War with Syria

tad10 · Sep 4, 2013

Araysar_sl said:
You voted for Bush who was a bigger "gaffe machine" than Biden.

Please Biden has far more gaffes than Bush. The only difference is that the media was far, far quicker to report Bush's. Also Biden is a big time cheater stealing speeches and papers from others.

tad10 · Sep 4, 2013

Maester Chuk_sl said:
Presidents dont just wake up one day and decide we are going to war with x. The US has not had a threat from another country in 200 years yet we still send troops out to die in other countries every ten or 20 years. Why is that?

I wouldn't say 200 years. Between Japan and Germany in 1941 and AQ (admittedly not a country) we've had threats in the past 75ish years.

fanaskin · Sep 4, 2013

when you run a global empire "everyone" is a potential enemy.

tad10 · Sep 4, 2013

Watch Colbert Report tonight if you can. Steve Coll, the ultra liberal Dean of Columbia University School of Journalism is trying to make Obama's case for War and is failing miserably. Awesome to watch.

Chukzombi · Sep 4, 2013

tad10_sl said:
I wouldn't say 200 years. Between Japan and Germany in 1941 and AQ (admittedly not a country) we've had threats in the past 75ish years.

we were fine from germany. we stuck our noses in helping Britain against Germany so adolf declared war with the US. Japan was no threat until we started fucking around in their waters and despite many warnings to us to cut the shit out we didnt stop. so they decided to teach us a lesson and thats world war 2. we were fine with Hitler up until pearl harbor. this country was just as anti semitic as germany. we had a growing nazi party and many german Bund camps here. so yeah no. this country has been fine when we mind our own damned business.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund

W4RH34D_sl · Sep 4, 2013

If they want to enforce the geneva convention or some such thing, why not press it in the UN and have the organization created for this kind of stuff do its job?

Tuco · Sep 4, 2013

W4RH34D_sl said:
If they want to enforce the geneva convention or some such thing, why not press it in the UN and have the organization created for this kind of stuff do its job?

Because Russia and China are part of the UN?

W4RH34D_sl · Sep 4, 2013

Tuco_sl said:
Because Russia and China are part of the UN?

Right, so the UN is handling the refugee problem according to what i saw on John Stewart. Why not also handle the supposed "war crimes" as well. Make the case to the international community and leave it there. Problem solved.

khalid · Sep 4, 2013

We are the military arm of the UN. It can't really do much of anything without our backing. The US military is really the only military in the world with an ability to project force for any length of time.

fanaskin · Sep 4, 2013

Maester Chuk_sl said:
we were fine from germany.

Not strategically really, both world wars where basically results from the newly formed state of germany trying to compete with the anglo(uk/usa)/entente(uk/france) imperialist system let's say hitler beat russia, he would have considered america the greatest geopolitical foe.

The Zweites Buch "Second Book"

Ideas on international relations

Of all Germany's potential enemies, Hitler ranked the U.S. as the most dangerous. By contrast, Hitler saw the UK as a fellow "Aryan" power that in exchange for Germany's renunciation of naval and colonial ambitions would ally itself with Germany. France, in Hitler's opinion, was rapidly "Negroizing" itself. In regard to the Soviet Union, Hitler dismissed the Russian people as being Slavic Untermenschen ("sub-humans") incapable of intelligent thought. Hitler consequently believed that the Russian people were ruled over by what he regarded as a gang of bloodthirsty but inept Jewish revolutionaries. By contrast, the majority of Americans were in Hitler's view "Aryans", albeit Aryans ruled by what Hitler saw as a Jewish plutocracy. In Hitler's point of view, it was this combination of "Aryan" might, coupled with a more competent "Jewish rule" which made the U.S. so dangerous.

Tuco · Sep 4, 2013

I'm no historian, but are there any military strategists that think Hitler would have been able to beat Russia without US involvement?

Araysar · Sep 5, 2013

Tuco_sl said:
I'm no historian, but are there any military strategists that think Hitler would have been able to beat Russia without US involvement?

Depends what you define as US involvement: Operation Torch? Battle of the Atlantic? Lend-Lease?

But yeah there are, not a lot though.

Lend-Lease as helpful as it was is often overstated in the West since Anglo-Saxon historians seem hell-bent on coopting the European Theater victory rather than giving credit where credit is due: USSR.

Can't have their people knowing that Communism triumphed over Nazism while Yankees were playing Battleship in the Atlantic.

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 5, 2013

US did give out loans and materials to Russia. Very secret info.

zzeris · Sep 5, 2013

Tuco_sl said:
I'm no historian, but are there any military strategists that think Hitler would have been able to beat Russia without US involvement?

I think so, yes. We supplied Russia with a vast amount of needed supplies especially food. Germany was by no means broken after that one winter. If they could have concentrated on Russia (Britain was no major threat), then I don't think Russia would have had the time or supplies to win against Hitler. Of course, keeping Russia in the war is what helped us win in the first place. The very definition of a mutually beneficial pact.

Araysar · Sep 5, 2013

zzeris_sl said:
I think so, yes. We supplied Russia with a vast amount of needed supplies especially food. Germany was by no means broken after that one winter. If they could have concentrated on Russia (Britain was no major threat), then I don't think Russia would have had the time or supplies to win against Hitler. Of course, keeping Russia in the war is what helped us win in the first place. The very definition of a mutually beneficial pact.

Sure USSR could have won by itself. USSR crushed Germany at Stalingrad in 1942 for a colossal political turning point (not to mention a huge military one) and then crushed them one more time at Kursk 7 months later for a major military turning point. After Kursk in July of 1943, Germany would never go on a major offensive in Eastern Front again.

US/UK were still pissing around in North Africa starting in 1942, and wouldnt even land in Europe (Italy) until September of 1943 (1 month after Kursk) and in France not even for another year.

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 5, 2013

germany fucked up with Ukrainians big time. Ukrainians, by WW2, of course hated Russians to teeth. Germans came in like heroes in the cities of Ukraine, only to be shat on by the very same liberators later on. Hitler could have won the war hands down, but he was too fucking crazy and delusional.

Araysar · Sep 5, 2013

Coulda woulda shoulda.

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 5, 2013

WOULDA WON.

khalid · Sep 5, 2013

Due to how one-sided the eastern front turned out to be, it is easy to forget (or overlook) how close a thing it was.

yerm · Sep 5, 2013

I fucking love ww2 history as much as anyone but fucking come on this fucking thread...

War with Syria

Elisha Dushku

Elisha Dushku

Well known agitator

Elisha Dushku

Millie's Staff Member

shitlord

I got Tuco'd!

shitlord

Unelected Mod

Well known agitator

I got Tuco'd!

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

King Turd of Shit Hill

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Unelected Mod

Golden Baronet of the Realm