EPTEspecially when talking about Europe.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1684
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
Especially when talking about Europe. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 02 2015 05:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I think you're illustrating my point very well. The US was attack on 9/11 and Europeans did and still do hem and haw over whether they should have supported the US into Afghanistan. Yet and minority of Americans voice disfavor towards protecting France from an attack, not details given, and that's just outrageous. It's not politics unless you affect blindness to the double standard. One's an acceptable position, the other, an outrageous one. Subjective considerations under a veil of objectivity. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Chewbacca.
United States3634 Posts
On March 02 2015 05:41 WolfintheSheep wrote: Feels like the US is the last country that should be criticizing others for not assisting them during a war. Especially when talking about Europe. Explain? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 02 2015 05:41 WolfintheSheep wrote: Feels like the US is the last country that should be criticizing others for not assisting them during a war. Especially when talking about Europe. the great european military will save the day yet again. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22369 Posts
I would assume hes talking about WW2? Which is more then a little silly to drag up in this instance. | ||
|
Chewbacca.
United States3634 Posts
On March 02 2015 09:39 Gorsameth wrote: I would assume hes talking about WW2? Which is more then a little silly to drag up in this instance. I assumed so as well, which made me laugh. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't misjudging him... | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On March 02 2015 08:56 oneofthem wrote: euros shouldn't be dodging on afghanistan. iraq i can understand. yay, war | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
WW1 and 2 mostly. That, and the fact that the US hasn't actually had a war fought on their soil for a century and a half, and hasn't seen foreign armies fighting in their country for two centuries. Of course, war and politics isn't about some tit-for-tat squabbling (well, shouldn't be, but it does seem to come down to that a lot), but if the argument is going to be "we won't help you because you didn't help us", then the US' moral highground isn't very stable. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On March 02 2015 08:56 oneofthem wrote: euros shouldn't be dodging on afghanistan. iraq i can understand. but like mentioned, there wasn't really any dodging on afghanistan I think? Yeah Iraq was a big thing and we innitially had discussions about Afghanistan as well (in Germany) but it's to be expected if you're not allowed to use military offensively by constitution to first check that. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23956 Posts
From less than a week ago REP. DARRELL ISSA, R-CALIF.: You know, many of us are proud of who we are as a nation, what we've done, what we stand for. We recognize that there are things we can do better. But there's a huge difference between being proud of our country and being only proud if our country changes. I'm proud of our country and I want to work for change in a positive direction. Rudy Giuliani used some words that he regrets, and he really has, but he does have these constant messages coming from the president that he doesn't seem to be proud of the country we now live in, only the one we could become if we became more like Europe. If we were like France, we would all be speaking German. The fact is America has stood up to tyranny time and time again. This president's challenge is to stand up to the tyranny of Islamic terrorists. And if we don't, then in fact we'll go the way of so many nations who have failed to meet that last challenge. Source Personally I think comparing ISIS to Nazi Germany gives them vastly more credit then they are due. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18291 Posts
On March 02 2015 04:05 hannahbelle wrote: It's not literally the same, but I'm not sure NATO treaty differentiates them? No? Not an expert in NATO legalese, but I am fairly certain it is worded in terms of countries. No sovereign state committed an act of war on 9/11. A rabidly crazy Islamist organization committed a terrorist crime. They had no official (or even unofficial) ties to any country, and while Afghanistan was rather chummy with them, so were Yemen, and for that matter, Saudi Arabia. Now I understand and support the attack on Afghanistan, but how on earth can you compare these two cases? | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On March 02 2015 10:08 Acrofales wrote: Not an expert in NATO legalese, but I am fairly certain it is worded in terms of countries. No sovereign state committed an act of war on 9/11. A rabidly crazy Islamist organization committed a terrorist crime. They had no official (or even unofficial) ties to any country, and while Afghanistan was rather chummy with them, so were Yemen, and for that matter, Saudi Arabia. Now I understand and support the attack on Afghanistan, but how on earth can you compare these two cases? Because 9/11 was the only time in NATO's history article V was actually invoked. And respected by the other treaty participants. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 02 2015 10:08 Acrofales wrote: Not an expert in NATO legalese, but I am fairly certain it is worded in terms of countries. No sovereign state committed an act of war on 9/11. A rabidly crazy Islamist organization committed a terrorist crime. They had no official (or even unofficial) ties to any country, and while Afghanistan was rather chummy with them, so were Yemen, and for that matter, Saudi Arabia. Now I understand and support the attack on Afghanistan, but how on earth can you compare these two cases? Afghanistan was quite literally run by the Taliban and al-Qaeda was pretty much the terrorist branch of the organization. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
And what really suprises me is the the general lack of understanding of the second worldwar displayed by american public comments. They all act like the heroic united states won the war by leading lesser nations like Britain and Australia, into a great battle at D-Day to save humanity, when the war in Europe was decided 2 years earlier on the eastern front without any direct military involvment of the US at all. They came for a victory lap, to get their part of Europe to fend of the communists, and now hype it as somehow defeating the Nazis. | ||
|
GwSC
United States1997 Posts
On March 02 2015 19:37 puerk wrote: The biggest issue within Germany at the time (as far as my memory serves me) for going to war with Afghanistan, was that many trusted/wanted to try to fulfill the extradition negotiations over Al Qaeda leadership involved in the attacks, to trial them. Americans blocked all those avenues because they considered those negotiations only stalling and bluffing by the Taliban. (and not enough to satisfy the build up will for revenge in the population) And what really suprises me is the the general lack of understanding of the second worldwar displayed by american public comments. They all act like the heroic united states won the war by leading lesser nations like Britain and Australia, into a great battle at D-Day to save humanity, when the war in Europe was decided 2 years earlier on the eastern front without any direct military involvment of the US at all. They came for a victory lap, to get their part of Europe to fend of the communists, and now hype it as somehow defeating the Nazis. I wouldn't really call near 200,000 dead from fighting in Europe a "victory lap". Of course US casualties were nowhere near Russia's, but they were as high or higher compared to any of the other Allies. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On March 02 2015 19:37 puerk wrote: The biggest issue within Germany at the time (as far as my memory serves me) for going to war with Afghanistan, was that many trusted/wanted to try to fulfill the extradition negotiations over Al Qaeda leadership involved in the attacks, to trial them. Americans blocked all those avenues because they considered those negotiations only stalling and bluffing by the Taliban. (and not enough to satisfy the build up will for revenge in the population) And what really suprises me is the the general lack of understanding of the second worldwar displayed by american public comments. They all act like the heroic united states won the war by leading lesser nations like Britain and Australia, into a great battle at D-Day to save humanity, when the war in Europe was decided 2 years earlier on the eastern front without any direct military involvment of the US at all. They came for a victory lap, to get their part of Europe to fend of the communists, and now hype it as somehow defeating the Nazis. From where are you getting this general lack of understanding? I don't know that I've ever seen a bigger mischaracterization of World War II. America's effort was more than a "victory lap", the US decision to fight was not contingent on communism or Europe at all, and commemorations of the war involve much more than hyping the defeat of Nazi Germany (although to be fair, you could be forgiven if you get your conception from American movies, particularly over the last decade). | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On March 02 2015 20:09 GwSC wrote: I wouldn't really call near 200,000 dead from fighting in Europe a "victory lap". Of course US casualties were nowhere near Russia's, but they were as high or higher compared to any of the other Allies. Just to put it into perspective: those 200000 include all deaths in the Atlantic theater, i.e. including the Mediterranean, north Africa and transports in the Atlantic. It was not my intention to diminish those fallen in the war. I visited the memorials in the Normandy to pay my respects. Please exuse if i somehow hurt your feelings with "victory lap". The ratio between total exposure and total losses clearly demonstrates that American involvment in Europe was special compared to other involved parties. One could either conclude that Americans were almost unkillable superhumans, or that they came late to the war (because of Britains stalling and their own defensive war in the Pacific of course, but despite Sowjets begging for a second front for almost 4 years). On March 02 2015 20:19 coverpunch wrote: From where are you getting this general lack of understanding? I don't know that I've ever seen a bigger mischaracterization of World War II. America's effort was more than a "victory lap", the US decision to fight was not contingent on communism or Europe at all, and commemorations of the war involve much more than hyping the defeat of Nazi Germany (although to be fair, you could be forgiven if you get your conception from American movies, particularly over the last decade). The last few pages, and interspersed all over this thread since its inception are posts in the gist of "If america acted like France we would all be speaking German right now", totally missjudging the importance of the eastern front and the totally inability of Germany to ever pose a significant threat to the US. The Sowjets fought and won that war, with support and help from all allied forces of course. But to hype American involvment as it is generally done, is a total disrespect of the millions (not thousands) dieing to defend their homes. | ||
|
RolleMcKnolle
Germany1054 Posts
No, really. This misconception people seem to have (at least that's what I'm readin on the internet) is astounding. America won the war, America is bringing good to the world and so on. Most of the people ssaying this stuff can't even explain communism to me, but are the first to decide it's the worst thing that has ever happened. User was warned for this post | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
America's main contribution to World War II wasn't loss of life, it was production of war materiel. The US produced about as much by itself as the entire Axis combined. Without this contribution, the grim logic of attrition turns highly against the Allied powers. That's not to say the Allies would necessarily lose without the US, since Germany overextended itself horribly in Russia and lacked the punch to actually finish Britain off. Japan faced a similar problem in China where they believed they had checkmated the enemy but couldn't complete a total conquest. But the war would have lasted longer and been much uglier if the Axis were going to lose anyways. In that sense, America helped win the war in a way that reduced the total human cost and is thus good. EDIT: On March 02 2015 20:24 puerk wrote: The last few pages, and interspersed all over this thread since its inception are posts in the gist of "If america acted like France we would all be speaking German right now", totally missjudging the importance of the eastern front and the totally inability of Germany to ever pose a significant threat to the US. The Sowjets fought and won that war, with support and help from all allied forces of course. But to hype American involvment as it is generally done, is a total disrespect of the millions (not thousands) dieing to defend their homes. Can you quote it? I scanned briefly and couldn't find anyone saying anything like this... | ||
| ||
