Spain's $680 Million submarine can only dive, not resurface

[Syt]

We certainly look at democracy and liberty elsewhere in an approving fashion and will provide political consultants or institutional help or aid or whatever, but not soldiers. Conflict between African states? Send some humanitarian aid. Conflict between Arabs and Iran? Let's try to sell them weapons. Conflict in East Asia? Maybe we can sell them weapons as well? Conflict in the Americas? Monroe Doctrine.

You have a good point there. My impression is that there's a certain smugness in Germany when it comes to war. "We don't do that anymore, we've grown out of that stage. America fights wars? How uncouth!"

[Caliga]

"We don't do that anymore, we've grown out of that stage.

[alfred russel]

What Berkut seems to ignore is that the lack of interest in getting involved in a theoretical invasion of the Ukraine is that western European pacificism isn't a function of a lack of power—it is more about aversion to war. I would hope that the US would also skip such a war—who wants to go to war with Russia unless it is absolutely necessary? Is the Ukraine worth 100s of thousands killed and potential escalation into nuclear war?

[Barrister]

What Berkut seems to ignore is that the lack of interest in getting involved in a theoretical invasion of the Ukraine is that western European pacificism isn't a function of a lack of power—it is more about aversion to war. I would hope that the US would also skip such a war—who wants to go to war with Russia unless it is absolutely necessary? Is the Ukraine worth 100s of thousands killed and potential escalation into nuclear war?

Of course it is! 

[Zanza]

There must hundreds of thousands of German soldiers buried in Ukraine. One of my mother's uncles is one of them. I think we are done with war over Ukraine.

[Berkut]

What Berkut seems to ignore is that the lack of interest in getting involved in a theoretical invasion of the Ukraine Czechoslovakia is that western European pacificism isn't a function of a lack of power—it is more about aversion to war. I would hope that the US would also skip such a war—who wants to go to war with Russia Germany unless it is absolutely necessary? Is the Ukraine Czechoslovakia Poland worth 100s of thousands killed and potential escalation into nuclear war?

I don't know - of course, I reject the notion that pacifism is a result of not caring. I think it is the other way around.


You purport not to care (which IMO is rather transparently ridiculous - isolationism is no less an unworkable stance today than it was in 1914 or 1938) because you lack the ability to act, because you lack the desire to pay for that ability.


I agree that this is all basically spitting into the wind. You cannot convince people to ever learn from history, and certainly not the correct lessons. Instead they just pick and choose what they like to justify what they want to do anyway, and ignore the obvious lessons.


But that doesn't mean I cannot point it out when they do so.

[Zanza]

You know what also didn't stop a world war from breaking out? All sides being armed to the teeth in 1914.

[Berkut]

There must hundreds of thousands of German soldiers buried in Ukraine. One of my mother's uncles is one of them. I think we are done with war over Ukraine.

It isn't about fighting over the Ukraine, of course. And you know that - trying to pretend like this is based on some sort of noble or altruistic principles is cowardice.

It is about being willing to resist tyranny when such resistance is necessary both for the greater good and even in a nations own self interest. Something that is most certainly a worthwhile and noble principle.

If Germany is not willing to fight for the freedom of the Ukraine, why should France be willing to fight for the freedom of Germany? Or why should the US, for that matter?

And what happened to collective security? Does it only apply when you ask others to protect you?

[Ed Anger]

Unlike America, we don't feel like we have any kind of global responsibility or global foreign policy mission to fight for democracy or liberty.

Why?

We prefer a policy of non-intervention. Except in our direct backyard, the European Union, where we are very active, and some minor international commitments, e.g. fighting against piracy. Maybe comparable to US foreign policy 1776 - 1917?

America seems pretty exceptional in having this global agenda. Most countries just mind their own business and aren't particularly active in promoting their values or policies abroad.

Some Americans (e.g. our Ed Anger) seem to share that kind of sentiment.

I was remembered! 

[Zanza]

It isn't about fighting over the Ukraine, of course. And you know that - trying to pretend like this is based on some sort of noble or altruistic principles is cowardice.

It is about being willing to resist tyranny when such resistance is necessary both for the greater good and even in a nations own self interest. Something that is most certainly a worthwhile and noble principle.

If Germany is not willing to fight for the freedom of the Ukraine, why should France be willing to fight for the freedom of Germany? Or why should the US, for that matter?

And what happened to collective security? Does it only apply when you ask others to protect you?

Last I checked, Ukraine is not part of NATO. We have no formal obligations towards them. And yes, collective security only applies when the attacked party asks others to protect it. Ref. article 5 of the NATO treaty.

[Berkut]

You know what also didn't stop a world war from breaking out? All sides being armed to the teeth in 1914.

So? I never claimed that being armed was some guarantee that war cannot happen. You can be certain that being armed and ready didn't CAUSE WW1, at least not on the part of the western democracies.

[Zanza]

You know what also didn't stop a world war from breaking out? All sides being armed to the teeth in 1914.

So? I never claimed that being armed was some guarantee that war cannot happen. You can be certain that being armed and ready didn't CAUSE WW1, at least not on the part of the western democracies.

It did cause the Iraq War in 2003 though.

[Berkut]

It isn't about fighting over the Ukraine, of course. And you know that - trying to pretend like this is based on some sort of noble or altruistic principles is cowardice.

It is about being willing to resist tyranny when such resistance is necessary both for the greater good and even in a nations own self interest. Something that is most certainly a worthwhile and noble principle.

If Germany is not willing to fight for the freedom of the Ukraine, why should France be willing to fight for the freedom of Germany? Or why should the US, for that matter?

And what happened to collective security? Does it only apply when you ask others to protect you?

Last I checked, Ukraine is not part of NATO. We have no formal obligations towards them. And yes, collective security only applies when the attacked party asks others to protect it. Ref. article 5 of the NATO treaty.

NATO is a formal means of recognizing a principle that exists outside of NATO. And that is that wars of aggression should be resisted. Of course, under your plan, you could not resist an invasion of the Ukraine even if they were in NATO.

And of course, your view includes the idea that DEAR JESUS DON"T EXPAND NATO TO ANYONE WHO MIGHT ACTUALLY NEED PROTECTION! This goes back to my "Hey, if we just define away any mission (like protecting our neighbors from tyranny) that needs a military, why look, we don't need much of a military anymore!"

This is like someone claiming that they should not protect a Jew from being rounded up and sent to the gas chamber because the Jew didn't ask nicely ahead of time.

TOUGH SHIT, I NEVER AGREED TO PROTECT YOU!

There is another word for this viewpoint. And it has nothing to do with altruism or any kind of admirable human motivation.

[MadImmortalMan]

It only takes one party to start a war. What are you supposed to do when your neighbor is arming to the teeth, nothing? Is not arming supposed to somehow be morally superior?

Is surrender the "proper" thing to do?

[Berkut]

You know what also didn't stop a world war from breaking out? All sides being armed to the teeth in 1914.

So? I never claimed that being armed was some guarantee that war cannot happen. You can be certain that being armed and ready didn't CAUSE WW1, at least not on the part of the western democracies.

It did cause the Iraq War in 2003 though.

I am impressed at how long you were able to go before pulling out that red herring.

Of course, the US military in Gulf War 2 was actually much smaller than it was in Gulf War 1, so I guess even your red herring is based on lack of relevant information.