Trump backed us out of the Iran nuclear deal

13»

Replies

  • AntonioAntonio Senior Member Posts: 2,207 Senior Member
    .....I expect that this post will get met with at least a handful of Nevel Chamberlain references by some of the most macho among us....
    Regarding this, it's true that in a desperate bid for peace in Europe poor Neville was ready to sign anything Herr Hitler could hand him, despite all proofs that "annexing" the smaller neighbors wasn't enough for the Nazis, but if memory doesn't fails me, at the same time his government was approving a discrete rearmament program that would eventually pay off discouraging the Germans from invading the isles after taking over France...seems like Chamberlain wasn't as naive as popular history usually portraits him.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 1,456 Senior Member
    I'm not sure I understand the all capitalism or all socialism view either. Sometimes it seems like there's a group of people that want unfettered, unregulated, capitalism with no laws whatsoever. 
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,068 Senior Member
    edited May 11 #64

    As for the first statement, it's really not. Not this conversation, not most things. I get that that's the lens (back to those lenses again) that you see everything through, but it's a very, very narrow view. I mean I can't say it's surprising given that you came of age in the heart of the cold war and the existential threat was communism/nuclear war with the USSR, but it's really not a super useful lens for looking at most things these days.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    bisley:
    It's more than just my understanding of the Cold War. It's also about the Army-McCarthy hearings, which I was too young to understand, so I read some books, before all of the authors became propagandists for one side or the other. It was about the progressive era - Teddy Roosevelt thru Woodrow Wilson, and on to FDR. It was about the early Communist Party of America's efforts to take over the labor unions, not completely successful, thanks to organized crime, but still useful in fomenting chaos at the drop of a hat.

    But most of all, it was about European entities, George Soros being one of the more prominent, buying Al Gore and the Democrat Party, lock, stock, and barrel, and a few Republicans for good measure. Moveon.org was very successful in propagandizing the youth of America with the still new Internet capability, but chasing all of the moderates out of the Democrat party, the invention of Barack Obama out of thin air, and the adoption of 'Rules for Radicals' as the new Democrat playbook was the most harmful, when supported by an already liberal mass media.

    I also spent a lot of time swimming upstream on a left-wing political forum with dozens of very bright young college students, mostly British, who challenged and questioned everything, and would then launch into tirades that 'sounded' very much like your last post, all warning of impending depressions, worldwide economic disaster, etc., etc. ad infinitum - all of it canned rhetoric, straight out of the communist party narrative of the time.

    So yes, my thinking is 'tainted' by history, although I would say it was informed by history, and that your anti-Bush rhetoric identifies you as another political science student influenced by lefty professors and led astray with the Moveon.org style propaganda.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Your second point is a good one and applies especially to this thread. This is something I rarely see out of republicans. I get that I am also tainted by history, watching Bush lie us into the quagmire Iraq and then lie about the costs. That happened while I was an undergrad and I actually wrote an essay that predicted almost exactly how big a mess it would be before the first bomb was even dropped. In almost every case the unexpected consequences can be seen and predicted, you just have to take the time to think and look.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    bisley:
    Maybe Bush lied, or maybe he was just wrong...or maybe he was right and Saddam got rid of the WMD. It doesn't matter much now, because the nation building didn't work out, anyway. His biggest failing was in over-estimating the time it would take for the left-wing opposition to turn the American public against him.

    Nation building took a generation, in Japan, and it was totally subjugated at the end of WWII, and had a US military governor with unlimited power until the people learned and understood a democratic form of government. The Bush administration did not understand how long it would have taken to straighten out the factions in Iraq, and were unwilling to wage war against Iran to accomplish that. In the end, the left beat him into submission, while he claimed to be taking the high road.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I see in many republicans a level of idiotic machismo and unchecked testosterone that leads to shooting first and asking questions later. Occasionally that works out fine or is even what we need. Other times it leads to wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. And it's possible for the costs to be much much higher. I expect that this post will get met with at least a handful of Nevel Chamberlain references by some of the most macho among us. Bring them on. But I also ask you to think. We live in a global world that is highly connected. Consequences can cascade. Little ripples can become big cascades. If you do nothing else, do a google map search of Ras Tanura, look at the satellite view, then look at it's location in relation to Iran, and then realize that ~10-15% of globally traded oil flows through that one point and then you can explain to me how the risks to war with Iran are small.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------bisley:
    Even JFK was able to learn a few basics about realpolitik, as a result of his Bay of Pigs failure, that directly led him into the Cuban missile crisis. Fortunately, he recovered enough to listen briefly to some people with USSR understanding, and he was able to 'cowboy' his way out of being forced into a nuclear war (with an assist from a very fine blue-water Navy that scared the crap out of the Politburo). But that burgeoning understanding died with him, because Soviet realpolitik ate LBJ's lunch, and no Democrat president has ever mastered it, since. They got caught flat-footed by the break-up of the Soviet Union, and turned their attention away from geopolitics, while the expertise continued to flourish (at least for the future) in Russia, China, and all their minions.

    When a president spends too much time worrying about how "little ripples can become cascades" (...into a tidal wave, I suppose?), he makes mistakes, like making deals from a position of weakness, rather than from strength. When you beg someone to make a deal, you end up getting royally screwed. You must convince your enemies that you believe you have the upper hand, to just break even, much less win, in a peace treaty.

    Obama gave much, and got nothing but a half-hearted promise from a religious fanatic, who has been chanting "death to America" for forty years. The evidence of this is irrefutable to those of us who are looking through the correct lens. Iran is now having temper tantrums, and for the first time, one of our allies in the same region is spanking them for it, instead of the Sixth Fleet and some very weary special ops guys. They may get spanked some more, and it might be by us, but it is nothing compared to what could happen at the end of Obama;s treaty, when the Iranians can install the uranium core in an atomic bomb, and bolt it to one of the missiles they have been testing continuously, throughout the negotiations. Obama made some European businessmen and politicians happy about their future profits, and kicked the can...nothing else.


  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,068 Senior Member
    early,

    I'm not arguing for unfettered capitalism - just against socialism. The only reason I went at it that way is because I am being told that I'm always wrong because I am looking through the wrong lens.

    I don't have the right lens, so I'm just trying to contribute to the topic in the best way I can, albeit through the wrong lens.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 1,456 Senior Member
    bisley,
    I think your lens is important. I don't always agree with it, but I definitely read it. Sometimes more than once.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,068 Senior Member
    Antonio said:
    .....I expect that this post will get met with at least a handful of Nevel Chamberlain references by some of the most macho among us....
    Regarding this, it's true that in a desperate bid for peace in Europe poor Neville was ready to sign anything Herr Hitler could hand him, despite all proofs that "annexing" the smaller neighbors wasn't enough for the Nazis, but if memory doesn't fails me, at the same time his government was approving a discrete rearmament program that would eventually pay off discouraging the Germans from invading the isles after taking over France...seems like Chamberlain wasn't as naive as popular history usually portraits him.
    That is what some historians claim, and it may be true. But, he was hanging Czechoslovakia and Poland out to dry, in the process. His problem was that he preferred to ally with the French point of view, rather than Winston Churchill's, in the years before Hitler made his first military move. The French could have beaten the Germans, or at least bluffed them out of their move to re-occupy the Rhineland, in 1936. Instead, they crowed about the Maginot Line, saying that they no longer needed a buffer zone between France and Germany, despite the fact that they knew Hitler was cheating on the rearmament terms of the Versaille Treaty.

    They had an alliance with Poland, but had not prepared themselves for actually effecting their rescue, if Hitler attacked them. Chamberlain knew this and didn't want it, so he basically gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler, in hopes that his 'white paper' would keep them from attacking Poland.

  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,260 Senior Member
    Peace in our time?
    Time to prepare.
    Time for more Spitfires people think but really just time to prepare.
    He was not such a fool history painted him.
    Let us not rewrite the past from the comfort of the now.


    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • AntonioAntonio Senior Member Posts: 2,207 Senior Member
    Uber-interesting topic, but would be hijacking the post's original theme.
    Right out of the depression, battling internal tugs-of-war with socialists and still pondering the Spanish Civil War lessons, seems like they would rather let the Nazis spill themselves towards the East (And scare the crap out of the Soviets in the process) than towards the West), and sacrificing countries already "in line" with German's politics and ambitions was fair trade, but apparently they never considered Hitler's hatred towards the French.

    Wonder what's going to happen during the weekend....
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,020 Senior Member
    bisley said:
    Antonio said:
    .....I expect that this post will get met with at least a handful of Nevel Chamberlain references by some of the most macho among us....
    Regarding this, it's true that in a desperate bid for peace in Europe poor Neville was ready to sign anything Herr Hitler could hand him, despite all proofs that "annexing" the smaller neighbors wasn't enough for the Nazis, but if memory doesn't fails me, at the same time his government was approving a discrete rearmament program that would eventually pay off discouraging the Germans from invading the isles after taking over France...seems like Chamberlain wasn't as naive as popular history usually portraits him.
    That is what some historians claim, and it may be true. But, he was hanging Czechoslovakia and Poland out to dry, in the process. His problem was that he preferred to ally with the French point of view, rather than Winston Churchill's, in the years before Hitler made his first military move. The French could have beaten the Germans, or at least bluffed them out of their move to re-occupy the Rhineland, in 1936. Instead, they crowed about the Maginot Line, saying that they no longer needed a buffer zone between France and Germany, despite the fact that they knew Hitler was cheating on the rearmament terms of the Versaille Treaty.

    They had an alliance with Poland, but had not prepared themselves for actually effecting their rescue, if Hitler attacked them. Chamberlain knew this and didn't want it, so he basically gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler, in hopes that his 'white paper' would keep them from attacking Poland.

    So maybe, just maybe one of the lessons from Chamberlain wasn't just cowardice but also a bit of hubris? A mistaken belief in their own might and military superiority that failed to account for an adaptive adversary?

    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 1,456 Senior Member
    When one examines Neville Chamberlain or any other historical figure, context is imperative. In this case it would be impossible to exaggerate the power of the Great War's scale of horrific slaughter and economic devastation on a leaders thinking.
    '
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,068 Senior Member
    I don't think that I have ever suggested that Neville Chamberlain was a coward, or stupid, although I don't think anyone would have ever accused him of being wise. I just think that he was wrong, for a variety of reasons, and that it changed the balance of power in Europe to such a great extent that Britain nearly lost their entire empire. His failing, in my opinion, was that he just didn't face the reality of what allowing the Germans to re-arm would eventually mean, preferring instead to busy himself with the domestic issues that he was somewhat more comfortable with.

    One could easily draw parallels between Chamberlain's behavior toward Germany and Obama's behavior toward Iran, and the indifference with which both Germany and Iran treated the respective 'agreements.' The main difference between them (to me) is that Chamberlain was probably attempting to buy time for his own country to re-arm, after ignoring it for too many years, due in part to war debt from the first war. On the other hand, all indications from Obama's behavior in office indicate that he intended to bow out altogether from the use of US military capability to influence the behavior of its primary adversaries.

    Both were ineffectual in their major geopolitical moves, but at least Chamberlain appeared to be trying to catch up to the realities that his country faced. Obama, however, simply intended to further weaken the USA's superpower standing, while also furthering his party's quest to make the US a banana republic.
  • AntonioAntonio Senior Member Posts: 2,207 Senior Member
    Seems like there's a place and date for the Trump/Kim meeting and that NKs have already set a date for dismantling their nuclear weapons program....sounds too good to be true and you have to be very careful with what these commies say and promise, but if everything goes as stated, wonder how hard would be for the Swiss to even nominate the current POTUS for the Noble prize. :D
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,068 Senior Member
    edited May 15 #74
    Antonio said:
    Seems like there's a place and date for the Trump/Kim meeting and that NKs have already set a date for dismantling their nuclear weapons program....sounds too good to be true and you have to be very careful with what these commies say and promise, but if everything goes as stated, wonder how hard would be for the Swiss to even nominate the current POTUS for the Noble prize. :D
    They are going to finish destroying their test facility, which photographic evidence suggests may have been damaged already. The real test is whether they give up their uranium enrichment factory, or any capability they may have to make plutonium. Without U-235 or plutonium, there can be no atomic bond. Then, they have to give up dirty bomb and chemical weapon capability.

    Early indications are positive, but the devil is in the details, and we can't make the mistake of giving them aid until they allow verification that they have ended the program permanently.

    As for the Nobel Prize, that has been a joke, since giving one to Yasir Arafat, Al Gore, and Barack Obama. If Trump wants it, fine, but they will try their best not to give it to him.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 31,707 Senior Member
    The Nobel Peace Prize started off with good intentions, but like the UN turned to politically motivated self serving Crap animated emoticon
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 31,707 Senior Member
    Alfred Bernhard Nobel invented dynamite in 1866.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 26,673 Senior Member



    bisley said:
     When you strip it all out to the basics, it is about socialism versus capitalism,

     It takes time to root out the unexpected consequences, and the evidence has to be evaluated honestly, not along political lines.

    As for the first statement, it's really not. Not this conversation, not most things. I get that that's the lens (back to those lenses again) that you see everything through, but it's a very, very narrow view. I mean I can't say it's surprising given that you came of age in the heart of the cold war and the existential threat was communism/nuclear war with the USSR, but it's really not a super useful lens for looking at most things these days.

    Your second point is a good one and applies especially to this thread. This is something I rarely see out of republicans. I get that I am also tainted by history, watching Bush lie us into the quagmire Iraq and then lie about the costs. That happened while I was an undergrad and I actually wrote an essay that predicted almost exactly how big a mess it would be before the first bomb was even dropped. In almost every case the unexpected consequences can be seen and predicted, you just have to take the time to think and look.

    I see in many republicans a level of idiotic machismo and unchecked testosterone that leads to shooting first and asking questions later. Occasionally that works out fine or is even what we need. Other times it leads to wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. And it's possible for the costs to be much much higher. I expect that this post will get met with at least a handful of Nevel Chamberlain references by some of the most macho among us. Bring them on. But I also ask you to think. We live in a global world that is highly connected. Consequences can cascade. Little ripples can become big cascades. If you do nothing else, do a google map search of Ras Tanura, look at the satellite view, then look at it's location in relation to Iran, and then realize that ~10-15% of globally traded oil flows through that one point and then you can explain to me how the risks to war with Iran are small.

    What you call "Idiotic machismo" is a genetic predisposition that was bred into the male species through millions of years of natural selections.  It is the tendency to respond to a serious threat to yourself or yours with extreme violence in order to stop it from swiftly becoming detrimental to you life.  It has worked for generation after generation and has kept freedom alive and available to all in this country for the last few hundred years.  Unfortunately it was bread out of the gene pool by the hippies spawning snowflakes and the unfettered reproduction of the welfare crowd, and eventually will lead to the destruction of our country and it's core values as it is taken over by cowering flowers that just 200 years ago would not have survived.  Soon testosterone will just be outlawed...
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,211 Senior Member
    Big Chief said:
    Alfred Bernhard Nobel invented dynamite in 1866.
    I've always wondered how many lives have been lost as a result of that invention. Having a "Peace prize" named after the inventor has always struck me as odd.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,020 Senior Member



    bisley said:
     When you strip it all out to the basics, it is about socialism versus capitalism,

     It takes time to root out the unexpected consequences, and the evidence has to be evaluated honestly, not along political lines.

    As for the first statement, it's really not. Not this conversation, not most things. I get that that's the lens (back to those lenses again) that you see everything through, but it's a very, very narrow view. I mean I can't say it's surprising given that you came of age in the heart of the cold war and the existential threat was communism/nuclear war with the USSR, but it's really not a super useful lens for looking at most things these days.

    Your second point is a good one and applies especially to this thread. This is something I rarely see out of republicans. I get that I am also tainted by history, watching Bush lie us into the quagmire Iraq and then lie about the costs. That happened while I was an undergrad and I actually wrote an essay that predicted almost exactly how big a mess it would be before the first bomb was even dropped. In almost every case the unexpected consequences can be seen and predicted, you just have to take the time to think and look.

    I see in many republicans a level of idiotic machismo and unchecked testosterone that leads to shooting first and asking questions later. Occasionally that works out fine or is even what we need. Other times it leads to wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. And it's possible for the costs to be much much higher. I expect that this post will get met with at least a handful of Nevel Chamberlain references by some of the most macho among us. Bring them on. But I also ask you to think. We live in a global world that is highly connected. Consequences can cascade. Little ripples can become big cascades. If you do nothing else, do a google map search of Ras Tanura, look at the satellite view, then look at it's location in relation to Iran, and then realize that ~10-15% of globally traded oil flows through that one point and then you can explain to me how the risks to war with Iran are small.

    What you call "Idiotic machismo" is a genetic predisposition that was bred into the male species through millions of years of natural selections.  It is the tendency to respond to a serious threat to yourself or yours with extreme violence in order to stop it from swiftly becoming detrimental to you life.  It has worked for generation after generation and has kept freedom alive and available to all in this country for the last few hundred years.  Unfortunately it was bread out of the gene pool by the hippies spawning snowflakes and the unfettered reproduction of the welfare crowd, and eventually will lead to the destruction of our country and it's core values as it is taken over by cowering flowers that just 200 years ago would not have survived.  Soon testosterone will just be outlawed...
    Works great for cavemen, and yes occasionally is still needed in modern society, but in a highly interconnected world it is also how the death of a single Austrian Duke can lead to casualties to more than 10% of the European population. Like it or not we're going to get a front row seat to see how effective testosterone fueled foreign policy is in the 21st century. I obviously hope it works out for all our sakes. 
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 6,608 Senior Member
    edited May 15 #80
    Without testosterone and a pair of balls we're nothing but female sheep. I'd prefer my leaders not be gutless, like Ovomit and others. That doesn't mean I'm a warmonger, but I want our leaders to be strong enough to back those down that would be crazy enough to have one.

    And BTW, The cause of WWI was a lot more complicated than a single asassination. As Wikipedia points out, the factors were many.


    I HAVE HATED COMMUNISTS EVEN BEFORE THEY CHANGED THEIR NAME TO LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 26,673 Senior Member



    bisley said:
     When you strip it all out to the basics, it is about socialism versus capitalism,

     It takes time to root out the unexpected consequences, and the evidence has to be evaluated honestly, not along political lines.

    As for the first statement, it's really not. Not this conversation, not most things. I get that that's the lens (back to those lenses again) that you see everything through, but it's a very, very narrow view. I mean I can't say it's surprising given that you came of age in the heart of the cold war and the existential threat was communism/nuclear war with the USSR, but it's really not a super useful lens for looking at most things these days.

    Your second point is a good one and applies especially to this thread. This is something I rarely see out of republicans. I get that I am also tainted by history, watching Bush lie us into the quagmire Iraq and then lie about the costs. That happened while I was an undergrad and I actually wrote an essay that predicted almost exactly how big a mess it would be before the first bomb was even dropped. In almost every case the unexpected consequences can be seen and predicted, you just have to take the time to think and look.

    I see in many republicans a level of idiotic machismo and unchecked testosterone that leads to shooting first and asking questions later. Occasionally that works out fine or is even what we need. Other times it leads to wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. And it's possible for the costs to be much much higher. I expect that this post will get met with at least a handful of Nevel Chamberlain references by some of the most macho among us. Bring them on. But I also ask you to think. We live in a global world that is highly connected. Consequences can cascade. Little ripples can become big cascades. If you do nothing else, do a google map search of Ras Tanura, look at the satellite view, then look at it's location in relation to Iran, and then realize that ~10-15% of globally traded oil flows through that one point and then you can explain to me how the risks to war with Iran are small.

    What you call "Idiotic machismo" is a genetic predisposition that was bred into the male species through millions of years of natural selections.  It is the tendency to respond to a serious threat to yourself or yours with extreme violence in order to stop it from swiftly becoming detrimental to you life.  It has worked for generation after generation and has kept freedom alive and available to all in this country for the last few hundred years.  Unfortunately it was bread out of the gene pool by the hippies spawning snowflakes and the unfettered reproduction of the welfare crowd, and eventually will lead to the destruction of our country and it's core values as it is taken over by cowering flowers that just 200 years ago would not have survived.  Soon testosterone will just be outlawed...
    Works great for cavemen, and yes occasionally is still needed in modern society, but in a highly interconnected world it is also how the death of a single Austrian Duke can lead to casualties to more than 10% of the European population. Like it or not we're going to get a front row seat to see how effective testosterone fueled foreign policy is in the 21st century. I obviously hope it works out for all our sakes. 
    The death of one duke did not send the complete world into war.  In order to have war to that scale there has to be a confluence of factors that usually last years and affect many countries.  And I think testosterone fueled foreign policy has already worked much better that the apologist 8 year snowflake tour we had with Obama.  The world does not need another equal "citizen", specially one they can bully and steal their lunch money from with impunity.  It needs strong leadership and swift, painful consequences to bad actions.
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • AntonioAntonio Senior Member Posts: 2,207 Senior Member
    Trust me, 3rld. world dictators and their minions only understand the language of the force; any other means like "talks", "sanctions", and so are a plain show of weakness to them and a way of buying them more time.
    They're not better than a home-invader thief that have taken possession and control of someone else house and becomes a hazard to the neighborhood; just see what's happening in Venezuela, Nicaragua an others....those folks will only be removed by force since they've learned how to deal institutionally with the control of power spheres inside their countries and abroad!

    .....and a world war was going to happen anyway at the 1st. 1/3rd. of the past century in such state of things; European old world intermingled power structures were seating on top of multiple powder kegs fueled by geopolitical changes, new ideologies and technological developments. The assassination just was the spark that precipitated everything.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,091 Senior Member
    Antonio said:
    .....I expect that this post will get met with at least a handful of Nevel Chamberlain references by some of the most macho among us....
    Regarding this, it's true that in a desperate bid for peace in Europe poor Neville was ready to sign anything Herr Hitler could hand him, despite all proofs that "annexing" the smaller neighbors wasn't enough for the Nazis, but if memory doesn't fails me, at the same time his government was approving a discrete rearmament program that would eventually pay off discouraging the Germans from invading the isles after taking over France...seems like Chamberlain wasn't as naive as popular history usually portraits him.
    Oh Bull POOP! Alpha, he was as naive as Jimmy Carter. If he would have had real balls he would have stood up to Hitler instead of letting him off the hook. Chamberlain got off the plane in London waving that worthless paper around like it was the Holy Grail while in truth he shoulda wiped his butt with it.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,091 Senior Member
    Big Chief said:
    Alfred Bernhard Nobel invented dynamite in 1866.
    I've always wondered how many lives have been lost as a result of that invention. Having a "Peace prize" named after the inventor has always struck me as odd.
    Ain't it!
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,091 Senior Member
    Antonio said:
    Trust me, 3rld. world dictators and their minions only understand the language of the force; any other means like "talks", "sanctions", and so are a plain show of weakness to them and a way of buying them more time.
    They're not better than a home-invader thief that have taken possession and control of someone else house and becomes a hazard to the neighborhood; just see what's happening in Venezuela, Nicaragua an others....those folks will only be removed by force since they've learned how to deal institutionally with the control of power spheres inside their countries and abroad!

    .....and a world war was going to happen anyway at the 1st. 1/3rd. of the past century in such state of things; European old world intermingled power structures were seating on top of multiple powder kegs fueled by geopolitical changes, new ideologies and technological developments. The assassination just was the spark that precipitated everything.
    Yep the assassination was just the excuse to throw the switch.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,091 Senior Member
    bisley said:
    early,

    I'm not arguing for unfettered capitalism - just against socialism. The only reason I went at it that way is because I am being told that I'm always wrong because I am looking through the wrong lens.

    I don't have the right lens, so I'm just trying to contribute to the topic in the best way I can, albeit through the wrong lens.
    'taint the wrong lenz. What you say is very clear and to the point.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,091 Senior Member
    This whole deal Stank like a pogy boat. Some of yall may know what that is, but in case you don't they're Menhaden Trawlers and you can smell them before you see them. Anyway, you get the idea. Obummer was so wanting a deal he could hang on his trophy wall that he was willing to sell the country down the road to get it, and that's what he did. The money is gone but Trump at least stopped the carnage by getting out of the deal.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • centermass556centermass556 Senior Member Posts: 3,483 Senior Member
    When one examines Neville Chamberlain or any other historical figure, context is imperative. In this case it would be impossible to exaggerate the power of the Great War's scale of horrific slaughter and economic devastation on a leaders thinking.
    '

    This is probably one of the more astute comments I have read in the last three pages. If anyone has any doubts about the costliness and catastrophic effect WWI had on the world, they simply need to read the literature that was inspired by that era. 

    However, I will say that Chamberlain was naive in the hopes of keeping the peace on the continent. I can't imagine how the British did not know that taking the southern lands back was just a stepping stone. Though, Hitler did come to the table with good cause for it. The persecution of the German speakers in that area was under full swing. They were getting from the Czechs what the gypsies and Jews were getting from the Germans.

    The one thing that continually amazes me in discussions of the interwar period and German re-armament, is that no one points a finger at the US. The infamous Dawes Plan, devised to keep Germany from failing, allowed Germany to float currency and re-invest their nationally generated capital back into their new military industrial complex. This is best illustrated when looking at the GDP growth between Germany, France, and GB. in 1925 Germany had a GDP of 45Mil, GB was at 43.7, and France was at 36.2. That's a staggering difference. The second order effect of this was seen in coming out of the Great Depression. even though the US withdrew its loans, the German banks collapsed, they still had built enough of an industrial complex to start at a slow jog...instead of crawl. By the time the war started in 1938, Germany had surged to having a GDP of 77.1million. While France was still struggling and producing a GDP of 39.5mil. Even Britain was not a full rebound by that point, and only had a GDP of 56.4mil. Chamberlain, seeing the economic viability of Germany in 1938, perhaps believed they would not risk another economic collapse with war. 

    "To have really lived, you must have almost died. To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 1,456 Senior Member
    edited May 28 #89
    Post war periods change peoples thought processes. The scale of the great war rained gold stars on the entire European population. The depression was literally global. People were desperate to avoid more. Look at events like Orson Welles War of the Worlds broadcast and the ensuing panic it created. This was possible because the air was static enough with tension, you could cut it with a knife. The intensity in Europe must have been off the scale. Its easy to listen to voices like Churchill's today. How easy back then?
  • centermass556centermass556 Senior Member Posts: 3,483 Senior Member
    Agreed. 
    "To have really lived, you must have almost died. To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
13»
Sign In or Register to comment.