Question for our friends on the left

[oggbashan]

This is interesting. I never heard the perspective that the US wanted to end the British Empire. That was not something I remember being taught in school. The rest is consistent with my knowledge.

Are you saying the US should maintain it's world policeman status? And if not who do you think will fill that role?

Since they took over that role from the British after 1918, they should.

But all major powers have problems with fighting asymmetric wars where a militant population is supported and armed (sometimes clandestinely) by an external power e.g China for North Korea; China for Vietnam, Iran for many middle east conflicts including the Taliban. Hamas, the PLO, and in Yemen.

The other problem is the Terms of Engagement set by politicians. If the TOEs were those that applied to Nazi Germany or Japan in WW2, there would be no limitation on what the armed forces could do - kill anyone and everyone and if civilians die? That's war...

If US forces had been able to use nukes against North Vietnam and had told the Chinese - if you back North Vietnam we'll nuke you too - the Vietnamese war would have been won. The same would have been true of Korea.

 

[pecksniff]

That worked really well in the 1930s when the USA was isolationist. When the League of Nations, not backed by the USA, allowed Abyssinia to be taken over by Mussolini's Fascist Italy, it showed that the League was toothless and allowed the rise of Hitler.

The League of Nations was established because of the USA's backing, but when they did nothing - WW2 was on its way.

Again when the USA joined in WW1 its army was pathetic and had to be built from scratch. In WW2 the Japanese underestimated the USA because they could see an obsolete and reduced scale military establishment. They were wrong, but Pearl Harbor was a real shock. The isolationists and 'Keep America out of foreign wars' activists were marginalized overnight. That was the Japanese's biggest mistake. By attacking without declaring war they changed the political balance in the US who wanted revenge.

One of the twentieth-century objectives of US foreign policy was the end of the British Empire and Pax Britannica, which they had achieved (even if many Britons didn't realise it at the time) by the end of WW1. That left a vacuum which the US should have filled but didn't, preferring to stand aside.

Its a different world now. Such dangers as there are, are of a different nature. Few states think any more in terms of achieving national greatness through territorial expansion -- it's all about economic competition now.

 

[WillJ8787]

I've seen a number of threads lately along the lines of the USA shouldn't be the worlds policeman, doesn't need a military, should only respond with force to direct threats only.

Let's say for discussion sake that the USA does the above, withdraws from world leadership, draws down the military, becomes isolationist etc. How do you see the world after that happens? How do you see China in this future? How do you see Russia in this future? How do you see the Middle East in this future? How do you see Europe in this future?

I'm not trying to start a flame war here. I truly would like to understand how and why you arrived at your present view. I'm hoping we can have an adult discussion about this. Can we leave the name calling out of this?

I think there is a middle ground between the kind of interventions and NeoCon actions we have engaged in all these years since 1946 and the kind of isolation we practiced prior to that date.

 

[Lazaran]

.
A couple things.

First, I'm not your friend if you voted for the traitor in chief.

Second, just because some mental case starts a thread doesn't mean it even remotely represents what Democrats, especially those in positions of power, believe.

Opposed to remarkable individuals getting ahead?? Nope, just expecting them to pay taxes or higher wages. A person who makes a billion a year could be taxed at 90% and still make 100 million. That would be a pity. Or their pay could be tied to what their average employee makes, with a lower tax rate for all.

Ending funding for police?? Nope; just the opposite, while also increasing funding for social services, and weeding out bad cops.

Opening up the borders?? Nope, just the opposite: expediting deportations of illegals: increasing funding for border patrol, and modernizing surveillance and screening all along the border. Just no big dumb wall, and no inhumane policies.

Eliminating unmatched military superiority?? Nope, just the opposite: modernizing our approach to warfare and projection of power over the horizon without the need for boots on the ground. Focusing more on cyber warfare and 21st century threats: climate change: defense of shipping lanes: control of limited natural resources, and of course radical terrorist cells.

Basically, don't be a BoBo by ascribing positions to left leaning Democrats and independents based on one unhinged zealot.

We voted for President Biden

You voted for the traitor in chief.

Who is more extreme???

GMAFB

 

[pecksniff]

If US forces had been able to use nukes against North Vietnam and had told the Chinese - if you back North Vietnam we'll nuke you too - the Vietnamese war would have been won. The same would have been true of Korea.

In Vietnam, too much risk of escalation -- China was a nuclear power by that time.

In Korea, too much risk of escalation -- the Soviet Union was a nuclear power by that time.

 

[coati]

Here.

What???

Are you saying you were the one who said the USA does not need a military? I thought you were just saying the USA did not need to use its military to be an international cop all the time. The USA probably more than any other nation needs a strong military for defensive purposes alone, because of all the shit they've pulled around the world.

And furthermore, are you a "friend on the left"? I thought you were someone who feared going outdoors because of that bright thing in the ceiling. Who the fuck are these "friends on the left"?

 

[coati]

If US forces had been able to use nukes against North Vietnam and had told the Chinese - if you back North Vietnam we'll nuke you too - the Vietnamese war would have been won. The same would have been true of Korea.

Sounds like the cancer has hit your brain, Ogg. Your idea of how we could have "won" the Vietnamese war is insane. We finally did the right thing by tucking tail and leaving, and so far the Viet Cong has not taken over the USA.

 

[TJX]

.
A couple things.

First, I'm not your friend if you voted for the traitor in chief.

Second, just because some mental case starts a thread doesn't mean it even remotely represents what Democrats, especially those in positions of power, believe.

Opposed to remarkable individuals getting ahead?? Nope, just expecting them to pay taxes or higher wages. A person who makes a billion a year could be taxed at 90% and still make 100 million. That would be a pity. Or their pay could be tied to what their average employee makes, with a lower tax rate for all.

Ending funding for police?? Nope; just the opposite, while also increasing funding for social services, and weeding out bad cops.

Opening up the borders?? Nope, just the opposite: expediting deportations of illegals: increasing funding for border patrol, and modernizing surveillance and screening all along the border. Just no big dumb wall, and no inhumane policies.

Eliminating unmatched military superiority?? Nope, just the opposite: modernizing our approach to warfare and projection of power over the horizon without the need for boots on the ground. Focusing more on cyber warfare and 21st century threats: climate change: defense of shipping lanes: control of limited natural resources, and of course radical terrorist cells.

Basically, don't be a BoBo by ascribing positions to left leaning Democrats and independents based on one unhinged zealot.

We voted for President Biden

You voted for the traitor in chief.

Who is more extreme???

GMAFB

Well, I was looking for adult discussion. I never voted for Trump. Yet you claim I did. I have quoted George S Patton numerous times on these boards and will do so again. “Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man”. A wall is a fixed fortification.

 

[Lazaran]

What???

Are you saying you were the one who said the USA does not need a military? I thought you were just saying the USA did not need to use its military to be an international cop all the time. The USA probably more than any other nation needs a strong military for defensive purposes alone, because of all the shit they've pulled around the world.

And furthermore, are you a "friend on the left"? I thought you were someone who feared going outdoors because of that bright thing in the ceiling. Who the fuck are these "friends on the left"?

Simply look at Peck's join date and number of posts / threads started.

His name should be LeftGuide.

JFC

 

[pecksniff]

What???

Are you saying you were the one who said the USA does not need a military? I thought you were just saying the USA did not need to use its military to be an international cop all the time.

That is correct. Of course we need a military for defensive purposes -- but that need is greatly reduced by the end of the Cold War, and by two ocean-sized moats and the absence of any real military threats to us in the Western Hemisphere.

I could not tell you about any Litster suggesting the DoD should be abolished entirely.

 

[Lazaran]

Well, I was looking for adult discussion. I never voted for Trump. Yet you claim I did. I have quoted George S Patton numerous times on these boards and will do so again. “Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man”. A wall is a fixed fortification.

So you voted for President Biden then???

The title of your thread suggests that you are on the right.

Please stop being vague.

Are you even American???

If you want an adult conversation, you can't be coy about your political leanings.

Right now you seem to be sitting on the fence at a time when a clearly defined position is demanded.

On one side there is a cult devoted to their orange messiah, and on the other there is a coalition of Americans who recognize the dangers posed by that cult.

Pick a fucking side.

 

[pecksniff]

Well, I was looking for adult discussion. I never voted for Trump. Yet you claim I did. I have quoted George S Patton numerous times on these boards and will do so again. “Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man”. A wall is a fixed fortification.

In Gary Jennings' The Journeyer, a historical novel about Marco Polo, Marco asks a Mongol if his people had a lot of trouble getting past the Great Wall of China.

The Mongol replies, "Nobody has ever had a problem getting past the wall. All anybody ever had to do was bribe the sentries with a bit of silver. No wall is taller or stronger or more forbidding than the men behind it."

N.B.: The Great Wall in its present form dates from the post-Mongol Ming Dynasty -- but, it has existed in some form ever since the reign of Qin Shih Huangdi the First Emperor. And the Great Wall in its present form did not stop the Manchurians.

 

[coati]

Simply look at Peck's join date and number of posts / threads started.

His name should be LeftGuide.

JFC

He just said he was not the one advocating for no military. Who the hell was the OP talking about?

 

[pecksniff]

He just said he was not the one advocating for no military. Who the hell was the OP talking about?

Probably me -- hyperbolic misinterpretation is standard fare on this board.

 

[bellisarius]

That worked really well in the 1930s when the USA was isolationist. When the League of Nations, not backed by the USA, allowed Abyssinia to be taken over by Mussolini's Fascist Italy, it showed that the League was toothless and allowed the rise of Hitler.

The League of Nations was established because of the USA's backing, but when they did nothing - WW2 was on its way.

Again when the USA joined in WW1 its army was pathetic and had to be built from scratch. In WW2 the Japanese underestimated the USA because they could see an obsolete and reduced scale military establishment. They were wrong, but Pearl Harbor was a real shock. The isolationists and 'Keep America out of foreign wars' activists were marginalized overnight. That was the Japanese's biggest mistake. By attacking without declaring war they changed the political balance in the US who wanted revenge.

One of the twentieth-century objectives of US foreign policy was the end of the British Empire and Pax Britannica, which they had achieved (even if many Britons didn't realise it at the time) by the end of WW1. That left a vacuum which the US should have filled but didn't, preferring to stand aside.

This is interesting. I never heard the perspective that the US wanted to end the British Empire. That was not something I remember being taught in school. The rest is consistent with my knowledge.

Are you saying the US should maintain it's world policeman status? And if not who do you think will fill that role?

I don't think 'ending' the British Empire was so much a goal as achieving parity, particularly re. naval power. That's what the Washington and London Naval Treaties were all about. The US and GB being peers with 3 other 'also ran's'.

Although we let our Army languish the capital ship building continued unabated.

 

[TJX]

So you voted for President Biden then???

The title of your thread suggests that you are on the right.

Please stop being vague.

Are you even American???

If you want an adult conversation, you can't be coy about your political leanings.

Right now you seem to be sitting on the fence at a time when a clearly defined position is demanded.

On one side there is a cult devoted to their orange messiah, and on the other there is a coalition of Americans who recognize the dangers posed by that cult.

Pick a fucking side.

I don’t follow party lines. I think for myself. I don’t watch or read opinion pieces. You want to pigeon hole me, try this on. I think abortion should be legal but shouldn’t be used as a birth control method. I support capital punishment, dead men don’t kill again. I think the war on drugs was a huge failure. I think a person deserves to keep the fruits of their labor or inspiration. I think America has a problem with guns and gun deaths although I don’t know what to about it. I think we live in a very dangerous world and unless we learn from the mistakes of the 2 world wars we will pay in blood again. You want to pigeon hole me then find a pigeon hole for this.

You did exactly what you accused me of doing. You ascribed a position to me. You were wrong in your assumptions.

You and I are done conversing. Have a good day.

 

[spacekowboy]

Righties all the sudden caring about Russian advancement on the world stage...

 

[Lazaran]

I don’t follow party lines. I think for myself. I don’t watch or read opinion pieces. You want to pigeon hole me, try this on. I think abortion should be legal but shouldn’t be used as a birth control method. I support capital punishment, dead men don’t kill again. I think the war on drugs was a huge failure. I think a person deserves to keep the fruits of their labor or inspiration. I think America has a problem with guns and gun deaths although I don’t know what to about it. I think we live in a very dangerous world and unless we learn from the mistakes of the 2 world wars we will pay in blood again. You want to pigeon hole me then find a pigeon hole for this.

You did exactly what you accused me of doing. You ascribed a position to me. You were wrong in your assumptions.

You and I are done conversing. Have a good day.

Your thread title is "Question for our friends on the left".

You pigeon holed yourself genius.

There are many things that can be debated in an adult manner, but there is currently an ongoing assault on democracy from the traitor in chief and his cultists.

I guess we should all pay no attention to that and discuss "important things".

JFC

GMAFB

SAD!!!

 

[icanhelp1]

Well, I was looking for adult discussion. I never voted for Trump. Yet you claim I did. I have quoted George S Patton numerous times on these boards and will do so again. “Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man”. A wall is a fixed fortification.

Patton's claim was that mobility in a land war was a winning strategy over fixed fortification.

The lefty loons would have you believe they don't believe in a border wall because Trump campaigned on it not because they're ineffective. Strictly political. Statistics prove that walls work. If you approach a military base it is surrounded by some form of wall or fencing, reason, to keep people out that don't belong there.

Dipshits like lorazapam would have you believe that conservatives only want a plain old wall, what dipshit lorazapam doesn't tell you is that a border wall is only a part of a comprehensive approach to border security. It's a deterrent to be used in conjunction with other technologies which also includes road networks, ground surveillance radars, camaras both infra-red and high resolution, ground sensors, GPS networks and rapid deployment vehicles both ground and air assets. A wall allows fewer border agents to control a larger area making it cheaper than trying to man alone patrols. It's obvious that a wall alone is ineffective, any unmanned fortification can be breached.

Right now we have open borders and have no idea who's entering our country. Drug overdoses are killing americans by the thousands. Terrorist are finding their way into our country. Walls force migrants to choke points of entry where border patrol can manage people. Most migrants will avoid where walls are constructed. Some will tell you walls are ego killers, it's a legitimate concern for animal migrations but there are solutions for that problem..

It comes down to this, Trump wanted a wall and lefty loons hate Trump. $25 billion for a wall strategy, Nancy is pushing a bill for 3.5 trillion, 25 billion is pocket change.

 

[oggbashan]

Sounds like the cancer has hit your brain, Ogg. Your idea of how we could have "won" the Vietnamese war is insane. We finally did the right thing by tucking tail and leaving, and so far the Viet Cong has not taken over the USA.

That was how you won WW2. The rules of engagement for WW2 US, Russia and every one of the allies, were 'kill any of the fuckers, military or civilian'. Since then, the military has been crippled by political interference.

 

[icanhelp1]

That was how you won WW2. The rules of engagement for WW2 US, Russia and every one of the allies, were 'kill any of the fuckers, military or civilian'. Since then, the military has been crippled by political interference.

Reason is, a very small percentage serve in the military the rest become know it all armchair warriors dictating their virtue signaling moral *better than thou* ignorant rules of engagement. War is ugly and war is hell, it's better that way, teaches us humility and the ugliness helps keep us out of them. When you make war palatable you tend to make war.

 

[CornusKousa]

China was only Japan's bitch in the early 20th Century -- before that, Japan was a country they could always safely ignore, which suited the Japanese just fine.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/Q7ozWVYCR0nyW2rvPW/200w.gif?cid=82a1493bjs7qjt7gv4y0eegy3x5j15j70hoe9zzopddfqumy&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

You should have just come out and said you didn't know much about the history between the snow Asian nations.

 

[pecksniff]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/Q7ozWVYCR0nyW2rvPW/200w.gif?cid=82a1493bjs7qjt7gv4y0eegy3x5j15j70hoe9zzopddfqumy&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

You should have just come out and said you didn't know much about the history between the snow Asian nations.

I know that before the Sino-Japanese War of 1895, there were only two military conflicts between China and Japan: Kublai Khan's failed invasion of Japan, and Toyotomi Hideyoshi's failed invasion of Korea. Apart from that, most Chinese were hardly aware the Isle of Dwarfs existed. The Japanese knew China existed, because it was too big to ignore and they copied a lot of their culture from it and it was for a long time the only country in the world that produced silk and tea.

 

[coati]

That was how you won WW2. The rules of engagement for WW2 US, Russia and every one of the allies, were 'kill any of the fuckers, military or civilian'. Since then, the military has been crippled by political interference.

Using nuclear weapons to "win" in Vietnam would have been insane.

It was the right thing to stop that war and leave that nation alone. They had been under colonial rule of one sort or another for so long.

Truly, Ogg, you sound like you are still living in a British Empire state of mind.

 

[YDB95]

I've seen a number of threads lately along the lines of the USA shouldn't be the worlds policeman, doesn't need a military, should only respond with force to direct threats only.

No, you haven't seen anyone here say we don't need a military. I'm more than happy to defend things I really have said, but don't put words in our mouths.