Timeline for Why are pro/anti-gun parties in the US espousing the reverse position when it comes to weapons for Ukraine?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 17 at 7:42 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | N.B. it may well be the case that in other wars/circumstance the positions of the parties may have been reversed with respect to aiding or not some country. My point with the LL vote was that this is hardly a new/unique phenomenon, for Republicans to vote against military aid, be it even in the form a loan (although Wikipedia says that the expectations were at the time it most likely wouldn't be repaid.) It's also true that during the "neocon" (e.g. Bush) years, this was probably less likely to be the case. | |
| Feb 16 at 12:44 | history | edited | 264 champagne bottles on ice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 78 characters in body
|
| Feb 16 at 12:29 | history | edited | 264 champagne bottles on ice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 416 characters in body
|
| Feb 16 at 12:06 | history | edited | 264 champagne bottles on ice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1972 characters in body
|
| Feb 16 at 6:36 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | It may be argued that's not always the case even in a shooting war. E.g. when Germany invaded Denmark or the Netherlands in WW2, the latter (two) rather quickly surrendered after being overwhelmed. "Shock and awe" does work sometimes. Of course, that often relies on an imbalance of "guns" between the sides. | |
| Feb 16 at 6:06 | history | edited | 264 champagne bottles on ice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 191 characters in body
|
| Feb 16 at 5:56 | history | edited | 264 champagne bottles on ice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 127 characters in body
|
| Feb 16 at 5:49 | history | answered | 264 champagne bottles on ice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |