Oh ****!

#51
#51
BigPapaVol said:
It's almost like you don't know he mowed over a neighbor and threatened to take over the most oil rich country in the world.
Click to expand...

In your opinion did we really invade because he mowed over his neighbor or was that just a nice little pr piece to invade because he took his oil of the us dollar?

I personally think it was many things but the food in exchange program was the death nail.
 
#52
#52
JayVols said:
Are all the deaths suffered by Germany in WWII the result of Hitler's actions or are they the Allies' fault for not letting him have what he wanted? We MUST have some semblance of law and order in the world. You are taking the libertarian view to anarchic levels. Your logic is grossly flawed in this case.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Ummmm...interestingly the allies were sanctioning Germany which created more economic woes, and Hitler was able to rise to power. Sanctions do no good. It's like Bastiat said, "when goods do not cross borders, armies surely will."

And I'm more of an anarchist than I am a libertarian, to tell the truth. Government inevitably grows and becomes tyrannical. Before anybody jumps all over me for the absurdity of anarchy, you should read some anarcho literature. Machinery of Freedom lays the groundwork for a modern society with no government. You still have order because people protect themselves with private security and private arbitration.
 
Last edited:
#53
#53
nbakerld said:
Ummmm...interestingly the allies were sanctioning Germany which created more economic woes, and Hitler was able to rise to power. Sanctions do no good. It's like Bastiat said, "when goods do not cross borders, armies surely will."
Click to expand...

So you give Hitler a pass on 60 million total deaths and place the blame on the allies. Check. Maybe we should open war crimes tribunals for the allied leaders posthumously.

Can't let petty stuff like law and respect for life stand in the way of the almighty trade dollar.


You are waaay too far out there for me.
That is complete absurdity.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#54
#54
JayVols said:
So you give Hitler a pass on 60 million total deaths and place the blame on the allies. Check. Maybe we should open war crimes tribunals for the allied leaders posthumously.

Can't let petty stuff like law and respect for life stand in the way of the almighty trade dollar.


You are waaay too far out there for me.
That is complete absurdity.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

You don't get what I'm saying. Hitler is to blame for murder he committed and ordered.

The whole point of this thread is that sanctions are the worst foreign policy ever. Nobody wins. It's a lose/lose:

- Sanctioning nation loses out on trade
- The sanctioned nation loses out on trade, but it's usually more devastating and disproportionately hurts poorer classes
- The party in power in sanctioned nation does not see power diminished. Castro died still in power, of old age.
- Almost with certainty the sanctioning nation makes an enemy or a stronger enemy of the sanctioned nation

My point about Hitler is that he rose to power with the help of economic sanctions. Germans were so hard up they put their trust in a man they didn't understand. The Allies are at fault for sanctioning Germany. It was a horrible policy.

Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor after our sanctions made their war campaign very difficult (rubber). I'm not saying we deserved it. All I'm saying is that we don't get attacked if we practice free trade with everyone.

Sanctions against Iraq ensured that we would return to fight another day.

There is nothing good about sanctions.

A 1997 study by the Institute for International Economics found that since 1970, unilateral U.S. sanctions had achieved foreign policy goals only 13 percent of the time. The study also concluded that sanctions are costing the United States $15 billion to $19 billion annually in potential exports.
Click to expand...

CorpWatch*:*US: History of U.S. sanctions shows most haven't worked
 
Last edited:
#55
#55
Agree. The germans were so far up the creek economically, they turned to a man they didn't fully understand.
 
#56
#56
From my seats, it looks like we are going to get a regime change in Libya, and it was done for a cost in blood and treasure not even in the same ballpark as Iraq.
 
#57
#57
Speaking of sanctions, it just got a little tighter U.S. tightens sanctions on Syria - Washington Times

Wonder if this is true? “It is strange that instead of offering [Damascus] a helping hand to implement its program of reforms, the West and Obama are seeking to stoke more violence in Syria,” Reem Haddad, the Syrian Information Ministry’s director of external relations, told Agence France-Presse.
 
#59
#59
nbakerld said:
But what about potential blowback?
Click to expand...

I understand you, as well as others, have a vested interest in not acknowledging anything good that happens under Obama's watch. That's fine, and I dont' expect you to admit your bias.

But lets be honest, blowback? Really? Have you kept up with the last 8 years in Iraq? Or the bombings by Al Quaeda because of US soldiers on Saudi soil?

WMDs were a farce, no reasonable person denies that. But I also understand Saddam needed to be dealt with. There were legit reasons for going after him. It is the same situation with Quadaffi. There is simply no way one can defend a single dollar being spent...life lost, political fallout...on the Iraq invasion, then at the same time question the way we have handled ourselves in Libya...not with money spent, lives lost, potential blowback, or anything else you want to reach for. It simply doesn't make sense.

Bottomline, is it looks like we are going to achieve the same result in Libya, but with far fewer costs than that of Iraq, even including more blowback than in Iraq if it happens.
 
#60
#60
rjd970 said:
I understand you, as well as others, have a vested interest in not acknowledging anything good that happens under Obama's watch. That's fine, and I dont' expect you to admit your bias.

But lets be honest, blowback? Really? Have you kept up with the last 8 years in Iraq? Or the bombings by Al Quaeda because of US soldiers on Saudi soil?

WMDs were a farce, no reasonable person denies that. But I also understand Saddam needed to be dealt with. There were legit reasons for going after him. It is the same situation with Quadaffi. There is simply no way one can defend a single dollar being spent...life lost, political fallout...on the Iraq invasion, then at the same time question the way we have handled ourselves in Libya...not with money spent, lives lost, potential blowback, or anything else you want to reach for. It simply doesn't make sense.

Bottomline, is it looks like we are going to achieve the same result in Libya, but with far fewer costs than that of Iraq, even including more blowback than in Iraq if it happens.
Click to expand...

absolute bs, sop for the country since its founding has been take what u want and by force if necessary to limit it to w and oreo is silly
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#63
#63
Lets look at this in an over simplistic view.

Iraq: Regime Change
Libya: Regime Change

First happened, second is about to. Compare the two with regard to US involvement and cost.

Which was the better outcome?
 
#64
#64
take the southeast from the indians, take mexico, take cuba and pacific islands, panama canal...etc.......no need for the intellectual high horse....standard operating procefure.....some work out quicker than others
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top