Ukraine Protests

Status
Not open for further replies.
#5,752
#5,752
SergeantVol said:
Dependency on international trade prompts international military involvement.
Click to expand...

You're opening up another can of worms in regards to international trade. We have not been using our military recently as a way to protect free trade. We've used it as a way to get an advantage (unfair trade) or topple those that don't meet our demands. And if we don't use the barrel of the gun to push our weight around, we use sanctions and embargos to do the dirty work.
 
#5,753
#5,753
Smedley Butler on Interventionism

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
Click to expand...
 
#5,754
#5,754
Rasputin_Vol said:
You're opening up another can of worms in regards to international trade. We have not been using our military recently as a way to protect free trade. We've used it as a way to get an advantage (unfair trade) or topple those that don't meet our demands. And if we don't use the barrel of the gun to push our weight around, we use sanctions and embargos to do the dirty work.
Click to expand...

our navy would disagree with this strongly. there is a reason we keep a fleet or two active in the Indian Ocean.
 
#5,755
#5,755
Rasputin_Vol said:
Smedley Butler on Interventionism
Click to expand...

the problem with the wait and see approach to defense now-a-days is that the first strike is key. Consider your plan the Prevent Defense. Since WWII the first strike, the attack has been key. The Blitz, Shock and Awe, depend on a quick hit. and see how long your plan lasts after we get hit. The public opinion states that we don't like getting hit and that it is worth almost any cost, literally $$$$, to avoid being attacked.
 
#5,757
#5,757
I may have missed it but, any truth to the deal between Russia and turkey over natural gas? If so its a big blow to the U.S.
 
#5,759
#5,759
Obsessed said:
I may have missed it but, any truth to the deal between Russia and turkey over natural gas? If so its a big blow to the U.S.
Click to expand...

They're planning on building a pipeline through Turkey rather than Ukraine. The implication is much more important in Europe than to America.
 
#5,760
#5,760
Velo Vol said:
They're planning on building a pipeline through Turkey rather than Ukraine. The implication is much more important in Europe than to America.
Click to expand...

which is kinda funny considering their hate against the evil of NATO and all things American. Instead of building the pipeline in Ukraine giving them a common cause to help heal wounds (real or imagined) they instead go to the 'enemy of the free world: NATO' instead. if it is Russia offering an olive branch to NATO I would love it but I feel this is more of a rebuttal against Ukraine than anything.
 
#5,762
#5,762
Since America has been trying to divide Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union, and has renewed its attempts with vigor given the opportunity presented by the Ukraine crisis, according to Putin and the Russian Foreign Ministry, how many parts would you guys like to see it split into?

I think a northern Caucasus nation would be in order; maybe even two or three. Certainly all of the republics would go, particularly Bashkortostan and Tatarstan. The Chuvash may stay with Russia proper though (since all Russian Orthodox), which would probably take up the rest of the Russian Federation west of the Urals. Siberia would be the wild card. It would either stay with Russia or break into a few ethnic republics, like the Tuva or Yakutia.

So, I'd say we could probably split it into somewhere between 4 to 10 nations. Would be much more manageable then. The key, however, would be preventing Russia proper to forge defense alliances with the breakaways, particularly in the East. Because, my fine American friends, it's in the East that we can come in and take over. Exploit all those natural resources.

What say ye, fellow American expansionists? How would you confirm Putin's drivel?
 
#5,766
#5,766
LouderVol said:
if we are playing the what if game, I am going all the way. break Russia down to city-states
Click to expand...

Damn, man. You don't play around. You want to cut out the military threat all together, huh?

I guess I'd say just as long as we take at least half of Siberia, I'd be good. We could then implement a Stalinist policy of having the natives deported and importing Americans. Although it would be hard to convince Americans to move there. I'd volunteer at least.
 
#5,767
#5,767
volprof said:
Damn, man. You don't play around. You want to cut out the military threat all together, huh?

I guess I'd say just as long as we take at least half of Siberia, I'd be good. We could then implement a Stalinist policy of having the natives deported and importing Americans. Although it would be hard to convince Americans to move there. I'd volunteer at least.
Click to expand...

I play to win baby. :)


i know they get a good bit of their resources from the area but is it enough to really mean anything? (maybe it cuts off their claim to artic oil)

I would settle for getting rid of all nukes, so that any warfare would be conventional. that way nations can actually work out there problems instead of throwing words around impotently.
 
#5,768
#5,768
LouderVol said:
I play to win baby. :)


i know they get a good bit of their resources from the area but is it enough to really mean anything? (maybe it cuts off their claim to artic oil)

I would settle for getting rid of all nukes, so that any warfare would be conventional. that way nations can actually work out there problems instead of throwing words around impotently.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think nuclear deterrence has kept us from a third world war. And still keeps us from major conventional wars even today.

The only problem is that, at some point, someone is going to slip up with one. The question will then be whether or not that proves more deadly than the conventional wars that would have taken place in the deterrent's absence. Of course nuclear winter would be, but it's unlikely any one side would ever go that far, even in the event of a nuclear exchange.
 
#5,769
#5,769
volprof said:
Don't play coy with us, Velo. You know you'd love a summer home on Lake Baikal.
Click to expand...

You sure don't want to try to start building an empire in Irkutsk, I know that much.

asia.jpg
 
#5,773
#5,773
volprof said:
I disagree. I think nuclear deterrence has kept us from a third world war. And still keeps us from major conventional wars even today.

The only problem is that, at some point, someone is going to slip up with one. The question will then be whether or not that proves more deadly than the conventional wars that would have taken place in the deterrent's absence. Of course nuclear winter would be, but it's unlikely any one side would ever go that far, even in the event of a nuclear exchange.
Click to expand...

my point was is that geo-political issues aren't getting resolved because of the threat of nukes. If countries could go to war without the threat of nuclear deterrence I believe the world would be a lot better in the long run. Basically I see war as a pressure release valve for nations. In this analogy nukes have sealed off the pressure release valve and so the pressure is growing inside the world. so while there will be fewer wars they would be worse than if they happened more often. Especially with nuclear war being the ultimate failure of this water heater in the analogy. the nuclear war being possible because other wars were not allowed.
 
New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top