What If Your Country Becomes Islamic

[Revoltingest]

How so? American industrialists like WR Herst funded the NAZI party. It was the US depression that led to the economic collapse in Europe that precipitated the war. Millions were slaughtered on all sides, it was a disgusting, shameful tragedy that acheived nothing. Arms did not serve us well, they never do - they exist only to kill.

That is a novel take on history. But I still say that to have entered WW2 armed to the teeth was better than standing idly by.

 

[Bunyip]

Your willingness to be disarmed.
And the only reason you all vote is because your government will fine you if you don't. (And to think New Zealand is called the land of sheep.)

You got that backwards. It is our lack of need to be armed, not our willingness to be disarmed. I feel no need for a gun, neither do most Aussies. And we make voting compulsory for a very good reason - that way you get a representational government. In the US it seems more lobby groups who elect govts, here people do.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is a novel take on history. But I still say that to have entered WW2 armed to the teeth was better than standing idly by.

If we all materialized out of thin air in a world where WW2 somehow were already happening, probably.

 

[Bunyip]

That is a novel take on history. But I still say that to have entered WW2 armed to the teeth was better than standing idly by.

Funding the NAZI party, and supplying vast quantities of arms to them is not 'standing idly by'.

As to my 'novel' take on history, it is just what history looks like from outside of the US.

 

[LuisDantas]

Funding the NAZI party, and supplying vast quantities of arms to them is not 'standing idly by'.

Neither is purposefully pressing Japan into despair with an embargo.

ABCD line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Causes of World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War is very much a human creation. We all owe it to ourselves to avoid it, not to attempt to "win" it.

 

[Bunyip]

Neither is purposefully pressing Japan into despair with an embargo.

ABCD line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Causes of World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War is very much a human creation. We all owe it to ourselves to avoid it, not to attempt to "win" it.

As Clauswitz so famously said - War is politics by any other means.

It is never just, never noble, never necessary. It is when we institute the slaughter of innocents on an industrial scale and justify it with empty rhetoric.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are taking the war as a given, though, and that contaminates the whole perspective.

War was a given because it was such a compelling choice, considering the alternative. Letting Hitler, Russia & Japan divide the world without resistance was unacceptable. Even if the US had disarmed & not entered the war, it seems obvious that this peace would not last. Those powers would have designs on such an easy prey.

"Solving" a war by allowing it to develop fully in the first place is a suicidal's approach to problems.

I don't know what you mean by this.

World War 2 was not the zombie apocalypse, which can only be treated by packing fabulous amounts of heat and being willing to shoot quite a lot. It was the painful result of decades of ill handling of conflicts and tensions. It could and should have been avoided in far too many ways for such an egocentrical confort to be available.

Nonetheless, when it erupted, the US wasn't well prepared, making it a very difficult win. You propose not preparing militarily at all....right?

It wasn't even truly solved. Many of the military dilemmas we face these days are basically the aftermath of the 20th century world wars. And lo and behold, we just keep spending ever more obscene amounts of money in ever more cowardly designed weapons.

It seems you oppose being armed, no matter what the situation or consequences. Or are there scenarios where you would favor being armed?
If it's the former, then we are far apart indeed in values.

So no, I don't see how anyone can honestly say there was a good outcome from WW2. It was a disaster for the Axis. It was a slightly lesser disaster for everyone else. And its consequences keep on shaming us all.

So you would've preferred an unimpeded Nazi Wehrmacht & Imperial Japan?

Thinking that way is way too self-defeating, you know.

I see the opposite, ie, to give up arms & oppose no foreign enemy is to have lost before they even invade.

Come to think of it, maybe it would. Hard to know for sure, of course.

Again, I think this is rooted in our having very different values. I bristle at the notion of a Nazi version of peace. That's worth fighting against.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not at any price. And if the military growth we have had since is any indication, probably not by the price that was paid, either.

 

[LuisDantas]

As Clauswitz so famously said - War is politics by any other means.

It is never just, never noble, never necessary. It is when we institute the slaughter of innocents on an industrial scale and justify it with empty rhetoric.

You may say that again!

 

[Bunyip]

War was a given because it was such a compelling choice, considering the alternative. Letting Hitler, Russia & Japan divide the world without resistance was unacceptable. Even if the US had disarmed & not entered the war, it seems obvious that this peace would not last. Those powers would have designs on such an easy prey.
I don't know what you mean by this.

Nonetheless, when it erupted, the US wasn't well prepared, making it a very difficult win. You propose not preparing militarily at all....right?

It seems you oppose being armed, no matter what the situation or consequences. Or are there scenarios where you would favor being armed?
If it's the former, then we are far apart indeed in values.

So you would've preferred an unimpeded Nazi Wehrmacht & Imperial Japan?

I see the opposite, ie, to give up arms & oppose no foreign enemy is to have lost before they even invade.

Again, I think this is rooted in our having very different values. I bristle at the notion of a Nazi version of peace. That's worth fighting against.

I understand that. But what Americans often do not see is the horror that the American notion of peace represents to the world also.

Not to forget that the Allies were fighting to prevent Europe being united into a single entity, which of course happened anyway.

 

[Revoltingest]

As Clauswitz so famously said - War is politics by any other means.

It is never just, never noble, never necessary. It is when we institute the slaughter of innocents on an industrial scale and justify it with empty rhetoric.

I wouldn't classify all wars as the same. Perhaps we're looking at it differently. I can agree that if there were no war or threat thereof, we'd all be better off. But I speak from the perspective of a country which faces & has faced threats. The threats were/are real, & cannot be simply wished away. This leaves 2 choices: to defend oneself, or to capitulate to all aggressors. I believe in self defense. For those who disagree, I don't want to change this view, but I explain why I disagree.

Now, back to the different kinds of wars.....
I oppose invading Iran & starting another war. Reason? It has nothing to do with our self defense.
I approve of beating the Nazis & Japanese in WW2. Reason? I believe they would've eventually attacked the US, & life under the rule of one or the other would've been unacceptable.
The upshot:
Good war: We should defend ourselves.
Bad war: We should not engage in foreign adventurism.

 

[Bunyip]

I wouldn't classify all wars as the same. Perhaps we're looking at it differently. I can agree that if there were no war or threat thereof, we'd all be better off. But I speak from the perspective of a country which faces & has faced threats. The threats were/are real, & cannot be simply wished away. This leaves 2 choices: to defend oneself, or to capitulate to all aggressors. I believe in self defense. For those who disagree, I don't want to change this view, but I explain why I disagree.

The thing is that what the world sees is that the US is by far the most aggressive and warlike country on the planet. A US without arms would be a plus, not a negative.
Usually after a war the armies are disbanded and the troops go home. The US has maintained a war economy and a vast wartime military perpetually - few non Americans think that is a good idea.

The NAZI occupation of France during WWII was rather eclipsed in sheer brutality and violence by the American occupation of the Philippines, which is widely held to be one of the most brutal military endeavors in modern history.

 

[Revoltingest]

I understand that. But what Americans often do not see is the horror that the American notion of peace represents to the world also.
Not to forget that the Allies were fighting to prevent Europe being united into a single entity, which of course happened anyway.

What Australians (some) often do not see is that Europe united under Hitler would be a lot worse than Europe united as it is now.

 

[Revoltingest]

The thing is that what the world sees is that the US is by far the most aggressive and warlike country on the planet. A US without arms would be a plus, not a negative.
Usually after a war the armies are disbanded and the troops go home. The US has maintained a war economy and a vast wartime military perpetually - few non Americans think that is a good idea.

This is getting into a different area entirely. I favor being well armed for self defense....& only self defense. I very actively oppose nation building, foreign adventurism, & all the other evil deeds Americastan engages in. It's why I vote against war mongers like Obama, McCain, etc, etc.

 

[LuisDantas]

War was a given because it was such a compelling choice, considering the alternative. Letting Hitler, Russia & Japan divide the world without resistance was unacceptable. Even if the US had disarmed & not entered the war, it seems obvious that this peace would not last. Those powers would have designs on such an easy prey.

What you are saying is that war is a given when it is a given. Of course.

Any government worth its salt must however aim to avoid war, not to accept it. And as it turns out, pretty much all of the western governments of the 1900s-1940s were disasters on that regard. Maybe they simply failed to realize the implications of their firepower. Maybe the ethical repercussions and weight of their actual levels of decision were just too big for them to understand and handle in a mature way.

The bottom line is, they blew it badly. We should at least attempt not to repeat those mistakes.

I don't know what you mean by this.

I mean that "winning" a war that is based on frequent use of firearms and explosives is not seriously possible. It is just a misnaming of attempting to survive it while one's opponents do not. It is a deeply nihilistic activity, and it is about time to call it by what it truly is.

Nonetheless, when it erupted, the US wasn't well prepared, making it a very difficult win. You propose not preparing militarily at all....right?

I do indeed! Better yet is to at least attempt not to count on it. One has to wonder what Roosevelt expected Japan to do.

It seems you oppose being armed, no matter what the situation or consequences. Or are there scenarios where you would favor being armed?

None that are likely enough to justify keeping an active military.

If it's the former, then we are far apart indeed in values.

Such seems to be the case.

So you would've preferred an unimpeded Nazi Wehrmacht & Imperial Japan?

Seeing how things developed since, I have to wonder if that would be worse. I'm honestly not at all certain.

I see the opposite, ie, to give up arms & oppose no foreign enemy is to have lost before they even invade.

You are wrong. You have lost before that, when you seriously entertained the notion of believing in having "foreign enemies" and scaring them away with weapons.

It is just not possible to do anything but lose after that happens. Although I will grant that the loss can be exciting and thrilling in a nihilistic way.

Again, I think this is rooted in our having very different values. I bristle at the notion of a Nazi version of peace. That's worth fighting against.

In some ways. Not in others.

 

[Bunyip]

This is getting into a different area entirely. I favor being well armed for self defense....& only self defense. I very actively oppose nation building, foreign adventurism, & all the other evil deeds Americastan engages in. It's why I vote against war mongers like Obama, McCain, etc, etc.

I favour having barely any military force whatsoever in peacetime.
Thanks for the discussion on this, I know we have different views - great to be able to discuss them without angst.

 

[LuisDantas]

I understand that. But what Americans often do not see is the horror that the American notion of peace represents to the world also.

SO true!

 

[Revoltingest]

The thing is that what the world sees is that the US is by far the most aggressive and warlike country on the planet. A US without arms would be a plus, not a negative.
Usually after a war the armies are disbanded and the troops go home. The US has maintained a war economy and a vast wartime military perpetually - few non Americans think that is a good idea.
The NAZI occupation of France during WWII was rather eclipsed in sheer brutality and violence by the American occupation of the Philippines, which is widely held to be one of the most brutal military endeavors in modern history.

You're arguing a straw man by citing the very atrocities I've listed today (before you did). I favor self defense, & being armed to serve that singular purpose. Again, you're arguing against a position I do not accept. I am the more frequent critic of US foreign policy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I favour having barely any military force whatsoever in peacetime.
Thanks for the discussion on this, I know we have different views - great to be able to discuss them without angst.

Angst? I have it just from trying to keep track of the flurry of alerts to responses to my posts. I don't want to ignore anyone. As for the disagreement....I'm OK with that. (If we agreed, we'd bore the paying customers.)

I feel a dingo joke coming on.......wait......wait.......ahhh.....it subsided. Good....I don't want to over-do it.

 

[LuisDantas]

What Australians (some) often do not see is that Europe united under Hitler would be a lot worse than Europe united as it is now.

Is that a given? Hitler was very self-defeating, after all. He actually managed to unite half his higher military command into a fairly suicidal pact against him, something that is almost unheard of.

It is very difficult to imagine any way for his regime to have survived for long.