President Trump

JASR said:
Seems to have missed the use of NATO article 5, following 11th Sept as well…
Click to expand...
tbh thats what I was referencing, however because the sacrifice wasn't the biggest baddest sacrifice ever like the one the yanks made in WW2 it doesn't count apparently
 
The perfect fumble said:
I'm a great admirer of the phrase "If you want to get there I wouldn't start from here"

The 2nd World war has been packaged, even while it was being fought, as primarily a fight for freedom against fascism, in that sense it's seen as a good war, even a principled one, but if you believe this lie and it is a lie then latecomers like the USA can be accused of being unprincipled (I think that's the reference to bravery in the initial post) only entering the fight when she herself was attacked.

But the Second World War was fought by all the participating nations, in either self defence or in pursuit of their national interest, in other words for the same reasons every war has ever been fought.

The west was happy to accommodate fascism right up to the moment it couldn't and continued to accommodate fascist Spain for decades afterwards, as well as slew of authoritarian states all over the world as a bulwark against Communism.

Of course the Second World War defeated the cruel Nazis and liberated those who suffered brutal occupation, no one can argue that wasn't a desirable outcome, but we confuse the outcome with the initial motives of all the belligerent nations, there was nothing unprincipled about the USA entering the war "late" because no one entered that war on principal. The USA entered the war when her national interest required it, just like everybody else.
Click to expand...

Let's say it's true that wars are motivated purely by self-interest. What's the issue with America allegedly showing up late to WWII, or asking to the UK to honor its debts? Who cares about Belgian action in Afghanistan? Self-interest at work.

But the argument that people are having is that a) America should have immediately entered the wars because it's morally wrong to not immediately deploy your military to killing fields on the other side of the ocean; 350k American deaths in Europe during the wars isn't enough to satisfy the Belgians and our other selfless allies, and b) America exploited the UK by selling them military equipment postwar at a 90% discount and loaning them the remaining 10% at 2% interest over 50 years, terms that were negotiated on the UK by Keynes, who knew something about economics. This should have been given for free, even though the war was over and it would have been illegal in the US.
 
flook said:
tbh thats what I was referencing, however because the sacrifice wasn't the biggest baddest sacrifice ever like the one the yanks made in WW2 it doesn't count apparently
Click to expand...
It counts, but Belgium lost one soldier in Afghanistan. America lost 250k in the European theater in WWII and the argument started because this moron chose to denigrate that.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
I can vouch for Belgian beer.
Top notch. These guys know a bit about brewing.

American piss not in the same league whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Thumbs up on Belgian beer albeit it's got me into trouble on more than one occasion in my younger days.

In fairness the US has a really diverse beer brewing culture these days with some really good stuff, quite a few craft breweries there are big on making decent Belgium style beers. The problem is that what gets exported to Europe in volume is the ditchwater crap.
 
threespires said:
Thumbs up on Belgian beer albeit it's got me into trouble on more than one occasion in my younger days.

In fairness the US has a really diverse beer brewing culture these days with some really good stuff, quite a few craft breweries there are big on making decent Belgium style beers. The problem is that what gets exported to Europe in volume is the ditchwater crap.
Click to expand...
EOS-M-1.jpg
 
WT86 said:
t


The response to Trump's idiotic, jingoistic claims about the wars is not equally idiotic, jingoistic claims denigrating American involvement.

Belgium was neutral in WWII until it was invaded. Its military surrendered 18 days later. There was then a small, moderately successful resistance. The Belgians who actually fought deserve respect as anyone who fought for the allies does, but WWII isn't a story of Belgian heroics and American cowardice.

The US had instituted a draft and was providing billions in free materiel well before Pearl Harbor. But yes, it entered the war later than much of Europe. It takes a while to build up political will to send hundreds of thousands of your young men to die on another continent. Belgians might realize that if they had ever done it, but their foreign wars haven largely been about brutalizing people in Africa for financial gain.
Click to expand...
In Belgium defence(and you could include France in this) they were hesitant to get involved as they had the horror of WW1 on their patch. The hunger for another slaughter on their doorstep wasn’t exactly appealing.
 
Koniec said:
In Belgium defence(and you could include France in this) they were hesitant to get involved as they had the horror of WW1 on their patch. The hunger for another slaughter on their doorstep wasn’t exactly appealing.
Click to expand...
That's fair enough, but the same dynamic was at play in the US. Nobody over here was in a rush to send their son or husband to die in Europe twenty years after the last European war. I understand Trump brings it out in people but his comment was out of order.
 
WT86 said:
It counts, but Belgium lost one soldier in Afghanistan. America lost 250k in the European theater in WWII and the argument started because this moron chose to denigrate that.
Click to expand...
If we're talking about denigration then you should be looking closer to home and not worrying about other people.

Your argument about reluctance to fight a war across the atlantic is weakened by your decision to fight a war in vietnam, the "european war" was a war to stop fascism and its expansion across borders, the same description, exchanging fascism for communism, can be applied to the "southern asia" conflict.

<edit> silly me, I forgot about the american intervention in Korea, same reasoning wasn't it?

The Wests involvement in Ukraine is along similar lines, with this being the effort to stop the expansion across borders of whatever ism you want to call Putins Russia, it shouldn't be conditional on ukraine signing away their future
 
Last edited:
WT86 said:
That's fair enough, but the same dynamic was at play in the US. Nobody over here was in a rush to send their son or husband to die in Europe twenty years after the last European war. I understand Trump brings it out in people but his comment was out of order.
Click to expand...

Trump made the claim that the US were "the altruist saviours of the world wars", Belgium did not claim to be that. I gave you examples like unrestricted submarine warfare where the US even shied away from retaliating at first, despite Trump's claims of the exceptional bravery of Americans, and i showed you examples where the US was not entering the war for altruistic reasons and then you retort with arguments like "Well belgium wasnt altruist either" which takes the nature of a "tu quoque falacy". We didnt make the claim to begin with your argument was fallacious from the start, when Trump makes the claim its perfectly reasonable to present facts that cast a different light on that claim.

I didnt even comment at first on your idea that Belgium should have saved the beans in WW2 as it seemed just ludricrous. If many others hadnt stopped Germany at many of the crossroads they could have had prior to the invasion of belgium then how was Belgium supposed to even make a difference? I guess we could have shipped some troops to Norway in April of 1940 is that it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top