin is taking Russia is pretty clearly laid out, but the timing is not.

Steve

[Sublime]

The idea of a previous low tier field grade KGB officer who is now dictator of Russia rehabilitating Stalins image and after the information act or aka the russian super patriot act, the idea of rebuilding the kgb is just so depressing and vaguely scary. More depressing than scary since theres no doubt in my mind the SVR has been carrying on the KGB legacy of spying with legals and illegals and doing wetwork uninterrupted all along. Its like the Cheka to the OGPU or whatever the hell it was to the next thing to the NKVD to eventually the KGB. Really the differences are just names and whose giving orders not the end results sadly.

[HerrTom]

Thank you Steve for your clarification and patience.  I think I was mostly confused on what you were saying.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Germans are a strange and mysterious people, but I do trust them Der Spiegel, on the other hand, has not been impressing me lately.  Some of the early Ukraine coverage in Der Spiegel was horrible.  Almost as bad as The Guardian.

Strange and mysterious indeed, but don't get too trusting!  Some of the reporting may come from the sentiment of "Russians can't be all that bad" and overall anti-conflict in their sector.  Plus, the article was from more than five years ago, when many were still thinking that the Russians had turned over a new leaf.

42 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

It's a subtle thing.  By purely objective standards there is no excuse for what Russia is doing to Ukraine except to excuse it as blatant imperialism (Realpolitik).  Giving any credibility to the Kremlin excuses, justifications, and outright lies about this war means in some way supporting Russia's war of aggression.

To put it another way, I fully and totally understand why Russia is behaving the way it is.  That is because I've been studying Russia's history for almost 30 years now.  It is how I was able to predict Russia's invasion of Ukraine years before it happened.  The several thousand hours of research and debate I've engaged in since the invasion has shown that I do understand what is going on very well.

I guess there's the rift between what's morally justifiable and practically justifiable, and whether there is a significant difference between the two.  Call me cynical, but I hold the opinion that all people are selfish to the very core.  Even altruism is selfish, since one wouldn't do anything if there wasn't any kind of reward, whether it be the feel good or what have you.  And it is because of this that this argument exists in the first place.  The West is in a wonderful position in that in most cases, furthering the "Western Agenda" tends to take the guise of "Good Things" for the world, which also happen to be "Good Things" for the US, for the UK, for Germany, etc.  Russia, on the other hand, is pushing its own agenda, which should ostensibly be good for Russians (a whole new debate), but in pushing the things good for Russia, as she sees it, ends up on the "Bad Things" results.

In a nutshell, these rote excuses and justifications are only there since they're expected, to maintain the illusion that "just" and "right" is being done in the face of practicality.  I know people sometimes say Realpolitik is dead, but I see it just better hidden.

[cool breeze]

Yeah well said HerrTomm. 

I haven't really been trying to argue with any of the fact at hand, everyone is making very valid points for the most part, and the arguments for why what Russia has been doing is wrong have been largely hitting home.  But as much as it all moves my heart for the suffering of Eastern Europe, the discussion seemed to need a bit of perspective balance injected into the discourse.  We don't seem to me to have really entered the age where governments are actually expected to do what they see as best for the world at large.  They seem to me more just expected to try to make it seem that way.  And yeah it would be great if things were different, and we should try to change things by calling bad actions out when we see them, like most people here have been doing about Russia.  But if what we are trying to do is bring about a new age where governments are actually all about doing the "right thing"  then it seems that in the same breath that we say that Russians should stop "supporting a rebellion" Ukraine we should probably also say the US should stop "supporting a rebellion"  in Syria. 

[Battlefront.com]

46 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

Strange and mysterious indeed, but don't get too trusting!  Some of the reporting may come from the sentiment of "Russians can't be all that bad" and overall anti-conflict in their sector.  Plus, the article was from more than five years ago, when many were still thinking that the Russians had turned over a new leaf.

Germany, of all the European nations, forged the closest ties to Russia of any Western nation in terms of economic investment and cooperation.  As things in Russia have gone in the wrong direction, from Europe's perspective, there's been some reluctance to admit that the attitude towards Russia should also change.  The early pressure on Merkel to overlook Russia's aggression in Ukraine was very strong.  And that was, to some extent, reflected in Germany's media.  They, like The Guardian, were quick to call Ukraine's new government "fascist" and to water down or even outright deny what Russia's military activities.  As it became more and more clear that these positions were fiction from Moscow and not reality from Ukraine, the voices became more quiet.  Especially because they did fail to push Merkel away from sanctions and other "counter productive" behavior.

46 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

I guess there's the rift between what's morally justifiable and practically justifiable, and whether there is a significant difference between the two.  Call me cynical, but I hold the opinion that all people are selfish to the very core.  Even altruism is selfish, since one wouldn't do anything if there wasn't any kind of reward, whether it be the feel good or what have you.  And it is because of this that this argument exists in the first place.  The West is in a wonderful position in that in most cases, furthering the "Western Agenda" tends to take the guise of "Good Things" for the world, which also happen to be "Good Things" for the US, for the UK, for Germany, etc.  Russia, on the other hand, is pushing its own agenda, which should ostensibly be good for Russians (a whole new debate), but in pushing the things good for Russia, as she sees it, ends up on the "Bad Things" results.

In a nutshell, these rote excuses and justifications are only there since they're expected, to maintain the illusion that "just" and "right" is being done in the face of practicality.  I know people sometimes say Realpolitik is dead, but I see it just better hidden.

Of course Realpolitik is not dead.  Of course people, and by extension nations, are selfish.  Therefore, all nations are working with the same basic concepts.  However, the West generally believes that it is in their best interests to not be overt war mongering lying autocrats.  Therefore, in its Realpolitik evaluation they genuinely behave cooperatively to some extent.  Whether a particular issue is more selfish than altruistic is not really all that important.  What matters more is what happens as a result of this form of Realpolitik.

By contrast, Russia's version of Realpolitik is that what is good for an adversary is not good for oneself, therefore the set of actions tends to be less beneficial to the other party.  Especially because as things get worse in Russia the list of groups and governments that are considered "adversarial" increases.  In the end the behavior pattern is more harmful to others than the Western approach.

Here is a very good analogy of the difference in Realpolitik thinking using a mining company as an example.  It is a business that is inherently damaging to the environment and potentially to its workers.  It is also an enterprise that creates wealth from something that is tangible rather than intangible (money, intellectual property, etc).  It is in the mining company's best interest to make as much money as possible the easiest way possible.

The Western mining company will pay attention to most of the environmental laws without pressure.  This is because serious violations are "bad for business" because of government prosecutions of criminal offenses and civil cases that can take money from them even if the government doesn't.  Being in gross violation of the law also means bad public relations and problems with investors, future government regulations, and other things of that nature.  It's "bad for business".  Harm to employees can cause a company to go out of business very quickly, or at least make it far more expensive to find, retain, and insure workers.

The Western mining company, therefore, is obligated to follow most of the laws because it is the best thing for its business.  Now, does that mean it always follows the laws?  No.  Does it mean it never tries to bribe officials and communities?  No.  Does it mean it doesn't try to get laws changed to be more favorable even when they should not be?  No.  But it does mean they are less likely to violate laws or the most harmful ones or to the worst degree.  The result is a better mining operation than would be seen 10, 20, 50, or 100 years ago.  Not because the mining company is not self interested, but because it is.

Contrast this with a mining company in a place like Russia.  The laws are weak to start with, not very well enforced, and money cures all kinds of problems.  If something bad happens they can usually have it covered up or shift the blame or have "investigations" not achieve anything.  Therefore, the mining company does not take particular care of the environment or its workers because it is not forced to.

This is the difference between Western and Russian systems in pretty much all aspects.  The rule of law in the West produces less harmful forms of Realpolitik than can be seen in Russia where the rule of law is "thin".  Harm can come from both, absolutely, but general behavior is inherently different.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

29 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

Yeah well said HerrTomm. 

I haven't really been trying to argue with any of the fact at hand, everyone is making very valid points for the most part, and the arguments for why what Russia has been doing is wrong have been largely hitting home.  But as much as it all moves my heart for the suffering of Eastern Europe, the discussion seemed to need a bit of perspective balance injected into the discourse.  We don't seem to me to have really entered the age where governments are actually expected to do what they see as best for the world at large.  They seem to me more just expected to try to make it seem that way.  And yeah it would be great if things were different, and we should try to change things by calling bad actions out when we see them, like most people here have been doing about Russia.  But if what we are trying to do is bring about a new age where governments are actually all about doing the "right thing"  then it seems that in the same breath that we say that Russians should stop "supporting a rebellion" Ukraine we should probably also say the US should stop "supporting a rebellion"  in Syria. 

Morality is on a spectrum, it is not absolute.  To equate Russia's willful and unilateral war against Ukraine with the West's attempts to get rid of Assad is not a very good one.  In both cases Russia is seeking to prolong Human suffering on a mass scale in order to achieve it's own political ends.  It is seeking to be REWARDED for its behavior.  The West is trying to stop both the Human suffering and in the process produce a more just world order (flawed as it might be).  While I agree with Tom completely that this doesn't mean the West's actions are all fluffy bunny happy stuff, compared to Russia's (and in Syria's case, Iran's and Saudi Arabia's) motivations and desired outcomes, it's not even in the same ball park.

Here's a quick test for you.  Would you give up your citizenship to become a Russian citizen and forever live in Russia?  I suspect not.  If you were forced to fight for Assad, ISIS, Al Qaeda, or one of the more moderate groups in Syria... which would you fight for?  I think I can guess.  Your answers show that, whether you admit it or not, you understand that there is a difference between the things you say aren't very different.

We live in an unjust world with a bunch of poor choices to pick from.  Someone who is moral should pick the most moral choice now and try to make sure the next time a choice is made there's an even better option.  Over generations things do get better, though not nearly as fast or as evenly as they should.  By not seeing a difference in paths one can not make things better for future generations. I personally find that to be highly immoral and highly selfish.

Steve

[cool breeze]

Of course I wouldn't give up my citizenship to move to Russia.  If for whatever reason I had to choose between fighting for one of those (which would be terrible) it would be Assad because then I'm at least not (being a terrorist) trying to topple another middle eastern nation, I think we all know how that works out.  The whole the West is good and Russia is bad so anytime we can fight them anywhere is good it old hat and tired.  To me you justifying us spending more of our tax dollars trying to topple yet another nation in that area right after the last one went to **** after we toppled it, is in much more moral gray area than anything I have said, by far

At least last time we had the honor to actually invade and put ourselves on the line to topple the government vs funding terrorism.

Edited September 19, 2016 by cool breeze

[cool breeze]

I think the best way for America to help the world is not from moral high ground bring its justice at gunpoint wherever "needed" , but by leading by example, and investing in itself rather than foreign meddling, to take care of its own problems before trying to take care of the worlds, by inventing and trading and building.  I don't want it leading by example to say that it is right to take your populaces money to send weapons to the middle east to overthrow more of their governments.

[cool breeze]

"In both cases Russia is seeking to prolong Human suffering on a mass scale in order to achieve it's own political ends.  It is seeking to be REWARDED for its behavior.  The West is trying to stop both the Human suffering and in the process produce a more just world order (flawed as it might be).

Steve"

So you're saying the west is trying to stop the suffering by funding the rag tag uncon forces that are fighting to overthrown the Syrian government?  And Russia is deliberately prolonging it by trying to help Assad crush the rebellion?  So like the west is being good because these rag tag uncons have a good chance of overthrowing the government, and and then they could become a happy prosperous nation that happens to be western friendly, after they eventually rebuild the country from the rubble?  And if it wasn't for the evil Ruskies helping Assad out it could already be just about over and the world would be just about ready to start being better? 

 

 

I tried to come back a little hard because I thought this bit was pointed at me and pretty ridiculous and uncalled for if so.

"By not seeing a difference in paths one can not make things better for future generations. I personally find that to be highly immoral and highly selfish.

Steve"

 

Edited September 20, 2016 by cool breeze

[Battlefront.com]

28 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

Of course I wouldn't give up my citizenship to move to Russia.

Why not?

28 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

If for whatever reason I had to choose between fighting for one of those (which would be terrible) it would be Assad because then I'm at least not (being a terrorist) trying to topple another middle eastern nation, I think we all know how that works out. 

So you're fine with murdering men, women, and children on a mass scale, starving and terrorizing those you don't kill, all in the name of a minority sect which chose to start a civil war rather than engage in badly needed political and economic reform?  A regime, which if it wins, will exact revenge and try to keep it's hold on power forever more against any change?  Interesting.

28 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

The whole the West is good and Russia is bad so anytime we can fight them anywhere is good it old hat and tired. 

Again, you make this black and white.  I'm arguing that the West is BETTER and Russia is WORSE.  I have mountains of tangible and relevant information to offer that demonstrates this both quantitatively and qualitatively.  You seem to think none of that matters, yet you can say that because you live a much better life than the average Russian (of this I am nearly certain).

28 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

To me you justifying us spending more of our tax dollars trying to topple yet another nation in that area right after the last one went to **** after we toppled it, is in much more moral gray area than anything I have said, by far

Well sure, if you ignore pretty much everything I've said and boil it down to a false choice.

Assad, Russia, and Iran decided to have a civil war, not the West.  Russia decided to invade Ukraine and murder thousands of people, not the West.  So what you're saying is that "might makes right".  Great attitude.

As for the West's incompetent handling of regime change... the problem is it's messy and the West hasn't figured out how to do it even remotely well.  But guess how Humans learn?  From making mistakes and (better still) being held accountable for them.  There was nothing immoral about helping get rid of a murderous tyrant, even if the follow through sucks.  It is immoral to deliberately aid a murderous tyrant.  The West has largely learned the latter lesson, Russia doesn't care.

28 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

At least last time we had the honor to actually invade and put ourselves on the line to topple the government vs funding terrorism.

Er, come again?

16 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

I think the best way for America to help the world is not from moral high ground bring its justice at gunpoint wherever "needed" , but by leading by example, and investing in itself rather than foreign meddling, to take care of its own problems before trying to take care of the worlds, by inventing and trading and building.  I don't want it leading by example to say that it is right to take your populaces money to send weapons to the middle east to overthrow more of their governments.

No, you do not.  Because if you did then you not be supportive of what is going on in either Ukraine or Syria from the Russian point of view.  One of the primary reasons for Maidan is that the West's example DID resonate with Ukrainians and they DID act.  There was no Western invasion or gunpoint or whatever.  The people rose up based on the examples of the West and Russia is trying desperately to squash it.  Something that you apparently think is just fine.

You're in a muddle, that's for sure.  That's what happens when you view the world in black and white absolutes.  Quickly all maneuverability in your arguments crumbles.

Steve

[cool breeze]

Didnt read your response yet, probably should but imma say my point first anyway.

Maybe the main issue here is moral relativism vs a belief in good and evil. Although I guess you can be both.  You are I think firmly in the moral relativism camp, and I firmly believe in good and evil.  It is not evil to do self defense.  Perspective is a key in good and evil, from the Russian peoples perspective they are acting in self defense, therefore it is not evil.  To me our activity in the middle east is in no way self defense, and much of it sort of counts as evil.  I see how everything you are saying probably make perfect sense from your perspective but moral relativism is sort of foreign to me, although I do see a lot of gray area and different perspectives.

[Battlefront.com]

15 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

So you're saying the west is trying to stop the suffering by funding the rag tag uncon forces that are fighting to overthrown the Syrian government?  And Russia is deliberately prolonging it by trying to help Assad crush the rebellion?

Absolutely.  And the facts definitely support that point of view.

Quote

So like the west is being good because these rag tag uncons have a good chance of overthrowing the government, and and then they could become a happy prosperous nation that happens to be western friendly, after they eventually rebuild the country from the rubble? 

That is the overall hope for it, yes.  And lucrative contracts and resources freed up to fight other wars and all the rest that goes along with it too.

Quote

And if it wasn't for the evil Ruskies helping Assad out it could already be just about over and the world would be just about ready to start being better? 

Without Iran and Russia's help, but especially Russia's, Assad would have fallen 2-3 years ago.  The earlier Assad fell the less likely there would be ISIS or at least the ISIS we know today.  The #1 cause of ISIS is Assad.  Of that pretty much all terrorism experts agree.

Quote

I tried to come back a little hard because I thought this bit was pointed at me and pretty ridiculous and uncalled for if so.

Of course it is pointed, but it is neither ridiculous nor uncalled for.  You are making arguments in favor of totalitarian regimes and their intents on the world around us as being no worse than what the West does.  You dismiss, quite readily, any and all decent things the West does because it isn't pure.  Yet at the same time you admit you wouldn't live in one of those regimes voluntarily.  Your world view is both logically and morally flawed as it is hypocritical.  It is only correct for me to point out the flaws in your arguments since you are trying to do the same to mine.  It is what happens in a debate and if you don't like it you can either counter my logic or bow out.  You could also look inward and see that maybe I've got a point.

Steve

[cool breeze]

"Without Iran and Russia's help, but especially Russia's, Assad would have fallen 2-3 years ago.  The earlier Assad fell the less likely there would be ISIS or at least the ISIS we know today.  The #1 cause of ISIS is Assad.  Of that pretty much all terrorism experts agree. "

All the experts that won't say its mostly the US's fault.  We've been destabilizing the region for a very long time. 

 

 

 

 

"

22 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

So you're saying the west is trying to stop the suffering by funding the rag tag uncon forces that are fighting to overthrown the Syrian government?  And Russia is deliberately prolonging it by trying to help Assad crush the rebellion?

Absolutely.  And the facts definitely support that point of view.

Quote

So like the west is being good because these rag tag uncons have a good chance of overthrowing the government, and and then they could become a happy prosperous nation that happens to be western friendly, after they eventually rebuild the country from the rubble? 

That is the overall hope for it, yes.  And lucrative contracts and resources freed up to fight other wars and all the rest that goes along with it too.

Quote

And if it wasn't for the evil Ruskies helping Assad out it could already be just about over and the world would be just about ready to start being better? 

Without Iran and Russia's help, but especially Russia's, Assad would have fallen 2-3 years ago.  The earlier Assad fell the less likely there would be ISIS or at least the ISIS we know today.  The #1 cause of ISIS is Assad.  Of that pretty much all terrorism experts agree."

 

How would the rebels really have captured Damascus from the army?  Bad credentials, I know, but my time playing CM makes that seem almost ludicrous.  Has an uncon force ever done anything remotely like that against a functioning modern state before?

[HerrTom]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

44 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

Of course I wouldn't give up my citizenship to move to Russia.

Why not?

It's a great place to work in engineering!  I'm still happy where I am though

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

As for the West's incompetent handling of regime change... the problem is it's messy and the West hasn't figured out how to do it even remotely well.  But guess how Humans learn?  From making mistakes and (better still) being held accountable for them.  There was nothing immoral about helping get rid of a murderous tyrant, even if the follow through sucks.  It is immoral to deliberately aid a murderous tyrant.  The West has largely learned the latter lesson, Russia doesn't care.

My contention to the first part of this is that no one has really perfected regime change.  Unless it comes from absolutely overwhelming internal support both from above and below, it seems almost destined to be messy, bloody, and/or ineffective.

2 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

Maybe the main issue here is moral relativism vs a belief in good and evil. Although I guess you can be both.  You are I think firmly in the moral relativism camp, and I firmly believe in good and evil.  It is not evil to do self defense.

This confuses me a bit, since you agreed on my argument before, yet my argument was about how none of that mattered anyway!  Though...

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Your world view is both logically and morally flawed as it is hypocritical.

Phrasing like this puts people on the defensive, makes them dig their heels in, and usually doesn't help the discussion.  I don't mean to single you out Steve, since you're the best contributor to this thread alongside Vlad and armoured cabbage thrower.  It's endemic to this thread in everyone.  I'm sure I'm guilty of it sometimes.  I understand it's frustrating talking about the same stuff over and over again usw. but isn't it better to attack the point and not the person?

[cool breeze]

"Of course it is pointed, but it is neither ridiculous nor uncalled for.  You are making arguments in favor of totalitarian regimes and their intents on the world around us as being no worse than what the West does.  You dismiss, quite readily, any and all decent things the West does because it isn't pure.  Yet at the same time you admit you wouldn't live in one of those regimes voluntarily.  Your world view is both logically and morally flawed as it is hypocritical.  It is only correct for me to point out the flaws in your arguments since you are trying to do the same to mine.  It is what happens in a debate and if you don't like it you can either counter my logic or bow out.  You could also look inward and see that maybe I've got a point.

Steve"

 

I think I admitted you had a lot of sound points, but not these.  I did not argue any of those things, nor is my world view what you say or think it is.  And I only actually argued with you about anything after you had called me "highly immoral and highly selfish".  I do feel I should continue tho after the challenge   and actually kinda appreciate the attention, no hard feelings, actually feel a little good to have riled you up