Posted on 08/08/2018 7:59:31 AM PDT by Mariner
Thank you....my thoughts also.
Russian have ALWAYS been a rouge state - the word Russia MEANS rouge, for Ivan’s sake.
[- Every country that has tried to conquer the world has failed.]
Not without doing huge damage to the countries that had to deal with their ambitions. That included the US in WWI and WWII, where we incurred 500K dead combined.
[- Every country that has tried had a plausible chance of success.]
Russia hasn’t had a plausible chance of success - it’s been the most successful empire of them all, with a territory twice the size of the next two countries combined.
[Every country that has tried had announced their intent years in advance.]
Incorrect. Germany claimed to have limited its goal to obtaining the Sudetenland. Then it invaded and annexed the rest of the country. And turned its attention to Poland. And Germany isn’t exceptional. Empires typically pick one target at a time, just as someone doesn’t go through elementary, high school and college at the same time. When that objective is achieved, they move on to the next one. And that is how the Russian empire was established, over centuries of accumulated conquests.
https://www.timemaps.com/history/russia-1215ad/
[None of those three conditions apply to Russia.
Nice shot at Neocon warmongering though.]
Helping Georgia to stave off Russian invasion is warmongering? Maybe opposing Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was warmongering, too. And attempting to reverse Germany’s invasion of Western Europe. If so, warmonger is my middle name.
“You’re the one making the argument that Putin is a madman with nuclear weapons who will start WW3 unless he gets his way.”
That’s not what I said.
I said Russia would resort to nukes to prevent Georgia from joining NATO.
Thankfully the current POTUS is not stupid enough to support such folly.
[If Mexico allowed Russia to set up shop in Mexico, what do you think we would do?]
Just because the Democrats are pretending to worry about Russia in order to stick it to the GOP doesn’t mean we should take the opposite stance. The Russians have been in the empire business for almost 700 years. They need to be prevented from annexing any more land, resources or population.
https://www.timemaps.com/history/russia-1215ad/
“I said Russia would resort to nukes to prevent Georgia from joining NATO.”
And then what I said in response is accurate:
“You’re the one making the argument that Putin is a madman with nuclear weapons who will start WW3 unless he gets his way.”
“Helping Georgia to stave off Russian invasion is warmongering? “
Considering the US has absolutely no interests of any kind in Georgia the answer is a resounding YES.
Not 1% of Americans could point at it on a map. Our trade relationship is nearly nil. We share no cultural heritage. It is not located in a strategically important region for the US. And we would gain nothing, nothing, at great expenditure of life and resources.
It’s not just warmongering, it’s patently stupid warmongering.
Lucky for us, he will get his way on Georgia.
And there’s really nothing anyone can do to stop him.
“And there’s really nothing anyone can do to stop him.”
Eventually one of his closest and most trusted friends will kill him.
Sic semper tyrannis.
[Considering the US has absolutely no interests of any kind in Georgia the answer is a resounding YES.
Not 1% of Americans could point at it on a map. Our trade relationship is nearly nil. We share no cultural heritage. It is not located in a strategically important region for the US. And we would gain nothing, nothing, at great expenditure of life and resources.
It’s not just warmongering, it’s patently stupid warmongering.]
Geostrategic considerations (i.e. preventing big threats from becoming bigger threas) aren’t about culture, heritage or trade relationships. They are about keeping adversaries from acquiring additional population and resources via armed conquest. We did not ally with South Korea because we had a common culture, heritage or significant trade. We allied with it to stave off Russian expansion.
Not worth it at 1/10th the price.
Thankfully the vast majority of Americans, and POTUS, sees it that way. We are already looking to shed existing NATO members.
Not because we don’t care what happens to them. But because we are not willing to go to war to protect them. It’s the world’s number one farce...21 countries in NATO, 100% reliant on the US for their defense while not looking after it themselves.
How many university graduates do you think could pick out Bulgaria, Latvia or Romania on a map? Maybe 3% on a good day?
It’s a joke and everyone in the world knows it’s a joke. We would not go to war to protect them.
[Thankfully the vast majority of Americans, and POTUS, sees it that way. We are already looking to shed existing NATO members.]
Good luck. Here’s what Trump actually said:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/07/12/latest-trump-says-us-commitment-to-nato-remains-strong.html
[U.S. President Donald Trump says the U.S. commitment to NATO “remains very strong” despite reports that he threated to pull out in a dispute over defense spending.
Trump says at a news conference Thursday in Brussels that he told “people” that he would be “very unhappy” if they didn’t increase their commitments.
Trump says the U.S. has been paying “probably 90 percent of the costs of NATO.”
Trump adds that he was “extremely unhappy with what was happening and they have substantially upped their commitment.”
NATO had no immediate comment.
Trump once declared NATO “obsolete.” He says Thursday: “I believe in NATO.”]
Most Americans still see Russia as unfriendly, which is why NATO exists. It’s not a place for backslapping over a common heritage or anything like that. Its function is to keep Russia from getting any bigger. That’s all it is:
https://www.wftv.com/news/national-news/nbc-news-poll-most-americans-view-russia-as-us-enemy-unfriendly/792428853
[The NBC News|SurveyMonkey online poll found that only 23% see Russia as friendly and only 5% say the nation is “an ally to our country.” More than two-thirds polled said Russia was either unfriendly (43%) or a U.S. enemy (25%).]
You can parse Russia’s invasions/peacemongering any which way you want. The reality is that most Americans are bright enough to understand the zero sum nature of territorial changes. The bigger Russia is via territorial conquest and annexation, the weaker we are, relatively-speaking. And that’s a problem, given Russia’s 700 years of land grabs.
[How many university graduates do you think could pick out Bulgaria, Latvia or Romania on a map? Maybe 3% on a good day?
It’s a joke and everyone in the world knows it’s a joke. We would not go to war to protect them.]
Gallup registers 80% support for NATO.
Interesting in that 80% of Americans don’t even know what NATO is, or it’s purpose and our commitment.
None dare ask the question: Would you support wholesale war with Russia to ensure the territorial integrity of Bulgaria or Latvia?
Likely that number is below 10%.
And no President would go to war with a nuclear state with that kind of support. This one or any future one.
Also last month he had this to say:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/opinion/editorials/montenegro-nato-trump-article-5.html
Give it up my man.
These loons are the same isolationist loons that got us into WWII, via the appeasement of German.
They don’t respond to logic, much like a radical jihadi.
The good news is that they represent about 5% of the voting public.
[Give it up my man.
These loons are the same isolationist loons that got us into WWII, via the appeasement of German.
They don’t respond to logic, much like a radical jihadi.
The good news is that they represent about 5% of the voting public.]
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.