What should be the U.S. philosopy on war?

[I_M4_AU 7,983]

23 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Anyone else notice that Israel did NOT vote to condemn Russia in the UN.

 

That was so 5 hours ago.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

I agree that any criticism of Trump is now moot.

But nothing will be "off the table" if he runs again in 24, particularly how his presidency might affect our relationship with our allies.

 

How does that make sense?

Biden can refuse to honor an agreement between the US and an ally and it's o.k. because the rest of the world  has no choice, but Trump could somehow do something in his 2nd term that what...would give them a choice?

Please explain the logic.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

But these are unprecedented sanctions.

U.S., European allies freeze ‘Putin’s war chest’ as Russia careens toward economic crisis

The U.S. Treasury Department on Monday morning released details of its new economic restrictions against Moscow

By Jeff Stein

Today at 7:30 a.m. EST

 

The U.S. government and its European allies put into effect on Monday sweeping new penalties aimed at crippling Russia’s economy, as the west escalates its financial war against the Kremlin over the invasion of Ukraine.

Russia’s economy was already showing signs of severe distress before the new measures were implemented, with crowds of Russians rushing to withdraw cash from ATMs and the value of the nation’s currency plunging dramatically.

Overnight, European leaders imposed new measures that effectively cut Russia off from its financial reserves. The U.S. Treasury Department followed suit with similar steps on Monday morning. Under the new regime, all people in the United States and European Union are banned from trading with Russia’s central bank. The sanctions also apply to Russia’s finance ministry and its sovereign wealth fund, to prevent the Kremlin from using loopholes to continue to access the reserves.

The restrictions amount to choking off Russia from the international financial system, depriving the country of assets that are likely necessary to stabilize its economy. Such a step has never been taken before against a country with nuclear weapons or one with as powerful a military as Russia, according to sanctions experts.

Treasury also announced sanctions Monday morning on entities tied to Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, including its management company and one of the sovereign wealth fund’s subsidiaries. It also sanctioned the leader of that management company.

“The unprecedented action we are taking today will significantly limit Russia’s ability to use assets to finance its destabilizing activities, and target the funds [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and his inner circle depend on to enable his invasion of Ukraine,” Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said in a statement. “Today, in coordination with partners and allies, we are following through on key commitments to restrict Russia’s access to these valuable resources.”

Two senior administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe the White House’s announcement, said Monday that the freeze was immediately effective and intended to head off signs that Russia aimed to recall its international reserves from around the world.

The punishments reflect the extraordinary outpouring of support for Ukraine in the West, but they also carry the risk of a further escalation in hostilities with Moscow. Putin has responded to Western statements in recent days by putting the country’s nuclear forces on alert, although Ukraine and Russian officials planned Monday to hold their first diplomatic talks since the invasion began. The European Union has also announced it will shut down airspace to Russian planes and support Ukraine’s purchase of weapons.

The new banking restrictions are arguably the most serious form of economic retaliation yet approved by the Western powers in response to Russia’s attack on Ukraine. They are aimed at preventing Putin from using his sizable financial reserves — totaling more than $600 billion — to stabilize the Russian economy in the face of other sanctions and economic measures imposed by the West.

Already, the value of the ruble fell by close to 30 percent between Friday and Monday before paring back some of its losses, according to Bloomberg trading data.

As of June 30 last year, 32 percent of Russia’s foreign currency reserves were in euros and 16 percent were in U.S. dollars, according to its central bank. About 7 percent were in British pounds, 13 percent in Chinese renminbi, and 22 percent in monetary gold. The remainder was held in other currencies.

The United States said it is also simultaneously issuing an exemption allowing “certain energy-related transactions” with the central bank of Russia, as the West has tried to continue the flow of Russian energy exports to sustain the European economy and maintain gas prices.

“In one fell swoop, the U.S. and Europe have rendered Putin’s war chest unusable.… That the U.S. and Europe have done this in unified fashion sends a crystal-clear message that Russia will face dramatic costs so long as Putin’s war of aggression continues,” said Edward Fishman, former Russian and Europe sanctions lead at the State Department. “This action represents a sea change in U.S. and European strategy. Just 72 hours ago, a step like this was unthinkable.”

The United States had already announced sanctions targeting nearly 80 percent of the Russian banking sector’s total assets. Its steps include cutting Russia’s largest bank off from the U.S. financial system, in addition to cutting off many technological inputs necessary for parts of Russian industry. U.S. sanctions have also targeted members of Putin’s inner circle and other business leaders in Russia.

The effect has been dramatic. Russia’s stock markets suffered one of the worst drops in history, according to Bloomberg. The S&P credit rating agency also downgraded Russia’s debt to junk status shortly after the U.S. actions were released. Reports have emerged of Russians crowding ATMs to make emergency cash withdrawals. The Bank of Russia announced Monday morning that it will not open its stock exchange in face of the unprecedented pressure.

Putin’s bank reserves were intended to buffer the impact of such a blow. “The steps being announced will undermine Russia’s ability to prop up the ruble,” said Richard Nephew, a senior research scholar at Columbia University. “The Russians won’t be able to defend the currency easily, and its value will tank.”

Some critics have wondered how Putin may react to the attack on Russia’s economy. Mark Weisbrot, a liberal economist and a director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said the sanctioning of the reserves could lead to an “economic collapse.”

“The Biden administration needs to de-escalate this conflict, and move toward a diplomatic solution before it is too late,” Weisbrot said. “Zelensky wants to negotiate without preconditions; Washington should do the same.”

But the senior administration officials defended their strategy as a necessary response to Putin’s aggression. They also said they are closely monitoring potential support by Belarus for the war effort, which may trigger separate economic restrictions on that country.

Adam Smith, a partner at Gibson Dunn and a former Obama administration sanctions official, said the attack on Russia’s central bank reflects just how quickly events have moved in Eastern Europe. Smith emphasized that such moves have typically been off the table because central banks play such a crucial role in a nation’s economy, noting that going after them includes “severe and potentially unknowable collateral effects.” In this case, Smith said it’s possible the sanctions make it more difficult for Europe to buy oil and gas while also hurting the average Russian economically.

“It has historically been viewed as almost beyond the pale — the thing to do when sanctions, and diplomacy, have been seemingly exhausted,” Smith said. “That the international community was willing to go this far, and suffer the consequences of doing so … suggests just how far this crisis has gone in just its first week.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/02/28/white-house-europe-russia-ukraine-sanctions/

 

My fingers are crossed.

And if it works, credit to where it's due, and that includes Biden.

[homersapien 11,440]

2 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

How does that make sense?

Biden can refuse to honor an agreement between the US and an ally and it's o.k. because the rest of the world  has no choice, but Trump could somehow do something in his 2nd term that what...would give them a choice?

Please explain the logic.

Again, I am not familiar enough with the subject agreement to argue it. How about quoting the relevant parts you are so interested in focusing on?

A quick look did find this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

"The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.^[1][22] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."^[21] In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms.^[22] The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the... commitments" set out in the memorandum.^[23] Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security guarantees that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments.^[24] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".^[25]"

So, what does "security assurances" mean exactly?  Does it mean direct military support or more like what we are currently doing?

Regarding "logic" I can speculate that not "honoring" this agreement - whatever that may have constituted - might have something to do with thermonuclear war.

As far as what Trump may have done in his second term, you should not underestimate the power and influence of the United States in rallying the unified support of democracies world wide.  Trump hardly has a history of being able to  lead in that regard, in fact, just the opposite.  Based on his history, I seriously doubt he would have even made the effort.

 

 

Edited February 28, 2022 by homersapien

[GunsmithAU 383]

10 hours ago, GoAU said:

This can make things easy in the short term, but hiding under the covers doesn't mean the boogey man goes away.  Having relationships with like minded countries and treaties makes sense assuming they are fair, equal, and enforced.   I agree that NATO has to shoulder their share of the burden, and you need to pick your allies very carefully.

 

An ever changing boogyman at whims of excreting geopolitical power over the world is not a good thing. The expansion of NATO for the purpose of ostricizing Russia is what started this entire issue. Respected academics have predicted this for years. 

There is nothing to gain from being perpetually entangled in the affairs of others. 

Hell, none of this is about protecting human life, sovereignty, etc. It's about finding a new scary monster for the war machine. The US is backing and supporting mass murder in Yemen. The hypocrisy of the government and the ease of establishing group thing of the masses is astounding. 

 

[AU9377 5,035]

10 hours ago, GoAU said:

This can make things easy in the short term, but hiding under the covers doesn't mean the boogey man goes away.  Having relationships with like minded countries and treaties makes sense assuming they are fair, equal, and enforced.   I agree that NATO has to shoulder their share of the burden, and you need to pick your allies very carefully.

I've read this a couple of times and can see a couple of ways to interpret it.  Would you mind expanding on it a little to ensure I understand? 

"Corporate America" delivers what America demands most.  Unfortunately we seem to put more emphasis on lower prices than on "Made in the USA", quality, etc.  Our manufacturing jobs have been pushed overseas due to short sighted cost reductions and unfavorable trade agreements, and the manufacturing jobs we do have are having significant difficulty staffing jobs and getting people that are willing to work (not just show up).  I think I am in agreement with what you are saying, but it's definitely not something a rule, law, or edict can fix - we have a societal issue to resolve.

I am speaking of the unique relationship between corporate America and China.  Unlike China, the U.S. government doesn't have the authority to forbid a U.S. company from doing business in China, outside of imposing sanctions or when national security is at stake.  We don't want to run the economy into a ditch by imposing those sanctions and the American public won't support government decisions that result in product shortages and increased costs. 

Therefore, the only real way to begin to position ourselves to be prepared to  push back against China is for U.S. companies to begin to manufacture many goods in North America that they currently manufacture in China. The problem isn't that we don't have the leverage.  The problem is that the American public doesn't have the backbone to use that leverage.   We have accepted for decades that spending today and taking on debt is preferred over saying no to anyone or any cause.  The problem isn't a left or right spending problem, they both funnel cash to special interests in obscene amounts.  I agree that we have a societal problem and it must be addressed at some point.

I believe we do spend too much on some social safety net programs. However, I also believe that we spend too much on unnecessary military spending as well.  We have too many bases around the globe that do nothing but serve as sources of income for the host country where they are located.  Being strong by spending an amount equal to the next 6 highest spending nations on the globe's military spending combined only makes sense in the U.S.

The truth is that we have become our own worst enemy. Our government is less efficient than most European allies and our business environment is only slightly better.  We point to taxes and pretend that France and the UK pay higher taxes than we do, but if we add all of our tax burdens together , we pay an amount equal to and in many scenarios an amount greater than their taxpayers. We have local, state and Federal taxes, in addition to licensing and fees for everything imaginable.  I didn't intend to go off and ramble..... but it is what it is... lol

[AU9377 5,035]

30 minutes ago, GunsmithAU said:

An ever changing boogyman at whims of excreting geopolitical power over the world is not a good thing. The expansion of NATO for the purpose of ostricizing Russia is what started this entire issue. Respected academics have predicted this for years. 

There is nothing to gain from being perpetually entangled in the affairs of others. 

Hell, none of this is about protecting human life, sovereignty, etc. It's about finding a new scary monster for the war machine. The US is backing and supporting mass murder in Yemen. The hypocrisy of the government and the ease of establishing group thing of the masses is astounding. 

 

I understand your points, but WWII was a lesson in what can happen when we choose isolation.  I do agree concerning the hypocrisy with Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc.  I can also see the merits of a realist's argument that the world is sometimes not a nice place and that there are sometimes decisions that must be made that are in the best interests of the U.S., although the choice is the better of two bad choices.

[GunsmithAU 383]

8 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I understand your points, but WWII was a lesson in what can happen when we choose isolation.  I do agree concerning the hypocrisy with Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc.  I can also see the merits of a realist's argument that the world is sometimes not a nice place and that there are sometimes decisions that must be made that are in the best interests of the U.S., although the choice is the better of two bad choices.

I disagree with you on the lessons of WW2. It was entirely because the US became involved in WW1 and the harsh sanctions placed upon the losers that caused WW2 to happen. WW1 was a typical European war. The death and destruction was going to happen in a major war regardless because of new and expanding technology. The interwar period was just a pause in 1 giant war. 

Foreign entanglement has cause the deaths of millions of Americans and hundreds of millions of civilian deaths and displacements. Blowback happens and no one seems to care that short term feel goodism causes long term death. 

Military isolation and isn't the same as being North Korea isolation wise. You can participate in the world market and not meddle. Switzerland is a prime example. 

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

Again, I am not familiar enough with the subject agreement to argue it. How about quoting the relevant parts you are so interested in focusing on?

A quick look did find this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

"The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.^[1][22] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."^[21] In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms.^[22] The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the... commitments" set out in the memorandum.^[23] Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security guarantees that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments.^[24] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".^[25]"

So, what does "security assurances" mean exactly?  Does it mean direct military support or more like what we are currently doing?

Regarding "logic" I can speculate that not "honoring" this agreement - whatever that may have constituted - might have something to do with thermonuclear war.

As far as what Trump may have done in his second term, you should not underestimate the power and influence of the United States in rallying the unified support of democracies world wide.  Trump hardly has a history of being able to  lead in that regard, in fact, just the opposite.  Based on his history, I seriously doubt he would have even made the effort.

 

 

But that's a totally different argument.  You started off by saying that us not honoring our commitment was moot because what other choice do other countries have but to trust us, even if we go back on our word?

Now you're saying we're probably not really going back on our word.  That's a totally different argument.

I'm not trying to argue that Trump is good for international relations.  He's not.  But that's not the point.  The point is that if your original statement and reasoning is correct, our international relations don't matter because other countries have no choice but to work with us anyway.

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

8 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I am speaking of the unique relationship between corporate America and China.  Unlike China, the U.S. government doesn't have the authority to forbid a U.S. company from doing business in China, outside of imposing sanctions or when national security is at stake.  We don't want to run the economy into a ditch by imposing those sanctions and the American public won't support government decisions that result in product shortages and increased costs. 

Therefore, the only real way to begin to position ourselves to be prepared to  push back against China is for U.S. companies to begin to manufacture many goods in North America that they currently manufacture in China. The problem isn't that we don't have the leverage.  The problem is that the American public doesn't have the backbone to use that leverage.   We have accepted for decades that spending today and taking on debt is preferred over saying no to anyone or any cause.  The problem isn't a left or right spending problem, they both funnel cash to special interests in obscene amounts.  I agree that we have a societal problem and it must be addressed at some point.

I believe we do spend too much on some social safety net programs. However, I also believe that we spend too much on unnecessary military spending as well.  We have too many bases around the globe that do nothing but serve as sources of income for the host country where they are located.  Being strong by spending an amount equal to the next 6 highest spending nations on the globe's military spending combined only makes sense in the U.S.

The truth is that we have become our own worst enemy. Our government is less efficient than most European allies and our business environment is only slightly better.  We point to taxes and pretend that France and the UK pay higher taxes than we do, but if we add all of our tax burdens together , we pay an amount equal to and in many scenarios an amount greater than their taxpayers. We have local, state and Federal taxes, in addition to licensing and fees for everything imaginable.  I didn't intend to go off and ramble..... but it is what it is... lol

The fact that we have minimum wage laws and too many regulatory agencies that drive up the cost of production means that we will never manufacture all or even most of our goods in America.  It's just the way it is.

As for government spending, we've foolishly involved the government in the economy over the past 100 years or so to the point that we can't cut government spending.  that's why it never happens but only continues to grow regardless of who is in the WH or on the Hill.  Federal, state, and local government employees, plus the military accounts for roughly 20% of the entire workforce of the United States.  When you include the workers who are indirectly involved through government contracts, it's more like 23%

How are you going to make significant cuts to that without wrecking the economy?

The military is a jobs program.  And not just the soldiers employed, but the civilian contractors and their employees.

Trump found this out when he did all of his grandstanding about cutting the federal bureaucracy.  He did make cuts in some agencies, but he grew other departments.  I think the net cut was something like 2%.  Because—he found out—you can't.  Not suddenly, anyway.  It would be a 30 or 40 year plan we'd have to work.

This is also why pointing at other countries and saying that if they can adopt this or that model for health care we can too, is not necessarily true at all.  We've created a situation in which we are the largest economy in the world and the way we've grown that economy has us painted in a corner.  With the military, with health care, with the size of government, and I have come to believe, with the entitlements that you mentioned. 

How could we have been supposedly working on helping the poor since the mid-1960s and we haven't moved the needle on it at all?  50+ years in and we haven't moved the needle, and we keep doing the same things and trying the same strategies that obviously don't work.  Why?

I have come to believe that it's deliberate.  I don't think we want to get a significant amount of people out of poverty, because the economy needs a significant portion of the population to be people who have to spend all the money they get to survive.  I think the Ruling Class deliberately takes money from people who would otherwise save it or buy real estate with it or do something with it that would take the money out of liquid circulation and gives it to people who have no choice but to spend all of it to recirculate it through the economy and keep it liquid.  I don't think the motivation is anything other than that.  It's certainly not to decrease the number of poor people in America.  Because that hasn't happened in over 50 years of trying, and trying the same stuff that obviously doesn't work.

I honestly think a whole lot of stuff that we think is because of political differences really isn't.  I think individuals in politics use political differences as a way to get themselves elected and blame the other party for not allowing them to "fix" these problems, but they couldn't fix them even if they had complete dictatorial power, and they know it.

Not without giving up our position as the biggest economy in the world.

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

The fact that we have minimum wage laws and too many regulatory agencies that drive up the cost of production means that we will never manufacture all or even most of our goods in America.  It's just the way it is.

As for government spending, we've foolishly involved the government in the economy over the past 100 years or so to the point that we can't cut government spending.  that's why it never happens but only continues to grow regardless of who is in the WH or on the Hill.  Federal, state, and local government employees, plus the military accounts for roughly 20% of the entire workforce of the United States.  When you include the workers who are indirectly involved through government contracts, it's more like 23%

How are you going to make significant cuts to that without wrecking the economy?

The military is a jobs program.  And not just the soldiers employed, but the civilian contractors and their employees.

Trump found this out when he did all of his grandstanding about cutting the federal bureaucracy.  He did make cuts in some agencies, but he grew other departments.  I think the net cut was something like 2%.  Because—he found out—you can't.  Not suddenly, anyway.  It would be a 30 or 40 year plan we'd have to work.

This is also why pointing at other countries and saying that if they can adopt this or that model for health care we can too, is not necessarily true at all.  We've created a situation in which we are the largest economy in the world and the way we've grown that economy has us painted in a corner.  With the military, with health care, with the size of government, and I have come to believe, with the entitlements that you mentioned. 

How could we have been supposedly working on helping the poor since the mid-1960s and we haven't moved the needle on it at all?  50+ years in and we haven't moved the needle, and we keep doing the same things and trying the same strategies that obviously don't work.  Why?

I have come to believe that it's deliberate.  I don't think we want to get a significant amount of people out of poverty, because the economy needs a significant portion of the population to be people who have to spend all the money they get to survive.  I think the Ruling Class deliberately takes money from people who would otherwise save it or buy real estate with it or do something with it that would take the money out of liquid circulation and gives it to people who have no choice but to spend all of it to recirculate it through the economy and keep it liquid.  I don't think the motivation is anything other than that.  It's certainly not to decrease the number of poor people in America.  Because that hasn't happened in over 50 years of trying, and trying the same stuff that obviously doesn't work.

I honestly think a whole lot of stuff that we think is because of political differences really isn't.  I think individuals in politics use political differences as a way to get themselves elected and blame the other party for not allowing them to "fix" these problems, but they couldn't fix them even if they had complete dictatorial power, and they know it.

Not without giving up our position as the biggest economy in the world.

 

 

It would be difficult to be more wrong.

[homersapien 11,440]

6 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

But that's a totally different argument.  You started off by saying that us not honoring our commitment was moot because what other choice do other countries have but to trust us, even if we go back on our word?

 

No, that's not what I said, or even implied.

As my previous post indicated with the referenced material, it is open to debate just how much of an obligation - legal or otherwise - that agreement established.  Certainly not enough (IMO) for us to intercede in Ukraine with direct military force now.  As I said, we may be fulfilling the moral demands of that agreement now with our support.

But to your point, our failure in supporting Ukraine was in not doing a better job in beefing up their military capacity before this invasion.  We can go back and apportion blame for that, but it's now in the past.

The comment about countries having "no other choice" was not related to anything I said regarding the "Budapest" agreement or our obligations thereunder. 

It was meant as a 'stand alone' statement of fact which was intended to highlight the role our country plays in global politics, whether we like it or not.  Apparently many Americans are ready to abandon that reality for the sake of a ultimately losing strategy - isolationism.

 

Edited March 1, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

6 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Now you're saying we're probably not really going back on our word.  That's a totally different argument.

 

Well, to put it somewhat differently, I am saying that agreement didn't extend to the level of commitment you are insisting it did. 

Not sure what you mean by "totally different argument".  A totally different argument from what?

Edited March 1, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

6 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

The point is that if your original statement and reasoning is correct, our international relations don't matter because other countries have no choice but to work with us anyway.

 

Again, you are projecting a point I did not make.  I apologize for not making it clearer.

Of course international relations matter.  I would never suggest they didn't.

That doesn't negate the reality of the fact we are the only democratic superpower.  As such, we need to accept that responsibility - like it or not.  Maintaining good international relations with our potential democratic allies is part of that responsibility.  That is the point I make.

Again, you are projecting an interpretation of U.S. hubris in my statement "they have no other choice".    That was not my intent. My intent was to make it clear to other Americans that we are essentially the only game in town. 

In other words, isolationism will lead to a world dominated by totalitarian regimes.  If we want to avoid that, we must step up into the role that no one else can fill.

If we ignore our role as a leader of democratic countries, the weaker democratic countries will undoubtedly resist anti democratic, totalitarian countries as best as they can, but it will be a very uneven battle without our participation.

 

Edited March 1, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

16 hours ago, GunsmithAU said:

An ever changing boogyman at whims of excreting geopolitical power over the world is not a good thing. The expansion of NATO for the purpose of ostricizing Russia is what started this entire issue. Respected academics have predicted this for years. 

There is nothing to gain from being perpetually entangled in the affairs of others. 

Hell, none of this is about protecting human life, sovereignty, etc. It's about finding a new scary monster for the war machine. The US is backing and supporting mass murder in Yemen. The hypocrisy of the government and the ease of establishing group thing of the masses is astounding. 

 

Nonsense.  The foundation of NATO was designed to oppose and halt Russian territorial aggression in Europe.  And it was successful.

You are assuming Putin's argument, which is false.

And like it or not, the "affairs of others" directly impact the future of the U.S.  That was true in WWII and is just as true today.  They only difference is the existing of nuclear weaponry.

Regardless the world - and thus global politics - is complicated and messy. And as 9377 said, it sometimes entails hypocrisy and choosing the lesser of two evils.

Edited March 1, 2022 by homersapien

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

45 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Again, you are projecting a point I did not make.  I apologize for not making it clearer.

Of course international relations matter.  I would never suggest they didn't.

That doesn't negate the reality of the fact we are the only democratic superpower.  As such, we need to accept that responsibility - like it or not.  Maintaining good international relations with our potential democratic allies is part of that responsibility.  That is the point I make.

Again, you are projecting an interpretation of U.S. hubris in my statement "they have no other choice".    That was not my intent. My intent was to make it clear to other Americans that we are essentially the only game in town. 

In other words, isolationism will lead to a world dominated by totalitarian regimes.  If we want to avoid that, we must step up into the role that no one else can fill.

If we ignore our role as a leader of democratic countries, the weaker democratic countries will undoubtedly resist anti democratic, totalitarian countries as best as they can, but it will be a very uneven battle without our participation.

 

O.k.  Sorry I misinterpreted what you said and thanks for clearing it up.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

It would be difficult to be more wrong.

How so?

[autigeremt 6,685]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Nonsense.  The foundation of NATO was designed to oppose and halt Russian territorial aggression in Europe.  And it was successful.

You are assuming Putin's argument, which is false.

And like it or not, the "affairs of others" directly impact the future of the U.S.  That was true in WWII and is just as true today.  They only difference is the existing of nuclear weaponry.

Regardless the world - and thus global politics - is complicated and messy. And as 9377 said, it sometimes entails hypocrisy and choosing the lesser of two evils.

The foundation of NATO was designed to oppose and halt Russian territorial aggression in Europe. 

Not so much now....but I understand why we haven't hit Russia militarily. They have 5,947 reasons why we haven't. 

[DKW 86 7,440]

7 hours ago, autigeremt said:

The foundation of NATO was designed to oppose and halt Russian territorial aggression in Europe. 

Not so much now....but I understand why we haven't hit Russia militarily. They have 5,947 reasons why we haven't. 

Maybe:
The Russians take some ground in Ukraine.
China takes Taiwan.
America takes Cuba. 
And we all call it a day?

Look, we cant engage militarily with Russia or China without closing in on a Nuke Exchange. You start losing the battle, someone will light off a theater nuke and here we go...

Biden is doing the correct thing. We cant arm Ukraine. The EU can. China is probably breaking out the camo uniforms for Taiwan even now. 

[autigeremt 6,685]

9 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Maybe:
The Russians take some ground in Ukraine.
China takes Taiwan.
America takes Cuba. 
And we all call it a day?

Look, we cant engage militarily with Russia or China without closing in on a Nuke Exchange. You start losing the battle, someone will light off a theater nuke and here we go...

Biden is doing the correct thing. We cant arm Ukraine. The EU can. China is probably breaking out the camo uniforms for Taiwan even now. 

Dark times.