1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Paris :(Follow

#52 Nov 18 2015 at 2:05 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
What's your point? Do you think anyone in 1938 thought Hitler was a good guy, outside of Germany at least?

Many, many, many people did. Not really an open question. Retconning history post hoc isn't a great idea.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#53 Nov 18 2015 at 2:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Yeah, okay, fine. My POINT is, there was legitimate concern. Widespread, legitimate concern. He wasn't named "Man of the Year" because everyone thought he was a great guy.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#54 Nov 18 2015 at 4:05 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Samira wrote:
Yeah, okay, fine. My POINT is, there was legitimate concern. Widespread, legitimate concern. He wasn't named "Man of the Year" because everyone thought he was a great guy.



Uhh..precisely the back and forth I hoped to avoid.

Can we go back to the coming wohr as opposed to rehashing pre-ww2 politics?

Gfdi, such a promising thread godwinned.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#55 Nov 18 2015 at 9:35 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Yeah, okay, fine. My POINT is, there was legitimate concern. Widespread, legitimate concern.

Sure, but so what? There was widespread concern that Japanese Americans were all spies. Concern isn't all it's cracked up to be. The idea that Hitler was universally reviled in 1939 is a pretty tough sale. He was so hated by the US that we waited two years to earnestly enter that conflict.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#56 Nov 19 2015 at 1:04 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Yeah, okay, fine. My POINT is, there was legitimate concern. Widespread, legitimate concern.

Sure, but so what? There was widespread concern that Japanese Americans were all spies. Concern isn't all it's cracked up to be. The idea that Hitler was universally reviled in 1939 is a pretty tough sale. He was so hated by the US that we waited two years to earnestly enter that conflict.


I agree not everyone hated Hitler. Lots of facists, and there were a lot of them, in the UK thought he was a pretty swell guy. A bunch of the royal family were pro-Hitler, the Daily Mail loved him and still does. Etc etc.

Not engaging in total war against a country for two whole years isn't really evidence of popular or political support/ambivalence towards its leader, though.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#57 Nov 19 2015 at 12:11 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Yeah, okay, fine. My POINT is, there was legitimate concern. Widespread, legitimate concern.

Sure, but so what? There was widespread concern that Japanese Americans were all spies. Concern isn't all it's cracked up to be. The idea that Hitler was universally reviled in 1939 is a pretty tough sale. He was so hated by the US that we waited two years to earnestly enter that conflict.


I agree not everyone hated Hitler. Lots of facists, and there were a lot of them, in the UK thought he was a pretty swell guy. A bunch of the royal family were pro-Hitler, the Daily Mail loved him and still does. Etc etc.

Not engaging in total war against a country for two whole years isn't really evidence of popular or political support/ambivalence towards its leader, though.


Is that what is being taught in school today? I mean sure.. in grammar school you can get a way with a simple H was a bad bad boy and the noble US at some point had enough of his shenanigans and spanked him hard, but I am relatively certain you realize how popular fascism was at that point in time as a form of gvmt.

As for the total war, you are not completely incorrect. But I do not recall any milder forms of rebuke either so... US was at least ambivalent at that point.

Good grief, look at today. If US is not cool with what you are doing sanction, nofly zones, military interventions are used toot sweet.

The only reason we avoided Syria last cycle is because people actually badgered their representatives more than it was worth to them.

Do you really think it was that different then?


Edited, Nov 19th 2015 1:18pm by angrymnk

Edited, Nov 19th 2015 1:19pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#58 Nov 19 2015 at 4:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Uhh.. I am not one to support a response with hashtags, likes and the retarded flags on fb profiles, but fighting, here understood as putting Americans in harms way on the ground, should be a last resort and not ...


So because we're too afraid to put US troops in harms way "on the ground" (presumably in some remote location), we put US civilians (or in this case French civilians) in harms way "on their own soil"? What math makes that sensible to you? And before you spout of with this being in response to our actions of the last decade and a half, let me remind you that the 9/11 attacks were far into the planning stages prior to Bush even taking office. Clearly, the causes of these sorts of attacks are not as simplistic as some might suggest. Simply saying "we should leave them alone!" isn't a sufficient course of action IMO.

Quote:
Come to think of it, we were sold war in Syria hard only few years ago. Thankfully, it did not happen then.


Thankfully for you? Or the hundred something French folks who died last Friday? Because I can virtually guarantee you that had we taken an active role in the Syrian conflict say 3 years ago when it started, those people would all be alive today. Cause and effect.

Quote:
With the recent events and the oh-so-subtle call to arms against our newest bestest enemy ( cuz you know, Saddam is ded, Osama is ded, Putin is hanging by a thread ) ISIS/ISIL/Daesh I cannot help but wonder whether that particular group was allowed to thrive just to garner support for an actual invasion. Nothing sells like an atrocity.


Yes. The question is what is being sold? The Right would respond to such atrocities by going to the source and rooting it out (ie: putting troops on the ground in foreign lands). The Left would respond to such atrocities by decreasing freedoms here at home. More security. Enhanced search powers. Perhaps checkpoints maybe. Both "sides" will do something, the question is which one's actions are aimed at solving the problem, and which one seems to be using it to push a domestic power agenda? I'll answer my own question: The Left uses foreign policy as a tool to push their domestic agenda.

It's why, in the wake of the Benghazi attacks, the solution was to go after the guy who exercised his first amendment right to make an offensive video. Think really hard about that for a moment.

Quote:
It may be hard to create a thousand year caliphate with most of the world against you.


It's a lot easier when the west's response to your attempts to do so is largely clucking helplessly and wringing their hands, all while arguing how useless it would be to actually take any action against you. Seriously curious: What do you think we should be doing in response to these attacks?

Quote:
If it was such a resounding success as you claim, the army that was left would be ran over by ISIL the way it was. It was not a success..


Because the "army" was reduced to a number sufficient only to administratively maintain a handful of bases and not actually do anything else. Well, that and failing to actually stop the formation of IS in Syria in the first place. Failing to negotiate a new SOFA in Iraq was one of several key foreign policies mistakes made by the Obama administration.

Quote:
Wait. Do you want to say that US troops should have stayed there indefinitely? What is the end game there? 51st state? If so, say so.


Do you know how long we had US troops and bases in Germany? Japan? Other random spots around the world where we'd previously engaged in warfare? Want to know what they tend to have in common? They didn't collapse 5 years later and become sources of additional violent action against us. I just find the whole notion silly, as if it's unthinkable for us to retain troops and bases in a nation we defeated, even long after a new government has been established. That's "normal". It's what we should do. It's not some strange thing as you suggest.

Oh. And it has a long historical precedent for working. So why talk about it like it's some terrible thing we should be avoiding at all costs?

Quote:
Wait. What do you mean halfway through? How many ******* years would it have to be for US to see the fruits of its labors? What has it been so far? How many years? How many should it be? Tell me.


We still have troops and bases in Germany, Japan, and Italy. When was the last time we were hated and attacked by any of those nations (or from people inside them)? Seriously. Do you even stop and think about this? Or just spout rhetoric you heard without bothering to engage the ol noggin?

Quote:
For the record, Paris is not Obama's responsibility.


The US has been the primary force protecting the west (that includes Europe, which includes France) for the better part of 60 years. I get that they dislike us for this, but the reality is that our willingness to be the big bad bully is what's allowed them to live in a pretty peaceful environment for that time. The US withdrawing from the global stage will upset that. This attack is just one symptom of the effect of our absence.

And that's entirely Obama's choice and fault.

Quote:
France has some of the most draconian laws in EU countries when it comes to surveillance. The fact that they could not, and apparently did not, catch wind of this attack with their new sweeping powers just granted to them after Hebdo attack is nothing but astonishing.


It's not. Not to those of us who innately grasp that "more domestic surveillance" is not the answer. Amusing that you went directly to the stock Liberal response of "make ourselves safer with draconian laws at home". You really don't see that this is a problem? You fear the Right's response of military action, but welcome a response that makes you less free? That's... strange.

Quote:
Naturally, now that they have failed, much like after US Boston marathon bombing, intelligence community is going to whine that they need even more. Brennan, Comey and Feinstein are already giving speeches.


Yes. If only there were another option. Like say looking outward rather than inward? But that would look too much like a Bush policy, and we just can't have that, now can we?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Nov 19 2015 at 4:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Not engaging in total war against a country for two whole years isn't really evidence of popular or political support/ambivalence towards its leader, though.


Wait? Are you suggesting that we don't like Assad 50% more than we liked Hitler? Or less? Now I'm confuzzled.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Nov 19 2015 at 4:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
The only reason we avoided Syria last cycle is because people actually badgered their representatives more than it was worth to them.

Do you really think it was that different then?


No, it wasn't. But that's the point. Our leadership wanted to do something about Hitler, but couldn't because the people largely did not want to get involved and were convinced that this was all really just a European problem and should be dealt with by them. Sound familiar? And guess what? We got attacked, not by Germany, but by Japan. But despite this, our evil warmongering leaders chose to use that as an excuse to go take out Hitler first. OMG! They used one event as an excuse to do something else.

It was absolutely the right thing to do though, wasn't it? Now go back and apply this to things like Syria and the ME. Sitting on the sidelines thinking it's really just someone else's problem and we shouldn't get involved is the wrong course of action.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#61 Nov 19 2015 at 7:16 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
I am amused and bemused.

See.. I have a problem responding to this post. I am not sure there is a way for me to respond in which you will be able to see my perspective on this. That said, I will make an effort.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Uhh.. I am not one to support a response with hashtags, likes and the retarded flags on fb profiles, but fighting, here understood as putting Americans in harms way on the ground, should be a last resort and not ...


So because we're too afraid to put US troops in harms way "on the ground" (presumably in some remote location), we put US civilians (or in this case French civilians) in harms way "on their own soil"? What math makes that sensible to you? And before you spout of with this being in response to our actions of the last decade and a half, let me remind you that the 9/11 attacks were far into the planning stages prior to Bush even taking office. Clearly, the causes of these sorts of attacks are not as simplistic as some might suggest. Simply saying "we should leave them alone!" isn't a sufficient course of action IMO.


French civilians are not US responsibility. Period. They never were. They are Hollande's responsibility. If he wants, he can ask US for help, or maybe to incorporate France as 52nd state, or a protectorate of sorts. Hell, how about we annex EU.
The fact that we prance around the world waving our ***** around is the culprit. And the fact that you pre-emptively trying to tie in 9/11 into this is amusing. You do realize that US has been waving its **** for a fair amount of time now, right? Cause and effect, as Gbaji once said.
Why is it not sufficient? Thus far, invading, re-invading, bombing, propping up puppet regimes, training opposition, toppling former puppets did not work. How about we ******* try?


Quote:
Quote:
Come to think of it, we were sold war in Syria hard only few years ago. Thankfully, it did not happen then.


Thankfully for you? Or the hundred something French folks who died last Friday? Because I can virtually guarantee you that had we taken an active role in the Syrian conflict say 3 years ago when it started, those people would all be alive today. Cause and effect.


Yes. It is a cause and effect. I can see you are able to recognize simple patterns now. I am not sure how closely you were following the 'refugee crisis' ( EU-version ), but this is absolutely a result of a retarded refugee policy generated by bureaucrats who seem even less common sense than, say, Orrin Hatch. That policy was not helped by Angela Merkel actually inviting refugees over without any ******* controls in place. It was not helped by pretending there is no problem with the Muslim population in Belgium, England, Germany and France; it was not helped by the PC efforts that hid that they do not assimilate well with the rest of the society. You reap what you sow, eventually.
And last, but not least, France was trying to **** around the way US did. ISIS did not like that. Again, cause and effect. Not our problem.

Small disclaimer here before one of you jumps in defending poor Syrian refugees:

US has two oceans and a relatively decent screening process; do you know what EU had? An unguarded border and member states singing 'nothing is happening!' and yelling 'bad, racist, xenophobic Hungary, bad -- you let them in'.

So yeah, cause and effect. And still no reason to involve US. At all.

Quote:
Quote:
With the recent events and the oh-so-subtle call to arms against our newest bestest enemy ( cuz you know, Saddam is ded, Osama is ded, Putin is hanging by a thread ) ISIS/ISIL/Daesh I cannot help but wonder whether that particular group was allowed to thrive just to garner support for an actual invasion. Nothing sells like an atrocity.


Yes. The question is what is being sold? The Right would respond to such atrocities by going to the source and rooting it out (ie: putting troops on the ground in foreign lands). The Left would respond to such atrocities by decreasing freedoms here at home. More security. Enhanced search powers. Perhaps checkpoints maybe. Both "sides" will do something, the question is which one's actions are aimed at solving the problem, and which one seems to be using it to push a domestic power agenda? I'll answer my own question: The Left uses foreign policy as a tool to push their domestic agenda.

It's why, in the wake of the Benghazi attacks, the solution was to go after the guy who exercised his first amendment right to make an offensive video. Think really hard about that for a moment.


So we are sold Bush war part 3. Great. Lets go on that ride again. We root it out, and then wait for ISIS 2.0 rise from the ashes. Maybe we could try doing something else?
I also loooove how you defined left as ones to push decrease freedoms at home, when it is rather obvious to most casual observer that any freedoms we may have left are becoming a casualty of a perpetual war. So yeah, nice try no cigar.

Both 'sides' can be equally blamed here. And both use it to push their agenda. It is not a new tool either.. Patriot act comes to mind.

Quote:
Quote:
It may be hard to create a thousand year caliphate with most of the world against you.


It's a lot easier when the west's response to your attempts to do so is largely clucking helplessly and wringing their hands, all while arguing how useless it would be to actually take any action against you. Seriously curious: What do you think we should be doing in response to these attacks?

Nothing. We were not attacked. France was. US is not France. France is part of EU. When something changes in that regard, let me know.

Quote:
Quote:
If it was such a resounding success as you claim, the army that was left would be ran over by ISIL the way it was. It was not a success..


Because the "army" was reduced to a number sufficient only to administratively maintain a handful of bases and not actually do anything else. Well, that and failing to actually stop the formation of IS in Syria in the first place. Failing to negotiate a new SOFA in Iraq was one of several key foreign policies mistakes made by the Obama administration.


I am willing to agree here with you, for the most part, here. Of course, were it not for Bush and war started with a false claims of WMDs we probably would not be having this conversation...

Quote:
Quote:
Wait. Do you want to say that US troops should have stayed there indefinitely? What is the end game there? 51st state? If so, say so.


Do you know how long we had US troops and bases in Germany? Japan? Other random spots around the world where we'd previously engaged in warfare? Want to know what they tend to have in common? They didn't collapse 5 years later and become sources of additional violent action against us. I just find the whole notion silly, as if it's unthinkable for us to retain troops and bases in a nation we defeated, even long after a new government has been established. That's "normal". It's what we should do. It's not some strange thing as you suggest.

Oh. And it has a long historical precedent for working. So why talk about it like it's some terrible thing we should be avoiding at all costs?


I am against those as well. US should seriously start rolling down the empire. It costs too much. Do you really think we should not leave Germany or Japan, because it is about to become a source of violent action? I just find the notion silly.
It is not that it is unthinkable, but it is not 'normal' either. It is, however, very American. And silly. And wasteful.

And it is absolutely a strange thing to suggest to put your dic... base in in a sovereign country. Does US have China bases operating on its territory? Why not?


[quote]We still have troops and bases in Germany, Japan, and Italy. When was the last time we were hated and attacked by any of those nations (or from people inside them)? Seriously. Do you even stop and think about this? Or just spout rhetoric you heard without bothering to engage the ol noggin?[/quote]

Please refer to the previous response.


[quote]For the record, Paris is not Obama's responsibility.

The US has been the primary force protecting the west (that includes Europe, which includes France) for the better part of 60 years. I get that they dislike us for this, but the reality is that our willingness to be the big bad bully is what's allowed them to live in a pretty peaceful environment for that time. The US withdrawing from the global stage will upset that. This attack is just one symptom of the effect of our absence.

And that's entirely Obama's choice and fault.[/quote][/quote]

Just because Jared Fogle has been ******* underage girls for x amount of years does not automatically mean that it was the right thing to do. Less offensive example, just because Aztecs practiced live human sacrifice for over 60 years does not mean it was right. Likewise, just because for 60 years US was doing this does not make right either.
For the record, some of those bases were listed by Osama as reasons for being such a ****. Cause and effect.

[quote]France has some of the most draconian laws in EU countries when it comes to surveillance. The fact that they could not, and apparently did not, catch wind of this attack with their new sweeping powers just granted to them after Hebdo attack is nothing but astonishing.[/quote]

It's not. Not to those of us who innately grasp that "more domestic surveillance" is not the answer. Amusing that you went directly to the stock Liberal response of "make ourselves safer with draconian laws at home". You really don't see that this is a problem? You fear the Right's response of military action, but welcome a response that makes you less free? That's... strange.[/quote]

I think you misunderstood me on purpose here. I am not arguing for more surveillance. I am saying you can't whine no fair in a match after you are given superpowers.



[quote]Naturally, now that they have failed, much like after US Boston marathon bombing, intelligence community is going to whine that they need even more. Brennan, Comey and Feinstein are already giving speeches.

Yes. If only there were another option. Like say looking outward rather than inward? But that would look too much like a Bush policy, and we just can't have that, now can we?[/quote]

Was that supposed to be deep or something? I have no idea what that means.

Edit: I am done editing. It is late.

Edited, Nov 19th 2015 8:17pm by angrymnk

Edited, Nov 19th 2015 8:19pm by angrymnk

Edited, Nov 19th 2015 8:20pm by angrymnk

Edited, Nov 19th 2015 8:21pm by angrymnk

Edited, Nov 19th 2015 8:24pm by angrymnk

Edited, Nov 19th 2015 8:28pm by angrymnk

Edited, Nov 19th 2015 8:29pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#62 Nov 19 2015 at 7:31 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
The only reason we avoided Syria last cycle is because people actually badgered their representatives more than it was worth to them.

Do you really think it was that different then?


No, it wasn't. But that's the point. Our leadership wanted to do something about Hitler, but couldn't because the people largely did not want to get involved and were convinced that this was all really just a European problem and should be dealt with by them. Sound familiar? And guess what? We got attacked, not by Germany, but by Japan. But despite this, our evil warmongering leaders chose to use that as an excuse to go take out Hitler first. OMG! They used one event as an excuse to do something else.

It was absolutely the right thing to do though, wasn't it? Now go back and apply this to things like Syria and the ME. Sitting on the sidelines thinking it's really just someone else's problem and we shouldn't get involved is the wrong course of action.


Do you remember HOW we got involved in me last time and WHY it was not a good idea? This really should be enough for you to determine how it is different. Surprise me.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#63 Nov 20 2015 at 1:19 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Quote:
Is that what is being taught in school today? I mean sure.. in grammar school you can get a way with a simple H was a bad bad boy and the noble US at some point had enough of his shenanigans and spanked him hard, but I am relatively certain you realize how popular fascism was at that point in time as a form of gvmt.


??? I'm criticising the use of a particular argument's use as an indicator of fascism's popularity, not questioning whether fascim was popular. I made this exceptionally clear.

Quote:
As for the total war, you are not completely incorrect. But I do not recall any milder forms of rebuke either so... US was at least ambivalent at that point.

Good grief, look at today. If US is not cool with what you are doing sanction, nofly zones, military interventions are used toot sweet.

The only reason we avoided Syria last cycle is because people actually badgered their representatives more than it was worth to them.

Do you really think it was that different then?


Yes, are you retarded? The US wasn't a hegemonic force in 1939. **** Germany was a superpower, not some banana/oil republic you can knock over with a couple of thousand marines. Even now, you notice that the USA is much more careful about sanctioning real countries, because doing so tends to have actual consequences. You know, like the oil embargo on Japan. The US couldn't exert influence over **** Germany without defeating them militarily. The suggestion they should have imposed a no fly on the luftwaffe was ******* hilarious, though, so thanks for the laugh.

Of course, the US didn't do absolutely nothing before '41. It was Germany that declared war, in part due to the things the US had already done e.g. the destroyer agreements with the UK. You know, arming their enemies.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#64 Nov 20 2015 at 7:51 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Quote:
Is that what is being taught in school today? I mean sure.. in grammar school you can get a way with a simple H was a bad bad boy and the noble US at some point had enough of his shenanigans and spanked him hard, but I am relatively certain you realize how popular fascism was at that point in time as a form of gvmt.


??? I'm criticising the use of a particular argument's use as an indicator of fascism's popularity, not questioning whether fascim was popular. I made this exceptionally clear.

Quote:
As for the total war, you are not completely incorrect. But I do not recall any milder forms of rebuke either so... US was at least ambivalent at that point.

Good grief, look at today. If US is not cool with what you are doing sanction, nofly zones, military interventions are used toot sweet.

The only reason we avoided Syria last cycle is because people actually badgered their representatives more than it was worth to them.

Do you really think it was that different then?


Yes, are you retarded? The US wasn't a hegemonic force in 1939. **** Germany was a superpower, not some banana/oil republic you can knock over with a couple of thousand marines. Even now, you notice that the USA is much more careful about sanctioning real countries, because doing so tends to have actual consequences. You know, like the oil embargo on Japan. The US couldn't exert influence over **** Germany without defeating them militarily. The suggestion they should have imposed a no fly on the luftwaffe was ******* hilarious, though, so thanks for the laugh.

Of course, the US didn't do absolutely nothing before '41. It was Germany that declared war, in part due to the things the US had already done e.g. the destroyer agreements with the UK. You know, arming their enemies.


Violation. Strawman. No one said anything imposing no eat zone over German waffles. I was giving a generic example over how US approaches things before all out war. Thanks for trying.

Also,
Quote:
The US wasn't a hegemonic force in 1939.
.. what do you base that statement on?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#65 Nov 20 2015 at 8:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekkk wrote:
Germany was a superpower, not some banana/oil republic you can knock over with a couple of thousand marines. Even now, you notice that the USA is much more careful about sanctioning real countries, because doing so tends to have actual consequences.

There's also the point that the US's ability to project power in 1938 was significantly different from our ability to project power in 2015.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Nov 20 2015 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Also,
Kavekkk wrote:
The US wasn't a hegemonic force in 1939.
.. what do you base that statement on?
Most likely our rather small Army, pitifully small Marine force and almost non-existent and obsolete "air force". The Navy was numerically looking pretty good, but only had six carriers at the time (only three of which could be called "modern") and reallllly olde and obsolete small craft (frigates and detroyers).

Edited, Nov 20th 2015 7:33am by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#67 Nov 20 2015 at 8:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Also,
Kavekkk wrote:
The US wasn't a hegemonic force in 1939.
.. what do you base that statement on?
Most likely our rather small Army, pitifully small Marine force and almost non-existent and obsolete "air force". The Navy was numerically looking pretty good, but only had six carriers at the time (only three of which could be called "modern") and reallllly olde and obsolete small craft (frigates and detroyers).

Edited, Nov 20th 2015 7:33am by Bijou



Not to mention the (compared with today) extremely isolationist mood of the country.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#68 Nov 20 2015 at 8:56 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Also,
Kavekkk wrote:
The US wasn't a hegemonic force in 1939.
.. what do you base that statement on?
Most likely our rather small Army, pitifully small Marine force and almost non-existent and obsolete "air force". The Navy was numerically looking pretty good, but only had six carriers at the time (only three of which could be called "modern") and reallllly olde and obsolete small craft (frigates and detroyers).

Edited, Nov 20th 2015 7:33am by Bijou

Haha, you guys sounded like Canada today. Well, sorta. Except, still a bit bigger and better equipped.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#69 Nov 20 2015 at 9:37 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
let me remind you that the 9/11 attacks were far into the planning stages prior to Bush even taking office.
Things planned before Bush aren't Bush's fault, and things planned by and during Bush aren't Bush's fault.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#70 Nov 20 2015 at 10:43 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Things planned before Bush aren't Bush's fault, and things planned by and during Bush aren't Bush's fault.

To be fair, Presidents just don't have that much power. The problem with Iraq was that the entire civilian partisan temporary bureaucracy had just utterly lost touch with reality. The gold standard of this delusional thinking was when Bremer went to Iraq, began ordering military personnel around, and Ricardo Sanchez met with him and told him (literally if the oral history is accurate) to go fuck himself.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#71 Nov 20 2015 at 10:44 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,159 posts
Quote:
Violation. Strawman. No one said anything imposing no eat zone over German waffles. I was giving a generic example over how US approaches things before all out war. Thanks for trying.


Yes, none of the things you suggested would have done a thing, that's my point. What the US did do short of war would never have defeated Germany, but did **** its leaders off enough to declare war.

You're not allowed to be flippant and stupid, you have to choose. Which is it going to be?

Quote:
.. what do you base that statement on?


It didn't act like a hegemony, was not perceived as one and didn't have the military capability to be one if it wanted to.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#72 Nov 20 2015 at 10:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
You're not allowed to be flippant and stupid, you have to choose. Which is it going to be?


But it worked so well for Dubya!
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#73 Nov 20 2015 at 11:19 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,159 posts
Samira wrote:
Kavekkk wrote:
You're not allowed to be flippant and stupid, you have to choose. Which is it going to be?


But it worked so well for Dubya!


Have you seen his paintings? Society's often prepared to make allowances for great artists.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#74 Nov 20 2015 at 11:27 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Hitler, there was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in one afternoon! Two coats!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#75 Nov 20 2015 at 12:27 PM Rating: Good
***
2,188 posts
Not understanding why the United States had a "Germany First" policy at the beginning of WWII is inexcusable in a time when one can pull one's phone out and access the internet.

Quote:
Quote:
.. what do you base that statement on?


It didn't act like a hegemony, was not perceived as one and didn't have the military capability to be one if it wanted to.
Indeed. At the end of WWI the United States Armored forces consisted of a dozen Renault tanks purchased from France and led by Patton. During the interregnum Patton, for all outward appearances at least, gave up on the Armored service and returned to the Cavalry because of the intransigence of the U.S. high command in recognizing the importance of armor and the way many of the general officers treated him as a result. When the U.S. entered the war in North Africa, the German officers laughed at the "american soldier" because of his inexperience and poor training.

Actually, there's little basis for any argument that the US was a hegemony prior to WWII.

____________________________
"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering, April 1946.
#76 Nov 20 2015 at 2:12 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
cynyck wrote:
Not understanding why the United States had a "Germany First" policy at the beginning of WWII is inexcusable in a time when one can pull one's phone out and access the internet.
The same people that are the reason that Oxford's Word of the Year is an emoji.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 410 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (410)