Russian President Putin says Trump confirmed willing to mend ties - Polidicks

The irony of americans in here accusing Jouska of whataboutism while simultaneously countering him with "Russians also fucked shit up" is physically painful.

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51404716]If Baltics think they will end up like Ukraine they are retarded.[/QUOTE] Why? Small militaries, large Russian minorities, possibility to secure land corridor to strategic naval base (Kaliningrad). They seem tempting targets enough, provided that Trump holds to his campaign stance to weaken commitment to NATO. If anything, they are small enough to be swallowed whole and not locked into frozen conflict of partial occupation like larger Ukraine.

[QUOTE=Jouska;51404684]Apperently people just want the exact same thing going on. Same wars, no actual progress. But dont you dare try to promote peace, you might be brainwashed by KGB news websites!![/QUOTE] Not weighing in on the argument either way, but can we please just have a discussion rather than hostile arguments (everyone here, not just you Jouska)? This is the whole reason everything's gone to shit this year, everyone at each others throats seeing them as the enemy. We all just want the same thing.

[QUOTE=Vlevs;51404864]Why? Small militaries, large Russian minorities, possibility to secure land corridor to strategic naval base (Kaliningrad). They seem tempting targets enough, provided that Trump holds to his campaign stance to weaken commitment to NATO. If anything, they are small enough to be swallowed whole and not locked into frozen conflict of partial occupation like larger Ukraine.[/QUOTE] Idk about Latvia, but Estonia takes her military seriously. We prob wont go down without a fight, no matter how fast it would be. Since we are one of the handful of nations who take their NATO contribution especially seriously, if we dont get help from.other Nato states NATO may as well be non existant. It is highly unlikely we would be painlessly assimilated. For some oddreason 4g flagdog shows Sweden, but im from Estonia.

Both the States and Russia need to stop interfering in wars theyre only vaguely connected to and stop being imperalistic. However certainly i would hate to see Russia get any stronger than it is right now. Ukraines soventy was violated and Russia needs to be more economically punished for that. More Importantly Europe needs to become militarily independent since the States are extremely unreliable allies now.

[QUOTE=Vlevs;51404864]Why? Small militaries, large Russian minorities, possibility to secure land corridor to strategic naval base (Kaliningrad). They seem tempting targets enough, provided that Trump holds to his campaign stance to weaken commitment to NATO. If anything, they are small enough to be swallowed whole and not locked into frozen conflict of partial occupation like larger Ukraine.[/QUOTE] Russia doesn't have the economic strength to attack a country that isn't a totally corrupt shithole like Ukraine. Seriously, people keep acting like Russia is just gonna invade everything but they do not have the strength to do any more than send some equipment and soldiers to back rebels, and even then they're struggling. Especially considering how they're involved in Syria now.

[QUOTE=Anderan;51404303]You know leaders like Gaddafi tend to dump a lot of money into making their capital look nice to appeal to foreign dignitaries and/or tourists right? That doesn't really mean the whole of Libya was doing really well before their civil war started.[/QUOTE] Under Gaddafi's rule, every family had a right to a house and housing was almost uniformly distributed. Healthcare was free and again uniformly available. Lybia also had the largest government subsidized irrigation plan, supporting most of its food economy. [IMG]http://i.cubeupload.com/Xt0R2h.gif[/IMG] Under Gaddafi's "farm start law" If any Libyan wanted to start a farm they were given a house, farm land and live stock and seeds all free of charge. They were provided with education on farming techniques and finance management if requested. Any Libyan citizen that gave birth was given a sum of money of roughly 5000 usd. Electricity was free of charge for every household and most small businesses. Before his rule only 25% of Libyans were literate. He bought that figure up to 87% under his rule with 25% earning university degrees. Citizens had a legal right to loan at 0% interest due to the state bank. So no... Libya was not some hellhole with a nice shine on their capital... [B]it was a prospering African nation, on the road to western social and economic standards.[/B]

[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;51404085]Look we know the US has done some terrible shit, but screaming [B]EVILLLLLLLLLLL!!![/B] mermaid man style isn't the best way of describing the stuff the US did. Its [B]more of "Fuck ups" than straight up "evil actions"[/B][/QUOTE] Latin america would like to STRONGLY disagree with you(this is still true to this day to some extent, look up clinton foundation shenanigans which had some US government involvement on colombia as an example). Trump is an absolute dick, but ceasing the endless pissing match with russia is good for anyone not interested in WW3.

[QUOTE=bitches;51404036]you complain about evils and turn a blind eye to russian annihilation of neighboring countries and the people therein[/QUOTE] Since when did we annihilate Ukrainians? Oh wait, since you pull this bullshit out of your ass. Also no such luck with Georgians (btw, they actually started that war with the intent of ethnic cleansing but it's not my business or anything) - and South Ossetia and Abkhazia aren't actually annexed by Russia. Also if [B]certain someone[/B] didn't arm *ahem* "moderate" [del]terrorists[/del] groups in Syria this shit show would've been over already. I don't doubt RF has some involvement with rebels in Ukraine (some weapons and hardware, perhaps some black-ops SF units getting combat experience), a shame really, but to claim we actively annihilate someone? You are fucking mental.

[QUOTE=Jouska;51404679]Lmao which I never said we should do either. This entire thread been mostly throwing shit into my mouth and arguing about it because I deemed this as a good first step to ending the bitter cold war thats been holding back the rest of the world.[/QUOTE] I mean, as an outside observer you're clearly doing just as much if not more of this. The amount of people's statements you've seemingly intentionally misinterpreted is pretty crazy You're clearly very emotionally compromised on this issue and I understand that, but when you're emotionally compromised is typically the worst time to try and have a civil discussion By your third post in this thread you were already posting in an incredibly inflammatory and aggressive style

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51405114]Under Gaddafi's rule, every family had a right to a house and housing was almost uniformly distributed. Healthcare was free and again uniformly available. Lybia also had the largest government subsidized irrigation plan, supporting most of its food economy. [IMG]http://i.cubeupload.com/Xt0R2h.gif[/IMG] Under Gaddafi's "farm start law" If any Libyan wanted to start a farm they were given a house, farm land and live stock and seeds all free of charge. They were provided with education on farming techniques and finance management if requested. Any Libyan citizen that gave birth was given a sum of money of roughly 5000 usd. Electricity was free of charge for every household and most small businesses. Before his rule only 25% of Libyans were literate. He bought that figure up to 87% under his rule with 25% earning university degrees. Citizens had a legal right to loan at 0% interest due to the state bank. So no... Libya was not some hellhole with a nice shine on their capital... [B]it was a prospering African nation, on the road to western social and economic standards.[/B][/QUOTE] See but you actually posted information, not just a single image of a single city. I had already looked up the HDI for Libya and knew the conditions there but my point that one image a nice looking city is not indicative of the quality of life in a nation still stands.

[QUOTE=maniacykt;51405182]Since when did we annihilate Ukrainians? Oh wait, since you pull this bullshit out of your ass. Also no such luck with Georgians (btw, they actually started that war with the intent of ethnic cleansing but it's not my business or anything) - and South Ossetia and Abkhazia aren't actually annexed by Russia. Also if [B]certain someone[/B] didn't arm *ahem* "moderate" [del]terrorists[/del] groups in Syria this shit show would've been over already. I don't doubt RF has some involvement with rebels in Ukraine (some weapons and hardware, perhaps some black-ops SF units getting combat experience), a shame really, but to claim we actively annihilate someone? You are fucking mental.[/QUOTE] I seriously cannot understand why Russia gets flak for Georgia since Georgia started annihilating Ossetians in the first place.

This is what disgusts me most of all about this election and American partisan politics: each side is fully prepared to compromise every belief and principle in order to make the other side look bad and avoid admitting their faults. Rather than admitting the faults of their candidate, and that maybe there was a good reason that the Russians might want to work with Wikileaks to sabotage hawkish Clinton's campaign, the democrats (whose own Ted Kennedy [URL="http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html"]once worked directly with the Russians to bring down Ronald Reagan[/URL]) decided to abandon their commitment to rational foreign policy and understanding of your "enemy's" point of view. I remember when the democrats rightly mocked Mitt Romney for saying that Russia was the "number 1 enemy", or when Bill Maher told Garry Kasparov to "wake me when he (Putin) takes Poland". Obama came into office proposing a reset with Russia, it didn't go far enough but it was a noble gesture, so what happened? What happened to understanding the other guy's point of view? what happened to marching down the street waving the flag of an enemy nation because you understood your government was in the wrong? What happened to questioning the government's foreign policy narratives? Was discarding all that really worth it to keep Trump out of the White House?

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51405313]I seriously cannot understand why Russia gets flak for Georgia since Georgia started annihilating Ossetians in the first place.[/QUOTE] Because we cannot have evil Ruskies make good 'ole USA look bad for supporting war criminals, am I right?

I just hope that Russia keeps away from other countries. Why would they need MORE land while they're THE biggest country on earth? It perplexes me. I honestly do not know why, I can only theorize possibly being power hungry and unwilling to let go of old ways (of burning those who stand in their way with whatever makes the biggest fires at the time).

[QUOTE]Why would they need MORE land while they're THE biggest country on earth?[/QUOTE] Ethno-Nationalism. Its Yugoslavia all over again.

[QUOTE=Nitro836;51405515]I just hope that Russia keeps away from other countries. Why would they need MORE land while they're THE biggest country on earth? It perplexes me. I honestly do not know why, I can only theorize possibly being power hungry and unwilling to let go of old ways (of burning those who stand in their way with whatever makes the biggest fires at the time).[/QUOTE] USSR was partly based on the idea that all nations are super-happy to be part of the USSR. Why would they even want to be independent countries when everything they need they will get as part of the USSR?

[QUOTE=BlackPhoenix;51405552]USSR was partly based on the idea that all nations are super-happy to be part of the USSR. Why would they even want to be independent countries when everything they need they will get as part of the USSR?[/QUOTE] That is weirdly similar to the arguments the remain camp used against Brexit.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51405558]That is weirdly similar to the arguments the remain camp used against Brexit.[/QUOTE] What. How can you seriously compare the USSR to the Remain camp in Brexit or compare it to the EU? The fact that you guys can leave in the first place completely dismantles your comparison.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51405588]What. How can you seriously compare the USSR to the Remain camp in Brexit or compare it to the EU? The fact that you guys can leave in the first place completely dismantles your comparison.[/QUOTE] I'm saying that the argument BlackPhoenix was talking about is very similar: "Why would we want to leave when everything we ever need is provided by the wonderful single-market? When we can travel freely across the continent? Why talk about all the money we pay into the EU but not about the benefits we get in return?" My point is that many Europhiles felt that leaving the EU was a collective brain-fart, because they couldn't see how any rational person would see the cons of the remaining as outweighing the pros. And yes, we can leave any time we want, but it's important to remember that unlike the USSR the EU has no hard-power means to prevent us, they don't have their own army (yet). And even then many in the EU still want to punish us economically by forcing a "hard" brexit to make an example of us.

I'm fairly sure the people pushing for the hard Brexit are the British themselves. If you guys want to join the EEA that's fine - but you have to abide by the rules. You got privileged access before, you're not going to be able to break the rules such as getting free trade without free travel now. I've never seen any cons of remaining or any of the pros of leaving that didn't turn out to be false. For example, the whole NHS funding debacle where Leavers claimed that "leaving the EU will save us money that we can use on the NHS!" - that Farage IMMEDIATELY shot down the day the vote was announced. And no, the EU would never prevent a nation member leaving if they wanted to. [I]That's why there is a legal process for that.[/I] An EU army won't prevent that either. Your comparison is absurd as you're trying to compare a "union" made from force that had a dictator directing how the other countries should be behave and a democratic economic and political union that countries joined of their own accord and one who's central authority is democratically elected. You're "being made an example of" because you're making it incredibly difficult on Europe to do anything but that.

[QUOTE=Nitro836;51405515]I just hope that Russia keeps away from other countries. Why would they need MORE land while they're THE biggest country on earth? It perplexes me. I honestly do not know why, I can only theorize possibly being power hungry and unwilling to let go of old ways (of burning those who stand in their way with whatever makes the biggest fires at the time).[/QUOTE] There's no money or reason to expand. Fucking chill out.

[QUOTE=Jouska;51404330]Cognitive dissonance has become a very big problem in our general public. It stops people from getting over their petty bias and stops people from allowing peace.[/QUOTE] I'd take it a step further and say it's Ideological Subversion.

[QUOTE=geel9;51404524]Because we're an interconnected world. At the very least, if you're content with being wholly selfish, one country "rampaging" across a continent and annexing countries left and right is probably indicative of a [b]huge fucking problem[/b] headed your way. Also, you know, being isolationist doesn't really make anyone want to help you when you need it. MURICA REIGNS though, right?[/QUOTE] Acting like almost every other nation on the planet is apparently "being wholly selfish." Guess what? I don't care about other nations rampaging. Sudan is in a rampage as we speak. So are countless other nations and armed groups across the globe. Why do we never hear about our "selfishness" when it comes to these situations? It's very curious. We only ever hear about "isolationism" when it pertains to Russia, China, Iran, and the other geopolitical chess pieces that have strategic value. Nobody talks about our "isolationism" over South Sudan or Burma. It's very intriguing. But I'll embrace the label. Yeah, I care about the goings on in my on country above other shit flying around on the planet. I'm selfish. I don't want to slam my cock out onto the table and smear it all over the map whenever there's a problem somewhere. We have massive problems at home. Even if they were all fixed you still couldn't convince me that embarking on grand crusades to save those poor souls in X nation would be a good idea. I want to stay home and have a good time over here. I like having more money rather than less money because we blew it all in a foreign land. Is this so strange? Is this some sort of alien behavior? Or is it how almost all humans behave and believe and how we always have for thousands of years? Stop being a neocon please. Edit: As for Russia being a "[b]huge fucking problem[/b] headed your way" wow this is so laughable that I'm actually not sure if you're serious. Let's imagine that Slavic Hitler (Putin) conquests all of Europe and rules with an iron fist muhahaha it's Rus Empire 2.0. Let's go into fairytale and land pretend that happens. [B]So fucking what?[/B] How is that a threat to the United States, a nation thousands of miles away on another continent with unparalleled economic and military advantages? Are you so deranged that you think Russia is a threat to us in that capacity? You think Putin going to row over the Atlantic and rape your grandma and cannibalize your children? It's a cartoon. There is only one real existential threat to the US. That's Russia's nuclear capabilities. That is a real danger. Guess what makes that danger into a reality? [B]Constantly fomenting a war with Russia and doing geo-political chessboard maneuvers.[/B] Avoiding a conflict with Russia is the only way to actually prevent the one true threat to our nation's survival. And you want to encourage it in favor of a cartoon scenario. Good job. [QUOTE=Marbalo;51405794]This thread is one huge strawman. No one is saying that better relations between the two major powers are bad. People are saying that Russia's intervention in Ukraine is unjustified and should not go unpunished. In the end, both sides here want the same thing, it's just that brushing off crimes in the name of friendship is a dangerous precedent as well as being a telltale sign of a rotten political relationship.[/QUOTE] "Should not go unpunished" They've already been stoutly punished by economic sanctions. That's great. I don't know of anybody who opposes that outside of some esotreic economists. There are, however, legions of people who constantly either hint at or outright state that there should be some sort of military response by the US because of shit that Russia is doing on the other side of the world. I don't care. I don't want my nation to be doing anything over there. Why do we keep doing adventurism around the globe and why do "liberals" keep supporting it?

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51405313]I seriously cannot understand why Russia gets flak for Georgia since Georgia started annihilating Ossetians in the first place.[/QUOTE] i was once guided by a georgian guy around tbilisi, and he happened to talk about the ossettian war where he said something like "well we might have been the ones whom started it..." but still continued to blame russia for it the anti russian propaganda machine is huge

[QUOTE=Marbalo;51407314]Because if every country on the planet just up and said "well, time to completely ignore and brush aside everything that happens beyond my borders" the world would be much, much worse than it currently is. A US military response to Russia's flagrant annexation of land had its own benefits. No, there wouldn't be a world war, Putin would immediately retreat and spin the whole thing as proof that the US has in fact meddled in Ukraine - effectively shifting the blame entirely on NATO. The problem was that the US hasn't called that bluff, and it was an extremely clever bluff by Putin. He orchestrated the whole thing so expertly that if the US had meddled, they would be blamed for interventionism. If it had not, it would still be blamed by some for inaction, but not as much. So it chose to take the diplomatic route instead, evoking sanctions on Russia. Your main argument though seems just a careless dismissal of people "on the other side of the world", and that world peace should not be maintained or cared for by anyone especially not your country, and that we should just let warring nations continue slaughtering eachother because we're edgy and we're fed up with caring. Well that's not how the US works, and that's not how it should work, and I'm glad you're not even remotely close to any position of power to be able to change this. We live in an interconnected globalized world with major players and small players. The major players should always help the smaller ones, so that they too can become large players. If that means "meddling" in other nations, erecting or disposing of leaders and dictators, and monitoring what's happening around the globe to try and keep everything in check, then it shall be so. The biggest player has that responsibility, and that player is currently the United States whether you like it or not. "With great power," etc...[/QUOTE] It is not in the charter of any proper nation that it must be fundamentally concerned with the goings on of other nations. Nor should it be. Spending resources on strange projects across the world [B]necessarily[/B] means that there are less to be spent at home. Nobody should even be thinking about interventionism unless every one of his fellow countrymen is living like an emperor. But even in that imaginary scenario, there's no moral argument to be made for interventionism. States are not moral actors. They are inherently evil constructs made out of necessity. To extend a state's power in order for it to reach out away from its own people in order to meddle in the affairs of others automatically means its power is being unnecessarily extended and not to the benefit of its citizens. You think it's careless to remain occupied with the affairs of ones own country and countrymen? I call it careless to create a monstrous state power in order to allegedly assist others at the expense of yourself and those around you. World peace isn't going to occur through continuously creating more wars to fight in in the name of the greater good. It hasn't worked. It doesn't work. I didn't even mention this in my last post because I thought it was unnecessary, but on top of all the reasons against globalist interventionism, the fact remains that we fail over and over and over again. More misery and destruction is caused by our supposed efforts to help people than if we left them alone. Vietnam. Iraq. Libya. Syria. It's a giant mess. We keep failing. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to our leaders who profess their intentions to be noble, but the repeated disasters really call their true purposes into question. The only way I could even consider being a fan of foreign adventurism and other so-called humanitarian enterprises is when we can prove that they actually accomplish the stated aims.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51406935] Edit: As for Russia being a "[B]huge fucking problem[/B] headed your way" wow this is so laughable that I'm actually not sure if you're serious. Let's imagine that Slavic Hitler (Putin) conquests all of Europe and rules with an iron fist muhahaha it's Rus Empire 2.0. Let's go into fairytale and land pretend that happens. [B]So fucking what?[/B] How is that a threat to the United States, a nation thousands of miles away on another continent with unparalleled economic and military advantages? Are you so deranged that you think Russia is a threat to us in that capacity? You think Putin going to row over the Atlantic and rape your grandma and cannibalize your children? It's a cartoon. [/QUOTE] Not only this. I really like how european people seriously think that the only thing stopping Putin from taking over Eastern Europe is the NATO agreements. Not their military, which, while being not even nearly as good as american or even russian, still presents a pretty decent and formidable force, not the fact that it's not only pointless, but plain deadly dangerous for Russia as a country to occupy territories with tens of millions of people that would be craving for our blood, not even the fact that our economy simply cannot support this conquest. Russia would gain virtually nothing by occupying those territories, we won't even be able to control them in any long term, and civil unrest caused by these actions would tear the country from inside. The only reason everything worked fine and peaceful with Crimea is because the vast majority of it's population indeed supported the occupation. So the next time you guys feel like saying something about russians dreaming about taking your land and shitting on your lawn just turn your head on instead and think just a little bit of how stupid the thing you're about to say is.

[QUOTE=bitches;51404036]you complain about evils and turn a blind eye to russian annihilation of neighboring countries and the people therein[/QUOTE] the true evil is manipulating people into believing this bullshit.

[QUOTE=space1;51408038]the true evil is manipulating people into believing this bullshit.[/QUOTE] What bullshit? Russian aggressions against the crimean and ukraine?

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;51408072]What bullshit? Russian aggressions against the crimean and ukraine?[/QUOTE] Crimea joined [B][I]willingly[/I][/B]. [editline]22nd November 2016[/editline] Other than that Ukrainian rebels are funded on the same principle as to why US funds "moderates [del]terrorists[/del]" in the middle east. Without going into "whataboutism" it's fucking regular politics but somehow it's bigger deal if Russians are doing it. They win, we get new government that is willing to do what we told them to. They lose (and they would if Ukraine's army wasn't in shit state/had incompetent morons in charge; there was quite a few chances to encircle and completely destroy rebellion in the beginning but they blew it), "we don't have anything to do with this".