- 14 Sep 2024 20:10
#15324921
You're the one spouting the idiocy. Take the Cuban missile crisis. International Law is surly clear on that one. The United States had absolutely no right to dictate to Cuba's government what weapons it could have on its sovereign territory. But at the end of the day no one really cares about international law, when it becomes majorly inconvenient. The Soviet leadership had to accept that Cuba was a part of the US's back yard. They had to accept that the US cared a lot more about Cuba than they did. You presumably think that Khrushchev and the politburo should have rode straight through Kennedy's red lines and called his bluff on a nuclear war.
By the same token the Soviet Union had no right to dictate what weapons Turkey had on its soil. But again the US recognised that Turkey was in the SU's backyard and withdrew nuclear weapons from Turkey. We see a similar pattern with Communist China. Ultimately we accepted that Tibet was part of China's back yard and China could go in and destroy Tibet's culture. Also in Vietnam, recognition of China's interest in North Vietnam severely hampered the US war effort.
Some people like Meersheimer hide their anti American hatred behind a cloak of realism. His attitude to Israel has exposed him as the fraud he is, an anti American idealist posing as a realist. Israel's nculear weapons are a fact that allows them to get away with a much greater level of bullying of their neigbours. The fact that people use realism as a cover for their real views does not negate the fact that nuclear powers can not be militarily defeated in their immediate neighbourhood without taking an insane risk.
Rugoz wrote:The very notion that countries with nuclear weapons should be spared defeat in foreign wars must be rejected in the strongest way possible. It's geopolitical idiocy.
You're the one spouting the idiocy. Take the Cuban missile crisis. International Law is surly clear on that one. The United States had absolutely no right to dictate to Cuba's government what weapons it could have on its sovereign territory. But at the end of the day no one really cares about international law, when it becomes majorly inconvenient. The Soviet leadership had to accept that Cuba was a part of the US's back yard. They had to accept that the US cared a lot more about Cuba than they did. You presumably think that Khrushchev and the politburo should have rode straight through Kennedy's red lines and called his bluff on a nuclear war.
By the same token the Soviet Union had no right to dictate what weapons Turkey had on its soil. But again the US recognised that Turkey was in the SU's backyard and withdrew nuclear weapons from Turkey. We see a similar pattern with Communist China. Ultimately we accepted that Tibet was part of China's back yard and China could go in and destroy Tibet's culture. Also in Vietnam, recognition of China's interest in North Vietnam severely hampered the US war effort.
Some people like Meersheimer hide their anti American hatred behind a cloak of realism. His attitude to Israel has exposed him as the fraud he is, an anti American idealist posing as a realist. Israel's nculear weapons are a fact that allows them to get away with a much greater level of bullying of their neigbours. The fact that people use realism as a cover for their real views does not negate the fact that nuclear powers can not be militarily defeated in their immediate neighbourhood without taking an insane risk.
Progressives lie scattered on Woke's highway, Diverse ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.
- By GandalfTheGrey
- By Puffer Fish
- By Hakeer