War with Iran

[Denny Crane]

I'm not sure where you're going with this. After the wars of German unification there was about 50 years of "peace" in Europe prior to WWI. But we'd been "intervening" in Latin America ever since the Monroe Doctrine.
There's validity here, but let me ask this from a military perspective. If you send over 1000 troops on a peacekeeping mission that, in all likelihood, needed 5000 or 10000 or 20000, and those troops were either a) killed or b) placed under the command of a foreign leader b/c he brought 1100 troops to the table, are you ok with those outcomes? Do you not honor your obligations, then? B/c that's a very large factor in how we deploy. Look at Libya (Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR)...we helped with ships and missiles and planes, but we didn't set foot in Libya, we didn't have any of our planes go over Libya Territory, and we didn't place any of our troops under Canadian General Bouchard's command. Look up the restrictions we put on the Marines in Beirut in the early 80's, and the firestorm that came down b/c it looked like we didn't have enough Marines with enough security to do "peacekeeping" operations as "neutral" observers.

I differ with your view of Roosevelt. He was desperate for a way out of the economic malaise brought on by Keynes, saw the Fascists had gotten out of their Great Depression much sooner (wanted to emulate that),There's potential that you're right here, but you can see from the State of the Union address in 1941 that policy had already changed. And with Lend-Lease (both to the Brits and the Russians) and the "Arsenal of Democracy" (all before the Japanese attacked), the economic malaise was already being addressed through military production. Why did we have to send troops, then, if it wasn't a "moral" decision?

Why should French troops be commanded by US leaders? If you're in the game, you play by the rules.

As far as too few troops, I say let the neighboring countries commit the needed number.

As for intervention in South America, it's nothing but a huge blight on the nation.

Lend-Lease was barely popular, and it was the next best thing to contributing troops.

The demand for materiel was nowhere near enough to right the economy, but putting 5M men to work in the military opened 5M jobs. To make that deal even sweeter, the troops didn't have any place to spend much of their pay. And the War Bonds effectively took a lot of currency out of circulation, which curbed demand for cars, do the automakers could build more planes and tanks and jeeps.

There were constant wars in Europe through the end of the 1800s, and right up to WW I. Unless the Balkan Wars somehow don't count.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't get it, Brian. You throw out a hypothetical about when to intervene. But it's like saying you want to buy your neighbor's house, he won't sell, so you should kill him and take it. It's in your best interests, after all.

Don't lump me in with HK. I've not ruled out the use of military force, I supported taking out Saddam for the same reasons you do (he broke international law, we had treaty obligations as well as moral ones), but the nation building thing was a disaster.

 

[Ed O]

At least I know what trashy and slutty mean, genius. Stop throwing stones because you're not qualified, dude.

Sluttiness involves sex, while trashiness does not necessarily involve sex. Trashiness involves lack of hygiene while sluttiness does not necessarily involve a lack of hygeine.

To me, those two words are not the same thing. I'm sorry if you disagree with me. They have some overlap in individuals but are markedly different in my mind.

You know what I meant.

I think that we can both agree on the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers being different things, and that you claimed that language was in the US Constitution was not.

Ed O.

 

[huevonkiller]

Guh. This'll be my last one, because I can't hang with stoned college kids spouting off stuff they think they heard a professor say once. I'll use words maybe you can understand.

I have already exposed you as a fraud. The Middle East and North Africa doesn't like our military, but you kept making claims about how regular people love us. What a joke.

I've caught you in a series of contradictions. And I caught your friend making equally bad grammatical mistakes, so stop preaching to me dude. You're not that fresh.

1) You brought up Switzerland. They have a strict non-neutrality policy. The have armed fucking troops on the fucking ground in fucking Kosovo, which is another fucking country from fucking Switzerland. Therefore, armed fucking Swiss troops are intervening in a situation in Kosovo to stop people from killing each other. Therefore, they are a) neutral and b) intervening with armed troops in another fucking country's problems. I can't state it any clearer than that. There's no fucking self-defense....no fucking "trade sanctions" or anything.

Except.... You fucked up. You keep saying Switzerland is "neutral", when they're clearly not. And you keep defining isolationist the way I define non-interventionist.

Explain how the Swiss are "neutral" when they are intervening? Just admit you're an amateur and move along.

2) While I respect Denny's view, your insistence with him that "isolationism" = "protectionism" hasn't been valid for at least 70 years. Sorry about that. Gotta find a new word.

Based on fucking what? I hear Non-interventionist said all the time by the Libertarian wing.

Also you're complaining about the use of one synonym over another, which is strange. I think you're a weird dude.

3) I just read Gary's blog about reduction in defense spending. While I'm all for smart ways of doing so, his plans have zero basis in analysis . Here are more from his website:

It seems (aside from not being updated in at least 5 months) that Gary wants to re-evaluate European (but not Japanese or Korean?) deployments, make use of alliances, and still "protect national interests." If someone is threatening our "national interests", is it "intervention" to take action to protect them?

And Gary Johnson is considered a non-interventionist, so thanks for making my point buddy. He wants to massively cut the size of our military like Switzerland did.

Not only do you have reading comprehension problems, you have a poor memory as well. Switzerland is a non-interventionist country, and I could give two shits if they sent a handful of troops to Kosovo or not.

 

[huevonkiller]

I don't get it, Brian. You throw out a hypothetical about when to intervene. But it's like saying you want to buy your neighbor's house, he won't sell, so you should kill him and take it. It's in your best interests, after all.

Don't lump me in with HK. I've not ruled out the use of military force, I supported taking out Saddam for the same reasons you do (he broke international law, we had treaty obligations as well as moral ones), but the nation building thing was a disaster.

Guess you fucked up on that Denny. Iraq is a disaster.

Also I am ok with military force, just not preemptive public-sector military force.

 

[huevonkiller]

Sluttiness involves sex, while trashiness does not necessarily involve sex. Trashiness involves lack of hygiene while sluttiness does not necessarily involve a lack of hygeine.

To me, those two words are not the same thing. I'm sorry if you disagree with me. They have some overlap in individuals but are markedly different in my mind.

Well sorry you're wrong, I've looked up the definition of those words and trashy does mean slutty, skanky, x-rated, etc.

I think that we can both agree on the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers being different things, and that you claimed that language was in the US Constitution was not.

Ed O.

Hmm I clearly made a typo, I do not claim otherwise.

Don't take my criticisms that seriously, it is just trash talk.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Not only do you have reading comprehension problems, you have a poor memory as well. Switzerland is a non-interventionist country, and I could give two shits if they went to Kosovo or not.

So...two personal attacks, a blatant falsehood, and another "fuck your facts, bruh." Have a nice day. I'm done educating you.

 

[Ed O]

Well sorry you're wrong, I've looked up the definition of those words and trashy does mean slutty, skanky, x-rated, etc.

Synonyms are not definitions. Two single words are most often not exactly the same. The nuances to ME between "slutty" and "trashy" are as I outlined above.

Don't take my criticisms that seriously, it is just trash talk.

Do you mean "slut talk"?

Ed O.

 

[huevonkiller]

Synonyms are not definitions. Two single words are most often not exactly the same. The nuances to ME between "slutty" and "trashy" are as I outlined above.

Do you mean "slut talk"?

Ed O.

Lol I know, this was such a silly disagreement.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trashy

I think we're both right to a degree Ed O. Although I still think slutty is the best synonym.

I edited my previous post, hope I didn't sound that harsh. That was a fun discussion though.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Why should French troops be commanded by US leaders? If you're in the game, you play by the rules.

One of the "rules" we've set up (right or wrong) is that we don't do that. Now, if Congress was to change that, then we can discuss it further, but that's how it is right now.

As far as too few troops, I say let the neighboring countries commit the needed number.

So, if Denny (or Gary or Ron Paul) was President when Saddam invaded Kuwait, since Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Syria and Iran and Lebanon couldn't (or wouldn't) come up with the troops needed to re-take Kuwait, we should've sent <1000 troops and put them under Saudi command? And if that wasn't enough, screw it--we're "non-interventionist"?

As for intervention in South America, it's nothing but a huge blight on the nation.

Well, that's debatable, of course.

Lend-Lease was barely popular, and it was the next best thing to contributing troops.

But it wasn't contributing troops...based on what you wrote above, we were just "engaged in trade" and not "intervening in other countries' problems." And re-tooling industry for military purposes (jeeps instead of buicks, etc) that we could sell lease for billions to the Brits and Russians was putting a lot of people to work, as well.

The demand for materiel was nowhere near enough to right the economy, but putting 5M men to work in the military opened 5M jobs. To make that deal even sweeter, the troops didn't have any place to spend much of their pay. And the War Bonds effectively took a lot of currency out of circulation, which curbed demand for cars, do the automakers could build more planes and tanks and jeeps.

There were constant wars in Europe through the end of the 1800s, and right up to WW I. Unless the Balkan Wars somehow don't count.

Sure, the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 count as wars, I guess. It was more an outcropping of the Young TUrks coming to power, but OK. From 1871 to 1912, the only wars that happened in all of Europe were the Russo-Turkish war (kind of Europe) in 1877, the Serbo-bulgarian war in 1885 and the "30 Days" Greco-Turk war in 1897. That's it. Compare that to any other 40-year stretch in Europe since the Black Plague, basically. That's all I was trying to say

 

[huevonkiller]

So...two personal attacks, a blatant falsehood, and another "fuck your facts, bruh." Have a nice day. I'm done educating you.

They are overall non-interventionist, and everyone in the world knows that.

It doesn't matter if they sent troops to Kosovo, everyone knows what I meant. You come off as strange for hating a synonym of the word "neutral".

 

[3RA1N1AC]

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

dwight eisenhower/nostradamus as he was leaving office, 1960

 

[Denny Crane]

One of the "rules" we've set up (right or wrong) is that we don't do that. Now, if Congress was to change that, then we can discuss it further, but that's how it is right now.
So, if Denny (or Gary or Ron Paul) was President when Saddam invaded Kuwait, since Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Syria and Iran and Lebanon couldn't (or wouldn't) come up with the troops needed to re-take Kuwait, we should've sent <1000 troops and put them under Saudi command? And if that wasn't enough, screw it--we're "non-interventionist"?

Well, that's debatable, of course.

But it wasn't contributing troops...based on what you wrote above, we were just "engaged in trade" and not "intervening in other countries' problems." And re-tooling industry for military purposes (jeeps instead of buicks, etc) that we could sell lease for billions to the Brits and Russians was putting a lot of people to work, as well.

The demand for materiel was nowhere near enough to right the economy, but putting 5M men to work in the military opened 5M jobs. To make that deal even sweeter, the troops didn't have any place to spend much of their pay. And the War Bonds effectively took a lot of currency out of circulation, which curbed demand for cars, do the automakers could build more planes and tanks and jeeps.



Sure, the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 count as wars, I guess. It was more an outcropping of the Young TUrks coming to power, but OK. From 1871 to 1912, the only wars that happened in all of Europe were the Russo-Turkish war (kind of Europe) in 1877, the Serbo-bulgarian war in 1885 and the "30 Days" Greco-Turk war in 1897. That's it. Compare that to any other 40-year stretch in Europe since the Black Plague, basically. That's all I was trying to say

First of all, Saddam invaded Kuwait after we gave him our blessing. We intervened, before and after. And if Denny were president, he'd say, "Saddam is his neighbors' problem, let them put up the troops. If we have a treaty obligation, we'll provide troops and support, but not 90% of the entire effort (like we did)."

Second, Lend-Lease wasn't fair trade, it was supplying one side with arms for free.

Third,

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/worldwarii/a/wwiipaccauses_2.htm

US support increased in mid-1941, with the clandestine formation of the 1st American Volunteer Group, better known as the "Flying Tigers." Equipped with US aircraft and American pilots the 1st AVG, under Colonel Claire Chennault, effectively defended the skies over China and Southeast Asia from late-1941 to mid-1942, downing 300 Japanese aircraft with a loss of only 12 of their own. In addition to military support, the US, Britain, and the Netherlands East Indies initiated oil and steel embargos against Japan in August 1941.

(That's troops and the bolded bit is an act of War via trade embargo)

The American oil embargo caused a crisis in Japan. Reliant on the US for 80% of its oil, the Japanese were forced to decide between withdrawaling from China, negotiating an end to the conflict, or going to war to obtain the needed resources elsewhere. In an attempt to resolve the situation, Konoe asked US President Franklin Roosevelt for a summit meeting to discuss the issues. Roosevelt replied that Japan needed to leave China before such a meeting could be held.

(That's intervention through trade)

&c

 

[MARIS61]

bullshit with the personal attacks, bruh. I just showed you that the Swiss have armed troops on the ground in Kosovo. That's, by definition, "intervening."

Technically speaking, they are not "Swiss" troops while serving in their capacity as NATO Peacekeepers.

 

[MARIS61]

Look up things like the 1935 Neutrality Acts, Senator Nye (who might've been Maris' grandfather, for all their views on the "Merchants of Death" spiel).

He is not, although it's quite possible they may have met in ND in the 20's.

Tip of the cap to Senator Gerald Nye, btw. He was a Real American.

He did more for America than all but a handful of others ever have.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

There is a distinction between isolationism, non-interventionism, and protectionism.

I hope I was clear that I favor non-intervention, but do not favor protectionism.

 

[MARIS61]

There were constant wars in Europe through the end of the 1800s, and right up to WW I. Unless the Balkan Wars somehow don't count.

Since Brian indirectly brought up my grandfather, who was born at the turn of the century in what later became Yugoslavia, I was going to point that out to him.

My grandfather experienced his first year of actual peacetime at the age of 18, as an immigrant in America.

 

[huevonkiller]

US support increased in mid-1941, with the clandestine formation of the 1st American Volunteer Group, better known as the "Flying Tigers." Equipped with US aircraft and American pilots the 1st AVG, under Colonel Claire Chennault, effectively defended the skies over China and Southeast Asia from late-1941 to mid-1942, downing 300 Japanese aircraft with a loss of only 12 of their own. In addition to military support, the US, Britain, and the Netherlands East Indies initiated oil and steel embargos against Japan in August 1941.

(That's troops and the bolded bit is an act of War via trade embargo)

The American oil embargo caused a crisis in Japan. Reliant on the US for 80% of its oil, the Japanese were forced to decide between withdrawaling from China, negotiating an end to the conflict, or going to war to obtain the needed resources elsewhere. In an attempt to resolve the situation, Konoe asked US President Franklin Roosevelt for a summit meeting to discuss the issues. Roosevelt replied that Japan needed to leave China before such a meeting could be held.

(That's intervention through trade)

&c

This is pretty much /thread

Now that was very revealing stuff. God I hate our mindless interventionism, no wonder the Japanese were pissed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

There is a distinction between isolationism, non-interventionism, and protectionism.

I hope I was clear that I favor non-intervention, but do not favor protectionism.

What a useful link. Every mindless neocon should have to read this before they cry about Libertarians.

Hannity and O'Reilly are the worst, I swear to god their shows are unwatchable.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Read about the Panay sometime. Or the Rape of Nanking. Or the start of the Russo-Japanese War. "No wonder the Japanese were pissed", indeed. :smh: If you trust NPR...

Serious question HK...are you studying some type of history, sociology, ?? Part of the time it seems you do, and then you go and have posts like the last one.

 

[huevonkiller]

Read about the Panay sometime. Or the Rape of Nanking. Or the start of the Russo-Japanese War. "No wonder the Japanese were pissed", indeed. :smh: If you trust NPR...

Serious question HK...are you studying some type of history, sociology, ?? Part of the time it seems you do, and then you go and have posts like the last one.

Hmm you are a very lazy guy. Denny made a pretty long post so put in the work son.

To me it looks like Denny just showed how your sanctions failed, and we struck first of course. China killed a lot more people.

 

[huevonkiller]

Read next time before you cry about these terms Brian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

There is a distinction between isolationism, non-interventionism, and protectionism.

I hope I was clear that I favor non-intervention, but do not favor protectionism.

Also I know you're scared but respond to Denny's post. This will be a very enjoyable discussion to read, I am sure of it.

First of all, Saddam invaded Kuwait after we gave him our blessing. We intervened, before and after. And if Denny were president, he'd say, "Saddam is his neighbors' problem, let them put up the troops. If we have a treaty obligation, we'll provide troops and support, but not 90% of the entire effort (like we did)."

Second, Lend-Lease wasn't fair trade, it was supplying one side with arms for free.

Third,

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/...accauses_2.htm

US support increased in mid-1941, with the clandestine formation of the 1st American Volunteer Group, better known as the "Flying Tigers." Equipped with US aircraft and American pilots the 1st AVG, under Colonel Claire Chennault, effectively defended the skies over China and Southeast Asia from late-1941 to mid-1942, downing 300 Japanese aircraft with a loss of only 12 of their own. In addition to military support, the US, Britain, and the Netherlands East Indies initiated oil and steel embargos against Japan in August 1941.

(That's troops and the bolded bit is an act of War via trade embargo)

The American oil embargo caused a crisis in Japan. Reliant on the US for 80% of its oil, the Japanese were forced to decide between withdrawaling from China, negotiating an end to the conflict, or going to war to obtain the needed resources elsewhere. In an attempt to resolve the situation, Konoe asked US President Franklin Roosevelt for a summit meeting to discuss the issues. Roosevelt replied that Japan needed to leave China before such a meeting could be held.

(That's intervention through trade)

&c

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'm going to defer wasting any more of my time on you until you at least put in the work to read the links I've posted, or articles or books about the subject that show (if you can find one) any contrarian viewpoints. But right now, you're simply not at my level. You don't have backup material, your "facts" have been disproven, and your quotes are from another poster who shares part of your view. You've literally brought nothing to the table but misinformation and personal attacks.

I've posted links, quotes, definitions, rebuttal topics and sources. Go ahead and read some of it. Go ahead and look up things, and form an opinion.

Right now we're playing hold 'em, I'm calculating pot odds and reading tells, and you are asking me if I have a 7 to Go Fish. I don't have time for that.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm going to defer wasting any more of my time on you until you at least put in the work to read the links I've posted, or articles or books about the subject that show (if you can find one) any contrarian viewpoints. But right now, you're simply not at my level. You don't have backup material, your "facts" have been disproven, and your quotes are from another poster who shares part of your view. You've literally brought nothing to the table but misinformation and personal attacks.

I've posted links, quotes, definitions, rebuttal topics and sources. Go ahead and read some of it. Go ahead and look up things, and form an opinion.

Right now we're playing hold 'em, I'm calculating pot odds and reading tells, and you are asking me if I have a 7 to Go Fish. I don't have time for that.

There's no doubt the Japanese did some horrific things prior to our involvement in the war. The Germans, too. But what about our involvement?

We bombed civilians in their cities. We firebombed the city of Dresden. We dropped TWO atom bombs on Japanese cities filled with civilians. We took no prisoners on the battlefield.

What did we do it all for? So the Russians could subjugate half of Europe and Stalin was able to murder 50M to 70M people in his own country and those he controlled? Do tell why that was better than what the Germans did.

Or so Mao could mass murder 50M of his own people?

Things were really bad, I agree. But we made them 10x worse. Literally (in terms of deaths).

Those figures do not even count the 50M+ killed in WW II itself. By the arsenal of Democracy!

As for FDR, he had much grander plans. You might have heard of this book: http://www.amazon.com/Conquerors-Roosevelt-Destruction-Hitlers-1941-1945/dp/0684810271. I read it a few years ago, then took note when during one of W's State of the Union speeches (2003 or 2004), the journalists mentioned that it was the book W was currently reading.

The book details how the FDR and then Truman administrations planned the nation building of Germany and Japan after the War, their plans for doing so had been in the works prior to the end of the War. And it details how FDR wanted to implement the UN and then become its president. Seems president of the US wasn't a big enough or powerful enough position for him.

Like I said before, do not lump me with HK. I am a student of history, and I've no interest in insulting anyone. In fact, I appreciate your service and your posts about nuclear power and related issues are downright amazingly good to me.

 

[ABM]

Interesting.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/05/zakaria-four-hotspots-to-watch-in-2012/?hpt=hp_c1

Iran: Acting out of weakness

The next country to keep your eye on is Iran. There’s a tendency when we look at Iran to say, “This country is so powerful; it’s so strong; it’s on the march.” But actually what’s happening in Iran is the exact opposite: Iran is acting out, because it feels weak. (Read my column on this topic in this week's TIME Magazine.)

Internationally-imposed sanctions have hit Iran’s economy quite hard, effectively forcing the government to cut subsidies and make reforms that are very unpopular at home. The Iranian regime is clearly straining under enormous external pressure, which has led to deep divisions within their political establishment.

Read: Fareed Zakaria's reflections on his visit to Iran.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used to be the favorite candidate of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Now the supreme leader has put forward the idea of dispensing with the presidency entirely. The ruling elite is in flux. In addition to the president and the supreme leader, you have the old guard of people like former President Akbar Rafsanjani and reformers like former President Mohammad Khatami and presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Moussavi. It’s within this context that you have decisions being made both about the nuclear program and about dealing with Western sanctions.

Iran’s behavior reflects these internal divisions. First, Iran said it was going to block the Straits of Hormuz and that it would be “as easy as drinking a glass of water.” Then that was disavowed almost a day and a half later. Iran later made suspicious claims about its nuclear program. And Iran began testing missiles that are not, in fact, particularly threatening. These actions collectively convey an impression of weakness and internal division.

Read: A post-American world in progress.

Meanwhile, Iran’s big international play, which has been the propping up of Syria, is going very, very badly. The Syrian government seems to be running out of money and support. Syria will probably bleed slowly rather than suddenly collapse, but none of it looks very good for the regime in Damascus.
Now one shouldn’t take too much comfort in Iran’s weakness because countries that are weak can cause as many problems as countries that are strong. The continued pressures building on Iran indeed seem pretty dangerous.

 

[BrianFromWA]

There's no doubt the Japanese did some horrific things prior to our involvement in the war. The Germans, too. But what about our involvement?
We bombed civilians in their cities. We firebombed the city of Dresden. We dropped TWO atom bombs on Japanese cities filled with civilians. We took no prisoners on the battlefield.

Wait, what? Our POW record in WW2 is exemplary...we had by far the lowest rates of our prisoners die (less than half a percent, iirc) compared to the 40% or more killed by the Russians, Germans, and Japanese. We didn't take many Japanese prisoners b/c they didn't surrender...their mentality was to torture and kill our prisoners, so they didn't want to become one and fought (in almost all cases) to the death.

What did we do it all for? So the Russians could subjugate half of Europe and Stalin was able to murder 50M to 70M people in his own country and those he controlled? Do tell why that was better than what the Germans did. Or so Mao could mass murder 50M of his own people?

I'm not defending or accusing anything we did in the war...my point was that it's revisionist history to say that poor, innocent Japan was just minding it own business and we provoked them into war for economic or any other reasons. Japan had been hell-bent on Asian Imperialism (the Co-Prosperity Spheres) since their first attempt at a Pearl Harbor-like attack against the Russians at Port Arthur. Germany had been appeased by the West for far too long...if in 1936 when the French realized Germany had violated Locarno and was building up its army (marching into the Saar) and mobilized to destroy Hitler's army (which was severely outnumbered) WW2 might've been averted--instead they claimed it would be too costly economically and didn't think it was that big a deal to let Germany go back on its treaty obligations (that they'd volunteered to agree to!).
And I submit that there was a large contingent of Americans (maybe just in the military?) who knew that Friendly Uncle Joe was a big problem, even back in 1940-41 with Katyn. I don't know of anyone who was actively supporting Mao, it was more that Chiang (and/or his government) was so corrupt that no one wanted to give them the aid to beat back Mao. But for some reason (non-interventionism, perhaps? ) the defense cuts through 1948, declining military support worldwide (with the exception of the mostly-economic Marshall Plan) and Acheson's "non-Korea" speech basically invited communists to start a whole new series of conflicts worldwide (Greece, Eastern Europe, China, Korea). And once we'd drawn back, we had no way of "intervening" to stop those millions of people from being killed. So to your point, I'd say that because the US (and the West, after they got back on their feet) didn't intervene more in China and Russia and Eastern Europe, lots of people were killed that didn't have to be.
Things were really bad, I agree. But we made them 10x worse. Literally (in terms of deaths). Those figures do not even count the 50M+ killed in WW II itself. By the arsenal of Democracy![/quote]Maybe I'm missing the point, but you seem to be on my side with this. By just giving guns and bombs and planes and tanks and putting them in the hands of evil people (even if they're supposedly our "allies") we create a capability that really bad things can happen. But (no matter what college kids may tell you) since our military (maybe not our leadership, but our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines) has a stellar reputation world-wide for being fair and trying to do the right thing--unlike, say, Russia or China--then it's morally deficient for us not to intervene in situations where we can stop millions from being massacred by bad people.

As for FDR, he had much grander plans. You might have heard of this book: http://www.amazon.com/Conquerors-Roosevelt-Destruction-Hitlers-1941-1945/dp/0684810271. I read it a few years ago, then took note when during one of W's State of the Union speeches (2003 or 2004), the journalists mentioned that it was the book W was currently reading.

The book details how the FDR and then Truman administrations planned the nation building of Germany and Japan after the War, their plans for doing so had been in the works prior to the end of the War. And it details how FDR wanted to implement the UN and then become its president. Seems president of the US wasn't a big enough or powerful enough position for him.

I hadn't....thanks for the link. I have read a bunch about Morgenthau and his plan, but it seems that it was more a retribution against the Holocaust (and the preceding decade of anti-Semitism) rather than some grand scheme to advance FDR's world agenda. Though multiple sources talk about FDR's, shall we say, ambitious personality. It's fascinating to me, though, how we went from FDR one day to Truman the next. Truman was a total outsider, a National Guard Colonel, and kept out of the loop by FDR and his staff until FDR keeled over and all of a sudden he's the Most Powerful Man on Earth.

Like I said before, do not lump me with HK. I am a student of history, and I've no interest in insulting anyone. In fact, I appreciate your service and your posts about nuclear power and related issues are downright amazingly good to me.

Don't worry, I'm not. I think I've tried to discuss with you, rather than put up with name-calling and the like. Thanks.

 

[Denny Crane]

Hitler likely would never have come to power if it weren't for the war reparations heaped upon Germany after WW I. It's no wonder the French didn't mind so much that 17 years later, Germany wanted no part of it anymore.

Germany could not have dominated Europe for very long. Their method was to invade a country then raid its treasury for all the gold, then spend it and have to repeat the cycle again. I think we've seen that a nation with a 65% of GDP for military fails (eventually) like the USSR did.

WW II might have been averted if we kept our nose out of it, too. A lot of historians hold this view.

Patton wanted to continue the war and march into Russia:

"Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to the Red Army. This is the only language they understand and respect."

"I understand the situation. Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof -- that's their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for rive days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let's not give them time to build up their supplies. If we do, then . . . we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!"

Yet nobody goes into Russia and survives the winter there. What a debacle that would have been.

If anything, our mistake was becoming allies with the Russkies in the first place. It forced Truman to use the A-Bomb so Russia wouldn't have gotten involved and taken half of Japan like they took half of Europe.

And after almost 4 years of incredibly bloody war, there's no wonder our people didn't want any part of extending it.

The thing is, you knock down one evil and there's another waiting to take its place. We're better to not ally with any evil and stick to our own needs and use our own resources on our own problems.

So do tell why the Japs killing 3.5M Chinese is a whole lot worse than us killing a couple million Chinese and Koreans in Korea.

War is good if your objective is conquest and empire. Yet empire is difficult (impossible) to maintain over the long haul. We're suffering from our own imperialism at this point.

 

[huevonkiller]

That's funny, did anyone see Brian's response to this post?

http://sportstwo.com/threads/203762-War-with-Iran?p=2709708&viewfull=1#post2709708

That's what I thought. You're doing a lot of talking for someone who is extremely lazy.

The very nature of your ideology is to blindly support terrorists. You shoot first and ask questions later, and you support Mao Zedong. You're not ready to argue with me, I have read a lot more about the middle east than you have. I've already addressed your fantasy claims that people hate us for our freedom

I'm going to defer wasting any more of my time on you until you at least put in the work to read the links I've posted, or articles or books about the subject that show (if you can find one) any contrarian viewpoints. But right now, you're simply not at my level. You don't have backup material, your "facts" have been disproven,

Ok you can suck my cock now, because I have made the "effort". Dude shut your mouth now and get to work.

http://sportstwo.com/threads/203762-War-with-Iran?p=2709371&viewfull=1#post2709371

http://sportstwo.com/threads/203762-War-with-Iran?p=2709708&viewfull=1#post2709708

And unlike Denny, I don't sound like a schizophrenic when I talk about Iraq. He doesn't know what he's talking about when he opens his mouth and whines about that war, after supporting it for so long.

and your quotes are from another poster who shares part of your view. You've literally brought nothing to the table but misinformation and personal attacks.

I've posted links, quotes, definitions, rebuttal topics and sources. Go ahead and read some of it. Go ahead and look up things, and form an opinion.

Hmm I've made various serious points. Brian's ideology killed a million people in Cuba and Israel doesn't even want to go to war with Iran yet.

http://sportstwo.com/threads/203762-War-with-Iran?p=2709381&viewfull=1#post2709381

Right now we're playing hold 'em, I'm calculating pot odds and reading tells, and you are asking me if I have a 7 to Go Fish. I don't have time for that.

Hmm only suckers play hold 'em, I make money in stocks.


Brian I am the bad cop here, I'm not here to be your buddy. Frankly I don't like you and I want to fuck with you. Also you dodge several of my posts and you have not put in the effort, sorry.

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/07/15/diminishing_goodwill_for_US_Middle_East_policy

http://sportstwo.com/threads/203762-War-with-Iran?p=2713109&viewfull=1#post2713109

 

[huevonkiller]

There's no doubt the Japanese did some horrific things prior to our involvement in the war. The Germans, too. But what about our involvement?

We bombed civilians in their cities. We firebombed the city of Dresden. We dropped TWO atom bombs on Japanese cities filled with civilians. We took no prisoners on the battlefield.

What did we do it all for? So the Russians could subjugate half of Europe and Stalin was able to murder 50M to 70M people in his own country and those he controlled? Do tell why that was better than what the Germans did.

Or so Mao could mass murder 50M of his own people?

Things were really bad, I agree. But we made them 10x worse. Literally (in terms of deaths).

Those figures do not even count the 50M+ killed in WW II itself. By the arsenal of Democracy!

As for FDR, he had much grander plans. You might have heard of this book: http://www.amazon.com/Conquerors-Roosevelt-Destruction-Hitlers-1941-1945/dp/0684810271. I read it a few years ago, then took note when during one of W's State of the Union speeches (2003 or 2004), the journalists mentioned that it was the book W was currently reading.

The book details how the FDR and then Truman administrations planned the nation building of Germany and Japan after the War, their plans for doing so had been in the works prior to the end of the War. And it details how FDR wanted to implement the UN and then become its president. Seems president of the US wasn't a big enough or powerful enough position for him.

Like I said before, do not lump me with HK. I am a student of history, and I've no interest in insulting anyone. In fact, I appreciate your service and your posts about nuclear power and related issues are downright amazingly good to me.

Denny clearly you're not a student of history, because you haven't read this thread. I've already brought up our communist allies in world war 2 so he doesn't want to get it.

You're also not a pure Libertarian. You're an objectivist so your ideology is slightly different.

The thing is, you knock down one evil and there's another waiting to take its place. We're better to not ally with any evil and stick to our own needs and use our own resources on our own problems.

Right, he ISN'T a student of history. He supports Chairman Mao and tyrants in Saudi Arabia plus Pakistan.

 

[Haakzilla]

[video=youtube;3dXyD8rHmq4]

 

[JungleBoy]

No war with Iran!