Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   12/08/21

      Thanks for visiting Cascadeclimbers.com.   Yep, we are still going!    Just put a new coat of paint on the site. Still the same old community of climbers, skiers, and people who love to get outdoors. Hope you had a great 2021, and wish you the best for 2022 and beyond.  Thanks again for stopping by.
Sign in to follow this  
sexual_chocolate

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

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :grlaf:

 

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

prez's come and go,

generals are for life.

 

army works for commerce.

traders rule and ruin our world.

democracy?gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×