Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
Quoted
Originally posted by perdedor99
Nothing will happen. Africa fall under the Domino Theory if we go by that reasoning. "Our African colonies could fall next if we don't do something, etc." I said before when SEAR was signed and I said it again boring to the end. Building ships for the sake of building ships.
Quoted
Originally posted by perdedor99
But war is just another tool of diplomacy. Sometimes you have to do it to achieve a purpose. Diplomacy by itself never would have kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in 1990 for example. He would have stayed there for at least five-six years, rob the place blind and then leaves after sanctions force him to backdown. Five years of sanctions, while the Kuwaiti people were killed?
Congo 1960: Telling the Kantangan rebels: Please don't kill Europeans? You got to sent paratroopers to kick some butt.
Poland 1939: British and French decided to actually going to war after Germany took them for fools before.
US 1861: I will be serving in the CSA if Lincoln as not made his decision not to handle the forts to the South.
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
Quoted
Originally posted by perdedor99
Nothing will happen. Africa fall under the Domino Theory if we go by that reasoning. "Our African colonies could fall next if we don't do something, etc." I said before when SEAR was signed and I said it again boring to the end. Building ships for the sake of building ships.
Not necessarily; someone just has to not care about the cost of such actions.
Quoted
Originally posted by perdedor99
But war is just another tool of diplomacy. Sometimes you have to do it to achieve a purpose. Diplomacy by itself never would have kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in 1990 for example. He would have stayed there for at least five-six years, rob the place blind and then leaves after sanctions force him to backdown. Five years of sanctions, while the Kuwaiti people were killed?
Congo 1960: Telling the Kantangan rebels: Please don't kill Europeans? You got to sent paratroopers to kick some butt.
Poland 1939: British and French decided to actually going to war after Germany took them for fools before.
US 1861: I will be serving in the CSA if Lincoln as not made his decision not to handle the forts to the South.
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
Quoted
Originally posted by perdedor99
Nothing will happen. Africa fall under the Domino Theory if we go by that reasoning. "Our African colonies could fall next if we don't do something, etc." I said before when SEAR was signed and I said it again boring to the end. Building ships for the sake of building ships.
Not necessarily; someone just has to not care about the cost of such actions.
After all, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the US had already beaten them without firing a shot - the US quite literally bankrupted Japan by 1941... and a bankrupted nation struggling to win a war in China then proceeded to attack a country which controlled over 40% of the planet's economic warmaking potential and had a gross domestic product seventeen times larger than Japan's.
They lost and it was inevitable; but that didn't change their desire to declare war.
Quoted
After all, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the US had already beaten them without firing a shot - the US quite literally bankrupted Japan by 1941... and a bankrupted nation struggling to win a war in China then proceeded to attack a country which controlled over 40% of the planet's economic warmaking potential and had a gross domestic product seventeen times larger than Japan's.
They lost and it was inevitable; but that didn't change their desire to declare war.
Quoted
At the very least, it seems Hood and Perdedor have understood the principles of War By Peaceful Means. India's maneuvers over the past few sim years are an almost flawless example of war by politics. India used SATSUMA to gain her part of Pakistan; then used her defection from SATSUMA to gain her peace with Britain, suzerainty of Persia, assurance of oil, and a line to incorporate her growing economy into the monetary greenhouse of Europe and the West. India's used a bit of force in Baluchistan and Persia, but that's almost tiddliwinks compared to their diplomatic coups.
THAT's a splendid example of my kind of war.
Quoted
Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Quoted
Originally posted by perdedor99
But war is just another tool of diplomacy. Sometimes you have to do it to achieve a purpose. Diplomacy by itself never would have kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in 1990 for example. He would have stayed there for at least five-six years, rob the place blind and then leaves after sanctions force him to backdown. Five years of sanctions, while the Kuwaiti people were killed?
Congo 1960: Telling the Kantangan rebels: Please don't kill Europeans? You got to sent paratroopers to kick some butt.
Poland 1939: British and French decided to actually going to war after Germany took them for fools before.
US 1861: I will be serving in the CSA if Lincoln as not made his decision not to handle the forts to the South.
Judging by history, Saddam would still be controlling Kuwait, the sanctions didn't bite him hard enough and there would have been plenty of smuggling to deal with the other costs. Not to mention, if (somehow) sanctions on oil were enacted and enforced, how high would the price of oil been during the early-mid 1990s?
Quoted
Originally posted by perdedor99
Japan gamble they could have won a negotiated peace and lost that gamble. That was their objective. Then they achieved their early objectives too easily and got bitten by the "victory bug".
I agree they miscalculated but Japan got their reasons. As I said, it was a calculated risk and they lost.
Quoted
It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
Quoted
Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Atlantis and FAR : Actually, at this stage, I wonder why Atlantis is in FAR anymore.
With the Iberian tensions mostly resolved, and South America secure, I would think NATO would take the place of FAR.
Quoted
Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
We explicitly did not have the meat grinder of WWI as in OTL, it was bad, but not so bad as to make nations pacifistic as OTL.
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
Quoted
Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Oh, and that idea for an India-China war? Better nix that as well, because FAR will intervene there too (after all, it involves a SATSUMA member).
Now you're just sounding petulant.
Quoted
Originally posted by Desertfox
Well I guess I'll have to bite the bullet and invade Cuba... alone. Just give me a few years to get some amphibs and we can have a war.
Quoted
Originally posted by perdedor99
Nothing will happen. Africa fall under the Domino Theory if we go by that reasoning. "Our African colonies could fall next if we don't do something, etc." I said before when SEAR was signed and I said it again boring to the end. Building ships for the sake of building ships.
Quoted
Easier to increase the size of your Army and have both Canals under Mexican administration. Then you have Mexican Canal 1 and 2. *runs away*
Quoted
True enough. At this point, I can't see anywhere in the world (except perhaps North America or Australia) where FAR won't want to pull out this doctrine. South America? Nope, Chile's there, might affect them, we're in. Africa? Nope, might affect French colonies, we're in. Europe? Nope, we're there already, we're in. Asia, nope, might affect French colonies, we're in. Australia proper and continental North America are really the only places they don't have a leg to stand on..... wait, continental North America has Quebec. Oh, might affect French speakers, we're in. Sheesh.
Quoted
Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
Quoted
Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Oh, and that idea for an India-China war? Better nix that as well, because FAR will intervene there too (after all, it involves a SATSUMA member).
Now you're just sounding petulant.
Well? Isn't that a logical extension of your Domino Policy? "A SATSUMA member (China) is involved in a war. That means French Indochina is about to be invaded. Send out the hordes!" Isn't that, in a nutshell, the FAR policy you yourself stated back a few posts?
Quoted
Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Quoted
Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
We explicitly did not have the meat grinder of WWI as in OTL, it was bad, but not so bad as to make nations pacifistic as OTL.
I don't know about this part: for Versailles to be as it was, the war had to be about as bad as it was historically. MORE territory changed hands after WW WWI than OTL, and the only change to the treaty terms was that Germany wasn't quite as limited in naval matters as OTL. To me, that looks like the war was as bad, because if Germany, Austria, and Turkey hadn't been completely exhausted by the war, those terms would have resulted in the war restarting.
Quoted
Originally posted by Desertfox
World vs FAR? Once they are out of the picture we can have some fun.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH