Is Old Europe Really This Impotent?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
My idea is to sign a non-aggression pact with Russia. Whatever happens in Europe would remain between the Russians and the Europeans, for example. No matter who starts what, or who’s winning or losing, we’d remain on the outside militarily. We’d even refrain from economic sanctions against Russia.[/quote]

Unfortunatly, as long as we refuse to explore our own oil reserves, we have a vested interest in what happens in the region.

Also, if were to go to war with someone, we would need allies if only for military outposts.

The other problem with isolationism is not protecting american investments abroad. Sanctions and tarrifs could always be used in retaliation to attacks on American interests but carry little weight without allies.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Sloth wrote:
My idea is to sign a non-aggression pact with Russia. Whatever happens in Europe would remain between the Russians and the Europeans, for example. No matter who starts what, or who’s winning or losing, we’d remain on the outside militarily. We’d even refrain from economic sanctions against Russia.

Unfortunatly, as long as we refuse to explore our own oil reserves, we have a vested interest in what happens in the region.

Also, if were to go to war with someone, we would need allies if only for military outposts.

The other problem with isolationism is not protecting american investments abroad. Sanctions and tarrifs could always be used in retaliation to attacks on American interests but carry little weight without allies.[/quote]

That’s perfectly true.

But you can understand how that line of thinking is pissing off a lot people.

[quote]lixy wrote:

That’s perfectly true.

But you can understand how that line of thinking is pissing off a lot people.[/quote]

I don’t understand why it would. What we negotiate with other countries is noone else business.

If other nations or international companies enter into agreements with America or American countries, they should be held to those agreements.

I am sure there are pleny of thing I would not have our country do internationally but don’t know exactly what your speaking of. Can you specify what exactly pisses you off?

[quote]dhickey wrote:
lixy wrote:

That’s perfectly true.

But you can understand how that line of thinking is pissing off a lot people.

I don’t understand why it would. What we negotiate with other countries is noone else business.

If other nations or international companies enter into agreements with America or American countries, they should be held to those agreements.[/quote]

Agreements are good. The use or the threat of violence are another story.

The idea that you can invoke your “vested interests” and “investments abroad” to get a pass for bullying people around. It’s reminiscent of imperialism.

[quote]dhickey wrote:

Unfortunatly, as long as we refuse to explore our own oil reserves, we have a vested interest in what happens in the region.[/quote]

Which is why we need articulate leadership to make the case for nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, gas, coal, and domestic oil…basically, build/dig/drill whatever it is we need. Perhaps, our tax dollars would be best served subsidizing our energy independence (as much as I hate subsidies). After all, what’s the cost in tax dollars for making the world safe for foreign oil?

Seems like our allies get us involved in their wars, with little return for our efforts. Well, we do get Euro-scorn, I suppose. For a good many of them we’re the instigators and the greater threat to peace. So, I say let them police their continent, and shore up their own armies.

[quote]
The other problem with isolationism is not protecting american investments abroad. Sanctions and tarrifs could always be used in retaliation to attacks on American interests but carry little weight without allies.[/quote]

Well, any nation grabbing our investments should be barred from doing business in our own country. Though, that does go back to having a great deal of independence in vital sectors, such as energy.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Which is why we need articulate leadership to make the case for nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, gas, coal, and domestic oil…basically, build/dig/drill whatever it is we need. Perhaps, our tax dollars would be best served subsidizing our energy independence (as much as I hate subsidies). After all, what’s the cost in tax dollars for making the world safe for foreign oil?
[/quote]

We don’t even need subsidies. They just have to take the shackles off. When they try to subsidize we end up with boondoggles that set us back even further. Think ethenol.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Which is why we need articulate leadership to make the case for nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, gas, coal, and domestic oil…basically, build/dig/drill whatever it is we need. Perhaps, our tax dollars would be best served subsidizing our energy independence (as much as I hate subsidies). After all, what’s the cost in tax dollars for making the world safe for foreign oil?

We don’t even need subsidies. They just have to take the shackles off. When they try to subsidize we end up with boondoggles that set us back even further. Think ethenol.
[/quote]

Oh, I agree. But, if I had to pick betwwen subsidizing energy independence, or the defense of Georgia, SA, and Kuwait…

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
tg2hbk4488 wrote:
Austro-HUNGARIAN empire which was more in Eastern than Western Europe

Do you actually have maps in America?

More evidence that this self-proclaimed expert on all things American has never even set foot on US soil.

Surely your in-depth internet studies have addressed your question, Mr. I. M. Thesmartest?[/quote]

Surely in your studies you have encountered the concept of a rhetorical question?

That I have never set foot on US soil is pure speculation on your part.

[quote]orion wrote:
Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
tg2hbk4488 wrote:
Austro-HUNGARIAN empire which was more in Eastern than Western Europe

Do you actually have maps in America?

More evidence that this self-proclaimed expert on all things American has never even set foot on US soil.

Surely your in-depth internet studies have addressed your question, Mr. I. M. Thesmartest?

Surely in your studies you have encountered the concept of a rhetorical question?

That I have never set foot on US soil is pure speculation on your part.

[/quote]

Rhetorical?

Blowback From Bear-Baiting
Pat Buchanan

Mikheil Saakashvili’s decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia’s invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser’s decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.
Nasser’s blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili’s blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili’s army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.
Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.
Reveling in his status as an intimate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain, and America’s lone democratic ally in the Caucasus, Saakashvili thought he could get away with a lightning coup and present the world with a fait accompli.
Mikheil did not reckon on the rage or resolve of the Bear.
American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight �?? Russia finished it. People who start wars don’t get to decide how and when they end.
Russia’s response was “disproportionate” and “brutal,” wailed Bush.
True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more “disproportionate”?
Russia has invaded a sovereign country, railed Bush. But did not the United States bomb Serbia for 78 days and invade to force it to surrender a province, Kosovo, to which Serbia had a far greater historic claim than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer Moscow to Tbilisi?
Is not Western hypocrisy astonishing?
When the Soviet Union broke into 15 nations, we celebrated. When Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Kosovo broke from Serbia, we rejoiced. Why, then, the indignation when two provinces, whose peoples are ethnically separate from Georgians and who fought for their independence, should succeed in breaking away?
Are secessions and the dissolution of nations laudable only when they advance the agenda of the neocons, many of who viscerally detest Russia?
That Putin took the occasion of Saakashvili’s provocative and stupid stunt to administer an extra dose of punishment is undeniable.

But is not Russian anger understandable? For years the West has rubbed Russia’s nose in her Cold War defeat and treated her like Weimar Germany.
When Moscow pulled the Red Army out of Europe, closed its bases in Cuba, dissolved the evil empire, let the Soviet Union break up into 15 states, and sought friendship and alliance with the United States, what did we do?
American carpetbaggers colluded with Muscovite Scalawags to loot the Russian nation. Breaking a pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, we moved our military alliance into Eastern Europe, then onto Russia’s doorstep. Six Warsaw Pact nations and three former republics of the Soviet Union are now NATO members.
Bush, Cheney and McCain have pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This would require the United States to go to war with Russia over Stalin’s birthplace and who has sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and Sebastopol, traditional home of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.
When did these become U.S. vital interests, justifying war with Russia?
The United States unilaterally abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty because our technology was superior, then planned to site anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend against Iranian missiles, though Iran has no ICBMs and no atomic bombs. A Russian counter-offer to have us together put an anti-missile system in Azerbaijan was rejected out of hand.
We built a Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey to cut Russia out. Then we helped dump over regimes friendly to Moscow with democratic “revolutions” in Ukraine and Georgia, and tried to repeat it in Belarus.
Americans have many fine qualities. A capacity to see ourselves as others see us is not high among them.
Imagine a world that never knew Ronald Reagan, where Europe had opted out of the Cold War after Moscow installed those SS-20 missiles east of the Elbe. And Europe had abandoned NATO, told us to go home and become subservient to Moscow.
How would we have reacted if Moscow had brought Western Europe into the Warsaw Pact, established bases in Mexico and Panama, put missile defense radars and rockets in Cuba, and joined with China to build pipelines to transfer Mexican and Venezuelan oil to Pacific ports for shipment to Asia? And cut us out? If there were Russian and Chinese advisers training Latin American armies, the way we are in the former Soviet republics, how would we react? Would we look with bemusement on such Russian behavior?
For a decade, some of us have warned about the folly of getting into Russia’s space and getting into Russia’s face. The chickens of democratic imperialism have now come home to roost �?? in Tbilisi.

Since when is it our job to guard the rest of the world? Or, more accurately, prevent other countries from dealing with their circumstances.

[/quote]

Oh … since about 1900 …

[quote]Spetz wrote:
Blowback From Bear-Baiting
Pat Buchanan

Mikheil Saakashvili’s decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia’s invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser’s decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.

Nasser’s blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili’s blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili’s army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.

Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.

Reveling in his status as an intimate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain, and America’s lone democratic ally in the Caucasus, Saakashvili thought he could get away with a lightning coup and present the world with a fait accompli.

Mikheil did not reckon on the rage or resolve of the Bear.

American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight �?? Russia finished it. People who start wars don’t get to decide how and when they end.

Russia’s response was “disproportionate” and “brutal,” wailed Bush.
True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more “disproportionate”?

Russia has invaded a sovereign country, railed Bush. But did not the United States bomb Serbia for 78 days and invade to force it to surrender a province, Kosovo, to which Serbia had a far greater historic claim than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer Moscow to Tbilisi?

Is not Western hypocrisy astonishing?
When the Soviet Union broke into 15 nations, we celebrated. When Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Kosovo broke from Serbia, we rejoiced.

Why, then, the indignation when two provinces, whose peoples are ethnically separate from Georgians and who fought for their independence, should succeed in breaking away?

Are secessions and the dissolution of nations laudable only when they advance the agenda of the neocons, many of who viscerally detest Russia?

That Putin took the occasion of Saakashvili’s provocative and stupid stunt to administer an extra dose of punishment is undeniable.

But is not Russian anger understandable? For years the West has rubbed Russia’s nose in her Cold War defeat and treated her like Weimar Germany.

When Moscow pulled the Red Army out of Europe, closed its bases in Cuba, dissolved the evil empire, let the Soviet Union break up into 15 states, and sought friendship and alliance with the United States, what did we do?

American carpetbaggers colluded with Muscovite Scalawags to loot the Russian nation. Breaking a pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, we moved our military alliance into Eastern Europe, then onto Russia’s doorstep. Six Warsaw Pact nations and three former republics of the Soviet Union are now NATO members.

Bush, Cheney and McCain have pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This would require the United States to go to war with Russia over Stalin’s birthplace and who has sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and Sebastopol, traditional home of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.

When did these become U.S. vital interests, justifying war with Russia?

The United States unilaterally abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty because our technology was superior, then planned to site anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend against Iranian missiles, though Iran has no ICBMs and no atomic bombs.

A Russian counter-offer to have us together put an anti-missile system in Azerbaijan was rejected out of hand.

We built a Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey to cut Russia out. Then we helped dump over regimes friendly to Moscow with emocratic “revolutions” in Ukraine and Georgia, and tried to repeat it in Belarus. Americans have many fine qualities. A capacity to see ourselves as others see us is not high among them.

Imagine a world that never knew Ronald Reagan, where Europe had opted out of the Cold War after Moscow installed those SS-20 missiles east of the Elbe. And Europe had abandoned NATO, told us to go home and become subservient to Moscow.

How would we have reacted if Moscow had brought Western Europe into the Warsaw Pact, established bases in Mexico and Panama, put missile defense radars and rockets in Cuba, and joined with China to build pipelines to transfer Mexican and Venezuelan oil to Pacific ports for shipment to Asia?

And cut us out? If there were Russian and Chinese advisers training Latin American armies, the way we are in the former Soviet republics, how would we react? Would we look with bemusement on such Russian behavior?
For a decade, some of us have warned about the folly of getting into Russia’s space and getting into Russia’s face.

The chickens of democratic imperialism have now come home to roost �?? in Tbilisi.[/quote]

Oh good God not Pat.

The same man who’s been arguing for the last few months that WWII was Churchill’s fault and that if the British had just thrown a few more countries under the bus Hitler would have had his fill and then satisfied himself with making sure the Nazi trains were running on time (Oh … and free of Jews).

Hey, if we can just run fast enough and far enough, maybe the Russians will leave us alone?

[quote]flyboy51v wrote:

Since when is it our job to guard the rest of the world? Or, more accurately, prevent other countries from dealing with their circumstances.

Oh … since about 1900 …[/quote]

Seems like a disloyal use of tax payer money.

[quote]flyboy51v wrote:

Oh good God not Pat.

The same man who’s been arguing for the last few months that WWII was Churchill’s fault and that if the British had just thrown a few more countries under the bus Hitler would have had his fill and then satisfied himself with making sure the Nazi trains were running on time (Oh … and free of Jews).

Hey, if we can just run fast enough and far enough, maybe the Russians will leave us alone?

[/quote]

C’mon, don’t twist things and play a victim. Pat has some valid points. Just because he has some strange opinion of an other subject, does not mean that he is now always wrong. (this sort of a fallacy is called ad-hominem attack)

I have no idea where the fixation/paranoia that Russia is after the US is coming from. I don’t see any Russian bases on the American continent. Nor do I see Russians instigating anyone to build a missile shield. But America’s meddling in every single affair in the old world is quite worry some.

Likewise, it was C.Rice saying that : its unfair that Russia has such an enormous amount of natural resources - basically hinting that US is entitled to it. I bet, if any nation would say the same about the US , there would be nukes flying.

Yeah, to be honest I’m inclined to mostly agree with Pat on this subject, even though he is faaaar from someone I would ever want to talk about mostly. Too much political baggage and wackiness.

However, here he makes a lot of good points.

[quote]Spetz wrote:
flyboy51v wrote:

Oh good God not Pat.

The same man who’s been arguing for the last few months that WWII was Churchill’s fault and that if the British had just thrown a few more countries under the bus Hitler would have had his fill and then satisfied himself with making sure the Nazi trains were running on time (Oh … and free of Jews).

Hey, if we can just run fast enough and far enough, maybe the Russians will leave us alone?

C’mon, don’t twist things and play a victim. Pat has some valid points. Just because he has some strange opinion of an other subject, does not mean that he is now always wrong. (this sort of a fallacy is called ad-hominem attack)

I have no idea where the fixation/paranoia that Russia is after the US is coming from. I don’t see any Russian bases on the American continent. Nor do I see Russians instigating anyone to build a missile shield. But America’s meddling in every single affair in the old world is quite worry some.

Likewise, it was C.Rice saying that : its unfair that Russia has such an enormous amount of natural resources - basically hinting that US is entitled to it. I bet, if any nation would say the same about the US , there would be nukes flying.

[/quote]

An ad hominem attack means “to the man” which would be attacking him personally as opposed to his opinions. I think Pat’s awesome personally. The guy is smart and funny every time I hear him interviewed. But he’s nevertheless off his rocker.

He’s an isolationist and a protectionist. He’s been pushing both agendas for a long time now and lately rather than just saying we should be protectionist and isolationist now (which hasn’t gained him much support) he’s gone back and started his own revisionist history claiming that we should have been isolationist in the thirties and all would have been swell. His argument about Nazi aggression and Iraqi aggression, and now Russian aggression is all the same argument. Leave them alone, they’ll get tired of eating the little countries and we’ll be fine behind our oceans.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:

That I have never set foot on US soil is pure speculation on your part.

Not entirely.

I asked you point blank if you’d ever been to the US, and you didn’t have the balls (integrity?) to answer. Need I find that thread for you?

It’s not speculation so much as a judgement based on the info you provided – or DIDN’T provide, more accurately.

Want another chance? Have you been to the US, or is all your “knowledge” from Professor Internet? If you have been there, for how long, and when?

The basic question stands: Do you have any practical experience living in the US, or are you just a keyboard know-it-all?

[/quote]

Tsk, tsk, tsk,…

You go from “having set foot on US soil”, which I undoubtedly have, if only because I lived 300 meters from the US embassy before they turned it into a ridiculous fortress, to having visited the US to “having experience living in the US”?

What is next, do I need to have a wife and children in the US?

Not that my original reply to that does not still stand.

So you have lived in the US.

That means you know 0,0000000001% or so of its territory by personal experience and the rest you know from the media.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:

That I have never set foot on US soil is pure speculation on your part.

Not entirely.

I asked you point blank if you’d ever been to the US, and you didn’t have the balls (integrity?) to answer. Need I find that thread for you?

It’s not speculation so much as a judgement based on the info you provided – or DIDN’T provide, more accurately.

Want another chance? Have you been to the US, or is all your “knowledge” from Professor Internet? If you have been there, for how long, and when?

The basic question stands: Do you have any practical experience living in the US, or are you just a keyboard know-it-all? [/quote]

Can I ask what this question has to do with Orion’s reply to tg2hbk4488?