Intrade: 70.5% chance Obama will win third debate

[Zevico]

Your argument is that escalating rhetoric with the Russians is a good idea.

No, my argument is simply to point out that Russia is and remains a strategic rival. Calling things what they are is not escalating rhetoric.

I am glad you have come around to the understanding that calling Russians names and speculating about their motives isn't going to help the issue. It takes a big man to admit you were wrong

I am neither calling Russians names nor speculating about their motives. As a person of Russian heritage I understand that Russian society is politically dysfunctional and corrupt. As a person who has read and has some understanding of foreign policy and history I understand that the Soviet leadership did not magically melt away at the end of the Cold War.

It was they who ended it, albeit because they felt they could not compete with the United States anymore and win. They chose to end the Soviet Union. They ended it on their terms, to secure their interests, and without casting away much of their worldview other than acknowledging that communism, the Soviet state and the Cold War were failures.

Russian nationalism in the dangerous, imperialist sense--this they did not cast away. This was a plank of Soviet propaganda and interests, and it is today a plank of Russian propaganda and interests, made up of a ruling class that still sees itself as imperial in character and interest. I am not making this up: one need only look to the current makeup of the current Russian state, Russian society, its education system, and what its leaders say to form these conclusions. Think of it: an ex-KGB colonel is the head of the Russian state. The KGB were ambitious and amoral killers. Nothing more, nothing less. Think of it: the head of the Russian state is an ambitious and amoral killer. How does he see the world?

Now, if you have a different view, it is not a matter of saying I'm "escalating rhetoric" but of the fact that you have differing views of the interests and priorities of the Russian state. Thus far you have not understood that this argument is about the nature of the Russian state or its interests, let alone engaged in it.

[Aeson]

No, my argument is simply to point out that Russia is and remains a strategic rival. Calling things what they are is not escalating rhetoric.

You obviously don't understand what "escalating rhetoric" means. When you go from calling people "friends" to calling them "our worst enemies" you are definitely escalating rhetoric.

[quote]I am neither calling Russians names nor speculating about their motives.]/quote]

You're calling them our worst enemies and state sponsors of terrorism. You're pretending like they're some sort of pod people who think in incomprehensible ways (to all those not of Russian heritage at least, and Mitt Romney). Further on, "ambitious and amoral killers".

You're speculating that they're planning on doing something they aren't actually doing yet. I would call that speculating.

As a person of Russian heritage I understand that Russian society is politically dysfunctional and corrupt.

Your politically dysfunctionality probably has nothing to do with your Russian heritage. But thanks for trying to give us an example.

As a person who has read and has some understanding of foreign policy and history I understand that the Soviet leadership did not magically melt away at the end of the Cold War. It was they who ended it, albeit because they felt they could not compete with the United States anymore and win. They chose to end the Soviet Union. They ended it on their terms, to secure their interests, and without casting away much of their worldview other than acknowledging that communism, the Soviet state and the Cold War were failures.

Russian nationalism in the dangerous, imperialist sense--this they did not cast away. This was a plank of Soviet propaganda and interests, and it is today a plank of Russian propaganda and interests, made up of a ruling class that still sees itself as imperial in character and interest. I am not making this up: one need only look to the current makeup of the current Russian state, Russian society, its education system, and what its leaders say to form these conclusions. Think of it: an ex-KGB colonel is the head of the Russian state. The KGB were ambitious and amoral killers. Nothing more, nothing less. Think of it: the head of the Russian state is an ambitious and amoral killer. How does he see the world?

The reality is that in the past 25 years we've seen the dismantling of the USSR. Russia is not as powerful as they were even at the end of the Cold War. Former holdings like the Ukraine have moved towards aligning with the west.

All of which means your first paragraph makes your second completely irrelevant. If these boogeymen exist, and knew they couldn't compete with the US at the end of the Cold War ... they aren't going to think Russia on it's own can compete with the west and some of the former Soviet Republics in the future ...

Now, if you have a different view, it is not a matter of saying I'm "escalating rhetoric" but of the fact that you have differing views of the interests and priorities of the Russian state. Thus far you have not understood that this argument is about the nature of the Russian state or its interests, let alone engaged in it.

It is a matter of saying you support escalating rhetoric. The issue was Romney calling them our worst enemies. That is escalating rhetoric, and something you tried to defend. It doesn't matter if that's true or not (it's not), it's always a stupid thing to say. We have a great example of how that sort of rhetoric plays out when targeting Russians with it ... and it's not good.

[Zevico]

The reality is that in the past 25 years we've seen the dismantling of the USSR. Russia is not as powerful as they were even at the end of the Cold War. Former holdings like the Ukraine have moved towards aligning with the west.

Quite true. So what?

All of which means your first paragraph makes your second completely irrelevant. If these boogeymen exist, and knew they couldn't compete with the US at the end of the Cold War ... they aren't going to think Russia on it's own can compete with the west and some of the former Soviet Republics in the future ...

Russia still sees America's loss as Russia's gain and they still want Russia to gain--particularly in the Middle East. Sponsoring Russian imperialism under cover of sponsoring international communism? No, they don't do that anymore. That's what the Cold War was. That's over now. Now they sponsor any generalised anti-American group if it serves their interests. They're happy to support powers like Iran, for example, but they're not Islamists. Ambitions lessened? Yes. Ambitions gone? No. Still an enemy. Less of a threat. Is Romney right to call them America's worst enemies? Yes. They're definitely up there with China and Iran, even if Russia doesn't exercise its influence as overtly anymore. They "lead from behind."

You're calling them our worst enemies and state sponsors of terrorism.

They're both.

You're pretending like they're some sort of pod people who think in incomprehensible ways (to all those not of Russian heritage at least, and Mitt Romney).

I'm not pretending anything. You're making a strawman of my views, which apply to the cold and calculating Russian state--not to its people as a whole.

Further on, "ambitious and amoral killers".

That's the Russian state and its membership. The Russian people are not. They simply have no understanding of the purpose of government.

[regexcellent]

None of the "russia is our enemy" people are talking about previously-mentioned Clancy-esque World War Three scenarios*. It's about the fact that Russia does things like impede our ability to place sanctions on Iran and seems to enjoy foiling our diplomatic efforts around the world.

*Well, there are probably some but they deserve every bit of scorn you're giving them.

xpost

[Aeson]

Quite true. So what?

So everything you're basing your argument off of is irrelevant.

Boogeyman? Mate, if you think an ex-KGB colonel as head of state is not a threat, you're living on another planet. They may not think overt war with the United States is their top priority. But they still see America's loss as Russia's gain and they still want Russia to gain--particularly in the Middle East. Sponsoring international communism? No, they don't do that anymore. That's what the Cold War was. That's over now. Now they sponsor any generalised anti-American group if it serves their interests. They're happy to support ruling powers like Iran, for example, but they're not Islamists. Ambitions lessened? Yes. Ambitions gone? No. Still an enemy. Less of a threat.

Definitely not our greatest enemy even if we take everything you've said here as gospel.

Is Romney right to call them America's worst enemies? Yes.

No. It's a stupid thing to say that has 0 upside, and lots of potential downside.

I'm not pretending anything. You're making a strawman of my views, which apply to the cold and calculating Russian state--not to its people as a whole.

Yes, you say I don't understand Russians. Then you claim your Russian heritage is part of how you can understand them. All the while trying to paint them as some boogeyman with rhetoric that reminds me very much of how people talked about Russians back when I was a kid in the early 80's. We don't want to go back to your ****ing stupid Cold War diplomacy, Zev.

[Hauldren Collider]

What makes you say our diplomacy in the cold war was stupid? I seem to recall we won. We were obviously doing something right.

[Hauldren Collider]

Oh, and our rhetoric about the Russian government being evil and calculating and so forth? All true. Just because you have jaded memories of the 80s doesn't mean that we were actually wrong at the time.

[Aeson]

What makes you say our diplomacy in the cold war was stupid?

Something about being on the brink of the end of civilization as we know it for decades.

I seem to recall we won.

You don't start another Cold War even if you think you'd win it. Everyone lost, just some less than others.

We were obviously doing something right.

It was the drawing down of rhetoric by Reagan (and later Bush I) and Gorbachev that helped lead to an end to the insanity. That was "right" by both sides.

We shouldn't wantonly try to undo what they worked so hard for... even if Russia doesn't always do what we'd want them to.

[Zevico]

Definitely not our greatest enemy

I put the Russians up there with China and (on a lower rung due to size) Iran. I suppose you could say the Chinese are a greater threat than the Russians and that's certainly true, say, in Asia, but then we're dealing with specific interests and not broad generalisations about enemies.

No. It's a stupid thing to say that has 0 upside, and lots of potential downside.

Whether speaking the truth on this subject has "no upside" is a fascinating subject. Romney has an interest in informing the public of his views; the public has an interest in understanding his views; there is an upside to be had in pointing out these views. To say as much is simply to point out the facts. And incidentally, the notion that there is no upside to being frank on the identity of your enemies and friends in the international arena is simply not true. Frankness about this very subject by Reagan on Iran persuaded the Iranians to release American hostages in Iran on the very day Reagan was inaugurated. Intimidation works.

Yes, you say I don't understand Russians. Then you claim your Russian heritage is part of how you can understand them.

That and my understanding of its history and culture. I was born in the SU, I speak the language, I know how people think on a cultural or instinctive level. Don't discount that knowledge. Its an advantage anywhere you go, just as being a foreigner is a disadvantage anywhere you go.

All the while trying to paint them as some boogeyman with rhetoric that reminds me very much of how people talked about Russians back when I was a kid in the early 80's. We don't want to go back to your ****ing stupid Cold War diplomacy, Zev.

Reagan won that Cold War.

[Hauldren Collider]

I don't think Russia wants nuclear brinksmanship. If they don't want it, we won't have it. That doesn't mean they aren't at least among our biggest foreign policy rivals. Not all of cold war diplomacy was about nuclear deterrence. Also note that our policy of MAD was something that Reagan had always opposed on moral grounds.

[Zevico]

It was the drawing down of rhetoric by Reagan (and later Bush I) and Gorbachev that helped lead to an end to the insanity.

No, it was quite frankly and overtly the Soviet leadership's calculation that they could not compete militarily or otherwise with the American state in a global ideological conflict. Gorbachev's appointment reflected that view among the Soviet political leadership as did his strategy and actions. Gorbachev did not spring from the ether.

That was "right" by both sides.

Naive, schoolmarmish nonsense. The Cold War was not won by the SU and the United States deciding to play nice.

[Aeson]

Oh, and our rhetoric about the Russian government being evil and calculating and so forth? All true.

Regardless of whether it's true or not, it's a stupid thing to do.

[Aeson]

Oh, and our rhetoric about the Russian government being evil and calculating and so forth? All true.

Regardless of whether it's true or not, it's a stupid thing to do.

[Zevico]

I might add that calling on Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" was not exactly an instance of "playing nice" with the Soviet leadership, and nor did it have any negative consequences. What it did do was hearten Soviet dissidents.

[Aeson]

Definitely not our greatest enemy

I put the Russians up there with China and (on a lower rung due to size) Iran. I suppose you could say the Chinese are a greater threat than the Russians and that's certainly true, say, in Asia, but then we're dealing with specific interests and not broad generalisations about enemies.

Our biggest enemies are ourselves. Without a doubt. It's not even close. Especially douches like HC who are always up for invading other countries, and now seemingly have forgotten the lessons of the Cold War already.

Whether speaking the truth on this subject has "no upside" is a fascinating subject. Romney has an interest in informing the public of his views; the public has an interest in understanding his views; there is an upside to be had in pointing out these views.

Yes, I suppose there is an upside to him pointing out that he's ridiculously incompetent diplomat, as that might keep him from getting into a position where he could actually harm the rest of humanity by exercising that incompetence.

To say as much is simply to point out the facts. And incidentally, the notion that there is no upside to being frank on the identity of your enemies and friends in the international arena is simply not true. Frankness about this very subject by Reagan on Iran persuaded the Iranians to release American hostages in Iran on the very day Reagan was inaugurated. Intimidation works.

Not against someone with thousands of ICBMs tipped with nukes. It wasn't Reagan intimidating the USSR that lead to the end of the Cold War. It was working with Gorbachev to find mutual interests and give him room to do the reforms he meant to do.

That and my understanding of its history and culture. I was born in the SU, I speak the language, I know how people think on a cultural or instinctive level. Don't discount that knowledge. Its an advantage anywhere you go, just as being a foreigner is a disadvantage anywhere you go.

So you think that by having a President who calls Russia our worst enemies and builds more weapons to point at them we'll gain ... what?