So Let's Take a Closer Look, Shall We?

[ivan]

seriously, when is the demilitirazation of our nation EVER going to happen? it made sense to defy our historical tradition of maintaining only a skeletal standing army after ww2 under the looming and palpably massive threat of the ussr, but that's gone. the threats that remain do not begin to justify our gross expenditures that have inevitably corrupted our politics and foreign policy and domestic priorities. what was wrong with the military model we used for our first 150 years as a country?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

seriously, when is the demilitirazation of our nation EVER going to happen? it made sense to defy our historical tradition of maintaining only a skeletal standing army after ww2 under the looming and palpably massive threat of the ussr, but that's gone. the threats that remain do not begin to justify our gross expenditures that have inevitably corrupted our politics and foreign policy and domestic priorities. what was wrong with the military model we used for our first 150 years as a country?

 

TTK thinks our country was never under a threat of invasion in WWII or from the USSR and has stated such.

 

What was wrong with our model prior to WWI? Ahem, WWI and WWII. Our isolationism cost us in terms of both a few hundred thousand lives and hundreds of billions in each case. We were caught with our pants down when we had to react. That's left a legacy.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Actually, we're re-fighting a perceived combination of Vietnam and WWII. That would be about 22 wars ago.

 

We need to demilitarize. We're not under any real threat of invasion and we love war too much.

 

 

 

TTK thinks our country was never under a threat of invasion in WWII or from the USSR and has stated such.

 

Learn to read, moron. And BTW, we were never under any threat of invasion by Germany, Japan, or the USSR. None of them had any real capability to project a military force into the North American continent. In the case of the latter, the threat was nuclear war, not invasion.

 

What was wrong with our model prior to WWI? Ahem, WWI and WWII. Our isolationism cost us in terms of both a few hundred thousand lives and hundreds of billions in each case. We were caught with our pants down when we had to react. That's left a legacy.

 

Ummm...complete bullshit. We won 2 major world wars in 4 years starting from near zero at that time. Contrast that to our entering Iraq and Afghanistan fully militarized and with an overwhelming military advantage over our enemies. After blowing 3 trillion dollars and six years, we're still losing both wars.

 

Edited April 8, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

The arms industry is like the wedding industry; it prays on myths based on fundamental emotions; fear in the case of the former, love in the case of the latter. Security applies to both.

 

It's bullshit. We do not have a defensive force and haven't since before WWII. We have an offensive force to project American power around the world to secure our sources of cheap shit. We're not under threat; we ARE the threat.

 

Wait until we really start running out of energy. You're gonna see some fireworks then, boyo.

Edited April 8, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[chucK]

Shit KKK yourlogic here seems to be being bent by dogma. You're using lawyer logic.

 

WWI and WWII are models we don't want to emulate? In favor of our Iraq tactics? You're not a believer in empirical evidence I gather.

 

I'd say it could easily be argued that we saved 10's of thousands of American lives by staying out of both of those wars until we did, especially WWI, and the WWII European front. What would you have had us do in WWII Pacific, invade Japan? Send our boys over to China? Oh that would have saved American lives for sure....

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Shit KKK yourlogic here seems to be being bent by dogma. You're using lawyer logic.

 

WWI and WWII are models we don't want to emulate? In favor of our Iraq tactics? You're not a believer in empirical evidence I gather.

 

I'd say it could easily be argued that we saved 10's of thousands of American lives by staying out of both of those wars until we did, especially WWI, and the WWII European front. What would you have had us do in WWII Pacific, invade Japan? Send our boys over to China? Oh that would have saved American lives for sure....

 

 

Looks to me more of a nuanced case where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

[ivan]

are you saying then that the USA should have kept a large military after ww1 and pre-emptively invaded germany in the 30s?

[tvashtarkatena]

Arguing with KKK is so easy. He provides his own rebuttals.

[Hugh Conway]

are you saying then that the USA should have kept a large military after ww1 and pre-emptively invaded germany in the 30s?

 

No, we should have launched an even bigger invasion of russia just post WWI to eliminate the cold war threat.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

are you saying then that the USA should have kept a large military after ww1 and pre-emptively invaded germany in the 30s?

 

We almost completely eviscerated our military. There's a lot of ground between a "large" military and what we actually had.

 

France and Britain definitely should have maintained a larger military and invaded Germany when they remilitarized the Rheinland, or, at the very least went into Czechoslovakia.

 

You have to draw a line somewhere. The current Iraq war has deep roots in the first war and its incomplete resolution. What if we had not invaded Iraq to drive them out of Kuwait? Where would we be today? Perhaps a situation very similar to WWII.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

are you saying then that the USA should have kept a large military after ww1 and pre-emptively invaded germany in the 30s?

 

No, we should have launched an even bigger invasion of russia just post WWI to eliminate the cold war threat.

 

As Patton stated so well a few years later.

[Hugh Conway]

As Patton stated so well a few years later.

 

Ah yes, Patton - strung up by the press for striking a soldier. How ethics have changed.

[tvashtarkatena]

are you saying then that the USA should have kept a large military after ww1 and pre-emptively invaded germany in the 30s?

 

We almost completely eviscerated our military. There's a lot of ground between a "large" military and what we actually had.

 

France and Britain definitely should have maintained a larger military and invaded Germany when they remilitarized the Rheinland, or, at the very least went into Czechoslovakia.

 

You have to draw a line somewhere. The current Iraq war has deep roots in the first war and its incomplete resolution. What if we had not invaded Iraq to drive them out of Kuwait? Where would we be today? Perhaps a situation very similar to WWII.

 

 

Funny, I remember Bush I and cronies stating that they stopped short of Baghdad to avoid a quagmire. I'm sure they were wrong, though....

[tvashtarkatena]

are you saying then that the USA should have kept a large military after ww1 and pre-emptively invaded germany in the 30s?

 

No, we should have launched an even bigger invasion of russia just post WWI to eliminate the cold war threat.

 

As Patton stated so well a few years later.

 

Yes, invading Russia. It's been tried before, it seems.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

As Patton stated so well a few years later.

 

Ah yes, Patton - strung up by the press for striking a soldier. How ethics have changed.

 

" The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinese or a Japanese, and from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks."

 

– George S. Patton

 

[ivan]

[

We almost completely eviscerated our military. There's a lot of ground between a "large" military and what we actually had.

 

but how can you argue against the results? we went from having practically zero army to having the best military on the earth! what's the point of having all that ocean between us and the evil-doers if we can't just chill out and drink beer all day?

[ivan]

As Patton stated so well a few years later.

 

Ah yes, Patton - strung up by the press for striking a soldier. How ethics have changed.

 

" The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinese or a Japanese, and from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks."

 

George S. Patton

so do you admire the man or not? surely the world would have ended up much worse if he had been succesful in precipating a conflict w/ the ussr in 1945?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

[

We almost completely eviscerated our military. There's a lot of ground between a "large" military and what we actually had.

 

but how can you argue against the results? we went from having practically zero army to having the best military on the earth! what's the point of having all that ocean between us and the evil-doers if we can't just chill out and drink beer all day?

 

The results? We were not even prepared to fight in Europe until like 1943. And in the meantime, the Nazis killed millions and the Brits suffered horribly standing their ground.

[ivan]

[

We almost completely eviscerated our military. There's a lot of ground between a "large" military and what we actually had.

 

but how can you argue against the results? we went from having practically zero army to having the best military on the earth! what's the point of having all that ocean between us and the evil-doers if we can't just chill out and drink beer all day?

 

The results? We were not even prepared to fight in Europe until like 1943. And in the meantime, the Nazis killed millions and the Brits suffered horribly standing their ground.

the results = we won and took relatively few casualties compared to other belligerents

 

again, then, would you have proposed in the 1930s taking the shovels out of the hands of all the wpa folks and giving them rifles instead and sending them across the ocean to fix what the euros were perfectly capable of fixing themselves?

 

tvash is right - we would have taken casualties, adn likely far more casualties at that, if we'd played aggressor in asia and europe instead of isolationists

[KaskadskyjKozak]

again, then, would you have proposed in the 1930s taking the shovels out of the hands of all the wpa folks and giving them rifles instead and sending them across the ocean to fix what the euros were perfectly capable of fixing themselves?

 

You've taken a convenient "unambiguous" position when the results are unknown w/r/t alternatives. It is not as simple as you suggest - then or now.

 

 

 

[ivan]

historical speculation is always just that, speculation. my point is that the way things actually worked out, with us not spending a titantic fortune on a standing army prior to ww2 (and persuing an aggressive foreign policy as a likely result), wasn't bad at all. we won the war, emerged as a super-power, and did not have nearly the same death and destruction as everybody else. how could that have been improved?

[joblo7]

 

prez's come and go,

generals are for life.

 

army works for commerce.

traders rule and ruin our world.

democracy?gone.

[tvashtarkatena]

All this discussion must take place against the backdrop of what was largely a Russian victory in WWII. Remember, they deployed 4 times more divisions during WWII than the rest of the allies combined, and invaded that continent with a similar ratio. What America did or did not do in Europe had little effect on the overall outcome of the war as compared to Hitler and Stalin's decisions. The US was the economic and political victor of WWII, so we crafted and advertised an American but largely innaccurate version of that victory.

[Bug]

Roosevelt wanted to go into Europe against Germany years earlier.

He was a great military strategist. I would go with his position as we spent the first half of our involvement trying to get a foothold in the air so we could bomb their factories.

And it was Eisenhower in his final speech as president who stated the the greatest threat for the next President to confront was the US military-Industrial complex.

Our economic base is growth oriented.

The question to answer logically and scietifically is "how much longer can EVERYTHING continue to grow?" Eventually, we will reach a limit and have to radically adjust our value for what constitutes a "healthy economy".

Huge corporations do not consider human costs.

They are legally bound to "fiduciary responsibilities."

[ivan]

arms race/huge arms industry + militarism + belief that your view of the ideal world should be imposed on others = major causes of world wars 1 and 2

 

'you cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war' - albert einstein