Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

was there ever a time that the US didn't think about war?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    War is a political tool, used to achieve political goals. And US has been playing the geopolitical game brilliantly since late 19th century, with no errors if one takes the bigger picture into account.

    "Defeat" in Korea, Vietnam? "Defeat" in Afghanistan? "Defeat" in Iraq or Syria?

    Not even close. The military involvement was never going to be a war of conquest and long term occupation. After all, every apparent mess the US left, it did so far away from home and at the immediate doorstep of someone else.

    So unstable central Asia and Middle East, Balkans and Eastern Europe are pretty much a non-issue to USA while directly undermining potential rivals in Eurasia and creating the pretense for US military presence and protection.


    PS: I always smile at that NATO line: "Keep the Russians out, Americans in, and Germans down"
    Last edited by Morlach; 13-08-2017, 06:04 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      The geopolitical game isn't just played by the US. North Korea is a political tool being employed by China. They funded their nuclear weapons program, rather than placing their own nuclear weapons in North Korea (a breach of the NPT), since the Soviets had already failed with that tactic in 1962. Additionally they've recently invaded India as well as claiming an EEZ up to 2,000nm off their coast and building illegal militarised islands in an attempt to enforce it. Put it all together and you have a totalitarian Communism regime playing all the old Soviet-style tricks. The only difference is that it doesn't have a border in the middle of Germany, so Europe can't be bothered to care about it.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by JHomes View Post
        The geopolitical game isn't just played by the US. North Korea is a political tool being employed by China. They funded their nuclear weapons program, rather than placing their own nuclear weapons in North Korea (a breach of the NPT), since the Soviets had already failed with that tactic in 1962. Additionally they've recently invaded India as well as claiming an EEZ up to 2,000nm off their coast and building illegal militarised islands in an attempt to enforce it. Put it all together and you have a totalitarian Communism regime playing all the old Soviet-style tricks. The only difference is that it doesn't have a border in the middle of Germany, so Europe can't be bothered to care about it.

        China still punches below its global economical, military and political power. But that is because they are playing the long game. Something tells me they only learned their lesson in 20th century when it comes to mistakes of the past. China was a powerhouse during most of existence of human civilization and being overtaken and repeatedly humiliated by a significantly smaller insular nation might have taught them the lesson.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Junglejim View Post

          Yes, but how many are really Russian and how many are Soviet? I count 3 on the Russians. I am differentiating because the other one collapsed, while the US remained more or less the same.
          The difference between the Soviet Union and Russia is like the difference between ground beef and hamburger in terms of military activity. It's a publicity game. John Wayne is not the only gunslinger in the movie. Furthermore the US changes quite often, it is not the same today as it was "then". Every 4 to 8 years there is a change of fair significance.
          Last edited by RobertKLR; 13-08-2017, 06:50 AM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Morlach View Post


            China still punches below its global economical, military and political power. But that is because they are playing the long game. Something tells me they only learned their lesson in 20th century when it comes to mistakes of the past. China was a powerhouse during most of existence of human civilization and being overtaken and repeatedly humiliated by a significantly smaller insular nation might have taught them the lesson.
            Does it? Claims an entire sea with an area over several million square miles. Claims parts of surrounding nations. Claims Taiwan. Has land/sea disputes with around a dozen of its neighbours. That looks pretty aggressive to me.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by RobertKLR View Post

              The difference between the Soviet Union and Russia is like the difference between ground beef and hamburger in terms of military activity. It's a publicity game. John Wayne is not the only gunslinger in the movie.
              Add to that 16 for China.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ublic_of_China

              What most people fail to realise is that there were two sides in those US conflicts, and the opposite side was more often than not the Soviet Union or China, except in fancy dress so people wouldn't think it was them.

              Complain about US in Vietnam. China fought Vietnam three times, after initially supporting the North.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                It's not about the number of wars. It's not even about whose hands are the least bloody. Frankly, most of those conflicts listed had a defined national security interest. For example, countering the Soviets.

                The question now is why the fuck are we engaged in a number of the most recent conflicts? What interests are we trying to defend there? Hell, what benefit did we get out of being involved. You keep effectively saying that everybody else does it, and I keep pointing out that I don't see the equivalence.

                Again, WHY the hell are we in Syria, as an example? What interests there are we actually trying to defend? I get the interests the Ruskis are trying to defend there. I know what interests Turkey is trying to defend there. Same with Iran. I haven't a fucking clue why we chose to get involved and what we are trying to "defend" there. "Freedom?" Seriously. It's a simple question.
                JungleJim brought up the scorecard, I just updated it.

                Why are we in Syria? Do a search using "Why are we in Syria" and you'll find so many answers it will make your head spin. Pick one and run with it. I chose "somebody needs killin' ", that's as good as anyone else's reason. In Texas we joke about the unwritten "He needed killin' " law. The judge asks the defendant "Why didja kill the man"? The defendant replies, "Well your honor, he needed killin' ". The judge responds, "Well, I can't argue with that, case dismissed". Quantum mechanics makes no sense either but everybody seems to be okay with that. Ain't we fickle.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by JHomes View Post
                  Does it? Claims an entire sea with an area over several million square miles. Claims parts of surrounding nations. Claims Taiwan. Has land/sea disputes with around a dozen of its neighbours. That looks pretty aggressive to me.
                  China is claiming South China Sea while US is defending South China Sea from China.
                  Believe it or not, those attols and islands that other nations hold are also imperialistic in nature and not taken and held out of altruism.
                  China coming in too late for that decided to build their own claim through other means.

                  I find it ever more funny that you bring up China claiming Taiwan as some aggresive example. It's not Taiwan, it's Republic of China, and ROC not only claims the whole of PRC but Mongolia and parts of Russia, too. Talk about claims and aggresion.

                  I mean, as a British, you really should lay low and keep quiet when it comes to discussions and moralisations about agression, imperialism and expansionism.

                  It didn't bother any of you when you were busy doing it, so now that you have dropped from global scene, take it like a champ, and we won't mention the de facto slavery, extortion, drug cartel-like behaviour of British Empire.
                  Last edited by Morlach; 13-08-2017, 08:41 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by RobertKLR View Post

                    JungleJim brought up the scorecard, I just updated it.

                    Why are we in Syria? Do a search using "Why are we in Syria" and you'll find so many answers it will make your head spin. Pick one and run with it. I chose "somebody needs killin' ", that's as good as anyone else's reason. In Texas we joke about the unwritten "He needed killin' " law. The judge asks the defendant "Why didja kill the man"? The defendant replies, "Well your honor, he needed killin' ". The judge responds, "Well, I can't argue with that, case dismissed". Quantum mechanics makes no sense either but everybody seems to be okay with that. Ain't we fickle.
                    Billy Bob: Hey Mr. President, why do you want to use my tax dollars and send our boys in harm's way to go bomb those people?
                    President: I don't know Billy Bob. Some people just need killin.

                    That's the right attitude if Billy Bob is in the military. The military's job is to execute orders without asking the why.

                    However, at least in the US of A, representative democracy only works if the people ask why of their duly elected officials. That's kind of part o your civic duty.

                    Also, I wouldn't categorize the attitude you described as being representative of all Texans. Plenty of smart Texans around.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Morlach View Post

                      China is claiming South China Sea while US is defending South China Sea from China.
                      Believe it or not, those attols and islands that other nations hold are also imperialistic in nature and not taken and held out of altruism.
                      China coming in too late for that decided to build their own claim through other means.

                      I find it ever more funny that you bring up China claiming Taiwan as some aggresive example. It's not Taiwan, it's Republic of China, and ROC not only claims the whole of PRC but Mongolia and parts of Russia, too. Talk about claims and aggresion.

                      I mean, as a British, you really should lay low and keep quiet when it comes to discussions and moralisations about agression, imperialism and expansionism.

                      It didn't bother any of you when you ever busy doing it, so now that you have dropped from global scene, take it like a champ, and we won't mention the de facto slavery, extortion, drug cartel-like behaviour of British Empire.
                      Just because a stretch of water bears your country's name, it doesn't mean it's your EEZ. I suppose the Indian Ocean would belong to India if that were the case.

                      ROC claims China, because PRC took it from them in a coup. China also claims parts of Russia and India.

                      Not really. All our territories that wanted independence got it. Hong Kong was an exception, they didn't want to go back to China. I wonder why.

                      It's called learning from history. And don't pretend the British Empire was the first empire in the whole of history, the entire world had been at it long before. The only difference is that China and NK forgot to leave the early 20th century behind when they entered the 21st century. And as soon as nations gained independence from Britain and France, China and the USSR immediately made a play for them. Malaysia, Vietnam, India etc. The Chinese government is an occupying force even in its own country technically.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by JHomes View Post
                        Just because a stretch of water bears your country's name, it doesn't mean it's your EEZ. I suppose the Indian Ocean would belong to India if that were the case.

                        ROC claims China, because PRC took it from them in a coup. China also claims parts of Russia and India.

                        Not really. All our territories that wanted independence got it. Hong Kong was an exception, they didn't want to go back to China. I wonder why.

                        It's called learning from history. And don't pretend the British Empire was the first empire in the whole of history, the entire world had been at it long before. The only difference is that China and NK forgot to leave the early 20th century behind when they entered the 21st century. And as soon as nations gained independence from Britain and France, China and the USSR immediately made a play for them. Malaysia, Vietnam, India etc. The Chinese government is an occupying force even in its own country technically.

                        The only real test is if you can get away with it. The West got away with a lot of things because no one could oppose them. If you can't prevent or make them pay a price too high, China will do it.

                        That is the reality of international relations and geopolitics.


                        The existence of both North and South Korea is the result of external meddling. As is the existence of many countries around the world, the Koreans were never left alone to choose their own path and government, and a brief glimpse upon elections or lack of them and chronology reveals who is to blame.


                        The notion of 19th, 20th, 21st century politics is ridiculous. Nothing changed, at all, maybe the paper wrap and propaganda means. Embargos, trade protection, interventionism, proxy wars, imperialism; colonies were replaced by concessions and multinationals.

                        You picking an arbitrary point in time when you no longer hold the monopoly on violence or global supremacy doesn't really mean a thing for the rest of the world who were watching you build your prosperity on their backs, property and resources.

                        The Chinese are here to stay as a superpower, and the writing is on the wall, they might succeed where the Japanese failed with their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. They don't need conquest to achieve it, they just need to economically integrate and bind the area to themselves.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                          Billy Bob: Hey Mr. President, why do you want to use my tax dollars and send our boys in harm's way to go bomb those people?
                          President: I don't know Billy Bob. Some people just need killin.

                          That's the right attitude if Billy Bob is in the military. The military's job is to execute orders without asking the why.

                          However, at least in the US of A, representative democracy only works if the people ask why of their duly elected officials. That's kind of part o your civic duty.

                          Also, I wouldn't categorize the attitude you described as being representative of all Texans. Plenty of smart Texans around.
                          I said it was a joke and Billy Bob is from Arkansas, not Texas.

                          You want an objective answer to a subjective question. You can't get there from here.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Morlach View Post


                            The only real test is if you can get away with it. The West got away with a lot of things because no one could oppose them. If you can't prevent or make them pay a price too high, China will do it.

                            That is the reality of international relations and geopolitics.


                            The existence of both North and South Korea is the result of external meddling. As is the existence of many countries around the world, the Koreans were never left alone to choose their own path and government, and a brief glimpse upon elections or lack of them and chronology reveals who is to blame.


                            The notion of 19th, 20th, 21st century politics is ridiculous. Nothing changed, at all, maybe the paper wrap and propaganda means. Embargos, trade protection, interventionism, proxy wars, imperialism; colonies were replaced by concessions and multinationals.

                            You picking an arbitrary point in time when you no longer hold the monopoly on violence or global supremacy doesn't really mean a thing for the rest of the world who were watching you build your prosperity on their backs, property and resources.

                            The Chinese are here to stay as a superpower, and the writing is on the wall, they might succeed where the Japanese failed with their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. They don't need conquest to achieve it, they just need to economically integrate and bind the area to themselves.
                            So this is now classic apologist territory. Someone else did it at some time in history, so it's okay for us to continue doing it. You're supposed to learn from history, not repeat it.

                            I think you'll find that South Korea chooses their government every 4-5 years and last did so in May. The same can't be said for China or North Korea. It's China that prevents North Koreans choosing their own government.

                            Oh it has. You might remember the little matter of a war between 1939 and 1945 in which a lot of people died, and China was itself invaded and needed rescuing. What China and yourself are promoting is a return to the policies which led to that war.

                            Oh really? The prosperity that left the UK with a debt equal to 240% of GDP after WWII. Newsflash, there's a thing called inflation, and it made any wealth taken 70 or more years ago completely worthless. Western Europe's prosperity came from not being Communists.

                            'Greater Asia Co-prosperity Sphere'. Is that a fancy way of saying, everyone in Asia does as you say, and you won't resort to violence? Don't need conquest, yet threatens Taiwan, threatens Vietnam, threatens India, builds militarised reefs all over the place and has currently slipped NK over its cock so it can wave it in the world's face without having to take ownership for it.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              The Lakota (Sioux) of the late 18th to the late 19th century may have been the most vicious and warlike people who ever lived. War dominate their culture and they reveled in it. War was the only path to success in life. A young brave could not even look a girl in the eye until he had shed some enemy's blood and stolen his horses. They were experts in torture and mutilation, ambush and stealth and masters of combat. "Wait till you meet the Sioux" was the phrase all the early pioneers heard.

                              Who did Crazy Horse admire the most? It was a white man who was shot in the eye with an arrow in battle. The man pulled the arrow out of his eye (and the eye came with it) and threw it to the ground, then took out his two revolvers and stood his ground. When he ran out of ammo he pulled his knife out and continued to fight until swarmed by a dozen braves he finally fell. Crazy Horse ran up to touch his body, to count coup, to feel the courage of the man who fought without fear to the very end. Crazy Horse never knew the man's name or anything about him but he saw him as a true warrior of the highest order.

                              The culture of the plains warrior societies is a part of the American culture and we adore them all for their passion in their pursuit of living to the fullest. No plains warrior needed a reason to go to war, he simply did it for the love of battle. At their zenith they may have been the freest people who ever lived and we learned a lot about living and dying from them. Even new immigrants over a century later still marvel at their way of life. No reasonable historian would deny they were an important part of the path to where we are now. We got here from there.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by JHomes View Post
                                So this is now classic apologist territory. Someone else did it at some time in history, so it's okay for us to continue doing it. You're supposed to learn from history, not repeat it.
                                That is not my position.

                                Originally posted by JHomes View Post
                                I think you'll find that South Korea chooses their government every 4-5 years and last did so in May. The same can't be said for China or North Korea. It's China that prevents North Koreans choosing their own government.
                                The events from the end of WW2 to establishment of separate governments in lieu of common Korean elections is the matter I was talking about.

                                Originally posted by JHomes View Post
                                Oh it has. You might remember the little matter of a war between 1939 and 1945 in which a lot of people died, and China was itself invaded and needed rescuing. What China and yourself are promoting is a return to the policies which led to that war.
                                Something tells me that China is fully aware of the war which cost them tens of millions of lives, and yet still are insisting on their global position and power.


                                Originally posted by JHomes View Post
                                Oh really? The prosperity that left the UK with a debt equal to 240% of GDP after WWII. Newsflash, there's a thing called inflation, and it made any wealth taken 70 or more years ago completely worthless. Western Europe's prosperity came from not being Communists.
                                War spending, Lend-Lease and purchases in USA during WW2 and WW1 have nothing to do with squeezing dry and exploiting several continents, establishing protectorates, slave and slave-like economies (East India Company, tea farms etc.), and starting wars in order to be able to continue to traffick drugs. And that is just 19th century, if we go to 18th and 17th century, one can only continue to list purely imperialism driven wars. In WW1 Britain was defending the status quo and its global imperium against the ascending European hegemon, 2nd Reich, which sought the redistribution of colonies and power in Europe.

                                That was your zenit, second half of 19th century. The sun has set since and there is no turning back the time. Of course you would like to preserve the current disposition of global power and welfare, but the majority of the world would like to see it change.

                                I honestly am amused by your insistence on the fact that the former colonial and leading industrial nations rose to power and prosperity due to NOT being Communist, even though their rise predates the appearance of Communism by decades or centuries. Well done.

                                However, if we take your notion of PRC being a tyrannical and Communist state, and look at their advances, power and future projections, we might come to the conclusion that you have been relegated to second class, regional power at best, and that PRC is far more powerful.

                                Originally posted by JHomes View Post
                                'Greater Asia Co-prosperity Sphere'. Is that a fancy way of saying, everyone in Asia does as you say, and you won't resort to violence? Don't need conquest, yet threatens Taiwan, threatens Vietnam, threatens India, builds militarised reefs all over the place and has currently slipped NK over its cock so it can wave it in the world's face without having to take ownership for it.
                                So, what are you going to do about it?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X