Why USA fights nuclear countries Russia and China?

[questfortruth]

With China they have economic war. With Russia they have proxy actual war.

 

[Stevicus]

With China they have economic war. With Russia they have proxy actual war.

Well, they have to have rivalries and conflicts with someone. Having an external enemy is an effective way of ensuring a government's power and getting support from the masses.

As Patton said at the end of WW2: "But the politicians never let us finish. They always stop short and leave us with another war to fight." If our government was so worried about Russia, they should have let Patton loose to attack right after WW2. That would have been the smart play, especially since there were a few years where we were in sole possession of nuclear weapons technology. The fact that our government did not do this (and fired Patton and painted him like some kind of warmongering kook), would indicate one of three possibilities:

1. Our government was led by cowards who were too afraid to fight the Russians.
2. Our government was led by short-sighted idiots who were too myopic to be proactive in taking decisive action for America's interests.
3. Our government was lying about the supposed Communist threat and threat of Soviet expansionism.

Firing Patton (and later, MacArthur) spoke volumes about the true intentions of the US government, which was not to defend America or even to fight communism. The Cold War was mainly a ruse to make more money for the Defense industry and to give the masses a distraction to keep them under control (although this tactic was obviously failing by the late 1960s and they had to formulate another plan).

The way I see it, either a country can take a peaceful, defensive strategy or a warlike, aggressive strategy, but when it gets wishy-washy and can't figure out what to do, then there's clearly some other goal involved which isn't explicitly stated by the government.

 

[Estro Felino]

Enormous...limitless natural gas an petroleum reserves. That is why,

The banking dynasties ruling that country want to take possession of them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Firing Patton (and later, MacArthur) spoke volumes about the true intentions of the US government, which was not to defend America or even to fight communism. The Cold War was mainly a ruse to make more money for the Defense industry and to give the masses a distraction to keep them under control....

Do you believe this conspiracy theory?
If so, let's see some evidence.

 

[Estro Felino]

Do you believe this conspiracy theory?
If so, let's see some evidence.

The First and the Second World War were economic wars fought by banking dynasties that wanted to seize the oilfields of Europe and Asia.
It was like monopoly played not with dices and cardboard, but with tanks and soldiers.
It's interesting how the Nazis focused on the Caucasus area, where the oilfields of Baku were.
Then the famous battle of Volgograd took place.
They were not interested in Moscow, for sure.

 

[Revoltingest]

The First and the Second World War were economic wars fought by banking dynasties that went to seize the oilfields of Europe and Asia.
It's interesting how the Nazis focused on the Caucasus area, where the oilfields of Baku were.
Then the famous battle of Volgograd took place.
They were not interested in Moscow, for sure.

Those are interesting claims.
But not evidenced.
Some of us think Hitler, Japan, & Italy posed
a threat to our allies, eg, Britain.
There's pretty good evidence for that view.

 

[Stevicus]

Do you believe this conspiracy theory?
If so, let's see some evidence.

It is a historical fact that Patton and MacArthur were both fired for wanting to take decisive action against communist countries. They did so because they shared the belief echoed by many in our government that communism was a grave threat to the American way of life and should be stopped.

The fact that they were fired is clear evidence which would indicate that the government was not being truthful in its stance that communism was a threat to America. It's evidence that they were lying all along about the central pretext justifying the Cold War.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is a historical fact that Patton and MacArthur were both fired for wanting to take decisive action against communist countries. They did so because they shared the belief echoed by many in our government that communism was a grave threat to the American way of life and should be stopped.

The fact that they were fired is clear evidence which would indicate that the government was not being truthful in its stance that communism was a threat to America. It's evidence that they were lying all along about the central pretext justifying the Cold War.

These are just more claims, not evidence supporting
your initial ones....
"Firing Patton (and later, MacArthur) spoke volumes about the true intentions of the US government, which was not to defend America or even to fight communism. The Cold War was mainly a ruse to make more money for the Defense industry and to give the masses a distraction to keep them under control...."

 

[Estro Felino]

Those are interesting claims.
But not evidenced.
Some of us think Hitler, Japan, & Italy posed a threat to our allies.
There's pretty good evidence for that view.

You said it yourself. Russia was your ally.
When did it become your enemy?

 

[Audie]

Well, they have to have rivalries and conflicts with someone. Having an external enemy is an effective way of ensuring a government's power and getting support from the masses.

As Patton said at the end of WW2: "But the politicians never let us finish. They always stop short and leave us with another war to fight." If our government was so worried about Russia, they should have let Patton loose to attack right after WW2. That would have been the smart play, especially since there were a few years where we were in sole possession of nuclear weapons technology. The fact that our government did not do this (and fired Patton and painted him like some kind of warmongering kook), would indicate one of three possibilities:

1. Our government was led by cowards who were too afraid to fight the Russians.
2. Our government was led by short-sighted idiots who were too myopic to be proactive in taking decisive action for America's interests.
3. Our government was lying about the supposed Communist threat and threat of Soviet expansionism.

Firing Patton (and later, MacArthur) spoke volumes about the true intentions of the US government, which was not to defend America or even to fight communism. The Cold War was mainly a ruse to make more money for the Defense industry and to give the masses a distraction to keep them under control (although this tactic was obviously failing by the late 1960s and they had to formulate another plan).

The way I see it, either a country can take a peaceful, defensive strategy or a warlike, aggressive strategy, but when it gets wishy-washy and can't figure out what to do, then there's clearly some other goal involved which isn't explicitly stated by the government.

McArthur should have been fired for
his paralysis when pearl Harbour was
attacked

 

[Revoltingest]

You said it yourself. Russia was your ally.
When did it become your enemy?

Is this an abbreviated Gish Gallop?
The question doesn't address the posters claims.
"Firing Patton (and later, MacArthur) spoke volumes about the true intentions of the US government, which was not to defend America or even to fight communism. The Cold War was mainly a ruse to make more money for the Defense industry and to give the masses a distraction to keep them under control...."

 

[Revoltingest]

McArthur should have been fired for
his paralysis when pearl Harbour was
attacked

Many should be fired for an attack that
Billy Mitchel predicted years earlier.

It's not important that he predicted it.
But his analysis showed the vulnerability.
We didn't defend against it.

 

[Estro Felino]

Is this an abbreviated Gish Gallop?
The question doesn't address the posters claims.
"Firing Patton (and later, MacArthur) spoke volumes about the true intentions of the US government, which was not to defend America or even to fight communism. The Cold War was mainly a ruse to make more money for the Defense industry and to give the masses a distraction to keep them under control...."

It does address it.
And my uncontradictable discourse intended to point out that people like Patton were surely obeying those banking dynasties craving for the oilfields and infinite resources of the Soviet Union.
But then we would have written this in history books: that the USA after defeating Nazism together with Russia, stabbed Russia in the back. I don't think it was...convenient.
So they cancelled it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You said it yourself. Russia was your ally.
When did it become your enemy?

Since when were they reliable allies, given they allied with Germany before being betrayed and perhaps rightly so. Trust, wtf is that.

 

[Revoltingest]

It does address it.

It's a question.
It states nothing.

And my uncontradictable discourse intended to point out that people like Patton were surely obeying those banking dynasties craving for the oilfields and infinite resources of the Soviet Union.
But then we would have written this in history books: that the USA after defeating Nazism together with Russia, stabbed Russia in the back. I don't think it was...convenient.
So they cancelled it.

More conspiratorial claims.
No evidence.

Hey, let's just say the Jews are behind all wars.
There's always one of those in the woodpile, eh.

 

[Stevicus]

These are just more claims, not evidence supporting
your initial ones....
"Firing Patton (and later, MacArthur) spoke volumes about the true intentions of the US government, which was not to defend America or even to fight communism. The Cold War was mainly a ruse to make more money for the Defense industry and to give the masses a distraction to keep them under control...."

Both Patton and MacArthur were fired from their positions. This is historical fact; it's not just a claim. You can look it up for yourself, and if you weren't aware of these basic historical facts that every American should know, then I don't know what to tell you.

If you can't put two and two together, then let me walk you through it, step by step.

1. US Government says communism is bad (as in malignant, expansionist, a threat to our way of life, etc.)
2. Patton and MacArthur believe the US government that communism is bad.
3. Believing it to be bad, Patton and MacArthur want to fight communism.
4. US Government fires them for wanting to fight communism.
5. Point 4 would be clear evidence that the US government didn't really want to fight communism.
6. Point 5 would be clear evidence that the US government didn't believe communism to be bad.
7. The government continued to aggressively pursue Cold War geopolitics, which meant having and maintaining a permanent large "peacetime" military force, something that was unprecedented in US history, as well as constructing and maintaining a huge nuclear arsenal - all based on the mendaciously stated belief that communism is bad.
8. Since the previous points 4, 5, and 6 indicate that the government doesn't really believe communism to be bad and doesn't really want to fight them in earnest, then why would they spend so much money on a huge military force, along with intelligence agencies and an entire international apparatus and presence on nearly every continent?
9. In answer to question 8, the question of who benefits comes into play. If a government spends money on a bogus project or boondoggle, then it's colloquially referred to as "pork barrel" spending (Pork barrel - Wikipedia). This would make the Cold War into the biggest barrel of pork ever conceived.

I'm stating known historical facts here, things that can be easily looked up. What exact kind of evidence are you asking for here? To me, it looks pretty clear cut, using known historical facts, along with deductive reasoning and logic. I can't understand why you would find fault with this analysis.

 

[We Never Know]

Well, they have to have rivalries and conflicts with someone. Having an external enemy is an effective way of ensuring a government's power and getting support from the masses.

As Patton said at the end of WW2: "But the politicians never let us finish. They always stop short and leave us with another war to fight." If our government was so worried about Russia, they should have let Patton loose to attack right after WW2. That would have been the smart play, especially since there were a few years where we were in sole possession of nuclear weapons technology. The fact that our government did not do this (and fired Patton and painted him like some kind of warmongering kook), would indicate one of three possibilities:

1. Our government was led by cowards who were too afraid to fight the Russians.
2. Our government was led by short-sighted idiots who were too myopic to be proactive in taking decisive action for America's interests.
3. Our government was lying about the supposed Communist threat and threat of Soviet expansionism.

Firing Patton (and later, MacArthur) spoke volumes about the true intentions of the US government, which was not to defend America or even to fight communism. The Cold War was mainly a ruse to make more money for the Defense industry and to give the masses a distraction to keep them under control (although this tactic was obviously failing by the late 1960s and they had to formulate another plan).

The way I see it, either a country can take a peaceful, defensive strategy or a warlike, aggressive strategy, but when it gets wishy-washy and can't figure out what to do, then there's clearly some other goal involved which isn't explicitly stated by the government.

"Having an external enemy is an effective way of ensuring a government's power and getting support from the masses"

In the entire history of the United States of America there has been a grand total of 15 years when we have not been at war with someone.

Only 15 Years of Peace in the History of the United States of America

 

[Revoltingest]

Both Patton and MacArthur were fired from their positions. This is historical fact; it's not just a claim. You can look it up for yourself, and if you weren't aware of these basic historical facts that every American should know, then I don't know what to tell you.

Your evidence for a vast enduring conspiracy theory
is that 2 generals were fired. Can you understand
why those isolated facts are unconvincing?

If you can't put two and two together, then let me walk you through it, step by step.

I prolly have far more education in math than doth thou.

1. US Government says communism is bad (as in malignant, expansionist, a threat to our way of life, etc.)
2. Patton and MacArthur believe the US government that communism is bad.
3. Believing it to be bad, Patton and MacArthur want to fight communism.
4. US Government fires them for wanting to fight communism.
5. Point 4 would be clear evidence that the US government didn't really want to fight communism.
6. Point 5 would be clear evidence that the US government didn't believe communism to be bad.
7. The government continued to aggressively pursue Cold War geopolitics, which meant having and maintaining a permanent large "peacetime" military force, something that was unprecedented in US history, as well as constructing and maintaining a huge nuclear arsenal - all based on the mendaciously stated belief that communism is bad.
8. Since the previous points 4, 5, and 6 indicate that the government doesn't really believe communism to be bad and doesn't really want to fight them in earnest, then why would they spend so much money on a huge military force, along with intelligence agencies and an entire international apparatus and presence on nearly every continent?
9. In answer to question 8, the question of who benefits comes into play. If a government spends money on a bogus project or boondoggle, then it's colloquially referred to as "pork barrel" spending (Pork barrel - Wikipedia). This would make the Cold War into the biggest barrel of pork ever conceived.

I'm stating known historical facts here, things that can be easily looked up. What exact kind of evidence are you asking for here? To me, it looks pretty clear cut, using known historical facts, along with deductive reasoning and logic. I can't understand why you would find fault with this analysis.

You state facts & opinions that you enjoy.
That's all bias confirmation...not a cogent
argument supported with any evidence.
For example, there should be evidence of
materiel contractors exerting control over
leaders & government policy. You cite none.
All you have are some appearances that
comport with your beliefs.

 

[Stevicus]

McArthur should have been fired for
his paralysis when pearl Harbour was
attacked

I'm not suggesting that either MacArthur or Patton were especially brilliant generals or anything like that. I know that there's mixed opinions about their quality as military leaders.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

1. Our government was led by cowards who were too afraid to fight the Russians.
2. Our government was led by short-sighted idiots who were too myopic to be proactive in taking decisive action for America's interests.
3. Our government was lying about the supposed Communist threat and threat of Soviet expansionism.

I don't know if there would have been the will to do really do that, seeing as they were fresh off fighting the nazis. I would guess that would mean that we saw them more as collaborators for that time? What was their stance on Japan?