Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Agreed. So the "War on Terror" was no war?!?
It is not a war until Congress declares it a war.
Agreed. So the "War on Terror" was no war?!?
No, nor is the war on drugs a war, nor the war on poverty. The war in Vietnam was not a war, either, and wasn't called that at the time. By the time we allowed the president to start a non war war in Iraq, it was no longer necessary to sidestep the Constitution by not calling it a war. That document had been sufficiently shredded by that time that a spade could be called a spade, and an undeclared war a war.
CP, you think too highly of yourself. Though I'll disagree with your opinion, and resent your misrepresentation of isolationist, I will stop short of referring to you as idiotic or delusional.
It's to the point that I can't help but assume he's on someone's payroll. Too much dedication and consistency.It's not that I think so highly of myself, but rather that I think so little of the kind of obsession with blaming American for the actions of others that you demonstrate.
Libya is a full blown civil war, not just Bengazi, militias have taken over the Tripoli airport (etc).This war / major counterterrorism campaign smacks of something very familiar with Obama.
Remember how Obama was going to get to the bottom of Bengahzi? ... and the IRS targeting of the Tea Party? ... and Fast & Furious? etc.
He showed no interest, they were allowed to drag on, and the plan was to let attention lapse, and it worked.
The difference? Not much from their point of view.
Yes, the war is vital and you'd expect attention to be stronger for longer but it's still something they can stonewall, lie about, and repeat that it'll take time.
Being dragged into having to call it a war is a clue.
:doh
There is a certain level of determination to see the US as the root of all problems that can't be solved. Soviet foreign policy was inherently aggressive, imperial, and abusive. Her leaders saw themselves in conflict with us well before and to a greater degree than our leaders saw us in conflict with them.
What is it about the relative nature of "before" and "greater degree" is it that eludes you? It wasn't the US that tried to blockade off Berlin, or had an agent infiltrate the foreign service of the other allies in order to win them control over half of Europe. The US didn't get South Korea to invade North Korea, that went the other-way-round. The US gave control of Western Europe back to it's own people - not the case in the East.
I knew you were of the way-gone isolationist bent, but if you are honestly going to try to claim that anything other than conflict with the Soviet Union was possible for the United States after WWII then you are either historically illiterate, or straight up idiotically delusional.
It's not that I think so highly of myself, but rather that I think so little of the kind of obsession with blaming American for the actions of others that you demonstrate.
It's to the point that I can't help but assume he's on someone's payroll. Too much dedication and consistency.
And even after all that, the ME burns, and the militant Islamic groups are stronger then ever.
So we "fed" off each other then.
What's the difference? We both acted like paranoid fools.
Well, I have only blamed America for the policies advanced that have been beneficial to the very people that we are suppose to be diminishing.
We didn't have to match or beat them warhead for warhead though. The arms race was foolish and wasteful.
Ah.... no. Soviet Foreign Policy was to overthrow all non-Soviet governments in an attempt to create a worldwide Communist super-state.
:roll: reminds me of the old paradigm - the Soviets push a lady in front of a bus, the US runs in and pushes her out of the way, and the left accuses both sides of pushing around little old ladies.
The Soviet Union was an abusive actual Empire based on the eradication of individual and even popular rights and the aggressive expansion of power. To the extent that the US has an empire at all it is one built around trying to bring other nation-states into trade networks with us.
You want to know what the difference is? Ask the Czechs, the Hungarians. Ask yourself how much you remember about the US invasion of France following that country's decision not to be a part of NATO.
Dude you just blamed the US for the Cold War. If something in the world is going badly you search back only to the point of US involvement and then declare that to somehow be the cause.
Really now. Was there a Cold War before US involvement??? And are you suggesting as you have with Pearl Harbor, that the US was minding its own business and that the Soviet Union decided to pick a 40 year cold fight with us, is that it.
It was not the US that built the "Iron Curtain".
Of course, had the US simply gone back to isolationism and ignored the Soviet Union, then there wouldn't have been a cold war. The Soviets would still have their empire, though, and it would be a lot bigger than it was back in the 1980s.
At the first UN assembly, with the creation of the Atomic Energy Commission, the US argued for regulation of nuclear weapons while the Soviet Union argued for universal disarmament! The US rejected that proposal, and the arms race began.
Really now. Was there a Cold War before US involvement??? And are you suggesting as you have with Pearl Harbor, that the US was minding its own business and that the Soviet Union decided to pick a 40 year cold fight with us, is that it.
Was that before or after the Soviets developed the bomb?
Was that before or after the Soviets developed the bomb?
:shrug: Churchill's problem was that FDR actually trusted Stalin. Hell, we gave away half of Europe.
Saying that there was no Cold War before US involvement is also false. The Berliners were the first victims of the Cold War, and the US became involved in order to feed them.
Three years before. The purpose of the creation of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission was to eliminate the use of nuclear weapons, as I pointed out, the US was totally against that, and the US conducted its first test just 6 months after the end of WW2, over and under a fleet of 90 Japanese ships captured during the war. Since the US was against total disarmament, and was continuing testing and development, why wouldn't the Soviet Union then, as the other super power, rush to development. It was determined that the Soviet Union wouldn't have one developed until the mid 1950's, but they shocked the world with their first detonation in 1949.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?