The US military is killing people in, what, 7 or 8 countries right now, today? Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Niger? I feel like I'm missing some.
War Is a Racket (1933)
101–110 of 192 posts
Re: War Is a Racket (1933)
#102> Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on wh…
I know it is not a popular view but I think WWII was a major mistake. We could of course not have stopped Hitler's initial actions, but it was the West's choice to wage war against Hitler. I think that was a mistake. The rational was to keep Poland and the Czech republic free. However at the end of the war neither country was free. They had fallen under the Soviet sphere of influence. The goals they set hence failed.…
Germany was not ready to fight a war in 1937, 1938, or even 1939, when it actually invaded Poland. Had the West actually responded to German aggression with a land assault, even as late as the actual invasion of Poland, then it's rather likely that the war could have been cleaned up before the Soviet Union would have invaded Poland.
Furthermore, an appropriate Western response to actually supporting the Central European states would probably have given the USSR pause before invading, as it would have demonstrated that the defensive treaties were not mere pieces of paper.
Re: War Is a Racket (1933)
#103Smedley Butler is like a God figure to Marines, second only to Chesty Puller. I've often referenced this when arguing about the military-industrial complex with people who assume that if you criticize military spending you are somehow anti-military. I don't know if it has any effect. Some might think it's a fallacious argument from authority, but I don't think it is. Fortunately, or unfortunately?, the people I tend…
Re: War Is a Racket (1933)
#104Smedley Butler is like a God figure to Marines, second only to Chesty Puller. I've often referenced this when arguing about the military-industrial complex with people who assume that if you criticize military spending you are somehow anti-military. I don't know if it has any effect. Some might think it's a fallacious argument from authority, but I don't think it is. Fortunately, or unfortunately?, the people I tend…
I've had several Marine and ex-Marine friends mention Butler to me. How does "War is a Racket" align or jive (or not!) with the presumed reason that most young men and women sign up for the military, which is to valiantly protect and defend the country?
As a result, it's worth cautioning people that just because a fact of foreign policy efforts was true 100 years ago does not mean that it is true today.
Re: War Is a Racket (1933)
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's entirely besides the point, though.
It's not entirely besides the point. If neither Japan nor Germany were likely to ever pose an existential threat to the United States, then there would be no "eventual difficulties to the Bill of Rights" to worry about.
Re: War Is a Racket (1933)
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know it is not a popular view but I think WWII was a major mistake. We could of course not have stopped Hitler's initial actions, but it was the West's choice to wage war against Hitler. I think that was a mistake. The rational was to keep Poland and the Czech republic free. However at the end of the war neither country was free. They had fallen under the Soviet sphere of influence. The goals they set hence failed.…
I know it is not a popular view but I think WWII was a major mistake It's a plenty popular idea, but people won't say so publicly because of social pressure: The Greatest Generation, The Good War, etc.
Re: War Is a Racket (1933)
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
So WWII as being necessary to stop Hitler, I can see withstanding the test of time. The things that caused WWII, Hitler's rise to power, and the systems that enabled and, frankly, bent him and the Nazis towards the evils they committed, I think we were culpable for, for how Germany was positioned on the world stage post WWI. Germany was ripe for a demagogue, and people needed the sense of security mindlessly followin…
What made America ripe for a demagogue?
Re: War Is a Racket (1933)
#108Re: War Is a Racket (1933)
#109The rest of us can't do anything about it except vote, which does nothing because both major parties are in bed with the MIC. So here we are.
It's funny how everyone is all worried about this now that Trump is President and not when Obama was doing all those extra-judicial killings using drones for eight years.
Re: War Is a Racket (1933)
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany declared war on U.S., not the other way around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_agai...
WWII would have been far easier if the USA actually attacked Japan first. If the USA declared war when Britain / France did in the late 30s, then France may have not been overrun by the Germans. Maybe we wouldn't have needed to land in Normandy Beach. I don't think anybody would look at the events of the next 10-years after 1933, and consider that war to be a "Racket". Nazis were evil. Imperial Japan, was evil. By de…
Uh, no. The US wasn't capable of getting its troops to Europe fast enough in 1939, let alone supplying its troops. The Liberty Ship program only started in 1941. Hitler was already extremely dismissive of the capabilities that the Americans can provide, so any potential future threat the US might bring to bear would have been ignored in his plans.
> if we lost our Carriers at Pearl Harbor, Japan may have very well won the war.
If the Japanese had sunk the entire US Navy (Pacific and Atlantic) on December 7, 1941, and magically completed every vessel that they planned to construct for the remainder of the war on that date, and never lost another ship, and the US did not attempt to refloat or salvage any ship it lost in the magic death of the navy, by 1943, the US would have a larger navy than Japan.
Furthermore, how could Japan have turned even a decisive naval advantage into victory against the US? It lacked sufficient logistical capacity to contemplate holding Hawaii, let alone the US west coast.
> shear luck that our best ships were elsewhere during the surprise attack.
Yeah... no. In 1941, even the most enthusiastic carrier advocates would not have argued for carriers being the backbone of the navy (it's really not until the Battle of the Coral Sea that the value of carrier task forces over battleships is demonstrated). The Lexington and Saratoga were converted battlecruisers (admittedly, the best conversions, in large part because they were terrible battlecruisers), and were rather outdated by 1941.