I need to get this off my chest
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Switzerland's military isn't that big, but then again, they focus on a national defense. Not a defense and offense for more than one country, like we do.
Isn't that the case with most countries? Very few - us, China, and Russia come to mind - are tooled up for power projection and fighting on foreign soil. Even North Korea; their massive military force is only intended for one local mission.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Sorta goes against the idea that "very little of the world respects or values diplomacy", no?
That's not my take-away, from studying world history all my life (I'm 59).
You and Woodrow Wilson would have gotten along well.
Quiz question: Where did the US military strength rank in the world when WWI began? Or WWII?
Bonus question: "How did diplomatic efforts between Germany, France and England in the late 1930s work out for them?"
Last edited:
Throw a little Neville in there too.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
The idea that an EO pivots on something it doesn't actually SAY but on interpreting something said six to ten months earlier on a campaign is on itself ridiculous.
IANAL - actually I like that, because it SOUNDS crude - I don't see how this holds up. Trying to make an EO about religion when the WORDS of the EO show that it not only does no such thing but clearly bans people of ANY religion - is absurd.
I have to think it has no merit and I wonder why it has any traction at all. It seems to me you should not be able to halt a ban without solid reason.
That is so bizarre. As I posted earlier, does this now mean that politicians will be held legally liable for every single thing they utter on the campaign trail? Wouldn't that be a sight to behold!
