PDA

View Full Version : Foreign Policy Realism



Ethereal
09-10-2018, 09:16 AM
I finished reading Six Frigates about a month or two ago. The book is a history of the founding of the US Navy during the presidencies of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. A consistent theme at the time was promoting and protecting American maritime trade. Another theme was the willingness of American merchants and political leadership to trade with basically anyone who was willing to do business. Simply put, they tried to remain impartial and detached and were primarily interested in making America rich and prosperous. This required us to stay out of European wars, particularly between the British and the French. This did not always work out perfectly, but they always made a sincere effort to stay true to that principle. And when it worked out, America benefited greatly. Whenever war broke out between the British and the French, American merchants would sell to both sides and make tons of money doing it. And US revenues from tariffs, duties, and excises would swell. This is a great example of realism in foreign policy. Americans did not concern themselves with who was right or wrong in foreign wars. They did not try to insert themselves into the dispute. They just did what was in their own interests and left the foreign powers to their own devices. This approach was based on years of intense experience and study by the founders, who were excellent students of history. The same principles should be guiding US foreign policy today. We should not be taking sides in foreign wars unless forced to do so. And if we're forced to intervene, we should do it in a way that seeks to reestablish our neutrality and nothing more. Wars based on a desire to spread democracy, promote human rights, or exact vengeance are chimerical and emotional. The only thing that should matter are real, tangible results that we can measure and see. That is what our founders believed and that is what I believe.

Adelaide
09-10-2018, 11:42 PM
I finished reading Six Frigates about a month or two ago. The book is a history of the founding of the US Navy during the presidencies of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. A consistent theme at the time was promoting and protecting American maritime trade. Another theme was the willingness of American merchants and political leadership to trade with basically anyone who was willing to do business. Simply put, they tried to remain impartial and detached and were primarily interested in making America rich and prosperous. This required us to stay out of European wars, particularly between the British and the French. This did not always work out perfectly, but they always made a sincere effort to stay true to that principle. And when it worked out, America benefited greatly. Whenever war broke out between the British and the French, American merchants would sell to both sides and make tons of money doing it. And US revenues from tariffs, duties, and excises would swell. This is a great example of realism in foreign policy. Americans did not concern themselves with who was right or wrong in foreign wars. They did not try to insert themselves into the dispute. They just did what was in their own interests and left the foreign powers to their own devices. This approach was based on years of intense experience and study by the founders, who were excellent students of history. The same principles should be guiding US foreign policy today. We should not be taking sides in foreign wars unless forced to do so. And if we're forced to intervene, we should do it in a way that seeks to reestablish our neutrality and nothing more. Wars based on a desire to spread democracy, promote human rights, or exact vengeance are chimerical and emotional. The only thing that should matter are real, tangible results that we can measure and see. That is what our founders believed and that is what I believe.
I think that it might be more challenging now economically, as well as diplomatically. For example, oil and gas. Technology. Countries willing to allow what is essentially slave labor for more affordable goods. It sort of forces the United States to trade with countries that are less desirable and removes some of the control. It would be unrealistic to say the US could be autonomous or fill those gaps.

For the record, you can be a solid ally without being the world police that gets into everyone's business. That option exists. I agree about your description of wars, and it sort of bothers me that this notion of "spreading democracy" still exists when the countries involved often revert back to a version of government that is worse than what was previously in place. Let people/nations sort out their own shit unless they suddenly become a threat to US interests.

Peter1469
09-10-2018, 11:56 PM
The US agreed to be the "world police" at Breton Woods (1944) in exchange for the USD becoming the reserve currency.

Dr. Who
09-11-2018, 12:11 AM
I finished reading Six Frigates about a month or two ago. The book is a history of the founding of the US Navy during the presidencies of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. A consistent theme at the time was promoting and protecting American maritime trade. Another theme was the willingness of American merchants and political leadership to trade with basically anyone who was willing to do business. Simply put, they tried to remain impartial and detached and were primarily interested in making America rich and prosperous. This required us to stay out of European wars, particularly between the British and the French. This did not always work out perfectly, but they always made a sincere effort to stay true to that principle. And when it worked out, America benefited greatly. Whenever war broke out between the British and the French, American merchants would sell to both sides and make tons of money doing it. And US revenues from tariffs, duties, and excises would swell. This is a great example of realism in foreign policy. Americans did not concern themselves with who was right or wrong in foreign wars. They did not try to insert themselves into the dispute. They just did what was in their own interests and left the foreign powers to their own devices. This approach was based on years of intense experience and study by the founders, who were excellent students of history. The same principles should be guiding US foreign policy today. We should not be taking sides in foreign wars unless forced to do so. And if we're forced to intervene, we should do it in a way that seeks to reestablish our neutrality and nothing more. Wars based on a desire to spread democracy, promote human rights, or exact vengeance are chimerical and emotional. The only thing that should matter are real, tangible results that we can measure and see. That is what our founders believed and that is what I believe.
I think there is a difference between remaining politically neutral vs being politically amoral. Remaining the former, rather than the latter is important. Trading with those who are committing genocide is the latter and is a cause for concern. A nation can choose to have moral principles and yet still retain neutrality where neutrality means neither aiding nor abetting or actively intervening in the politics of another nation.

ripmeister
09-11-2018, 03:57 PM
If only it were so simple.

Admiral Ackbar
09-11-2018, 04:18 PM
Remember the Geopolitcials imperative that guides the United States

1. Control of the Mississippi basin and the port of New Orleans.

2. Control of the seas to allow access to trade or in turn deny that access

3. Ensure no great power arises to dominate the Eastern Hemisphere in the manner the US dominates the Western.

This third point is relevant to this discussion. The German Empire WW1, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union were all threats to do that in the last century. They had to be contained or defeated. The US does not mind that great powers exist in the Eastern Hemisphere it is just they can not dominate. So we are always in away making sure there is competition and in fact chaos.

The China threat is building the same way. This is why we will build alliances and be good with Japan re arming and we will supply Taiwan etc.. It is same old same old.

We are not trying to really make everything "all good" just keeping others off base.

Chris
09-11-2018, 04:41 PM
Agree, if I understood correctly, the US should pursue our interests and ours alone and not use foreign policy or trade policy to meddle in other nations and promote what some feel is moral, ethical, democratic, humanitarian, whatever abstraction the elites try to sell today.

ripmeister
09-11-2018, 06:07 PM
Agree, if I understood correctly, the US should pursue our interests and ours alone and not use foreign policy or trade policy to meddle in other nations and promote what some feel is moral, ethical, democratic, humanitarian, whatever abstraction the elites try to sell today.

Of course the rub there is what "is in our interest".

Chris
09-11-2018, 06:14 PM
Of course the rub there is what "is in our interest".

Just as what is the good of the world would be.

In our interests is best defined as the interests of the people and not the state, such as keeping trade open and free.

ripmeister
09-11-2018, 06:19 PM
Just as what is the good of the world would be.

In our interests is best defined as the interests of the people and not the state, such as keeping trade open and free.
I'd agree with you on that one. Is it in our interest to help potentially failed states and the extremism they engender?

Chris
09-11-2018, 07:43 PM
I'd agree with you on that one. Is it in our interest to help potentially failed states and the extremism they engender?


I don't think forcing democracy, humanity or anything on other nations is wise, look at Yugoslavia, the Balkins. If they produce something we want, then help them by trading with them.

Ethereal
09-12-2018, 03:58 AM
I think that it might be more challenging now economically, as well as diplomatically. For example, oil and gas. Technology. Countries willing to allow what is essentially slave labor for more affordable goods. It sort of forces the United States to trade with countries that are less desirable and removes some of the control. It would be unrealistic to say the US could be autonomous or fill those gaps.

I'm not sure I follow you. Americans traded and dealt with countries that were "less desirable" back then, too. It's not as if the British and French monarchies (or revolutionary France) were bastions of liberalism, yet we did business with them just the same. That's the point though. We didn't waste our time worrying about who was "good" or "bad" when dealing with foreign actors. We simply did what was in our interests, i.e., getting rich and keeping our government small. And the way we did it was to remain neutral whenever possible. And it worked great for the most part. We had low taxes, virtually no debt, tons of personal freedom, and plenty of opportunities to make lots of money independently of the political system. Today it's pretty much the exact opposite. Really, the results speak for themselves.


For the record, you can be a solid ally without being the world police that gets into everyone's business. That option exists. I agree about your description of wars, and it sort of bothers me that this notion of "spreading democracy" still exists when the countries involved often revert back to a version of government that is worse than what was previously in place. Let people/nations sort out their own $#@! unless they suddenly become a threat to US interests.

Theoretically, that is possible. But in practice, it is difficult. So-called "allies" will always try to drag you into their squabbles. And domestic special interest groups who profit from the arrangement will use their money and influence to promote the entanglement. Alliances, if they are to be had at all, ought to be temporary, and they should only exist insofar as they promote a clear, tangible interest of the country. The second that stops being the case, the alliance should be ended.

Ethereal
09-12-2018, 04:08 AM
I think there is a difference between remaining politically neutral vs being politically amoral. Remaining the former, rather than the latter is important. Trading with those who are committing genocide is the latter and is a cause for concern. A nation can choose to have moral principles and yet still retain neutrality where neutrality means neither aiding nor abetting or actively intervening in the politics of another nation.

They are effectively the same. And it has to be that way, because the second you inject morality into your political dealings with foreign actors, it becomes virtually impossible to remain neutral in your dealings with them. As for the moral dimensions of trading with actors who are engaged in immoral acts, that falls to the individual(s) conducting the trade, not the country as a whole. At any rate, the abandonment of neutrality in foreign affairs by the US political system has undeniably led to far more amorality and immorality than was the case under the paradigm practiced by the founders. So while having a "moral" foreign policy sounds nice in theory, in practice it has resulted in death and destruction on an unprecedented scale.

Ethereal
09-12-2018, 04:10 AM
If only it were so simple.

It is though. The founders and their posterity practiced neutrality in foreign policy up until the late 1800's. The Swiss have been practicing it for over 200 years. It's the only rational, sustainable foreign policy a country can pursue in this messed up world.

Ethereal
09-12-2018, 04:17 AM
Remember the Geopolitcials imperative that guides the United States

1. Control of the Mississippi basin and the port of New Orleans.

2. Control of the seas to allow access to trade or in turn deny that access

3. Ensure no great power arises to dominate the Eastern Hemisphere in the manner the US dominates the Western.

This third point is relevant to this discussion. The German Empire WW1, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union were all threats to do that in the last century. They had to be contained or defeated. The US does not mind that great powers exist in the Eastern Hemisphere it is just they can not dominate. So we are always in away making sure there is competition and in fact chaos.

The China threat is building the same way. This is why we will build alliances and be good with Japan re arming and we will supply Taiwan etc.. It is same old same old.

We are not trying to really make everything "all good" just keeping others off base.
Apart from the first one, those were never the imperatives of the founders. And they certainly aren't precepts of a neutral foreign policy. They are the principles of "liberal" internationalism as developed by progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

The fact is, the founders never really cared which "great power" dominated the eastern hemisphere so long as that power respected our political and economic independence. The founders were content to let European and Asian powers fight it out among themselves while we profited by trading with any and all sides. That arrangement worked far better than the present arrangement which is bankrupting us financially, dragging us into endless wars, and curtailing our liberties at home. I mean, can you point to a measurable, tangible benefit that Americans have derived from the US government's policing of the world that is worth the immense cost of maintaining what amounts to an overseas empire?

Ethereal
09-12-2018, 04:19 AM
Of course the rub there is what "is in our interest".
Freedom, peace, prosperity.

Ethereal
09-12-2018, 04:20 AM
Is it in our interest to help potentially failed states and the extremism they engender?

What do you mean by that?

Admiral Ackbar
09-12-2018, 05:06 AM
Freedom, peace, prosperity.

Freedom, peace and prosperity for the American people are in our interests. As far as the rest of the world those things are ok if they further Freedom, peace and prosperity in America. If they do not and perhaps, war, chaos and poverty serve our interests then that is ok too

Admiral Ackbar
09-12-2018, 05:13 AM
Apart from the first one, those were never the imperatives of the founders. And they certainly aren't precepts of a neutral foreign policy. They are the principles of "liberal" internationalism as developed by progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson

The fact is, the founders never really cared which "great power" dominated the eastern hemisphere so long as that power respected our political and economic independence. The founders were content to let European and Asian powers fight it out among themselves while we profited by trading with any and all sides. That arrangement worked far better than the present arrangement which is bankrupting us financially, dragging us into endless wars, and curtailing our liberties at home. I mean, can you point to a measurable, tangible benefit that Americans have derived from the US government's policing of the world that is worth the immense cost of maintaining what amounts to an overseas empire?


You are looking at this from a small point in time not over the entire history. First of all I disagree 100% that the founders did not have a plan. Start with the Louisiana purchase completed by Jefferson. Why did he do this? He did it to secure the Mississippi basin which is the underpinning for our wealth and power as a nation. This river system overlays the largest agricultural region in the world and makes transport cheap. The nation feed itself early and that allowed the economy to grow. These region has a choke point and that is New Orleans. Jefferson knew it had to be secured so that trade to the world could enrich the nation. Texas annexation was all about pushing Mexico back from New Orleans (a buffer zone if you will). The expansion westward all the way to Hawaii secured the heartland and gave access to the oceans and trade. Check imperative #1

The wealth we built over the next century allowed us to build the worlds biggest navy. Navy's are very expensive and they need ports. Hence expansion to CA, WA and HI etc.. Once that is done you control the seas and trade and continue to build your wealth. Check imperative #2

After that you have make sure no one challenges your sea power. This was the reason we had the wars and interventions of the 20th century. In the 21st century we again face the same challenges. We cant have an Islamic superstate or China rise to challenge us by domination of large areas of the Eastern Hemisphere. Monroe Doctrine was start of this Check imperative #3.


The neutral foreign policy you mention is actually part of this. That policy plays into number three. Let others fight it out until it looks like one might prevail and dominate. To prevent that Eastern power from domination we then get involved. See WW1, WW2, and the Cold War. We dont want involved until we have to be to stop one side from domination.
Notice our early founders Jefferson, Monroe etc.. started this in motion. They had a plan it is still being implemented. These men knew what they were doing

This is not an accident, these are not a series of unrelated events. There is a pattern and a 200 year strategy at work. If you free your mind from the constraints of small time frames you will see it. It is very very interesting

donttread
09-12-2018, 07:00 AM
I finished reading Six Frigates about a month or two ago. The book is a history of the founding of the US Navy during the presidencies of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. A consistent theme at the time was promoting and protecting American maritime trade. Another theme was the willingness of American merchants and political leadership to trade with basically anyone who was willing to do business. Simply put, they tried to remain impartial and detached and were primarily interested in making America rich and prosperous. This required us to stay out of European wars, particularly between the British and the French. This did not always work out perfectly, but they always made a sincere effort to stay true to that principle. And when it worked out, America benefited greatly. Whenever war broke out between the British and the French, American merchants would sell to both sides and make tons of money doing it. And US revenues from tariffs, duties, and excises would swell. This is a great example of realism in foreign policy. Americans did not concern themselves with who was right or wrong in foreign wars. They did not try to insert themselves into the dispute. They just did what was in their own interests and left the foreign powers to their own devices. This approach was based on years of intense experience and study by the founders, who were excellent students of history. The same principles should be guiding US foreign policy today. We should not be taking sides in foreign wars unless forced to do so. And if we're forced to intervene, we should do it in a way that seeks to reestablish our neutrality and nothing more. Wars based on a desire to spread democracy, promote human rights, or exact vengeance are chimerical and emotional. The only thing that should matter are real, tangible results that we can measure and see. That is what our founders believed and that is what I believe.

I'm pretty sure the tangible results for modern warfare would show gains to the few, death brought unnecessarily to many , a net loss for the common folk , an actually loss of human rights and oil government sponsored to out compete alternate energy along with severe damage to National security.
Which is why such evaluations are not preformed!

Peter1469
09-12-2018, 07:02 AM
I'm pretty sure the tangible results for modern warfare would show gains to the few, death brought unnecessarily to many , a net loss for the common folk , an actually loss of human rights and oil government sponsored to out compete alternate energy along with severe damage to National security.
Which is why such evaluations are not preformed!

A lot less people die in modern warfare.

ripmeister
09-12-2018, 10:51 AM
It is though. The founders and their posterity practiced neutrality in foreign policy up until the late 1800's. The Swiss have been practicing it for over 200 years. It's the only rational, sustainable foreign policy a country can pursue in this messed up world.
I'm not sure you can compare the dynamic of a couple of hundred years ago to today with the advances in technology that now exist.

ripmeister
09-12-2018, 10:54 AM
What do you mean by that?

Assuming that extremists are a threat to our "Freedom, Peace and Prosperity" as you put it is it in our interests to do something about the incubators of said extremism?

Admiral Ackbar
09-12-2018, 10:57 AM
I'm not sure you can compare the dynamic of a couple of hundred years ago to today with the advances in technology that now exist.

What hasnt changed and wont change is geography and that dictates a lot. Dont discount that fact. The Swiss stay out of trouble because they live in a mountain fortress that is on the high end of impossible to invade. That gets the credit more than any neutrality policy. It is easy to be neutral when no one wants to mess with you.

Captdon
09-12-2018, 12:58 PM
Our policy about everything is what is in our best interest at the time. We can change it anytime.

Admiral Ackbar
09-12-2018, 02:29 PM
Our policy about everything is what is in our best interest at the time. We can change it anytime.

I agree but with the caveat that there are somethings that never change. That is controlling the seas and the Mississippi River Basin. (don't take that for granted)

Tahuyaman
09-12-2018, 03:34 PM
The US agreed to be the "world police" at Breton Woods (1944) in exchange for the USD becoming the reserve currency.


I would argue that that it goes back to the US entering WWI. That was the begining of American interventionism. Much of what led to the US entry into WWI still guides American foreign policy today.

Tahuyaman
09-12-2018, 03:42 PM
What hasnt changed and wont change is geography and that dictates a lot. Dont discount that fact. The Swiss stay out of trouble because they live in a mountain fortress that is on the high end of impossible to invade. That gets the credit more than any neutrality policy. It is easy to be neutral when no one wants to mess with you.


Also, the Swiss have no cultural or economic impact upon the world. It's not about geography or topography.

Admiral Ackbar
09-12-2018, 09:03 PM
Also, the Swiss have no cultural or economic impact upon the world. It's not about geography or topography.

Nope it is all about geography. Poland for example never stands a chance. It is on the North European Plain with no defensible borders and surrounded by great powers. The Poles can be "neutral" all they want and they can be as culturally inoffensive as they want. Bottom line they are getting invaded either way

Tahuyaman
09-12-2018, 11:25 PM
Nope it is all about geography. Poland for example never stands a chance. It is on the North European Plain with no defensible borders and surrounded by great powers. The Poles can be "neutral" all they want and they can be as culturally inoffensive as they want. Bottom line they are getting invaded either way

Its not, but you can think what you want.

Peter1469
09-13-2018, 01:14 AM
I would argue that that it goes back to the US entering WWI. That was the begining of American interventionism. Much of what led to the US entry into WWI still guides American foreign policy today.

The US waited for the Germans and Russians to bleed each other before they bothered to enter the war. Smart move.

Admiral Ackbar
09-13-2018, 07:46 AM
The US waited for the Germans and Russians to bleed each other before they bothered to enter the war. Smart move.

I agree and that plays into the fact once it became clear the Russians were going to win the D Day invasion had to occur. The fact is if the only goal was for the evil Nazis to be defeated the D Day operation really was not required for that happen. The real issue that drove it was we could not allow the USSR to dominate the entire European Peninsula. If that that happened they would have been that great power dominating the Eastern Hemisphere that the US can not tolerate.

Churchill and Roosevelt both spoke on this.


BTW the news for the masses is that we needed to defeat the Evil Nazis.. What is spewed to motivate troops and the public may have some basis in fact but the greater strategic reason for the D Day operation was as noted.

Admiral Ackbar
09-13-2018, 07:48 AM
Its not, but you can think what you want.

Ok then I will proceed as you outline....

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 08:34 AM
The US waited for the Germans and Russians to bleed each other before they bothered to enter the war. Smart move.


True, but the US entry into WWI was where American foreign policy changed forever.

Captdon
09-13-2018, 08:37 AM
True, but the US entry into WWI was where American foreign policy changed forever.

There was no valid reason for us to enter WWI. Wilson killed 125,000 soldiers for nothing but a pipe dream he had.

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 08:43 AM
I'm not sure you can compare the dynamic of a couple of hundred years ago to today with the advances in technology that now exist.

Why not? If anything, the advent of nuclear weaponry has made us even less vulnerable than we were in the past.

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 08:46 AM
There was no valid reason for us to enter WWI. Wilson killed 125,000 soldiers for nothing but a pipe dream he had.The US started out neutral, but then the Germans started sinking American ships with their submarines.

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 08:48 AM
Assuming that extremists are a threat to our "Freedom, Peace and Prosperity" as you put it is it in our interests to do something about the incubators of said extremism?

I guess that would depend on the nature of the threat. All sorts of small threats to America exist virtually everywhere in the world. Clearly we are not going to deploy the military to handle them all, nor should we. The difficulty in answering such a question is why we need declarations of war before offensive or preemptive military action is taken. It allows time for debate and deliberation. Unfortunately, the congress has increasingly ceded this awesome responsibility to the executive branch, which is a clear violation of constitutional separation of powers.

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 08:49 AM
There was no valid reason for us to enter WWI. Wilson killed 125,000 soldiers for nothing but a pipe dream he had.The US started out neutral, but then the Germans started sinking American ships with their submarines.


Read about the Zimmerman telegram.


US entry into WWI was unavoidable.

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 08:58 AM
What hasnt changed and wont change is geography and that dictates a lot. Dont discount that fact. The Swiss stay out of trouble because they live in a mountain fortress that is on the high end of impossible to invade. That gets the credit more than any neutrality policy. It is easy to be neutral when no one wants to mess with you.

Hannibal's army marched across the Alps in 218 BC. In modern times, planes, trains, and automobiles go in and out of Switzerland thousands of times a day, every day. Afghanistan has bigger mountains than Switzerland does, yet it's been invaded again and again and again. Clearly, the mountains of Switzerland are not nearly as much of a deterrent as you'd like to believe.

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 09:07 AM
Also, the Swiss have no cultural or economic impact upon the world. It's not about geography or topography.

A ridiculous statement. Switzerland, because of its neutrality, is host to many of the most important diplomatic and economic conferences in the world. Ever heard of the Geneva Conventions? Or The International Red Cross? Or The World Economic Forum in Davos?

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 09:08 AM
Nope it is all about geography. Poland for example never stands a chance. It is on the North European Plain with no defensible borders and surrounded by great powers. The Poles can be "neutral" all they want and they can be as culturally inoffensive as they want. Bottom line they are getting invaded either way

Except the Poles were never neutral.

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 09:12 AM
A ridiculous statement. Switzerland, because of its neutrality, is host to many of the most important diplomatic and economic conferences in the world. Ever heard of the Geneva Conventions? Or The International Red Cross? Or The World Economic Forum in Davos?

Switzerland has no cultural or economic impact upon the rest of the world.

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 09:16 AM
You are looking at this from a small point in time not over the entire history. First of all I disagree 100% that the founders did not have a plan. Start with the Louisiana purchase completed by Jefferson. Why did he do this? He did it to secure the Mississippi basin which is the underpinning for our wealth and power as a nation. This river system overlays the largest agricultural region in the world and makes transport cheap. The nation feed itself early and that allowed the economy to grow. These region has a choke point and that is New Orleans. Jefferson knew it had to be secured so that trade to the world could enrich the nation. Texas annexation was all about pushing Mexico back from New Orleans (a buffer zone if you will). The expansion westward all the way to Hawaii secured the heartland and gave access to the oceans and trade. Check imperative #1

I never disagreed about this. Clearly what happens in America is imperative to America. My point was about getting entangled in FOREIGN affairs, not domestic ones.


The wealth we built over the next century allowed us to build the worlds biggest navy. Navy's are very expensive and they need ports. Hence expansion to CA, WA and HI etc.. Once that is done you control the seas and trade and continue to build your wealth. Check imperative #2

After that you have make sure no one challenges your sea power. This was the reason we had the wars and interventions of the 20th century. In the 21st century we again face the same challenges. We cant have an Islamic superstate or China rise to challenge us by domination of large areas of the Eastern Hemisphere. Monroe Doctrine was start of this Check imperative #3.

The Monroe doctrine simply said to European powers that further attempts to colonize the western hemisphere would be perceived as unfriendly by the USA. It did not actually prescribe a particular response to such attempts, and it certainly did not create a pretext for entanglement outside of the western hemisphere.

As for establishing our naval power, that was already accomplished in the early 1800's with the Barbary wars, the Quasi war, and the war of 1812.


The neutral foreign policy you mention is actually part of this. That policy plays into number three. Let others fight it out until it looks like one might prevail and dominate. To prevent that Eastern power from domination we then get involved. See WW1, WW2, and the Cold War. We dont want involved until we have to be to stop one side from domination.

Notice our early founders Jefferson, Monroe etc.. started this in motion. They had a plan it is still being implemented. These men knew what they were doing

This is not an accident, these are not a series of unrelated events. There is a pattern and a 200 year strategy at work. If you free your mind from the constraints of small time frames you will see it. It is very very interesting

Entangling ourselves in European affairs is the exact opposite of what the founders said we should do. WWI was a clear departure from that wisdom. And it was a horrid disaster for America and for the world that gave rise to an even more disastrous and more horrid WWII.

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 09:19 AM
Switzerland has no cultural or economic impact upon the rest of the world.

So the Geneva Conventions have no impact on the rest of the world? Swiss banks have no impact on the rest of the world? The International Red Cross has no impact on the rest of the world? Seriously, how dumb are you?

Captdon
09-13-2018, 09:20 AM
Except the Poles were never neutral.

From WWI until Hitler invaded them they were certainly neutrals. Their treaty with France and England was a one-way protection. They certainly did nothing to Germany except be a launching pad for invading the Soviet Union.

Captdon
09-13-2018, 09:23 AM
The US started out neutral, but then the Germans started sinking American ships with their submarines.
Yea we were neutral. We sold to anyone on a cash and carry basis knowing full well that Germany couldn't get ships here. It was a trick. If that's your idea of neutral then why are you so upset about Yemen?
They sank one ship. It exploded because the Brits hid munitions on it.It happened in May, !915. We didn't declare war until April, 1917. How are the two related?

He got us in for his League of Nations idiocy.

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 09:28 AM
So the Geneva Conventions have no impact on the rest of the world? Swiss banks have no impact on the rest of the world? The International Red Cross has no impact on the rest of the world? Seriously, how dumb are you?

Thise things aren't dependent upon being in Switzerland.

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 09:32 AM
Thise things aren't dependent upon being in Switzerland.

Irrelevant. You said they have no cultural or economic impact on the world. That is clearly false. They have created and hosted many of the most culturally and economically important institutions in modern history. This is just another example of you talking out of your ass and then refusing to admit you are wrong.

Peter1469
09-13-2018, 09:36 AM
Hannibal's army marched across the Alps in 218 BC. In modern times, planes, trains, and automobiles go in and out of Switzerland thousands of times a day, every day. Afghanistan has bigger mountains than Switzerland does, yet it's been invaded again and again and again. Clearly, the mountains of Switzerland are not nearly as much of a deterrent as you'd like to believe.

I have been there. They are too boring to invade.

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 09:40 AM
From WWI until Hitler invaded them they were certainly neutrals. Their treaty with France and England was a one-way protection. They certainly did nothing to Germany except be a launching pad for invading the Soviet Union.
What they did to Germany was to refuse to negotiate in good faith over the political and economy status of Danzig, which was a Polish city in name only. Historically and demographically, Danzig was German. The Poles refused to negotiate because Britain and France unwisely gave Poland a war guarantee. Not only did the Poles overestimate their own military strength, but they overestimated the ability of Britain and France to protect them from a German invasion. And the results speak for themselves. Crushed by Germany and then occupied by the Soviets for almost fifty years afterwards. They should have negotiated.

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 09:40 AM
Irrelevant. You said they have no cultural or economic impact on the world. That is clearly false. They have created and hosted many of the most culturally and economically important institutions in modern history. This is just another example of you talking out of your ass and then refusing to admit you are wrong.


Its true. Switzerland has zero cultural or economic impact. None of your childish insults can change that b

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 09:41 AM
I have been there. They are too boring to invade.

And yet the Nazis had plans to invade Switzerland.

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 09:42 AM
Its true. Switzerland has zero cultural or economic impact. None of your childish insults can change that b

You are a damn moron.

Captdon
09-13-2018, 09:43 AM
What they did to Germany was to refuse to negotiate in good faith over the political and economy status of Danzig, which was a Polish city in name only. Historically and demographically, Danzig was German. The Poles refused to negotiate because Britain and France unwisely gave Poland a war guarantee. Not only did the Poles overestimate their own military strength, but they overestimated the ability of Britain and France to protect them from a German invasion. And the results speak for themselves. Crushed by Germany and then occupied by the Soviets for almost fifty years afterwards. They should have negotiated.

Oh, so being neutral meant giving Hitler what he wanted? Negotiate with Adolph Hitler? Were you out when WWII was discussed in school. That's an incredible belief. Talk with Hitler, my ass.

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 09:45 AM
Oh, so being neutral meant giving Hitler what he wanted? Negotiate with Adolph Hitler? Were you out when WWII was discussed in school. That's an incredible belief. Talk with Hitler, my ass.
So instead of negotiating with Germany and making some minor concessions over Danzig, it was better for the Poles to get invaded, crushed, and occupied?

Admiral Ackbar
09-13-2018, 10:44 AM
So instead of negotiating with Germany and making some minor concessions over Danzig, it was better for the Poles to get invaded, crushed, and occupied?

Poland was invaded in WW2 like it had been in previous centuries because it lays on the invasion route. (Switzerland does not lay on an invasion route). The two big powers were going to war and Poland had the misfortune of laying on a flat plain in between. The other issues are pretense and irrelevant to why the invasion occurred.

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 01:53 PM
Irrelevant. You said they have no cultural or economic impact on the world. That is clearly false. They have created and hosted many of the most culturally and economically important institutions in modern history. This is just another example of you talking out of your ass and then refusing to admit you are wrong.


The Geneva convention does not culturally represent Switzerland. It also doesn't represent the Swiss economy.

If Switzerland ceased to exist, world markets would not crash. Culturally, no one would notice.

Mister D
09-13-2018, 02:09 PM
Poland was invaded in WW2 like it had been in previous centuries because it lays on the invasion route. (Switzerland does not lay on an invasion route). The two big powers were going to war and Poland had the misfortune of laying on a flat plain in between. The other issues are pretense and irrelevant to why the invasion occurred.
Historical circumstances placed Poland in a bad position. It's not simply geography. In fact Poland at her height was aggressive but the decline of the Polish state coupled with the increasing power of her neighbors (Prussia, Russia and Austria) seriously exposed Poland from the 18th Century onward. I think the primary factor was the kingdom's inability to defend itself. That is, the problem was more political than geographic.

Mister D
09-13-2018, 02:12 PM
So instead of negotiating with Germany and making some minor concessions over Danzig, it was better for the Poles to get invaded, crushed, and occupied?
That Hitler and the Nazi regime had designs on the east was no secret. Over the long term I don't think dialogue with Hitler was a good strategy. Early on the Nazis did consider the idea of an anti-Bolshevik alliance with Poland but that went no where for whatever reason.

Mister D
09-13-2018, 02:14 PM
It's also obvious that powerful elements within US did not believe a German dominated Europe was in our interests.

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 03:10 PM
Poland was invaded in WW2 like it had been in previous centuries because it lays on the invasion route. (Switzerland does not lay on an invasion route). The two big powers were going to war and Poland had the misfortune of laying on a flat plain in between. The other issues are pretense and irrelevant to why the invasion occurred.
No, they are not irrelevant. Germany attempted a rapprochement with Poland and Poland basically refused. That made the difference between being invaded by Germany and simply having German troops transiting through what was only nominally Polish territory at the time. The Polish government thought they could hold on to all the territory they acquired in the aftermath of WWI and they were obviously, disastrously mistaken. Had they been more realistic about their prospects, things might have turned out much differently for them. Instead, they let pride blind them to reality.

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 03:15 PM
Historical circumstances placed Poland in a bad position. It's not simply geography. In fact Poland at her height was aggressive but the decline of the Polish state coupled with the increasing power of her neighbors (Prussia, Russia and Austria) seriously exposed Poland from the 18th Century onward. I think the primary factor was the kingdom's inability to defend itself. That is, the problem was more political than geographic.

Right, Poland is often portrayed as a meek nation without any territorial or imperial ambitions, but as you noted, they were fairly aggressive when circumstances permitted. The problem for the Poles was that their ambitions far outstripped their capabilities. Their failure to recognize and accept this reality is what ultimately doomed them to be invaded and occupied by their more powerful neighbors. And of course the Treaty of Versailles did not help matters either.

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 03:30 PM
That Hitler and the Nazi regime had designs on the east was no secret.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "designs". My interpretation of the evidence is that Germany wanted to reestablish the political integrity of culturally and historically German lands that had been lost during WWI while creating a buffer zone between Germany and Russia in the form of the Anti-Comintern pact. Certainly an ambitious policy, but fairly reasonable when viewed in the context of the region's long and troubled history.


Over the long term I don't think dialogue with Hitler was a good strategy.

I fail to see what other options they had. Germany was clearly the superior power and offered the Poles fairly reasonable terms. Perhaps this would have required the Poles to cede some territory and political autonomy to Germany, but that's better than being invaded, crushed, and occupied. I mean, what's the effective difference between being a member of NATO, which also requires Poland to cede some measure of its sovereignty to the USA in order to protect it from Russia, and being a member of an Anti-Comintern pact? Either way, they are forced to rely on a greater power for protection from Russia.


Early on the Nazis did consider the idea of an anti-Bolshevik alliance with Poland but that went no where for whatever reason.

I suspect it was because the Poles believed in Britain's and France's ability to protect Polish independence. And because the Poles had an unrealistic view of their own military prowess. Clearly, they were wrong on both counts. And they paid a very heavy price as a result.

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 03:35 PM
It's also obvious that powerful elements within US did not believe a German dominated Europe was in our interests.

And in spite of all their efforts to stop Germanic hegemony in Europe, it happened anyway. Germany is unquestionably the most powerful country in Europe now and shows no signs of slowing down. Viewed in the light of history, WWII was a big, fat waste of time.

ripmeister
09-13-2018, 03:38 PM
And in spite of all their efforts to stop Germanic hegemony in Europe, it happened anyway. Germany is unquestionably the most powerful country in Europe now and shows no signs of slowing down. Viewed in the light of history, WWII was a big, fat waste of time.
A big fat waste of time? That seems like an odd thing to say. Did you ever read The Man in the High Castle?

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 03:45 PM
A big fat waste of time? That seems like an odd thing to say. Did you ever read The Man in the High Castle?


Today's Germany does not look to be seeking global dominance. They aren't expansionist. However, claiming that WWII was a "big fat waste of time" was not only odd, it was.... Well, not very smart.

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 03:54 PM
A big fat waste of time? That seems like an odd thing to say.

Well, let's look at the war based on its objectives, ostensible and otherwise.

Objective #1: Maintain Poland's territorial integrity and its political independence.
Result: Gigantic failure. Not only did Poland lose a great deal of its territory, it was occupied by the Soviets for almost five decades. And even after the Soviet Union dissolved, Poland sought protection from a greater power (the USA) by joining NATO, which is basically the same deal Germany was offering them before WWII started.
Verdict: Complete waste of time. Merely delayed the inevitable by fifty years or so.

Objective #2: Contain Germany.
Result: Once again, a gigantic failure. Germany has basically achieved hegemonic power in Europe as the predominate EU member.
Verdict: Another waste of time that only delayed the inevitable by about sixty years.

Given this, was it really worth all the blood and treasure? Was anything lasting actually accomplished?


Did you ever read The Man in the High Castle?

No, but I watched the series on Amazon. And as entertaining as it is, I consider it historically bankrupt for the most part.

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 03:55 PM
Today's Germany does not look to be seeking global dominance. They aren't expansionist. However, claiming that WWII was a "big fat waste of time" was not only odd, it was.... Well, not very smart.

:rofl:

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 04:14 PM
:rofl:

such an eloquent rebuttal.

Captdon
09-13-2018, 04:26 PM
So instead of negotiating with Germany and making some minor concessions over Danzig, it was better for the Poles to get invaded, crushed, and occupied?

Germany intended to invade no matter what. The Poles weren't stupid. By what imaginary thinking has anyone negotiating with Hitler and getting anyplace?

I loved the "minor concessions" you talk about. I guess you mean like Czechoslovakia. A few minor border adjustments and ...poof, no more Czechoslovakia.

God, try to be serious.

Captdon
09-13-2018, 04:32 PM
What they did to Germany was to refuse to negotiate in good faith over the political and economy status of Danzig, which was a Polish city in name only. Historically and demographically, Danzig was German. The Poles refused to negotiate because Britain and France unwisely gave Poland a war guarantee. Not only did the Poles overestimate their own military strength, but they overestimated the ability of Britain and France to protect them from a German invasion. And the results speak for themselves. Crushed by Germany and then occupied by the Soviets for almost fifty years afterwards. They should have negotiated.

Negotiate in Good faith with Hitler. That's rich. Hitler's word was worth as much as spit.

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 04:33 PM
Germany intended to invade no matter what. The Poles weren't stupid. By what imaginary thinking has anyone negotiating with Hitler and getting anyplace?

I loved the "minor concessions" you talk about. I guess you mean like Czechoslovakia. A few minor border adjustments and ...poof, no more Czechoslovakia.

God, try to be serious.


Hitler didn't have the intention to just be the most influential European nation. He intended to dominate through occupation and force. Germany was expansionistic under the NAZI regime. He had global aspirations.

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 04:34 PM
Negotiate in Good faith with Hitler. That's rich. Hitler's word was worth as much as spit.

That would be the proverbial drill in futility.

Captdon
09-13-2018, 04:34 PM
I think the primary factor was the kingdom's inability to defend itself. That is, the problem was more political than geographic.

Defense is political?

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 04:54 PM
Germany intended to invade no matter what.

No, they did not. Germany was pursuing rapprochement with Poland. They signed a nonaggression pact that established a diplomatic framework for resolving territorial disputes between Germany and Poland. Poland's refusal to remain within that framework is what led to them being invaded.


The Poles weren't stupid.

They most certainly were. They stupidly believed they could rely on Britain and France for protection. And they stupidly believed they didn't need to continue negotiating with Germany. And the results speak for themselves.


By what imaginary thinking has anyone negotiating with Hitler and getting anyplace?

The Swiss negotiated with Germany and made concessions in the process. Switzerland was never invaded. Poland was. What a coincidence.


I loved the "minor concessions" you talk about. I guess you mean like Czechoslovakia. A few minor border adjustments and ...poof, no more Czechoslovakia.

God, try to be serious.

I am serious.

All Germany wanted from Poland was a way of connecting Germany to East Prussia via road/rail. Poland stupidly refused. And they were invaded and crushed beneath a German and Soviet boot for decades.

Ethereal
09-13-2018, 04:54 PM
Negotiate in Good faith with Hitler. That's rich. Hitler's word was worth as much as spit.

Yeah, it was much better for them to get invaded and squashed like a bug.

Captdon
09-13-2018, 05:01 PM
No, they did not. Germany was pursuing rapprochement with Poland. They signed a nonaggression pact that established a diplomatic framework for resolving territorial disputes between Germany and Poland. Poland's refusal to remain within that framework is what led to them being invaded.



They most certainly were. They stupidly believed they could rely on Britain and France for protection. And they stupidly believed they didn't need to continue negotiating with Germany. And the results speak for themselves.



The Swiss negotiated with Germany and made concessions in the process. Switzerland was never invaded. Poland was. What a coincidence.



I am serious.

All Germany wanted from Poland was a way of connecting Germany to East Prussia via road/rail. Poland stupidly refused. And they were invaded and crushed beneath a German and Soviet boot for decades.

Only a deranged Hitlerite would write such nonsense as this. Germany couldn't have invaded the Swiss. Hitler also needed them to exchange money with neutrals. Negotiating with Hitler was a joke. He broke every promise he ever made.

I know you're serious. that's the problem- you actually believe this. I have never read any of this in any WWII book and I've read a lot of them.

Perhaps you need to look around you. Someone is sending goofy thoughts to you. Get a new tin hat or something.

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 05:04 PM
It's odd to see someone trying to portray Hitler as some sensible leader you could negotiate with in good faith. Where did that notion come from?

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 05:13 PM
Only a deranged Hitlerite would write such nonsense as this. Germany couldn't have invaded the Swiss. Hitler also needed them to exchange money with neutrals. Negotiating with Hitler was a joke. He broke every promise he ever made.

I know you're serious. that's the problem- you actually believe this. I have never read any of this in any WWII book and I've read a lot of them.

Perhaps you need to look around you. Someone is sending goofy thoughts to you. Get a new tin hat or something.


The NAZI's did have a plan to invade Switzerland. It was called Operation Tannenbaum. Hitler actually gave the go ahead for the operation, but it was cancelled. Some think it was cancelled because as a neutral nation, Switzerland could have been a safe haven for NAZI war criminals and wealth seized during the war. After the D Day invasion, combined with the complete fiasco on the eastern front, it was obvious that Germany was heading for defeat.

Captdon
09-13-2018, 05:13 PM
Yeah, it was much better for them to get invaded and squashed like a bug.

That was going to happen no matter what. Why are you throwing so much credibility away defending Hitler?

Mister D
09-13-2018, 06:23 PM
I guess that depends on what you mean by "designs". My interpretation of the evidence is that Germany wanted to reestablish the political integrity of culturally and historically German lands that had been lost during WWI while creating a buffer zone between Germany and Russia in the form of the Anti-Comintern pact. Certainly an ambitious policy, but fairly reasonable when viewed in the context of the region's long and troubled history.



I fail to see what other options they had. Germany was clearly the superior power and offered the Poles fairly reasonable terms. Perhaps this would have required the Poles to cede some territory and political autonomy to Germany, but that's better than being invaded, crushed, and occupied. I mean, what's the effective difference between being a member of NATO, which also requires Poland to cede some measure of its sovereignty to the USA in order to protect it from Russia, and being a member of an Anti-Comintern pact? Either way, they are forced to rely on a greater power for protection from Russia.



I suspect it was because the Poles believed in Britain's and France's ability to protect Polish independence. And because the Poles had an unrealistic view of their own military prowess. Clearly, they were wrong on both counts. And they paid a very heavy price as a result.
I don't agree here. Nazi hostility toward the Slavic world was ideological not circumstantial. The entire notion of lebensraum was meant to be at their expense. Granted, the German "drive east" or settlement of the east was a historical phenomenon much older than Hitler but, quite frankly, what the Slavs faced in the Nazis was really no different than what the Indians faced on the American frontier. The Western genre was actually popular in Germany (still is) and Hitler loved it.

I'm not sure bargaining with those who ultimately desire your subjugation or destruction is wise.

Mister D
09-13-2018, 06:27 PM
And in spite of all their efforts to stop Germanic hegemony in Europe, it happened anyway. Germany is unquestionably the most powerful country in Europe now and shows no signs of slowing down. Viewed in the light of history, WWII was a big, fat waste of time.
But it's not the threatening Germany of the early and mid 20th Century. It's not a Germany offering a new vision for the future but a thoroughly colonized Germany made in the image of the US. That said, both world wars were insane particularly on England's part. The end result was a US-Soviet condominium in Europe. Everyone in Europe lost.

Mister D
09-13-2018, 06:29 PM
Defense is political?
Of course. The state is a political entity and all matters of state are political by definition. Poland was crushed and thereby ceased to be a political entity so, yes, defense is political.

Mister D
09-13-2018, 06:33 PM
The claim that Germany intended to dominate the world is not just wrong but laughable coming from the Western powers whose empires spanned almost half the globe. Like it or not, the Nazis were right. Western liberals were full of shit. They're condemnation of Nazi Germany was hypocritical.

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 07:57 PM
That was going to happen no matter what. Why are you throwing so much credibility away defending Hitler?


Good question.

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 07:59 PM
The claim that Germany intended to dominate the world is not just wrong but laughable coming from the Western powers whose empires spanned almost half the globe. Like it or not, the Nazis were right. Western liberals were full of $#@!. They're condemnation of Nazi Germany was hypocritical.


Nazi Germany was very much expansionistic. I don't know how anyone can deny this.

It's odd to see people defending the NAZI regime. What kind of person does that?

zachroidott
09-13-2018, 08:15 PM
I don't agree here. Nazi hostility toward the Slavic world was ideological not circumstantial. The entire notion of lebensraum was meant to be at their expense. Granted, the German "drive east" or settlement of the east was a historical phenomenon much older than Hitler but, quite frankly, what the Slavs faced in the Nazis was really no different than what the Indians faced on the American frontier. The Western genre was actually popular in Germany (still is) and Hitler loved it.

I'm not sure bargaining with those who ultimately desire your subjugation or destruction is wise.

No, it was quite strategic. Bessarabia was needed, and Hitler et al. assumed that Stalin would himself likely violate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact eventually, and they were probably right, but that didn't make it strategically sound.

Mister D
09-13-2018, 08:33 PM
Nazi Germany was very much expansionistic. I don't know how anyone can deny this.

It's odd to see people defending the NAZI regime. What kind of person does that?



I didn't say it wasn't but then so were the Western powers that went to war with her. So were the Soviets. What's your point?

No one had defended the Nazi regime. Stupid tactic. Make better arguments and you won't have to resort to that.

Mister D
09-13-2018, 08:37 PM
No, it was quite strategic. Bessarabia was needed, and Hitler et al. assumed that Stalin would himself likely violate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact eventually, and they were probably right, but that didn't make it strategically sound.
Bessarabia was needed for what exactly? Oil? Oil for what? War perhaps? Romania was an ally, BTW, and Romanians aren't Slavs.

The Nazis had no intention of keeping the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact either. What wasn't strategically sound and how is that relevant? Not sure what you're trying to say here.

zachroidott
09-13-2018, 08:40 PM
Bessarabia was needed for what exactly? Oil? Oil for what? War perhaps? Romania was an ally, BTW, and Romanians aren't Slavs.

The Nazis had no intention of keeping the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact either. What wasn't strategically sound and how is that relevant? Not sure what you're trying to say here.

It was Moldovia until '41 and after '44. The initiation of an Eastern Front was not strategically sound, and yes, Panzers, and eventually Tigers, burn a lot of mother*&^%*# fuel.

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 08:53 PM
I didn't say it wasn't but then so were the Western powers that went to war with her. So were the Soviets. What's your point?

No one had defended the Nazi regime. Stupid tactic. Make better arguments and you won't have to resort to that.


You are defending the NAZI regime.

Mister D
09-13-2018, 08:53 PM
Moldovans are ethnic Romanians. They speak Romanian. But this is neither here nor there.

OK that's arguable. I don't necessarily disagree but the feasibility of the Nazi invasion of the USSR isn't the topic.

Mister D
09-13-2018, 08:54 PM
You are defending the NAZI regime.
No, it's just that you brought up on a myth and you don't know what to do when it's challenged. No worries. It's common.

Nazis 1
Geriatric conservatives 0

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 09:11 PM
No, it's just that you brought up on a myth and you don't know what to do when it's challenged. No worries. It's common.

Nazis 1
Geriatric conservatives 0


Wow.....

zachroidott
09-13-2018, 09:13 PM
You are defending the NAZI regime.

Not really.

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 09:27 PM
Not really.

He was, but that's really nothing out of character for him.

Mister D
09-13-2018, 09:59 PM
He was, but that's really nothing out of character for him.

Lol funny how you use the same lame tactics as the progressives you hate. You really aren't all that different.

Tahuyaman
09-13-2018, 10:09 PM
Lol funny how you use the same lame tactics as the progressives you hate. You really aren't all that different.

Ok. Whatever.



I don't hate anyone.

Sergeant Gleed
09-13-2018, 10:20 PM
I'd agree with you on that one. Is it in our interest to help potentially failed states and the extremism they engender?


Only if we profit directly from said assistance, i.e. we get more out of the shithole than we spend on it, and I don't mean Hillary gets a cool billion dollars promising Haiti assistance that never shows up. I mean cash going into the US treasury.

Sergeant Gleed
09-13-2018, 10:28 PM
I'm not sure you can compare the dynamic of a couple of hundred years ago to today with the advances in technology that now exist.

Why not? Have people changed?

Captdon
09-14-2018, 08:46 AM
Of course. The state is a political entity and all matters of state are political by definition. Poland was crushed and thereby ceased to be a political entity so, yes, defense is political.

Okay. That makes sense but I have never heard of it before. Seems to be pretty broad.

DGUtley
09-14-2018, 08:49 AM
You are a damn moron.

NOTICE - Ethereal TB'd for bad faith posting.

Captdon
09-14-2018, 08:51 AM
The claim that Germany intended to dominate the world is not just wrong but laughable coming from the Western powers whose empires spanned almost half the globe. Like it or not, the Nazis were right. Western liberals were full of $#@!. They're condemnation of Nazi Germany was hypocritical.

No. it is not laughable. Hitler certainly intended that Germany dominate the world. He didn't think he'd be the one but he certainly believed Germany would and should be the dominant country.

He took the vast expanse of Western Russia and could easily have defended it but he wanted the Soviet Union destroyed.

Captdon
09-14-2018, 08:56 AM
I didn't say it wasn't but then so were the Western powers that went to war with her. So were the Soviets. What's your point?

No one had defended the Nazi regime. Stupid tactic. Make better arguments and you won't have to resort to that.

Germany intended to make the world a German world. That's a fact. You're either defending the Germans or just being contrary. It's laughable, to use your favorite term.

Captdon
09-14-2018, 09:00 AM
It was Moldovia until '41 and after '44. The initiation of an Eastern Front was not strategically sound, and yes, Panzers, and eventually Tigers, burn a lot of mother*&^%*# fuel.

Germany would have defeated the Russians if they had started their invasion on time and stuck to the plane Hitler going into the Mediterranean was stupid. He gained nothing of value and ended up in the Moscow suburbs in winter.

The same applies to Leningrad and Stalingrad. Hitler wasn't smart. He was ready and willing.

Captdon
09-14-2018, 09:04 AM
No, it's just that you brought up on a myth and you don't know what to do when it's challenged. No worries. It's common.

Nazis 1
Geriatric conservatives 0

Yea, everything is a myth except what you believe. You guess right sometimes. What you believe is a lie by you to satisfy your being an arrogant pissant. Read real books.

Captdon
09-14-2018, 09:06 AM
Wow.....

Nah, you just have to understand him. We peons don't know anything. He does.

Mr D &Nazis 0 and every historian of WWII 87245

Mister D
09-14-2018, 09:19 AM
Germany intended to make the world a German world. That's a fact. You're either defending the Germans or just being contrary. It's laughable, to use your favorite term.
No, they didn't. You're regurgitating the nonsense you were brought up believing. No worries. It's common among your generation.

Mister D
09-14-2018, 09:21 AM
Okay. That makes sense but I have never heard of it before. Seems to be pretty broad.
Politics is a broad category. What did you think it meant? Democrats versus Republicans?

Mister D
09-14-2018, 09:22 AM
No. it is not laughable. Hitler certainly intended that Germany dominate the world. He didn't think he'd be the one but he certainly believed Germany would and should be the dominant country.

He took the vast expanse of Western Russia and could easily have defended it but he wanted the Soviet Union destroyed.
Yes, it laughable but, more importantly, it's laughably hypocritical.

Mister D
09-14-2018, 09:22 AM
Yea, everything is a myth except what you believe. You guess right sometimes. What you believe is a lie by you to satisfy your being an arrogant pissant. Read real books.
No, it's just a myth that we were "good guys". How naive are you? lol

Captdon
09-14-2018, 09:26 AM
No, they didn't. You're regurgitating the nonsense you were brought up believing. No worries. It's common among your generation.

Yea, right.Taught by the people who were there at the time. You know better. We all get that. You are the same as the liberals who change history to suit your beliefs.

Captdon
09-14-2018, 09:31 AM
Politics is a broad category. What did you think it meant? Democrats versus Republicans?

I've never heard that politics is all encompassing. I said it was pretty broad and it is. It sounds alright but i don't know that it's true. Arrogance doesn't impress me.

Mister D
09-14-2018, 09:31 AM
Yea, right.Taught by the people who were there at the time. You know better. We all get that. You are the same as the liberals who change history to suit your beliefs.
Uh huh...yeah Joe the grunt turned mechanic was a real scholar. lol

Mister D
09-14-2018, 09:33 AM
I've never heard that politics is all encompsssing. I said it was pretty broad and it is.
I'll bet you haven't. That's because it's not "all encompassing" What does that even mean?

Captdon
09-14-2018, 09:36 AM
No, it's just a myth that we were "good guys". How naive are you? lol

I never said we were the good guys. Now you're resorting to lying. Yes, what you believe is laughable unless you are a Nazi sympathizer.I don't care which to be honest. I just wanted to state a fact about you. It's either ha ha or Seig Heil.

Captdon
09-14-2018, 09:40 AM
Uh huh...yeah Joe the grunt turned mechanic was a real scholar. lol

Yea, some arrogant nobody knows it all. You lie too much. You only know what you read the same as anyone else alive today. Too bad you read only the Nazi side.

Since this has become idiotic drivel by you, I pass. I waste too much time on idiocy here by the likes of you. You just repeat your Nazi propaganda.

Tahuyaman
09-14-2018, 09:46 AM
Only a dispicable human being would defend anything relative to the NAZI regime. The NAZI regime was one of the most evil regimes ever on the face of the earth. There were no redeeming qualities what so ever.


Then trying to suggest or infer that America was and is not much different is incredibly ignorant.

Mister D
09-14-2018, 11:27 AM
Only a dispicable human being would defend anything relative to the NAZI regime. The NAZI regime was one of the most evil regimes ever on the face of the earth. There were no redeeming qualities what so ever.

Then trying to suggest or infer that America was and is not much different is incredibly ignorant.

Take that up with whoever is defending the Nazi regime, liberal.

Mister D
09-14-2018, 11:28 AM
Yea, some arrogant nobody knows it all. You lie too much. You only know what you read the same as anyone else alive today. Too bad you read only the Nazi side.

Since this has become idiotic drivel by you, I pass. I waste too much time on idiocy here by the likes of you. You just repeat your Nazi propaganda.
No, I just know what I'm talking about. You old men just seem to think your gray hair makes you knowledgeable about everything.

Mister D
09-14-2018, 11:30 AM
I never said we were the good guys. Now you're resorting to lying. Yes, what you believe is laughable unless you are a Nazi sympathizer.I don't care which to be honest. I just wanted to state a fact about you. It's either ha ha or Seig Heil.
So you don't believe we were the good guys but the Nazis were bent on world domination. Yeah...

Mister D
09-14-2018, 11:30 AM
Yeah, hopefully you are tired of this, crazy Don. Why don't you and Tahu keep your cartoon version of history to yourselves.

Captdon
09-14-2018, 11:35 AM
Only a dispicable human being would defend anything relative to the NAZI regime. The NAZI regime was one of the most evil regimes ever on the face of the earth. There were no redeeming qualities what so ever.


Then trying to suggest or infer that America was and is not much different is incredibly ignorant.

They are amazing. They defend Hitler and the Nazis and then say they don't. Maybe they think Neo-Nazi or Faux-Nazi or Wannabe-Nazi makes it better. To lie about it is stupid.

Tahuyaman
09-14-2018, 11:47 AM
Yeah, hopefully you are tired of this, crazy Don. Why don't you and Tahu keep your cartoon version of history to yourselves.
How is an accurate view of the NAZI regime a cartoon version of history?

Captdon
09-14-2018, 11:50 AM
The people who were there seem to know nothing. This is a classic liberal revisionist history at work. The Nazis were only seeking some farmland to grow cabbage.

The oddest thing is that we have the documents written by the Nazis and it still isn't true.It's like jumping off a cliff and saying it won't harm you. It won't, until you hit.

People think if they use different words it absolves them of their beliefs. They also think if you agree with one thing you agree with everything. They hide behind their versions of the truth until called out. No, anyone defending Germany in WWII is sick.

I always thought real Neo-Nazis were just racists with bad tattoos.

ripmeister
09-14-2018, 01:10 PM
The claim that Germany intended to dominate the world is not just wrong but laughable coming from the Western powers whose empires spanned almost half the globe. Like it or not, the Nazis were right. Western liberals were full of $#@!. They're condemnation of Nazi Germany was hypocritical.
But what about the systematic elimination of the Jews etc, Eugenics etc.? I think that was a clear difference that put the Nazis in a whole different category.

ripmeister
09-14-2018, 01:13 PM
Why not? Have people changed?
No but technology has.

ripmeister
09-14-2018, 01:17 PM
They are amazing. They defend Hitler and the Nazis and then say they don't. Maybe they think Neo-Nazi or Faux-Nazi or Wannabe-Nazi makes it better. To lie about it is stupid.
Goerbels (sp?) would be proud.

Mister D
09-14-2018, 01:42 PM
Goerbels (sp?) would be proud.
He could probably spell better too.

Mister D
09-14-2018, 01:45 PM
But what about the systematic elimination of the Jews etc, Eugenics etc.? I think that was a clear difference that put the Nazis in a whole different category.

What about our systematic genocide and conquest of the Indians? What about the behavior of the English and French in their colonies? Never mind our Soviet ally. You don't seriously believe we went to war to rescue the Jews, do you? In any case, so what? None of this is relevant. The condemnation of German imperialism was hypocritical. No question about it.

Oh, and eugenics began here in the US.

Mister D
09-14-2018, 01:46 PM
How is an accurate view of the NAZI regime a cartoon version of history?
It's not but you don't have an accurate view of much.

Mister D
09-14-2018, 01:47 PM
The people who were there seem to know nothing. This is a classic liberal revisionist history at work. The Nazis were only seeking some farmland to grow cabbage.

The oddest thing is that we have the documents written by the Nazis and it still isn't true.It's like jumping off a cliff and saying it won't harm you. It won't, until you hit.

People think if they use different words it absolves them of their beliefs. They also think if you agree with one thing you agree with everything. They hide behind their versions of the truth until called out. No, anyone defending Germany in WWII is sick.

I always thought real Neo-Nazis were just racists with bad tattoos.
What? lol

ripmeister
09-14-2018, 03:09 PM
He could probably spell better too.
The parenthetic sp? was an indication of my realization that I wasn't sure of the spelling. You pointing it out...... well it is what it is.

ripmeister
09-14-2018, 03:12 PM
What about our systematic genocide and conquest of the Indians? What about the behavior of the English and French in their colonies? Never mind our Soviet ally. You don't seriously believe we went to war to rescue the Jews, do you? In any case, so what? None of this is relevant. The condemnation of German imperialism was hypocritical. No question about it.

Oh, and eugenics began here in the US.
I'm unaware of our conquest of India :wink::grin:. Was eugenics practiced in the US? Was it practiced in Nazi Germany? What would Alain think?

Mister D
09-14-2018, 03:32 PM
I'm unaware of our conquest of India :wink::grin:. Was eugenics practiced in the US? Was it practiced in Nazi Germany? What would Alain think?
You're not even trying now.

ripmeister
09-14-2018, 03:45 PM
You're not even trying now.
Been a long week working on saving lives. I'm ready for a nice craft brew. I'm thinking something from Three Floyds.

Mister D
09-14-2018, 03:48 PM
Been a long week working on saving lives. I'm ready for a nice craft brew. I'm thinking something from Three Floyds.

Local pub has $3 shots of Bushmill's Irish whiskey. Coupe of those and a couple Miller Lights will do me for this evening.

Tahuyaman
09-14-2018, 04:18 PM
It's not but you don't have an accurate view of much. Ok. I’ll let you be one of those who believe that Hitler was a reasonable man who could negotiate in good faith.

Tahuyaman
09-14-2018, 04:20 PM
Local pub has $3 shots of Bushmill's Irish whiskey. Coupe of those and a couple Miller Lights will do me for this evening.
Try Black Bush. I know.... don’t go there.

Mister D
09-14-2018, 05:08 PM
Ok. I’ll let you be one of those who believe that Hitler was a reasonable man who could negotiate in good faith.
Thanks, liberal.

Tahuyaman
09-14-2018, 05:11 PM
Thanks, liberal.what a brilliant retort.

ripmeister
09-14-2018, 06:30 PM
Local pub has $3 shots of Bushmill's Irish whiskey. Coupe of those and a couple Miller Lights will do me for this evening.
I'm not familiar with Bushmills. My go to is Woodfords Reserve. If you are going to drink BL you might as well drink water although with the whiskey sounds kinda tasty.

ripmeister
09-14-2018, 06:31 PM
Try Black Bush. I know.... don’t go there.

Lol

Tahuyaman
09-14-2018, 06:55 PM
I just bought a bourbon called “Calumet”. It wasn’t expensive, but it’s the smoothest bourbon I’ve ever had. I was a Wooddord Reserve guy until now.

Tahuyaman
09-14-2018, 06:56 PM
I'm not familiar with Bushmills. My go to is Woodfords Reserve. If you are going to drink BL you might as well drink water although with the whiskey sounds kinda tasty.

Bushmills Black Bush is awesome.

ripmeister
09-14-2018, 07:34 PM
I just bought a bourbon called “Calumet”. It wasn’t expensive, but it’s the smoothest bourbon I’ve ever had. I was a Wooddord Reserve guy until now.
I'll have to check that out. Where's it from. Kentucky, Tennesee?

Common Sense
09-14-2018, 07:36 PM
I like Jack. It's a great product.

ripmeister
09-14-2018, 07:36 PM
While D you and I don't agree on much it sounds like we have an appreciation of good whiskey. That's a starting point.

ripmeister
09-14-2018, 07:38 PM
I like Jack. It's a great product.

I can't drink Jack any more. Too many incidents of selling "Buicks" back in my college days.

Common Sense
09-14-2018, 07:43 PM
I can't drink Jack any more. Too many incidents of selling "Buicks" back in my college days.
I couldn't drink Jack Daniels for years because of one night when I was about 17. I got over it.

Major Lambda
09-14-2018, 08:15 PM
The US agreed to be the "world police" at Breton Woods (1944) in exchange for the USD becoming the reserve currency.


The United States has been the world police since the end of the Carter administration , and it hit hard corp in the Reagan administration. Ronald Reagan simply put , did not put up with other peoples crap. Ronald Reagan used extensively , Army Special Forces for drug eradication in South America. He funded the Coast Guard for drug interdiction on the waters bordering the US. Russia , he was a staunch enemy of Russia and the sole reason for the collapse of a wall that the CIA had no knowledge of before hand. But since the wall has fell , politicians in Washington feel that the cold war is over with , when in fact it has never been stronger In my assessment. The cold war is not as overt as it was, but it is still there ; and if you check line item budgets of certain agencies in Washington you will see the proof In code named projects and code named organizations.



Major Lambda

Major Lambda
09-14-2018, 08:29 PM
I finished reading Six Frigates about a month or two ago. The book is a history of the founding of the US Navy during the presidencies of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. A consistent theme at the time was promoting and protecting American maritime trade. Another theme was the willingness of American merchants and political leadership to trade with basically anyone who was willing to do business. Simply put, they tried to remain impartial and detached and were primarily interested in making America rich and prosperous. This required us to stay out of European wars, particularly between the British and the French. This did not always work out perfectly, but they always made a sincere effort to stay true to that principle. And when it worked out, America benefited greatly. Whenever war broke out between the British and the French, American merchants would sell to both sides and make tons of money doing it. And US revenues from tariffs, duties, and excises would swell. This is a great example of realism in foreign policy. Americans did not concern themselves with who was right or wrong in foreign wars. They did not try to insert themselves into the dispute. They just did what was in their own interests and left the foreign powers to their own devices. This approach was based on years of intense experience and study by the founders, who were excellent students of history. The same principles should be guiding US foreign policy today. We should not be taking sides in foreign wars unless forced to do so. And if we're forced to intervene, we should do it in a way that seeks to reestablish our neutrality and nothing more. Wars based on a desire to spread democracy, promote human rights, or exact vengeance are chimerical and emotional. The only thing that should matter are real, tangible results that we can measure and see. That is what our founders believed and that is what I believe.


Foreign policy is mostly the events from the White House, with input and law from Congress. Bill's supporting a foreign government or interest of the US.

The American dollar is weak, and has always been weak. We don't have anything to back our money with. We have billions of dollars owed to us, that we may never collect. Worse is, is that we are in debt and that debt continues to grow.

Foreign policy is a Washington DC nightmare where political interests is usually the root cause, and not the interest of the American public as a whole. Some politician benefits financially like Hillary Clinton, where the money is usually reinvested as political capital. Or in minor cases like former President Obama, it is a reelection gimmick, like terrorists strikes in Africa ; where former President Obama blasted the American public of his terrorist kills right before his second election.

Foreign policy is supposed to be beneficial to America and not put us in excessive debt, or devalue the American dollar to where the Treasury Secretary has a seizure. Foreign policy is supposed to help American citizens thrive without stress and worry about their children surviving in a harsh and cold world after they are dead and gone. Foreign policy is about America as a whole , growing and evolving for the best, and not deteriorating for some politicians personal agenda.

Washington DC lawmakers and the executive branch has a job as much as they have a responsibility, to make America progress and succeed. American should come first, all other nations and politicians wants and wishes should come last.



M-L

Major Lambda
09-14-2018, 08:33 PM
So you don't believe we were the good guys but the Nazis were bent on world domination. Yeah...


The Nazis, then came hard corp communism, and now terrorists organizations who want to rule the world with Islam.



Major Lambda

Major Lambda
09-14-2018, 08:43 PM
Poland was invaded in WW2 like it had been in previous centuries because it lays on the invasion route. (Switzerland does not lay on an invasion route). The two big powers were going to war and Poland had the misfortune of laying on a flat plain in between. The other issues are pretense and irrelevant to why the invasion occurred.


Law of warfare. A = Real Estate is power. B = The more land you occupy , the more control you have. The more control you have, the more power you have. C = The more land you control, the less property your enemy has to maneuver in, and less place they can hide / heal / regroup/ resupply.

Look at World War Two maps and you will see what I mean. Sicily for example, Patton wanted to push the German Army into the sea. A US Army blitzkrieg of tanks against an inferior German Army, so all the Germans could do was be pushed into the sea.



Major Lambda

zachroidott
09-14-2018, 08:52 PM
the united states has been the world police since the end of the carter administration , and it hit hard corp in the reagan administration. Ronald reagan simply put , did not put up with other peoples crap. ronald reagan used extensively , army special forces for drug eradication in south america. He funded the coast guard for drug interdiction on the waters bordering the us. Russia , he was a staunch enemy of russia and the sole reason for the collapse of a wall that the cia had no knowledge of before hand. But since the wall has fell , politicians in washington feel that the cold war is over with , when in fact it has never been stronger in my assessment. The cold war is not as overt as it was, but it is still there ; and if you check line item budgets of certain agencies in washington you will see the proof in code named projects and code named organizations.



Major lambda
lol

Mister D
09-14-2018, 08:57 PM
I couldn't drink Jack Daniels for years because of one night when I was about 17. I got over it.
Sour mash blows anyway. It's the one form of whiskey I do not like.

Tahuyaman
09-15-2018, 10:21 AM
I like Jack. It's a great product.
It's only good for mixed drinks.

Tahuyaman
09-15-2018, 10:22 AM
I'll have to check that out. Where's it from. Kentucky, Tennesee?

Kentucky.

Tahuyaman
09-15-2018, 02:05 PM
The United States has been the world police since the end of the Carter administration , and it hit hard corp in the Reagan administration. Ronald Reagan simply put , did not put up with other peoples crap. Ronald Reagan used extensively , Army Special Forces for drug eradication in South America. He funded the Coast Guard for drug interdiction on the waters bordering the US. Russia , he was a staunch enemy of Russia and the sole reason for the collapse of a wall that the CIA had no knowledge of before hand. But since the wall has fell , politicians in Washington feel that the cold war is over with , when in fact it has never been stronger In my assessment. The cold war is not as overt as it was, but it is still there ; and if you check line item budgets of certain agencies in Washington you will see the proof In code named projects and code named organizations.



Major Lambda

The US's role as it relates to the rest of the world changed by the US entry into WWI. That was long before the Carter or Regan administrations.

Mister D
09-15-2018, 02:07 PM
It's only good for mixed drinks.

Yeah Jack and Coke isn't bad.

Tahuyaman
09-15-2018, 07:21 PM
Yeah Jack and Coke isn't bad.Jack Daniels isn’t a whiskey that one would drink straight. I would agree that mixed with coke, it’s ok.

jet57
09-15-2018, 07:30 PM
I finished reading Six Frigates about a month or two ago. The book is a history of the founding of the US Navy during the presidencies of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. A consistent theme at the time was promoting and protecting American maritime trade. Another theme was the willingness of American merchants and political leadership to trade with basically anyone who was willing to do business. Simply put, they tried to remain impartial and detached and were primarily interested in making America rich and prosperous. This required us to stay out of European wars, particularly between the British and the French. This did not always work out perfectly, but they always made a sincere effort to stay true to that principle. And when it worked out, America benefited greatly. Whenever war broke out between the British and the French, American merchants would sell to both sides and make tons of money doing it. And US revenues from tariffs, duties, and excises would swell. This is a great example of realism in foreign policy. Americans did not concern themselves with who was right or wrong in foreign wars. They did not try to insert themselves into the dispute. They just did what was in their own interests and left the foreign powers to their own devices. This approach was based on years of intense experience and study by the founders, who were excellent students of history. The same principles should be guiding US foreign policy today. We should not be taking sides in foreign wars unless forced to do so. And if we're forced to intervene, we should do it in a way that seeks to reestablish our neutrality and nothing more. Wars based on a desire to spread democracy, promote human rights, or exact vengeance are chimerical and emotional. The only thing that should matter are real, tangible results that we can measure and see. That is what our founders believed and that is what I believe.

I agree with your sentiments on the matter however what the citizens of the US have become trapped in is US commercial interference in foreign nations that affect said nations own policies and disagreements with other countries: see the history of Standard Oil of New York and the Middle East for instance. Add to that the effects of the cold war territorial interventions on the part of one side or another which led directly to US interference in Central and South America and you've got a mess that we are still dealing with, never mind the Israeli conflict. Should the US go back to our original intent with respect to trade and foreign policy as you suggest? absolutely, but how can we afford it?

zachroidott
09-15-2018, 07:35 PM
Jack Daniels isn’t a whiskey that one would drink straight. I would agree that mixed with coke, it’s ok.
Shots.

Tahuyaman
09-15-2018, 08:34 PM
Shots.
Jack Daniels is crap.

zachroidott
09-16-2018, 11:01 AM
Jack Daniels is crap.
Crap is for shooting, if you're feeling that self-abusive.

Captdon
09-16-2018, 11:14 AM
Jack Daniels isn’t a whiskey that one would drink straight. I would agree that mixed with coke, it’s ok.

I drink it straight. It explains so much.

Captdon
09-16-2018, 11:17 AM
Kentucky.

Tennessee.

Tahuyaman
09-16-2018, 12:02 PM
Tennessee.


No, Kentucky. Calumet Kentucky bourbon is made in Lexington, Kentucky.

Captdon
09-16-2018, 12:49 PM
No, Kentucky. Calumet Kentucky bourbon is made in Lexington, Kentucky.

I was caught up in the Jack Daniels things. My apologies.

My brother-in-law introduced me to the hard stuff with Kesslers. Now , that was rotten stuff.