History

[Stee-vo]

It is always interesting to hear people debate a subject like politics and history in an emotional way rather than refer to the facts. Facts have an akward habit of spoiling a perfectly good point of view.
We in europe have a huge debt owed to the americans ref there involvement in Ww2. Visit the american cematories through out southern England and europe to see the evidence. As for why the US got involved in WW2. That was a diplomatic victory by Churchill who persueded Roosevelt that this was a war on two fronts, not just the pacific one with Japan. Germany declared war on America just incase you did not know. After the second world war was over America was the occupying army accross western europe and the western european countries, including the UK, were bankrupt with their cities and eccononmies in ruins. America however chose to send all its troops back home, establish democratic goverment in the facist countries and fund europes ecconomic recovery through the marshall plan. The fact that none of us are speaking russian or german is thanks to the USA, be under no doubt after Dunkirk the UK, and its empire, was finished with out the lend lease deal from uncle sam.
As for the war with Iraq, well there is a lot of debate as to the whats and where fors but it is not about oil as there are easier ways for the US to secure supplies, it is not about occupation as the US has no history or interest in empire building but it is about dealing with a genocideal dictator who has used nerve gas on his own people, driven 4 million into exile, invaded two of his niebours (Iran & Kuwait) and has one of the largest and well equiped land armys in the world. Whether America is missguided or not in pursuing this war has to be seen, but lets not compare them to the appalling regime in Iraq, America are one of the good guys even if they missjudge things now and again and we all owe them a vote of thanks that they stood by europe through the cold war. Look at what happened to eastern europe when the russians did not go homw at the end of WW2.
Get out your history books guys and do not take your freedoms and ecconomic wealth and safety for granted.

 

[Hotpoint]

Originally posted by Stee-vo
It is always interesting to hear people debate a subject like politics and history in an emotional way rather than refer to the facts. Facts have an akward habit of spoiling a perfectly good point of view.

Okay this is a Paintball Forum and this is likely to be a short-lived thread but if you're going to play the "facts" in History and Poltics you need to do more research and not let your prior opinions dictate what "facts" you choose to accept

Originally posted by Stee-vo
As for why the US got involved in WW2. That was a diplomatic victory by Churchill who persueded Roosevelt that this was a war on two fronts, not just the pacific one with Japan. Germany declared war on America just in case you did not know.

Surely the second part of that paragraph invalidates the first. In that it was not Churchills "diplomatic victory" that got the US into Europe but Hitlers strategic mistake in declaring war

Originally posted by Stee-vo

After the second world war was over America was the occupying army accross western europe and the western european countries, including the UK, were bankrupt with their cities and eccononmies in ruins. America however chose to send all its troops back home, establish democratic goverment in the facist countries and fund europes ecconomic recovery through the marshall plan

Well Britain was bankrupt because we had to give all our Gold reserves (plus most of the important patents including the jet-engine) to the US to pay them back for Lend-Lease etc

As for the Marshall plan it was an integral part of the Truman Doctrine aimed towards keep Stalins influence out of Western Europe it was not charity. It was clearly in the US interest to keep the USSR down as far as possible and that was the primary justification in getting us back on our feet

Originally posted by Stee-vo

The fact that none of us are speaking russian or german is thanks to the USA, be under no doubt after Dunkirk the UK, and its empire, was finished with out the lend lease deal from uncle sam

The vast majority of German losses were inflicted by the Russians. US involvement in the defeat of Nazi Germany was relatively minor by comparison

As for us speaking Russian... please demonstrate that the Soviets ever seriously planned to invade Western Europe. They certainly desired to influence, perhaps even dominate but annex?

Originally posted by Stee-vo
As for the war with Iraq, well there is a lot of debate as to the whats and where fors but it is not about oil as there are easier ways for the US to secure supplies, it is not about occupation as the US has no history or interest in empire building

Every country has an interest in projecting its influence and all will try to utilise Remunerative, Ideological or if necessary Punitive power to aid in expanding their influence.

It is not just Oil. There are good geostrategic reasons why the US would beneffit from military power in the Middle-East. For a start it helps their ally Israel and gives them a platform to keep down other "rogue" states like Iran

I suggest you read some books on Neo-Realist political theory

Originally posted by Stee-vo
it is about dealing with a genocideal dictator who has used nerve gas on his own people, driven 4 million into exile, invaded two of his niebours (Iran & Kuwait) and has one of the largest and well equiped land armys in the world.

The Iraqi Army is anything but well-equiped. Check out the IISS Strategic Reviews. As for believing that the US or any other government is driven by morality what planet have you been living on? Please remember that at the time he gassed his own people we were selling him arms!

Originally posted by Stee-vo

Whether America is missguided or not in pursuing this war has to be seen, but lets not compare them to the appalling regime in Iraq

Can't argue with that but I must admit to a certain mirth every time I hear GW Bush waxing lyrical about Democracy when he got 250,000 less votes than Al Gore

Originally posted by Stee-vo

America are one of the good guys even if they missjudge things now and again and we all owe them a vote of thanks that they stood by europe through the cold war.

America is certainly not Evil, and at worst they are as you say occasionally misguided but please remember that as for standing by us in the Cold War Ronald Reagan once said publically that if WWIII went nuclear he would confine the exchange to our side of the Atlantic. It was not US policy to go all the way in defending Western Europe

Originally posted by Stee-vo

Get out your history books guys and do not take your freedoms and ecconomic wealth and safety for granted.

A thoughtful post Stee-Vo but can I suggest you do a little more reading yourself. I heartily recommend "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers 1500-2000" by Paul Kennedy as a primer in international power politics

 

[rancid]

Originally posted by Hotpoint
Okay this is a Paintball Forum and this is likely to be a short-lived thread but if you're going to play the "facts" in History and Poltics you need to do more research and not let your prior opinions dictate what "facts" you choose to accept



Surely the second part of that paragraph invalidates the first. In that it was not Churchills "diplomatic victory" that got the US into Europe but Hitlers strategic mistake in declaring war



Well Britain was bankrupt because we had to give all our Gold reserves (plus most of the important patents including the jet-engine) to the US to pay them back for Lend-Lease etc

As for the Marshall plan it was an integral part of the Truman Doctrine aimed towards keep Stalins influence out of Western Europe it was not charity. It was clearly in the US interest to keep the USSR down as far as possible and that was the primary justification in getting us back on our feet



The vast majority of German losses were inflicted by the Russians. US involvement in the defeat of Nazi Germany was relatively minor by comparison

As for us speaking Russian... please demonstrate that the Soviets ever seriously planned to invade Western Europe. They certainly desired to influence, perhaps even dominate but annex?



Every country has an interest in projecting its influence and all will try to utilise Remunerative, Ideological or if necessary Punitive power to aid in expanding their influence.

It is not just Oil. There are good geostrategic reasons why the US would beneffit from military power in the Middle-East. For a start it helps their ally Israel and gives them a platform to keep down other "rogue" states like Iran

I suggest you read some books on Neo-Realist political theory



The Iraqi Army is anything but well-equiped. Check out the IISS Strategic Reviews. As for believing that the US or any other government is driven by morality what planet have you been living on? Please remember that at the time he gassed his own people we were selling him arms!



Can't argue with that but I must admit to a certain mirth every time I hear GW Bush waxing lyrical about Democracy when he got 250,000 less votes than Al Gore



America is certainly not Evil, and at worst they are as you say occasionally misguided but please remember that as for standing by us in the Cold War Ronald Reagan once said publically that if WWIII went nuclear he would confine the exchange to our side of the Atlantic. It was not US policy to go all the way in defending Western Europe



A thoughtful post Stee-Vo but can I suggest you do a little more reading yourself. I heartily recommend "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers 1500-2000" by Paul Kennedy as a primer in international power politics

Say again?

 

[Baca Loco]

Pot and kettle

Hotpoint, I keep trying to tell ya, the sky is blue and the grass is green, not red, red, red.

 

[Hotpoint]

Pot and kettle

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Hotpoint, I keep trying to tell ya, the sky is blue and the grass is green, not red, red, red.

Baca. I keep trying to tell you not to confuse me with TJ. He's the Chomsky fan not me. Just because I may be left of you doesn't mean I'm a Red. I'm centrist you're right wing

If I leaned towards Marxist interpretations I would say it was all down to Oil but that's rubbish. I'm more of a Neo-Realist, in that I think it's mainly determined by a desire for power between states not competing elites within states

Okay so I've read Das Kapital and some of what Karl said is true, I've also read Adam Smith and can say the same for him

And if we're talking colours... remember in history and politics the issues are never black and white it's all shades of grey

 

[Stee-vo]

Good reply

Great reply, have read the historical text you mentioned and my origional post was a simplistic and quick text basicly saying that lets not be to quick to forget who our friends are. Yes America has made a lot of dubious decisions, and some downright immoral ones, but so has every goverment throughout history. Yes I know that America had an agenda in supporting the west against russia, but it was an agenda that allowed us to be independant and flourish ecconomically far more than the east under russia.
I guess the point of my reply is people should not be so quick to condem the USA and that they should look at Saddams track record to fully realise just how bad he and his regime is. As for the debate over the war. Well there is no doubt the world will be a better place without saddam, as for whether the war is legal under international law, well that is not so clear cut. In the end when the americans invade, and they will, if they find large ammounts of banned weapons then the world will judge them hero's who took a bold move. If when they invade they find next to nothing then the S**t will hit the fan as there was no, or little, justification for invasion. Lets keep our fingers crossed that it is quick although I was speaking to a senior Army officer today and he expexts it to be pretty grim when they take Bagdahd if the republican gaurd stand and fight.
This is way to serious for a paintball forum

 

[Hotpoint]

Good reply

Originally posted by Stee-vo
Great reply, have read the historical text you mentioned

Thanks and have you read Kennedy's follow-up "Towards the 21st Century" too? Not as good as Rise & Fall but worth a look

Originally posted by Stee-vo

I was speaking to a senior Army officer today and he expexts it to be pretty grim when they take Bagdahd if the republican gaurd stand and fight.

It's a bit worrying that the US battle-plan assumes that the Iraqi Army won't fight and they have no way of dealing with the situation if they do

Since US Public Opinion would never accept the levelling of Bagdad or the heavy infantry losses that would be incurred if the Republican Guard decides to play Stalingrad I wonder what the hell the back-up plan is?

You could surround the city and starve them out but that might take months and would be a humanitarian disaster

Originally posted by Stee-vo

This is way to serious for a paintball forum

Go back and read a few of the threads where Baca and me argue Economics or Philosophy. Now they were far too serious for just about any forum

 

[joe bob]

Why the hell do we keep bringing this up? Someone please tell me
I wish i was a mod...

 

[knobbs]

Originally posted by Hotpoint
Can't argue with that but I must admit to a certain mirth every time I hear GW Bush waxing lyrical about Democracy when he got 250,000 less votes than Al Gore

I *LOVE* this argument. Apparently, GW was not supposed to be president because he didn't get a popular vote, even though he was voted into office by the laws of the US government. I guess a majority vote is supposed to give you whatever you want, huh?

Well at the current time, 59% of the American population as a matter of fact, only 37% are opposed to it, and support has never dipped below 52% (check www.gallup.com). Yet, going to war would be terrible, right? George W. is going crazy using his fake presidency to carry on an agenda that noone agrees with, right? Terrible Emperor Bush, right?

The rules don't work both ways, buddy.

 

[Baca Loco]

Re: Pot and kettle

Originally posted by Hotpoint
1--If I leaned towards Marxist interpretations I would say it was all down to Oil but that's rubbish. I'm more of a Neo-Realist, in that I think it's mainly determined by a desire for power between states not competing elites within states

2--And if we're talking colours... remember in history and politics the issues are never black and white it's all shades of grey

1--so let's hear the Neo-Realist interpretation of the positions of say, France, Germany, Russia and China
2--the issues are frequently black and white; it's the motives and the players that are shades of gray
And, no, you're not gonna suck me into this Party rally masquerading as a thread.

Be very careful, Stee-Vo, if Hotpoint had his way there'd be a government bureau telling you when to flush the commode and how much petrol you're alllowed to consume.