Few Americans would support intervention if Russia attacked eastern Europe
45 replies, posted
[QUOTE=cdr248;44432600]America didn't want to join that war at all. IIRC the US originally didn't want to get involved in any of the world wars.[/QUOTE]
Maybe at the very very beginning, but even by the time that France fell the US was just biding time until it entered.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;44432833]People supported going into Afghanistan because 9/11 sent every one of us into a collective, foaming-at-the-mouth rage. Corporate interest had nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE]
Corporate interest had plenty to do with it. The collective insanity is why anyone who asked pointed questions was shouted down and accused of being a terrorist sympathizer.
Even if the US didn't lend support, I'd more than likely go over there myself and volunteer if Russia invaded some poor Baltic country.
[editline]2nd April 2014[/editline]
Come on, Explosions, it would be fun! Just like in the movies, you can be Bill Murray and I'll be John Candy.
Oh, I see you've removed your disagree.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;44433401]Even if the US didn't lend support, I'd more than likely go over there myself and volunteer if Russia invaded some poor Baltic country.[/QUOTE]
A Farewell to Arms Part II? Hope it doesn't suck as much as the first book.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44433476]A Farewell to Arms Part II? Hope it doesn't suck as much as the first book.[/QUOTE]Never really been a fan of Hemingway to be honest, but I could see myself in a field hospital. I'd be helping people and stuff, it would be great. :D
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;44433401]Even if the US didn't lend support, I'd more than likely go over there myself and volunteer if Russia invaded some poor Baltic country.
[editline]2nd April 2014[/editline]
Come on, Explosions, it would be fun! Just like in the movies, you can be Bill Murray and I'll be John Candy.
Oh, I see you've removed your disagree.[/QUOTE]
I'm assuming you didn't go to Libya or Syria. Why does the buck stop in Estonia?
[QUOTE=Explosions;44433554]I'm assuming you didn't go to Libya or Syria. Why does the buck stop in Estonia?[/QUOTE]I [i]almost[/i] went to Libya, but ultimately I decided not to because by the time I made up my mind things were already slowing down. Syria was a definite no-go, I didn't want to throw in with the side that had the same motherfuckers who thought 9/11 was an improvement to the New York skyline. I like my head, and frankly I don't want to be kidnapped and beheaded by my supposed brothers in arms simply because I'm an American. (though I'm sure the FSA would work to keep me well away from those elements)
Both situations don't really need more bodies, they need physical equipment that I do not have and cannot provide. (well, needed in the case of Libya, it's a whole different animal these days) Meanwhile Estonia (I don't know why you chose Estonia, but let's roll with it) would be up against the massive Russian military with it's meager little force, that situation would benefit greatly from having volunteers.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;44432833]People supported going into Afghanistan because 9/11 sent every one of us into a collective, foaming-at-the-mouth rage. Corporate interest had nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE]
You kind of glossed over Iraq there didn't you?
The reason Americans aren't in such a rush to jump in wars in Eastern Europe is Americans aren't eager to be fighting Russia. Not because we can't fight them, but because the cost will be very high...extremely high. Nuclear weapons high. If we fought Russia and they started losing, what's to stop them from using a small tactical device on our troops to try to regain momentum? Once that happens Americans will demand they get toasted immediately.
It's best to not let that scenario start in the first place. Which is why Americans aren't interested in wars there now.
[QUOTE=demoguy08;44431727]I think the response to this survey closely correlates to "have you ever heard about this country before?"[/QUOTE]
dubya made sure to remind them of poland
[QUOTE=smurfy;44431691][t]http://imgkk.com/i/yzeg.png[/t]
[url]http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/04/02/americans-if-russia-attacks-defend-britain-not-ukr/[/url][/QUOTE]
And this survey of whether or not American military forces would support intervention in European conflicts is according to "yougov.co.uk."
Regardless, it doesn't really matter what percent of the American public does or doesn't support anything because their elected representatives and the lobbyists those representatives work for will make the decision for them anyway.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;44433815]You kind of glossed over Iraq there didn't you?
The reason Americans aren't in such a rush to jump in wars in Eastern Europe is Americans aren't eager to be fighting Russia. Not because we can't fight them, but because the cost will be very high...extremely high. Nuclear weapons high. If we fought Russia and they started losing, what's to stop them from using a small tactical device on our troops to try to regain momentum? Once that happens Americans will demand they get toasted immediately.
It's best to not let that scenario start in the first place. Which is why Americans aren't interested in wars there now.[/QUOTE]
lmao no matter how costly a war would be for a country, they absolutely would not use nuclear weaponry because they know that it justifies their enemy to use nuclear weaponry; and from there it's all down hill to their destruction. Russia also wouldn't use a nuke on their own soil because it would make the land barren and uninhabitable for centuries. Not only that, but it would incur thousands if not millions of civilian deaths over the years, and the last thing you need to lose during a war on your own soil is the support of your civilians.
Futhermore, an attack on Russia would be kicked off with all their long range missile silos and vehicles taking hits. We'd knock all that stuff out within the first few hours of an attack on Russia.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;44433815]You kind of glossed over Iraq there didn't you?[/QUOTE]
Iraq was Bush wanting to one-up daddy, and nobody really being able to do anything but go along with him.
So Estonia isn't in eastern europe anymore?
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;44434565]Iraq was Bush wanting to one-up daddy, and nobody really being able to do anything but go along with him.[/QUOTE]
It was more of Bush doing whatever Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz etc... wanted with those first two having a lot of pull.
Those three were part of the Neocon dream man.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.