War, democracy and the US Constitution

If you want to thank someone for the most people lost during WWII probably better start with the Russians, protecting the oil supply lines out of Stalingrad. China will "police the world" to the extent of its economic interests. US policy on race in South Africa merely shut the US out while China invested heavily.
"Swords or plowshare" philosophies have been around since biblical times. Most are based on demand and supply considerations, and some in the extreme such as the command economy of the Soviets. (production capacity is limited so choices regarding resource allocations are limited). They no longer apply, you should be more concerned about who is controlling "high volume trading" on world exchanges, and centralized market conditions, particularly the futures market. US military has been downsizing for some time. Use of drones, satellites, NSA monitors, control of information. Wars based on assets, (tanks,planes) and the math of attrition are over, one of the reasons terrorist groups can be so effective, they don't need them. The current war is insurgency. The US war machine is a mercenary one, the laws concerning warfare, and even the countries themselves do not apply to "private security companies".
 

Some terrific debating, but what does it really add up to: Severe criticism of everything America stands for???
I thought I would come across this "anti-Americanism" on a few Australian sites, but no: Here it is-- a highly intellectualized 'put down' of "Beautiful, spirited America"!!!!
 

I'm not sure I agree with you Susie. I've been hearing quite a lot of posts along the line of "why does the rest of the world expect the US to solve all the problems of crisis and conflict?" but this thread was exploring the willingness to retreat from that role.

The responses appear to show ambiguity on this issue, possibly because there is an economic cost to isolationism.
My opinion is that most interventions are strongly motivated by national and economic interest - not just for the United States but for other states as well, including our own country, Australia.
 
Wish I had read the posts more carefully, Dame Warrigal!
It now seems to me, the main theme has to do with war and its benefits.
Taken out of context: " U.S. leaders have chosen permanent global intervention even at the cost of undermining the Republic."
Also: "For the cost of war can be measured in dollars not spent here at home".
It seems to me you are right about most interventions being motivated by national and economic interests.
If this is true, and endless greed the main motivation for interventions, then the future could seem indeed bleak.
 
Davey Jones said:
Think of it this way....Are Wars Good for the Economy?

The standard "a war gives the economy a boost" argument goes as follows: Let's suppose that the economy is in the low end of the business cycle, so we're in a recession or just a period of low economic growth. The unemployment rate is high, people may be making less purchases than they were a year or two ago, and overall output is flat. But then the country decides to prepare for war! The government needs to equip its soldiers with the extra gear and munitions needed in order to win the war. Corporations win contracts to supply boots, and bombs and vehicles to the army. Many of these companies will have to hire extra workers in order to meet this increased production. If the preparations for war are large enough, large numbers of workers will be hired reducing the unemployment rate. Other workers may need to be hired to cover reservists in private sector jobs who get sent overseas. With the unemployment rate down we have more people spending again and people who had jobs before will be less worried about losing their job in the future so they'll spend more than they did. This extra spending will help the retail sector, who will need to hire extra employees causing unemployment to drop even further. A spiral of positive economic activity is created by the government preparing for war, if you believe the story. The flawed logic of the story is an example of something economists call The Broken Window Fallacy
Click to expand...


You make very good points here but I'm not sure what you mean by the 'flawed logic' that you mention at the end. Could you expand on that please Davey?
 
oakapple said:
On the other hand, we here in the UK are very glad that the US 'went looking for monsters to destroy' in the last world war, Adolf Hitler certainly fits that bill!
Click to expand...


I think if you do a search on who defeated Hitler, you will find ample links that suggest that Russia was a key player in the defeat of Hitler. This is a pretty good web site that seems to discuss the demise of the Nazi effort. http://www.2worldwar2.com/when-hitler-lost.htm
 
I thought it was Spike Milligan.

330919.jpg
 
Approx. 6% of the US is owned by the Saudis, at least another 6 probably closer to 10% is owned by the Chinese. Normal everyday folk in US have less stocks and bonds than many citizens of other countries. Besides the obvious, (risk profile is lower) why do these countries invest here?. World economics is warfare.

Daveys comments refer to ecomomic models based on allocation of resources. Countries and economies can only scale in those constraints. Resources include, labor, capital, industrial capacity to name a few. By regulating the allocation (command economies) the country is able to produce more of one item. The problem is deciding what that item is. Free market economies on the other hand let the demand side of the control. The downside of this spiraling inflation, large public debt, and fiat money. This, and what was explained by Davey comes from an economist by the name of Keynes, or Keysian ecomomics which has played a role in most political countries sense wwII. Like all models they have weakness, and his are pointed by a group (among others) called Monetarists, (Freedman etc). Plows vs. swords is an expression that the country or system can produce one or they other of that commodity. Japan and Germany were very small countries that were having their oil shut off by Russia, on the one side, and the US on the Pacific side. Aside from the other stuff, fascism etc. this is why wars a fought.
 
I know the Russians were allies too; however some of that was to enable them to take over Eastern Europe; US had no desire to take over Western Europe; I don't think!

I have gratitude to all the allies; Canadians; West Indies; Anzac troops, and all the others....free Poles included; but the end result for them was not quite so good...
 
Being serious for a moment, most of the old Empire was involved in the world wars. Hubby and I make a habit of visiting Imperial War Cemeteries when we travel and we are always reminded that many Indians were sacrificed for Mother England. Many of them have headstones that are simply inscribed "An Indian soldier of the Great War" or similar.

My mum used to tell us how she and her sisters used to tease my grandfather by referring to something in the newspaper that "Joe" had done. He would prick up his ears and ask "Who? Joe Stalin?" to which they would reply "No, Joe Palooka." (American comic strip about a boxer)

Yes, I do know that Russia was an ally during WW II because of the common enemy that was Germany. What a lot of people don't appreciate is the fact that in WW I Japan was an ally from 1914 to 1918.
 
US interests during wwII were stopped by the Russians with Germany split in half. Top military advisors (including MacCarthy, I think could be wrong) wanted to nuke Russia, because they knew Russia was willing to move all the way across europe. Nato was formed to stop Russian tank divisions, and secure air strike capability within flight time of Moscow.
 
Spike Milligan? Snoopy?
Are you trying to trivialize a terrible war? Shame on you! (so inflammatory!!!!)
Guess you don't suffer from nightmares over and over again, watching 1000's of refugees walking past: Soldiers in torn, ragged uniforms,missing limbs; families with all their possessions in a wooden handcart, or in cardboard suitcases, or rucksacks; the lucky ones still with a horse and cart; haggard, skeletal former inmates of the KC camps, still in those awful clothes.
Only those of you who were unlucky enough to be part of this, will still be 'haunted' by memories.
(The arrival of occupying American troops was truly a "godsend")
 
My bad.

No I was not trying to trivialise any war. I don't know of one that isn't terrible for the people whose homelands are the battlegrounds. In that I include the hapless people of the Middle East.

I guess it is human nature to resort to humour in the face of the unthinkable.
I am fully aware how close things came to victory for Germany over the British Isles and how Hitler's mistake of opening up a second front to the east and later the arrival of the US troops for the D Day invasion turned the tide against the Nazis.

I'm also aware that it was the courage and resolve of the British people during those dark days of The Blitz, when instead of surrendering they withstood the endless bombings and rocket attacks on their cities, that thwarted the plan for the conquest of all of Europe. I am in awe of such civilian heroism.

I grew up with a girl who had been born in Berlin in the final phase of the war. From her I learned that war is hell for everyone under the bombs, whatever their nationality.

So sorry about the Spike Milligan joke.
 
My apologies to Vivjen and Debby for hijacking the topic. I blame too many memories.
When the Russian occupation came to our little town, the rapes had stopped.
The soldiers were poor, had meagre rations, no watches-still, when they needed grandad for electrical work, he and I were invited to share their meal--Borscht-and believe me, we were hungry, so grateful for a meal.
All available potatoes had been confiscated (for "Vodka").
Women and girls were made to dig out cables from ditches--cable and anything else salvageable was sent to Russia.
Still can never forget the beautiful singing at night when individual soldiers were walking through the town!
 
rt3 said:
US interests during wwII were stopped by the Russians with Germany split in half. Top military advisors (including MacCarthy, I think could be wrong) wanted to nuke Russia, because they knew Russia was willing to move all the way across europe. Nato was formed to stop Russian tank divisions, and secure air strike capability within flight time of Moscow.
Click to expand...


I've read on several sites that the main reason that America nuked Japan was to show Russia what their capability was. It should be noted that Japan was trying to surrender for several months before the bombs were dropped. After the war, Russia moved to blockade Berlin to cut off Western consolidation and thus history shows the Berlin Airdrop resulting from the Soviet move. The following year NATO was formed.

During the time that Japan was trying to surrender, Russia was involved to a degree in the fight with Japan and was also the intermediary between Japan and America.

I guess at the time this was all going on the Soviet Union was in the process of developing their own bomb and it was first tested in 1949.

http://www.nato.int/history/nato-history.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/truman.html "... a quote by Truman and the thinking of his Secretary of State Byrnes. Brynes view was that our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make the Soviets more "managable" in Europe. Truman said, "If this explodes as I think it will, I'll certainly have a hammer on those boys." indicating the Russians..."
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top