Post Right Wing looniness here

[Monahorns]

Maybe so but it's the side that will more than likely be correct when the smoke clears. How does Ukraine win a war of attrition against an enemy that has 3 times its population?

Sorry, man but 10 years from now people will be laughing at this boondoggle.

Garmel, not only that, but right now Russia is producing more weapons than the US. If the US starts producing more weapons inflation just goes up even faster. Inflation isn't going down anymore.

We are ruining America for a war that Ukraine has no chance to win. It is suicide of both countries.

 

[Monahorns]

Noninterventionists will, but that's because they have the luxury of never having to deal with the consequences of their policy, so they can just Monday morning quarterback everything and poke fun at anything that doesn't turn out perfectly. The reason why is that no one of influence listens to them, and they don't listen, because the last time they did get their way, 75 million people got killed.

But yet everyone thinks the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was an absolute mistake now. Only you and John Bolton are still advocates. Americans are struggling to a huge degree economically and culturally and the terror wars are a significant part of the equation.

 

[Monahorns]

Guys this is treason. Flying a foreign flag in the our government building is treason.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm hardly a noninterventionist. I fully support Israel monetarily but you have to see this Ukraine thing for what it is.

Please tell me you're not trying to make a WWII reference. Putin doesn't have the military power to go Hitler on us. He couldn't take on the combined European NATO members much less if we got involved as well. He can't "march on Europe" as the neocons are saying because he doesn't have the ability to do so.

Now, if Putin attacks NATO then it's on like Donkey Kong but Ukraine is just another ******** Eastern European kleptocracy. We wouldn't care about it but because our politicians are pilfering it we do.

We should have set up peace treaty between the two countries. Like Mona said we had a chance at the beginning but the neocons couldn't stand it. This is a no win situation for Ukraine and eventually they will surrender.

I agree we should have intervened in Hitler's rise to power. This isn't the same situation.

I know you're not a non-interventionist. And I bring to WWII primarily because it's the last time non-interventionists had any real influence. It's the reason they lost credibility.

And I don't consider the Russian invasion of Ukraine to be the same as WWII. It's too early to make that call, but keep in mind that most didn't one Hitler was going to lead to WWII either. Almost everything that's being said now to justify not helping the Ukrainians was said then. "Germany is weak. "Germany only wants control over areas that have a lot of ethnic Germans." "Germany isn't a threat to the United States." "We provoked Germany with alliances and onerous treaties and restrictions." "The Czechoslovakian and Polish governments have a lot of corruption." "We have more important things to deal with." "We're enabling war profiteers."

By the way, much like now, those criticisms all had elements of truth to them at one point or another. The point isn't that this is a prelude to continuing aggression. It's that we don't really know either way and won't know for sure until it's too late to stop it except through massive cost in money and blood. If we decide to let aggression be worthwhile, we'll very likely see more of it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

But yet everyone thinks the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was an absolute mistake now. Only you and John Bolton are still advocates. Americans are struggling to a huge degree economically and culturally and the terror wars are a significant part of the equation.

Again, more Monday morning quarterbacking. Nobody's perfect, but the failure to intervene against Japan and Germany is like 100 Iraq Wars.

 

[Garmel]

I know you're not a non-interventionist. And I bring to WWII primarily because it's the last time non-interventionists had any real influence. It's the reason they lost credibility.

And I don't consider the Russian invasion of Ukraine to be the same as WWII. It's too early to make that call, but keep in mind that most didn't one Hitler was going to lead to WWII either. Almost everything that's being said now to justify not helping the Ukrainians was said then. "Germany is weak. "Germany only wants control over areas that have a lot of ethnic Germans." "Germany isn't a threat to the United States." "We provoked Germany with alliances and onerous treaties and restrictions." "The Czechoslovakian and Polish governments have a lot of corruption." "We have more important things to deal with." "We're enabling war profiteers."

By the way, much like now, those criticisms all had elements of truth to them at one point or another. The point isn't that this is a prelude to continuing aggression. It's that we don't really know either way and won't know for sure until it's too late to stop it except through massive cost in money and blood. If we decide to let aggression be worthwhile, we'll very likely see more of it.

The difference is that during WWII Europe had basically mothballed their ability to make war and defend themselves which left them vulnerable to the Nazis.

NATO Europe would beat the hell out of current Russia in a conventional war.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The difference is that during WWII Europe had basically mothballed their ability to make war and defend themselves which left them vulnerable to the Nazis.

NATO Europe would beat the hell out of current Russia in a conventional war.

Not really. Britain had the most powerful navy in the world, and France had a large and very well-armed army in the ealy '30s. If either one (and certainly both together) had wanted to, they could have crushed Germany in the early to mid '30s when they started remilitarising the Rhineland and breaking treaties. The only reason they needed us is that they waited until 1939 and didn't really get serious until more like May of 1940, and by then, the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe were enormously powerful. It took about 4 years of farting around and letting them rampage through Europe and build up their military to make Germany that hard to defeat.

Could Russia turn into Germany? Realistically, no. They don't have the economy, competence, or brains to pull that off. NATO would beat the hell out of them if they remained unified. But if they continue to arm themselves and invade countries could they create one hell of a nasty mess that kills hundreds of thousands or millions of people? Yes. And of course, Europe needs to be arming themselves. The fact that we still have NATO countries not reaching 2 percent of GDP for defense after the invasion of Ukraine is insane.

 

[Chop]

I know you're not a non-interventionist. And I bring to WWII primarily because it's the last time non-interventionists had any real influence. It's the reason they lost credibility.

And I don't consider the Russian invasion of Ukraine to be the same as WWII. It's too early to make that call, but keep in mind that most didn't one Hitler was going to lead to WWII either. Almost everything that's being said now to justify not helping the Ukrainians was said then. "Germany is weak. "Germany only wants control over areas that have a lot of ethnic Germans." "Germany isn't a threat to the United States." "We provoked Germany with alliances and onerous treaties and restrictions." "The Czechoslovakian and Polish governments have a lot of corruption." "We have more important things to deal with." "We're enabling war profiteers."

By the way, much like now, those criticisms all had elements of truth to them at one point or another. The point isn't that this is a prelude to continuing aggression. It's that we don't really know either way and won't know for sure until it's too late to stop it except through massive cost in money and blood. If we decide to let aggression be worthwhile, we'll very likely see more of it.

Some foreign resistances are worth backing, some aren't.

Figuring out which are which is the tough part.

 

[Chop]

Not really. Britain had the most powerful navy in the world

The RAF kicked the Luftwaffe's butts, against significant odds, in the Battle of Britain.

The Royal Navy was a very large, mostly competent, surface fleet. Their overly traditional doctrine at that point in history kept them from developing into a submarine power (USA, Germany) or an aircraft carrier power (USA, Japan). And it was to their detriment. The IJN made short work of the Royal Navy in the East.

How is this right-wing looniness...? Let's see...............................

Ok, got it. The IJN was certainly "right wing" (and they still are), and they were a bunch of loons to think they could pull off a win or a favorable armistice against us.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The RAF kicked the Luftwaffe's butts, against significant odds, in the Battle of Britain.

Yes, they did.

The Royal Navy was a very large, mostly competent, surface fleet. Their overly traditional doctrine at that point in history kept them from developing into a submarine power (USA, Germany) or an aircraft carrier power (USA, Japan). And it was to their detriment. The IJN made short work of the Royal Navy in the East.

I'm not talking about during the war. The Royal Navy was often outmatched by then. I'm talking about the early to mid '30s - before the Kriegsmarine did its biggest ship and submarine building.

 

[mchammer]

 

[Monahorns]

Again, more Monday morning quarterbacking. Nobody's perfect, but the failure to intervene against Japan and Germany is like 100 Iraq Wars.

With that type of thinking humans could never learn from their mistakes or history. I don't get it.

Also the US had been intervening (not militarily) against Japan for many years prior to Pearl Harbor. Eve if that wasn't the case, what chance did Japan ever have of taking any portion of the US?

 

[Monahorns]

Not really. Britain had the most powerful navy in the world, and France had a large and very well-armed army in the ealy '30s. If either one (and certainly both together) had wanted to, they could have crushed Germany in the early to mid '30s when they started remilitarising the Rhineland and breaking treaties. The only reason they needed us is that they waited until 1939 and didn't really get serious until more like May of 1940, and by then, the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe were enormously powerful. It took about 4 years of farting around and letting them rampage through Europe and build up their military to make Germany that hard to defeat.

Interesting fact, England declared war against Germany when Germany attacked Poland. Germany never declared war against England, and Germany's purpose in the air attacks was to get England to negotiate peace. Germany's intent was never to conquer England. So much so that Rudolph Hess flew into the UK himself to see if he could convince the UK government to exit the war.

 

[Mr. Deez]

With that type of thinking humans could never learn from their mistakes or history. I don't get it.

Only for the non-interventionists.

The rest of us know there's a time to intervene and a time not to. There's a time to intervene a lot, and there's a time to intervene a little. There's nuance.

Also the US had been intervening (not militarily) against Japan for many years prior to Pearl Harbor. Eve if that wasn't the case, what chance did Japan ever have of taking any portion of the US?

Considering that Hawaii was part of the US, the chances if at did nothing were pretty good.

 

[Monahorns]

Interesting fact, England declared war against Germany when Germany attacked Poland. Germany never declared war against England, and Germany's purpose in the air attacks was to get England to negotiate peace. Germany's intent was never to conquer England. So much so that Rudolph Hess flew into the UK himself to see if he could convince the UK government to exit the war.

Of course there were further plans if their air campaign would have been successful. But from what I have read, Germany didn't plan to occupy England. Of course England did whoop them soundly so all that was off the table. The end result was that Germany got what they wanted for the most part anyway, at least for a while, since England was in no position to invade Germany. That remained up until the US joined and the D-Day plan was executed.

 

[Monahorns]

Only for the non-interventionists.

The rest of us know there's a time to intervene and a time not to. There's a time to intervene a lot, and there's a time to intervene a little. There's nuance.

Doesn't address what I said in any way, but fine.

But there is never a time NOT to intervene according to neoconservatives and the left, I guess. The non-interventionists of the day were all on the conservative right. Their disappearance was a result of an early case of the Republican Party sliding left.

 

[Monahorns]

Considering that Hawaii was part of the US, the chances if at did nothing were pretty good.

But Japan did attack Pearl Harbor and they didn't even come close to taking Hawaii. There was never a reasonable chance that was going to happen. Plus the US Navy had removed most of the fleet, so they could have engaged if the conflict would have gone longer. I don't see what point you are trying to make.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Interesting fact, England declared war against Germany when Germany attacked Poland. Germany never declared war against England, and Germany's purpose in the air attacks was to get England to negotiate peace. Germany's intent was never to conquer England. So much so that Rudolph Hess flew into the UK himself to see if he could convince the UK government to exit the war.

Yes, but they're weren't stupid and short-sighted. They knew that in the medium to long term, a greater German Reich that stretched from France to the Ural Mountains posed a serious threat to them and to their overseas possessions.

 

[Monahorns]

Yes, but they're weren't stupid and short-sighted. They knew that in the medium to long term, a greater German Reich that stretched from France to the Ural Mountains posed a serious threat to them and to their overseas possessions.

They fought the war and lost their empire as a result.

 

[Mr. Deez]

But there is never a time NOT to intervene according to neoconservatives and the left,

I don't speak for the left or the neocons, but there is a time not to intervene. At any given time, there are a crapload of conflicts. I wouldn't intervene in probably 95 percent of them.

But Japan did attack Pearl Harbor and they didn't even come close to taking Hawaii. There was never a reasonable chance that was going to happen. Plus the US Navy had removed most of the fleet, so they could have engaged if the conflict would have gone longer. I don't see what point you are trying to make.

They didn't take over Hawaii because we fought back and stopped them.

They fought the war and lost their empire as a result.

And they'd still have it if they had let Nazi Germany rampage through Europe, right?

 

[Chop]

With that type of thinking humans could never learn from their mistakes or history. I don't get it.

Also the US had been intervening (not militarily) against Japan for many years prior to Pearl Harbor. Eve if that wasn't the case, what chance did Japan ever have of taking any portion of the US?

But for the USN, Hawaii would be theirs. They also actually took some of Alaska. They couldn’t have taken and held our West Coast though—not for long.

It’s questionable whether WE could have taken Honshu or any of the other big 4 home islands. Or if it would be worth the millions in OUR casualties that would be suffered. Fortunately, we had strategic bombing and a President with the balls to use it.

 

[Monahorns]

They didn't take over Hawaii because we fought back and stopped them.

Never said we didn't. I have never said an individual or a country shouldn't defend itself. I'm not a pacifist.

And they'd still have it if they had let Nazi Germany rampage through Europe, right?

Don't know. That version of the world never happened, and it could have gone any number of directions. I'd rather discuss what did happen and why.

 

[Monahorns]

But for the USN, Hawaii would be theirs. They also actually took some of Alaska. They couldn’t have taken and held our West Coast though—not for long.

Show where I ever said this isn't the case.

It’s questionable whether WE could have taken Honshu or any of the other big 4 home islands. Or if it would be worth the millions in OUR casualties that would be suffered. Fortunately, we had strategic bombing and a President with the balls to use it.

Japan was ready to surrender already. Neither were necessary.

 

[Garmel]

 

[Monahorns]

I like Ike

 

[Mr. Deez]

Never said we didn't. I have never said an individual or a country shouldn't defend itself. I'm not a pacifist.

Of course you didn't say we didn't defend ourselves, but you suggest that they never had a chance of taking Hawaii. That was only true because we were there and fought back. Had we not been there or not fought back, Hawaii would almost surely be Japanese today.

Don't know. That version of the world never happened, and it could have gone any number of directions. I'd rather discuss what did happen and why.

The Japanese, Italians, and Germans attacked British possessions and occupied areas during WWII. I dobut that letting them win would have helped the British keep them.

What actually did happen? The British were a mess after the war. They lost their prestige and will to hold the empire together, and they elected a Labour government that didn't prioritise it over social spending. Attempts were made to preserve it, but once it started to fall, there was no saving it, especially if they wanted to keep their social welfare state, particularly the NHS, which costs a fortune (about 9.5 percent of GDP - about 2.5X what the US spends on national defense).

 

[Chop]

Of course you didn't say we didn't defend ourselves, but you suggest that they never had a chance of taking Hawaii. That was only true because we were there and fought back. Had we not been there or not fought back, Hawaii would almost surely be Japanese today.

This is true. It is ignorant to deny this.

 

[Garmel]

If the Japanese were ready to surrender during WWII before the bomb they sure were slow about doing it.

According to the minutes of the cabinet meeting that happened after Nagasaki the military continued to refuse to surrender.

 

[Chop]

When extreme crazy on the right meets its left-wing counterpart | SONDERMANN

 

[Chop]