Intrade: 70.5% chance Obama will win third debate

[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?

[Aeson]

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.

It was a call for positive action, rather than negative fearmongering and threats that we had had for so long before. Gorbachev was a reformer. Reagan was perhaps provoking him by saying it's not enough yet, but at the same time implicitly affirming that he saw Gorbachev as a reformer capable of doing this great thing.

It was a big step up from "evil empire" that came before.

[Aeson]

I don't think Russia wants nuclear brinksmanship. If they don't want it, we won't have it.

The way to get them to "want" it is to start painting them as boogeymen and pointing more weapons at them.

That doesn't mean they aren't at least among our biggest foreign policy rivals.

You don't have to be enemies with your rivals. You certainly don't have to call your rivals (or enemies) enemies.

[Hauldren Collider]

Is it actually possible for Aeson to argue against anything other than a strawman?

[Hauldren Collider]

Oh yes, and where have I heard Aeson's arguments before? Oh right. This is what everyone said about Reagan before he subsequently spent the next decade systematically proving the foreign policy establishment completely wrong.

[Zevico]

It was a call for positive action, rather than negative fearmongering and threats that we had had for so long before. Gorbachev was a reformer. Reagan was perhaps provoking him by saying it's not enough yet, but at the same time implicitly affirming that he saw Gorbachev as a reformer capable of doing this great thing.

It was a big step up from "evil empire" that came before.

This is a tendentious analysis. Both statements were designed to call for an end to the Soviet Union and its domination of foreign countries. That was how everyone understood it, including the anti-war left of the time. Wishful thinking after the fact to distinguish "a call for positive action" from "negative fearmongering" is abject nonsense. If there was nothing to fear from the Soviets, why call for bringing down the Berlin wall anyway?

The way to get them to "want" it is to start painting them as boogeymen and pointing more weapons at them.

This is the reasoning of a pacifist.

Wars are caused because the opportunity is taken up by those willing to kill for gain. Wars are prevented when countries delineate what they are not willing to abide by--and have the arms to back up their words and strategic interests. Wars are prevented when people know not to cross with you. Not by this childlike assertion of "fewer arms, fewer wars." One of the major causes of World War 2--and more particularly Nazi strength--was the Allied power's unwillingness to understand and apply this precept to Nazi and even pre-Nazi Germany which was already breaking its rearmament treaty obligations.

Take England. In England Conservative politicans were too terrified of telling the public that Germany was rearming even prior to Hitler coming to power, lest they be dismissed as warmongers--and lest the British Labour Party came to power. The BLP stood for unilateral disarmament. Would unilateral disarmament have brought peace with Germany, Aeson? The BLP stuck by that policy for years, almost right up to the days of Chamberlain's warning of war in 1939. Would that policy have brought peace with Nazi Germany, Aeson? On another level pointing out a breach of Germany's treaty obligations would be "provocative", right?

When the Nazis threatened to reoccupy the Rhineland, England and France had the opportunity to draw a red line. They failed then because of people like you, who thought it would be too provocative.

And for all the pacifists' whining, for all the talk of "peace in our time", Germany turned out an enemy nevertheless.

This is no secret. Thomas Sowell devotes a large amount of his book, Intellectuals and Society, to how many so-called intellectuals think about (or rather simply don't understand) the causes of war.

[Aeson]

Is it actually possible for Aeson to argue against anything other than a strawman?

The basis for this whole line of discussion is Romney calling Russia our worst enemy (boogeymen) and wanting more weapons (ships).

This is what everyone said about Reagan before he subsequently spent the next decade systematically proving the foreign policy establishment completely wrong.

You're completely backwards. Reagan started out hardline ("evil empire") and then consistently moved towards a friendlier discourse with Gorbachev. If Reagan were here today he'd tell you that your stance (calling Russians our worst enemy) is absurd. That's how ****ed up your world-view is, even your conservative God would be ashamed of you.

[Aeson]

This is a tendentious analysis. Both statements were designed to call for an end to the Soviet Union and its domination of foreign countries. That was how everyone understood it, including the anti-war left of the time. Wishful thinking after the fact to distinguish "a call for positive action" from "negative fearmongering" is abject nonsense. If there was nothing to fear from the Soviets, why call for bringing down the Berlin wall anyway?

There never really was much to fear from the Soviets (for Americans) other than the potential for someone on either side to actually push the button. There was lots of fearmongering about how the Soviets were going to invade or stupid **** like that. You're too stupid to see the difference between that and "Tear down this wall".

The only thing you want torn down is the peace that Reagan and Gorbachev helped to bring to the world through polite and even friendly discourse that helped changed public opinion of the "other side" on both sides.

This is the reasoning of a pacifist.

It's patently obvious fact that intentionally poking at a sleeping bear is a bad idea. We don't gain anything from calling Russia our worst enemy. We've seen how much there is to lose by painting them as such though.

When the Nazis threatened to reoccupy the Rhineland, England and France had the opportunity to draw a red line. They failed then because of people like you, who thought it would be too provocative.

You're a moron to equate calling Russians "our worst enemy" to standing up to Hitler and Nazi agression.

[kentonio]

When the Nazis threatened to reoccupy the Rhineland, England and France had the opportunity to draw a red line. They failed then because of people like you, who thought it would be too provocative.

And for all the pacifists' whining, for all the talk of "peace in our time", Germany turned out an enemy nevertheless.

The problem with drawing moronic parallels with convenient historical examples, is that you can always find one to support your argument. How about America agreeing to remove its nukes from Turkey at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Surely by your rational, that kind of 'pacifism' and 'weakness' should have made the Russians far more aggressive, no?

It's actually tiring hearing this kind of cold war rhetoric all over again. America has the strongest military on the planet, but apparently not calling Russia an enemy would be akin to dismantling all the carriers, tanks and planes and leaving the US helpless.

This is no secret. Thomas Sowell devotes a large amount of his book, Intellectuals and Society, to how many so-called intellectuals think about (or rather simply don't understand) the causes of war.

Are you getting money from every sale of his books? Seriously, please STFU about Thomas Sowell already.

[kentonio]

Incidentally you cold war warriors always seem to forget the very long history of enmity between China and Russia. even during the cold war while the USSR and the US were fighting careful proxy wars, the Soviets and China fought actual wars with each other. Why exactly would you want to provide them both with a common enemy?

[kentonio]

Politifact: Mitt Romney says U.S. Navy is smallest since 1917, Air Force is smallest since 1947? Pants on Fire.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...7-air-force-s/

Romney was lying? Surely not..

[Zevico]

Simplistic talk about "wanting to point more weapons at Russia" suggests that arms are the problem and not states that fail to deter enemies. My purpose is to point this out, not equate Nazism with modern day Russian nationalism, which is not quite as rapacious.

[kentonio]

Simplistic talk about "wanting to point more weapons at Russia" suggests that arms are the problem and not states that fail to deter enemies. My purpose is to point this out, not equate Nazism with modern day Russian nationalism, which is not quite as rapacious.

Please explain how calling Russia an enemy does anything at all to increase American security.

[Aeson]

Simplistic talk about "wanting to point more weapons at Russia" suggests that arms are the problem and not states that fail to deter enemies.

No. Calling Russia our worst enemy is not a deterrence to anything other than sensible diplomacy. Building more ships wouldn't stop them from vetoing UN resolutions against Iran either, or whatever other trifling stuff you're pissing your pants about. Get a grip, and stop trying to pretend that Romney calling Russia our worst enemy was anything but a diplomatic (and logical) blunder.

[Hauldren Collider]

The basis for this whole line of discussion is Romney calling Russia our worst enemy (boogeymen) and wanting more weapons (ships).



You're completely backwards. Reagan started out hardline ("evil empire") and then consistently moved towards a friendlier discourse with Gorbachev. If Reagan were here today he'd tell you that your stance (calling Russians our worst enemy) is absurd. That's how ****ed up your world-view is, even your conservative God would be ashamed of you.

Your initial strawman, by the way, was saying that I support invading countries willy-nilly. You've had many since, of course.