Non western countries

[chris1089]

Russia is just a thin malnourished bear at this point. Her gdp is 13 times lower than that of the US. With falling oilprices and sanctions on her i don't see her future being too bright or threatening.

And it's GDP was close to the US in the cold war?

[duckzilla]

Russia is just a thin malnourished bear at this point. Her gdp is 13 times lower than that of the US. With falling oilprices and sanctions on her i don't see her future being too bright or threatening.

And it's GDP was close to the US in the cold war?

Well, much closer than today at least.

Nominal GDP in billion $ in 1985:
United States 4,346
Soviet Union 2,200

Nominal GDP in billion $ in 2015:
United States 18,036
Russia ~1,657

The Russian economy is roughly the size of Spain and quite dependent on resource extraction and agriculture. The only thing Putin's Russia has small-scale successes on the international stage with is bullying its far smaller neighbors and wielding its absurdly large military and security forces in an effort to both deter NATO and keep its own population in check via pride (of the displayed military prowess) and fear (of its security forces). However, it costs the population dearly and the level of corruption creeping through society has severe detrimental effects on the economy, the environment, the social stability, and the long-run viability of Russia as one country.

[Good ol Ivan]

What's even the point of NATO nowadays?
Keep peace in the middle east? Because so far it has failed pretty hard at that.
Stoping Russia from bullying its neighbors could be one, but so far it hasn't managed to neither prevent it nor revert it. Besides, it seems that NATO doesn't want that countries such as Ukraine or Georgia (you know, the ones that actually got a problem or two with Russia) get in, so Russia doesn't get too angry. But Russia does get angry that NATO bases are so close to their homeland anyways. In fact, one of the biggest strategic reasons why Russia decided to go for Crimea, was to avoid losing the port of Sebastopol to NATO (or rather avoid risking that NATO would take over everything around it). So if there was no NATO, Russia wouldn't be so agressive/defensive in the first place...
So yeah other than Poland, Ukraine, and maybe Belarus if Lukashenko does get coup'd, who tf wants NATO around and why?

[Cometk]

in the words of macron, nato is brain dead

[Good ol Ivan]

in the words of macron, nato is brain dead

I googled it and turns out Macron said that because Drumpf was pulling out of Syria, which isn't an awfully bad move. Well okay, at this point that's hard to tell, yeah. Nonetheless, I still support Drumpf's apparent intention to stop meddling in the middle east for once.
Macron doesn't want NATO to go away, or at the very least thinks it's best to replace it with something similar. Or so it seems.

[Cometk]

in the words of macron, nato is brain dead

I googled it and turns out Macron said that because Drumpf was pulling out of Syria, which isn't an awfully bad move. Well okay, at this point that's hard to tell, yeah. Nonetheless, I still support Drumpf's apparent intention to stop meddling in the middle east for once.
Macron doesn't want NATO to go away, or at the very least thinks it's best to replace it with something similar. Or so it seems.

it is an awfully bad move when it surrenders any ounce of american influence in the region to russia, turkey, and the assad regime, betrays allies in the region and leads to a reprise in terrorist insurgency. also even worse when you consider the troops weren't actually withdrawn from the middle east but rather relocated

[Good ol Ivan]

in the words of macron, nato is brain dead

I googled it and turns out Macron said that because Drumpf was pulling out of Syria, which isn't an awfully bad move. Well okay, at this point that's hard to tell, yeah. Nonetheless, I still support Drumpf's apparent intention to stop meddling in the middle east for once.
Macron doesn't want NATO to go away, or at the very least thinks it's best to replace it with something similar. Or so it seems.

it is an awfully bad move when it surrenders any ounce of american influence in the region to russia, turkey, and the assad regime

leads to a reprise in terrorist insurgency

You know what else leads to a reprise in terrorist insurgency? The fact that the U.S. keeps meddling in their business. If the Iraq war never happened, I doubt we'd ever hear about the Islamic state and whatever shenanigans they are up to. It's like if the moment the U.S. got rid of Al Qaeda and decided to pull back, someone else took their place. It's like if the people there are fucking tired of foreign intervention and radical islamists are the only ones who genuinely want to reassert people's sovereignty over the land, and are the only ones who aren't backed neither by Russia nor Turkey nor Iran nor the U.S. - but actually funded by other sunni Arab muslims. Maybe that's why they are so popular in the first place.
You reap what you sow.
I mean yeah, in a way it's dumb to pull back when your peers, and your troops, invested so much time and so many resources. But in the long run, the U.S. should leave them be. Otherwise it's just a time bomb that gets bigger and bigger. That's literally what already happened in Iran. Iran was a puppet state for some decades now. The people weren't happy about that, and staged a coup against the Shah, and now apparently Iran is "the biggest threat to peace and stability in region". But even if we do assume that it's true, it would still be the UK's and the U.S.' fault because they meddled in Iran's affairs since the very beginning. There's nothing strange or weird about people wanting to rule themselves as they see fit without foreign influence.
It's literally the same thing here. Once Assad is defeated (which at this point I highly doubt is going to happen - in the past few years Assad has gotten stronger and the rebels smaller and weaker), there's no guarantee there will be a lasting peace in the region. The only thing that's guaranteed is further resentment. So yeah, not a bad move to pull out and finally give Assad/Turkey/Russia what they want. It's their problem now.

[fightinfrenchman]

@Good ol Ivan Don't post comics from Nazis

[Good ol Ivan]

@Good ol Ivan Don't post comics from Nazis

But he is right. Why is influence in the middle east so important? Securing oil trade?
Okay, oil is pretty important, but what would make Arabs not want to trade with the U.S.?
Oh yeah, stuff that would make them angry, such as foreign intervention.

[fightinfrenchman]

@Good ol Ivan Don't post comics from Nazis

But he is right. Why is influence in the middle east so important? Securing oil trade?
Okay, oil is pretty important, but what would make Arabs not want to trade with the U.S.?
Oh yeah, stuff that would make them angry, such as foreign intervention.

Don't post comics from Nazis

[Good ol Ivan]

@Good ol Ivan Don't post comics from Nazis

But he is right. Why is influence in the middle east so important? Securing oil trade?
Okay, oil is pretty important, but what would make Arabs not want to trade with the U.S.?
Oh yeah, stuff that would make them angry, such as foreign intervention.

Don't post comics from Nazis

Or else?
What are you gonna do?
Ban me?

[fightinfrenchman]

Show hidden quotes

@Good ol Ivan Don't post comics from Nazis

But he is right. Why is influence in the middle east so important? Securing oil trade?
Okay, oil is pretty important, but what would make Arabs not want to trade with the U.S.?
Oh yeah, stuff that would make them angry, such as foreign intervention.

Don't post comics from Nazis

Or else?
What are you gonna do?
Ban me?

No, just say that it's bad to do

[voigt1240]

His political affiliation should not matter in the context of the cartoon. So i don´t see the problem

[Good ol Ivan]

@fightinfrenchman Yeah, it's just awful when people begin questioning doubtful views and values in ways your government would disagree and in manners that would actually challenge the status quo. How dare I.

[Good ol Ivan]

His political affiliation should not matter in the context of the cartoon. So i don´t see the problem

No no, nazis are evil. They wouldn't ever be against unnecessary wars.

[fightinfrenchman]

His political affiliation should not matter in the context of the cartoon. So i don´t see the problem

No no, nazis are evil. They wouldn't ever be against unnecessary wars.

Yeah man, Nazis are evil. You shouldn't say that sarcastically

[fightinfrenchman]

His political affiliation should not matter in the context of the cartoon. So i don´t see the problem

He's a Nazi

[Good ol Ivan]

His political affiliation should not matter in the context of the cartoon. So i don´t see the problem

No no, nazis are evil. They wouldn't ever be against unnecessary wars.

Yeah man, Nazis are evil. You shouldn't say that sarcastically

Oh no, what would the children say. What would their parents say. That would be challenging full years of indoctrination.

[fightinfrenchman]

Show hidden quotes

His political affiliation should not matter in the context of the cartoon. So i don´t see the problem

No no, nazis are evil. They wouldn't ever be against unnecessary wars.

Yeah man, Nazis are evil. You shouldn't say that sarcastically

Oh no, what would the children say. What would their parents say. That would be challenging full years of indoctrination.

They'd probably say Nazis are bad

[Cometk]

@Good ol Ivan It should be easy to make your point without posting comics from a Nazi sympathizer

[Good ol Ivan]

"He posted a comic from someone that could be nazi sympathizer, therefore his opinion and the author's opinion is invalid. Because that is completely related to the topic of pulling out troops of the middle east".
Damn, those nazis, how dare they question unnecessary bloodshed. That's absolutely not what I imagine a nazi would say. Stupid nazis, how dare they bring up anything rational, that's not what I have been programmed to think.

[fightinfrenchman]

"He posted a comic from someone that could be nazi sympathizer, therefore his opinion and the author's opinion is invalid. Because that is completely related to the topic of pulling out troops of the middle east".
Damn, those nazis, how dare they question unnecessary bloodshed. That's absolutely not what I imagine a nazi would say. Stupid nazis, stop being rational, that's not what I have been programmed to think.

It's not someone who "could be a nazi sympathizer," it's a Nazi.

[Good ol Ivan]

And?
He is still making a good point.

[fightinfrenchman]

And?
He is still making a good point.

I mean, it's not a good point. But also, even if it was, why not make it without the words of a Nazi?

[Good ol Ivan]

And?
He is still making a good point.

I mean, it's not a good point.

Well go ahead. i could be wrong. The comic could be wrong. I would like to hear you up why you think so in a more thorough way. Furthermore, saying "a nazi must have said it", doesn't make me question whatever the guy said. You clearly are too ideologically obsessed to make coherent statements. Think about this way:
-There was widespread support for animal welfare in Nazi Germany, particularly so around the country's leadership.
Does that mean animal welfare is a bad thing?
Not because a nazi said it or a nazi did it has to be wrong. I'm not a nazi myself (I don't sympathize with the core element of germanic superiority). But, admittedly, I do think everything related to them is very demonized as a consequence of losing the war, to the point people act a very irrational way when you bring that topic up. And it does piss me off that saying "you are a nazi/quoting a nazi" is an actual argument people use to invalidate someone else. Point is, you or that comet guy can both be smart enough to tell whether something is right or wrong, regardless of who said it.

But also, even if it was, why not make it without the words of a Nazi

Ah, because that way it's more interesting and entertaining. I find it amusing when people refuse to argue and get angry at you because of their conditioning.