Posted on 03/21/2022 7:52:57 AM PDT by JewishRighter
I would say that, if he were to literally take over Ukraine, it would put him in an awfully tempting position to roll up the Baltic States
The variable is Putin..
So everone want scream “Hitler!” that fine but we have established the habit of saying “Hitler!” “NAZIS!” To justify everything.. hell Putin is doing it too
So the question is simply for me..how would ANY Russian leader act at this time if he had their country and there people intrested at heart..not Putin.. But ANY Russian leader
Good point and I believe he was a pretty clear non-interventionist. I don’t know what he’d say in light of an extremely integrated global economy, nuclear weapons and having endured the 20th century.
He would run for President of the USA, he had an American mother, he is just as eligible as Ted Cruz.
(Congress bestowed “honorary” citizenship upon him in the 1950’s, guess they didn’t know he was a natural born citizen of the USA..../s)
Iraq and Philippines: NOT North America
How would Churchill council the U.S. regarding Russia and Ukraine? He’d probably tell us to stay out of the war just like England stays out of wars that don’t involve treaty nations that are in another continent from theirs.
All good points, but on the only situation that is reasonably analogous to the present, he is thought to have been the most insightful thinker, proven prophetic in the 1930’s by events of 1939 and on.
The original article says “outside the North American Continent, we have never waged a war of conquest against another nation”. FarCenter posted a list of countries he said we attacked to prove the article wrong. I took out all the ones in North America, leaving Iraq and Philippines as the ones in FarCenter’s list that meet the criteria of outside North America.
You are using Clintionian semantics. You do realize the coup that took place in 2014 in Ukraine which toppled an elected government had western intelligence agencies including our own along with Soros sponsored groups and other foreign fingerprints all over it? And let's not forget a long series of puppet regimes installed in “banana republics” in Central and South America. But no, those don't count as “wars of conquests” do they? No, they are all something else.
But to answer your question, Churchill was a proponent of subversive tactics, at least when it came to defeating our enemies in WWII. Whether or not he would have approved of the types of operations which have culminated in the current situation in Ukraine however is a different question. He certainly would be disgusted to hear of Richard Moore, the current Chief of MI6 saying that the Ukraine War is about LGBTQ rights.
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1573993/mi6-culture-war-lgb-rights-ukraine-pronouns
This entire fiasco is more the result of woke and corrupt Western organizations lining their own pockets and pushing things too far than Russian aggression. The current propaganda war being waged with numerous outrageous examples proves the insincerity of the proponents... The Ukrainian people have been victimized here by groups on both sides of this conflict.
And let's not forget about the sons of Biden, Pelosi, Romney, Kerry, et. al. bringing home millions of dollars in illicit funds from the Ukrainian regime intended to influence their politically connected fathers. No, none of them were experts in their fields worthy of multi-million dollar salaries. A lot of palms have been greased and that too has Western Intelligence and Soros fingerprints all over it.
This stinking heap of BS is not worth starting WWIII over! Yet this is exactly what a large percentage of vocal armchair warriors propose every day both in the MSM and right here on this forum. It is sickening and disgusting as is trying to invoke the memories of past leaders to somehow justify irrational actions.
https://rumble.com/vxon9j-putin-knew-exactly-what-he-was-doing-when-he-went-into-ukraine..html
Very interesting points. What Churchill said and did after atrocities were committed against Englishmen by a vicious enemy is not analogous to where we are right now. We are on the outside looking in.
Rambam, a Court physician, was not dealing with geo-political problems as the leader of a World Superpower confronted by a powerful rogue state. His problems were much more parochial, limited to his personal role and his concerns for the welfare of a small minority community in exile.
Me, I go with Germany as the primary candidate for Amalek, but those Rooskies and Kossacks both give a run for the money. Sort of reminds me of the Iran/Iraq war when we hoped both would win.
“Clintonian semantics”? What’s the matter, you couldn’t figure out a way to be more insulting? Geez.
Churchill was a lapdog for Russia and always screwed the U.S. over, so you can take it from that.
What do you mean "without being warned." Didn't the Germans take ads out in New York papers with a warning?
Nahh, I looked up the definition. YOU luze.
con·quest
/ˈkänˌkwest/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force.
“the conquest of the Aztecs by the Spanish”
You call Afghanistan an America Friendly regime?
Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Philippines, Spanish-American War, Central American banana republics?
***I wouldn’t characterize any of those as America Friendly right now. Perhaps it’s time for a new round of conquests.
What irrational action am I justifying? I'm simply offering one of many ways of looking at the conflict for purposes of discussion and I am clearly against direct American involvement.
Again, what cause have I given you to be so damn insulting? Comparing me to Clinton is about as hateful as it gets. Not one thing I said was semantic.
It was well known that U-boats had been sighted in the very area where the Lusitania was heading into - and Churchill apparently kept a specific warning from being transmitted to the ship. The presumption is that he knew mass civilian casualties would put the US over the edge.
The fact that the ship was also carrying a significant amount of munitions making it a legitimate target was also suppressed for many decades. Known by the Germans, and denied by everyone else to sell the narrative.
The US is populated with a warlike people, and it doesn’t take a whole lot to get them running to a fight.
Joe is a major player in this conflict. His corruption in Ukraine is a decade old, at least. He simply can not be trusted to act in the best interest of the US or for that matter the people of Ukraine or Russia. He is utterly compromised.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.