US ambassador 'killed in Libya'. US consulate Benghazi stormed. 4 US officials "dead"

[BigRob]

Being a superpower is fine. However, being a superpower who is constantly interventionist, is not.

American interests are more important than American lives....you say. Can you tell me specifically what these interests are?

As a global superpower, we have to protect our interests -- certainly there are times when we get involved places that we have no interest in, and we should not do that -- but when a clear national interest is at stake -- then I fully support taking action to protect it.

As for what those interests are -- they of course vary and change by the area in question, the leaders in power, our own needs. There is not really a constant set of interest A, B, C that will never change.

I never stated the Founders said to sit in a bubble...you did....this is the typical refrain of the interventionist who claims anyone who disagrees with them is a crazy isolationist. I am not saying we need to isolate ourselves and ignore what is happening around the world. However to think our policy of constant interventions since WWII, often leading to war and dead Americans is preferable, is wrongheaded and in direct contradiction with the Founders.

You argued that we should "mind our own business" -- how are we supposed to do that and not be labeled as "interventionist"? The founders were involved all over the world in an effort to protect our own interests -- that is what I am advocating for now.

Regarding WWII, FDR could have pursued policies and negotiations that kept America out of the war. Instead he chose the opposite. When the fool ran for an unprecedented third term, ignoring Washington's advice due to his over sized ego and with declining health, he lied to the American people about keeping the peace. He was actively supporting the Brits and seeking a confrontation with the Germans in the N. Atlantic so that he could force the US into the war. He also refused to negotiate with the Japanese to avoid war...leading to Pearl Harbor, which was exactly what he wanted. He also had intel on German attack on Poland days before their Sept 1, 1939 invasion and in typical deceitful fashion, refused to warn the Poles knowing full well that the invasion would plunge the world into ANOTHER world war (failing to learn from the failures of WWI). Instead of actively pursuing peace, he was covertly pursuing war, while lying to the American people....much like BO caught saying to the Russian Pres how he will have flexibility AFTER the election.

I am sure an appeasement strategy would have indeed kept us out of the war -- peace at all costs is a horrible strategy.

And what did the US gain from WWII? FDR the fool (aka Stalin's Stooge) gave half of Europe to Stalin including Poland, which was the reason for the war!!!!! The world's greatest tyrant and murderer!!!!! This lead to histories worst and most intolerant ideology becoming a superpower!!!!!!!....and decades of cold war....resulting in American kids ducking under the desks in case of nuclear attack and nearly a nuclear exchange over Cuba. It also lead to Truman's war crime of incinerating innocent Japanese civilians only to show the power of the US state, to say nothing of the total war tactics used throughout the war against innocent civilians.

It also led to an amazing expansion of American power and economic might. It turned us into a global superpower, and it allowed us to be a defense against Soviet expansion...the list can go on and on.

Do you understand the horrendous consequences of war....yet?

I have always understood that war is horrible...but I am not naive enough to think it must be avoided at all costs.

FDR's actions (much like BO's and W's and other presidents) are the poster child for limiting the power of government and specifically the power of the executive branch.

It sounds like your beef is with Congress.

 

[Gipper]

　
What policies and negotiations would have kept America out of the war? Congress had a serious case of the ass with Japan at that point, I don't know what FDR could have done. FDR may have talked up peace but America had the opportunity to elect two full-blown Isolationist candidates for President, and declined. Of course he supported the Brits, German submarines in the N. Atlantic probably gave him flashbacks to WWI, when the Germans used submarines to sink shipping, sometimes even American shipping even though we weren't at war with them yet. You can say he forced America into the war by lying but many people think that FDR read the tea leaves rather well and made some tough decisions and ended up doing good for the country.


　
Congress refused to negotiate with the Japanese, and for good reason. I doubt FDR wanted nor anticipated the attack on Pearl Harbor. A Japanese attack on American forces in the Phillipines, and only the forces in the Phillipines, would have given him just as much reason to ask for a war declaration.


　
I'm not sure why you think a phone call from FDR to the Poles in late August of '39 would have changed anything. The Poles knew an invasion was coming and had been preparing for a couple of months prior. They had some mobilization issues and their defense plan made the mistake of depending upon the Allies for assistance, but they knew. Even if they didn't know the exact date and time, the German false flag operation against their own radio station tipped the Poles off that the invasion was imminent. FDR would have had zero impact on this event no matter what he did, short of mobilizing the US Army in 1938.


　
Stalinism or National Socialism, pick your poison.


　
There's a lot I could say about forecasted losses and geo-political gamesmanship, but I'm only going to say something that I know you will consider to be simplistic; War is a bitch and ain't always fair.
　
Gipper, I've got nothing but love for ya but I really believe the lesson from the 1930's should be this: when America sits back for 15 years and doesn't "interfere", bad sh*t happens. I'm all for interference because it denies our enemies the ability to dictate terms and shape the battlefield.

I believe FDR was a pro-war progressive who instead of reading the tea leaves, bought the Brit propaganda that the Hun must be destroyed, while completely ignoring the heinous nature of communism. This resulted in making the USSR a superpower.

Do you deny FDR tried to provoke the Germans in the N. Atlantic? Do you deny that FDR provoked the Japanese? Do you deny that he failed to do all he could to prevent involving America in WWII?

FDR could have been a peace broker between the Axis and Allies. Instead he chose to align strictly with the stupid Brits...who went to war over Poland only to give it to the Soviets for 50 years. Good job.

FDR could have told the world of Germany's plans to invade Poland. This might have stopped it. He then could have tried to broker a peace. Could these things have worked? Who knows....but we do know that instead of doing all he could for peace, he chose war.

You offer a choice between two evils...Hitler or Stalin. I say we did not need to make that choice. Had we pursued a policy of strict neutrality (as the egotist FDR claimed he was pursuing in 1940), we might have avoided war. Germany and Japan had no capabilities of truly threatening the US.

The Founders warned us about involvement in Euro wars, but the pro-war progressives Wilson and FDR were TOO smart to learn from them.

I say we should not interfere and particularly not in WWI and WWII.

 

[Centrehalf]

I believe FDR was a pro-war progressive who instead of reading the tea leaves, bought the Brit propaganda that the Hun must be destroyed, while completely ignoring the heinous nature of communism. This resulted in making the USSR a superpower.

The USSR was seen as a backward nation at that time, not as a future superpower and no one was disregarding the heinous nature of Communism.

Do you deny FDR tried to provoke the Germans in the N. Atlantic? Do you deny that FDR provoked the Japanese? Do you deny that he failed to do all he could to prevent involving America in WWII?

Yes. I'd say the Germans provoked us, not the other way around.

FDR could have been a peace broker between the Axis and Allies. Instead he chose to align strictly with the stupid Brits...who went to war over Poland only to give it to the Soviets for 50 years. Good job.

There is nothing FDR could have done to broker peace between Germany and France. Someone was gonna get curbstomped.

FDR could have told the world of Germany's plans to invade Poland. This might have stopped it. He then could have tried to broker a peace. Could these things have worked? Who knows....but we do know that instead of doing all he could for peace, he chose war.

Anyone who could have done anything to stop Germany already knew about it. I can see Hitler now..."Well, I was going to invade Poland but FDR told Paraguay about it and they're seriously pissed, I'd better call it off".

You offer a choice between two evils...Hitler or Stalin. I say we did not need to make that choice. Had we pursued a policy of strict neutrality (as the egotist FDR claimed he was pursuing in 1940), we might have avoided war. Germany and Japan had no capabilities of truly threatening the US.

Maybe with Germany, not with Japan. However, once Germany started sinking neutral shipping all bets were off. You blame this on FDR but Germany made some stupendously bad decisions and really left no choice.

The Founders warned us about involvement in Euro wars, but the pro-war progressives Wilson and FDR were TOO smart to learn from them.

They did warn against alliances and centralized European governments, I tend to believe that they were capable of realizing when exceptions needed to be made.

I say we should not interfere and particularly not in WWI and WWII.

Fair enough, that's your opinion and you gave reasons why you believe that. I respect that.

 

[Gipper]

As a global superpower, we have to protect our interests -- certainly there are times when we get involved places that we have no interest in, and we should not do that -- but when a clear national interest is at stake -- then I fully support taking action to protect it.

As for what those interests are -- they of course vary and change by the area in question, the leaders in power, our own needs. There is not really a constant set of interest A, B, C that will never change.



You argued that we should "mind our own business" -- how are we supposed to do that and not be labeled as "interventionist"? The founders were involved all over the world in an effort to protect our own interests -- that is what I am advocating for now.



I am sure an appeasement strategy would have indeed kept us out of the war -- peace at all costs is a horrible strategy.



It also led to an amazing expansion of American power and economic might. It turned us into a global superpower, and it allowed us to be a defense against Soviet expansion...the list can go on and on.



I have always understood that war is horrible...but I am not naive enough to think it must be avoided at all costs.



It sounds like your beef is with Congress.

You have to name those specific interests that Americans must die for. I suspect they are the interests of the multinational corporations and bankers who have operations and investments in foreign lands. You may think it right for American boys to die for those interests. I do not.

Yes the Founders were involved around the world, but they were NOT involved in foreign wars and did not align with particular nations.

War is the last resort and only when we are directly attacked. Had Pearl Harbor not been set up by FDR, I would agree that we must take military action against Japan. But not only did the scummy statist FDR set it up, he then demanded unconditional surrender causing the NEEDLESS deaths to tens of thousands of Americans and Japanese...including tons of Japanese civilians who were not to blame for the actions of their leaders.

The consequences of allowing our leaders who are most fallible and bound to make horrific mistakes to take us to war, must be heavily controlled.

 

[Gipper]

The USSR was seen as a backward nation at that time, not as a future superpower and no one was disregarding the heinous nature of Communism.

This is not accurate. FDR's administration was full of Soviet spies. They greatly influenced FDR's policies toward the USSR and they told Stalin EVERYTHING. FDR was repeatedly warned by many high ranking American and English officials about these spies and the heinous nature of Stalin. Yet he chose to ignore those warnings and even thought of Stalin as his friend. He allowed Stalin to bug his private quarters while negotiating fateful terms affecting millions at their meetings in Tehran. He granted millions in war add to the Soviets. FDR went along with giving Stalin all of E. Euro based on Stalin's promise that he would grant free elections. He ignored the fact that the USSR aligned with Nazi Germany and conquered half of Poland, all the Baltic States, and invaded Finland all prior to Operation Barbarossa. What an F-ing fool he was.

The USSR while a backward nation, always had a powerful army. How do you think they beat the Germans?

So, the USSR had to be considered a budding superpower and FDR willfully ignored the heinous nature of Stalin and communism.

 

[Centrehalf]

Gip, I'm more than willing to continue this with you in another thread but not in this one. I've gone back and read this thread in more depth and I think we've gotten a bit off topic. Peter Dow appears to have put some thought into this thread and I think this WWII tangent may be getting in his way.

 

[BigRob]

You have to name those specific interests that Americans must die for. I suspect they are the interests of the multinational corporations and bankers who have operations and investments in foreign lands. You may think it right for American boys to die for those interests. I do not.

Yes the Founders were involved around the world, but they were NOT involved in foreign wars and did not align with particular nations.

War is the last resort and only when we are directly attacked. Had Pearl Harbor not been set up by FDR, I would agree that we must take military action against Japan. But not only did the scummy statist FDR set it up, he then demanded unconditional surrender causing the NEEDLESS deaths to tens of thousands of Americans and Japanese...including tons of Japanese civilians who were not to blame for the actions of their leaders.

The consequences of allowing our leaders who are most fallible and bound to make horrific mistakes to take us to war, must be heavily controlled.

Center might be right -- I do want to continue this conversation, but I don't want to hijack the thread. Let's make a new one?

 

[Gipper]

moved to here....https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/intervention-vs-non-intervention.15866/

 

[Aus22]

This is not accurate. FDR's administration was full of Soviet spies. They greatly influenced FDR's policies toward the USSR and they told Stalin EVERYTHING. FDR was repeatedly warned by many high ranking American and English officials about these spies and the heinous nature of Stalin. Yet he chose to ignore those warnings and even thought of Stalin as his friend. He allowed Stalin to bug his private quarters while negotiating fateful terms affecting millions at their meetings in Tehran. He granted millions in war add to the Soviets. FDR went along with giving Stalin all of E. Euro based on Stalin's promise that he would grant free elections. He ignored the fact that the USSR aligned with Nazi Germany and conquered half of Poland, all the Baltic States, and invaded Finland all prior to Operation Barbarossa. What an F-ing fool he was.

The USSR while a backward nation, always had a powerful army. How do you think they beat the Germans?

So, the USSR had to be considered a budding superpower and FDR willfully ignored the heinous nature of Stalin and communism.

Gipper , You are moving from the subject. What you say is history and I think most historians agree with you that Churchill and FDR knew of the attack on Pearl Harbour in advance and did nothing to warn anyone. This is shown by the later bombing of Manila the same night. Ones again no plans were made for the attack .The planes were caught on the ground.. FDR and Churchill were fooled buy Stalin and gave away to much. This is a historical fact. As to why they did this it is still an open question. People were tired of war and wanted peace at any price. Also the USSR actually won the war by defeating Germany in Russia .As a result they alone of the super powers gained territory. I do not know if there were many Russian Spies but Americans wanted peace. As you said war is terrible. FDR just follow what the congress and country wanted. So did Churchill.

I am not sure The USA gained nothing from WW1 and WW2 . They become the economic super power. I suspect that the defeat of the Nazis was good for all. They were an evil group that would have put the world backwoods. I agree this cause lives particularly in Japan and Germany but if the Nazis won more innocent lives would have been lost.

 

[Peter Dow]

Can we not work with a relatively friendly government and still violently eradicate those responsible for these actions?

In principle yes. The trouble comes when you naively try to work with people who are two-faced, double-dealing, double-crossing s0-called "friends" but actually working to get us killed behind our backs.

I see you have an "liberation of Iraq" avatar there BigRob. You ought to be aware of how much we were betrayed by the Saudi kingdom inciting support for Sunni-extremist factions linked to Al-Qaeda who were organising terrorism killing our forces when we were in Iraq.

Western governments ought to stop working with the Saudis because they are not honest friends.

Here the Saudis are getting caught funding Al Qaeda & the Taliban to kill our forces in Afghanistan.

We buy oil from the Saudis. The Saudis buy weapons from us. That's a business relationship at most. They are not our true friends.

Really we ought to support regime change in Saudi Arabia to overthrow the Saudi kingdom. We could equally well buy oil and sell weapons to a democratic Arabian regime.

 

[Peter Dow]

I disagree that they are not showing a sense of some cooperation. After all, Egypt reportedly told us in advance about the protests.

The protests were incited on Egyptian satellite TV, on a jihadi channel funded by Saudi Arabia. Time for a reality check about who are true friends are BigRob.

 

[BigRob]

In principle yes. The trouble comes when you naively try to work with people who are two-faced, double-dealing, double-crossing s0-called "friends" but actually working to get us killed behind our backs.

Welcome to diplomacy.

I see you have an "liberation of Iraq" avatar there BigRob. You ought to be aware of how much we were betrayed by the Saudi kingdom inciting support for Sunni-extremist factions linked to Al-Qaeda who were organising terrorism killing our forces when we were in Iraq.

Western governments ought to stop working with the Saudis because they are not honest friends.

Here the Saudis are getting caught funding Al Qaeda & the Taliban to kill our forces in Afghanistan.

We buy oil from the Saudis. The Saudis buy weapons from us. That's a business relationship at most. They are not our true friends.

Really we ought to support regime change in Saudi Arabia to overthrow the Saudi kingdom. We could equally well buy oil and sell weapons to a democratic Arabian regime.

It is no big secret that the Saudi's are not exactly "true friends" -- I don't think anyone actually thinks that. That said, there is no reason to support a regime overthrow, we have done that all around the Middle East and gotten disasterous results. Why mess with the devil you know for the devil you don't?

 

[BigRob]

The protests were incited on Egyptian satellite TV, on a jihadi channel funded by Saudi Arabia. Time for a reality check about who are true friends are BigRob.

The United States does not have any "true friends", only mutually aligned interests.

 

[Peter Dow]

Something interesting has come out of some of this. The Islamists speak out of both sides of their mouths. Even the twitter feed our Egyptian embasy received got one message in English from the Muslim Brotherhood, but they also could read their Egyptian twitters to their supporters, and they were saying the exact opposite. You do know that it's quite acceptable in their religion to tell lies to their enemies, called al-taqiyya.

Islam Permits Lying to Deceive Unbelievers and Bring World Domination!

Mohammed gave permission for a follower to lie in order to kill a Jewish poet who had offended Mohammed.

Whatever, the double-dealing, double-crossing, back-stabbing is endemic from many of those undemocratic Middle-Eastern "Islamic" countries, though I suspect the religious aspect is only the propaganda they use to keep power.

The true motives of those countries' elites have for supporting terrorist war against is not a holy war but rather it is the corrupt elites hanging on to power anyway they can and inciting the populations to jihad as a way to counter the influence of our democratic ideals which are catching on with their own people.

The rich countries' elites lie about killing us because they want our business.
The poor countries' elites lie about killing us because they want our aid.

Either way they rather their own people killed us than voted them out of power.

 

[Cruella]

Islam isn't just a religion. It's also political. You can't separate them and it's never going to change. Otherwise, they would have moderated by now.