Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bsu_alum9

"Last thing we need to do is monkey this up"

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

None at all as your list of national interests shows.

Our embargo of Japan caused the war and the Philippines were never in danger until we cut off Japanese energy imports.   They only attacked us as a last resort.   

That's laughably untrue. We were the main naval power. We had the Philippines right in the center of their Greater-East Asian Co Prosperity Sphere. We had Hawaii pointed like a dagger at their empire. We had our own interests in the area. They were going to invade the Philippines. They were going to strike at Hawaii. 

4 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

We could trade with China, Japan or anyone our choice.   Our embargo policies did more to limit trade than the Japanese.

No, we couldn't. You don't realize that mercantilism was considered a legitimate market strategy of the imperial autocracies? 

4 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

How do you figure?

Some kind of delusion you are creating in your recently illogical mind.  The Soviets would have loved us for helping them.  Plus after FDR our government was communist in so many of its functions.  The biggest problems we have today are because of communist policies in our government.

The Soviets were aiming at controlling Europe, and hopping over the channel to us. The Soviets annihilated Germany, had the largest standing army in the world, and stopped because we had nukes and they figured they could consolidate gains and expand through elections. They very nearly did. France's largest party at the time was communist, as was Italy. Greece didn't go communist because of massive aid on our part. Without us in the war, Europe is communist from sea to shining sea. Without us, Japan and Korea and Hong Kong are communist. Without us, we are the only capitalist country left on earth. 

4 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

We got to them because we had England to stage an invasion from.   Even then it took 3 years of planning and preparation go get across a 20 mile channel.

Blues, did you read any history at all? We invaded Africa first, and then Sicily, and then Italy, and finally Normandy when it was clear that we weren't making it over the Alps before the Red Army marched into Strasbourg. Yes, we had logistic help with England. It's a good thing that there isn't an island 90 miles off the coast of the US that the Soviets could have used, or an entire array of nations sympathetic to global communism in the western hemisphere. 

4 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

The Nazis would have been defeated without us ever entering the war.  The Soviets did that on their own, our D-day invasion and all the Americans that died was nothing more than a waste.  The Soviets had already defeated Germany it was just a matter of time..   Not only would the Nazis never have invaded the U.S. they would have been conquered by 1946.

 

They probably would not have been defeated without the massive material support the US gave to the Red Army. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, happycamper said:

That's laughably untrue. We were the main naval power. We had the Philippines right in the center of their Greater-East Asian Co Prosperity Sphere. We had Hawaii pointed like a dagger at their empire. We had our own interests in the area. They were going to invade the Philippines. They were going to strike at Hawaii. 

No, we couldn't. You don't realize that mercantilism was considered a legitimate market strategy of the imperial autocracies? 

The Soviets were aiming at controlling Europe, and hopping over the channel to us. The Soviets annihilated Germany, had the largest standing army in the world, and stopped because we had nukes and they figured they could consolidate gains and expand through elections. They very nearly did. France's largest party at the time was communist, as was Italy. Greece didn't go communist because of massive aid on our part. Without us in the war, Europe is communist from sea to shining sea. Without us, Japan and Korea and Hong Kong are communist. Without us, we are the only capitalist country left on earth.   We are barely capitalist and FDR was our biggest communist threat.

Blues, did you read any history at all? We invaded Africa first, and then Sicily, and then Italy, and finally Normandy when it was clear that we weren't making it over the Alps before the Red Army marched into Strasbourg. Yes, we had logistic help with England. It's a good thing that there isn't an island 90 miles off the coast of the US that the Soviets could have used, or an entire array of nations sympathetic to global communism in the western hemisphere.  We stalled and delayed and bled the Soviets and let them win the war with their dead.  Then hopped in at the last second to take some glory.   Creating the conditions that led to the Cold war.

They probably would not have been defeated without the massive material support the US gave to the Red Army.   Don't have to enter the war to give the Red Army weapons, we had done that for years before we entered the war.

Read some history, I am not going to waste time with you anymore.

I have said we should have kept selling weapons.   We would have had the same outcome in Europe in WWII if we never entered the war.   Asia would have been dominated by the Japanese.   But Australia, and the American possessions like the Philippines were never in danger until we put them in danger by forcing Japan to attack.  

FDR killed 250K Americans for nothing.

We could have developed nukes without being in the war and there is no evidence the Soviets would have developed nukes as early as they did without stealing the secrets from the Manhattan project.

If we had stayed neutral but sold weapons to Russia like we did. The Soviets would not have perceived us as a threat.  It is likely there would have been no cold war.  No Korean war, no Vietnam war and our economy would have not been crippled by war preparations and spending for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Read some history, I am not going to waste time with you anymore.

I have said we should have kept selling weapons.   We would have had the same outcome in Europe in WWII if we never entered the war.   Asia would have been dominated by the Japanese.   But Australia, and the American possessions like the Philippines were never in danger until we put them in danger by forcing Japan to attack.  

FDR killed 250K Americans for nothing.

We could have developed nukes without being in the war and there is no evidence the Soviets would have developed nukes as early as they did without stealing the secrets from the Manhattan project.

If we had stayed neutral but sold weapons to Russia like we did. The Soviets would not have perceived us as a threat.  It is likely there would have been no cold war.  No Korean war, no Vietnam war and our economy would have not been crippled by war preparations and spending for decades.

Blues, if we had been selling weapons, Asia would have been dominated by the USSR and Red China. The Philipines and Australia were absolutely in danger. Australia was in imminent danger of being invaded; it was the Battle of the Coral Sea that prevented it - a battle that the US was instrumental in. 

We would have not developed nukes without the war. Blues, developing nukes was one of the single most expensive things this nation has ever done. We poured enormous resources into it and even more in to delivery systems. IIRC at the end of the cold war, the total spend on nuclear weapons was more than the entire 4 trillion national debt at the time.

The Soviets absolutely perceived us as a threat. Their propaganda constantly talked about "Western imperialist gangsters". They would have sponsored miltias and coups across the new world after conquering the entire old.

Dude read a book.  

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, happycamper said:

Blues, if we had been selling weapons, Asia would have been dominated by the USSR and Red China. The Philipines and Australia were absolutely in danger. Australia was in imminent danger of being invaded; it was the Battle of the Coral Sea that prevented it - a battle that the US was instrumental in. 

We would have not developed nukes without the war. Blues, developing nukes was one of the single most expensive things this nation has ever done. We poured enormous resources into it and even more in to delivery systems. IIRC at the end of the cold war, the total spend on nuclear weapons was more than the entire 4 trillion national debt at the time.

The Soviets absolutely perceived us as a threat. Their propaganda constantly talked about "Western imperialist gangsters". They would have sponsored miltias and coups across the new world after conquering the entire old.

Dude read a book.  

Read some history.  China would have been ruled by Japan.  There would have been no Red China.   

The Cold war would have been between the Japanese and Soviets.

We would have been the Russian ally that helped them with materials to defeat the Nazi menace.  

You can't say we wouldn't have developed nukes, you don't even understand the events of the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bluerules009 said:

Read some history.  China would have been ruled by Japan.  There would have been no Red China.   

The Cold war would have been between the Japanese and Soviets.

We would have been the Russian ally that helped them with materials to defeat the Nazi menace.  

You can't say we wouldn't have developed nukes, you don't even understand the events of the war.

There would have been no Red China? Dude, there already WAS a Red China. Where do you think that Mao started?

The Japanese and the Soviets? Blues, the Soviets would have crushed Japan like a bug. They had the army and the navy and the air force along with two continent's worth of resources. Their goal was conquest; a reason why we dropped nukes was to prevent the invasion of Japan by the Red Army. 

We already were the Russian ally who fought along side them - and they were our enemies not 3 years later. Dude do you know anything about history?

Furthermore, we would not have developed nukes. You have no concept of how the entire Manhattan Project was created because of the war and the amount of resources it took to build a working nuke.

Seriously blues I see why you denigrate @youngrebelfan40; without historians you could continue to just make shit up and let your ignorance cover your arguments. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, happycamper said:

There would have been no Red China? Dude, there already WAS a Red China. Where do you think that Mao started?

The Japanese and the Soviets? Blues, the Soviets would have crushed Japan like a bug. They had the army and the navy and the air force along with two continent's worth of resources. Their goal was conquest; a reason why we dropped nukes was to prevent the invasion of Japan by the Red Army. 

We already were the Russian ally who fought along side them - and they were our enemies not 3 years later. Dude do you know anything about history?

Furthermore, we would not have developed nukes. You have no concept of how the entire Manhattan Project was created because of the war and the amount of resources it took to build a working nuke.

Seriously blues I see why you denigrate @youngrebelfan40; without historians you could continue to just make shit up and let your ignorance cover your arguments. 

Yeah you need to read some history.  

Not even worth the conversation.   

Mao only came about because of the vacuum created when we defeated the Japanese.  If we don't force the Japanese to attack us, they would have solidified their occupation of China long before the Soviets rolled into Berlin.

The Soviets had no navy they couldn't even bother Japan for years and by then who knows what would have happened.  But 250K americans would have been alive to watch it.

We would have had more resources available for the Manhattan project if we weren't spending them in the pacific and Europe.   Plus if we didn't develop a bomb, the soviets couldn't have stole the tech from us.    We might even of avoided a buildup and a cold war.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jackmormon said:

By that standard we were engaged in the Russian Afghanistan war. We didn't commit troops.

We were, along with Saudi Arabia and the ISI in Pakistan....all part of the “Arab Afghan” shenanigans. We’re still paying the price for that adventure to this day.

https://web.archive.org/web/20101218145219/http://www12.georgetown.edu/students/organizations/nscs/capitalscholar/Fall2006/Soviet Union and Stinger Missiles.htm

By funneling in weapons, cash and fighters, we very much were engaged  in that conflict. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 406WarriorFan said:

We were, along with Saudi Arabia and the ISI in Pakistan....all part of the “Arab Afghan” shenanigans. We’re still paying the price for that adventure to this day.

https://web.archive.org/web/20101218145219/http://www12.georgetown.edu/students/organizations/nscs/capitalscholar/Fall2006/Soviet Union and Stinger Missiles.htm

By funneling in weapons, cash and fighters, we very much were engaged  in that conflict. 

It’s nothing even close to putting boots on the ground, which would have put us in a direct military conflict with the Soviet +++++ing Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, jackmormon said:

It’s nothing even close to putting boots on the ground, which would have put us in a direct military conflict with the Soviet +++++ing Union.

But it did. We funneled jihadis from all over the world into Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, we supplied them with an endless supply of AKs and Stinger missiles. It's absolutely involvement..there were CIA guys all over the place there, as well. 

In many ways, it was payback for what the USSR did to us in Vietnam. Eye for an eye, you could call it. Military involvement isn't just sending troops, it's also supplying one side against the other with lethal stuff. 

Of course, these things tend to backfire, because look at the mess we're in now with the same people that were our "allies" over there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 406WarriorFan said:

But it did. We funneled jihadis from all over the world into Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, we supplied them with an endless supply of AKs and Stinger missiles. It's absolutely involvement..there were CIA guys all over the place there, as well. 

In many ways, it was payback for what the USSR did to us in Vietnam. Eye for an eye, you could call it. Military involvement isn't just sending troops, it's also supplying one side against the other with lethal stuff. 

Of course, these things tend to backfire, because look at the mess we're in now with the same people that were our "allies" over there. 

It isn't the same, and you know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jackmormon said:

It isn't the same, and you know it.

It's exactly the same. Both caused blowback in their own sorts of ways. To suggest that we didn't involve ourselves in the USSR-Afghanistan Jihadi tilt in the 80s is laughable. We were completely up to our ass in that conflict. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 406WarriorFan said:

It's exactly the same. Both caused blowback in their own sorts of ways. To suggest that we didn't involve ourselves in the USSR-Afghanistan Jihadi tilt in the 80s is laughable. We were completely up to our ass in that conflict. 

Horse shit. Providing the mujahideen with RPGs isn’t the same as US tanks firing big guns at Soviet tanks,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jackmormon said:

Horse shit. Providing the mujahideen with RPGs isn’t the same as US tanks firing big guns at Soviet tanks,

We were the ones responsible, along with KSA and the ISI, for funding and arming those +++++ers to fight the Soviets. Not unlike what we are doing in Syria now (a move you championed numerous times of course). But for us, it'd have been overrun by the Soviets and probably nowadays something more akin to Kazakhstan (given the resources) than Somalia. 

Just like you can't say with a straight face we weren't up to our ass in the Soviet-Afghan war, you similarly can't say "the US isn't up to their ass in Syria right now" either. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

We were the ones responsible, along with KSA and the ISI, for funding and arming those +++++ers to fight the Soviets. Not unlike what we are doing in Syria now (a move you championed numerous times of course). But for us, it'd have been overrun by the Soviets and probably nowadays something more akin to Kazakhstan (given the resources) than Somalia. 

Just like you can't say with a straight face we weren't up to our ass in the Soviet-Afghan war, you similarly can't say "the US isn't up to their ass in Syria right now" either. 

 

We have boots on the ground in Syria fighting several enemies, primarily ISIS.

In Afghanistan, the only enemy was the USSR. Us providing the mujahideen weapons is akin to what the soviets were doing in Vietnam. 

US Troops fighting Soviet troops in direct combat, would have been a recipe for the beginning of WWIII.

You both know +++++ing well, it’s nothing close to the same thing. You are arguing for arguments sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jackmormon said:

We have boots on the ground in Syria fighting several enemies, primarily ISIS.

In Afghanistan, the only enemy was the USSR. Us providing the mujahideen weapons is akin to what the soviets were doing in Vietnam. 

US Troops fighting Soviet troops in direct combat, would have been a recipe for the beginning of WWIII.

You both know +++++ing well, it’s nothing close to the same thing. You are arguing for arguments sake.

So the loads of CIA operatives and the like just weren't there? 

We didn't land troops in Libya. Were we involved there? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe from WY said:

So the loads of CIA operatives and the like just weren't there? 

We didn't land troops in Libya. Were we involved there? 

I’m not claiming we weren’t involved. I said putting US Troops on the front lines, both in WWII and Afghanistan is in a whole different ballpark than providing weapons.

You know that too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

I’m not claiming we weren’t involved. I said putting US Troops on the front lines, both in WWII and Afghanistan is in a whole different ballpark than providing weapons.

You know that too. 

Jack wants to die for his country for nothing.  We need to send him to Syria to be a big american dead hero!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...