• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Where do you draw the line?

Where do you draw the line?

  • Ukraine

    Votes: 10 58.8%
  • Baltic Nations

    Votes: 2 11.8%
  • Poland

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • Finland

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • Romania

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Germany

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sweden

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • France

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Norway

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • United Kingdom

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Iceland

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • U.S.A.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • My doorstep

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Nowhere (Planet X)

    Votes: 3 17.6%

  • Total voters
    17
In the sand. That way it gets washed away by the tide twice a day and can be re-drawn somewhere more convenient. :cool:
 
I'll tell you where I don't want to draw the line- On snow/ice:
 
Well, what if Russia invades China? Wouldn't that be swell?

No. That would suck. China quite rightly draws a line on their border with Russia. The world would be quite right to repudiate Russia and support China, if Russia invaded.

Kind of a stupid question, really. What would be "swell" is if Russia didn't invade anyone.
 
Well, where?
I believe there should be a tolerance (also valid for other countries) when Russia annexes relatively small regions where Russian is the main language, and which have voted for joining Russia.

This is the principle of self-determination, a precious guide for avoiding potential conflicts.

Displaying zero-tolerance for Russia, and constantly imposing ferocious sanctions can unfortunately lead to bad consequences, as we are seeing now, when the Bear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Bear) has had enough and becomes angry.
 
I believe there should be a tolerance (also valid for other countries) when Russia annexes relatively small regions where Russian is the main language, and which have voted for joining Russia.

This is the principle of self-determination, a precious guide for avoiding potential conflicts.

Displaying zero-tolerance for Russia, and constantly imposing ferocious sanctions can unfortunately lead to bad consequences, as we are seeing now, when the Bear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Bear) has had enough and becomes angry.

By that yardstick, I must assume you would support the independence of those regions throughout Russia who would like to be independent but are prevented from doing so. Until Russia extends that courtesy to their own people, they have no grounds to use that excuse to justify incursions into other countries.
 
Last edited:
No. That would suck. China quite rightly draws a line on their border with Russia. The world would be quite right to repudiate Russia and support China, if Russia invaded.

Kind of a stupid question, really. What would be "swell" is if Russia didn't invade anyone.

That was easy.
 
Do I draw my line at a place or at an action?

(unconfirmed reports of Russian use of chemical weapons in Mariupol today)
 
I guess since this is in Politics and not Community, it's probably worthwhile to ask, what happens if Russia does appear to be using chemical weapons in Ukraine? Would that be enough of a transgression to prompt NATO intervention in the name of mutual defense? Or to prompt "NATO" intervention on UN peackeeping letterhead?
 
I guess since this is in Politics and not Community, it's probably worthwhile to ask, what happens if Russia does appear to be using chemical weapons in Ukraine? Would that be enough of a transgression to prompt NATO intervention in the name of mutual defense? Or to prompt "NATO" intervention on UN peackeeping letterhead?

I fail to see how the invasion of a non-NATO country is NATO's problem at all. NATO is a narrowly defined mutual defense organization with clearly defined trigger conditions that have not been met.

Whether or not a NATO member, or multiple NATO countries in coordination, decide to intervene seems meaningfully different than NATO itself intervening. Unless we're using NATO in the more colloquial sense that means "Mostly the United States with some help from friends".
 
Last edited:
"At NATO" is where we kept getting told it is at.

Makes perfect sense. It is literally s club where the members agree where the line is drawn. That is literally the entire point of it.

Now some people seem to be saying “whoah now! When did we make such arbitrary line drawing?” Answer: when NATO was formed if you are in an original member and/or when your country joined.

That is good enough for me, if the question really means when does MATO join the war.
 
I fail to see how the invasion of a non-NATO country is NATO's problem at all. NATO is a narrowly defined mutual defense organization with clearly defined trigger conditions that have not been met.

Whether or not a NATO member, or multiple NATO countries in coordination, decide to intervene seems meaningfully different than NATO itself intervening. Unless we're using NATO in the more colloquial sense that means "Mostly the United States with some help from friends".

I tried to make colloquial NATO a thing, but it didn't take.
 
Back
Top Bottom