SO, what exactly is the difference between Neville Chamberlain's leftist pacifist...

Warmongers and propagandist unite!

quote:

---

placation of an evil dictator hell bent on overthrowing democratic countries and our right-winged politician commentary that is placating Putin's desire to overthrow a democratic country? Seems like many right-winger's are looking to join the leftist Chamberlain on the bench of fool-hardy isolationism in the face of evil. Wonder what Churchill would think of the tea-party wing of the GOP that appears to be gaining in isolationistic popularity on this board and with the mainstream GOP leadership as well.

---

What intervention has the US had any positive impact in since WWII?

What's the ratio of positive foreign engagements since WWII vs negative ones?

Maybe Victoria Nuland shouldn't have run a coup there in 2014 or Ukraine could have honored Minsk II (that Merkel and Hollande now admit was all bogus) and we wouldn't be in this situation.

quote:

---

What intervention has theUS had any positive impact in since WW2

---

Berlin airlift 1948 saved the city and probably West Germany.
Korea in 1950 saved South Korea from communism.
Vietnam arguably resulted in no other Southeast Asian countries become communist.
Central and South America in the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s saved various countries from communism after the rise of Castro.
Liberated Kuwait in the 1990s
Defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan in the early 2000s.

If Ukraine hadn't given up their nuclear weapons, Putin wouldn't have invaded.

quote:

---

Why are you here? Shouldn't you be in the Ukraine?

---

Nope...too old for that shite. I truly think that right and left should be backing Ukraine v. putin. Dude is outright killing civilians indiscriminately and trying overthrow a duly elected government. WTF is wrong with us? This should be a no brainer...regardless of political affiliation. What Russia is doing is awful.

Uh oh... someone left the door open at the cult OT thread

You equate the desire to take care of Americans first with love of Putin.

Chamberlain didn't know the actual capabilities of the Wehrmacht but knew of the Royal Army and RAF's capabilities. The British and French felt they weren't ready in 1938 but had been gearing up at that time. They still believed another world war would be similar to the first with static fronts and wanted to avoid a repeat of that.

Not to excuse Chamberlain though. In 1938 the Wehrmacht wasn't as potent as it was in 1940 during the invasion of France. The Allies could have stopped Nazi Germany if there was an invasion of Czechoslovakia. France had a pretty sizable standing army and even their armor was certainly better than the Panzers the Germans had in 1938.

Fast forward to today where we know this can escalate to a nuclear war nobody is going to win. What we don't know is what it will take for Russia to launch and I'm sure nobody wants to find that out. However, we do know US involvement, being another nuclear power, does nothing more but escalates that.

quote:

---

England had a genuine fear of being invaded. So pacifism was a bad move.
Do you think America is gonna be invaded by Russia?

---

Nope...but the American right has,for a very long time, correctly bemoaned Chamberlain's lack of spine for letting Germany plow through Europe before it cast its eyes on the UK. Dude signed a deal with the devil to ensure Britain's safety...which clearly was a weak and pathetic move. At least we supported our European allies before Dec 7 drew us directly into the fray...that's kind of what we're doing now.