Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
The point you are making, that it (victory) would have been eventually possible, must be considered in the Trinitarian sense of war (see Clausewitz)--that war is not only fought by the military, but also the people and the government. Yes, given time, our military could have probably defeated Hitler. But, our leadership was convinced that the people would not support a protracted war (I agree with this, esp. in view of our recent intolerances for the same) so the objective of quick victory became an overriding concern. Again, to quote from the same essay:
"Under the pressures of domestic politics and the Japanese, the United States simply could not fight a long war in Europe. As General George C. Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff later succinctly put it, "a democracy cannot fight a Seven Years War."
In other words, if we had not defeated the Germans in 4 years (or shortly thereafter), the American public and would probably have forced our government to sue for peace after Germany was put back within its borders, but without removing Hitler from power (more unfinished business). Sound familiar? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I?
I have made no claims about any particular leader. I merely said that sometimes, you have to choose the lesser of two or more evils. Sometimes, yes, it's out of convenience. Sometimes it's out of necessity. Sometimes it's because we don't want to wait around for the spontaneous growth of democratic leadership in countries where none has previously existed. If we want to only use guys who believe what we believe, then we will need to send our own people to take over all these countries.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
I don't think I'm making myself clear. What I'm saying is that our alliance with the USSR was unnecessary to victory. I am NOT saying is that it didn't matter if the Soviets got involved or not.
WWII would definitely have lasted longer if not for the Eastern front. (Though I don't think there's any question that we would have prevailed eventually in what was essentially a war of attrition. It's doubtful whether or not Hitler would have been able to mount an invasion on GB, let alone take and hold it.) But just because we needed the USSR to chew up Hitler's resources doesn't mean we had to ally ourselves with the USSR, or cooperate with Stalin. Stalin didn't fight Hitler because of our alliance. He had to to it one way or the other.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
I merely said that sometimes, you have to choose the lesser of two or more evils.
Well, if we're talking mere hypotheticals, then yes, I can imagine a situation in which it would be necessary to compromise our principles for some short term gain. But such compromises are risky, and should only be made out of real necessity. They shouldn't be part of our standard operating procedure.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
do you think we should be dealing with China right now? they have a long record of human rights violations. There is evidence that they oppress various religions and their conduct in tibet is terrible.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
But, would the USSR have won on the Eastern Front without our assistance? No one knows, but quite possibly not. They were heavily dependent upon trucks that we sent to them to carry suppies around, and our bombing efforts did help them out. If the USSR had been defeated, then would Nazi Germany have been able to work out a negotiated peace like in 1918? Perhaps on better terms as they may have won the Battle of the Bulge with a few more troops. When the USSR was invaded, Churchill, an ardent anti-Communist, was questioned about how he could support the USSR? He said something to the effect that if Hitler had invaded Hell, he would say a few good words in support of the Devil if he would help the end of defeating Hitler.
No human being, politician, political party, political system or country is perfect. When we demand perfection before we support someone, we never end up supporting anyone and never receive their support in return. Eventually, you have to decide whether a particular compromise advances your ultimate goals. If it does, then you make the compromise. If it does not, then you don't.
Had the Carter administration been less concerned with the faults of the Shah of Iran and instead focused upon the fact that he was a better alternative than other options, then we might have never had the magnitude of problems from whatever you want to call the segment of Islam that now actively opposes civilization.
Yes, it is very telling of Rumsfeld.
He's willing to execute the Plan of Record: Fight terrorism and it's supporters.
This will never be popular with everyone.
do you think we should be dealing with China right now?
I think we're digging our own grave by dealing with China.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
But, would the USSR have won on the Eastern Front without our assistance? No one knows, but quite possibly not. It's doubtful that Germany could have defeated the USSR with or without our assistance to the latter. And even if he had beaten them, so what? How long would it have taken? How many resources would he have had to use to do it? How many resources would he have to devote to the occupation? All of which would have yielded the same benefit to us.
No human being, politician, political party, political system or country is perfect. I'm not asking for perfection.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
"I think we're digging our own grave by dealing with China. "
Really, because I think that the way you get a country like China to move in the right direction is to engage them. You need to get them to buy our goods, and sell us theirs. you need to get them involved in the world community so that they will feel pressure to act in accordance with it's rules. You need to allow the Chinese people to see what the rest of the world holds in order for them to begin to demand change in their own govt. If you don't deal with these guys, they will never go in the right direction on their own.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
I don't think the Chinese are so easily manipulated as that, and if even if they were, we're not that skilled at manipulating the direction of other nations.
If we're not careful, we're going to get what we wish for in China: a modern country with a hugely powerful economy. That won't make them any more friendly.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
It's not manipulation. It's strategic engagement, and it takes a long time. A Huge economy only works if people will buy your crap. A modern country only works with telecommunications and internet access. Those things bring information to the people. If you think we aren't considering things like this in our dealings with every single nation in the world, you are mistaken. There are guys whose entire job is to firgure this stuff out. The decisions are not made on the spur of the moment without study or contemplation.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
It's not manipulation. It's strategic engagement To-mae-to, to-mah-to. . .
A Huge economy only works if people will buy your crap. Assuming you still make crap to sell in the first place.
There are guys whose entire job is to firgure this stuff out. The decisions are not made on the spur of the moment without study or contemplation. The guys who have "figured out" our policy with China work for big business, not the American government. There job isn't to figure out what's best for America, but what's best for the multi-national corporation they work for. Politicians who think they can steer those efforts to their own ends are too clever by half.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
"The guys who have "figured out" our policy with China work for big business, not the American government. There job isn't to figure out what's best for America, but what's best for the multi-national corporation they work for. Politicians who think they can steer those efforts to their own ends are too clever by half. "
I think a few thousand people working for the U.S. Dept. of State might have a problem with that idea. In this case, especially the ones working in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
I think a few thousand people working for the U.S. Dept. of State might have a problem with that idea. In this case, especially the ones working in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs.
If we have a few thousand people in the State Department who actually believe that they set American policy with regards to China, that department is more troubled than I thought. And you think I'm naive?
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
"If we have a few thousand people in the State Department who actually believe that they set American policy with regards to China, that department is more troubled than I thought. And you think I'm naive? "
what do you think, that the Pres. sits in his office making this shit up? You have a serious lack of confidence in your own govt. I wouldn't want to live in your world.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
what do you think, that the Pres. sits in his office making this shit up?
Making up what shit? I've never heard the president say the State Department sets policy. It isn't their job. Their job is to implement the policy that's dictated to them.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
"Their job is to implement the policy that's dictated to them."
Wrong again. The State Dept. both executes the policy of the Administration, and advises the Pres. so that he can make the right decision. The Sec. of state is the Pres. primary advisor in foreign policy matters, and he's backed up by scores of policy experts who possess a wealth of knowledge no one person could keep at their fingertips, much less a President who has domestic issues to deal with as well.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
Wrong again. What do you mean, "again," Commodore? You're starting to sound like my wife.
The State Dept. both executes the policy of the Administration, and advises the Pres. so that he can make the right decision. Yes, isn't that pretty much what I said? They don't set policy.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
"The State Dept. both executes the policy of the Administration, and advises the Pres. so that he can make the right decision. Yes, isn't that pretty much what I said? They don't set policy"
Do you think these policies come out of nowhere? Or that pres. Bush just sits down and decides policy for China? He takes the advice of his Sec. of state, and all his advisors, which is influenced by the work done by all the people in the State Dept. and he sets a direction. He doesn't manage every policy issue. That's why we have a State dept.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
Do you think these policies come out of nowhere? Or that pres. Bush just sits down and decides policy for China? I already told you where I think our China policy originated and what its aim is.
He doesn't manage every policy issue. That's why we have a State dept. Like I keep saying, I know the president doesn't manage every policy issue.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
"I already told you where I think our China policy originated and what its aim is."
Yes, and I already told you that I'm sorry you have to live in a world where that is the case. In the real world, Foreign policy is created by melding economic, military, diplomatic and legal inputs in a vastly complicated system in which even a single word in a published policy can have far reaching international consequences. This process is carried out by experts at every level and in every discipline. Sometimes they get it right, and sometimes they miss, but the point is that we do, in fact, have long term policy objectives, such as the engagement of China for economic, humanitarian, and diplomatic reasons.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
Sometimes they get it right, and sometimes they miss, but the point is that we do, in fact, have long term policy objectives
Your point seems to be that the experts and their policies shouldn't be questioned by the peasantry, because the experts are smart and educated and good and noble and self sacrificing and wise and benign. And it isn't always so.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
You've missed my point altogether. I specifically said that you should feel free to educate yourself and try to keep informed. However, when I told you that we exercise strategic engagement with China, you said we didn't have the skill to execute that kind of strategy. You also said that the corporations run our policy. When I told you that we have the Pres., the state dept., and the govt. in general to do that, you accuse me of telling the public to butt out of it. If you're going to make that kind of leap, that's fine, but it's not what i said.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)