Should we allow other countries to decide whether we go to war?

[jwoodie]

Just musing about the two World Wars of the last century wherein Great Britain declared war on Germany and the U.S. was dragged in to bail it out. In both cases, GB entered into or reaffirmed military commitments to previously neutral third countries (Belgium and Poland) who then relied on GB to protect them from Germany. This promised protection never materialized and GB felt obligated to start both wars in order to save its reputation. This led to more than 100 million deaths worldwide and the replacement of the British Empire with the Soviet Union, not to mention the Communist subjugation of Eastern Europe. Good job, Brits!

The U.S. is now facing a similar in Europe, where we have guaranteed the sovereignty of the Ukraine, a country to which we had no previous obligation to defend. Instead, we egged that country on to confront Russia with a potential NATO adversary right on its doorstep. Like Belgium in WW1 and Poland in WW2, the Ukraine has put up a valiant but hopeless struggle to defend its borders from foreign incursion. And like Great Britain before us, we have now committed ourselves to a war over a country that does not represent our vital interests.

Does anyone here think that Ukraine can defeat Russia without our direct military involvement? Does anyone believe that a "no fly zone" can be established without serious repercussions? And where will that lead, other than the deterioration of our own economy and ability to control our own destiny? Are we really making the world safe for democracy, or just safe for Democrats?

 

[g5000]

Just musing about the two World Wars of the last century wherein Great Britain declared war on Germany and the U.S. was dragged in to bail it out. In both cases, GB entered into or reaffirmed military commitments to previously neutral third countries (Belgium and Poland) who then relied on GB to protect them from Germany. This promised protection never materialized and GB felt obligated to start both wars in order to save its reputation. This led to more than 100 million deaths worldwide and the replacement of the British Empire with the Soviet Union, not to mention the Communist subjugation of Eastern Europe. Good job, Brits!

The U.S. is now facing a similar in Europe, where we have guaranteed the sovereignty of the Ukraine, a country to which we had no previous obligation to defend. Instead, we egged that country on to confront Russia with a potential NATO adversary right on its doorstep. Like Belgium in WW1 and Poland in WW2, the Ukraine has put up a valiant but hopeless struggle to defend its borders from foreign incursion. And like Great Britain before us, we have now committed ourselves to a war over a country that does not represent our vital interests.

Does anyone here think that Ukraine can defeat Russia without our direct military involvement? Does anyone believe that a "no fly zone" can be established without serious repercussions? And where will that lead, other than the deterioration of our own economy and ability to control our own destiny? Are we really making the world safe for democracy, or just safe for Democrats?

I think you need to read SEVERAL history books.

 

[imawhosure]

Just musing about the two World Wars of the last century wherein Great Britain declared war on Germany and the U.S. was dragged in to bail it out. In both cases, GB entered into or reaffirmed military commitments to previously neutral third countries (Belgium and Poland) who then relied on GB to protect them from Germany. This promised protection never materialized and GB felt obligated to start both wars in order to save its reputation. This led to more than 100 million deaths worldwide and the replacement of the British Empire with the Soviet Union, not to mention the Communist subjugation of Eastern Europe. Good job, Brits!

The U.S. is now facing a similar in Europe, where we have guaranteed the sovereignty of the Ukraine, a country to which we had no previous obligation to defend. Instead, we egged that country on to confront Russia with a potential NATO adversary right on its doorstep. Like Belgium in WW1 and Poland in WW2, the Ukraine has put up a valiant but hopeless struggle to defend its borders from foreign incursion. And like Great Britain before us, we have now committed ourselves to a war over a country that does not represent our vital interests.

Does anyone here think that Ukraine can defeat Russia without our direct military involvement? Does anyone believe that a "no fly zone" can be established without serious repercussions? And where will that lead, other than the deterioration of our own economy and ability to control our own destiny? Are we really making the world safe for democracy, or just safe for Democrats?

Good subject!

The question has to be asked------------->what hill do you want to die on? And if you don't choose a hill, what other entities see it as weakness, giving them confidence to attack others.

Nobody, Republican or Democrat, wants to go to war, I believe that is a given. The only question is----------->if we MUST go to war, do we want our enemies to know it is when we are at our strongest, or weaker than that?

Do YOU think if we cede parts of Europe, Russia will stop? If we cede Western Europe, can we win against Russian and China combined?

These are times that try peoples souls. We do not know the answer. People only think they do!

Since in my opinion; notice I said my opinion, we have seen what happens when countries try to appease as Chamberlain did, and because of History, we also know what the Nazis were thinking if Chamberlain didn't............they were going to run like hell.

Does that have any relevance in today's problem? Probably not so much, but if history does teach all things, it is the best we have to draw upon, and it is better than shooting in the dark.

 

[imawhosure]

Just musing about the two World Wars of the last century wherein Great Britain declared war on Germany and the U.S. was dragged in to bail it out. In both cases, GB entered into or reaffirmed military commitments to previously neutral third countries (Belgium and Poland) who then relied on GB to protect them from Germany. This promised protection never materialized and GB felt obligated to start both wars in order to save its reputation. This led to more than 100 million deaths worldwide and the replacement of the British Empire with the Soviet Union, not to mention the Communist subjugation of Eastern Europe. Good job, Brits!

The U.S. is now facing a similar in Europe, where we have guaranteed the sovereignty of the Ukraine, a country to which we had no previous obligation to defend. Instead, we egged that country on to confront Russia with a potential NATO adversary right on its doorstep. Like Belgium in WW1 and Poland in WW2, the Ukraine has put up a valiant but hopeless struggle to defend its borders from foreign incursion. And like Great Britain before us, we have now committed ourselves to a war over a country that does not represent our vital interests.

Does anyone here think that Ukraine can defeat Russia without our direct military involvement? Does anyone believe that a "no fly zone" can be established without serious repercussions? And where will that lead, other than the deterioration of our own economy and ability to control our own destiny? Are we really making the world safe for democracy, or just safe for Democrats?

Just as an aside, the USA was not dragged into either war if you want accurate history. Both Wilson and Roosevelt wanted to engage, but politics would not allow such intervention. Wilson did it with a long political battle, Roosevelts problems were solved with Pearl Harbor.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

To be fair, you have to realize that in WWI, the U.S. Stayed out of it until 1917, when the Zimmerman note, a secret telegram sent on Jan. 16, 1917, by German foreign secretary Arthur Zimmermann to Count Johann von Bernstorff, the German ambassador to the United States. In it Zimmermann said that in the event of war with the United States, Mexico should be asked to enter the war as a German ally. In return, Germany promised to restore to Mexico the lost territories of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. British intelligence intercepted and deciphered the telegram and sent it to President Woodrow Wilson, who released it on Mar. 1, 1917, to the press. The Zimmermann note helped turn U.S. public opinion against Germany during World War I and strengthened the advocates of U.S. entry into the war. Britain did not drag us into that war.


In WWII, The U.S. was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, so we declared war on them. In turn, Germany declared war on us. Britain didn't drag us into that war, the japs and jerries declared war on us.

 

[BluesLegend]

Those idiots in Europe have been killing each other for 2,000 years. Maybe we should let them blow each other to hell.

 

[gipper]

Just musing about the two World Wars of the last century wherein Great Britain declared war on Germany and the U.S. was dragged in to bail it out. In both cases, GB entered into or reaffirmed military commitments to previously neutral third countries (Belgium and Poland) who then relied on GB to protect them from Germany. This promised protection never materialized and GB felt obligated to start both wars in order to save its reputation. This led to more than 100 million deaths worldwide and the replacement of the British Empire with the Soviet Union, not to mention the Communist subjugation of Eastern Europe. Good job, Brits!

The U.S. is now facing a similar in Europe, where we have guaranteed the sovereignty of the Ukraine, a country to which we had no previous obligation to defend. Instead, we egged that country on to confront Russia with a potential NATO adversary right on its doorstep. Like Belgium in WW1 and Poland in WW2, the Ukraine has put up a valiant but hopeless struggle to defend its borders from foreign incursion. And like Great Britain before us, we have now committed ourselves to a war over a country that does not represent our vital interests.

Does anyone here think that Ukraine can defeat Russia without our direct military involvement? Does anyone believe that a "no fly zone" can be established without serious repercussions? And where will that lead, other than the deterioration of our own economy and ability to control our own destiny? Are we really making the world safe for democracy, or just safe for Democrats?

The USG should get out of Ukraine immediately and disband NATO. Alas I know I’m dreaming. The warmongering Neocons rule the day. So logic left the building long ago.

 

[whitehall]

NATO was designed in the coldest part of the Cold War to get good old Uncle Sam to protect all those European countries that refused to protect themselves. Lest we forget, Bill Clinton got his socialist buddy who happened to be in charge of NATO at the time to O.K. a mission to bomb defenseless Yugoslavia when Bill was literally caught with his pants down.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Those idiots in Europe have been killing each other for 2,000 years. Maybe we should let them blow each other to hell.

The majority of the time, Europeans are docile like farm animals. Every so often, some of them go feral and have to be put down. Let the Europeans do the bloodwork on that from now on. We can't change Europeans and all the decent ones came to the U.S. in the last two centuries.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Just musing about the two World Wars of the last century wherein Great Britain declared war on Germany and the U.S. was dragged in to bail it out. In both cases, GB entered into or reaffirmed military commitments to previously neutral third countries (Belgium and Poland) who then relied on GB to protect them from Germany. This promised protection never materialized and GB felt obligated to start both wars in order to save its reputation. This led to more than 100 million deaths worldwide and the replacement of the British Empire with the Soviet Union, not to mention the Communist subjugation of Eastern Europe. Good job, Brits!

The U.S. is now facing a similar in Europe, where we have guaranteed the sovereignty of the Ukraine, a country to which we had no previous obligation to defend. Instead, we egged that country on to confront Russia with a potential NATO adversary right on its doorstep. Like Belgium in WW1 and Poland in WW2, the Ukraine has put up a valiant but hopeless struggle to defend its borders from foreign incursion. And like Great Britain before us, we have now committed ourselves to a war over a country that does not represent our vital interests.

Does anyone here think that Ukraine can defeat Russia without our direct military involvement? Does anyone believe that a "no fly zone" can be established without serious repercussions? And where will that lead, other than the deterioration of our own economy and ability to control our own destiny? Are we really making the world safe for democracy, or just safe for Democrats?

Your knowledge of history and current events in underwhelming.

 

[lennypartiv]

I think you need to read SEVERAL history books.

Wow, you've got balls.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

I think you need to read SEVERAL history books.

No doubt he doesn't have a grasp of the subject.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

NATO was designed in the coldest part of the Cold War to get good old Uncle Sam to protect all those European countries that refused to protect themselves. Lest we forget, Bill Clinton got his socialist buddy who happened to be in charge of NATO at the time to O.K. a mission to bomb defenseless Yugoslavia when Bill was literally caught with his pants down.

They dindo nuffin! All of their oppression against the other small Balkan countries striving for independence from Yugoslavia was a figment of everyone's imagination.

 

[gipper]

Good subject!

The question has to be asked------------->what hill do you want to die on? And if you don't choose a hill, what other entities see it as weakness, giving them confidence to attack others.

Nobody, Republican or Democrat, wants to go to war, I believe that is a given. The only question is----------->if we MUST go to war, do we want our enemies to know it is when we are at our strongest, or weaker than that?

Do YOU think if we cede parts of Europe, Russia will stop? If we cede Western Europe, can we win against Russian and China combined?

These are times that try peoples souls. We do not know the answer. People only think they do!

Since in my opinion; notice I said my opinion, we have seen what happens when countries try to appease as Chamberlain did, and because of History, we also know what the Nazis were thinking if Chamberlain didn't............they were going to run like hell.

Does that have any relevance in today's problem? Probably not so much, but if history does teach all things, it is the best we have to draw upon, and it is better than shooting in the dark.

Absurd.

Your argument is the typically ignorant “Putin is Hitler” oh no! The domino effect oh no! We must fight NOW!

Putin has been in power nearly 20 years. He hasn’t expressed or acted like Hitler. Stop believing MIC propaganda designed to benefit the MIC.

The domino effect was proven false way back in the 1970s, with Vietnam. Please catch up.

 

[gipper]

The majority of the time, Europeans are docile like farm animals. Every so often, some of them go feral and have to be put down. Let the Europeans do the bloodwork on that from now on. We can't change Europeans and all the decent ones came to the U.S. in the last two centuries.

The problem is the USG likes to instigate and provoke war.

 

[gipper]

Just as an aside, the USA was not dragged into either war if you want accurate history. Both Wilson and Roosevelt wanted to engage, but politics would not allow such intervention. Wilson did it with a long political battle, Roosevelts problems were solved with Pearl Harbor.

You are uninformed.

Both Wilson and FDR provoked war.

Read up on Wilson’s many provocations against Germany, particularly the sinking of the Lusitania.

FDR did much the same, provoking Germany and Japan. Read up on his numerous economic and absurd demands against Japan, and his foreknowledge of the coming attack on Pearl Harbor. Allowing him to move out the carriers and his favorite battleship, just prior to the attack.

His moving the US pacific fleet to Pearl was a provocation, but also making it entirely defenseless from air attack. He dismissed the commander of the Pacific Fleet because he opposed the move. He also scapegoated the commanders at Pearl, after the attack. Though he refused to warn them the attack was coming. Nice guy.

 

[imawhosure]

You are uninformed.

Both Wilson and FDR provoked war.

Read up on Wilson’s many provocations against Germany, particularly the sinking of the Lusitania.

FDR did much the same, provoking Germany and Japan. Read up on his numerous economic and absurd demands against Japan, and his foreknowledge of the coming attack on Pearl Harbor. Allowing him to move out the carriers and his favorite battleship, just prior to the attack.

His moving the US pacific fleet to Pearl was a provocation, but also making it entirely defenseless from air attack. He dismissed the commander of the Pacific Fleet because he opposed the move. He also scapegoated the commanders at Pearl, after the attack. Though he refused to warn them the attack was coming. Nice guy.

I also have heard the theory on FDR and Pearl Harbor, but as of yet, it has never been proven as far as I know, just a conspiracy theory. Therefore, if we can't even agree on the facts from which to draw our conclusions, debate on the issue is a waste of bandwidth. It is not I am uninformed, it is that I am using what is at present history, and you are using a theory that has yet to force history to be rewritten, and trying to present it as present day accepted facts.

 

[gipper]

I also have heard the theory on FDR and Pearl Harbor, but as of yet, it has never been proven as far as I know, just a conspiracy theory. Therefore, if we can't even agree on the facts from which to draw our conclusions, debate on the issue is a waste of bandwidth. It is not I am uninformed, it is that I am using what is at present history, and you are using a theory that has yet to force history to be rewritten, and trying to present it as present day accepted facts.

Lol. It’s been proven completely and totally. You just need to do the research.

 

[jwoodie]

Do YOU think if we cede parts of Europe, Russia will stop? If we cede Western Europe, can we win against Russian and China combined?

Why should we be ceding anything to anybody? Ukraine is not ours to cede, and NATO has plenty of power to protect its member countries.

 

[jwoodie]

Just as an aside, the USA was not dragged into either war

Great Britain commenced both World Wars with a declaration of war against Germany. Once they began, it was inevitable that we would come to the rescue of our English speaking cousins. The machinations of getting there are immaterial to this fact.

As Winston Churchill said: "You cans always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities."