Ceratisa
Sarcastic SOB
But Crni, Israel doesn't do a fraction of the invasive things we do and they have never been attacked in a way even remotely similar.
Problem with the US military?
- Thread starter welsh
- Start date
But Crni, Israel doesn't do a fraction of the invasive things we do and they have never been attacked in a way even remotely similar.
(*Edit, wait a min, I am sorry. But I am not sure what you try to say :/ )
They have not? So Israel is not constantly dealing with terrorism, building a wall around Gaza, or beeing criticized because of their foreign policy and treating many palestinian people like second class humans? Israel did not had a fuck ton of wars and is constantly in conflicts with its neighbours? Hamas and Hisbollah are shit. No doubts about that. But there are many extreme Jews on the other side of the fence as well. Don't forget who killed Jitzchak Rabin.
Are you living on a different planet or something? Do you really want the US to be like Israel? Oh boy ...
They have not? So Israel is not constantly dealing with terrorism, building a wall around Gaza, or beeing criticized because of their foreign policy and treating many palestinian people like second class humans? Israel did not had a fuck ton of wars and is constantly in conflicts with its neighbours? Hamas and Hisbollah are shit. No doubts about that. But there are many extreme Jews on the other side of the fence as well. Don't forget who killed Jitzchak Rabin.
Are you living on a different planet or something? Do you really want the US to be like Israel? Oh boy ...
Last edited:
Ceratisa
Sarcastic SOB
Oh I'm sorry, were we not talking about a kind of attack like 9/11, of course Israel has to deal with other terrorism, the U.S. would do alot more if Mexico was hitting U.S. land daily with mortar and rocket attacks than Israel does to its neighbor.
There are more Palestinians living in Israel now than before Israel was even formed.
Extremists don't need a reason to hate the U.S. The very fact that the U.S. is what it is is enough. Extremists of any kind don't need reason because they don't use logic.
Last edited:
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
I'm not undermining it in the slightest. I never denied that it was a "total war" with many different participants, nor did I state that if France and England and the U.S. just fucked off that the Soviet Union would have won it all by themself. I did outright state that they, however, largely won the war, and the decades since have increasingly removed them from credit of their contributions. I live in the U.S., perpetually surrounded by the ignorant war mongering padded by naive patriotism, inundated by the constant soldier worship, and bombarded by all the lies and brainwashing on a daily basis. So I'm sick to my stomach of the truth having been distorted. The more I learned about how history is just a long series of falsehoods back when I was fulfilling general education criteria in university a decade ago, the more I wanted to distance myself from my then-passion of history. I cared more about the truth and the absolutes, so like family before me who parted ways with legal careers because they couldn't stomach the "it's not about who's right or wrong, it's about winning" mentality of the profession, I couldn't stomach the endless stream of lies that makes up our history, and couldn't stand studying that as my major.
Was the U.S. involvement in WWII largely unnecessary and contributed relatively little to the conflict? Yes. That's simply the way it is. Did they contribute? Of course, but it wasn't the Americans that Hitler was terrified of nor was it the Americans making the Japanese afraid. The Soviets had a massive army built on the foundation of the largest world power population fueling its numbers, and a powerful "defend the motherland!" passion driving its citizens to throw its industry into overdrive. Most importantly, they had the proximity, and unlike WWI, the Soviets had the infrastructure to less inefficiently deploy their forces.
It's not undermining lives lost to say that the romanticism of the subject is bullshit. It's pragmatism. When you romanticize soldiers "giving their lives for their country", you breed generations of sacrificial lambs. When you build up a generation into a myth, you're creating a social stratification not unlike classism, only this time divided by age, not race or economic standing. When you turn something that ultimately comes down to nothing more than loss of human life into a child's picture book story, teach yourself that death is okay. People have mentioned in this topic how advances in technology have widened the gap between American forces and civilian casualties (dubbed "collateral damage" to dehumanize the matter), but that's pittance next to the societal reinforcement that militarization and romanticizing killing "for your country" is commonplace and to be expected. The first step in that long process begins with the snowballing bullshit of rewriting history to suit your interests. I simply have no interest in that.
This kind of dehumanization of "the enemy" and a refusal to look at the genesis and context of their actions is part of the problem. Even if only from the perspective that you can't defeat your enemy without understanding him.
Ceratisa
Sarcastic SOB
@SnapSlav we'll have to agree to disagree, I am of the honest opinion that while the Soviet Union was performing favorably at the time of U.S. entry the fact that Hitler had decided to postpone his invasion of Britain until the Soviets were dealt would have reinforced his Eastern front to finally push through to Moscow especially considering the inability of the allies to supply the Soviets with equipment if the blockade stood unchallenged, all Hitler needed to keep Britain in check at that point was the Luftwaffe after all. Stalin pushed for opening another front for a reason.
Last edited by a moderator:
There was not much the Nazis could do about the supplies.
They never managed to cover enough ground to seriously cut of the supplies of the Soviets from the US. Not on the Sea. Infact the Japanese expansion in the Pacific was a much bigger threat to the Leand Lease supplies by the US, a large part of the supplies reached the Sovietunion trough the Iran. If the Japanese Empire would have managed to conquer Indonesia and put Australia under serious preasure or maybe even attacking Australian soil it would have basicaly meant a complete stop to the Soviet supplies!
There really was not much that Germany could do with their ships and submarines to stop those supplies from reaching the Sovietunion.
Britain on the other hand was a few times close to beeing pushed out of the War. That was however before 1942/43 when the pendulum completely swung over to the Allies.
They never managed to cover enough ground to seriously cut of the supplies of the Soviets from the US. Not on the Sea. Infact the Japanese expansion in the Pacific was a much bigger threat to the Leand Lease supplies by the US, a large part of the supplies reached the Sovietunion trough the Iran. If the Japanese Empire would have managed to conquer Indonesia and put Australia under serious preasure or maybe even attacking Australian soil it would have basicaly meant a complete stop to the Soviet supplies!
There really was not much that Germany could do with their ships and submarines to stop those supplies from reaching the Sovietunion.
Britain on the other hand was a few times close to beeing pushed out of the War. That was however before 1942/43 when the pendulum completely swung over to the Allies.
Last edited:
Ceratisa
Sarcastic SOB
Australia would have been the target for an offensive instead of Pearl Harbor if it hadn't been chosen in my opinion.
But as for Britain I'm well aware of the fact that they were on the ropes more than once during WWII, that's why I said some Luftwaffe would have been sufficient to keep them isolated along with the German U-boat blockade already harassing shipping lanes.
well Britain won the Air battle though. Germany had no chance of isolating Britain. The US would have never tolerated Britain occupied by Germany. It was just a matter of time before the US would have started a war with Germany as well. The US support for Britain with supplies was already huge. The US was basically already in war with Germany, they had voluntairs flying british planes.
The moment Germany started WW2, it already lost it. It simply took the Allies 6 years to beat them.
The moment Germany started WW2, it already lost it. It simply took the Allies 6 years to beat them.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Everyone has a problem with the US military until they need them to cover their ass.
yeah, it is not like the Soviets had to deal with 80% of the German landforce in WW2. They totally liberated Europe by them self.
But it was nice of Kenedy/Johnson that they took over for the French in Vietnam.
To be more serious though, I will give credit where credit is due. Without the US, we might be speaking Russian today. The US did a lot to keep the Soviets out of western Europe. I will give them that. Though after France and Britain managed to build their own nuclear arsenal I would say that became somewhat less of an issue over the decades. At least for Europe. And if the Soviets would have ever decided to start a full scale attack they would have overrun everything including France with their tanks, even the Pentagon knew about that. Though the Germans forget way to often that we had rather peacefull lives under the US protection.
But it was nice of Kenedy/Johnson that they took over for the French in Vietnam.
To be more serious though, I will give credit where credit is due. Without the US, we might be speaking Russian today. The US did a lot to keep the Soviets out of western Europe. I will give them that. Though after France and Britain managed to build their own nuclear arsenal I would say that became somewhat less of an issue over the decades. At least for Europe. And if the Soviets would have ever decided to start a full scale attack they would have overrun everything including France with their tanks, even the Pentagon knew about that. Though the Germans forget way to often that we had rather peacefull lives under the US protection.
Last edited:
Ceratisa
Sarcastic SOB
Britain won the air battle directly over their own land you mean? And this entire commentary started on the idea that the U.S. wasn't going to be a deciding factor I thought.
well I am talking about the battle of Britain, the extensive bombing raids by the German airforce over London and other British cities. It was a struggle between the RAF and the German Luftwaffe, which the RAF won, more or less. You could see it like the battle of Stalingrad which was won by the Soviets.
Last edited:
Ceratisa
Sarcastic SOB
That's exactly what I was referencing by "over their own land" as in the Brits won the fight directly on their own turf. For example their existing radar emplacement played a huge role in it, in fact I'd say its quite possible the Brits may have lost without them.
Last edited:
Gonzalez
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I thinkt we are mixing apples with oranges now. The world we live in today has nohing to do with WWII or even the Cold War.
I'd like to know, for example, why if there is no more Warsaw Pact there is still a NATO and they are more active than ever.
Shouldn't global threats like terrorism require a UN force rather than a NATO one, and why do we still have a security council with always the same few permanent seats any of wich has the power of veto?
I'd like to know, for example, why if there is no more Warsaw Pact there is still a NATO and they are more active than ever.
Shouldn't global threats like terrorism require a UN force rather than a NATO one, and why do we still have a security council with always the same few permanent seats any of wich has the power of veto?
Last edited:
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
Because the security council is basically the only international organ with any sort of power beyong strongly worded letters. No nation-state that wants to conserve their international prestige and influence will ever want it dismantled nor will they want new kids into the big boy's club. It's a relic of the Cold War, but just like nukes it's a useful one.
As for NATO, there's a reason France distanced itself from it as soon as they could afford to. It's widely viewed as an extention of the US military, and I doubt the vision is that far from reality.
In my opinion, the NATO is usefull only for one nation. The USA. Why? Because they are the ones with the resources and manpower to actually make some decisions. Germany? France? Britain? Lets be serious. We have neither the logistic nor the man power to do it. That is why the US has military outposts all over the world, not just in the midle east.
The NATO is a military organisation, and the military behind it is mostly the US. That is not some anti US propaganda. It is simply the reality. They are the biggest global player right now. The NATO has this cute little figure you see sometimes jumping around in TV which gets sometime replaced by a nother figure, like you change sockets or underwear, but the one in charge are the guys in the Pentagon.
If shit hits the fan - see Afghanistan, and the NATO is called to arms, it is the US giving the orders.
The NATO ... I love to call it the Old Man. Because basically that is what they are today. The NATO is a weapon from the cold war.
In my opinion the NATO should have been closed after the colapse of the Sovietunion and replaced with a different less militaristic organisation which is not controlled by the Pentagon.
The NATO is a military organisation, and the military behind it is mostly the US. That is not some anti US propaganda. It is simply the reality. They are the biggest global player right now. The NATO has this cute little figure you see sometimes jumping around in TV which gets sometime replaced by a nother figure, like you change sockets or underwear, but the one in charge are the guys in the Pentagon.
If shit hits the fan - see Afghanistan, and the NATO is called to arms, it is the US giving the orders.
The NATO ... I love to call it the Old Man. Because basically that is what they are today. The NATO is a weapon from the cold war.
In my opinion the NATO should have been closed after the colapse of the Sovietunion and replaced with a different less militaristic organisation which is not controlled by the Pentagon.
Last edited:
T
TorontoReign
Guest
In this fairy tale world who would stop the Russians from swallowing up more of their Soviet era satellites? The Karma Police? Would they write Russia a pink slip and ground them when they decide to take over Poland? Maybe Germany will do something when Putin drops by to make them his bitch?
why do you believe that Russia would attack some of its biggest consumers of Gas? Russia needs Europe just as much as Europe needs Russia.
Russia =/= *Sovietunion
(*Not to mention nations like Germany already started quite a few economic relationships with the Sovietunion in the 1970s and 1980s. People love also to forget that the first Mc Donalds opened in the SU before it collapsed)
By the way, there are a fuck ton of nukes in Britain and France that will help the European Union at least somewhat, not to mention, even if small, we still have some military power if you combine all the big European nations. Not to mention just because the NATO would out of the picture it does not mean that the US has dissapeared. It just means that both the US and the European Union could talk to each other on the same level. Right now Europe is close to beeing a vassal of the US. Ok, that is maybe exaggerated, but you get the point. When it comes to the NATO, we Europs pay, the US leads.
Not to mention, if the Russian would seriously attack Poland they would have to deal with Tagaziel. He is a fury! A polish Fury! The worst weapons of all.
Russia =/= *Sovietunion
(*Not to mention nations like Germany already started quite a few economic relationships with the Sovietunion in the 1970s and 1980s. People love also to forget that the first Mc Donalds opened in the SU before it collapsed)
By the way, there are a fuck ton of nukes in Britain and France that will help the European Union at least somewhat, not to mention, even if small, we still have some military power if you combine all the big European nations. Not to mention just because the NATO would out of the picture it does not mean that the US has dissapeared. It just means that both the US and the European Union could talk to each other on the same level. Right now Europe is close to beeing a vassal of the US. Ok, that is maybe exaggerated, but you get the point. When it comes to the NATO, we Europs pay, the US leads.
Not to mention, if the Russian would seriously attack Poland they would have to deal with Tagaziel. He is a fury! A polish Fury! The worst weapons of all.
Last edited:
T
TorontoReign
Guest
You still don't get it, do you? There ain't no countries anymore, no more good guys. They're running the whole show! They own everything, the whole god-damn planet. They can do whatever they want!