 |
| |
|
|
orange
|
 |
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Which is a bad thing, and morally wrong. |
And you would actually prefer the rule of dictators and madmen who commit genocide and build weapons of mass destruction, and worse, you'd prefer this in the name of morality???
quote:
Because, in the US at least, there is a mechanism for getting out of the government if you have enough other people in your state to go along with you. |
I don't want a nation at all, I don't want people to go along with me, I just want to be on my own, no government. Sorry but there is no way to go about this in the United States  No one can become exempt from the government inside this country.
quote:
So you think the Treaty of Versailles was morally right?  |
I have no 'moral' issues with it, not that I don't feel it was complete idiocy, but something along the lines of Wilson's plan would have been perfectly acceptable to me, and would have worked fine, but to you it wouldn't have because it would be forced on Germany.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
DinoDoc,
quote:
Something can be bad foreign policy and be morally right at the same time, David. The two are not mutually exclusive by any means what so ever. |
So hang on. Germany did nothing more than act in its national interest and supporting an ally, who invaded a country who's secret society assassinated its Archduke. Sound familiar to SOMETHING ELSE RECENTLY? 
Fact is, Germany did nothing any worse than anyone else at the time.
Therefore, the "peace treaty" - not to mention US involvement in the war - was morally wrong.
orange,
quote:
And you would actually prefer the rule of dictators and madmen who commit genocide and build weapons of mass destruction, and worse, you'd prefer this in the name of morality??? |
Actually no I'd prefer a free democracy. But my preferences aren't the point when it comes to foreign nations, nor are the preferences of the United States as a whole.
quote:
I don't want a nation at all, I don't want people to go along with me, I just want to be on my own, no government. |
This relates how?
If you want your own country, buy your own island.
quote:
I have no 'moral' issues with it, not that I don't feel it was complete idiocy, but something along the lines of Wilson's plan would have been perfectly acceptable to me, and would have worked fine, but to you it wouldn't have because it would be forced on Germany. |
See my response to DinoDoc.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Prior to World War II the Axis surely could have, and imagine if Britain and France had prolonged their involvement in the war based on your thoughts on foreign policy.
America could today, take each nation one by one, and if everyone followed your policies, we'd win easily. Again, each nation one by one. This is why coallitions are GOOD things! They prevent powerful nations from becoming unstoppably powerful. |
Bullshit.
The Axis had no economic or logistical ability to invade and conquer the whole world. Just not possible. Hitler's logistical train ran out in EUROPEAN RUSSIA AND THE ATLANTIC OCEAN - not all that much compared to the world. Imagine a trans-Atlantic invasion. Not possible for them.
Ditto with Japan. Not economically or logistically possible.
Not to mention neither had the manpower to hold down their conquests AND keep advancing indefinitely.
Same with the US today. We do not have the manpower, economic, or logistical strength to take on each nation one by one, conquer them, and move on. I'd be surprised if we could conquer North and Latin America, hold it down, and pursue a war in South America - not to mention invading Europe, Japan, or China 
quote:
Not when you pull a knife on his wife first. |
Again, different situation. But I'll play along.
If you pull a knife on my wife, and I shoot and kill you, I'm justified legally and morally. BUT if I hold a gun on you, and force you to sign a contract giving me all your assets, that will not hold up in court. But this is a totally different situation than what we are talking about anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
How about if they took Kuwaitt, then Saudi Arabia, and then the rest of the Middle East without any other nation becoming involved. Oil monopoly first, and then millions lost in larger wars. I think the coallition with 42 lost American lives was more than perferrable to what could have been. |
First off, no oil monopoly. Just a MIDDLE EASTERN oil monopoly. Secondly, economic pressure does not make something our business just on the basis we could be paying more for gas.
quote:
It doesn't work that easily |
Fine. Even if you are right, it still isn't our business. It's NOT OUR OIL 
quote:
And that is for the people of democracies to decide. |
First off, don't be naive and think that the people of the US decide US foreign policy.
Secondly, it is never OK for the people to vote to invade a foreign nation, kill thousands of foreign soldiers or citizens, and then force a surrender on that nation. It's morally wrong.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
|
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
DinoDoc,
So hang on. Germany did nothing more than act in its national interest and supporting an ally, who invaded a country who's secret society assassinated its Archduke. Sound familiar to SOMETHING ELSE RECENTLY?
Fact is, Germany did nothing any worse than anyone else at the time.
Therefore, the "peace treaty" - not to mention US involvement in the war - was morally wrong. |
You're right, but Germany wasn't the only nation to suffer. World War I isn't a good example, the war was ended selfishly. But lets put it this way, Germany had to submit to end the war, which means they were accepting whatever ruling the victors would force upon them. Otherwise they'd keep on fighting right?
quote:
orange,
Actually no I'd prefer a free democracy. But my preferences aren't the point when it comes to foreign nations, nor are the preferences of the United States as a whole. |
The US isn't the only one making decisions. Why are you so critical of the concept of an open United Nations which protects the rights of all people?
:sigh: Your stance on moral foreign policy doesn't make any sense when you break it down. It's nice to mind your own business, but it's not morally wrong to help allies in a war or discourage dictators that restrict the human rights of their people. It got off on a bit of a tangent, but I was trying to say "where does it end?" How far can you stretch this "mind your own business" nonsense?? I say, to total anarchy, which I do not in any way support, and which you also claim not to support...I ask how can you support it to the extent of a nation, when a nation is forced upon people as well.
quote:
If you want your own country, buy your own island. |
Proving you obviously missed the point
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
You're right, but Germany wasn't the only nation to suffer. World War I isn't a good example, the war was ended selfishly. But lets put it this way, Germany had to submit to end the war, which means they were accepting whatever ruling the victors would force upon them. Otherwise they'd keep on fighting right? |
Doesn't change the fact that not only were the peace conditions immoral, but the whole outbreak of war was immoral as well.
quote:
The US isn't the only one making decisions. Why are you so critical of the concept of an open United Nations which protects the rights of all people? |
Clearly because in a democratic UN with actual power, the Chinese, or the Africans, or whomever, could vote as a bloc and stop a nation, such as the US from doing something they didn't like, thus destroying any semblance of national sovereignty, and self-rule.
quote:
Your stance on moral foreign policy doesn't make any sense when you break it down. It's nice to mind your own business, but it's not morally wrong to help allies in a war or discourage dictators that restrict the human rights of their people. It got off on a bit of a tangent, but I was trying to say "where does it end?" How far can you stretch this "mind your own business" nonsense?? I say, to total anarchy, which I do not in any way support, and which you also claim not to support...I ask how can you support it to the extent of a nation, when a nation is forced upon people as well. |
"Mind your own business" clearly means, in this context, that you don't interfere in foreign wars unless they attack you first.
Examples such as shooting your wife, or whatever, are bullshit because it's a totally different framework and situation.
quote:
Proving you obviously missed the point |
Not at all. You want the right to throw off the authority of the US federal government. You already have that right. Either convince your state to secede, move out, or buy your own island.
Obviously, if they are violating your rights, there are other options available to you (use of force springs to mind), but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
|
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Bullshit. |
You don't really think that nations like Costa Rica Peru Zimbabwe and New Zealand could, on their own, defend against the US. Even nations as large as Australia or Algeria would be beaten easily. Especially if we just tossed some nuclear weapons! Now, obviously this is a stretch of what WOULD actually happen, but it's not a stretch of what COULD happen assuming everyone agreed to your "none of our business" policy.
quote:
The Axis had no economic or logistical ability to invade and conquer the whole world. |
Surely they did if people followed your policies. If every single nation ignored Germany and Japan until they were attacked, it would be easy for Germany and Japan to take over the world.
quote:
Just not possible. Hitler's logistical train ran out in EUROPEAN RUSSIA AND THE ATLANTIC OCEAN |
If everyone did what you said nations should do, Germany would have gone one by one, annexing Eastern Europe as they did, taking Norway the lowlands and France as they did, and then building up larger forces...taking individual nations, and then trying for the big ones like England and Russia one by one. Not so hard to believe to me
quote:
not all that much compared to the world. Imagine a trans-Atlantic invasion. Not possible for them. |
Not with a two front war...but if they had done each nation individually, they could easily have won.
quote:
Ditto with Japan. Not economically or logistically possible. |
Even more possible for them!
quote:
Not to mention neither had the manpower to hold down their conquests AND keep advancing indefinitely. |
Not the way they were fighting it, based on logical coallitions and the rules of war, but based on the way you would like nations to behave, YES they could have.
quote:
Same with the US today. We do not have the manpower, economic, or logistical strength to take on each nation one by one, conquer them, and move on. |
I strongly disagree. Especially if under a dictator.
quote:
I'd be surprised if we could conquer North and Latin America, hold it down, and pursue a war in South America - not to mention invading Europe, Japan, or China |
This wouldn't necessarily have to happen in a matter of 2 years! It could be an ongoing struggle. Each nation falling, like dominoes.
quote:
Again, different situation. But I'll play along.
If you pull a knife on my wife, and I shoot and kill you, I'm justified legally and morally. |
Why? You should mind your own business. After all, it's your wife's problem, not yours. You're not justified at all according to you!
It'd be like us defending Britain or Kuwait, which you say is wrong.
quote:
BUT if I hold a gun on you, and force you to sign a contract giving me all your assets, that will not hold up in court. But this is a totally different situation than what we are talking about anyway. |
Read DinoDoc's example 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
You don't really think that nations like Costa Rica Peru Zimbabwe and New Zealand could, on their own, defend against the US. Even nations as large as Australia or Algeria would be beaten easily. Especially if we just tossed some nuclear weapons! Now, obviously this is a stretch of what WOULD actually happen, but it's not a stretch of what COULD happen assuming everyone agreed to your "none of our business" policy. |
You totally ignored the important part of my post. What I said was that, sure, we could invade a couple, but eventually manpower and logistics would catch up with us, as well as of course civilian dissent at home.
quote:
Surely they did if people followed your policies. If every single nation ignored Germany and Japan until they were attacked, it would be easy for Germany and Japan to take over the world. |
Bullshit. Re-read my post.
quote:
If everyone did what you said nations should do, Germany would have gone one by one, annexing Eastern Europe as they did, taking Norway the lowlands and France as they did, and then building up larger forces...taking individual nations, and then trying for the big ones like England and Russia one by one. Not so hard to believe to me |
Bullshit. Re-read my post.
quote:
Not with a two front war...but if they had done each nation individually, they could easily have won. |
Bullshit. Re-read my post. Where oh where are the history majors who can back me up. I think Chris62 even would back me up on these points.
quote:
Even more possible for them! |
*sigh* Why do I even try?
quote:
Not the way they were fighting it, based on logical coallitions and the rules of war, but based on the way you would like nations to behave, YES they could have. |
See above
quote:
I strongly disagree. Especially if under a dictator. |
What would a dictator matter? Hell, that'd make it even harder as you'd be hit with total rebellion at home pretty damn soon after a dictator took over and started trying to take over the world. Not that it would matter. 250 million against 6 billion? Not likely. And you think the US could invade *CHINA* or *RUSSIA*??? WTF?
quote:
This wouldn't necessarily have to happen in a matter of 2 years! It could be an ongoing struggle. Each nation falling, like dominoes. |
Simple concept. As each nation falls, it has to be adequately garrisoned. For a nation like Costa Rica, no big deal. For a large nation, a militant nation, or a heavily populated nation, such as Canada, Australia, Russia, China, Japan, England, Germany, etc., it IS a very big deal. Pretty soon, you have more men on garrison duty, fighting guerilla wars, than you do on the front line, and THAT, my friend can't continue. The only set of dominos that will fall is YOUR set of overextended conquests.
quote:
Why? You should mind your own business. After all, it's your wife's problem, not yours. You're not justified at all according to you!
It'd be like us defending Britain or Kuwait, which you say is wrong. |
Bullshit. You're oversimplifying and changing the entire scenario. A husband-wife relationship is NOT like an alliance. It is a family unit, it is legally protected by US law, and it would be a moral travesty NOT to protect your wife. Surely you can see the difference between husband-wife and US-Kuwait???
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
In the anarchy that exists in the international system today, international law is self-enforced by the States in the system. So, in this instance we actually were the cops. |
That's the whole problem! Where do we get the moral authority to play "World Policeman"? Nowhere, I say.
quote:
I would if you would actually list a benefit to letting Sadam run rampant. So far I only see costs which doesn't make it a wise foreign policy decision. |
A benefit? Certainly. It's the morally right thing to do. It would be morally WRONG to interject into a situation that is none of our business. And a wise foreign policy decision is also very open to interpretation. "Wise foreign policy", and "national interest", etc., are all very abstract terms.
As, I'll admit, is morality. But according to my sense of morality, and because I believe in absolute morals, interfering with the affairs of a sovereign nation, even to protect another nation, is wrong, especially if it costs US lives.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
|
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Doesn't change the fact that not only were the peace conditions immoral, but the whole outbreak of war was immoral as well. |
So quit making Germany out to be the victim. They're just as guilty for Versailles as France and England are.
quote:
Clearly because in a democratic UN with actual power, the Chinese, or the Africans, or whomever, could vote as a bloc and stop a nation, such as the US from doing something they didn't like, thus destroying any semblance of national sovereignty, and self-rule. |
What the hell are you talking about??
quote:
"Mind your own business" clearly means, in this context, that you don't interfere in foreign wars unless they attack you first.
Examples such as shooting your wife, or whatever, are bullshit because it's a totally different framework and situation. |
How is it any different??? If the US comes to the defense of any nation it so choses it is justified in doing it if the nation as a democracy feels that it is so justified!
quote:
Not at all. You want the right to throw off the authority of the US federal government. You already have that right. |
No I don't, like we already said, I can't just become without government intervention in my life. It's just not possible.
quote:
Either convince your state to secede, move out, or buy your own island.
|
State secession has nothing to do with it, and moving out only lands you in another government. How many islands do you know for sale?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
So quit making Germany out to be the victim. They're just as guilty for Versailles as France and England are. |
True, in that their victory conditions probably would have been harsh as well. But that doesn't change the moral indefensibility of the Treaty of Versailles.
quote:
What the hell are you talking about?? |
Just what I said. If we start letting the UN have power over national sovereignty, than the whole concept of national sovereignty and self-rule fall to pieces.
quote:
How is it any different??? If the US comes to the defense of any nation it so choses it is justified in doing it if the nation as a democracy feels that it is so justified! |
Sure, if you're a moral relativist. I, unfortunately, am not.
quote:
No I don't, like we already said, I can't just become without government intervention in my life. It's just not possible. |
And I'm telling you IT IS, if you want to badly enough. It'd be hard, though. But still, this is going far off-topic and becoming more and more irrelevant to the main discussion.
quote:
State secession has nothing to do with it, and moving out only lands you in another government. How many islands do you know for sale? |
I dunno, how much money do you have? Anything is for sale for the right price
Oh, you can't afford it? Your problem, obviously.
Vel,
quote:
David, I tend to agree with you more often than not, but sometimes....sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire, bud. |
Certainly right, IF AND ONLY IF a foreign nation uses "fire" against us first.
quote:
IMO, an isolationist stance would just be wrong for the USA. It's true, we gotta (and I mean GOTTA) learn to do better when it comes to picking our friends in certain parts of the world, but we just can't sit on our duffs inside our borders and pretend the rest of the world isn't out there. |
Certainly not. Working diplomatically to promote peace and free-trade is very important. Just leave the force aspect out of it.
quote:
As the big dog, like it or not, we have responsibilities, both to our own interests and to the world community. |
We have responsibilities? Funny, I don't think they're written down anywhere, or are anything other than what the current government wants them to be
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
|
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
You totally ignored the important part of my post. What I said was that, sure, we could invade a couple, but eventually manpower and logistics would catch up with us, as well as of course civilian dissent at home. |
"a couple"? My ass. The threat of or use of nukes could turn MANY of them...especially if you consider that only a handful of nations have Nuclear weapons!
quote:
Bullshit. Re-read my post.
Bullshit. Re-read my post.
Bullshit. Re-read my post. Where oh where are the history majors who can back me up. I think Chris62 even would back me up on these points. |
I see, when the debate gets tough, just put the hands over the ears and sing "la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la". I did read your posts, I'm rebutting them, why don't you try the same.
And by the way, you're talking to a history major I *sincerely* doubt Chris62 would support your view on foreign policy.
quote:
*sigh* Why do I even try? |
quote:
What would a dictator matter? Hell, that'd make it even harder as you'd be hit with total rebellion at home pretty damn soon after a dictator took over and started trying to take over the world. Not that it would matter. 250 million against 6 billion? Not likely. And you think the US could invade *CHINA* or *RUSSIA*??? WTF? |
I never said they could, but they could takeover MANY nations IF everyone else minded their own business!
quote:
Simple concept. As each nation falls, it has to be adequately garrisoned. For a nation like Costa Rica, no big deal. For a large nation, a militant nation, or a heavily populated nation, such as Canada, Australia, Russia, China, Japan, England, Germany, etc., it IS a very big deal. |
Never once suggested we'd have to take Japan China Russia or England. There are plenty of non-nuclear countries that would fall easily to the use or threat of nuclear attack in the absence of a coallition to control the aggressor. One vs. one MANY MANY nations would lose and could be controlled by the US assuming of course that we lost all morality in our actions.
quote:
Pretty soon, you have more men on garrison duty, fighting guerilla wars, than you do on the front line, and THAT, my friend can't continue. The only set of dominos that will fall is YOUR set of overextended conquests. |
Who said anything about overextended conquests?? I'm talking about a way for all nations to protect themselves against larger ones WITHOUT having to go through massive casualities in individual wars.
quote:
Bullshit. You're oversimplifying and changing the entire scenario. A husband-wife relationship is NOT like an alliance. It is a family unit, it is legally protected by US law, and it would be a moral travesty NOT to protect your wife. Surely you can see the difference between husband-wife and US-Kuwait??? |
How about US-England. And it's the same thing as protecting your nerd 'friend' from an aggressor because he does your homework for you 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
|
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Just what I said. If we start letting the UN have power over national sovereignty, than the whole concept of national sovereignty and self-rule fall to pieces. |
I didn't say make the world one giant direct democracy...that's what your first quote implied.
quote:
Sure, if you're a moral relativist. I, unfortunately, am not. |
quote:
And I'm telling you IT IS, if you want to badly enough. It'd be hard, though. But still, this is going far off-topic and becoming more and more irrelevant to the main discussion. |
Fine, we can ditch this, but you and I both know it is not possible in this world and especially in this country to separate yourself from any government intervention.
quote:
Oh, you can't afford it? Your problem, obviously. |
Isn't that just like holding a gun to my head and forcing me to follow the law of a government I support simply because I don't have the money to pay for an island?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
orange,
quote:
"a couple"? My ass. The threat of or use of nukes could turn MANY of them...especially if you consider that only a handful of nations have Nuclear weapons!
Bullshit. Re-read my post.
Bullshit. Re-read my post.
Bullshit. Re-read my post. Where oh where are the history majors who can back me up. I think Chris62 even would back me up on these points. |
I see, when the debate gets tough, just put the hands over the ears and sing "la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la". I did read your posts, I'm rebutting them, why don't you try the same.[/quote]
You certainly did not rebut anything I said. Simple fact: the United States has the capability to sealift, at most, ONE division with its equipment, using ALL of our shipping, at a time. Is 1 division enough to conquer and hold down a nation? I doubt it seriously, at least when you get bigger than Costa Rica. We couldn't even take and hold New Zealand or Cuba with 1 division, to say nothing of Australia, for example.
And using the argument of "if you don't surrender, we nuke you" is bullshit because, real-world, the US military would not respond to such an order.
And if you're a history major, then you should know that even if Germany defeated Russia, they would have been locked up in guerilla war in the Urals and beyond for DECADES, with hundreds of thousands of soldiers perpetually stationed in Russia to hold down the population
quote:
I never said they could, but they could takeover MANY nations IF everyone else minded their own business! |
Of course, another relevant point is that if we decided we HAD TO INVADE, say, Costa Rica, there's nothing the world could do about it militarily. But in any case, my point still stands that internal unrest combined with overextension of limited forces and lack of logistical infrastructure would doom a US war of conquest to failure pretty damn quickly.
quote:
How about US-England. And it's the same thing as protecting your nerd 'friend' from an aggressor because he does your homework for you |
US-England is still not a husband-wife relationship. It has no bearing on the example of protecting your wife.
Vel,
Best way I can reply to you is to concede that while we were not the original aggressors, it did not become our business simply by virtue of a large nation attacking a smaller one.
DinoDoc,
quote:
It's a burden of being world hegemon. |
Than maybe our established position of world hegemon is wrong as well.
quote:
I don't believe that morality and foreign policy should mix to any signifigant degree becuase it only leads to problems on either end of the spectrum. |
Foreign policy and morality are irrevocably mixed, IMO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
I didn't say make the world one giant direct democracy...that's what your first quote implied. |
It's the impression I got from reading what you said.
quote:
Isn't that just like holding a gun to my head and forcing me to follow the law of a government I support simply because I don't have the money to pay for an island? |
You have legal recourse to change the government, such as voting or leaving. Conversely, if the government is actually infringing on your rights, and legal recourse fails, you have the right to use force.
Ramo,
quote:
Just because some sociopath calls himself a "state" doesn't magically make stopping his gang of thugs from committing more murders "immoral."
Quite simply, it's counterintuitive to give any liberties to coercive organizations such as states, much less more liberties than individuals. |
Ah, but the argument is not over the morality of murder, it's over the morality of sovereign nations interfering with one another.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
|
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
orange,
You certainly did not rebut anything I said. Simple fact: the United States has the capability to sealift, at most, ONE division with its equipment, using ALL of our shipping, at a time. |
Where exactly did you pull that factoid from?
quote:
Is 1 division enough to conquer and hold down a nation? I doubt it seriously, at least when you get bigger than Costa Rica. |
You need to forget about "big nations" and look at what I'm saying.
If the US wants to conquer Central America, we could do it easily. If 15 other, larger countries with strong diplomatic and economic ties to those Central American nations want to protect them, why are you against that? They are not being morally wrong by protecting their allies.
quote:
We couldn't even take and hold New Zealand or Cuba with 1 division, to say nothing of Australia, for example. |
I really think your figures are way off.
quote:
And using the argument of "if you don't surrender, we nuke you" is bullshit because, real-world, the US military would not respond to such an order. |
The US as it is right now would not, but the US under a dictator or some other country with a dictator and nuclear weapons COULD. Don't you see? This isn't about how the world is, this is about how the world would be if everyone simply minded their own business and let dictators and madmen do what they wanted.
quote:
And if you're a history major, then you should know that even if Germany defeated Russia, they would have been locked up in guerilla war in the Urals and beyond for DECADES, with hundreds of thousands of soldiers perpetually stationed in Russia to hold down the population |
I do know this, which is why I never said that Germany could invade and hold Russia You keep putting words in my mouth.
quote:
Of course, another relevant point is that if we decided we HAD TO INVADE, say, Costa Rica, there's nothing the world could do about it militarily. |
You say this after you get done saying that the US doesn't have the power to fight New Zealand?
quote:
But in any case, my point still stands that internal unrest combined with overextension of limited forces and lack of logistical infrastructure would doom a US war of conquest to failure pretty damn quickly. |
quote:
US-England is still not a husband-wife relationship. It has no bearing on the example of protecting your wife. |
I don't see why not, it's none of the husband's business, unless of course you believe that his wife is his property
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-02-2002 05:53
|