Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

World War III???

cmoneyr said:
Wow, sounds like you have an interesting job.
Click to expand...

My job is quite interesting, but most days I spend building risk reports, doing research in Matlab, and studying various analytic reports looking for trade ideas. If every day were like today, I'd probably only live to 50.
 
CyValley said:
It was a clipped remark. Shorthand. I majored in American history/poly sci in college; so, yeah, I'm aware of the '40s. Much of my non-fiction reading today deals with WWII and the social and cultural U.S. homefront.

More specifically, in the 1930s Pax Americana did not exist, we were not the world policeman, we did not spend a colossal amount of money on defense, we did not think we had to push our nose into every corner of the world. For me, limited to these specific topics, this was an attractive situation.

I understand that world events thrust themselves upon us and changed the nature of this republic in numerous and serious ways during the 1940s, forevermore. I get it.
Click to expand...

And because of the bucolism of the 1930s, we were thrust into a war we were ill-prepared for, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of 10s of thousands of Americans, and probably other nationalities as well, because a myopic American electorate refused to spend money on a competent military.

We basically entered WWII as a 15th rate power, whose draftee soldiers had outdated and insufficient weaponry and grossly inadequate training against the world's best soldiery, who'd been actively fighting for 3 or more years.

I guess we believe the fantasy we want to, hmmm?

I think there is a third course, here, that doesn't involve over-militarism or pie in the sky isolationism/pacifism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyclonekj
Phaedrus said:
And because of the bucolism of the 1930s, we were thrust into a war we were ill-prepared for, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of 10s of thousands of Americans, and probably other nationalities as well, because a myopic American electorate refused to spend money on a competent military.

We basically entered WWII as a 15th rate power, whose draftee soldiers had outdated and insufficient weaponry and grossly inadequate training against the world's best soldiery, who'd been actively fighting for 3 or more years.

I guess we believe the fantasy we want to, hmmm?

I think there is a third course, here, that doesn't involve over-militarism or pie in the sky isolationism/pacifism.
Click to expand...

I believe you slightly overstate how bad we were prepared for WWII, as the cloud of war grew closer the US was definitely in the process of rearmament, nonetheless, we were woefully unprepared. It was hardly a US only problem as even nations closer to the conflict such as GB neglected their armed forces into the middle to late 30's
 
Iastfan112 said:
I believe you slightly overstate how bad we were prepared for WWII, as the cloud of war grew closer the US was definitely in the process of rearmament, nonetheless, we were woefully unprepared. It was hardly a US only problem as even nations closer to the conflict such as GB neglected their armed forces into the middle to late 30's
Click to expand...

You are correct, if you confine your comments to the '30s.

In reality, though, we as a nation failed to absorb some of the lessons from 1939 - 1941, which was the truly inexcusable part.

GB neglects its armed forces as a matter of national pride. For some of the exact same reasons we do: That bit of water between us and the "bad places" gives us complacency.
 
Sounds like the Russians have the upper hand. Let's hope that they stop with the disputed province and do not push to annex the whole place.

Hours later, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili proposed to declare a cease-fire in the region, with Georgian troops withdrawing from Tskhinvali, the provincial capital, and refraining from responding to Russian shelling.

Russian air raid hits Georgia city - Russia - MSNBC.com
 
As a bit of background, this is actually nothing new, you just don't hear about it in American media sources (I only know about it because I had to read up on it in my International Studies major). It's not like Russia all of a sudden decided to up and invade Georgia. Russia's been following this exact tactic of moving its army into rebellious Georgian territories for many years, specifically in the other breakaway province of Abkhazia. What makes this situation unique is that there's actually a full military response from Georgia.

It's kinda like a bully picking on a nerd, until finally one day the nerd snaps back and hits the bully once or something. Now, it's in the stage of the bully's furious reaction for being hit...
 
atlcyclone said:
As a bit of background, this is actually nothing new, you just don't hear about it in American media sources (I only know about it because I had to read up on it in my International Studies major). It's not like Russia all of a sudden decided to up and invade Georgia. Russia's been following this exact tactic of moving its army into rebellious Georgian territories for many years, specifically in the other breakaway province of Abkhazia. What makes this situation unique is that there's actually a full military response from Georgia.

It's kinda like a bully picking on a nerd, until finally one day the nerd snaps back and hits the bully once or something. Now, it's in the stage of the bully's furious reaction for being hit...
Click to expand...

After speaking with some friends who are there, in Georgia, this is most probably the case.

They tell me of unmarked aircraft dropping bombs on Georgian military positions for the last two years, and Russia blaming Georgia for bombing itself to gain public sympathy, but the planes are of types Georgia doesn't have, and the bombs are of a type they don't have, either.

We have US soldiers right now, who are being artillerized by Russian forces. Fortunately, none of them have been killed or wounded, yet.
 
Phaedrus said:
And because of the bucolism of the 1930s, we were thrust into a war we were ill-prepared for, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of 10s of thousands of Americans, and probably other nationalities as well, because a myopic American electorate refused to spend money on a competent military.

We basically entered WWII as a 15th rate power, whose draftee soldiers had outdated and insufficient weaponry and grossly inadequate training against the world's best soldiery, who'd been actively fighting for 3 or more years.

I guess we believe the fantasy we want to, hmmm?

I think there is a third course, here, that doesn't involve over-militarism or pie in the sky isolationism/pacifism.
Click to expand...

Oh, good God. Fantasy?

I know where the 1930s led; I'm saying that I fervently wish the world was such that all rest was unnecessary. And with some 286,000 U.S. military dead in World War II and perhaps, by one estimate, as many as 70 million people -- mostly civilians -- dead as a result of the war, how could I wish anything else? I am sane (in my view, anyway).

In my opinion, every event, every situation can be interpreted in multiple ways. American isolationism can be seen, from one viewpoint anyway, as U.S. citizens' wish to avoid being sucked into another European war. It was gonna happen, but some of us understand how millions of Americans dreaded such an eventuality.

USS Iowa, at the time the largest class of ship of any type built in the Western Hemisphere, was laid down in June 1940. Its design began, iirc, in 1937. It's not as though certain U.S. leaders were not preparing for the coming conflagration.

I'm saying that war is folly; I'm not saying it's altogether avoidable. I'm saying that I wish the U.S. had not been thrust into the position it now finds itself today. I'm not saying that was avoidable, either.

I'm saying I wish the world today was a different place. I don't believe I live in a fantasy world; I am a misanthrope, so I'm saying I don't much like the world as we find it today.
 
Alrighty then!

Just refresh my memory again, as to what is the definition of fantasy?

Perhaps I'm not understanding your point.
 
I thought I'd bump this. This thing is serious, Russia seems intent on completely taking over Georgia. (No jokes please, you know the Georgia I'm talking about) Georgia offered a cease-fire, but Russia just kept on bombing and moving their troops. I am starting to wonder if maybe Putin is intent on putting the Soviet Union back together, at least partially.
 
Cyclone42 said:
I thought I'd bump this. This thing is serious, Russia seems intent on completely taking over Georgia. (No jokes please, you know the Georgia I'm talking about) Georgia offered a cease-fire, but Russia just kept on bombing and moving their troops. I am starting to wonder if maybe Putin is intent on putting the Soviet Union back together, at least partially.
Click to expand...
There's still an ongoing thread in political, but I'm glad you did. In my opinion, Russia is looking to either absorb Georgia, or depose their government. This is the exact reason that NATO has been signing up Eastern bloc countries since the fall of the USSR. It seems that it is only a matter of time before the hard liners get back in power, and that time might be now.
 
While it appeared initially that Georgia started this thing, Russia was way too prepared, with too many of their best units, for this.

Plus, the time of year is ideal for Russian invasion of Georgia, while it is the worst time of year for Georgian seizure of Ossetia. In the winter, Georgia is basically isolated from Russia due to the terrain.

We are experiencing a huge amount of propaganda from both sides, but the Russian propaganda looks extremely well-prepared, while Georgian propaganda efforts look unprepared.

If I were a betting man, I'd say this is probably a put-up job, but we won't know until a while what actually happened.

This smells like the Sudetenland, all over again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back