Would you support this war?

[Santander]

Mutual defense is mutual defense.

[OctoCube]

I am very dovish on foreign policy, but a defensive pact is in place and to back out of it not only leaves this country who thought they could count on us a sitting duck but it devalues the word of the United States to live up to its international obligations.


TL;DR: Yes.

[Karpatsky]

the fact that this question can be asked and that people are actually answering "no" is freaking disturbing.  You all understand the point of defensive treaties, right?  You don't have a choice as to whether assist or not.  Funking cowards, everyone of you.

Defensive treaties, like the real world, aren't black and white. Take The Budapest Memorandum, our treaty with Ukraine that guarantees it's territorial integrity but doesn't require us to declare war on Russia ASAP as one example.

sure, but that's not the words he used.  He used very specific words, " since we have a mutual defense pact with Country B".  Mutual Defense Pact, means exactly what it says, mutual defense.  It's can't be an option whether we go to war if the other country is invaded.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a hypothetical, we can only know so much.  But we know enough to know that a mutual defense pact is involved and the conditions for us to act have been filled.  Thus we have to act.  These pacts become worthless the second a country doesn't defend an attacked member.  It's not up for discussion.  It can't be.

Agreed. The mutual defense pact is the most important part of this scenario - failing to intervene would destroy our country's credibility on the international stage. If this is the US we are talking about, it would mean the end of the modern international system.

[Ye We Can]

This is literally a slightly changed description of Nazi Germany you guys. 

Runeghost confirmed fascist appeaser

Wars is general are bad news and the default should always be to avoid them. Truly defensive wars are an exception, and very seldom a matter of choice.

The fascists in both Germany and Japan declared war on the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire

It's always amusing when someone attempting insults demonstrates their own ignorance.

I'm runeghost and I'd wait until the bloodthirsty fascists are finally knocking at my door and nobody will help me because they killed all my friends and can turn their full attention to me

Ahahaha like Poland just don't get invaded ahahaha we'll give Britain lend lease ahahaha


This is like the worst geopolitical take I've ever seen on atlas

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

If Britain and France stopped the Germans in 1937 the whole European Front of WW2 could have been avoided.

And that seems like a good point to end this exercise. I was a little bit dishonest in this prompt, so for the purpose of full disclosure, I'll add a few details.

There is a country that we, the United Kingdom are considering going to war called Germany. It is located in East Asia and currently governed by a charismatic dictator, Adolf Hitler, who rose to power seven years ago. The leader was elected to power based largely on a platform of strong government control over the collapsing economy (this was during the recession), and open hatred towards members of a minority group of the national religion, Jews.
   Since he was elected, Hitler has centralized his control over the government and the country is now effectively a one party state. Their military has expanded considerably in size, and Jews now face official hostility, with rumours of a possible genocide. A number of Jews have already fled the country.
   Germany is actively hostile towards a neighboring country, Poland, which was carved out of Germany during a war we, the United Kingdom fought about twenty years ago. Poland contains a large number of people who are members of Germany's dominant ethnic group, and Germany wants areas where their people are dominant back, along with protection for the remaining members of their ethnic group. To this extent, they threatened Poland to force terms. Poland refused, and so Germany has just invaded them.
   A number of members of our government support us going to war against Germany, since we have a mutual defense pact with Poland. Others object, pointing out that the defense pact is very recent, that Germany currently poses no substantial threat to us, and that Hitler is publicly fond of our nation.
   Would you support this war?

I can't say I didn't expect this result, but I'm still disappointed in all of you. Nearly 40% of you would have opposed the United Kingdom going to war to defend Poland. You would literally have been greater appeasers than Chamberlain.
The point of this is to illustrate the extreme to which many of you have taken dovishness. There are many of you who, as this shows, are against war in any case, even when the evil is at the gates. You will not admit to it for fear of being seen as a Nazi sympathizer, but it has now been laid bare. You would not have fought the Nazis for fear of war.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Mutual defense is mutual defense.

[Progressive Pessimist]

There is no way I could ever either support or oppose any war based on only 4 paragraphs of information.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

If Britain and France stopped the Germans in 1937 the whole European Front of WW2 could have been avoided.

And that seems like a good point to end this exercise. I was a little bit dishonest in this prompt, so for the purpose of full disclosure, I'll add a few details.

There is a country that we, the United Kingdom are considering going to war called Germany. It is located in East Asia and currently governed by a charismatic dictator, Adolf Hitler, who rose to power seven years ago. The leader was elected to power based largely on a platform of strong government control over the collapsing economy (this was during the recession), and open hatred towards members of a minority group of the national religion, Jews.
   Since he was elected, Hitler has centralized his control over the government and the country is now effectively a one party state. Their military has expanded considerably in size, and Jews now face official hostility, with rumours of a possible genocide. A number of Jews have already fled the country.
   Germany is actively hostile towards a neighboring country, Poland, which was carved out of Germany during a war we, the United Kingdom fought about twenty years ago. Poland contains a large number of people who are members of Germany's dominant ethnic group, and Germany wants areas where their people are dominant back, along with protection for the remaining members of their ethnic group. To this extent, they threatened Poland to force terms. Poland refused, and so Germany has just invaded them.
   A number of members of our government support us going to war against Germany, since we have a mutual defense pact with Poland. Others object, pointing out that the defense pact is very recent, that Germany currently poses no substantial threat to us, and that Hitler is publicly fond of our nation.
   Would you support this war?

I can't say I didn't expect this result, but I'm still disappointed in all of you. Nearly 40% of you would have opposed the United Kingdom going to war to defend Poland. You would literally have been greater appeasers than Chamberlain.
The point of this is to illustrate the extreme to which many of you have taken dovishness. There are many of you who, as this shows, are against war in any case, even when the evil is at the gates. You will not admit to it for fear of being seen as a Nazi sympathizer, but it has now been laid bare. You would not have fought the Nazis for fear of war.

You think you're making some clever point. But all you've done is demonstrate some base dishonesty (or ignorance) and illustrated how Americans are far to eager to kill people they don't know when someone tells them they should.

You posted "we" (implying the United States - a nation protected by vast oceans from all but our immediate neighbors), and a nation in East Asia (i.e. not Europe, not the other side of small sea, but rather across the Pacific) and "that Country A currently poses no substantial threat to us". In short, you posited a very different scenario by that facing Germany in the 1930s.

And yet, despite your gross misrepresentation of what you now claim was your scenario many people suggested the exact same course of action the United States actually took.

That you think people should be more eager to start a war that killed three percent of the human race is terrible. Only people who have no understanding of what war is (and who are confident the war will never come home to visit its consequence upon them) could be so foolishly eager for one.



Also  you and Old Republican seem to be rather confused about why Chamberlain was willing to let Hitler's Germany alone in 1938 (not 37). Here is:
Conclusion of Note from General Ismay ( Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence) to the British Cabinet sent on September 20th, 1938:




And on a very final note, consider this slight (and more honest) modification of your scenarion

There is a country that we are considering going to war with that I will call Country A. It is located in the Western Hemisphere and currently governed by a charismatic would-be dictator who rose to power two years ago. The leader was elected to power based largely on a platform of strong government control over the recently-collapse economy (this was after the recession), vague promises of nationa greatness and open hatred towards members of a minority group of the national religion.
   Since he was elected, he has centralized his control over the government and worked to make the country a one party state. He continually calls for expanding the military in size, and the minority religious group now faces official hostility, with ethnic minorities being thrown into concentration camps while others are openly warned against entering the country.
   Country A is actively hostile towards many countries, both near and far. The new leader of Country A has repeatedly advocated invading other nations - including those of the religious minority to seize their resources. Country A's government has repeatedly threatened war against any nation that disagrees with them.
   A number of governments support going to war against Country A before it poses a more substantial threat to the world, and given that the leader of Country A is obviously unstable.
   Would you support this war?

[PSOL]

Why can’t we just put sanctions, condemn the act, and prevent the situation from getting out of control. If this was a balanced U.N. mission I would support it. Otherwise hell no

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

If Britain and France stopped the Germans in 1937 the whole European Front of WW2 could have been avoided.

And that seems like a good point to end this exercise. I was a little bit dishonest in this prompt, so for the purpose of full disclosure, I'll add a few details.

There is a country that we, the United Kingdom are considering going to war called Germany. It is located in East Asia and currently governed by a charismatic dictator, Adolf Hitler, who rose to power seven years ago. The leader was elected to power based largely on a platform of strong government control over the collapsing economy (this was during the recession), and open hatred towards members of a minority group of the national religion, Jews.
   Since he was elected, Hitler has centralized his control over the government and the country is now effectively a one party state. Their military has expanded considerably in size, and Jews now face official hostility, with rumours of a possible genocide. A number of Jews have already fled the country.
   Germany is actively hostile towards a neighboring country, Poland, which was carved out of Germany during a war we, the United Kingdom fought about twenty years ago. Poland contains a large number of people who are members of Germany's dominant ethnic group, and Germany wants areas where their people are dominant back, along with protection for the remaining members of their ethnic group. To this extent, they threatened Poland to force terms. Poland refused, and so Germany has just invaded them.
   A number of members of our government support us going to war against Germany, since we have a mutual defense pact with Poland. Others object, pointing out that the defense pact is very recent, that Germany currently poses no substantial threat to us, and that Hitler is publicly fond of our nation.
   Would you support this war?

I can't say I didn't expect this result, but I'm still disappointed in all of you. Nearly 40% of you would have opposed the United Kingdom going to war to defend Poland. You would literally have been greater appeasers than Chamberlain.
The point of this is to illustrate the extreme to which many of you have taken dovishness. There are many of you who, as this shows, are against war in any case, even when the evil is at the gates. You will not admit to it for fear of being seen as a Nazi sympathizer, but it has now been laid bare. You would not have fought the Nazis for fear of war.

You think you're making some clever point. But all you've done is demonstrate some base dishonesty (or ignorance) and illustrated how Americans are far to eager to kill people they don't know when someone tells them they should.

You posted "we" (implying the United States - a nation protected by vast oceans from all but our immediate neighbors), and a nation in East Asia (i.e. not Europe, not the other side of small sea, but rather across the Pacific) and "that Country A currently poses no substantial threat to us". In short, you posited a very different scenario by that facing Germany in the 1930s.

And yet, despite your gross misrepresentation of what you now claim was your scenario many people suggested the exact same course of action the United States actually took.

That you think people should be more eager to start a war that killed three percent of the human race is terrible. Only people who have no understanding of what war is (and who are confident the war will never come home to visit its consequence upon them) could be so foolishly eager for one.



Also  you and Old Republican seem to be rather confused about why Chamberlain was willing to let Hitler's Germany alone in 1938 (not 37). Here is:
Conclusion of Note from General Ismay ( Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence) to the British Cabinet sent on September 20th, 1938:




And on a very final note, consider this slight (and more honest) modification of your scenarion

There is a country that we are considering going to war with that I will call Country A. It is located in the Western Hemisphere and currently governed by a charismatic would-be dictator who rose to power two years ago. The leader was elected to power based largely on a platform of strong government control over the recently-collapse economy (this was after the recession), vague promises of nationa greatness and open hatred towards members of a minority group of the national religion.
   Since he was elected, he has centralized his control over the government and worked to make the country a one party state. He continually calls for expanding the military in size, and the minority religious group now faces official hostility, with ethnic minorities being thrown into concentration camps while others are openly warned against entering the country.
   Country A is actively hostile towards many countries, both near and far. The new leader of Country A has repeatedly advocated invading other nations - including those of the religious minority to seize their resources. Country A's government has repeatedly threatened war against any nation that disagrees with them.
   A number of governments support going to war against Country A before it poses a more substantial threat to the world, and given that the leader of Country A is obviously unstable.
   Would you support this war?

If Trump was the dictator of a country, I would absolutely support military force to remove him. I currently support his impeachment, and am only opposed to that now because the potential damage he can do is fairly limited. You're not actually making a point, because unlike you, I have actual principles instead of just instincts.

You are so afraid of any conflict that you will let any evil fester. I would not be eager to fight any war. I mourn every death during that war, and yet they could have been saved. Fifty million people died, and most of them would have lived if it had been fought in 1936. Chamberlain's appeasement was not driven by military calculations, that is a justification he offered to cover his fear. Appeasement carried a horrifying human toll, and it could have been worse. If we had been steered by a man with less vision than FDR, we would almost certainly not have fought Germany in the 1940s. Britain would have surrendered, and Hitler would rule supreme over Europe until his death, when his empire would destroy itself in nuclear fire. Fifty million people is a terrifying price to pay, but it pales in comparison to five hundred.

War does not always save lives, but it can. There are times when the only way to ensure peace is to fight for it, and your politics of fear mean that we never would.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Genocide of a religious minority? Well, that means we get to fight a Nobel Peace Prize winner in Myamar.