Israel v Hamas

[Stirlingsays]

Do you really think it's realistic not to get involved in global affairs Stirls?

The Americans tried that and ultimately changed their policy. The world has a way of finding its way to your door even if you stay at home. What would have happened if America had remained neutral in WW1?

The Americans haven't been isolationist in global affairs....arguably ever, but I think you are referring to 9/11 and while that incredible evil deserved war against the Taliban to get at Al-Qaeda (though we knew they received security state backing from Saudi, Pakistan and assorted elsewheres).

One of Bin Laden's main complaints was the number of American military bases in Arab countries and their influence upon middle eastern policy on behalf of Israel. Why this justified thousands of people dying just shows you the evil that war is.

However, as we now know that war suffered from massive mission creep which failed monumentally. Idiots wanted to nation build and turn the culture into a pro western one, as if they were dealing with an ordered hierarchical society like Japan. Many people paid for this idiocy with their lives. Something for which no one was ever held to account.....that's a theme that I've seen constantly and shows you what real power is.....Make a stupid nasty tweet and get sent down for years, get thousands of military killed (often the cream of your society) in a foreign war you lose....that was justified with a lot of lies.....and nothing happens.

There is an anti neo con movement in Republicanism now....something I'm happy to back (I was a stanch neo con twenty years ago and I was wrong and lied to). It isn't exactly isolationism but it's definitely less deranged than the fruitcakes in the State department who have been deciding foreign policy, with disastrous results, for decades now.

​

 

[Stirlingsays]

Do you really think it's realistic not to get involved in global affairs Stirls?

The Americans tried that and ultimately changed their policy. The world has a way of finding its way to your door even if you stay at home. What would have happened if America had remained neutral in WW1?

What would have happened if America had remained neutral in WW1?

It's a counter factual of course and thus a guess but both sides would probably have exhausted the other leading to a negotiated settlement. The likely upshot of that is....again, speculation, but it's highly unlikely there would have been a WW2.....Hitler and Churchill were warlords, rather than first choices and were both voted in out of desperation. Well, Hitler was never technically voted in but was given power from which he took over.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

What would have happened if America had remained neutral in WW1?

It's a counter factual of course and thus a guess but both sides would probably have exhausted the other leading to a negotiated settlement. The likely upshot of that is....again, speculation, but it's highly unlikely there would have been a WW2.....Hitler and Churchill were warlords, rather than first choices and were both voted in out of desperation. Well, Hitler was never technically voted in but was given power from which he took over.

I would say that America remained more or less in isolation before WW1and that the carnage in that war created a mood among Americans to return to a deliberate policy of isolationism after.
There was strong lobby for that to continue up until WW2 even when aggressive nations threatened instability prior to that conflict. It still took Pearl Harbour to move America to take up arms.

I'd imagine that unprovoked attack along with the threat of Russia and communism after WW2 probably shaped American policy ever since.

I don't see how America and its allies can just sit on its hands and hope that its enemies will do the same.
Pre emptive action has often been taken with mixed results. Evaluating strategy requires having the bigger picture. I don't think we will ever have that. Paranoia and fear of worst case scenarios must play their part in strategic decisions, along with a good chunk of self interest. Such is the way of humanity.

The tragedy is that politicians have sent young men and children to war to accomplish their objectives, and those objectives often involve killing other young men along with women and children.

It won't change. It is likely to get worse.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I would say that America remained more or less in isolation before WW1and that the carnage in that war created a mood among Americans to return to a deliberate policy of isolationism after.
There was strong lobby for that to continue up until WW2 even when aggressive nations threatened stability prior to that conflict. It still took Pearl Harbour to move America to take up arms.

I'd imagine that unprovoked attack along with the threat of Russia and communism after WW2 probably shaped American policy ever since.

I don't see how America and its allies can just sit on its hands and hope that its enemies will do the same.
Pre emptive action has often been taken with mixed results. Evaluating strategy requires having the bigger picture. I don't think we will ever have that. Paranoia and fear of worst case scenarios must play their part in strategic decisions, along with a good chunk of self interest. Such is the way of humanity.

The tragedy is that politicians have sent young men and children to war to accomplish their objectives, and those objectives often involve killing other young men along with women and children.

It won't change. It is likely to get worse.

America had economic sanctions against Japan and tensions had been building up for decades prior. Still, it was a terrible act, as was Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.....Japan unprovoked? Maybe....Americans were pseudo Europeans and thus I'm inclined to side with them......but ever since learning that the Lusitania was actually carrying war munitions in WW1 (which was the reasons the Germans gave for attacking it) when I had been told it was sunk by the Germans without cause I realised that lies are told by my own side and just allowed to continue for generations......I'm just skeptical as an automatic default now.

What goes on under the hood and what we get told rarely seem to line up. So I often find myself in a position of looking for the honest broker and coming up empty.

That said we share the exact same sentiments as to the outcomes all this playing with lives by elites. War is so costly in all arenas that engaging in it has to come at a high bar....Sadly that understanding seems to have died with our current leaders who are obsessed with pitching all their eggs into one particular basket.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

America had economic sanctions against Japan and tensions had been building up for decades prior. Still, it was a terrible act, as was Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.....unprovoked? Maybe....Americans were pseudo Europeans and thus I'm inclined to side with them......but ever since learning that the Lusitania was actually carrying war munitions in WW1 (which was the reasons the Germans gave for attacking it) when I had been told it was sunk by the Germans without cause I realised that lies are told by my own side and just allowed to continue for generations......I'm just skeptical as an automatic default now.

What goes on under the hood and what we get told rarely seem to line up. So I often find myself in a position of looking for the honest broker and coming up empty.

The first casualty of war...The truth.

 

[Penge Eagle]

The USA must not isolate itself from the world because someone else will step in. Do we really want China or Russia to police the globe instead? There are many idiots on the (radical) right in America don't seem to get this.

 

[ASCPFC]

What would have happened if America had remained neutral in WW1?

It's a counter factual of course and thus a guess but both sides would probably have exhausted the other leading to a negotiated settlement. The likely upshot of that is....again, speculation, but it's highly unlikely there would have been a WW2.....Hitler and Churchill were warlords, rather than first choices and were both voted in out of desperation. Well, Hitler was never technically voted in but was given power from which he took over.

I largely think that Britain and France would have won as Germany was almost exhausted logistically. I think the blockade by the Navy was telling by even 1916 but people were starving by 1917/18.
I would largely say the same about both wars. That Germany lost when it started as they would have required far more logistics and supplies than they ever had. However, being the aggressor combined with the other side's incompetence meant large early gains.
Without going too far, Germany had probably lost WW1 when they first got bogged down.
And WW2 at the earliest by the Battle of Britain but certainly by the time they failed to take Moscow in Barbarossa.
That it took ages still to finally defeat them both times is in many ways testament to their armed forces and a telling reflection on British and French high command.
It's even more telling when you consider the intelligence Britain had on Germany from around 41/2 onwards. They knew almost everything Germany was about to do but were simply unable to do anything about it.
As for French General Staff, think that Kirk Douglas war film I've forgotten the name of. Something of honour or something.
As for the Holocaust - which I guess is somewhat to do with this thread - what a waste in so many ways. Imagine still running trains of concentration camp victims whilst trying to supply an army or two. Pure ideological madness. At the beginning, the ideology of the Nazis helped the war, by the end it was an anchor around the whole country's necks.
I probably haven't worded it well.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I largely think that Britain and France would have won as Germany was almost exhausted logistically. I think the blockade by the Navy was telling by even 1916 but people were starving by 1917/18.
I would largely say the same about both wars. That Germany lost when it started as they would have required far more logistics and supplies than they ever had. However, being the aggressor combined with the other side's incompetence meant large early gains.
Without going too far, Germany had probably lost WW1 when they first got bogged down.
And WW2 at the earliest by the Battle of Britain but certainly by the time they failed to take Moscow in Barbarossa.
That it took ages still to finally defeat them both times is in many ways testament to their armed forces and a telling reflection on British and French high command.
It's even more telling when you consider the intelligence Britain had on Germany from around 41/2 onwards. They knew almost everything Germany was about to do but were simply unable to do anything about it.
As for French General Staff, think that Kirk Douglas war film I've forgotten the name of. Something of honour or something.
As for the Holocaust - which I guess is somewhat to do with this thread - what a waste in so many ways. Imagine still running trains of concentration camp victims whilst trying to supply an army or two. Pure ideological madness. At the beginning, the ideology of the Nazis helped the war, by the end it was an anchor around the whole country's necks.
I probably haven't worded it well.

Maybe you are right about WW1 I don't know.

As for WW2 Germany had already won on the continent of western Europe by the autumn of 40. There was no serious opposition fighting them there and we were largely hemmed in engaged in hit and run.

If they hadn't made the miscalculation on Barbarossa then it was only a matter of time before we were toast. Personally I'm of the view that Germany lost because Hitler was convinced his ill health had him on a timer and he demanded too much of his forces.....Just like people don't understand just how big Ukraine is, they have little idea of the vastness of Russia.

People think we won WW2, no....liberalism stuck lucky and won WW2 and being right wing lost and eventually thus owning our own ancient countries as Englishmen/Scotsmen/Welshmen/Irishmen lost..... once the luxury belief neo commies had their way.....which was inevitable as liberalism inevitably leads ever leftwards, just as Marx implied.

 

[Stirlingsays]

The USA must not isolate itself from the world because someone else will step in. Do we really want China or Russia to police the globe instead? There are many idiots on the (radical) right in America don't seem to get this.

America didn't isolate itself from the world and the situation you have now is the result of that.

What precisely is the idiocy? What are the decisions of engagement that you seem to think have gone well?

 

[Penge Eagle]

America didn't isolate itself from the world and the situation you have now is the result of that.

What precisely is the idiocy? What are the decisions of engagement that you seem to think have gone well?

It's gone well because the USA is the world's police and not China or Russia, for example. Would you rather the latter take that responsibility? The US have not been perfect but I can't see how the world would be a better place with a Putin or Xi Jinping having global power.

 

[Eagleman13]

I largely think that Britain and France would have won as Germany was almost exhausted logistically. I think the blockade by the Navy was telling by even 1916 but people were starving by 1917/18.
I would largely say the same about both wars. That Germany lost when it started as they would have required far more logistics and supplies than they ever had. However, being the aggressor combined with the other side's incompetence meant large early gains.
Without going too far, Germany had probably lost WW1 when they first got bogged down.
And WW2 at the earliest by the Battle of Britain but certainly by the time they failed to take Moscow in Barbarossa.
That it took ages still to finally defeat them both times is in many ways testament to their armed forces and a telling reflection on British and French high command.
It's even more telling when you consider the intelligence Britain had on Germany from around 41/2 onwards. They knew almost everything Germany was about to do but were simply unable to do anything about it.
As for French General Staff, think that Kirk Douglas war film I've forgotten the name of. Something of honour or something.
As for the Holocaust - which I guess is somewhat to do with this thread - what a waste in so many ways. Imagine still running trains of concentration camp victims whilst trying to supply an army or two. Pure ideological madness. At the beginning, the ideology of the Nazis helped the war, by the end it was an anchor around the whole country's necks.
I probably haven't worded it well.

Paths Of Glory 1957. Excellent film.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Paths Of Glory 1957. Excellent film.

A very moving ending.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

It's gone well because the USA is the world's police and not China or Russia, for example. Would you rather the latter take that responsibility? The US have not been perfect but I can't see how the world would be a better place with a Putin or Xi Jinping having global power.

What pacifists see as morality, warmongers see as weakness. They only understand strength.

History shows that military strength wins. When every country lays down their arms, we can talk about world peace.
That will never happen in any imaginable future. There will always be something to fight over.

 

[Stirlingsays]

It's gone well because the USA is the world's police and not China or Russia, for example. Would you rather the latter take that responsibility? The US have not been perfect but I can't see how the world would be a better place with a Putin or Xi Jinping having world power.

As I say America was largely a pseudo European nation and so I'm largely inclined to side with it. However, what happens and happened matter....Results matter. Engagement versus isolationism is largely a moot point as a level of engagement is inevitable....the question is to what extent. The argument that isolationism is bad could be used to say we should have fought in Libya, Vietnam and Syria when engagement in those wars worsened not improved things.

I support Palace but if the manager is crap then I can point out the bad decisions and argue for a change in leadership. It doesn't mean I support Everton.....However, if Everton are doing better because of less mad decisions then that's noted.

My criticisms are based upon its lies and claims of morality where essentially the line between 'goodies and baddies' was largely subjective.

I'm looking at the outcomes and why we got here....and no one likes the answers including myself. It isn't pretty, but what is the larger truth matters more than how we feel about it.

The only way Russia/China would gain power and influence over Europe is via BRICS.....Now, BRICS is going to be powerful for reasons related to how America have ruled thus far.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

The Americans haven't been isolationist in global affairs....arguably ever, but I think you are referring to 9/11 and while that incredible evil deserved war against the Taliban to get at Al-Qaeda (though we knew they received security state backing from Saudi, Pakistan and assorted elsewheres).

One of Bin Laden's main complaints was the number of American military bases in Arab countries and their influence upon middle eastern policy on behalf of Israel. Why this justified thousands of people dying just shows you the evil that war is.

However, as we now know that war suffered from massive mission creep which failed monumentally. Idiots wanted to nation build and turn the culture into a pro western one, as if they were dealing with an ordered hierarchical society like Japan. Many people paid for this idiocy with their lives. Something for which no one was ever held to account.....that's a theme that I've seen constantly and shows you what real power is.....Make a stupid nasty tweet and get sent down for years, get thousands of military killed (often the cream of your society) in a foreign war you lose....that was justified with a lot of lies.....and nothing happens.

There is an anti neo con movement in Republicanism now....something I'm happy to back (I was a stanch neo con twenty years ago and I was wrong and lied to). It isn't exactly isolationism but it's definitely less deranged than the fruitcakes in the State department who have been deciding foreign policy, with disastrous results, for decades now.

​

There’s some hope then that in 20 years you will realise that those far right basement know it alls that you use as your go to sources are lying to you and that you are, again, wrong.

Pity it’s unlikely I will be around to witness it, but as it would be a joy to behold I am going to try.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1832360421245755854

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

I think "Care in the Community" has a lot to answer for. 🙂

 

[ASCPFC]

There’s some hope then that in 20 years you will realise that those far right basement know it alls that you use as your go to sources are lying to you and that you are, again, wrong.

Pity it’s unlikely I will be around to witness it, but as it would be a joy to behold I am going to try.

I'm not really into all the silly "far right" sources. However, when I walk around my own town on the very western edge of Europe, my own eyes can tell me what's going on. When I moved here 26 years ago, a woman could easily walk alone at four in the morning. The height of crime would be a fight outside the pub. No knives out. There was no homelessness except for the hapless alcoholics who had pissed it all away - and we knew them and looked after them.
Not any more - none of it - I could just as easily be in Croydon and it's not much of an exaggeration. How that downturn has obviously correlated exactly with increased immigration and diversity is presumably just a coincidence. We must have changed drastically in the last twenty years and decided to be violent, attack women and carry knives. I guess it's our privilege to do so. My own son's school had a student attack that has made international news. You think that was some paddy after a Guinness too many? Everyone knows immediately who did it. Only to outwardly welcome more of it in the morning.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

I'm not really into all the silly "far right" sources. However, when I walk around my own town on the very western edge of Europe, my own eyes can tell me what's going on. When I moved here 26 years ago, a woman could easily walk alone at four in the morning. The height of crime would be a fight outside the pub. No knives out. There was no homelessness except for the hapless alcoholics who had pissed it all away - and we knew them and looked after them.
Not any more - none of it - I could just as easily be in Croydon and it's not much of an exaggeration. How that downturn has obviously correlated exactly with increased immigration and diversity is presumably just a coincidence. We must have changed drastically in the last twenty years and decided to be violent, attack women and carry knives. I guess it's our privilege to do so. My own son's school had a student attack that has made international news. You think that was some paddy after a Guinness too many? Everyone knows immediately who did it. Only to outwardly welcome more of it in the morning.

I had plans to spend a bit of time in my late grandfather’s hometown, just like my brother did. Maybe I won’t bother now after seeing recent videos of it.

 

[ASCPFC]

I had plans to spend a bit of time in my late grandfather’s hometown, just like my brother did. Maybe I won’t bother now after seeing recent videos of it.

If you are over, give me a shout. I'll buy you a pint.