Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка

[Grant]

I can't think of a scenario where the Republicans and the leftist tankies allow Biden to push NATO into a massive conventional war.

Hmmmm.   I don't think the leftist tankies have much of a say in the matter.  Not sure the Republicans do either, though it's important to note that there is a clear divide between NATO/Ukraine friendly Republicans and Russia friendly Republicans. 

Only 11 Republican Senators voted against the last Ukraine lethal aid bill:

Hawley
Lee
Braun
Crapo
Hagerty
Blackburn
Bozman
Marshall
Lummis
Peckerwood
Tuberville

That leaves 39 Republican senators who did vote for the appropriations.  That includes

Cocaine Mitch
Romney
Sasse
Cassidy
Burr
Collins
Murkowski
Toomey
Foghorn
Etc

Only 57 Republican Reps voted against the bill.  I won't list their names.  But you know who they are.  That still leaves more than 150 Republicans who voted FOR the bill. 

As for a massive conventional war, defeating Russia at this point would probably take less effort than was expended to defeat Iraq in 1991. I suppose that is still massive by modern terms.  But you won't see drafting or calling up the Nasty Guard or anything like that.  LOL.  I think you could win the war now with a single US Armored Cavalry Regiment with the necessary logistics support.  Throw in a Polish Brigade and a British Brigade.  Throw in the USAF in Europe.  It's done in a week.  The Ukrainians have done 80% of the job for NATO.  The entire NATO budget should have just been given straight to Ukraine.  They're doing NATO's job for it.  All those tanks and planes. Their purpose was to defeat Russia if it attack them.  Russia is being defeated by Ukraine. Ukraine is bringing peace to Europe.  For 169 years Russia has been *censored*ing up Europe.  Crimea in 1853.  The situation leading up to 1914 was in part due to Russia backing Serbian thuggery.  Molotov-Ribbentrop allowed WW2 to happen.  The Soviet Union wasn't exactly a stabilizing agent.  Now Pooter's Russia. 

[DJQuag]

I'm not comfortable saying "good riddance" in response to the murder of career military, even if they're recruiting for evil causes.

Bit late, but when you're actively conscripting unwilling people to go invade a foreign country, and encourage them to rape and massacre civilians, yeah. I'm going to celebrate your death. Sorry, not sorry.

[DJQuag]

Biden has said if Russia uses a tactical nuke every last Russian in Ukraine will be killed, along with the Black Sea fleet. And we can believe him.

As Grant said, it would be less effort then was put into the Iraq War. Either one. In a conventional war, Russia would be erased. They know it, our government knows it, ya'll should know it as well.

[Grant]

NATO meeting in Brussels today.  Supposed to be discussing improving air defenses for Ukraine. 

So the Russian retaliation for the Kerch Bridge hit was all missile attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets in Kyiv or elsewhere (as far as I can tell).  The analyis has been that this has been costly, since these are Russia's top of the line cruise missiles.  Not sure exactly what kind, havn't seen it identified.  One story says half a billion $ in ordnance, like 120+ cruise missiles over two days.  Of course, one has to remember that the price on these missiles has probably dropped with the value of the ruble.  Something to remember that after the war is finally over, Russia is going to be back in the business of selling cheap advanced weaponry to the rest of the world, at an even bigger discount, unless something major happens. Sure, a Kalibr missile used to be worth $6.5 million.  But next year it will probably be worth 150 bucks.  Maybe you can have a T-90 tank for your own garage. 

On top of this, I understand by looking at some air activity maps, that Russia's primary attack plane focus has been on the Kherson front.  It tells me that Crimea is indeed where the Russians are deathly afraid of losing. 

So, given that the Ukrainians couldn't get their hands on F-16s, yet, the new focus has been on getting them some NATO air defense artillery.  These are the kinds of things that previously everyone was all "it would take too long to train them", and "we're talking about high end top secret technology".  I think the "it would take too long to train them" thing is dying, considering that it looks like everyone is prepping for a winter campaign.  Still don't know if jets are on the table, but since MLRSs have been provided, I imagine ADA is the latest "just the tip" game with Russia. 

The Germans, surprisingly, have been the first to provide IRIS-T air defense systems.  Not sure if it was the short or medium range missiles that were given, but to be clear, the IRIS-T is really not built to hit anything hard to kill.  It's a heat seeker best used on attack craft, meaning it will be useful around Kherson, but not so useful in stopping cruise missiles and definitely useless against ballistic missiles. 

So the meeting seems to be about getting everyone on board to OK giving over some Patriot missile batteries to Ukriane.  Problem is that they're rare as unicorns.  The reliance on air superiority in NATO countries has led to a kind of dearth of ADA.  The places that have an abundance of ADA and are really good at it are also places that need to keep them, Israel and Taiwan. 

In the meanwhile, Russia having to lash out with its dwindling supply of cruise missiles indicates, again, that the Russians are running out of options on the ground. Indications continue to show that the Russian Army is now out of ability to attack, having been bled near dry in terms of blood and supplies through the year.  Indications continue to show, in the form of drone and satellite photography, that the Russians are focusing on digging in again.  The Ukrainian counter-offensives seem to be slowing down and are methodical instead of blazing.

[Grant]

Macaroon has thankfully clarified la France's attitude towards Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine. 

Citing la doctrine nucléaire française, Macaroon pointed out that it was based only on "the fundamental interests of the nation, and they are clearly defined.  If there were a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine, these interests would not be called into question..". 

Oh, he also later clarified on Twitter that "We du nut want a wurld warr".  (translated by myself)

So, once more, France has proven itself to be absolutely useless at preventing a war or preventing it from getting worse.  Basically giving Russia a green light.  They're ok when it comes to supplying weapons to Ukraine I guess.  As long as they're dragged into doing it by the US and UK. 

I would like to personally suggest that we offer Russia Languedoc-Roussilon and Cote d'Azur, in return for Crimea and Donbas.  The United States promises not to interfere with Russian occupation of these territories, even if it requires nuking Paris.  Honestly don't think it will come to that.  I doubt the French can fight as hard as the Ukrainians.  But it is clear that France or Paris has nothing to do with the national security interests of the United States. 

Oh, but Macaroon did demand that Pooter come back to the bargaining table.  Right after promising not to use nukes in retaliation of a Russian nuclear attack.  Warned Belarus too that if it joined the war it would "be against the wishes of it's people". 

What planet...?

[TheDeamon]

And as Macaroon sits at the table in NATO, that means he has effectively told Russia that NATO will do nothing to escalate things should Russia decide to take "more extreme measures" in Ukraine. Because France will block it.

Which means "coalition of the willing" time once again, and more pissing on NATO once again by the United States.

[NobleHunter]

Maybe I'm too optimistic but I think NATO would form a united front if push came to shove over Ukraine. As much as certain people want to avoid drastic action, actually fighting their intended opponent seems to prove NATO's relevance for anyone to officially break with the coalition.

[Grant]

and more pissing on NATO once again by the United States.

Nobody is pissing on NATO.  We're pissing on France, because LA FRANCE is pissing on NATO.

Look, I'm being excessive.  I understand Macaroon is just doing what he thinks is best. He's trying to help Ukraine.  He's just worried, maybe with good reason, but he doesn't understand that what he is doing is making things worse.  He's useless as a software engineer at a construction site.  He's not a dummy.  He's just out of his fish bowl. 

[DJQuag]

The issue here is leftists these days have some daydream about how wonderful the USSR was. They've either forgotten or just don't know how *censored* the system was. Capitalism is the least worst option, full of holes but better then the current alternatives.

They see Russia as the successor to the USSR and go full on in defending them.

It's funny, really. What other scenario could come about where you see super lefties and super authoritarian righties (Tucker Carlson,) come together in defense of Vladimir Asshat Putin?

[Grant]

The issue here is leftists these days have some daydream about how wonderful the USSR was. They've either forgotten or just don't know how *censored* the system was. Capitalism is the least worst option, full of holes but better then the current alternatives.

They see Russia as the successor to the USSR and go full on in defending them.

It's funny, really. What other scenario could come about where you see super lefties and super authoritarian righties (Tucker Carlson,) come together in defense of Vladimir Asshat Putin?

I was about to comment that there are probably more National Conservative backers of Pooter today than Tankies. 

I would suggest that tankies know full well, but well, they're tankies.  It's mind boggling watching these people on Youtube who have never seen Blazing Saddles before.  Like, "you are 30 years old, man".  "What have you been doing?".  What did your parents teach you?  Why are you voting if you don't understand the culture and history of your own country?  I'm sorry, but Millennials were failed as a generation.  I mean, if they havn't seen Blazing Saddles, how are they supposed to be able to make informed decisions about anything, including Russia and the USSR? 

I dunno.  There are dumbasses everywhere. I got to run into people here who believe the Viet Cong and NVA were basically cuddly Ewoks, fighting for the people against the evil empire of the USA and capitalism.  Like how the Viet Cong had the backing of the "people", as if Pew had taken a poll in the Mekong Delta.  Yeah, no *censored* the peasants backed them, after they murdered all the people who opposed them.  *censored*. 

[DJQuag]

Tankies are the *worst*.

[DJQuag]

And I'll say, don't be so quick to blame Millenials.

Their parents grew up in a place where one job could cover the rent/mortgage. I'm young, ish, but at 38 I can see how different the world is today.

If you're twenty, without parents to fall back on, it's a real bad place to be.

[Grant]

UN votes 143 to 5 to reject Russia's annexation of Ukrainian territory.  35 abstentions. 

[DJQuag]

If I gave you an envelope with a five dollar bill and a UN vote, you'd be five dollars better off.

[Grant]

If I gave you an envelope with a five dollar bill and a UN vote, you'd be five dollars better off.

There is good political value.  Being able to say that the vast majority of the world is with you is important. 

[DJQuag]

If I gave you an envelope with a five dollar bill and a UN vote, you'd be five dollars better off.

There is good political value.  Being able to say that the vast majority of the world is with you is important.

Important in which way?

You have money, or you have nuclear weapons , or you have both. In the grand scheme of things, that's all that seems to matter. Recall that the UN was absolutely against the second Iraq war. You saw how much good that did.

[TheDeamon]

You have money, or you have nuclear weapons , or you have both. In the grand scheme of things, that's all that seems to matter. Recall that the UN was absolutely against the second Iraq war. You saw how much good that did.

All else considered, there was at least a legal pretext that can be argued about Iraq in 2003. A simple declaration that Iraq was violation of the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement is all the authorization needed. They arguably didn't need a new Security Council Resolution, the one that authorized Desert Storm also indirectly gave authority for Iraqi Freedom. (That and there were a few other resolutions passed after 1991 that Iraq could be found to be in breech of even without the WMD issue, and those also had that cease fire hanging over Saddam's head.)

No such UN Security Council actions are on record as it relates to Ukraine for Russia to even begin to argue that they had any kind of legal pretext (under the UN Charter) for invading Ukraine this past February.

[DJQuag]

Yeah, yeah. I'm sure there was some squirrelly loophole the US used to make it look like they weren't wrong, but we all know what it was. The entire UN told the US to knock it off, and the US told the UN to go suck their own dick.

As I said. If you have money and/or nuclear weapons, the UN means jack *censored* to you. You get to do whatever you want.

[Grant]

Important in which way?

You have money, or you have nuclear weapons , or you have both. In the grand scheme of things, that's all that seems to matter. Recall that the UN was absolutely against the second Iraq war. You saw how much good that did.

Important because it makes it easier for you to have more people supporting you.  The idea being a part of Clausewitz's Trinity.  Military power being a projection of a combination of 1)The military, 2)The government, 3) The people.  And in a democracy, all power flows from the people.  The more people you have supporting you, the more political power the government will have, and the more confidence and empowered the military will be with the support. 

Glad you brought up Iraq.  The lack of clear international UN support helped fuel domestic political opposition which could have ended the war earlier if more people had felt the same way and to this day fuels an intense feeling of abandonment and misuse from veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.  The milwriters genre is full of a whole bunch of angst over Iraq and Afghanistan.  There is plenty of disagreement over what the source of this angst is, but my belief is that it's source is a combination of 1) loss, and 2) lack of political agreement.

When the majority of the world is with you, it's hard for domestic opposition to form.  That's not saying that it doesn't exist.  There was domestic opposition in 1991 and today.  But it pales in comparison to the domestic opposition in 2003/2004.  That's what happens when an entire political party takes up the mantle. 

War isn't simply an equation where money and nuclear weapons are the only variables.  I've been trying to point that out.  If it were, the United States would never lose.  If it were, the United States would not even exist. 

[Grant]

Yeah, yeah. I'm sure there was some squirrelly loophole the US used to make it look like they weren't wrong, but we all know what it was. The entire UN told the US to knock it off, and the US told the UN to go suck their own dick.

As I said. If you have money and/or nuclear weapons, the UN means jack *censored* to you. You get to do whatever you want.

This seems to be a rather over simplified recall of international relations in 2002/2003.  I'd say it ignores the consequences as well. 

[DJQuag]

Yeah, yeah. I'm sure there was some squirrelly loophole the US used to make it look like they weren't wrong, but we all know what it was. The entire UN told the US to knock it off, and the US told the UN to go suck their own dick.

As I said. If you have money and/or nuclear weapons, the UN means jack *censored* to you. You get to do whatever you want.

This seems to be a rather over simplified recall of international relations in 2002/2003.  I'd say it ignores the consequences as well.

Funnily enough, I got arrested at age 17 for marching against the Iraq War. Well. I might have been doing more then marching, but you know.

Honesty curious, what international consequences did you see the US taking due to the Iraq war?

[Grant]

Funnily enough, I got arrested at age 17 for marching against the Iraq War. Well. I might have been doing more then marching, but you know.

Honesty curious, what international consequences did you see the US taking due to the Iraq war?

You're probably looking for something like sanctions, etc.  But that's not the consequences I'm talking about. 

As I laid out, the lack of a UN resolution authorizing war allowed the Democratic party to strongly embrace the anti-war party within the United States, and make the war a central issue in the 2004 elections.  It's not the only factor, but it was a big one.

The domestic political battle weakened the United State's ability to prosecute the war in Iraq to it's full capability.  It was not the ONLY factor.  There were many other factors as well.  But political fracture weakens your ability to project power and win.  If Kerry had won, the war may well have been over much sooner.  Or maybe not. 

The international consequences was a distancing of Europe from America.  This meant that Europe was not as inclined to listen to the United States warn about Russia.  France and Germany tried to create a new axis of power in Europe.  Still are, really.  But the horse they bet on decided to buck them off and kick them in the head. 

[Grant]

I don't understand why the Russians are attacking as hard as they are around Bakhmut.  Surely they realize that with mobilization, their strength is estimated to grow over the coming months of winter.  Time is sort of back on Russia's side.  Not decisively, but the point is that Russia will grow stronger by the day due to mobilized reinforcements arriving at the front, being given better eqiupment, getting additional training and supplies, and building unit cohesion. 

Then why are they throwing themselves at the ZSU around Bakhmut?  They're grinding their green reinforcements up along with their veterans in what appears to be attacks with no hope of achieving any type of breakthrough. A spoiling attack?  I guess that could be the case, to force the ZSU to move it's artillery and supplies to bolster the Donbas instead of reinforcing their attacks on the Russian northern flank. 

If the Russians were smart they would just dig in and continue to defend in depth.  I don't know if they are continuing to be stupid or if there is something I'm not seeing.  This is basically 1916 levels of stupid. 

[TheDrake]

political fracture weakens your ability to project power and win

You say that like its a bad thing. Political fracture in Russia kept them from projecting their power for many years. I think it would be nice if most if not all countries would stop projecting their power, and start taking care of their residents.

[DJQuag]

political fracture weakens your ability to project power and win

You say that like its a bad thing. Political fracture in Russia kept them from projecting their power for many years. I think it would be nice if most if not all countries would stop projecting their power, and start taking care of their residents.

Political fracture happened in Russia and it gave us Putin. *Putin.*

Unless there is some CIA type of thing going down I really feel we should allow all countries to sort their own stuff out.

[Grant]

You say that like its a bad thing. Political fracture in Russia kept them from projecting their power for many years. I think it would be nice if most if not all countries would stop projecting their power, and start taking care of their residents.

Sometimes taking care of your residents means being able to project military power. 

[TheDrake]

I don't believe that is true. Canada has very little ability to project military power. Also Argentina. Pick any number of other countries. Cuba, Belize, Iceland.

[DJQuag]

Even Canada must have some military. Yes, they'd fall down in front of the US and probably even Mexico, but they *have* to have *something.*. You're not a real country if you don't.

[TheDrake]

The discussion is about "projecting" power, not having a military to defend your territorial integrity. Specifically that its bad when you have a fractured political landscape that won't allow you to successfully win when doing so. I'm not disparaging Canada in any way. They have participated in many international missions as well, but they wouldn't be there on their own.

[Grant]

The discussion is about "projecting" power, not having a military to defend your territorial integrity. Specifically that its bad when you have a fractured political landscape that won't allow you to successfully win when doing so. I'm not disparaging Canada in any way. They have participated in many international missions as well, but they wouldn't be there on their own.

You can blame me.  I think I used "projecting" power as it is effected by political weakness.  The way you are describing "projecting power" is more valid.  The long distance ability to bring military power to bear.  For lack of a better term immediately on the tip of the tongue, I was talking about military power as a whole.  Military power as a whole is effected by the Clausewitzian trinity of Military, Government, and People.  The concept of "power projection", as a function of distance, is a simple logistical concept that is governed by material assets available.  It's more math than art.  While the Clausewitzian trinity is better understood as "social science". 

That being said, Canada has indeed projected power in the past.  I would say to good effect.  The United States has projected power since the late 19th century.  The ability of the United States to successfully project power is in many ways responsible for the formation of the entire 20th Century.  You can argue that this was done to the world's detriment, but I will point out that since 1945, the deaths from war that the United States was involved in was minute compared to the wars it was not involved in and the death that resulted from the world wars. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKPFT-RioU&t=935s

[DJQuag]

Yeah, it's kind of hilarious how all the wars don't add up to deaths caused by the US Civil War. Like, *censored*, that was a moment. We came out stronger and able to project military force at places like Spain though so it all works out.

[DJQuag]

Spain was always a prick. Never forgot the Armada.

[TheDrake]

Always about the body count. Yeah, lots of people died in the civil war, partly because they didn't have antibiotics. What about millions of Vietnamese living in fear for years? Pepper maimed by land mines strewn about by various countries projecting their power. Let's not get started on the British empire projecting power right up everyone's arse. Is it sometimes good to be able to project your power? I guess Kuwait would go with a firm thank you on that one. It's not always bad. Having a Pacific fleet was handy to fight the Japanese on their home turf. At first glance. Until you realize that it was Americans projecting our power into their back yard that started the whole thing in the first place. I'm response, in part to Japan projecting their power more locally. I would argue that I'm the legitimate cases of projecting power, there would be no political fracturing and everyone could get behind it, like retaliation against Afghanistan.

[DJQuag]

Been a while since I heard a Westerner tell me how Pearl Harbour was really America's fault but Sunday comes around once a week, as they say.

[Fenring]

Been a while since I heard a Westerner tell me how Pearl Harbour was really America's fault but Sunday comes around once a week, as they say.

I hear it now and again. I tend to think matters are usually more complex than "the bad guys came and were bad!" Sometimes it really is that, but often not.

[DJQuag]

The Japanese were *so* bad that the literal Nazi ambassador tried to tell them to chill with what they were doing in China. Think on that for a moment. Early 20th century Japan were the bad guys, no ifs ands or buts.

Just seeing a written overview or pictures of the rape of Nanking makes me wish they'd had a third nuke to throw at them.

[DJQuag]

Unit 731. Yes. They were the bad guys.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

[DJQuag]

I'll also point out that to this day the Japanese don't really like to acknowledge what happened. You don't see that issue in Germany, every German kid grows up knowing what happened.

[Grant]

Been a while since I heard a Westerner tell me how Pearl Harbour was really America's fault but Sunday comes around once a week, as they say.

Hmmmm.  The disciples of Michael Tracey. 

I mean, there is a lot to be said about the American involvement in the Second World War before Pearl Harbor.  There is plenty to be said about Lend Lease.  I've brought this up myself.  You can't just support one side and expect the other side to think of you as a non-belligerent.  I've been saying we've been involved in Ukraine since the get-go.  America likes to see what it can get away with. 

It's interesting that Tracy, and his disciples try to shy away from the implications of their assertions.  "I'm not saying it was bad for the US to enter WWII".  Yet that's exactly what they want to keep from happening today based on their view of yesterday.  He likes to shy away from blaming the US for the Holocaust, but that is exactly where his logic leads. 

The lesson extracted by Tracy and his disciples is the exact opposite of the lessons extracted by the actual participants.  It's remarkable really.  But we're talking about a Tucker Carlson favorite who was a Bernie Bro and is now a Tulsi Gabbard fan.  The "stay out" crew recently verbally accosted AOC at a town hall for supporting weapons sales to Ukraine. I'm not exactly a fan of Bernie or AOC, but their followers are much worse than they are. 

https://mtracey.substack.com/p/a-fairy-tale-version-of-world-war

[cherrypoptart]

No doubt about Japanese atrocities and not wanting to bring them up.

A lot like America doesn't want to acknowledge all the raping by Americans against the Japanese that went on during the war and occupation including our own use of "comfort women".

--------------------------

From wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan

"... the Japanese government established the Recreation and Amusement Association (RAA), military brothels to cater to the Allied troops upon their arrival, though most professional prostitutes were unwilling to have sex with Americans due to the impact of wartime propaganda.[18] Some of the women who volunteered to work in these brothels claimed that they did so as they felt they had a duty to protect other women from Allied troops.[19] These officially sponsored brothels were ordered closed in January 1946 when the Occupation authorities banned all "public" prostitution while declaring that it was undemocratic and violated the human rights of the women involved.[20] The closure of the brothels took effect a few months later, and it was in private acknowledged that the main reason for closing down the brothels was the huge increase in venereal diseases among the soldiers.[20]

Rapes by U.S. forces
Incidence

Robert L. Eichelberger recorded his troops' suppression of the Japanese vigilante guard.[21]
Assessments of the incidence of rape by American occupation personnel differ.[22]

John W. Dower has written that while the R.A.A. was in place "the incidence of rape remained relatively low given the huge size of the occupation force".[20] Dower wrote: "According to one calculation, the number of rapes and assaults on Japanese women amounted to around 40 daily while the R.A.A was in operation, and then rose to an average of 330 a day after it was terminated in early 1946".[23] According to Dower, "more than a few incidents" of assault and rape were never reported to the police.[24]

Buruma states that while it is likely that more than 40 rapes took place each day, "most Japanese would have recognized that the Americans were far more disciplined than they had feared, especially in comparison to the behaviour of their own troops abroad".[25]

According to Terèse Svoboda "the number of reported rapes soared" after the closure of the brothels, and she takes this as evidence that the Japanese had been successful in suppressing incidents of rape by providing prostitutes to the soldiers.[21] Svoboda gives one example where R.A.A. facilities were active but some not yet ready to open and "hundreds of American soldiers broke into two of their facilities and raped all the women".

[cherrypoptart]

Granted that's pure whataboutism, but it is what it is.

[TheDrake]

Been a while since I heard a Westerner tell me how Pearl Harbour was really America's fault but Sunday comes around once a week, as they say.

Fault implies blame. I'm not saying we were wrong to intervene there, I'm not qualified. But I do know that if the us has no Pacific fleet, it never gets bombed. That should be obvious.

So the proposition is that countries need to project power because there are bad leaders and governments, and someone needs to put a stop to them? I'm theory that sounds rational. It works well in a fictional universe where the baddest guys are able to be identified, game of thrones style with humans vs walkers. But it's also why factions are always killing each other when they decide the other ones are bad guys.

Public support might be a good indicator, if it weren't for the racial and cultural biases.

I don't have a great solution. Projecting power seems like it should have been a good response to Rawanda. But if the world had intervened, might they have just delayed that genocide, or made the conflict last decades?

[DJQuag]

I find it darkly amusing that forty odd rapes were happening everyday, and God knows what else, and the reaction of the Japanese public was relief because they feared the Americans would act like their own soldiers.

[Grant]

Fault implies blame. I'm not saying we were wrong to intervene there, I'm not qualified. But I do know that if the us has no Pacific fleet, it never gets bombed. That should be obvious.

Geezus.  Really? 

It works well in a fictional universe where the baddest guys are able to be identified, game of thrones style with humans vs walkers.

You're going to accuse people of living in a fictional universe because they believe "the baddest guys" can be identified, while simultaneously proposing that countries without the means to defend themselves have nothing to worry about from other countries? Particularly countries that are already invading their neighbors that are not as well armed? 

In the words of Dave Skylark:  "Wait.  Let's back it up a moment."

[Grant]

It works well in a fictional universe where the baddest guys are able to be identified, game of thrones style with humans vs walkers.

Not to mention, then passing off GoT as a monochromatic presentation of morality in conflict, given the amount of *censored*tery committed by almost all factions and personalities, including the idea that the White Walkers were created due to genocide against the Children of the Forest. 

I mean, did you even watch the show?  Read the books? 

Next time you're going to throw someone under the bus on simplistic representations of good and evil, try Tolkien instead. 

[TheDrake]

When did I imply that a country shouldn't be able to defend itself? You don't need a blue water navy for that. You do need a blue water navy to establish the Monroe doctrine and related concepts. You do need a blue water navy if you need to punish and subjugate the country with the temerity to have attacked you.

Apologies for not thinking of a more sophisticated analogy from fiction.

[DJQuag]

Oh dear. This is gonna be a fight.

[Fenring]

It works well in a fictional universe where the baddest guys are able to be identified, game of thrones style with humans vs walkers.

Not to mention, then passing off GoT as a monochromatic presentation of morality in conflict, given the amount of *censored*tery committed by almost all factions and personalities, including the idea that the White Walkers were created due to genocide against the Children of the Forest. 

I mean, did you even watch the show?  Read the books? 

Heh, he did say baddest guys, which does not imply there are good guys involved

[cherrypoptart]

So I guess you're going to get me started...

The U.S. invited Pearl Harbor when we didn't listen to Mark Twain and let the Philippines be free after we "won" it from Spain and further did the Bruce Lee nose thumb come at me gesture when we colonized Hawaii. So America colonized Hawaii and the Philippines, Britain colonized India, the French are in Vietnam, Russia is trying to instigate civil wars the world over including in Japan, and all Japan ever wanted was to be left alone but were forced to open their borders when "three black ships" started firing off their coast. Part of America's process of persuasion was to inform Japan about the true state of the world with European and American power colonizing vast swaths of it with the implication that they could be next, if not by us than by someone else. Japan took that threat to heart.

There is also an interpretation of history along the lines that Japan didn't really lose the war. Yes, the lost the war for conquest of Asia but they won the greater war because they are one of only two Asian countries that were never colonized and never suffered a commie civil war, either of which would have been worse than what they suffered in the war including the nukes, also noting that some countries experienced the pleasure of suffering both like Vietnam which today enjoys a GDP of 271 billion compared to Japan's 5 trillion.

It's also worth noting that our ships were sailing in Japanese waters trying to provoke an incident that would act as an excuse for war, and if none were forthcoming eventually we would have made one up ala The Gulf of Tonkin incident and Remember the Maine.

Disclaimer: Obviously none of that is any excuse for their evil barbaric behavior.

[DJQuag]

It works well in a fictional universe where the baddest guys are able to be identified, game of thrones style with humans vs walkers.

Not to mention, then passing off GoT as a monochromatic presentation of morality in conflict, given the amount of *censored*tery committed by almost all factions and personalities, including the idea that the White Walkers were created due to genocide against the Children of the Forest. 

I mean, did you even watch the show?  Read the books? 

Next time you're going to throw someone under the bus on simplistic representations of good and evil, try Tolkien instead.

Not gonna lie, the fact that the White Walkers were created by the Children of the Forest as a last ditch effort to fend off the invasion of the First Men is just chefs kiss material.