|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 5, 2015 2:00:48 GMT -5
The US got involved in Korea at the time because of the Truman Doctrine. At the time Communism was in the process of "taking over the whole world", and President Truman announced that it was the policy of the US Government to involve itself in any country where communism may be advancing -- at the time Korea. When the French lost in Viet Nam, the US went and tried to do what the French couldn't. Just 2 examples that most people are aware of.
Mind you, it never mattered what kind of government the communists were chasing out of town Reagan was the last president to operate on that principle, but by then he had to carry out secret operations because his strategy was forbidden by law -- the CIA gave guns to the rebels fighting socialist governments in Central America in exchange for illegal drugs that the sold through drug dealers in inner cities in the US. Remember, it was Reagan who instituted the War on Drugs. If anyone wants to know how the public found out about that, watch the movie Kill The Messanger. Makes one proud of American freedom of speech and law abiding leaders. Yes, I did know about Reagan carrying out secret operations of the CIA, - secretly giving guns to the rebels fighting socialist governments in Central America. We knew that assassination of Óscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdáme, a prelate of the Catholic Church in El Salvado which was really about his preaching against poverty, social injustice, assassinations and torture in the government at that time.
At the same time there was the School of the Americas where the US trained mainly Latin American military officers who then went back to their own countries and committed human rights abuses, -including murders, rapes and torture contrary to the Geneva Conventions.
My husband & I were active in the Peace Movement at the time.
Yes, indeed, sometimes it does "makes one 'proud' of American law abiding leaders."
I'm just glad that at least we were able, in at least in a small part, to make the public more aware of what actually was going on. Except that for the most part the public usually would rather turn a blind eye to reality as long as they are happy & content.
It mattered not to the general public that Ollie North was a high class criminal -- they still thought he was a hero.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 5, 2015 2:10:02 GMT -5
So what was the US doing between 1937 and 1941 -- SELLING ammunition to whoever Congress let them sell. We're capitalists, remember. According to the German government, the US was against Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war.You're not telling me anything I don't already know. The US will bomb anything it wants whenever it wants -- whether they're at war or not, and whether the American people know about it or not. And they normally make only a pretends of abiding by international law. Let's just agree that the US is always at war, and occasionally comes out of the closet about it. In any case, the president of the US can NEVER declare war without the permission of Congress -- and it took an attack from enemies to get them into WW2.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 5, 2015 14:54:28 GMT -5
On December 11, 1941, the United States Congress declared war upon Germany, hours after Germany declared war on the United States. It would take some twisted school teacher logic to get 1943 out of that. Declaring war and actually entering the war are two different things. Think about when troops were first deployed.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 5, 2015 16:06:39 GMT -5
True, but in this instance there were american airmen in the planes that flew raids, England to Europe, from July 4, 1942 onward. Of course, you could still say the US had not entered the war until 1943 and I am sure your support of your claim would be interesting. Sorry -- I was two years off with ALL dates in that post. So by 1942 the US had reacted to the Axis declaration of war on the US. I was willing to go along with the 1943 date. It takes time for a country to get ready for war.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 5, 2015 19:48:19 GMT -5
Sorry -- I was two years off with ALL dates in that post. So by 1942 the US had reacted to the Axis declaration of war on the US. I was willing to go along with the 1943 date. It takes time for a country to get ready for war. 21/1/1942: The USA dispatches Joseph Stilwell to become Chiang's chief of staff in China 26/1/1942: the USA sends the first troops to Britain 18/4/1942: USA bombers drop bombs on Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka-Kobe and Nagoya 18/4/1942: The USA appoints Douglas MacArthur as supreme commander of Allied Forces in the Southwest Pacific Area 8/5/1942: The USA repels a Japanese advance from the Solomon Islands ("Coral Sea battle") 4/6/1942: The USA navy defeats the Japanese navy in the Midway battle, which ends with the sinking of five aircraft carriers (one USA and four Japanese) and the destruction of 250 Japanese aircrafts 17/6/1942: US president Roosevelt authorizes a project to develop an atomic bomb 7/8/1942: The USA attack the Japanese in the islands of Guadalcanal and Tulagi in the Solomon Islands
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 5, 2015 20:05:27 GMT -5
Sorry -- I was two years off with ALL dates in that post. So by 1942 the US had reacted to the Axis declaration of war on the US. I was willing to go along with the 1943 date. It takes time for a country to get ready for war. Yes, preparing for war is not the same as just making weapons. War is actually good for the economy -- if not for individuals.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 5, 2015 20:32:31 GMT -5
I was willing to go along with the 1943 date. It takes time for a country to get ready for war. Yes, preparing for war is not the same as just making weapons. War is actually good for the economy -- if not for individuals. That's a silly Liberal idea. War is a net drain on the economy. It would be far better to invest the money and manpower into improving the country's infrastructure.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 5, 2015 20:52:20 GMT -5
Yes, preparing for war is not the same as just making weapons. War is actually good for the economy -- if not for individuals. That's a silly Liberal idea. War is a net drain on the economy. It would be far better to invest the money and manpower into improving the country's infrastructure. Isn't it funny how we define things in our minds - I would have commented that it was a Conservative concept that war is good for the economy. Liberals are more inclined to be socially centred and disinclined to war.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 5, 2015 20:59:24 GMT -5
I was willing to go along with the 1943 date. It takes time for a country to get ready for war. :) Yes, preparing for war is not the same as just making weapons. War is actually good for the economy -- if not for individuals. Sounds like the broken window fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 5, 2015 22:05:24 GMT -5
Yes, preparing for war is not the same as just making weapons. War is actually good for the economy -- if not for individuals. Sounds like the broken window fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 5, 2015 22:07:47 GMT -5
That's a silly Liberal idea. War is a net drain on the economy. It would be far better to invest the money and manpower into improving the country's infrastructure. Isn't it funny how we define things in our minds - I would have commented that it was a Conservative concept that war is good for the economy. Liberals are more inclined to be socially centred and disinclined to war. It's Liberals who ascribe to the Broken Window Fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 5, 2015 22:51:41 GMT -5
Yes, preparing for war is not the same as just making weapons. War is actually good for the economy -- if not for individuals. That's a silly Liberal idea. War is a net drain on the economy. It would be far better to invest the money and manpower into improving the country's infrastructure. Who said anything about where the money gets invested? I was talking about making factories work and circulate money -- like selling weapons and ammunition and paying workers -- and filling private bank accounts with the profits of capitalism. The government could do the same thing now by investing in infrastructure, but they're more interested in policing the world than looking after the welfare of Americans.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 5, 2015 22:57:07 GMT -5
That's a silly Liberal idea. War is a net drain on the economy. It would be far better to invest the money and manpower into improving the country's infrastructure. Who said anything about where the money gets invested? I was talking about making factories work and circulate money -- like selling weapons and ammunition and paying workers -- and filling private bank accounts with the profits of capitalism. The government could do the same thing now by investing in infrastructure, but they're more interested in policing the world than looking after the welfare of Americans. Investing in infrastructure would make the factories work and circulate money. You seem to be advocating the foreign policy of the 1930s that led to WW2, and up to 80 million dead.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 5, 2015 22:59:24 GMT -5
Yes, preparing for war is not the same as just making weapons. War is actually good for the economy -- if not for individuals. Sounds like the broken window fallacy. Well, it kinda has something to do with whose bank accounts increase, whether it's profitable or not. The munitions manufacturers were irate when they thought Obama wasn't going to participate in the Syrian scenario. Wonder why....
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 5, 2015 23:04:55 GMT -5
Who said anything about where the money gets invested? I was talking about making factories work and circulate money -- like selling weapons and ammunition and paying workers -- and filling private bank accounts with the profits of capitalism. The government could do the same thing now by investing in infrastructure, but they're more interested in policing the world than looking after the welfare of Americans. Investing in infrastructure would make the factories work and circulate money. You seem to be advocating the foreign policy of the 1930s that led to WW2, and up to 80 million dead. I'm not advocating anything. I'm telling how I view the US worldview of the US government. You're free to decide that I think it's a bully selfish narrow-minded short-sighted view. Interestingly, 50 percent of the casualties of WW2 were in Russia -- the other 50 percent shared by the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 5, 2015 23:43:17 GMT -5
Sounds like the broken window fallacy. Well, it kinda has something to do with whose bank accounts increase, whether it's profitable or not. The munitions manufacturers were irate when they thought Obama wasn't going to participate in the Syrian scenario. Wonder why.... Who told you that? Sounds like another fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 6, 2015 0:10:39 GMT -5
Well, it kinda has something to do with whose bank accounts increase, whether it's profitable or not. The munitions manufacturers were irate when they thought Obama wasn't going to participate in the Syrian scenario. Wonder why.... Who told you that? Sounds like another fallacy. You should watch a bit more TV -- that's where I heard that little tidbit. Do you mean that doesn't surprise you? ?
|
|