PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/index.php)
-   Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   The EU sits on its hands to stop Genocide. (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=168916)

jlomon 10-30-2006 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy (Post 1317312)
Again Europe sits by not caring, they have a track record of this.

So why can't France and Germany say send in their own forces to restore order and prevent this? Answer is they don't care.

Would we be there if we were not tied up in Iraq now? Probably.

From a governmental perspective, nobody cares. Why? Because, as aklim pointed out, the Sudan has nothing of value to anyone else. No resources, no strategic location, no heavy foreign investment to protect.

There isn't a hope of the US being involved in Darfur, regardless of involvement in Iraq, at least under present day conditions. I agree with aklim that it is naive to think otherwise. The US barely engaged in Bosnia, and it was mostly from the safety of the air. The US didn't go near Rwanda.

There once was a time that the US would have been involved. Your country, much as ours, mobilized and equipped a gigantic citizen army to fight the Nazi regime. But that sense of "doing it because it is the right thing to do" just isn't there any more. It is all about "what is in it for me?" now.

450slcguy 10-30-2006 03:26 PM

How about we stay on our continent, the Euro's stay on theirs, and Africa does the same. Let's start focusing on our own country instead of foreign lands. We have many problems in America that are not being addressed and continue to be ignored. We should learn a lesson from the Chinese, If it doesn't affect us, it's not our business.

aklim 10-30-2006 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1317345)
Many, many people agree with some sort of moral imperative requirement for military action. Fewer people think that strategic considerations are important. Plenty of evidence right here on this forum.

B

OK. Will these "many" that you speak of be willing to send themselves, their sons and daughters to that place to suffer for this moralistic crap? How about just plain money. How many will donate part of their earnings for this moralistic venture? I don't mind the sacrifices we make in Iraq because there is a strategic importance I see there. While we may not be sent to the front, there are always things that we have to pay for when we send soldiers there. Sudan? No thanx. I would not be willing to make a whit of sacrifice for them. What have they done for us lately or ever? Will anyone ever do something like that for us? Nope. So why should we bother?

OK. So let me ask you and these "many" you speak of a simple question. Since we are probably too old and out of shape to serve in most capacities except to get in the way of the real fighting men and women. How much money would YOU be willing to put aside for that cause?

450slcguy 10-30-2006 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim (Post 1317571)
OK. Will these "many" that you speak of be willing to send themselves, their sons and daughters to that place to suffer for this moralistic crap? How about just plain money. How many will donate part of their earnings for this moralistic venture? I don't mind the sacrifices we make in Iraq because there is a strategic importance I see there. While we may not be sent to the front, there are always things that we have to pay for when we send soldiers there. Sudan? No thanx. I would not be willing to make a whit of sacrifice for them. What have they done for us lately or ever? Will anyone ever do something like that for us? Nope. So why should we bother?

OK. So let me ask you and these "many" you speak of a simple question. Since we are probably too old and out of shape to serve in most capacities except to get in the way of the real fighting men and women. How much money would YOU be willing to put aside for that cause?

.02 cents

aklim 10-30-2006 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy (Post 1317590)
.02 cents

That is 2 cents more than I would send. I guess if I am drunk and feeling good because I just got a fantastic BJ maybe I might go up to 1 penny

Botnst 10-30-2006 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim (Post 1317571)
OK. Will these "many" that you speak of be willing to send themselves, their sons and daughters to that place to suffer for this moralistic crap? How about just plain money. How many will donate part of their earnings for this moralistic venture? I don't mind the sacrifices we make in Iraq because there is a strategic importance I see there. While we may not be sent to the front, there are always things that we have to pay for when we send soldiers there. Sudan? No thanx. I would not be willing to make a whit of sacrifice for them. What have they done for us lately or ever? Will anyone ever do something like that for us? Nope. So why should we bother?

OK. So let me ask you and these "many" you speak of a simple question. Since we are probably too old and out of shape to serve in most capacities except to get in the way of the real fighting men and women. How much money would YOU be willing to put aside for that cause?

Nothing from me. I volunteer CMAC and his dime.

B

aklim 10-30-2006 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1317729)
Nothing from me. I volunteer CMAC and his dime.

B

That was my point. Many people talk of moral this, that or the other but when the rubber meets the road, well....... Morality is worthless without anything to back it up. So, if these "many" you speak of are only mouth, it is worthless.

Botnst 10-30-2006 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim (Post 1317740)
That was my point. Many people talk of moral this, that or the other but when the rubber meets the road, well....... Morality is worthless without anything to back it up. So, if these "many" you speak of are only mouth, it is worthless.

They make a moral argument against Iraq, not a strategic argument. I assumed that the reverse would apply. Maybe not.

B

aklim 10-30-2006 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1317742)
They make a moral argument against Iraq, not a strategic argument. I assumed that the reverse would apply. Maybe not.

B

They? As in the government? If that is what you are saying, I agree that they are saying it. Govts say plenty, believe in few and do even fewer. Iraq is necessary because it is strategically important to us, plain and simple. However, that sounds selfish that we get involved because it is to our advantage so they wrap it up with all sorts of good sounding things. Bottom line is that if Iraq were transplanted to some other insignificant place, we would not even hear of it. Kinda like me raping some kid and say it is beneficial to them in the long run so I sleep better at night. NAMBLA does that every day. They tell you how a loving sexual relationship between a man and a boy is actually beneficial to the child. That way they will sleep soundly at night as opposed to them admitting that they are doing it because they want to get their rocks off on some kid and who cares what happens to the kid.

Hatterasguy 10-30-2006 09:20 PM

Hmm being idealist sucks, back to my usual hard line.

Let em starve, if it bothers someone let them deal with it.

Vronsky 10-31-2006 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon (Post 1317449)
From a governmental perspective, nobody cares. Why? Because, as aklim pointed out, the Sudan has nothing of value to anyone else. No resources, no strategic location, no heavy foreign investment to protect.

There isn't a hope of the US being involved in Darfur, regardless of involvement in Iraq, at least under present day conditions. I agree with aklim that it is naive to think otherwise. The US barely engaged in Bosnia, and it was mostly from the safety of the air. The US didn't go near Rwanda.

There once was a time that the US would have been involved. Your country, much as ours, mobilized and equipped a gigantic citizen army to fight the Nazi regime. But that sense of "doing it because it is the right thing to do" just isn't there any more. It is all about "what is in it for me?" now.

All true, except for the last part: the USA didn't 'mobilize' until it was attacked by Japan on Dec 7th, and Hitler -as a sign of loyalty- declared war on USA aswell on Dec. 11, 1941. We will never know what would have happened if Hitler had not done so. Likely, we over here would be speaking Russian now.

Botnst 10-31-2006 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vronsky (Post 1318031)
All true, except for the last part: the USA didn't 'mobilize' until it was attacked by Japan on Dec 7th, and Hitler -as a sign of loyalty- declared war on USA aswell on Dec. 11, 1941. We will never know what would have happened if Hitler had not done so. Likely, we over here would be speaking Russian now.

The USA mobilized, slowly, from 1938 onward. Congress increased the military budgets every year by accelerating amounts, though not as much as requested. In 1939 we had a smaller army than pre-WW1 and our Navy was pretty much obsolete.

Because of increased budgets: Keels were laid for new ships of high quality and contracts were let for new designs of weapons; Also, the largest war game maneuvers in US history were performed by: MacArthur, Stllwell, Marshall, Eisenhower, Patton, etc across several states and over several months. From those maneuvers a great appreciation for blitzkerig was gained and the overwhelming importance of logistical support was appreciated and addressed.

The naval build-up allowed the uSA to lend/lease old classes of destroyers and other vessels to England and the USSR.

In 1941 the draft was expanded.

President Roosevelt and most of the Congressional leadership believed war was inevitable. Most of the population did not. So the nation was tricked into supporting "defensive" build-up. There is nothing defensive about an Iowa class battleship. Nothing defensive about fast attack aircraft carriers. Nothing defensive about amphibious forces and fleet development. They were all underway before 1941.

This is why it took the USA less than 2 yrs to get into a totally offensive war posture following Pearl Harbor.

B

Vronsky 10-31-2006 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1318082)
The USA mobilized, slowly, from 1938 onward. Congress increased the military budgets every year by accelerating amounts, though not as much as requested. In 1939 we had a smaller army than pre-WW1 and our Navy was pretty much obsolete.

Because of increased budgets: Keels were laid for new ships of high quality and contracts were let for new designs of weapons; Also, the largest war game maneuvers in US history were performed by: MacArthur, Stllwell, Marshall, Eisenhower, Patton, etc across several states and over several months. From those maneuvers a great appreciation for blitzkerig was gained and the overwhelming importance of logistical support was appreciated and addressed.

The naval build-up allowed the uSA to lend/lease old classes of destroyers and other vessels to England and the USSR.

In 1941 the draft was expanded.

President Roosevelt and most of the Congressional leadership believed war was inevitable. Most of the population did not. So the nation was tricked into supporting "defensive" build-up. There is nothing defensive about an Iowa class battleship. Nothing defensive about fast attack aircraft carriers. Nothing defensive about amphibious forces and fleet development. They were all underway before 1941.

This is why it took the USA less than 2 yrs to get into a totally offensive war posture following Pearl Harbor.

B

Hitler never understood the potential of America, despite the warnings of the American in his entourage: Putzi Hanfstaengl. Declaring war on the USA was probably one of his biggest mistakes.

-end of hijack-

Hatterasguy 10-31-2006 12:06 PM

Tell that to the Coast Guard and Merchant Marine. There was a hot shooting war on the Atlantic with the Germans in 1940-41.

If the Japanese never attacked Pearl Harbor it was only a matter of maybe 12 months before we became invloved. Something would have happend.

jlomon 10-31-2006 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vronsky (Post 1318031)
All true, except for the last part: the USA didn't 'mobilize' until it was attacked by Japan on Dec 7th, and Hitler -as a sign of loyalty- declared war on USA aswell on Dec. 11, 1941. We will never know what would have happened if Hitler had not done so. Likely, we over here would be speaking Russian now.

Yes, they came to the party a little later than most, from a boots on the ground perspective. But as Bot pointed out, they supplied a great deal of munitions and vehicles to the UK under Lend Lease. The US was ostensibly "neutral" prior to the German declaration of war and was officially prepared to allow German ships equal access to their ports. However, FDR knew that the Royal Navy controlled the Atlantic, so there wasn't a hope of the Germans being able to take advantage. The appearance of neutrality was necessary, but was strictly a facade.

Speaking Russian? I'd argue you'd be speaking German if things worked out a little different. Trying to qualify the reasons for the US mobilization, even if they *are* qualifiable, seems a little bit ungrateful to me. Regardless of what language you'd be speaking, the US and Canada, along with many other countries, spilled a fair bit of blood liberating your country back then. To quote the fictitious Col. Nathan Jessup, I'd just as soon have you say thank you and go about your business.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website