|
Post by limey² on Nov 11, 2024 19:13:07 GMT
Japanese (and German and Soviet and Italian) aggression in the 1930s was enabled by, amongst other things, US disinterest in foreign policy in general & support for democracies/opposition to autocracies in particular. There are, I suapect, about to be very striking parallels. This is just a caricature of US policy.
The U.S. was trying to avoid war; that's true, but the U.S. was not isolationist. For example: "The United States sat in on League of Nations council meetings for the first time to try to convince the League to enforce the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which both Japan and China had signed." ( Source)
Strange thing for an isolationist country to do wouldn't you say?
Then from 1940 to 1941, FDR extended Lend-Lease to China, instituted an embargo on Japan, and froze assets. Again, strange things for an isolationist state to do.
Btw, what was Britain doing in the Pacific? Oh.
Were y'all isolationist as well?
Yes, kind of. 1935 saw the UK in a triple bind; 1. Massive financial problwms poat-Depression, 2. Facing very immediate close-to-home war threats from Fascist countries, 3. Beginning the decolonisation/winding up Empire project. China wasn't high enough up any lists; there was still hope Japan would remain the staunch friend it had been for decades.
|
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,500
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 11, 2024 19:13:34 GMT
I may be wrong. But I don't think he's going to continue to support the slaughter of Ukrainians to bolster the profit margins of Western oil companies and the ROI's of America's wealthy citizens.
Queshank
No, Ukranians (& Russians, and others) are dying in a conflict over the criminal invasion of Ukraine. Cynicism is a fun dress-up, but if you wear it all the time it looks silly. There's no cynicism in accurately reading reality.
"criminal" invasion. GTFOH. lol. "Criminal" invasion.
Putin's a penis head. Great. We agree. He wants those oil resources for himself and is using the military to get them.
What are the people on the other side that want those oil resources for themselves and are using the military to get them?
This started in 2014 limey. With the Ukrainian oligarchy laying siege to Eastern Ukraine because of those same oil resources. Stop being so vulnerable to propaganda.
Queshank
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Nov 11, 2024 19:15:09 GMT
Well, if he supports Ukraine to regain its pre-invasion borders (i.e. the Crimean invasion) and lends US weight to enforcing reparations, investigation of war crimes*, and opening the door for Ukraine's future security guarantees under NATO, I'll take my hat off to him & say so right here. *by whoever I suppose it will come down to what is in our interests. I’d love to see what you outlined happen. But how far do we push it. The last few years have seen China and Iran and North Korea massively emboldened and lining up with Russia. Ultimately Russia must be squeezed to a point where cooperation and being good is a better path for them. But a return to their socialist ussr ways is not positive. The USSR ain't coming back. The Russians seem incapable of any kind of non-authoritarian government.
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Nov 11, 2024 19:17:42 GMT
Every conflict is compared to WWII, and every belligerent foreign leader compared to Hitler. And so we have failed or ruined states all over the globe, in effort to stop New Hitler. Slaughters in countries everywhere, but the lesson continues to be to prevent the next definitive Hitler. There have been other wars. Other lessons to learn. But it’s always Hitler. Nah, not "stop Hitler". Putin's his own kind of cünt, with striking Adolf parallels, but Adolf he ain't. The issue here isn't Putin's personality or political stance, it's his criminal invasion of a peaceful neighbouring soveriegn State. Focus, man. Geez. Invading sovereign states? Whoa.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Nov 11, 2024 19:25:00 GMT
China wasn't high enough up any lists; there was still hope Japan would remain the staunch friend it had been for decades. The U.S. had trade/economic interests with both China and Japan which made things complicated. Hence trying to avoid war.
But nothing about U.S. policy was isolationist.
And calling an imperialist power isolationist is kind of ridiculous on its face.
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Nov 12, 2024 9:38:18 GMT
Nah, not "stop Hitler". Putin's his own kind of cünt, with striking Adolf parallels, but Adolf he ain't. The issue here isn't Putin's personality or political stance, it's his criminal invasion of a peaceful neighbouring soveriegn State. Focus, man. Geez. Invading sovereign states? Whoa. Yeah, it's bad, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Nov 12, 2024 9:42:09 GMT
China wasn't high enough up any lists; there was still hope Japan would remain the staunch friend it had been for decades. The U.S. had trade/economic interests with both China and Japan which made things complicated. Hence trying to avoid war.
But nothing about U.S. policy was isolationist.
And calling an imperialist power isolationist is kind of ridiculous on its face.
I'm sorry, perhaps we're slightly at cross purposes. In UK political conversations, "US isolationism" means American reluctance to take a stance alongside allies, typified by the late entry in to both World Wars, and comprehensively abandoned by FDR/Truman/Eisenhower & successors, until, maybe, now.
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Nov 12, 2024 12:47:00 GMT
I suppose it will come down to what is in our interests. I’d love to see what you outlined happen. But how far do we push it. The last few years have seen China and Iran and North Korea massively emboldened and lining up with Russia. Ultimately Russia must be squeezed to a point where cooperation and being good is a better path for them. But a return to their socialist ussr ways is not positive. The USSR ain't coming back. The Russians seem incapable of any kind of non-authoritarian government. Their monarchy was one of the most brutal in the world, China's was very bad too. People conveniently forget that when talking about the regimes that followed.
|
|
|
Post by MojoJojo on Nov 12, 2024 12:58:40 GMT
Rewarding Putin for his land grab will only encourage more aggression from the world's wannabe dictators/great leaders.
The US has no combat troops stationed in theatre.
When the support ends and the EU can't sustain Ukraine's defense, Russia will take the entire country, including their now very modern and experienced, military.
Then Putin will be happy and stop his midbehaving on the world stage.
Right?
|
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,500
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 12, 2024 14:02:05 GMT
Rewarding Putin for his land grab will only encourage more aggression from the world's wannabe dictators/great leaders. The US has no combat troops stationed in theatre. When the support ends and the EU can't sustain Ukraine's defense, Russia will take the entire country, including their now very modern and experienced, military. Then Putin will be happy and stop his midbehaving on the world stage. Right?
Yeah. You haven't been influenced by propaganda on this subject at all.
We're totally in the narcissistic position of "rewarding" Putin.
And then after we "reward" them ... Russia's totally gonna take the whole country because their army is the strongest in the world. We've seen that right? And then they're totally gonna march on the rest of the world because have you seen how strong and mighty and scary their army is the past couple years? HAVE YOU???
You also know the fighting has been ongoing since 2014 right? 10 years of war now over a scrap of land whose only value is the oil underneath it. That it started with the Ukrainian army shelling Eastern Ukraine separatists and rewarding contracts to Western companies like BP and Shell to exploit the newly discovered oil? (If you wonder at England's full throated support for "grinding" down Russia's military using the bones of Ukrainians ... look no further than BP and Shell both being British companies.)
After 10 years of that kind of war, it's obvious that as soon as the United States in their arrogance "rewards" Putin ... he's gonna march on Europe. It's obvious. If you can't see it you've bought into Russian propaganda.
"Rewards" gtfoh. That's neocon bullshittery. You really bought into the Cheneys being Democrats eh?
Queshank
|
|
|
Post by MojoJojo on Nov 12, 2024 14:09:09 GMT
Nah, just history.
Give a brute some land, he wants more.
This has been true for all human history.
|
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,500
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 12, 2024 14:11:29 GMT
Nah, just history. Give a brute some land, he wants more. This has been true for all human history.
Has it?
Can you point to examples just in Russia's own post Soviet Union history to bolster that?
Maybe point to some examples in the US's history?
Hey for that matter ... can you just provide some examples in any history?
We talking about Genghis Khan here or something?
"Give" ... you still seem to think we own the world.
Queshank
|
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,500
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 12, 2024 14:26:53 GMT
As I started asking in 2022. How's Georgia doin'?
Let's check in.
Georgia is a representative democracy governed as a unitary parliamentary republic. It is a developing country with a very high Human Development Index and an emerging market economy. Sweeping economic reforms since 2003 have resulted in one of the freest business climates in the world, greater economic freedom and transparency, and among the fastest rates of GDP growth. In 2018, Georgia became the second country in the world to legalize cannabis, and the first former socialist state to do so. Georgia is a member of numerous international organizations, including the Council of Europe, Eurocontrol, BSEC, GUAM, Energy Community. As part of the Association Trio, Georgia is a candidate for membership in the European Union.
Wait a minute! I have it on good authority that Russia stopped all that by stealing all their land and marching on Europe in 2008! Obviously that's bullshit!
Queshank
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Nov 12, 2024 15:18:58 GMT
I'm sorry, perhaps we're slightly at cross purposes. In UK political conversations, "US isolationism" means American reluctance to take a stance alongside allies, typified by the late entry in to both World Wars, and comprehensively abandoned by FDR/Truman/Eisenhower & successors, until, maybe, now. I.e., non-engagement in Europe.
That's pretty much what everyone means when they say it, because they have Eurocentric view.
But that's not what isolationism is.
|
|
|
Post by MojoJojo on Nov 12, 2024 19:55:42 GMT
Nah, just history. Give a brute some land, he wants more. This has been true for all human history. Has it? Can you point to examples just in Russia's own post Soviet Union history to bolster that?
Maybe point to some examples in the US's history? Hey for that matter ... can you just provide some examples in any history?
We talking about Genghis Khan here or something?
"Give" ... you still seem to think we own the world.
Queshank
Normally I sit on what you've stated and toss it around in my mind until I get a little change in perspective. Not this time! This lesson is as old as we are. The strong will take from the weak. They always have unless and until they believe they can be defeated or the cost is too high. Why is it that killing tens of thousands of so-called Palestinians is justified (using US arms) yet Ukraine can't even defend itself and should surrender to save lives? Square that circle for me please.
|
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,500
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 12, 2024 20:44:58 GMT
Has it? Can you point to examples just in Russia's own post Soviet Union history to bolster that?
Maybe point to some examples in the US's history? Hey for that matter ... can you just provide some examples in any history?
We talking about Genghis Khan here or something?
"Give" ... you still seem to think we own the world.
Queshank
Normally I sit on what you've stated and toss it around in my mind until I get a little change in perspective. Not this time! This lesson is as old as we are. The strong will take from the weak. They always have unless and until they believe they can be defeated or the cost is too high. Why is it that killing tens of thousands of so-called Palestinians is justified (using US arms) yet Ukraine can't even defend itself and should surrender to save lives? Square that circle for me please.
Why aren't you fearmongering about Israel taking over <insert country/region/world here>?
Probably for the same reasons. For the record I've deliberately not weighed in on Israel/Palestine because as opposed to the Russo Ukrainian war that started in 2014 ... Israel/Palestine is fucking complicated as fuck. Russia/Ukraine is not. I've done a lot of research on Israel over my years here (hat tip Moishe3d) ... and it's tough to see who the bad guys are. And here on the boards? We don't have conversations like that anymore. Not since Trump drove a certain section of the boards fucking insane. And I don't need to do a lot of research on Ukraine. I've got pictures of the people of Ukraine in my family photo albums and there's books in my local library I read as a kid fascinated by the stories. (like this one: library.ndsu.edu/grhc/research-history/history-germans-russia). And have been watching the current chapter play out for 35 years through places like these very boards and threads like demos makes.
But I'll point out one observation I started making a long time ago. When you read the histories of Israel and the formation of the country ... and realize that nearly every single significant power player in the first decades of Israel's existence literally escaped the holocaust and it's the reason they're alive ... you start to understand why Israel ignores the rest of the world's opinion on how they defend themselves.
Here's an interesting circle to square ... Golda Meir, one of Israel's most famous prime ministers .. prime minister during the Yom Kippur war that started the Gaza mess and unsettled Israel's security generationally ... was born in Kyiv, Russia. What a small world. Is it relevant that Kyiv was called Russia when she was born 20 years before the existence of the Soviet Union? It is even if it's a side point. The relevance being that there are a loooot of data points at play in Ukraine. (see above for more)
For me tho, the primary difference is how and why the two wars started.
One started after decades of Israel restraining themselves at the behest of the world and trying to be good guys and the problem festering for generations until ... with a surprising amount of support from Western nations, an attack that rivals 9/11 on a level you and I can't even fully digest. A country the size and population of New Jersey lost 10x the proportional population as we did on 9/11. There was nobody unaffected. Do I think they're thinking straight? Nope. Here's one thing I think tho. Netanyahu and the people of Israel are gonna listen to Trump more than they were going to listen to any Democrats.
The other started after decades of outside funding of opposition parties and rabble rousers by Western countries destabilized the country, after 8 years of war had already resulted in tens of thousands dead and a stalemate, after 40 years of warnings and predictions about shit like this happening the more we continue to taunt the losers of the Cold War. And after a couple years of the new president of Ukraine literally taunting and insulting the loser of the Cold War. "I got a new man now fuck you bitch" sums up Zelensky's actions and speeches in the months before the invasion. Including him threatening ... at a NATO conference in 2021 as I've shared on the boards before ... to renuclearize Ukraine. Is there a Soviet Era Russia owned pipeline sending natural gas and oil through Palestine or Israel like there is in Ukraine to feed Western countries' energy needs? Asking for a friend.
There's no comparison between these two issues Mojo.
Tell me now. After 2 1/2 years of war. You see a path to victory for Ukraine yet that doesn't involve western boots on the ground? How much of your lingering slava Ukraine is just because you don't want to accept that you were wrong? "Throwing good money after bad" doesn't seem to cover it when we're actually talking about throwing bodies at bullets. I get that none of that justifies our arms deals with Israel. Merely explains why Israel doesn't give a flying fuck about our justifications. I'm just trying to highlight that there's no clear comparison and in fact, the comparison being made (not by you by pundits I've seen like the fucking disgusting Mehdi Hasan I love to troll on twitter) isn't being made in good faith.
So I lean on the most important points when the bullshit and propaganda gets to flying. Cuz it's all we really can do..
Israel is an ally of ours. Has been for decades. We have multiple bilateral defense cooperation agreements with them. Ukraine is a "let's open more markets for Western businesses" project of arrogant and ignorant fucks in our state department and intelligence services who think they're smarter than the people who created the post ww2 order and who never face any consequences for the damage they do around the world.
Hey. It's not really that hard after all.
Queshank
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Nov 12, 2024 23:11:08 GMT
Rewarding Putin for his land grab will only encourage more aggression from the world's wannabe dictators/great leaders. The US has no combat troops stationed in theatre. When the support ends and the EU can't sustain Ukraine's defense, Russia will take the entire country, including their now very modern and experienced, military. Then Putin will be happy and stop his midbehaving on the world stage. Right?
That's their thinking 100%. Look I don't want war, I don't want to support war, but of all the wars to suddenly not support it's this one while supplying Isreal with everyone it wants.... just so backwards.
Ukraine is absolutely tearing up Russian and weakening it. Something no one really thought possible.
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Nov 13, 2024 20:17:02 GMT
I'm sorry, perhaps we're slightly at cross purposes. In UK political conversations, "US isolationism" means American reluctance to take a stance alongside allies, typified by the late entry in to both World Wars, and comprehensively abandoned by FDR/Truman/Eisenhower & successors, until, maybe, now. I.e., non-engagement in Europe.
That's pretty much what everyone means when they say it, because they have Eurocentric view.
But that's not what isolationism is.
Until fairly recently, Eurocentric views and US -centric views made sense, because, in international politics & economies, that's where the important stuff happened. The US has something of a weakness in understanding the Interconnectedness of All Things. Ukraine's a great example; the incoming administration are myopic about emboldening antidemocratic forces, in a way that mirrors their 1900s & 1930s predecessors. "Fuck Ukraine" is a really, really foolish, as well as a really, really immoral, position.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Nov 13, 2024 20:28:15 GMT
Until fairly recently, Eurocentric views and US -centric views made sense, because, in international politics & economies, that's where the important stuff happened. The US has something of a weakness in understanding the Interconnectedness of All Things. Ukraine's a great example; the incoming administration are myopic about emboldening antidemocratic forces, in a way that mirrors their 1900s & 1930s predecessors. "Fuck Ukraine" is a really, really foolish, as well as a really, really immoral, position. The U.S. was traditionally more concerned with its own interests and maximizing those interests. For example, while it was avoiding European conflicts, it was ensuring its control over the North American continent, then exerting influence over Latin America; in both instances, steadily pushing out European powers. And it did understand the interconnectedness, because it used this to its advantage, starting with the Louisiana Purchase (the Napoleonic Wars ended up being a great boon to westward expansion).
You really need to stop relying on caricatures of U.S. policy and history that are promoted by liberal internationalists and neocons. It's a very one sided presentation that ignores a lot, because they focus so much energy and attention on WW1 and WW2 in Europe.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Nov 13, 2024 21:24:37 GMT
Europe: "These guys are a bunch of isolationists!"
Meanwhile, in Israel...
|
|