Are Ukraine war casualties unimportant to you?

[jwoodie]

It's not difficult to understand but it is difficult to stomach. People like you said the same thing in the 1930's, that what was happening in Europe and Asia were just regional conflicts that posed no security threat to the US and therefore the US should not send military supplies to Britain and Russia and China to fight off the aggressors because it will just prolong the war and cause more casualties, that the US should just allow the Nazis and Japanese to take over most of the world since they were no threat to the US. By your reasoning, the real monsters in WWII were not the Nazis or Japanese but the US soldiers who made the war last longer and therefore caused more casualties.
C
When Trump talks fondly about his German heritage, do you think he is also thinking the US was wrong to have stopped the Germans from taking over Europe?

Ah, stooping to the Nazi analogy. How fortunate for Eastern Europe that we forced them into a Soviet concentration camp for the next 40 years. If Britain hadn't made a hasty promise to defend Poland, WW2 in Europe would have been a regional conflict between Germany and the Soviet Union. Hitler had no intention of "world domination."

By the same token, Japan's invasions of China and Korea were regional conflicts until its access to raw materials was cut off by the US, Britain and other European countries. Once again, the end result of outside intervention was a Communist dictatorship that dominated a large portion of the world.

Unlike you, I do not consider these outcomes to be necessarily superior to their alternatives. What I do believe is that hasty reactions often lead to undesirable results. Choosing to assist Ukraine in its war with Russia may be one of them.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Ah, stooping to the Nazi analogy. How fortunate for Eastern Europe that we forced them into a Soviet concentration camp for the next 40 years. If Britain hadn't made a hasty promise to defend Poland, WW2 in Europe would have been a regional conflict between Germany and the Soviet Union. Hitler had no intention of "world domination."

By the same token, Japan's invasions of China and Korea were regional conflicts until its access to raw materials was cut off by the US, Britain and other European countries. Once again, the end result of outside intervention was a Communist dictatorship that dominated a large portion of the world.

Unlike you, I do not consider these outcomes to be necessarily superior to their alternatives. What I do believe is that hasty reactions often lead to undesirable results. Choosing to assist Ukraine in its war with Russia may be one of them.

In other words, you do think the US should have allowed the Nazis and Japanese to conquer Europe and Asia and that it was wrong for the US to provide military aid to Britain and Russia and China, and as a corollary to these beliefs, the US providing aid to these countries made the US naval base in Hawaii a legitimate military target.

 

[jwoodie]

In other words, you do think the US should have allowed the Nazis and Japanese to conquer Europe and Asia and that it was wrong for the US to provide military aid to Britain and Russia and China, and as a corollary to these beliefs, the US providing aid to these countries made the US naval base in Hawaii a legitimate military target.

Nice run-on sentence! I don't think the US should have intervened in Germany's war against the USSR or Japan's war against China. The US oil embargo was an obvious provocation against Japan, and moving the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii was tantamount to a declaration of war. Japan was then faced with two options: Attack or surrender. It chose the former.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Nice run-on sentence! I don't think the US should have intervened in Germany's war against the USSR or Japan's war against China. The US oil embargo was an obvious provocation against Japan, and moving the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii was tantamount to a declaration of war. Japan was then faced with two options: Attack or surrender. It chose the former.

None of that is relevant to this discussion. You continue to falsely claim the US is in this war between Russia and Ukraine because the US is supplying Ukraine with weapons, so to apply that reasoning to WWI, it would follow that by sending military aid to Britain, the US had de facto entered the war against Germany and US military assets were legitimate target for the German army, and that by sending weapons to the Chinese the US had de facto entered the war against Japan and the US Naval base in Hawaii was a legitimate military target for he Japanese Navy.

 

[jwoodie]

None of that is relevant to this discussion. You continue to falsely claim the US is in this war between Russia and Ukraine because the US is supplying Ukraine with weapons, so to apply that reasoning to WWI, it would follow that by sending military aid to Britain, the US had de facto entered the war against Germany and US military assets were legitimate target for the German army, and that by sending weapons to the Chinese the US had de facto entered the war against Japan and the US Naval base in Hawaii was a legitimate military target for he Japanese Navy.

Nice straw man argument (look it up)! In addition, YOU are the one who brought up WW2, yet you claim my response is not relevant. NOW you bring up WW1 with your usual shallow analysis. The US claimed neutrality for most of that war, but continued to ship materials to Britain while respecting its blockade of German ports. After Woodrow Wilson decided to actively engage in that "war to end all wars," Germany accepted an armistice with the understanding that Wilson's 14 point Peace Plan would govern the ensuing peace treaty. Instead, Britain continued its blockade of German ports to prevent the importation of food supplies. This threw the German Government into chaos and led to its acceptance of the punitive Treaty of Versailles, which ignored Wilson's Peace Plan and directly contributed to the rise of Adolph Hitler and WW2.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, these rash decisions by the US to become involved in foreign wars have resulted in consequences far worse than what was originally intended.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Nice straw man argument (look it up)! In addition, YOU are the one who brought up WW2, yet you claim my response is not relevant. NOW you bring up WW1 with your usual shallow analysis. The US claimed neutrality for most of that war, but continued to ship materials to Britain while respecting its blockade of German ports. After Woodrow Wilson decided to actively engage in that "war to end all wars," Germany accepted an armistice with the understanding that Wilson's 14 point Peace Plan would govern the ensuing peace treaty. Instead, Britain continued its blockade of German ports to prevent the importation of food supplies. This threw the German Government into chaos and led to its acceptance of the punitive Treaty of Versailles, which ignored Wilson's Peace Plan and directly contributed to the rise of Adolph Hitler and WW2.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, these rash decisions by the US to become involved in foreign wars have resulted in consequences far worse than what was originally intended.

You are confused, I didn't bring up WWI, you just did, and it is you who is trying to create a straw man to argue about in order to avoid the main issue: if as you claim, the US is already in the war in Ukraine by virtue of sending military aid to Ukraine, then by your reasoning the US was already in the war against Japan before Pearl Harbor by virtue of sending military aid to China, and that would mean the US naval base at Pearl Harbor was a legitimate target for the Japanese Navy.

Of course, all this dancing you are doing has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine, but is about the 2024 election and you are only opposing US aid to Ukraine because you think it will be bad for Biden, but here's a shocker, in a recent interview, Trump made clear his only objection to how Biden is handling the situation in Ukraine is that Biden is not going far enough in aiding Ukraine.

"I thought he might do it [invade Ukraine]," Trump continued. "Look, I talked to him. I said, 'If you do it, there's going to be hell to pay. It's going to be a catastrophe. Don't do it.'"

Putin initially did not believe Trump would take any action, according to Trump, but he pushed back: "I told him I was going to do something. He said, ‘No, no, no, you will not do that.’ I said, 'I will, Vladimir, I will do it. I'm going to do it.'"

Trump, also a 2024 presidential candidate, said Putin believed "maybe 10%" of what he was saying, but that 10% was "all you needed" to stop the invasion from happening. "It was only after I left [office] that you started hearing about this," he added.

When asked whether he thought Ukraine was a separate country from Russia, Trump stated it was, but that it used to be one country, and "Putin liked it that way."

Trump claims conversation with Putin delayed Russian invasion of Ukraine: ‘Don’t do it'

Former President Donald Trump said during an exclusive Fox News interview that a conversation he had with Vladimir Putin delayed Russia's invasion of Ukraine for years.

www.foxnews.com

In other words, in order to protect Ukraine, Trump threatened to do something to Russia so horrible that if Putin believed only 10% of what Trump said, it terrified Putin so he abandoned his plans to invade Ukraine.

Clearly, Trump's only criticism of Biden is that Biden has not committed to do something to Russia that is sufficiently horrifying.

 

[jwoodie]

You are confused, I didn't bring up WWI, you just did, and it is you who is trying to create a straw man to argue about in order to avoid the main issue: if as you claim, the US is already in the war in Ukraine by virtue of sending military aid to Ukraine, then by your reasoning the US was already in the war against Japan before Pearl Harbor by virtue of sending military aid to China, and that would mean the US naval base at Pearl Harbor was a legitimate target for the Japanese Navy.

Of course, all this dancing you are doing has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine, but is about the 2024 election and you are only opposing US aid to Ukraine because you think it will be bad for Biden, but here's a shocker, in a recent interview, Trump made clear his only objection to how Biden is handling the situation in Ukraine is that Biden is not going far enough in aiding Ukraine.

"I thought he might do it [invade Ukraine]," Trump continued. "Look, I talked to him. I said, 'If you do it, there's going to be hell to pay. It's going to be a catastrophe. Don't do it.'"

Putin initially did not believe Trump would take any action, according to Trump, but he pushed back: "I told him I was going to do something. He said, ‘No, no, no, you will not do that.’ I said, 'I will, Vladimir, I will do it. I'm going to do it.'"

Trump, also a 2024 presidential candidate, said Putin believed "maybe 10%" of what he was saying, but that 10% was "all you needed" to stop the invasion from happening. "It was only after I left [office] that you started hearing about this," he added.

When asked whether he thought Ukraine was a separate country from Russia, Trump stated it was, but that it used to be one country, and "Putin liked it that way."

Trump claims conversation with Putin delayed Russian invasion of Ukraine: ‘Don’t do it'

Former President Donald Trump said during an exclusive Fox News interview that a conversation he had with Vladimir Putin delayed Russia's invasion of Ukraine for years.

www.foxnews.com

In other words, in order to protect Ukraine, Trump threatened to do something to Russia so horrible that if Putin believed only 10% of what Trump said, it terrified Putin so he abandoned his plans to invade Ukraine.

Clearly, Trump's only criticism of Biden is that Biden has not committed to do something to Russia that is sufficiently horrifying.

Try to collect your thoughts before posting.