CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
No nation would risk a direct confrontational war with any military alliance which included the United States.
Vladimir Putin's Russia and some Asian countries countries such as North Korea and China are involved heavily in cyber warfare.
Stealthy Putin is more dangerous than most people realize and his constant veiled threats towards some of the Eastern European nations that broke away from the old U.S.S.R, is gaining in ferocity.
His constant air and sea incursions into the U.K. and endless hacking of the nation's computer systems, including military, hospitals and power stations is causing alarm.
The U.K's military supremo said last week that they were struggling to stave off Russian cyber aggression.
Interesting: cyber warfare could be a new way to wage war, it would be a race between the hackers of 2 countries to cut off the ennemies population of water, electricity etc
I'm pretty sure the US, and all the countries in the world do the same
Although I must say I think it would be advantageous for european countries to break away from the american alliance and ally with russia what do you think?
An all out cyber war could cause countless deaths especially if the hackers hit a nation's utilities and health services as was the case late last year when Britain's National health Services was 'blacked out' causing 1000s of operations to be cancelled.
I feel strongly that Europe will only remain a union of free democratic nations as long as it is allied with the leader of the free world, the United States of America.
Churchill's description of Russia as a ''riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma is as true today as it was in 1939.
Like Hitler, Putin's driving force is to exact revenge on the west for the humiliation of losing the cold war.
To ally oneself with Russia would be akin to taking a walk with a crocodile.
Putin is a very good guy (in the sense of competent) he got russia back onto its feet after the end of ussr, slowly destroyed the enarchs controling the contry and is bringing back russia on the international scene, futhermore France an russia have been allies since the 11th century until 1917. The west sided with america because it was the only power that could stand upp to the socialism of urss, but now the US feel like they are even worse and are spreading their decadent mindset without anyone to oppose them
I can understand that this might sound like heresy for americans, but for us democracy just isnt working out: thing are getting worse and worse with every election as morons who are following their globalist agenda are destroying what my people have lived and died for more than a thousand of years. The way thing are going now my country is headed for a full scale civil war and the only way to counter that or to put an end to the war would be to have a strong dictatorial government wich is probably the lesser of two evils(?)
Forgive me, this is the rant of a kinda depressed cruz :(
He is the type of strong leader which the Russian people, not only need but expect.
It should be noted however that he is to all intents and purposes a dictator.
Only those who do not pose a threat to his continuing presidency are allowed to stand for election in the forthcoming polls in March.
Through, (not so) veiled intimidation, Putin controls most of the media and enjoys a degree of coverage and exposure that eclipses his opponents.
A recent, within the past two days, pro opposition rally, (not an anti Putin protest) was viciously quelled by the police.
Putin's got blood on his hands in Syria and the Eastern European states, especially Ukraine.
I know that some of the eye-watering stupid decisions made by the here today-gone tomorrow politicians in the democratic countries regularly lead to frustration.
I am convinced that it was this frustration that was instrumental in the pro Brexit vote, which in my interpretation was due to the UNREGULATED immigration and open border policies imposed on all E.U., member states, primarily by Germany's MAD MERKEL.
Again I agree with you, no such nonsense in Putin's Russia.
As time elapses more and more constituencies in England and Wales are seeing the indigenous populations becoming a minority with non white/non Christians being elected into pivotal positions such as the Lord Mayor of London.
Many would argue that there is nothing wrong with this, but many more would argue that there is.
Many fear that the freedoms and British way of life which their forefathers fought and died for are being eroded at an ever accelerating and alarming rate as the Islamization of the U.K., gains pace.
As we saw in Northern Ireland with the eventual so called Protestant backlash, fear turns into anger and anger turns into violent deadly tit-for-tat reprisals.
The short sighted sanctimonious LEFT WING LIBERAL POLITICIANS have a lot to answer for, but a ruthless Putin type dictator is not the answer.
In conclusion I would say two words;- ENOCH POWELL.
I'm pretty sure the US, and all the countries in the world do the same
You would be right. One of the greatest cyber threats in the world is us.
Although I must say I think it would be advantageous for european countries to break away from the american alliance and ally with russia what do you think?
I think they are too heavily invested in America and don't trust Russia.
All wars are banker wars. Its that simple and one doesn't need to use fifty words to explain why. Even the littlest goyim understands what's going on. There's just nothing we can do about the situation at this point.
Almost every war in history was based on the desire of megalomaniacs to impose their ideology over other nations.
War mongers who were not bankers include,
Hitler,
Tojo, war in the South Pacific,
Genghis Khan,
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Vietnam)
I could fill a book of wars which had nothing to do with bankers so I would suggest that before you spew out your embarrassingly ridiculous drivel you read a few history books.
Many want to rule the world. A few are funded by the bankers but once their front-man post is no longer needed they are thrown under the bus. Takes lots of money to make war and bankers make the money. In pre banker day's war was about taking what others had; not much different than banker wars of today.
Its done by computer. The Fed tells the US Mint how much hard currency to manufacturer. This is all easy to access common knowledge online. If you are a slow reader ed videos are also available on how the US money supply is managed.
This is demonstrably not true. The current war that radical Islamic jihadists are waging with the stated goal of world conquest, is about the conflict between Western liberal democratic ideals and a particularly conservative interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith.
It is not a banker war, but rather a religious war.
We supplied and protected ISIS in Syria. Our troops are now being used as human shields to protect YPG from Turkey. The few people who own mainstream press should be tried for treason. The divide and rule scam must be exposed.
Instead of demonstrating it, you simply follow up with a further baseless statement:-
The current war that radical Islamic jihadists are waging with the stated goal of world conquest, is about the conflict between Western liberal democratic ideals and a particularly conservative interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith.
Ahahahahahahaha! Are you even aware that "radical Islam" is a creation of those same "liberal democratic ideals"? In fact, whose side are you even on in the first place?? Because I've just watched you berate liberalism!!
When the Russians invaded Afghanistan in the late 1970s, a plan was formed by the American CIA to create a proxy war using local soldiers. The plan involved militarising Islamic rhetoric and merging it together with local feudal tradition. The very thing you are complaining about was created on purpose by those trying to promote American interests abroad, and now you want to mythologise it as the evil in a war between good vs evil?? It is amazing, AMAZING, that you can still find people who are stupid enough to fall for the sickening tirade of bullshit which liars and/or historical revisionists like you promote.
Ahahahahahahaha! Are you even aware that "radical Islam" is a creation of those same "liberal democratic ideals
Radical Islam existed a thousand + years before "liberalism" existed. Sweden and Denmark didn't get together and convince Prophet Muhammed to be a psychopath.
which liars and/or historical revisionists like you promote.
You have literally claimed there were no Muslims on the hijacked planes during 9/11, despite numerous phone calls from the planes to loved ones saying the hijackers were Muslims, Arabs, foreign, etc, Al qaeda taking credit, and Obama going after Ben Laden....
Are you even aware that "radical Islam" is a creation of those same "liberal democratic ideals"?
Islam is not what is radical in the term radical Islamic Jihadists.
The Jihadists are Islamic. What kind of Islamic Jihadists are they? They are radical ones, (on the extreme edge of the bell curve, not just the bell curve of Muslims, or even Islamists, but also the bell curve of Jihadists.)
The very thing you are complaining about was created on purpose by those trying to promote American interests abroad, and now you want to mythologise it as the evil in a war between good vs evil??
I did not complain, nor did I say or imply anything about good or evil? (Are you sure you are responding to my post?)
My point was only that the war being fought by ISIS, the Taliban, Boko Haram, etc. stems from religious beliefs, and that the Muslims instigating, fighting, promoting, and organizing it are religious zealots with a plainly stated religious goal, not bankers with an economic goal.
Similarly, those instigating, fighting, promoting, and organizing the opposition are doing it for a different set of ideological reasons, chief among them are the desire not to be Muslim, and have to suffer the restriction of freedom that entails.
...the sickening tirade of bullshit which liars and/or historical revisionists like you promote.
There is nothing revisionist about stating the fact that Islam was spread by the warfare of the Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, and Ottoman Caliphates, and ISIS seeks to reestablish the Caliphates.
Hell, that is why the Shahada ("There is no god but Allah. Mohammad is His prophet.) is written on the ISIS flag.
Likewise there is nothing revisionist about pointing out that these same radicals interpret the Quran to command the conversion of the earth to Islam, and the killing or enslavement of all who do not convert.
The cause of the war is ideological fanaticism, and its conflict with Western liberal democratic deals.
Radical Islamic jihadists have the stated goal of world conquest and universal conversion to Islam.
Multiple countries across the world are still at war with ISIS, which has recruited combatants from across the world, has conducted attacks on five continents, and has even minted a coin that had a map of the world on it.
Likewise, Boko Haram, like ISIS, has engaged in military actions and taken territory (however temporarily) in more than twenty countries.
This is largely true, however I think it is clear from Omega's question that this would necessitate "major players" on the World Stage to be in "all out" conflict with one another. As of now, we are mostly at war with countries that have no hope of fighting back in any meaningful sense. Now, if Europe went to war with each other and/or America as well North Korea, ect. ect. entering the picture, along with what has already been happening in the Middle East and on a smaller scale in Africa, ect. ect.--then you have WWIII
We best hope that another WW not happen, as we are currently at a level of Technological Advancement too high to support any more "all out war" model on this planet
