Colors of Blue and Gold

[Martin Weidmann]

You are comparing America's interest in what is happening in Ukraine - a regional conflict of longstanding between Ukraine and Russia - with Pearl Harbor which was a direct attack on the US?  Wow.  Maybe you do live in "Europe" with that level of ignorance.  The US has no apparent interest in this conflict.  Most Americans never heard of Ukraine before the media adopted it as an ersatz cause.  Obama certainly was aware of the risks of intervention when he sent blankets instead of weapons.  Our politicians have used emotion to convince some Americans that we need to spend billions to fund a war with no clear objective or end game.  They needed a replacement war for Afghanistan to continue funding their supporters.  It will just go on and on until Russia decides how it ends.  Does Russia escalate?  What happens then?  The US must already have advisors in Ukraine to train them on how to use the defense systems that are being sent despite lies about it.  Sound familiar?  When that doesn't work, what then?  Creeping escalation for over years as in Vietnam?  American should have learned by now that there is nothing to gain and much to be lost from intervening in these regional conflicts which can't be won through military intervention and with no clear objective or means to bring about an end.  Our corrupt politicians understand all this.  They are not sending this money for any cause or objective, however.  They want to gain access to the money and funnel it to the military contractors who kick back the funding to their campaigns, relatives, and cronies.  Conducting war is an enormous source of power to them.

You are comparing America's interest in what is happening in Ukraine - a regional conflict of longstanding between Ukraine and Russia - with Pearl Harbor which was a direct attack on the US? 

I thought it was likely that this would go way over your head. Yes, Pearl Harbor was a direct attack in the US, but why did it happen? The US wanted to stay out of WW2 and comunicated the wrong message to the Japanese. That's why it happened!

[Jon Banks]

Well our arming Ukraine prior to 2022 didn't deter Putin so I see no reason to think arming Taiwan will deter Xi, China's ruler.

Who said anything about arming Taiwan. If China invades Taiwan, America will take military action to help them. That's policy! That, the potential threat of nuclear conflict and the economic interests of China in America is what deters XI.

Where can I find this policy?

Every time Biden says we’ll defend Taiwan, his administration walks it back.

White House once again walks back Biden's promise to defend Taiwan, says there is no 'policy change'

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-once-again-walks-back-bidens-promise-defend-taiwan-says-no-policy-change


My broader point is that I don’t see how what we’re doing with Ukraine factors into China’s policies towards Taiwan.

As long as the status quo holds (Taiwan remains partially independent and no foriegn military bases on their soil) there’s no reason for China to invade them.

[Jon Banks]

Yes, Pearl Harbor was a direct attack in the US, but why did it happen? The US wanted to stay out of WW2 and comunicated the wrong message to the Japanese. That's why it happened!

That's a little too simplistic. Here's a more detailed explanation:

Japan had been modernising its economy throughout the 20th century and wanted to build an empire of its own. However, Japan lacked the natural resources to make it a reality, with all but 6% of its oil supply being imported. After capturing Manchuria, Japan became bogged down in a full-scale war with China in 1937 and had to look elsewhere for the resources it needed to fight. Meanwhile, the USA was slowly awakening from its isolationism.

When Japan occupied French Indochina in 1941, America retaliated by freezing all Japanese assets in the states, preventing Japan from purchasing oil. Having lost 94% of its oil supply and unwilling to submit to U.S demands, Japan planned to take the oil needed by force. However, striking south into British Malaya and the Dutch East Indies would almost certainly provoke an armed U.S response. To blunt that response, Japan decided to attack the U.S Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, hoping that the U.S would negotiate peace.

The attack at Pearl Harbor was a huge gamble, but one which did not pay off. Though Japan took its objectives in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the U.S did not respond as expected. Instead of reverting to isolationism, the U.S geared up for total war and Japan's fate was sealed.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-did-japan-attack-pearl-harbor


It's not comparable to our policies towards Ukraine. The US began trying to help Ukraine pivot away from Russia's economic and political influence during Obama's second term. We began arming and training Ukraine in 2017 after Trump took office. Putin viewed US/NATO meddling in Ukraine as escalatory. Our actions didn't deter him.

With all that said, I still view Putin as a rational actor. Ukraine isn't a NATO member state so he can screw with them but he's not going to screw with NATO. 

As far as China goes, if we're not willing to intervene directly in Ukraine because Russia is a nuclear power, why would China take seriously Biden's vow to intervene to help Taiwan? China is a nuclear power and dominates global trade. A war between the US and China wouldn't be painless for Americans and the worst-case scenario is that it could lead to nuclear war...

[Richard Smith]

You are comparing America's interest in what is happening in Ukraine - a regional conflict of longstanding between Ukraine and Russia - with Pearl Harbor which was a direct attack on the US? 

I thought it was likely that this would go way over your head. Yes, Pearl Harbor was a direct attack in the US, but why did it happen? The US wanted to stay out of WW2 and comunicated the wrong message to the Japanese. That's why it happened!

Things must be slow in "Europe" today.  Have you been reading the news about current events in Texas etc.?  Of course, FDR, like all modern American politicians actually wanted America in the war despite running on a platform to keep us out of the war. He sent massive quantities of weapons to the UK before Pearl Harbor.  That is where your stupid analogy ends.  The situation in Ukraine is night and day different than Pearl Harbor.  The US has no direct interest in what happens in Ukraine.  There is no direct threat to the US from Russia.  From an emotional perspective, many people sympathize with Ukraine for being attacked.  But there is no strategic reason to become involved in their regional conflict.  "Europe" certainly has come to that conclusion and limited its involvement.  There is no reason for Russia to attack the US.  The only scenario where the US comes into direct conflict with Russia is through involvement in this regional conflict with the likelihood of gradual escalation as it extends indefinitely with no way to end the war through military means alone.  There is no clear objective or basis to bring the war to an end.  Just like in Vietnam and Afghanistan.  It will just go on and on.  We will be told things are going well.  Just another year, more money and victory is at hand.  When all is said and done Ukraine will be in ruins, trillions will have been spent for no purpose, and the final settlement will be no different than if they had pulled out today.

[Martin Weidmann]

Things must be slow in "Europe" today.  Have you been reading the news about current events in Texas etc.?  Of course, FDR, like all modern American politicians actually wanted America in the war despite running on a platform to keep us out of the war. He sent massive quantities of weapons to the UK before Pearl Harbor.  That is where your stupid analogy ends.  The situation in Ukraine is night and day different than Pearl Harbor.  The US has no direct interest in what happens in Ukraine.  There is no direct threat to the US from Russia.  From an emotional perspective, many people sympathize with Ukraine for being attacked.  But there is no strategic reason to become involved in their regional conflict.  "Europe" certainly has come to that conclusion and limited its involvement.  There is no reason for Russia to attack the US.  The only scenario where the US comes into direct conflict with Russia is through involvement in this regional conflict with the likelihood of gradual escalation as it extends indefinitely with no way to end the war through military means alone.  There is no clear objective or basis to bring the war to an end.  Just like in Vietnam and Afghanistan.  It will just go on and on.  We will be told things are going well.  Just another year, more money and victory is at hand.  When all is said and done Ukraine will be in ruins, trillions will have been spent for no purpose, and the final settlement will be no different than if they had pulled out today.

Things must be slow in "Europe" today.

Yes they are. I just went for a walk with the dogs and there were no armed idiots in the street at all. Everything is nice and peaceful. Not so much in my home town in the USA where in the past 24 hours six shootings took place and several innocent people got killed, and guess what, they were not even praying.

[Joe Elliott]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/as-russia-bombs-ukraine-s-infrastructure-its-own-services-crumble/ar-AA15E3CL?ocid=Peregrine&cvid=4f2eea18f45f4395957e0fd773f8ee49

In late October, two sewer pipes burst in the southern city of Volgograd, flooding several streets with feces and waste water, and leaving 200,000 of the 1 million residents without water or heating for several days.

Ilya Kravchenko, a local lawmaker who collected testimony from more than 1,000 victims of the incident and filed a lawsuit against the corporation that owns the sewer system, said the sight was “not pretty.”

“This is the worst year on record. The city has never had so many problems,” Kravchenko said.

I'm not certain that's an accurate statement. The city's former name was Stalingrad. Pretty big problems exactly 80 years ago today. Although the worst of the problems were to be soon sorted out.

There once was a time when the Russian army held the admiration of the world. And not just for its power. But also for fighting in a good cause. Not anymore.

Note: Yes, yes yes, I know, the "Soviet Army", not the "Russian Army".

[Matt Grantham]

 Looks like the Russians are now pushing the war The allies invaded Russia after WW 1 There was never an acknowledgment in american media that Russia/Soviet Union were responsible for 80 percent of Nazi deaths They were demonized immediately after Yalta so I am not clear when this respected Russian army occurred?

[Matt Grantham]

 How long can people believe in the benevolence of American politicians and Armies when there are zero historical examples