We’ve had an on again/off again relationship with appeasement (and the consequences of that) since our birth as a nation. It’s usually related to the ideology of who is in power.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Europe under extreme duress
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
We’ve had an on again/off again relationship with appeasement (and the consequences of that) since our birth as a nation. It’s usually related to the ideology of who is in power.
You could have stopped here . . . . . ?
So you can predict the entire course of a war with China? You really believe that? Of course you vant.. nobody can. It's ludicrous.
Russia can't even take Ukraine, let alone all of Europe. Especially if they knew they had to provide for their own defense. Likewise, Iran could not even come close to taking over the ME, and China wouldn't try to take over Asia. This is all so far fetched.
What does this have to do with what I said? Of course the world as we know it relies on global trade. If China chooses to attack Taiwan, that's a big hit to the current global trade paradigm, but that happens regardless of if we choose all out war with China over it. I never said we shouldn't protect our trade routes from pirates or do away with global trade, so I'm confused. I said we should stop with the idea that if anyone attacks anyone else in the world then the US is going to commit it's treasure and blood to protecting the country we favor. Frankly, it just doesn't affect American taxpayers much if Ukraine wins or loses. It affects Europeans far more. Let them carry the brunt of that burden. Likewise with Taiwan and China, or Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam or... You see where I'm going? I used to think those wars made sense. I no longer do.
Last edited:
? I specifically said that I cannot predict how the fighting would go. My main points were just we'd notice if the Chinese were preparing to launch an attack, and if they were attacking our ships, I find it hard to believe they'd want to go nuclear if we attacked their bases in response.
In the short-term no, but longer-term the Russkies will rebuild and try again. Why do you find it hard to believe China can't take control of the Asia-Pacific region with no U.S. presence and Iran the Middle East (or wreak a lot of havoc in attempting to)?
They might not want to go nuclear right away. But my point is that we can't predict how the war could progress and escalate from there, and thinking it definitely won't end in a nuclear exchange is just feeding your hubris.
If the Russians rebuild and try again, the rest of Europe, which dwarfs Russia in every economic metric, will be able to handle its own affairs. As for China, their power in the region would expand, sure. So what? It wouldn't be able to expand uncontrolled, as they have plenty of neighbors who are more than capable of checking China. More so if they feel a need to without the US having our fingers in their pie as well. Likewise with Iran. Their neighbors are more than capable of handling themselves. If Iran takes a chunk of Iraq, how does that destroy the American way of life or global trade more than we would benefit by keeping our wealth for ourselves and educating our populace to the highest standards?
Since the end of the Cold War there have been plenty of conflicts, cross border attacks, and wars of independence where the US had an interest in the outcome and did not intervened. Certainly, there were some where military intervention has been minimal and mostly unknown to Americans.
It already has impacted the American taxpayer.
Import/Export ratios and increased prices across the board. It a laborious process to understand but a quick study in macroeconomics would help you understand the impacts. There is a true butterfly effect from global trade that impacts Americans. A quick sample is a conflict that results in an increase in energy prices to US trade partners = increased import prices to Americans due accelerated manufacturing cost and decreased American trade exports due to increased transportation costs…. and that is just 1 commodity.
Further, Western credibility amongst countries who wish to adopt classical liberal ideology (Human rights, independent judiciary, free trade, freedom of speech, etc) is at stake and a lack of support and commitment will erode the current system. Who would want to participate in such a philosophy if the current members are unwilling to provide something as basic as collective security?
We can debate the type of support and at what magnitude (Europe vs America) but ultimately it is in our interest to deter/defeat nations who actively seek to eliminate others from western reform. There are credible arguments to make over our allies stepping up their game in collective security. Anything else is tantamount to appeasement to known adversaries like the current governments of Russia and China.
"Appeasement only makes the aggressor more aggressive."
Seems to be Belarusian irregulars. Things that make you go “hmm.”
Uh huh, sure....
Is how France is responding to the war in Ukraine (doing virtually nothing) appeasement? What about Spain? Italy? Basically every Euro country save a few? Why does every country that is actually threatened by Russia get a pass and get to do nothing, but if we do it then it's a horrible thing? It should be the exact opposite. It's their back yard, not ours. This isn't 1950 any more. Europe is rebuilt. They don't need us. Japan doesn't need us. Australia doesn't need us. Israel doesn't need us.
Our kids need us. Our infrastructure needs us. Our debt burden needs us.
You’re right. We should abandon our allies and let Putin run roughshod over Europe because it isn’t ‘Murica.
That isolationism sure worked out well for us the last few times we tried it.