Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/01/14 15:25:09
Subject: Re:The importance of being important (or the need for armaments exports)
Actually I thought I was taling to the guy who was from the UK to whom my original comments had been directed. I didn't notice it was a different breed of limey who replied with offense to my comments... If it offends then so what..
Just as a tip, this forum runs and breathes on Rule #1. When you signed up here, you agreed to be polite and play nice with us other kids.
So relax, take a deep breath, and remember as you said, that we're on 'a site dedicated to playing with toy soldiers'.
Having said that I don't think my statements are too far from true, I have read many sources that agree with my point of view. Albeit they are American and often anarchists like myself. But I admit my bias.
It's not even that simple. Without meaning to offend, I've picked several basic factual inaccuracies out of your statements so far that have nothing to do with bias, that I simply haven't responded to.
Anyone who doesn't care for history should skip ahead at this stage.
Spoiler:
For example:
Well considering Great Britain's post WWI polices toward Germany created an environment where the Nazis could come to power they deserved to suffer. However it still doesn't change the fact that being relived of the perceived need for a massive military machine gave them the ability to turn their attentions inward instead.
Just in this statement, there are several flaws. For starters, it was France that was so obsessed with making Germany pay the price for WW1. It was their country that was devastated in the Great War, and they'd already been humiliated in the Franco-Prussian campaign of 1870. The British were relatively sympathetic in comparison, and only softened as time progressed. When the occupation of the Ruhr came in the 20's, it was French troops that occupied the place and started seizing goods, not British. Indeed, when Hitler started ditching some of the harsher terms of the Treaty of Versailles, the British opinion was more along the lines of, 'Fair enough, they've suffered plenty over this'.
With regards to disarmament in the itnerwar period, there was a lot of pushing and pulling over that, with several detailed convening international treaties (like Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, the Geneva Convention of 1927, and more. We actually weren't too keen on the level of naval disarmament America was pushing us towards, but America was determined to try and hamstring Great Britain for a variety of political and economic reasons, some of which they achieved, some of which they didn't. But Britain and France were already rearming to meet an ascending Germany by the time WW2 arrived, they weren't sheltering under the American armaments wing or any such thing.
To address another misconception you've raised, which sparked my initial comment, America in WW1 at the least, didn't come in to save the day. They arrived when the war was practically already won. When the Ludendorff offensive was launched, American troops had yet to arrive in significant numbers, and was burned out before they did. The American troops helped plug a few lines in that series of engagements, and contributed to speeding up the end of the war, but it was doubtful Germany could have resisted for more than another six months beyond that. The place was facing economic ruination, war material scarcity, and civil unrest.
Tangible like what? Thousands of lives ended? All those dead bodies left in European cemeteries? All the broken people missing limbs? All the traumas they suffered and the survivors guilt they brought home and without proper treatment caused untold harms to their families? Or do you mean the technologies that were developed because of the need to find better ways to murder our fellow humans? I'd gladly trade back television if all those lives could have been spared...
...The only reason US shipping was being targeted was because they were trading with the Allies. Had they left the Allies to their own devices and stuck to trading with the other neutral nations the Germans would have had no reason to target their shipping. Even before the official declaration of war the US had taken sides, they made themselves legitimate targets. But then that's what they wanted, a good Lusitania again to have an excuse to ride to Europe's rescue.
Think about it like this. Pre-WW1, there were many, many powers all competing for international primacy. By the 1970's, all bar the Soviets had been eliminated. Why was that? I'll tell you this, it wasn't because we all decided we wanted to be subject to American influence. It wasn't the manifest destiny of America. It was because the Great Wars smacked the rest of us down, and America, through canny politicking and warmaking, emerged the final victor.
Let me take you back a bit in history. Pax Britannia. In a nutshell (assuming you're unfamiliar with that period of history), after the Napoleonic wars, Great Britain dominated the naval scene for a good eighty years. But because we followed the free trade doctrines espoused by Adam Smith & his successors, we never hacked off any nation enough that they were prepared to undertake the expense of rearming to challenge us. They knew that while GB ruled the seas, their shipping would be allowed to plow the seas in safety (we were pretty hot on pirates), we threw open the doors of commerce from protectionism and tariffs, and generally made everyone equal at sea under the aegis of GB's warships.
Sound familiar? It's basically today, with America inserted for GB.
But in the 1880's, we started to run into issues with a unified France/Russia. Suddenly, we had to maintain a navy superior to the two combined. Then after Russia got kicked in the war with Japan, Germany took up from where they left off. We managed to keep outspending/outbuilding them, but it seriously cost our economy to do so, and many many British politicians (as you are above) who wanted to bring in social care and reform got very upset about the amount of money being spent on warships.
There are two lessons there.
1. One nation simply can't outbuild enough opposing powers combine without great expense and difficulty. And if enough of them combine, you're screwed.
2. National security demands however, that if anyone starts trying to challenge your maritime supremacy, it quickly becomes a threat to an island (or continental) nation. Because that's the moat you use to keep invaders out.
I won't go into the ins and outs of two world wars and the concessions America kept extracting as the price for its 'help'. Suffice to say, we were desperate, and America chose to use that desperation to hamstring us as global powers to establish its own security and dominance. Which is fair enough, I suppose, the wheel of IR turns. But it wasn't out of charity, it was pure, cold cynical politics. And from it, America has the ability to interfere wherever it likes in the world without the rest of us poking our noses in, the ability to crash other countries economies, insane levels of trade dominance and financial colonialism, and more. Those are very tangible benefits.
tl;dr America lives today without fear of invasion, and possessing global dominance because it got involved. If it hadn't, you might still be wary of British/French/Russian/German warships off the coast of New York, and your various colonial excursions might have far more foreign competition/involvement.
Angry? Not really. Just irritated. I don't like the attitude of superiority that Europeans have when it comes to my country. They look down their noses at us and treat us like we are children who haven't learned the superior ways of European nations yet. Then we have idiots here who worship all things European and want us to adopt your ways without thinking about how we got where we are.
I'll be honest, I was referring more the perspective of, 'We saved your arses in two wars', which is incorrect on both accounts. It tends to be espoused by angry American teenagers on the internet looking for some way to slag off the British, and originates in the American educational system, which takes a very specific perspective to teaching history. Hence my initial comment.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/14 15:28:19
2015/01/14 16:24:24
Subject: Re:The importance of being important (or the need for armaments exports)
That's odd, I see us as the victims of a massive con job where we get to leave a significant portion of our citizens in abject poverty in exchange for maintaining a massive military presence in Europe for the last half a century while Europe gets peace and prosperity because they got to turn their swords into plowshares on a massive scale. Add to that we have to put up with Europeans sticking their noses up at us because of our high poverty and violent crime rates.
I think the US should have stayed out of all the European wars and minded our own business. In WWII when Japan attacked we should have left Europe alone and bombed Japan into the stone age. But unfortunately we had elected a bunch of anglophiles at exactly the wrong times and they were excited at the idea of saving the British Empire and being taken seriously by their leaders for once. Much like sad children who wanted daddy's attention at any cost. Again, I don't see the Rah Rah here.... Not seeing Toby Keith writing that into his latest feel good patriotic screed.
The history of Europe was dotted with horrible wars every few decades and their war industrialization had deep social costs, I can't count the number of authors who wrote about the crushing poverty of those eras. However, magically in your world view, it all turned 180 degrees after WWII. It had nothing to do with the US taking over the defense of Europe. It had nothing to do with drastic cuts in the military budgets of European nations. It had nothing to do with the US at all. Funny, what exactly changed then? Did King Arthur return and draw the stone from the sword giving prosperity to all his subjects? Was it space monkeys? Did space monkeys fix everything?
It seems American knowledge of history is like their knowledge of geography,
First world war , America made a lot of money out of that.
Second world war, America was making money, till japan caught you unprepared, and sunk most of the pacific fleet.
America didn't declare war on Germany to save Europe. Germany declared war on you.
American poverty is due to American policy. I.E. your own fault. Wake up 1% anybody ???
As for American bases, Look in the news!!! people don't want them, That's your government pushing them on people.
All these wars. That's easy stop starting them. Stop blaming everyone else for American problems.
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
2015/01/14 17:11:27
Subject: Re:The importance of being important (or the need for armaments exports)
Ketara wrote: However you try and twist it, Australia has never been the former rulers of the US.
Man, that's the world I want to live in. Except for the vegemite.
TBF they did try to take you over twice....
does anyone know where either Paul Hogan or Yahoo Serious are to this day ...?
... whilst the topic is obviously of incredible relevance and importance as we mess about on the internet in 2014 it would be much better for all concerned if people dialled down the intensity and left out all the nationalistic cracks and "jokes" from this point on.
Thank you.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2015/01/14 19:46:23
Subject: Re:The importance of being important (or the need for armaments exports)
Medium of Death wrote: Thinks TV was one of the major benefits from the second world war enough to mention it..
Well, Mr. Jeremy Clarkson thought highly enough of it to make it one of the five major developments of the 20th century "That Changed The World". He covered them in a documentary series he did called, oddly enough, "Inventions that Changed The World". He of course claimed that it was England that invented it an America stole it from them. But his is just a bit of a patriotic fellow.
BTW, the others were Jet Engines, Computers, Guns and the Telephone.
Here, for those who want everything I say to be accompanied with a source, I got this from Wikipedia.
I rather enjoyed the show, I agree with Clarkson, I think him to be quite wise even though he is a bit much of a patriot for my tastes. But his humor certainly overcomes that minor irritation.
Yes I could have talked about all manner of things the pro-war types claim were a result of American involvement in WWII, TV was the first useless thing I could do without if the cost was even one life lost in war to inspire it's development. While they were developed during the war they were not plucked from the eye of God all formed and ready. They were based on other technologies and research, much of it conducted during peace time that still would have been there if not for the wars. One of the reason we see tech advances during wars is governments remove economic restrictions on companies and dump loads of money into R and D. Many of which don't pan out at all and were a waste of tax dollars. Again, aside from penicillin and other antibiotics I suspect we could do quite well without them considering their price may have been hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the various wars.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: I'll be honest, I was referring more the perspective of, 'We saved your arses in two wars',
I think you are reading quite a bit into what I said. I never said we saved your hineys as much as I say we should never have gotten involved in the first place and let Europeans go on killing each other every twenty to thirty years over one idiotic excuse or another. I figure we shouldn't have stayed after WWII, we should have let you all sort your stuff out without us. But no, we put up bases and paid rent which is real stupid, renting a property for over 50 years? All those college boys in the government and not one figured out buying is better in the long run? We trained, transported, clothed and fed thousands of soldiers who were sent over to play Globo-Cop. We trashed our economy, borrowed so much money my grandchildren will still be paying it off and for what? Like I said, stupid. Definitely not the topic of Toby Keith's next patriotic drivel filled song.
You see, I don't care if your behinds needed saving. I don't care if you would have been talking German, Russian or Portuguese. I don't care if you all had gone back to fighting every few decades, trying to drag the rest of the world into your petty little squabbles. As long as we stayed out of it I'd be happy. That's all. Again, not exactly the material Toby want's for his songs.
Just out of curiosity do you actually think you had the whole Hitler thing taken care of and our idiot leaders sending troops and equipment over was unnecessary? Were we stepping on your toes or something? I am seriously wondering about the opposite side of the "we saved your...." argument. How exactly does that go?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/14 20:03:04
Everything will burn if you get it hot enough.
2015/01/14 20:33:03
Subject: Re:The importance of being important (or the need for armaments exports)
I think you are reading quite a bit into what I said. I never said we saved your hineys as much as I say...
*coughs gently*
But since Woody Wilson was such an Anglophile he had to come riding to your rescue....
led to you needing a bail out in WWII.
Makes you wonder what would have happened had we left you to your own devices in WWI.
I'm afraid you said it enough times I felt obliged to interject.
we should never have gotten involved in the first place and let Europeans go on killing each other every twenty to thirty years over one idiotic excuse or another. I figure we shouldn't have stayed after WWII, we should have let you all sort your stuff out without us.
The risk of course, is that in doing so a new power arises capable of smacking the US around like a ragdoll. Indeed, that's been the main US concern for a long time now, both with Nazi Germany, and then with the Soviet Union. An industrialised internally cohesive and militaristic Europe is the last thing America wants, even today. We have a collective population three times bigger than the States, and unlike the Chinese, ride neck and neck on the technology front.
But no, we put up bases and paid rent which is real stupid, renting a property for over 50 years? All those college boys in the government and not one figured out buying is better in the long run? We trained, transported, clothed and fed thousands of soldiers who were sent over to play Globo-Cop. We trashed our economy, borrowed so much money my grandchildren will still be paying it off and for what?
To stop the thing I just mentioned above. To become 'the' world power. To be able to interfere wherever you like whenever you like without anyone else being able to do anything about it. To be able to make the world dependent upon yourselves, and thus less competitive in several regards. I could go on, but I've drawn the picture.
You see, I don't care if your behinds needed saving. I don't care if you would have been talking German, Russian or Portuguese. I don't care if you all had gone back to fighting every few decades, trying to drag the rest of the world into your petty little squabbles. As long as we stayed out of it I'd be happy. That's all. Again, not exactly the material Toby want's for his songs.
That's the key really. Would we have gone back to fighting it out? After WW1, certainly, US military aid was reasonably peripheral there, so you could say that was exactly what happened. But WW2? The odds are that without US intervention, you'd have been looking at a Soviet Union that included Western Europe as well. Which possibly might have survived, and then become the World superpower, and far more of a threat to the US than any it has ever faced.
Alternatively, perhaps Hitler would have thrown Stalin back, the two would have ground into stalemate, D-Day would never have been launched, Britain would have reached an accord with Germany, and Nazi Europe maintained. Followed by another war a decade later? Hard to say. What if history is inconclusive at best.
Just out of curiosity do you actually think you had the whole Hitler thing taken care of and our idiot leaders sending troops and equipment over was unnecessary? Were we stepping on your toes or something? I am seriously wondering about the opposite side of the "we saved your...." argument. How exactly does that go?
Assuming we're just talking about Hitler, I'm of the opinion that Hitler was done for by the time the USA intervened. The Soviet Union did most of the slogging in that campaign, and I'm doubtful removing D-Day would have affected the final outcome. Prolonged it a bit longer, yes, but I think we would have seen a Soviet Europe. We wouldn't have been under any immediate threat though, by pure virtue of the fact that the British Navy was still more than capable of kicking any Soviet invasion force so hard in the nadgers that its grandchildren would be feeling it. What's more, the Soviets would want to regroup and establish control, So at least another decade of peace, in which Britain seriously industrialised and geared up the Empire in the subsequent period, as they'd have an existential threat next door that made Hitler look like a poodle.
So fast forward twenty years, and America would be living in a world in which you'd be looking at two rival powers, and a budding potential war that made the previous two look minor. The thing about leaving evolutionary nation states alive to consume each other at will, is that eventually you're left with one that's as big as the rest put together.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2015/01/14 20:41:51
2015/01/14 20:56:33
Subject: Re:The importance of being important (or the need for armaments exports)
It seems American knowledge of history is like their knowledge of geography,
Funny, I look at a map and see "Europe" and your little island chain is colored the same. Just like Japan's little island chain is colored the same as the big thing that says "Asia". So until you start referring to me as a South Dakotan instead of American I will refer to you as "European". Yes, I get you kept your Pound instead of taking the Euro. I wish you hadn't because if you did I could actually afford some Forgeworld stuff. As it the Pound to Dollar conversion is painful.
First world war , America made a lot of money out of that.
Second world war, America was making money
So it's all about the Benjamins for you? Or all about the 'Lizbeths I suppose... BTW, why does your money show her in her prime instead of the little old lady with a pair of mop dogs? In fact, why show her at all. Since they serve no real purpose it would be like us putting George Cloony or Brad Pitt on our money.... Hmm.... That might not be such a bad idea... at least the money might have some intrinsic value.....
I'm talking about human life here. Lives wasted on wars in which we had no reason to take sides.
till japan caught you unprepared, and sunk most of the pacific fleet.
America didn't declare war on Germany to save Europe. Germany declared war on you.
A) There is a lot of evidence piling up that FDR finagled that to get us into a war Americans by and large wanted nothing to do with.
B) Yes, Old Scramble Brains in the WORST decision of his career kept his end of THAT treaty going. The second worst was ignoring the other treaty and hitting Stalin. Piss off the two biggest dogs in the yard, yeah, real bright. And you guys were loosing to him? That's bad.
C) Look at the evidence. Japan attacks, Hitler honors the treaty and declares war as well. So the first thing FDR does is all but ignore the Pacific Ocean sending troops across the Atlantic to attack the guys who DIDN'T attack the US. I guess he didn't know his Geography too well there, thought the eastern route was the fastest way to Japan... He ignores the Pacific so much that we proceed to loose most of the islands we had control of so when he finally gets around to dealing with the ones who actually attacked us we have to take back all of those islands loosing even more lives. So tell me again that FDR wasn't hot to get into the European Theater no matter the cost.
loki old fart wrote: American poverty is due to American policy. I.E. your own fault. Wake up 1% anybody ???
Um.. Yeah. That's what I said. Our own idiotic leaders spending bajillions of our dollars to defend Europe from the Phantom Menace of World Communism. Driving our economy to the brink of destruction. The 1% argument is just so much socialist hogwash. They are wealthy BECAUSE of profiting from US military presence in over 100 nations. Who do you think built the bases? Who do you think makes the weapons? Who do you think provides the equipment? The answer... that 1%. The whole thing is an enormous con job on the people of the US. We work to pay for a military that by and large doesn't defend us. They defend other countries from which we don't get paid, we in fact PAY THEM to lease the land to put up a base.
loki old fart wrote: As for American bases, Look in the news!!! people don't want them,
I'd be happy if we stopped paying rent and brought them home. I'd be happy to let Europe go about their business without us defending them from whatever scary menace I'm supposed to be wetting the bed over these days. I really can't keep track of who I'm supposed to be scared of.
Is that what you read out of what I've said? Seriously? I am blaming American politicians and the people who kept re-electing them for this. Politicians who lied to get us into WWI, politicians who manipulated us into WWII, politicians who told us the Soviets were on the brink of tossing nukes just for fun. Politicians who tell us that the Muslims "hate us for our freedoms" (the answer to that apparently is to take our freedoms away so they stop hating us...)
I don't blame you Europeans for our problems. We did this to ourselves. I simply don't like getting attitude from that side of the pond when we did it to ourselves thus you could cut your military budgets to less than what our military spends on freeking pencils. Do you really think if the US had packed up and went home after WWII that Europe would be the same fun loving socialist paradise it is today? Do you think for one minute that your leaders wouldn't have gone right back into spending themselves into the poor house to build up massive military machines for the next time some idiot nephew of some syphilis ridden duke of a "country" smaller than New Jersey got himself offed so you can go fight over the same hills and rail road crossings you did 30 years before?
Not asking for thanks here or pity. Just cut the holier than thou attitude you give my fellow countrymen whenever some idiot does something stupid with a gun over here as if we are idiot children who can't let go of our toys. If we hadn't wasted our economy on your problems we'd be the workers paradise and you'd be the ones behind deep in debt with poverty and the violent crime rates that accompany it.
But since Woody Wilson was such an Anglophile he had to come riding to your rescue....
Did I say you needed rescuing? No. I called him "Woody" to infer a childish mindset where he wanted to be seen as "riding to the rescue" as the rest of my comment clearly stated.
#1) I was pointing out how, as a PhD in Politics friend of mine who also happens to be Dutch says "The major cause of WWII was WWI.". I figure he knows his stuff so I accept his logic as sound.
#2) Are you saying that they had Hitler contained and didn't need any of the weapons, food and supplies that the US was shipping to them? That they needed no assistance and could deal with the Nazi menace all by themselves? Bail out in that context does not mean save, it means help. If I help you move a couch you wouldn't say I saved you as if you were a damsel in distress who couldn't manage to move a couch all by her little self. Or perhaps you would. I really don't know you all that well. Maybe you have issues about accepting a helping hand.
Makes you wonder what would have happened had we left you to your own devices in WWI.
So now "leaving you to your own devices" implies that without our aid you would all be speaking German... Methinks you are overly sensitive on this issue. Got a bit of a complex over not being able to defend yourself or something? You are reading a lot into what I am writing. I use a lot of words to try and keep misunderstandings from occurring. Seems I am wasting many of them. I may as well say "Ug, Grog say you poo poo head! Grog say you wimp, need Grog help or words you make be like man with spike on head."
Ketara wrote: The risk of course, is that in doing so a new power arises capable of smacking the US around like a ragdoll.
I take it then you are a fan of the "War on Terror" we are fighting since it is all about stopping such potential adversaries that at this time do not exist but might if we don't get in there and bomb some brown people into the stone age. Fighting wars because something might happen in the future is a special kind of idiocy. Playing at being Nostradamus is not a good basis for foreign policy.
Ketara wrote: Assuming we're just talking about Hitler, I'm of the opinion that Hitler was done for by the time the USA intervened
Interesting opinion. I wish we had the same one and minded our own business. I agree with Washington and Jefferson on the subject of foreign entanglements. We separated from European kings and intrigues, we should have stayed separate from their wars as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/14 21:25:09
Everything will burn if you get it hot enough.
2015/01/14 21:43:41
Subject: Re:The importance of being important (or the need for armaments exports)
Did I say you needed rescuing? No. I called him "Woody" to infer a childish mindset where he wanted to be seen as "riding to the rescue" as the rest of my comment clearly stated.
The key word there my friend, was 'rescue'. Perhaps taken on it's own it would have a more innocuous meaning, but given the context/other sentences you lumped it together with, you give the impression of something else.
#2) Are you saying that they had Hitler contained and didn't need any of the weapons, food and supplies that the US was shipping to them? That they needed no assistance and could deal with the Nazi menace all by themselves? Bail out in that context does not mean save, it means help. If I help you move a couch you wouldn't say I saved you as if you were a damsel in distress who couldn't manage to move a couch all by her little self. Or perhaps you would. I really don't know you all that well. Maybe you have issues about accepting a helping hand.
I think you might be getting a little worked up here.
You initially gave the impression (as already stated), as being the sort of fellow who indulges in that tiresome old, 'WE WON BOTH WARS BY OPENING UP A CAN OF WHUP-ASS, AMERICA F*** YEAH!!!' that the American education system likes to produce from time to time. You denied having said anything like that, so I highlighted the appropriate quotes that gave that sort of impression.
If that's not what you meant, then I'm happy to take your word for it.
But you might want to spend some time thinking about the nature of the words you use to communicate though, because you often seem to convey a different meaning to that you clearly wish to.
So now "leaving you to your own devices" implies that without our aid you would all be speaking German... Methinks you are overly sensitive on this issue. Got a bit of a complex over not being able to defend yourself or something? You are reading a lot into what I am writing. I use a lot of words to try and keep misunderstandings from occurring. Seems I am wasting many of them. I may as well say "Ug, Grog say you poo poo head! Grog say you wimp, need Grog help or words you make be like man with spike on head."
And this frankly? Immature. Every time I pick you out on a historical point, you either seem to
a) deny it was what you said and then when it's pointed out explicitly,
b) deny it was what you meant, and then
c) accuse the other person of being at fault in some way in an inflammatory fashion.
Either have a serious but chilled discussion, or stop and go play with some toy soldiers. Nobody here is impressed by your doubtless rapier wit.
I take it then you are a fan of the "War on Terror" we are fighting since it is all about stopping such potential adversaries that at this time do not exist but might if we don't get in there and bomb some brown people into the stone age. Fighting wars because something might happen in the future is a special kind of idiocy. Playing at being Nostradamus is not a good basis for foreign policy.
Predicting what will happen in the future as a result of what your country does is what your Government (and mine) pays a lot of people to do. The term for the alternative is knee jerk reactions. Curiously enough, knee jerk reactions are exactly what caused the 'War on Terror' . America invaded Iraq with no real plans or aims. They just did it in post 9/11 rage. Perhaps if they'd done a little more looking ahead, they wouldn't have been in the situation they were in three years later.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/14 21:46:05
2015/01/14 21:53:20
Subject: Re:The importance of being important (or the need for armaments exports)
TV existed before ww2.England had either (roughly) 2 or 4 thousand sets(service ended on the first of september 1939 and resumed in 1945).So....why is it being discussed as a Benefit of ww2?
Kote!
Kandosii sa ka'rte, vode an.
Coruscanta a'den mhi, vode an.
Bal kote,Darasuum kote,
Jorso'ran kando a tome.
Sa kyr'am nau tracyn kad vode an.
Bal...
Motir ca'tra nau tracinya.
Gra'tua cuun hett su dralshy'a.
Aruetyc talyc runi'la trattok'a.
Sa kyr'am nau tracyn kad, vode an!
2015/01/14 23:36:29
Subject: Re:The importance of being important (or the need for armaments exports)
I'll be honest, I was referring more the perspective of, 'We saved your arses in two wars', which is incorrect on both accounts. It tends to be espoused by angry American teenagers on the internet looking for some way to slag off the British, and originates in the American educational system, which takes a very specific perspective to teaching history. Hence my initial comment.
Perhaps I just had good teachers, or grew up naturally skeptical, or something... but I do recall at least one class where the US entrance into WW1 and WW2 were not framed in any sense as being a "rescue" operation, so much as "there's been a string of events and we can no longer sit this one out" sort of feelings.
I distinctly remember my HS's AP European History course being taught in such a way where the sinking of the Lusitania was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" for WW1. I kind of tuned out WW2, but there's a good chance it was framed in such a way as to say "the war wasn't going so well for the Allies in Europe", but I also think that, at least in WW2, the breaking of "Fortress Europe" really required huge numbers of personnel, and just about the only country left who was capable of providing that, was the US (yeah, I know we were already fighting in Africa and Italy, however Allied strategy required an offensive through occupied France and the Northern part of Europe).
2015/01/15 00:08:02
Subject: Re:The importance of being important (or the need for armaments exports)
I'll be honest, I was referring more the perspective of, 'We saved your arses in two wars', which is incorrect on both accounts. It tends to be espoused by angry American teenagers on the internet looking for some way to slag off the British, and originates in the American educational system, which takes a very specific perspective to teaching history. Hence my initial comment.
Perhaps I just had good teachers, or grew up naturally skeptical, or something... but I do recall at least one class where the US entrance into WW1 and WW2 were not framed in any sense as being a "rescue" operation, so much as "there's been a string of events and we can no longer sit this one out" sort of feelings.
I distinctly remember my HS's AP European History course being taught in such a way where the sinking of the Lusitania was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" for WW1. I kind of tuned out WW2, but there's a good chance it was framed in such a way as to say "the war wasn't going so well for the Allies in Europe", but I also think that, at least in WW2, the breaking of "Fortress Europe" really required huge numbers of personnel, and just about the only country left who was capable of providing that, was the US (yeah, I know we were already fighting in Africa and Italy, however Allied strategy required an offensive through occupied France and the Northern part of Europe).
Fair enough, I was most likely overgeneralising. Like most education systems, doubtless there is a great deal of variability in how these things are taught.
2015/01/15 00:12:41
Subject: Re:The importance of being important (or the need for armaments exports)
Fair enough, I was most likely overgeneralising. Like most education systems, doubtless there is a great deal of variability in how these things are taught.
Yeah, with politicians getting ahold of what gets taught here, and what goes into text books, it's no surprise some really bad history gets taught.
For example, the history class im taking right now has only ONE paragraph that talks about Richard the Lionhearted, King John and Magna Carta.... If you knew nothing but what was written in that one paragraph, Richard was merely A brother of John, and John was "forced" to sign the Magna Carta, which was an important document.... There's no mention whatsoever of Richard's involvement in the Crusades, nor how he was a king in absentia (basically) and that Prince John was ruling in his place, rather horribly until finally Richie dies, Prince becomes king, and the nobles band together in "revolt" and force the king to put his seal on one of the most important legal documents in Western history (it's not THE most important, but it is among a group of very important documents)
2015/01/15 03:09:40
Subject: Re:The importance of being important (or the need for armaments exports)
reds8n wrote: does anyone know where either Paul Hogan or Yahoo Serious are to this day ...?
Paul Hogan is living in the US. He has a weird, plasticky face either from too much plastic surgery or really bad plastic surgery. Last time he returned to Australia he was denied permission to leave until he repaid large tax amounts - the matter was settled out of court for an unknown amount, and on returning to the US Hogan tried to sue the government over the whole affair, and it was again settled privately out of court.
The last anyone heard of Yahoo Serious he was suing Yahoo for trademark infringement. The case was rejected by the courts with much laughter, and Yahoo went back to doing whatever it is people who were famous for a little while in the 80s do with their time. Cocaine, probably.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
