Are you suggesting we should not have engaged in WW II against Germany because it was one random country against another (well, several countries in that case) and didn't touch our shores? Should we not have challenged Japan in WW II as they took over Southeast Asia and with eyes on Australia and New Zealand?
Are you suggesting we should not have engaged in WW II against Germany because it was one random country against another (well, several countries in that case) and didn't touch our shores? Should we not have challenged Japan in WW II as they took over Southeast Asia and with eyes on Australia and New Zealand?
The world is a tough place, whether we like it or not. The point of defending "one tiny random corrupt country" (like the U.S. is not corrupt!) against another, Russia, which has invaded and ruled many of its neighbors over the last century, is so a regional war does not become a global war.
I just got back from the Baltic states. You see Ukranian flags everywhere. They know and will freely tell you that if the Ukrainians can't stop the Russians, they know they will be next.
I am suggesting that *everyone* draws World War II into the discussion to defend our so-called intervention (which is more accurately termed "interference") into Ukraine, so you can't suggest it is *not* relevant if someone reminds you of the Russian experience during World War II. It's a matter of consistency.
It sounds like you're looking for some kind of moral equivalence: it happened to the Russians when Germany invaded 70 years ago so they have a right to act out today. Is that it?
You've completely neglected what Russia has consistently done to its neighbors over the last century, including the Holodomor when they starved 4m Ukranians because the communist experiment in agriculture under Stalin was an abject failure. Exactly what do you propose, Lillia? Should we consign Europe over to Putin? I sense you don't like war, with which I agree, but what would you do? Wringing your hands is not a coherent strategy.
You obviously didn't read the articles. *Every war*--and I mean *every war*--since World War II has been in full or part justified because (or sold to the American people with the accusation that) "we didn't intervene soon enough" in World War II. And if we don't "intervene," it will become *Just Like* World War II. X will plow across Y, killing all these innocent people in his path.
Every war, every single stinking one, no matter what other rationale there was. Wether we were fighting to stop "commies" or fighting to stop "terrorists." Whether we were directly involved or fighting a "proxy" war. Every single one.
You know the one thing they have all had in common? They were clusterf--ks. We sacrificed lives and money and found ourselves in a quagmire ending up worse off by every metric than when we started with the world just a touch less stable for our machinations.
Explain to me, using small words, why I shouldn't believe that pattern will hold.
The other reason I know you didn't read the articles is you didn't contradict that our entry into World War II may have hastened the demise of the Jews in the concentration camps. In other words, the Jews were Hitler's hostages, perhaps not well treated, but living. Only after we got in the war did "extermination" and "liquidation" become his theme. It's the law of unintended consequences. And it's ironclad. It's not that I don't think World War II might be the one war that was worth getting into. I just think this one is nothing remotely like World War II and we need to stay the hell out.
Yes, war is hell. What would the alternative have been? Peace and love? Left to their own devices, the Soviets murdered some 40 million of their own citizens. And no, we didn't intervene. Mao is estimated to have killed/starved a similar number. And no, we didn't intervene. In both cases we really couldn't, and they were internal disasters to those countries. But when you cross borders and subjugate free people, the game changes. You haven't answered my question: what would YOU do? You're still wringing your hands, but people in positions of responsibility have to act. How bizarre of you to suggest that the U.S. triggered the killing of the Jews in Hitler's concentration camps because we finally intervened to support Great Britain and Europe more broadly. You should travel abroad or at least talk to people who have lived under difficult regimes. It will help you appreciate how horrible people can be, and that some things are worth fighting for.
Are you suggesting we should not have engaged in WW II against Germany because it was one random country against another (well, several countries in that case) and didn't touch our shores? Should we not have challenged Japan in WW II as they took over Southeast Asia and with eyes on Australia and New Zealand?
The world is a tough place, whether we like it or not. The point of defending "one tiny random corrupt country" (like the U.S. is not corrupt!) against another, Russia, which has invaded and ruled many of its neighbors over the last century, is so a regional war does not become a global war.
I just got back from the Baltic states. You see Ukranian flags everywhere. They know and will freely tell you that if the Ukrainians can't stop the Russians, they know they will be next.
I am suggesting that *everyone* draws World War II into the discussion to defend our so-called intervention (which is more accurately termed "interference") into Ukraine, so you can't suggest it is *not* relevant if someone reminds you of the Russian experience during World War II. It's a matter of consistency.
And World War II is an interesting subject that we mythologize. Here are two articles from Michael Tracy. https://mtracey.substack.com/p/a-fairy-tale-version-of-world-war and https://mtracey.substack.com/p/yes-americans-overwhelmingly-opposed.
They are enlightening.
It sounds like you're looking for some kind of moral equivalence: it happened to the Russians when Germany invaded 70 years ago so they have a right to act out today. Is that it?
You've completely neglected what Russia has consistently done to its neighbors over the last century, including the Holodomor when they starved 4m Ukranians because the communist experiment in agriculture under Stalin was an abject failure. Exactly what do you propose, Lillia? Should we consign Europe over to Putin? I sense you don't like war, with which I agree, but what would you do? Wringing your hands is not a coherent strategy.
You obviously didn't read the articles. *Every war*--and I mean *every war*--since World War II has been in full or part justified because (or sold to the American people with the accusation that) "we didn't intervene soon enough" in World War II. And if we don't "intervene," it will become *Just Like* World War II. X will plow across Y, killing all these innocent people in his path.
Every war, every single stinking one, no matter what other rationale there was. Wether we were fighting to stop "commies" or fighting to stop "terrorists." Whether we were directly involved or fighting a "proxy" war. Every single one.
You know the one thing they have all had in common? They were clusterf--ks. We sacrificed lives and money and found ourselves in a quagmire ending up worse off by every metric than when we started with the world just a touch less stable for our machinations.
Explain to me, using small words, why I shouldn't believe that pattern will hold.
The other reason I know you didn't read the articles is you didn't contradict that our entry into World War II may have hastened the demise of the Jews in the concentration camps. In other words, the Jews were Hitler's hostages, perhaps not well treated, but living. Only after we got in the war did "extermination" and "liquidation" become his theme. It's the law of unintended consequences. And it's ironclad. It's not that I don't think World War II might be the one war that was worth getting into. I just think this one is nothing remotely like World War II and we need to stay the hell out.
Yes, war is hell. What would the alternative have been? Peace and love? Left to their own devices, the Soviets murdered some 40 million of their own citizens. And no, we didn't intervene. Mao is estimated to have killed/starved a similar number. And no, we didn't intervene. In both cases we really couldn't, and they were internal disasters to those countries. But when you cross borders and subjugate free people, the game changes. You haven't answered my question: what would YOU do? You're still wringing your hands, but people in positions of responsibility have to act. How bizarre of you to suggest that the U.S. triggered the killing of the Jews in Hitler's concentration camps because we finally intervened to support Great Britain and Europe more broadly. You should travel abroad or at least talk to people who have lived under difficult regimes. It will help you appreciate how horrible people can be, and that some things are worth fighting for.