Why USA fights nuclear countries Russia and China?

[Stevicus]

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

The other evidence is the US government's position that communism is bad. You neglected to mention that part.

I understand the reasons why you might be unconvinced, but I have clearly stated my case using facts, evidence, and logical reasoning.

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

You prolly do. But this is not math class, you're not a teacher, and I'm not submitting a paper to be graded by you. If you wish to discuss the topic in good faith, then I'm all ears. But if all you're going to write is "I'm unconvinced," then I don't really care. Remain unconvinced. That's perfectly fine by me, with no hard feelings, but why go out of your way to repeatedly tell me how unconvinced you are, especially when you seem terribly vague and reticent at stating the reasons why or coming up with any cogent counterarguments?

I guess I just don't understand the logic of your position here.

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 exhibiting control over
government policy. You cite none.
All you have are some appearances that
comport with your beliefs.

Evidence of materiel contractors exhibiting control over government policy? I don't recall making any specific claims in that regard.

I was saying that the stated reasons and pretexts behind the Cold War, the nuclear arms race, and numerous hot wars and proxy wars around the world were bogus. I believe that part has been firmly established.

Since we know that their motives were not honorable and that the American people were lied to, then the only other possible conclusion is that they had dishonorable motives for doing what they did (and still do).

It's at that point that the question becomes more open-ended, since it may not be entirely clear what the actual motive is.

It could be due to materiel contractors having control over government policy, but that's not necessarily the case. I never made a direct, specific claim about that. My only real claim here has been that the people were lied to about the government's stated motives behind the Cold War.

As to what their true motives might have been, there could any number of possibilities. My suggestion (not a claim) was that it could be seen as a form of pork barrel spending, which is a very real phenomenon in US politics, as it has been for generations. I don't think that's any great "conspiracy theory," as it's just part of the nature of politics as it's been practiced since Roman times.

 

[Stevicus]

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?

That could very well be. It would have been a gamble, and I'm not saying that they should have done that. But if they really were such a grave threat to our nation and people, I can understand why some people would want to take decisive action to deal with that threat.

We saw the Nazis and Japan as a threat, although we look back on the fact that we were slow to act and perhaps were not as prepared as we should have been to deal with that threat. Many Americans look back and consider it a tragic mistake that we did not act sooner to stop the Axis.

It's all "what if" now, water under the bridge.

The real question now is: Why don't we ever learn from our mistakes?

 

[Revoltingest]

The other evidence is the US government's position that communism is bad. You neglected to mention that part.

Because it's insignificant.
Communism is indeed bad.
That's obvious.
But it doesn't argue for your claims.

I understand the reasons why you might be unconvinced, but I have clearly stated my case using facts, evidence, and logical reasoning.

You've stated some facts, while ignoring others.
Your evidence has been unsupported claims.
Logical reasoning...no, you've not yet employed that.

You prolly do. But this is not math class, you're not a teacher, and I'm not submitting a paper to be graded by you. If you wish to discuss the topic in good faith, then I'm all ears.

You broached the topic of my arithmetic inadequacy.
I merely pointed your relative lack of authority on the subject.

I guess I just don't understand the logic of your position here.

It's easy.
You claim a conspiracy of materiel manufacturers
controlling government to incite continuous conflict.
You've not supported your claim.
It doesn't even require logic to ask "Where's the beef?".

Evidence of materiel contractors exhibiting control over government policy? I don't recall making any specific claims in that regard.

That would be necessary for your conspiracy to exist.

I was saying that the stated reasons and pretexts behind the Cold War, the nuclear arms race, and numerous hot wars and proxy wars around the world were bogus. I believe that part has been firmly established.

You've yet to show any real evidence in
an argument for your conspiracy theory.

Since we know that their motives were not honorable and that the American people were lied to, then the only other possible conclusion is that they had dishonorable motives for doing what they did (and still do).

We don't really "know" what you claim.
The fact that leaders lie isn't evidence
for the conspiracy you claim.

It could be due to materiel contractors having control over government policy, but that's not necessarily the case.

It could be that aliens telepathically control leaders
to destroy each other. (That is a real claim made by
a friend.) It's possible to imagine anything. But what
is actually a useful explanation, eh.

I never made a direct, specific claim about that.

I quoted earlier the claims you made.
They were direct & specific

My only real claim here has been that the people were lied to about the government's stated motives behind the Cold War.

Shifted goalposts notwithstanding, it's
still an unevidenced conspiracy theory.
Let's review it...
"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...."

As to what their true motives might have been, there could any number of possibilities. My suggestion (not a claim) was that it could be seen as a form of pork barrel spending, which is a very real phenomenon in US politics, as it has been for generations. I don't think that's any great "conspiracy theory," as it's just part of the nature of politics as it's been practiced since Roman times.

Your initial sound of certainty has become mere suggestion, eh.

 

[Audie]

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.

Nuking China was something for mixed
OPINIONS?

 

[Ponder This]

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

It seems to me that the moment Putin threatened to use nuclear weapons, he guaranteed that the U.S.A. would become involved. Any threat anywhere in the world to use nuclear weapons is a threat to the entire world and a threat to the U.S.A. as well.

I don't know how Putin could think that he could make a threat to use nuclear weapons and that the U.S.A. would not get involved. I don't think Putin is stupid. The alternative is that Putin has gone crazy. Is there a third alternative? Does Putin want a war with the U.S.?!?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

Probably because countries with abmysal human rights records shouldn't have nukes in their arsenal.

 

[esmith]

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

I do believe he was in the Phillipines when the attack occured.
Just what didn't he do?

 

[Audie]

I do believe he was in the Phillipines when the attack occured.
Just what didn't he do?

React. It was like 15 hours later when
they bombed US airbase.
All the airplanes were lined up on the ground. easy targets. Instead of flying up to bomb
the Japanese base in Taiwan,

Paralyzed.

 

[Stevicus]

Because it's insignificant.
Communism is indeed bad.
That's obvious.
But it doesn't argue for your claims.

You've stated some facts, while ignoring others.
Your evidence has been unsupported claims.
Logical reasoning...no, you've not yet employed that.

That's your opinion. I have employed logical reasoning in my analysis. If you are claiming that I have not employed that, then the onus on you to provide evidence to support that claim. I already walked you through it step by step.

You broached the topic of my arithmetic inadequacy.
I merely pointed your relative lack of authority on the subject.

It was a figurative statement, not meant to be taken literally.

It's easy.
You claim a conspiracy of materiel manufacturers
controlling government to incite continuous conflict.

No, I did not.

You've not supported your claim.
It doesn't even require logic to ask "Where's the beef?".

Huh?

That would be necessary for your conspiracy to exist.

It's your OPINION that it is a "conspiracy." Your opinion is noted, but I obviously disagree. As to what you opine is "necessary," well, that's your opinion too.

You've yet to show any real evidence in
an argument for your conspiracy theory.

More opinion.

We don't really "know" what you claim.
The fact that leaders lie isn't evidence
for the conspiracy you claim.

What "conspiracy"? That leaders lie is evidence that leaders lie. It is self-evident.

It could be that aliens telepathically control leaders
to destroy each other. (That is a real claim made by
a friend.) It's possible to imagine anything. But what
is actually a useful explanation, eh.

That's really beside the point. Just because I may not know the actual origins of the universe doesn't mean I'll blindly accept the claim that "God did it." You're suggesting here that my not knowing the real reason for the government's actions is irrefutable evidence that they're telling the truth. I don't accept your line of reasoning here.

I quoted earlier the claims you made.
They were direct & specific

Shifted goalposts notwithstanding, it's
still an unevidenced conspiracy theory.
Let's review it...
"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...."

Your initial sound of certainty has become mere suggestion, eh.

Well, it was a suggestion, obviously. That you would claim that it's a direct, specific "claim" of a "conspiracy" is your M.O. because you think you're playing some game of gotcha.

If you wish to act as the government's defense attorney and challenge and declare various pieces of evidence as "inadmissible," then that may be your own game here. Since you seem to have a somewhat frictious attitude towards government in general, I'm a bit mystified why you would seem to have a personal stake in arguing for their innocence. If I'm wrong about that, then what do you care what I or anyone else says about the government?

 

[Revoltingest]

That's your opinion.

Of course.
And you have yours....you just confuse it with being factual.
Time to agree to disagree.

 

[Stevicus]

Nuking China was something for mixed
OPINIONS?

No, I was referring to opinions regarding the quality of his skills as a military leader overall.

 

[Stevicus]

Of course.
And you have yours....you just confuse it with being factual.

I'm well aware of the difference.

Time to agree to disagree.

Agreed.

 

[esmith]

React. It was like 15 hours later when
they bombed US airbase.
All the airplanes were lined up on the ground. easy targets. Instead of flying up to bomb
the Japanese base in Taiwan,

Paralyzed.

Yes and No.
Battle of the Philippines finds MacArthur unprepared