Will the world will be a better place without the US involvement in everything?

redwar said:
I don't want something like world police. I have fecking written a list full of wars (without including fascists that were supported or created by USA) and you keep talking about the necessity of a world police or supposed crimes USSR committed. Let's say yes, USSR committed crimes etc. You still want a world police.

I do not.. That's our difference. And that's why I don't believe that society's current situation is not the best for us. That's why I read Frances Stonor Saunders book about Cold War and CIA, and didn't stay in a fasist's book (Solzhenytsin) that we read as teenagers.
Click to expand...

So, your error is in assuming that I want a world police. That is not necessarily true. I'm more of a Bismarckian Realpolitik type. The way that international relations have gone, there will be, for the foreseeable future, one super power that will dominate the international sphere. That's a given. We're not getting away from it and any thing else is fantasy. With that in mind, I'd rather it be the US over any of the other potential players.

As a nation, it is less susceptible to the will of one demagogue than others. An important distinction, crimes against other nations and all. With the US, countries can negotiate. If they start off hostile we know where it's going to end up. China and Russia appear as more 'my way or the highway' in international relations. Ukraine, Crimea, the South China Seas islands project, etc. offer us modern examples of this tough stance.

Truth is that right now there isn't another nation that could fill the role. China doesn't have significant naval, air or intercontinental ballistic missile threat to be able to project substantial power very far beyond its immediate borders. As such, they are attempting to wield economic power globally, with some success. Russia, while being fairly strong militarily, have fallen behind technologically and would struggle to operate in multiple theatres simultaneously. Plus, their status as a resource based economy has left them a bit light on funds under current conditions. Their currency isn't overly desirable in international markets either, which damages their economic potential further. With that we have one nation capable of projecting its influence worldwide, which, as I have established, is going to occur regardless. Thankfully, it is one whose rulers are determined by the will of the people and not a miniscule cabal of elites or one man.
 
redwar said:
Are you trying to justify a war crime against poor peasants? Maybe even excuse USA for what they did against them?

The question here is "what about fecking mmuuuricaaaah" and their war crimes. They are still here. USSR, gone. OK?
Let's talk about USA and who funded ISIS, terorrorists and Syrian "rebels".
Click to expand...

Are you really that incapable on reading comprehension, because what I said does not even come close to that. Guess we can stop worrying about what books you have read, since one sentence in a forum is too much for you.
 
JustAFan said:
Are you really that incapable on reading comprehension, because what I said does not even come close to that. Guess we can stop worrying about what books you have read, since one sentence in a forum is too much for you.
Click to expand...

WOW. An old member attacking a fresh full member, attacking the poster, not the post. Great values.
I simply made a question. It seems you are the one who can't have a polite conversation. I'm not interested in one with you.
I usually respect people who try to say something new (or very old) even if it is a redcafe conversation.
I have not even laughed at ones sayings in here.
 
Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
So, your error is in assuming that I want a world police (...BLAH BLAH) Thankfully, it is one whose rulers are determined by the will of the people and not a miniscule cabal of elites or one man.
Click to expand...

So, based on Realpolitik, you accept -but you don't want- a world police. And you prefer USA as your police.
Now, that's our difference. I don't accept it. I don't want one, either we talk about USA or other "not totalitarian" governors. And I think people can do without a world police. How? That's a totally different question.

As for Ukraine for example, USA and EU supported military far right parties (NEO-NAZIS). These fascists burnt some "separatists" alive.
Read and watch below.

Victoria Nuland
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Washington, DC
December 13, 2013

"Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We’ve invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine".

So they helped Maidan, the pro-Europeans, which in Wikipedia is called Ukrainian Revolution :confused:. And Maidan was nothing more than the neo-nazis I mentioned.
The fascists that won did this one below. THEY BURNT PEOPLE ALIVE.

 
Last edited:
redwar said:
So, based on Realpolitik, you accept -but you don't want- a world police. And you prefer USA as your police.
Now, that's our difference. I don't accept it. I don't want one, either we talk about USA or other "not totalitarian" governors. And I think people can do without a world police. How? That's a totally different question.

As for Ukraine for example, USA and EU supported military far right parties (NEO-NAZIS). These fascists burnt some "separatists" alive.
Read and watch below.

Victoria Nuland
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Washington, DC
December 13, 2013

"Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We’ve invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine".

So they helped Maidan, the pro-Europeans, which in Wikipedia is called Ukrainian Revolution :confused:. And Maidan was nothing more than the neo-nazis I mentioned.
The fascists that won did this one below. THEY BURNT PEOPLE ALIVE.

Click to expand...


I do accept the notion of one country acting in a lead role "policing" the rest of the world, yes. We aren't exactly blessed with choice for actors in that lead role, but I'd probably prefer the US to anyone else.

It's of some benefit to everyone as it keeps the regional conflicts that would erupt in its absence from growing larger and causing more mayhem.
 
Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
I do accept the notion of one country acting in a lead role "policing" the rest of the world, yes. We aren't exactly blessed with choice for actors in that lead role, but I'd probably prefer the US to anyone else.

It's of some benefit to everyone as it keeps the regional conflicts that would erupt in its absence from growing larger and causing more mayhem.
Click to expand...

Well, I quoted some words and a video there, which with my little mind I translate to "USA supported fascists in a regional conflict".
You are happy with this, I 'm not. OK. Let it go. Somebody else might have to add something else in this conversation.

P.S.: You are talking about civil rights, freedom, totalitarianism, etc. but you like Bismarck's Realpolitik. He was the one to bring in laws that gave police the right to stop you, ask you questions, search you and if they found you guilty for socialist ideas they could arrest you. You really look like a guy who likes police.
 
RedChip said:
I think the difference is cultural; it is one of subtlety. China is just less obvious at wielding influence around the world than these other countries. But the influence is real all the same: if you consider the critical role economics plays in politics and elections, then you could say that China has had the greatest influence on African governments than any other major player in recent years.

By contrast, the UK has retreated from many areas where it was the great external influence.
Click to expand...
No doubt that China has huge influence on African governments but that could also be said for other continents. May be the difference is that African governments don't have the same influence on China unlike for example European governments.
 
redwar said:
Well, I quoted some words and a video there, which with my little mind I translate to "USA supported fascists in a regional conflict".
You are happy with this, I 'm not. OK. Let it go. Somebody else might have to add something else in this conversation.

P.S.: You are talking about civil rights, freedom, totalitarianism, etc. but you like Bismarck's Realpolitik. He was the one to bring in laws that gave police the right to stop you, ask you questions, search you and if they found you guilty for socialist ideas they could arrest you. You really look like a guy who likes police.
Click to expand...

He also brought in things like universal male suffrage and health care to his people. Very socialist ideas.

I like realkpolitk for its practicality in the modern era. It doesn't force me to maintain ridiculous positions because of an adherence to petty ideology.
 
European governments love what the US does. It means none of them have to do it (not that they could). That's not to say the US hasn't made some bad decisions (Vietnam), but the US' role in international affairs is absolutely welcomed by Western Europe.

I had the pleasure of taking a class at law school this semester with Philip Bobbit, a leader in national security who worked under two administrations in the White House and he had some great insight in to these topics. He's a straight shooter who worked and still works (travels to London regularly to meet with British intelligence) with European governments on national security matters and I'm going to trust him when he says that all the Western European countries need and want our role in international affairs. The US has the power to actually exert influences that and ideas which are aligned with the policies of Western Europe and then they get to be the scapegoat (like in threads like this) when the public just sees big bad meddling US sticking it's nose where they think it doesn't belong. Much of what the US does is about deterrence and the EU doesn't have the capabilities to effectively deter states like Russia and China from overstepping their bounds without US support.
 
Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
I do accept the notion of one country acting in a lead role "policing" the rest of the world, yes. We aren't exactly blessed with choice for actors in that lead role, but I'd probably prefer the US to anyone else.

It's of some benefit to everyone as it keeps the regional conflicts that would erupt in its absence from growing larger and causing more mayhem.
Click to expand...
Pretty much this.
 
Yes,
Saying whoever steps in would be worse misses the point somewhat imo.
Someone else doing a worse job doesn't make the job necessary or desirable.

Although i accept in the real world they're basically a necessary evil
 
I don't know when to use a term over an other because english is not my native language. So, peasants it is. You should think about when was the last time you heard the word "imperialism" instead of "globalization" and "world police".You should also think about what Maidan and the Ukrainian government are, after considerin why ISA and EU supported them.

barros said:
I thought communists died - disappeared when the Berlin wall was taken down but I'm wrong. I'm trying to remember when was the last time I heard the word "peasants" and I think was on one of the episodes of game of thrones.
Click to expand...
 
Funny. The adoption of isolationism in the USA was a factor in the longevity of the Holocaust. :confused:
 
Obiorahking_ said:
Funny. The adoption of isolationism in the USA was a factor in the longevity of the Holocaust. :confused:
Click to expand...

Funny. Cause 25 million Soviet people died during the war PLUS 10 million of them were incapable of working anywhere after the war. 1.500.000 Greeks and Yugoslavs also died. The same number for the big allies casualties. So, France, UK and USA "offered" as much as Greece and Yugoslavia offered.
Poland though, had 6.000.000 million deaths because of war. The same number of Jews that suffered the Holocaust.
 
redwar said:
Funny. Cause 25 million Soviet people died during the war PLUS 10 million of them were incapable of working anywhere after the war. 1.500.000 Greeks and Yugoslavs also died. The same number for the big allies casualties. So, France, UK and USA "offered" as much as Greece and Yugoslavia offered.
Poland though, had 6.000.000 million deaths because of war. The same number of Jews that suffered the Holocaust.
Click to expand...

Multiple councils sent letters to the USA asking them to bomb the concentration camps and even attached the exact locations of where they were? What did they do? Nothing.

Refugee's came here looking for protection from the eventual genocide of the Non-Aryans? What happened? they got sent right back.
 
redwar said:
Funny. Cause 25 million Soviet people died during the war PLUS 10 million of them were incapable of working anywhere after the war. 1.500.000 Greeks and Yugoslavs also died. The same number for the big allies casualties. So, France, UK and USA "offered" as much as Greece and Yugoslavia offered.
Poland though, had 6.000.000 million deaths because of war. The same number of Jews that suffered the Holocaust.
Click to expand...


So deaths are a measure of what each country offered? Took all of the allies to defeat the Nazi's, the US of course would have fewer casualties since except for Pearl Harbor and the Aleutians the war was not fought on US soil. Not realy the US's fault it was not part of Europe. Of course the Soviets were buddy, buddy with old Adolph when it allowed them to seize part of Eastern Europe, heck they even committed a massacre of 22,000 Polish soldiers in 1940, though they tried to blame it on the Nazi's.
 
redwar said:
Funny. Cause 25 million Soviet people died during the war PLUS 10 million of them were incapable of working anywhere after the war. 1.500.000 Greeks and Yugoslavs also died. The same number for the big allies casualties. So, France, UK and USA "offered" as much as Greece and Yugoslavia offered.
Poland though, had 6.000.000 million deaths because of war. The same number of Jews that suffered the Holocaust.
Click to expand...
Ummm no. The US forces were always going to suffer less losses than the USSR because they were using far more combined arms forces whereas the USSR relied more on pure manpower. There are stories from the Eastern Front of Soviet soldiers standing in queues where only the first had a rifle and the one behind waited for him to die to pick it up.

Plus the USSR was actually invaded, whereas the US and UK never were, and it didn't take long for France to surrender. Do you think the USSR would ever have bothered with the Nazis if they weren't attacked first?
 
Akshay said:
Plus the USSR was actually invaded, whereas the US and UK never were, and it didn't take long for France to surrender. Do you think the USSR would ever have bothered with the Nazis if they weren't attacked first?
Click to expand...

Of course. USSR was invaded. And that's why USSR was the one that stopped tha nazis , not the USA. We totally agree.
USA freed a few concentration camps, I think below ten, and that was after USSR was reaching near Berlin.
 
redwar said:
According to my values, human life is above everuthing. That's what countries are consisted of. Humans.
Click to expand...

So those countries you rate higher, do so because of simple geography of where the war took place? It would have been pretty impossible for the US to have 25 million casualties with none of the major fighting taking place on US soil. I really don't think you put as much thought into things as you like to pretend you do.
 
The USSR precipitated the second world war with their Non aggression pact with the Nazis.

Of course the Allies brought about the rise of Hitler by punishing the German people after the First World War instead of helping rebuild Germany which would have led to reconciliation.

What goes around.....
 
redwar said:
Of course. USSR was invaded. And that's why USSR was the one that stopped tha nazis , not the USA. We totally agree.
USA freed a few concentration camps, I think below ten, and that was after USSR was reaching near Berlin.
Click to expand...
No, we really don't agree. Both countries stopped the Nazis together, it's complete nonsense to say it was one and not the other. You really lose a lot of credibility on your other statements about the USSR vs the US when you come out with things like this.
 
redwar said:
Of course. USSR was invaded. And that's why USSR was the one that stopped tha nazis , not the USA. We totally agree.
USA freed a few concentration camps, I think below ten, and that was after USSR was reaching near Berlin.
Click to expand...


Well there is a nice over-simplification of the war for you. Of course the US in agreement with the Soviet's back off sending troops to Berlin. A quick look at where most of the concentration camps were located would be a huge signal as to why more got liberated by the Soviets then say the US (who were sharing a front with another nation as well). This is not to underplay the Soviet involvement in defeating the Germans' but again geography played it's roll in that also, the shear size of the Soviet Union meant in order to try and conquer it the vast majority of Nazi forces would have to be sent to fight there. By nature of it's size and location it became the major battle ground of the European theater of WW2.
 
Last edited:
Akshay said:
No, we really don't agree. Both countries stopped the Nazis together, it's complete nonsense to say it was one and not the other. You really lose a lot of credibility on your other statements about the USSR vs the US when you come out with things like this.
Click to expand...


he is either trolling or he might as well be.
 
Akshay said:
No, we really don't agree. Both countries stopped the Nazis together, it's complete nonsense to say it was one and not the other. You really lose a lot of credibility on your other statements about the USSR vs the US when you come out with things like this.
Click to expand...
I do think the USSR was more pivotal in the European theater of war than the US. Certainly had a bigger impact on the Nazi army than the US.

W.Churchill said:
I have left the obvious, essential fact to this point, namely, that it is the Russian Armies who have done the main work in tearing the guts out of the German army. In the air and on the oceans we could maintain our place, but there was no force in the world which could have been called into being, except after several more years, that would have been able to maul and break the German army unless it had been subjected to the terrible slaughter and manhandling that has fallen to it through the strength of the Russian Soviet Armies....


I have always believed and I still believe that it is the Red Army that has torn the guts out of the filthy Nazis.
Click to expand...
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
I do think the USSR was more pivotal in the European theater of war than the US. Certainly had a bigger impact on the Nazi army than the US.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'd even be happy to indulge in the hypothetical possibility of the Red Army defeating the Nazis had Normandy never happened. But as far as actual history goes, they both get credit.
 
Akshay said:
Yeah, I'd even be happy to indulge in the hypothetical possibility of the Red Army defeating the Nazis had Normandy never happened. But as far as actual history goes, they both get credit.
Click to expand...
Definitely, was a huge international effort. The Americans meeting the British in Africa and sweeping up through Italy. The Russians coming from the north, and the allies from the west. Essentially surrounded on three fronts. But the without the USSR, I don't think the Nazis would have been defeated. All hypothetical, but that's the conviction I've taken away after having read and studied the topic for a long time.

Also have to account for the island hopping which the Americans went through in the Pacific. Stalingrad aside, these were the bloodiest battles of the war.
 
Akshay said:
Yeah, I'd even be happy to indulge in the hypothetical possibility of the Red Army defeating the Nazis had Normandy never happened. But as far as actual history goes, they both get credit.
Click to expand...

25 fecking million people!
FFS.
Not because of less riffles than needed or because of vampires and childish lies but because Nazis invaded USSR.
No, for most Europeans, still, USSR gets the credit.
EU even invented the Day of Europ (9th May) for us nit to remember what 9th May really is.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Definitely, was a huge international effort. The Americans meeting the British in Africa and sweeping up through Italy. The Russians coming from the north, and the allies from the west. Essentially surrounded on three fronts. But the without the USSR, I don't think the Nazis would have been defeated. All hypothetical, but that's the conviction I've taken away after having read and studied the topic for a long time.
Click to expand...
Without the USSR is a difficult hypothetical since do you assume the Nazis won in the East and gained controlled over the Caucasus oil fields? In that case, an invasion of Germany would probably fail. If the Eastern Front was a stalemate though I think the Allies would still have won. And obviously, either way, the atomic bomb would have kicked in at some point.
 
Akshay said:
Without the USSR is a difficult hypothetical since do you assume the Nazis won in the East and gained controlled over the Caucasus oil fields? In that case, an invasion of Germany would probably fail. If the Eastern Front was a stalemate though I think the Allies would still have won. And obviously, either way, the atomic bomb would have kicked in at some point.
Click to expand...
Well, that's the thing. If the Nazis win in the East, Britain more than likely seeks peace terms, and the US never gets involved.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Well, that's the thing. If the Nazis win in the East, Britain more than likely seeks peace terms, and the US never gets involved.
Click to expand...

Nazis would have continued on to India do you reckon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.