War! . . . all day every day

[Frikki]

That about sums up Republican foreign policy proposals.

Tell me again why we should let these chicken hawks anywhere near the Commander-in-Chief's office?

While I don't like the Republican approach to foreign policy I find it less offensive than the appeasement and ineffective measures we see from the left.

Well it is easy for you to say. Aside from on your playstation you will never see action. But you are always willing to send someone else to do your dirty work.

- - - Updated - - -

Where are the people complaining about overpopulation and begging for more war since war is one way humans have culled our own population?

Are you joking? I hope you are joking because you went full Max with that comment.

 

[ksen]

Where are the people complaining about overpopulation and begging for more war since war is one way humans have culled our own population?

They are in your fevered imagination.

 

[Jayjay]

In what sense do you think it didn't? Or are you being sarcastic?

If the US had, there would be a lot fewer swarthy looking Europeans and a lot more Aryan looking Europeans.

But the US didn't in fact join the war until 1941... in late 30s they gladly looked the other way and let Germany do whatever it pleased.

 

[laughing dog]

If the US had, there would be a lot fewer swarthy looking Europeans and a lot more Aryan looking Europeans.

But the US didn't in fact join the war until 1941... in late 30s they gladly looked the other way and let Germany do whatever it pleased.

In the 30s, Germany was the likely winner. So if the USA had followed your advice of " Just back the most likely winner", then I think Europe would look a lot different. Looking the other way is not normally thought of as a form of backing someone.

 

[Jayjay]

But the US didn't in fact join the war until 1941... in late 30s they gladly looked the other way and let Germany do whatever it pleased.

In the 30s, Germany was the likely winner. So if the USA had followed your advice of " Just back the most likely winner", then I think Europe would look a lot different. Looking the other way is not normally thought of as a form of backing someone.

First, according to the logic of shortening wars, not backing anyone is still better than backing the underdog, even if not as good as backing the most likely winner. Or it could be waiting for a winner to emerge before committing.

Second, I'm not sure if Germany was a most likely winner in late 30s. Europe was taken pretty much by surprise and Blitzkrieg was something unheard of at the time.

 

[laughing dog]

In the 30s, Germany was the likely winner. So if the USA had followed your advice of " Just back the most likely winner", then I think Europe would look a lot different. Looking the other way is not normally thought of as a form of backing someone.

First, according to the logic of shortening wars, not backing anyone is still better than backing the underdog, even if not as good as backing the most likely winner. Or it could be waiting for a winner to emerge before committing.

Britain and the allies were the underdog until Hitler attacked Russia. Maybe if we had jumped in earlier, more lives would have been saved and Germany would have been defeated sooner.

Second, I'm not sure if Germany was a most likely winner in late 30s. Europe was taken pretty much by surprise and Blitzkrieg was something unheard of at the time.

You basically just said Germany was the likely winner.

 

[bilby]

First, according to the logic of shortening wars, not backing anyone is still better than backing the underdog, even if not as good as backing the most likely winner. Or it could be waiting for a winner to emerge before committing.

Britain and the allies were the underdog until Hitler attacked Russia. Maybe if we had jumped in earlier, more lives would have been saved and Germany would have been defeated sooner.

Second, I'm not sure if Germany was a most likely winner in late 30s. Europe was taken pretty much by surprise and Blitzkrieg was something unheard of at the time.

You basically just said Germany was the likely winner.

I don't think anyone knew who the likely winner was before the collapse of the French on the Meuse front in May 1940; It was pretty clear that the Germans would win from that point, until the Soviet counterattack at Moscow on December 5 1941, which made the result look less certain; even so, a German victory was probably the way to bet until the end of 1942. When the Germans failed to take Stalingrad before the onset of the winter freeze in '42, it became apparent that they would likely lose to the Soviets, and so it turned out.

The British and Americans had very little impact on the outcome of the war in Europe, other than through their provision of supplies to the Soviet forces, and their blockade of supplies to Germany and occupied Europe. The disruption of German industry through strategic bombing was not very effective; Their actions in Africa were a sideshow, and the invasions of Italy and France both came after it was clear that the Soviets would win.

 

[whichphilosophy]

How does that absolve Republicans from using war as their go to choice to resolve foreign policy issues?

Is there a specific foreign policy question you're addressing? Have the Republican candidates proposed going to war with China to punish it for manipulating its currency? It seems the pressing foreign policy question the next president will have to deal with is Syria. Our current president is doing a shit job of handling it right now. And if anyone believes that the Syria question can be resolved without force; that person is embarrassingly delusional.

The Syria question was started with force and much of the funding went to extremist groups. Hundreds of thousand have now been killed in the name of regime change. Based on earlier fiascos the regions have ended up worse off as a result.

 

[Trausti]

Is there a specific foreign policy question you're addressing? Have the Republican candidates proposed going to war with China to punish it for manipulating its currency? It seems the pressing foreign policy question the next president will have to deal with is Syria. Our current president is doing a shit job of handling it right now. And if anyone believes that the Syria question can be resolved without force; that person is embarrassingly delusional.

The Syria question was started with force and much of the funding went to extremist groups. Hundreds of thousand have now been killed in the name of regime change. Based on earlier fiascos the regions have ended up worse off as a result.

Well, I won't argue that the Obama administration's notation that we could arm *moderate* rebels was horribly misguided from its inception. But I simply cannot imagine a scenario where ISIS is a party to peace talks or any non-violent negotiated settlement.

 

[Jayjay]

First, according to the logic of shortening wars, not backing anyone is still better than backing the underdog, even if not as good as backing the most likely winner. Or it could be waiting for a winner to emerge before committing.

Britain and the allies were the underdog until Hitler attacked Russia. Maybe if we had jumped in earlier, more lives would have been saved and Germany would have been defeated sooner.

Second, I'm not sure if Germany was a most likely winner in late 30s. Europe was taken pretty much by surprise and Blitzkrieg was something unheard of at the time.

You basically just said Germany was the likely winner.

But in 1930s there was no certainty as to whether Germany would attack France or UK. And nobody knew what the fuck Russia would do, they were allied with Germany at the time. Seems to me that staying out was realpolitik in its finest.

 

[Harry Bosch]

How does that absolve Republicans from using war as their go to choice to resolve foreign policy issues?

Is there a specific foreign policy question you're addressing? Have the Republican candidates proposed going to war with China to punish it for manipulating its currency? It seems the pressing foreign policy question the next president will have to deal with is Syria. Our current president is doing a shit job of handling it right now. And if anyone believes that the Syria question can be resolved without force; that person is embarrassingly delusional.

Why do we have to resolve it?

 

[ksen]

Is there a specific foreign policy question you're addressing? Have the Republican candidates proposed going to war with China to punish it for manipulating its currency? It seems the pressing foreign policy question the next president will have to deal with is Syria. Our current president is doing a shit job of handling it right now. And if anyone believes that the Syria question can be resolved without force; that person is embarrassingly delusional.

Why do we have to resolve it?

white man's burden

 

[Harry Bosch]

Why do we have to resolve it?

white man's burden

Yes, Americans think that they can fix everything.