Current Events > Ramaswamy is now polling 4th in republican polling

(+) Yeah! (+)

Red_XIV posted...

If we had joined World War II sooner, it might not have actually been "World War II", due to ending much more quickly and with much less loss of life. And if Chamberlain hadn't appeased Hitler, that's not even a "might", it's an absolute certainty. If Britain and France had been willing to go to war in 1938 to support Czechoslovakia, Germany would've been defeated in less than a year. Millions of lives would've been saved. The Holocaust would have never happened. That's a perfect example of why appeasing an expansionist dictator just makes things worse and costs far more lives.

Again, far more wars have been started and/or made worse by the US than the singular war that all warmongering neocons love to cite. More lives would be saved following the heuristic that the US did for world war 2 than they did for pretty much all other wars they've been involved in.

Red_XIV posted...

So America's situation now can't possibly be analogous to the position of another nation in the past? Even though Britain in 1938 was the global superpower, just like the US is now?

No, because the situation ain't the same at all, actually. I know you warmongers love to pretend every war is world war 2, but it's simply not the case.

"I don't have a problem with the Ukraine war and hope Putin gets his ass killed, but I'm going to call everyone who supports the world backing Ukraine a warmongering neocon"

1337toothbrush posted...

Again, far more wars have been started and/or made worse by the US than the singular war that all warmongering neocons love to cite. More lives would be saved following the heuristic that the US did for world war 2 than they did for pretty much all other wars they've been involved in.

I don't think you're remotely understanding the scale of World War II. It killed 80 million people. Even if you take all other wars the US has been involved with combined, use the highest possible estimates for the death toll of each of them and presume that all of those deaths would've been avoided if the US had instead stayed out (which in several of them would be a 100% correct presumption, but in others would be patently ridiculous), you still don't get anywhere close to World War II.

hockeybub89 posted...

"I don't have a problem with the Ukraine war and hope Putin gets his ass killed, but I'm going to call everyone who supports the world backing Ukraine a warmongering neocon"

You are so smart taking my opinions, stripping out all meaning and nuance, and adding lies on top, but hey, if you want to attack strawmen, then you do you.

Red_XIV posted...

I don't think you're remotely understanding the scale of World War II. It killed 80 million people. Even if you take all other wars the US has been involved with combined, use the highest possible estimates for the death toll of each of them and presume that all of those deaths would've been avoided if the US had instead stayed out (which in several of them would be a 100% correct presumption, but in others would be patently ridiculous), you still don't get anywhere close to World War II.

You're not remotely understanding the scale of time. You may not care about a million here or there, plus the many others affected (e.g. power vacuums left leading to even more deaths) which already add up significantly, but now take China into account. This bullheadedness to dominate everyone else will lead to many more deaths, just give it time.

Also, don't forget how hitler was able to get into power in the first place.

1337toothbrush posted...

You are so smart taking my opinions, stripping out all meaning and nuance, and adding lies on top, but hey, if you want to attack strawmen, then you do you.

You're not remotely understanding the scale of time. You may not care about a million here or there, plus the many others affected (e.g. power vacuums left leading to even more deaths) which already add up significantly, but now take China into account. This bullheadedness to dominate everyone else will lead to many more deaths, just give it time.

Also, don't forget how hitler was able to get into power in the first place.

So are you saying Red was right (the US approach of delaying in WW2 led to larger loss of life than all other wars the US was involved in)? Because that goes contrary to your claim below...

1337toothbrush posted...

Again, far more wars have been started and/or made worse by the US than the singular war that all warmongering neocons love to cite. More lives would be saved following the heuristic that the US did for world war 2 than they did for pretty much all other wars they've been involved in.

Ruvan22 posted...

So are you saying Red was right (the US approach of delaying in WW2 led to larger loss of life than all other wars the US was involved in)? Because that goes contrary to your claim below...

I pointed out that over time the US will be doing more damage and also how the economic crippling (i.e. how the US prefers to operate) of Germany helped hitler rise to power. Thanks for not reading my post, though.

1337toothbrush posted...

I pointed out that over time the US will be doing more damage and also how the economic crippling (i.e. how the US prefers to operate) of Germany helped hitler rise to power. Thanks for not reading my post, though.

But "how the US operates after a war doesn't" address "whether the US joined the war too late"? Red's post 152 was addressing that question, which came from "Chamberlain's approach of appeasement didn't work". Your post afterwards said "more lives following the heuristic that the US did for world war 2 than they did for pretty much all other wars they've been involved in", so I thought you were answering the question of "Did the US wait too long to enter?" (and in general the question of how long we should wait to enter international conflict)

1337toothbrush posted...

I pointed out that over time the US will be doing more damage and also how the economic crippling (i.e. how the US prefers to operate) of Germany helped hitler rise to power. Thanks for not reading my post, though.

Yes, you "pointed out" that hypothetical deaths that the US could cause in the future somehow should be taken into account in such an assessment.

Red_XIV posted...

Yes, you "pointed out" that hypothetical deaths that the US could cause in the future somehow should be taken into account in such an assessment.

And you're assuming the US joining earlier could have reduced the number of deaths significantly. You're also ignoring key contributing factors for how world war 2 started in the first place.