Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

"Military-Industrial Complex" War is a necessity.


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Aritosthenes said:

Something akin to Bomb Dropping, such as that.. ...Is,. And Was A DEFINITE Display of a Lapse (..Lack) of Mental Comprehension and Detention ..

US declared war on Germany, Italy and other Axis powers even though only Japan attacked the US.  Declaration of war is a political/legal process under international law.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ElCid said:

US declared war on Germany, Italy and other Axis powers even though only Japan attacked the US.  Declaration of war is a political/legal process under international law.

An interesting tid bit - did you know that right after Pearl Harbor, Canada was first to declare war on Japan?

On December 7, 1941 (December 8 in Japan), the Empire of Japan began an undeclared war upon the United Kingdom (invading Hong Kong and Malaya), Canada, and the United States (attacking Pearl Harbor).[3] Mackenzie King and the Cabinet decided to go to war with Japan that evening and issued a proclamation the following day declaring that, as of December 7, a state of war existed between Japan and Canada.[2][3][14] One day later, the US and UK also declared war on the Japanese Empire.[3]These proclamations were presented by Mackenzie King to the House of Commons when parliament returned on January 21, 1942.[2]

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when is war necessary?

In the case of the US:

The American Revolutionary war.

The War of 1812 - The British wanted us back.

The Civil War after the South attacked Ft. Sumter

WWII

Possibly with China if they keep pushing their weight around, invading other countries, committing genocide, and shooting up rockets with no plan for reentry.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ElCid said:

US declared war on Germany, Italy and other Axis powers even though only Japan attacked the US.  Declaration of war is a political/legal process under international law.

And.. i go back to that Second Half of What was said..

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah. 👍👍👍👍

     If those individuals show up.. only half dressed blindly swinging away and swearing as they do it.. Such as the hitlers and trumps of the world..

 

 

 

One ... .. Needs to Rethink their "Peaceful" Approach.. ... as my caveat stated.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

Since when is war necessary?

In the case of the US:

The American Revolutionary war.

The War of 1812 - The British wanted us back.

The Civil War after the South attacked Ft. Sumter

WWII

Possibly with China if they keep pushing their weight around, invading other countries, committing genocide, and shooting up rockets with no plan for reentry.

 

I agree with the first two and WWII,   but not the Civil War or any possible war with China.   Unless China was to attack South Korea or Japan directly,   I say,  the USA stays out of any conflict.    How a nation conducts themselves internally isn't something other counties  should go to war over:  trade sanctions \ diplomatic pressure,  yes,,,,, war,,, NO.

Should China attack the USA for being a nation build on white supremacy and one that has committed crimes against people of color?   (I'm not saying this is true,  but only using this to call into question a nation attacking another nation for how they conduct themselves internally).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I agree with the first two and WWII,   but not the Civil War or any possible war with China.   Unless China was to attack South Korea or Japan directly,   I say,  the USA stays out of any conflict.    How a nation conducts themselves internally isn't something other counties  should go to war over:  trade sanctions \ diplomatic pressure,  yes,,,,, war,,, NO.

Should China attack the USA for being a nation build on white supremacy and one that has committed crimes against people of color?   (I'm not saying this is true,  but only using this to call into question a nation attacking another nation for how they conduct themselves internally).

 

 

What if China attacks Taiwan? They'd do that before they went after larger nations.  With their "Beijing Bucks" they've actually got the big studios in their pockets already so that they never show Taiwan as an independent nation in a film. Would it be best to get other nations to join with us and  just hit China where it hurts - in the pocketbook ? Yes, but the same Beijing Bucks that have Disney giving shout outs to the people who run the concentration camps in China in the credits of Mulan would probably make them back down too. 

I really see China as the 21st century 3rd Reich and I often feel like it is 1938 and I am in Great Britain listening to Neville Chamberlain drone on about appeasement with the Nazis. 

What if we were built "on white supremacy and one that has committed crimes against people of color" ? Should we should just say it is OK for other nations to commit genocide today? Really? You sound like the CCP trolls I do battle with on the Washington Post comment section. By the way I'm not sure that much of the things built on people of color weren't destroyed in the Civil War since slavery was in the south. Was the Empire State Building built on people of color?  NASA? Silicon Valley? 

Not trying to yell at you. You seem like a good fellow. I just get tired of the "Russia, Russia, Russia" drumbeat when Russia is really a country that is no longer globally powerful. The only resource they really have is oil and land that may defrost as a result of climate change. China is the real global threat. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

An interesting tid bit - did you know that right after Pearl Harbor, Canada was first to declare war on Japan?

On December 7, 1941 (December 8 in Japan), the Empire of Japan began an undeclared war upon the United Kingdom (invading Hong Kong and Malaya), Canada, and the United States (attacking Pearl Harbor).[3] Mackenzie King and the Cabinet decided to go to war with Japan that evening and issued a proclamation the following day declaring that, as of December 7, a state of war existed between Japan and Canada.[2][3][14] One day later, the US and UK also declared war on the Japanese Empire.[3]These proclamations were presented by Mackenzie King to the House of Commons when parliament returned on January 21, 1942.[2]

Interesting.  Not sure of how Canada works, but in the US only Congress can declare war.  So, FDR had to go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

Since when is war necessary?

In the case of the US:

The American Revolutionary war.

The War of 1812 - The British wanted us back.

The Civil War after the South attacked Ft. Sumter

WWII

Possibly with China if they keep pushing their weight around, invading other countries, committing genocide, and shooting up rockets with no plan for reentry.

 

While the UK may have wanted America back, the US started the War of 1812 over British transgressions against the US.  If not for Napoleon and wars in Europe, the British may very well have defeated the US.  The Battle of New Orleans came after the peace treaty was signed.

As for the Civil War, are you saying that if the Confederacy had not attacked Ft. Sumter, it would NOT have been appropriate for US to go to war with CSA?

Highly unlikely US will go to war over genocide - never have before.

Biggest threat to US from China might be China's ambitions to control the South China Sea.  This may very well lead to military confrontations with China.  Of course there are other threats from China - cyber, financial, economic, etc.

1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I agree with the first two and WWII,   but not the Civil War or any possible war with China.   Unless China was to attack South Korea or Japan directly,   I say,  the USA stays out of any conflict.    How a nation conducts themselves internally isn't something other counties  should go to war over:  trade sanctions \ diplomatic pressure,  yes,,,,, war,,, NO.

Should China attack the USA for being a nation build on white supremacy and one that has committed crimes against people of color?   (I'm not saying this is true,  but only using this to call into question a nation attacking another nation for how they conduct themselves internally).

 

 

So, you believe the US should not have invaded the Confederate States of America?   Which would have likely led to the dissolution of the USA.   Other states and regions may very well have left the US if the Confederacy was allowed to go in peace.

Unlikely that China will attack South Korea directly.  They will do as they did in 1950 and use North Korea to do it.

Incidentally I would add the Gulf War in 1991 as a just war because it was.  I was there.

1 hour ago, LsDoorMat said:

What if China attacks Taiwan? They'd do that before they went after larger nations.  With their "Beijing Bucks" they've actually got the big studios in their pockets already so that they never show Taiwan as an independent nation in a film. Would it be best to get other nations to join with us and  just hit China where it hurts - in the pocketbook ? Yes, but the same Beijing Bucks that have Disney giving shout outs to the people who run the concentration camps in China in the credits of Mulan would probably make them back down too. 

I really see China as the 21st century 3rd Reich and I often feel like it is 1938 and I am in Great Britain listening to Neville Chamberlain drone on about appeasement with the Nazis. 

What if we were built "on white supremacy and one that has committed crimes against people of color" ? Should we should just say it is OK for other nations to commit genocide today? Really? You sound like the CCP trolls I do battle with on the Washington Post comment section. By the way I'm not sure that much of the things built on people of color weren't destroyed in the Civil War since slavery was in the south. Was the Empire State Building built on people of color?  NASA? Silicon Valley? 

Not trying to yell at you. You seem like a good fellow. I just get tired of the "Russia, Russia, Russia" drumbeat when Russia is really a country that is no longer globally powerful. The only resource they really have is oil and land that may defrost as a result of climate change. China is the real global threat. 

Is it worth going to war with China over Taiwan?  Taiwan was a part of China before 1948(?).    I do not believe the US should go to war over Taiwan, unless many other nations also participate to a large scaled.  The UN, NATO, EU, Australia & New Zealand, etc.  Other Pacific Rim countries as well.

The difference between Germany in 1940 and China today is that China dominates the world economy and even the US economy in many aspects.  

"By the way I'm not sure that much of the things built on people of color weren't destroyed in the Civil War since slavery was in the south."  This is confusing.  For one thing, the South included more than just the 11 states that seceded.  Much of Washington DC, to include government buildings were build with slave labor.  Empire State Building, NASA and Silicon Valley did not exist when slavery did.

As for other nations committing genocide, that is not something the US alone should go to war to resolve.

Russia is a threat, especially in cyber activities.  It is also a threat to eastern Europe.  Do you believe that Russia (Putin) does not wish to restore the countries that Russia controlled under the Soviet Union.  Because he does and will go to war with them unless he believes the US, EU and NATO will stop him.   Russia is a threat to Europe because it controls much of the energy that Europe requires.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ElCid said:

While the UK may have wanted America back, the US started the War of 1812 over British transgressions against the US.  If not for Napoleon and wars in Europe, the British may very well have defeated the US.  The Battle of New Orleans came after the peace treaty was signed.

As for the Civil War, are you saying that if the Confederacy had not attacked Ft. Sumter, it would NOT have been appropriate for US to go to war with CSA?

Highly unlikely US will go to war over genocide - never have before.

Biggest threat to US from China might be China's ambitions to control the South China Sea.  This may very well lead to military confrontations with China.  Of course there are other threats from China - cyber, financial, economic, etc.

So, you believe the US should not have invaded the Confederate States of America?   Which would have likely led to the dissolution of the USA.   Other states and regions may very well have left the US if the Confederacy was allowed to go in peace.

Unlikely that China will attack South Korea directly.  They will do as they did in 1950 and use North Korea to do it.

Incidentally I would add the Gulf War in 1991 as a just war because it was.  I was there.

Is it worth going to war with China over Taiwan?  Taiwan was a part of China before 1948(?).    I do not believe the US should go to war over Taiwan, unless many other nations also participate to a large scaled.  The UN, NATO, EU, Australia & New Zealand, etc.  Other Pacific Rim countries as well.

The difference between Germany in 1940 and China today is that China dominates the world economy and even the US economy in many aspects.  

"By the way I'm not sure that much of the things built on people of color weren't destroyed in the Civil War since slavery was in the south."  This is confusing.  For one thing, the South included more than just the 11 states that seceded.  Much of Washington DC, to include government buildings were build with slave labor.  Empire State Building, NASA and Silicon Valley did not exist when slavery did.

As for other nations committing genocide, that is not something the US alone should go to war to resolve.

Russia is a threat, especially in cyber activities.  It is also a threat to eastern Europe.  Do you believe that Russia (Putin) does not wish to restore the countries that Russia controlled under the Soviet Union.  Because he does and will go to war with them unless he believes the US, EU and NATO will stop him.   Russia is a threat to Europe because it controls much of the energy that Europe requires.

 

Not to go into every point but -

Taiwan does not want to be part of China any more than Hong Kong wanted to be under their iron fist. I think that matters.

I actually forgot about the 1991 Gulf War or I would have included it among just wars. 

Sure Putin would love to have his empire back. But Russia is just not the global threat that it used to be except in cyber activities which you mentioned. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

Not to go into every point but -

Taiwan does not want to be part of China any more than Hong Kong wanted to be under their iron fist. I think that matters.

I actually forgot about the 1991 Gulf War or I would have included it among just wars. 

Sure Putin would love to have his empire back. But Russia is just not the global threat that it used to be except in cyber activities which you mentioned. 

Did not wish to imply that Taiwan wants to be a part of China, but before 1948 they were.  The issue is whether or not it is up to the United States alone to defend it should China attack.  A war with China would be a disaster for US - militarily and economically.

Neither Hong Kong nor Taiwan does not wish to be part of China.  The people who live there do not wish to be part of China.  They can move if the thought of being under China is so anathema to them.

I don't want to be part of a state that is controlled by far-right Republicans, but I am.  However, I do not see going to war over it or even moving.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ElCid said:

Did not wish to imply that Taiwan wants to be a part of China, but before 1948 they were.  The issue is whether or not it is up to the United States alone to defend it should China attack.  A war with China would be a disaster for US - militarily and economically.

Neither Hong Kong nor Taiwan does not wish to be part of China.  The people who live there do not wish to be part of China.  They can move if the thought of being under China is so anathema to them.

I don't want to be part of a state that is controlled by far-right Republicans, but I am.  However, I do not see going to war over it or even moving.

The difference - We have periodic elections to dispose of officials we do not like. You are free to move somewhere else if you choose, even if you don't want to. The people of China are stuck with the dictator Xi, and they better not say anything negative about the CCP or they will suddenly disappear. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

The difference - We have periodic elections to dispose of officials we do not like. You are free to move somewhere else if you choose, even if you don't want to. The people of China are stuck with the dictator Xi, and they better not say anything negative about the CCP or they will suddenly disappear. 

But that is no reason for the US to get into a war with China we would eventually lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ElCid said:

But that is no reason for the US to get into a war with China we would eventually lose.

Eventually, just like Hitler, the US will have to face China militarily. Or maybe in the case of the US they plan to continue worming their way into businesses here so that they can control the narrative. Say something bad about the CCP? Try getting a mortgage when China owns a half interest in the banks. And so on. 

But don't worry. I'm sure when they take over Taiwan and execute a bunch of their political enemies there the US will stand by and do nothing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LsDoorMat said:

Eventually, just like Hitler, the US will have to face China militarily. Or maybe in the case of the US they plan to continue worming their way into businesses here so that they can control the narrative. Say something bad about the CCP? Try getting a mortgage when China owns a half interest in the banks. And so on. 

But don't worry. I'm sure when they take over Taiwan and execute a bunch of their political enemies there the US will stand by and do nothing. 

When Chiang Kai-shek  forcefully took over Taiwan, he displaced the local officials with his own.  They stayed in control with Chiang  in charge for years, if not decades.

I don't know where you live, but Americans do not want to be the police for the world.   

Hitler was a totally different story from China.  As far as I know China has no ambitions to conquer other countries at this stage.  They may wish to "dominate" other countries, but so has the US, UK and other nations.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

U.S. declared war on Japan. Germany and Italy declared war on U.S., then U.S. declared war on

Germany and Italy. The big question was, Can we defeat the Italians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ElCid said:

When Chiang Kai-shek  forcefully took over Taiwan, he displaced the local officials with his own.  They stayed in control with Chiang  in charge for years, if not decades.

I don't know where you live, but Americans do not want to be the police for the world.   

Hitler was a totally different story from China.  As far as I know China has no ambitions to conquer other countries at this stage.  They may wish to "dominate" other countries, but so has the US, UK and other nations.

I am an American, and no I don't want to be the police force for the world but sometimes it is necessary to step in. 

As for Hitler and really Xi and the CCP rather than China itself being different - They seem to be following very similar trajectories at this point. 

China is actually building cities inside Bhutan at this point, because what are they going to do about it? 

I doubt CCP trolls follow the TCM message boards, but if you say something negative about the CCP on a more traversed site, they will do everything they can to shout you down and if that doesn't work they will try to get your post taken down. Because most mods just don't want any trouble. 

If you ever want to see a spectacle, visit https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/

The site is full of CCP propaganda. If you come in and dispute their narrative they will ban you and taunt you and say you can do nothing about it. And reddit does nothing because the Chinese have a partial interest in reddit now. But they will sure shut down other subreddits they don't like - some of which do deserve it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ElCid said:

So, you believe the US should not have invaded the Confederate States of America?   Which would have likely led to the dissolution of the USA.   Other states and regions may very well have left the US if the Confederacy was allowed to go in peace.

I believe the USA invaded the Confederate States too early:   that a compromise could have been made where slavery is dissolved over time and slave owners were compensated for granting slaves freedom.      The overall cost of this compensation would have been a lot less than the cost of the Civil War.     But hey,  maybe that is wishful,  Monday morning quarterbacking.      But if such an agreement couldn't be reached I would have been fine with the South being a separate nation.     

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

I am an American, and no I don't want to be the police force for the world but sometimes it is necessary to step in. 

I agree with Cid with regards to China.    All I can add is that the main reason Americans and associated politicians don't wish for China to dominate\intimidate  (not invade or take over),   are economic.     I.e.  The USA was doing this (e.g. getting a nation's national resources for 10 cents on the dollar),   and now China is almost an equal competitor,  which raises the cost of said national resources to American business. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I believe the USA invaded the Confederate States too early:   that a compromise could have been made where slavery is dissolved over time and slave owners were compensated for granting slaves freedom.      The overall cost of this compensation would have been a lot less than the cost of the Civil War.     But hey,  maybe that is wishful,  Monday morning quarterbacking.      But if such an agreement couldn't be reached I would have been fine with the South being a separate nation.     

The problem is, if separatism  had happened and the USA had split into two nations, the French were planning to come up through Mexico and colonize the south. The British were planning to try and take the north back. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

The problem is, if separatism  had happened and the USA had split into two nations, the French were planning to come up through Mexico and colonize the south. The British were planning to try and take the north back. 

I don't support the notion that the majority of British citizens or politicians were trying to take the north back.    If that really was a cause supported by the majority of British citizens,  why didn't Britain invade the USA in 1865 when the USA was at its weakest?     As for the French attacking the new Southern nation;   I also don't think that was very likely (France had enough problems controlling Mexico),   but if they did,  well that would have been the USA's problem.  

PS:  I don't have strong feelings that the Civil War wasn't necessity;   i.e.  I view that war as a borderline case,  and as Cid and I have discussed many times civil wars are much different than wars between sovereign nations.      Thus one could  say the US Civil war shouldn't have been included in any list of wars to begin with.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I believe the USA invaded the Confederate States too early:   that a compromise could have been made where slavery is dissolved over time and slave owners were compensated for granting slaves freedom.      The overall cost of this compensation would have been a lot less than the cost of the Civil War.     But hey,  maybe that is wishful,  Monday morning quarterbacking.      But if such an agreement couldn't be reached I would have been fine with the South being a separate nation.     

Compensation had been discussed for a long time, but strong elements in the North were opposed to it and strong elements in the South were opposed to even considering abolition of slavery.

My great-great grandfather was a captain in the Confederate cavalry and I was a member of both the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the Military Order of the Stars and Bars - until they became too racist and radical in other beliefs.

But, I am totally opposed to the idea of two separate nations as both would have been weak.  It also would have set the tables for Texas, western states/territories and even some Northern and Mid-west states to secede.

20 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I agree with Cid with regards to China.    All I can add is that the main reason Americans and associated politicians don't wish for China to dominate\intimidate  (not invade or take over),   are economic.     I.e.  The USA was doing this (e.g. getting a nation's national resources for 10 cents on the dollar),   and now China is almost an equal competitor,  which raises the cost of said national resources to American business. 

 

One thing I forgot to mention is that the United States even before WW II practiced economic domination of other nations as both a business and governmental policy.  We didn't need to control the countries as we (US) controlled their production and consumption to our advantage.

20 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

The problem is, if separatism  had happened and the USA had split into two nations, the French were planning to come up through Mexico and colonize the south. The British were planning to try and take the north back. 

Don't know what you base this upon, but as an American history major I never read anything about the above.  I also specialized in the Civil War era and have read many, many books and articles on the subjects.

The British probably had a hard enough time "holding onto" Canada by 1865, I don't see them launching a full scale war against the US.  Even if they did try, the North was well equipped in both manpower, industry and military supplies to counter a British invasion while still fighting the Confederacy.  People do not realize that the South (CSA) by 1863-64 had exhausted its manpower and industrial base (such as it was).  The North still had hundreds of thousands of males to call upon to fight.  Not to mention an industrial base that could easily expand.

As for France, James noted that France had a hard enough time holding onto Mexico and pretty much failed once the American Civil War ended.  France had pretty much lost by then anyway, but if they had stayed in Mexico, the US Army and Navy would have invaded and run them back to France.

If the Confederacy had won, they would have turned their army toward Mexico if the US didn't if France was still there.  They would have loved to have new areas in which to expand slavery or at least their agricultural systems.  Most of the people who supported secession wanted to expand the Confederacy into Cuba and other Caribbean areas.  Not positive about Mexico, but I believe they also had an interest in expanding there as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ElCid said:

One thing I forgot to mention is that the United States even before WW II practiced economic domination of other nations as both a business and governmental policy.  We didn't need to control the countries as we (US) controlled their production and consumption to our advantage.

You've described Canada to a tee.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...