Welcome Back, Russia
- Thread starter Drunken Master
- Start date
You can't say that Bush is the only POTUS to " propping up all kinds of only vaguely legitimate governments all over the world over the past fifty years" that would be the work of many POTUSs.Ranger68 said:
OTB
I don't. Never said he was. Of course, ANY American President making those statements would be very ironic.
He is the WORST in terms of shredding the concept of multi-lateralism, and his invasion of Iraq is one of the most dangerous decisions taken in the last fifty years, setting the precedent for "preventive" war.
Terrible.
Most previous American President's have *mostly* had reasonable foreign policy goals. Sometimes, foreign policy comes down to the lesser of two evils. I find it curious that Bush Sr. spoke STEADFASTLY against invading Iraq, precisely because there was no UN mandate for it. I guess Jr.'s just smarter.
He is the WORST in terms of shredding the concept of multi-lateralism, and his invasion of Iraq is one of the most dangerous decisions taken in the last fifty years, setting the precedent for "preventive" war.
Terrible.
Most previous American President's have *mostly* had reasonable foreign policy goals. Sometimes, foreign policy comes down to the lesser of two evils. I find it curious that Bush Sr. spoke STEADFASTLY against invading Iraq, precisely because there was no UN mandate for it. I guess Jr.'s just smarter.
I'm not sure what triggered any of this, but my point was that Americans, and lots of other countries, have had meddlesome hands in MANY elections in places all over the world, for a long time.
This is not, in and of itself, a criticism. It merely makes the US criticism of meddling in the Ukrainian election ironic - well, hypocritical, at least.
This is not, in and of itself, a criticism. It merely makes the US criticism of meddling in the Ukrainian election ironic - well, hypocritical, at least.
Drunken Master said:
When was the Russian government ever not corrupt?
Anyway, it's too bad Kerry didn't win, then he would've solved all of Russia's problems.
It was a real shame that neither Churchill or Roosevelt was at the peace table at the end of WWII - Churchill was dead on in predicting WWII and the subsequent cold war (Iron Curtin was his term I believe). Stalin pursued a land grab at the end of WWII (which Churchill and Ike perceived) but the US didn't want to fight the USSR over it. Had Roosevelt been at the top of his game as WWII ended he may have saved us all a lot of trouble.bbking said:
OTB
I'm not sure I agree with the revisionism that would have had some of the Allies turn against the USSR at the end of WWII.
BOTH sides pursued land grabs at the end of WWII, because they *all* foresaw the coming confrontation, and in any case that's what nations did (do) at the conclusion of wars ended in such a manner. Of course, Roosevelt also would have *caused* a lot of trouble by smashing his armies into the Soviets, too - not sure I'd define that as "the top of his game".
Millions more would have died.
BOTH sides pursued land grabs at the end of WWII, because they *all* foresaw the coming confrontation, and in any case that's what nations did (do) at the conclusion of wars ended in such a manner. Of course, Roosevelt also would have *caused* a lot of trouble by smashing his armies into the Soviets, too - not sure I'd define that as "the top of his game".
Millions more would have died.
Yes, but the US had to at the time.Ranger68 said:Or perhaps it was ironic due to the US' propping up all kinds of only vaguely legitimate governments all over the world over the past fifty years.
Re: Re: Welcome Back, Russia
LOL, yes Kerry would have helped solve Russia problems before he didn't help solve their problems...Cinema Face said:
There were those who argued that the Western allies should have continued to plow ahead instead of waiting for the USSR to meet them in some areas, the Iron curtain was well foretold by Churchill. I don't think anyone of consequence suggested fighting the USSR, just rushing to meet it, thus saving millions from the Communist European experience they endured.Ranger68 said:
OTB
No, neither side held up at all. Although the generalized stopping positions had been settled upon months before.
Hitler didn't commit suicide until the Battle for Berlin was almost over - Soviet troops were within a hundred yards or so of his bunker.
You're right when you say that the Allies didn't have much choice in where the Soviets stopped. The only thing that might have altered that would have been the development of a peripheral strategy - one involving the Balkans - that Churchill was pushing for. The Americans would have none of it and constantly pushed for the opening of the front in northern France. Of course, the Americans could have still ended the war sooner, and gotten the western Allies farther on themselves, had Ike not been such a stickler for the broad front strategy, but this argument has been going on for sixty years and won't ever be resolved.
Hitler didn't commit suicide until the Battle for Berlin was almost over - Soviet troops were within a hundred yards or so of his bunker.
You're right when you say that the Allies didn't have much choice in where the Soviets stopped. The only thing that might have altered that would have been the development of a peripheral strategy - one involving the Balkans - that Churchill was pushing for. The Americans would have none of it and constantly pushed for the opening of the front in northern France. Of course, the Americans could have still ended the war sooner, and gotten the western Allies farther on themselves, had Ike not been such a stickler for the broad front strategy, but this argument has been going on for sixty years and won't ever be resolved.
Just saw a documentary on Discovery channel that says that the Soviets raced to Berlin in order to gain exclusive access to the nuclear bomb program in Germany. After seeing what the Soviet went through to get the Germans out of Russia, its a wonder they could muster an army at all.
But this is why history is so much fun...it keeps getting rewritten.
But this is why history is so much fun...it keeps getting rewritten.
..both sides were after the German Technology. All kinds of it. Which was far ahead of the Allies. With enough oil, right up to almost the end of the war, those German Jets may have turned the tide. It was Air Power that won WW2. Its why the Germans had their early success, that combination of air and ground attack. With the Stukas providing ground support, devasting.
The Germans had even built and tested on one voyage a bomber that flew to New York City and back.
Most of the major decisions of WW2 revolved around Oil. Things like that are not forgotten.
The Germans had even built and tested on one voyage a bomber that flew to New York City and back.
Most of the major decisions of WW2 revolved around Oil. Things like that are not forgotten.
