User Tag List

First 311121314 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 132

  1. #121
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    How would your countries have done a better job of finishing WWII and of managing global development for the second half of the 20th century?

    Don't worry, I'll wait.
    USA didnt finish off ww2, they just came to loot germany for new technology when the war was nearly over and won by soviets, sure saved few french and britts from dying.

    I dont think the path that USA is taking the world is the right one. Sure it might look good on the surface, but if you look at all the byproducts of it you see a totally different picture.

    Also you cant really compare USA and finland on stuff like that, i mean NY city alone has a bigger population than whole finland..
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read
    Likes PocketFullOf liked this post

  2. #122
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    USA didnt finish off ww2, they just came to loot germany for new technology when the war was nearly over and won by soviets, sure saved few french and britts from dying.

    I dont think the path that USA is taking the world is the right one. Sure it might look good on the surface, but if you look at all the byproducts of it you see a totally different picture.

    Also you cant really compare USA and finland on stuff like that, i mean NY city alone has a bigger population than whole finland..
    It's easy to criticize from the bench. Getting in the game and making a difference is a damn sight different.

    After WWII Western Europe abdicated any (substantive) military responsibility in maintaining the global order. The US was in a period of unprecedented growth and was happy to take over. The US also enjoyed the global clout that came along with being the country expected to do something when things went wrong somewhere. That growth is gone and we can no longer afford to be the sole global peace keeper expected to right all wrongs and maintain the stability of global trade.

    I'm expecting the US to have a serious discussion in the near future (this decade) about what we can afford our role in the world to be when we have so many pressing problems at home. One thing that gets left out in the debates is that European social democracies (and the vast welfare states attached to them) were able to form in no small part because those nations didn't have military budgets anywhere near the size of the US. As the US makes the best out of "the new normal" of economic growth in the 21st century the onus is increasingly going to be on those states that the US agreed to protect after WWII to take care of their own military needs.

    In light of this forgive me for getting tired of hearing about how terrible we are for subsidizing your security needs which allows you to afford the lavish social democracies Europeans have become so attached to.
    Likes johnnyyukon liked this post

  3. #123
    Male johnnyyukon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Thats just some stupid propaganda thats told to americans so that they would feel better about themselves and would have this false image of the country. What really happened with hitler is that soviet unions did most of the work(much much more than whole eu and usa together) and usa came there just when the war was nearly over so that they could steal technology.

    The country is and always has been ruled by sick lying sociopaths, not some heroic saviors of the world.
    And maannn, did it work! I'm a heroic saviour. Moving on...

    And riiiigght, America didn't really do much, except give the Russians billions of dollars of supplies, without which they would have lost.

    "Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war."
    -Joseph Stalin
    I'm well aware of the death counts of the Russians, it's hard to imagine. I think nearly 20 times the amount of the Americans.

    But the Russians were pitifully equipped before US aid.

    Lend Lease policy, money given to the Allies BEFORE the US even entered the war.
    A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $656*billion today) worth of supplies were shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.
    The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced.
    Under the Lend-Lease policy, 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied. Likewise, the Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft.


    "It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance." -General Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov
    But that was just the eastern front in Europe. $31.4 billion of the $50.1 billion aid went to Britain, keeping their heads above water before we could show up.


    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Also what do you think about hiroshima and nagasaki(both heavily populated cities without any military value) being nuked by usa even tho japan was no longer a real threat at that point?
    How was Japan no longer a threat? They practically took over the entire pacific region during WWII. Sure, we (the Allies) recaptured what was taken, at GREAT loss, but what? We were supposed to just leave them alone?

    You don't declare war against a country full of psychotic leaders and brainwashed soldiers/citizens and stop halfway.

    So the option of a land invasion of Japan was prepared, Operation Downfall. With the following casualty estimates:

    Studies estimating total U.S. casualties were equally varied and no less grim. One by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945 resulted in an estimate of 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities. Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief, estimated 268,000 casualties (35%). Former President Herbert Hoover sent a memorandum to President Truman and Secretary of War Stimson, with “conservative” estimates of 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities. A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated the costs at 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities.
    Not to mention the Japanese casualties:

    "The study done for Secretary of War Stimson predicted five to ten million Japanese fatalities. There is support for the bomb even among some Japanese. In 1983, at the annual observance of Hiroshima's destruction, an aging Japanese professor recalled that at war’s end, due to the extreme food rationing, he had weighed less than 90 pounds and could scarcely climb a flight of stairs. "I couldn't have survived another month," he said. "If the military had its way, we would have fought until all 80 million Japanese were dead. Only the atomic bomb saved me. Not me alone, but many Japanese, ironically speaking, were saved by the atomic bomb."
    I've had this ice cream bar, since I was a child!

    Each thought's completely warped
    I'm like a walkin', talkin', ouija board.

  4. #124
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    It's easy to criticize from the bench. Getting in the game and making a difference is a damn sight different.

    After WWII Western Europe abdicated any (substantive) military responsibility in maintaining the global order. The US was in a period of unprecedented growth and was happy to take over. The US also enjoyed the global clout that came along with being the country expected to do something when things went wrong somewhere. That growth is gone and we can no longer afford to be the sole global peace keeper expected to right all wrongs and maintain the stability of global trade.

    I'm expecting the US to have a serious discussion in the near future (this decade) about what we can afford our role in the world to be when we have so many pressing problems at home. One thing that gets left out in the debates is that European social democracies (and the vast welfare states attached to them) were able to form in no small part because those nations didn't have military budgets anywhere near the size of the US. As the US makes the best out of "the new normal" of economic growth in the 21st century the onus is increasingly going to be on those states that the US agreed to protect after WWII to take care of their own military needs.

    In light of this forgive me for getting tired of hearing about how terrible we are for subsidizing your security needs which allows you to afford the lavish social democracies Europeans have become so attached to.
    Soviets helped USA to defeat japan, then USA dropped two atomic bombs to get the attention to them again(and killing around 200000 civilians doing so) and soviets also almost single handedly beat the nazis. :---DDD

    You only got USA to fault for having to invest so much in their military power, i mean if the country wouldnt piss off other countries(and "terrorists"), they could invest more in their own wellbeing. Also what comes to economics, USA is ruining it for all because of all the capitalist shit and country being ruled so much by companies and people who want easy profits.

    Its funny that you talk about USA as if it would be this great nation, even tho statistic clearly say otherwise: Overall Rankings — The Good Country Index

    I mean its not all bad(like they give a lot to food aid) and the country has done good things, but the positives simply doesent outweigh the negatives, sorry. Like even tho they give a lot of food aid, a large part of that is because they try to make it look good that they completely fucked up few countries in the middle east and now need to give some aid there.. Sure they helped much on stuff like developing the internet and now they are using it to spy everyone all over the world. And for that topic, i think that these other countries should stop allowing NSA to continue with that shit and destroy that shithole if they dont stop it. But again its sad that now that USA has dug their own grave so deeply that they cant get out of it anymore, they need to act big with guns and stuff like invading other countries over the internets.

    Realistically, how long do you think it takes until USA collapses? What states do you think will continue to flourish(naturally they all cant because even now the country cant take care of their own)? Or does it need to take over the world in order not to collapse?
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  5. #125
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    My guess: History is a bit more complex.
    Likes johnnyyukon, Qlip liked this post

  6. #126
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyyukon View Post
    And maannn, did it work! I'm a heroic saviour. Moving on...

    And riiiigght, America didn't really do much, except give the Russians billions of dollars of supplies, without which they would have lost.



    I'm well aware of the death counts of the Russians, it's hard to imagine. I think nearly 20 times the amount of the Americans.

    But the Russians were pitifully equipped before US aid.

    Lend Lease policy, money given to the Allies BEFORE the US even entered the war.








    But that was just the eastern front in Europe. $31.4 billion of the $50.1 billion aid went to Britain, keeping their heads above water before we could show up.




    How was Japan no longer a threat? They practically took over the entire pacific region during WWII. Sure, we (the Allies) recaptured what was taken, at GREAT loss, but what? We were supposed to just leave them alone?

    You don't declare war against a country full of psychotic leaders and brainwashed soldiers/citizens and stop halfway.

    So the option of a land invasion of Japan was prepared, Operation Downfall. With the following casualty estimates:



    Not to mention the Japanese casualties:
    Yes USA gave aid to soviets, but they didnt fight the war much at all against nazis.

    The bomb was necessary because japan had no chances anymore and was basically already defeated. Look up the people who i quoted(if you dont already know them) and then see if anything you say against their word has any meaning..
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  7. #127
    literally your mother PocketFullOf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    NeTi
    Enneagram
    pot
    Posts
    494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    USA didnt finish off ww2, they just came to loot germany for new technology when the war was nearly over and won by soviets, sure saved few french and britts from dying.

    I dont think the path that USA is taking the world is the right one. Sure it might look good on the surface, but if you look at all the byproducts of it you see a totally different picture.

    Also you cant really compare USA and finland on stuff like that, i mean NY city alone has a bigger population than whole finland..
    I agree with you but I think that the Marshall Plan was good to help Western Europe get back on their feet.


    Taking a concept to it's logical end is rarely logical or relevant to the subject at hand.
    Johari Nohari
    7w6-3w2-1w9 / sCUA|I| / SER SEI
    Neutral Good
    bagfullofclocks | type me if you can


  8. #128
    literally your mother PocketFullOf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    NeTi
    Enneagram
    pot
    Posts
    494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    It's easy to criticize from the bench. Getting in the game and making a difference is a damn sight different.

    After WWII Western Europe abdicated any (substantive) military responsibility in maintaining the global order. The US was in a period of unprecedented growth and was happy to take over. The US also enjoyed the global clout that came along with being the country expected to do something when things went wrong somewhere. That growth is gone and we can no longer afford to be the sole global peace keeper expected to right all wrongs and maintain the stability of global trade.

    I'm expecting the US to have a serious discussion in the near future (this decade) about what we can afford our role in the world to be when we have so many pressing problems at home. One thing that gets left out in the debates is that European social democracies (and the vast welfare states attached to them) were able to form in no small part because those nations didn't have military budgets anywhere near the size of the US. As the US makes the best out of "the new normal" of economic growth in the 21st century the onus is increasingly going to be on those states that the US agreed to protect after WWII to take care of their own military needs.

    In light of this forgive me for getting tired of hearing about how terrible we are for subsidizing your security needs which allows you to afford the lavish social democracies Europeans have become so attached to.
    I think the main problem with the US military budget is how inefficient it is, sometimes troops don't even have the proper equipment to fight. We can't even protect the people who are willing to rick their lives to "protect" us? I'm not sure on the exact numbers but if we were cut our military budget just a little and pick our battles more strategically I think we'd have a little more money for domestic issues, like healthcare and education. It seems to me that the greater military presence one has in the world the greater on needs to have.


    Taking a concept to it's logical end is rarely logical or relevant to the subject at hand.
    Johari Nohari
    7w6-3w2-1w9 / sCUA|I| / SER SEI
    Neutral Good
    bagfullofclocks | type me if you can


  9. #129
    Male johnnyyukon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Yes USA gave aid to soviets, but they didnt fight the war much at all against nazis.

    The bomb was necessary because japan had no chances anymore and was basically already defeated. Look up the people who i quoted(if you dont already know them) and then see if anything you say against their word has any meaning..
    Boooorrrring. Though I do agree with the bold. And my point stands, though the Russians did the majority of fighting on the eastern front, they would have had nothing to fight with without american aid, and would have lost. Just ask Stalin, he agrees with me.

    As @Nicodemus said, this is all a little more complex than, "dropping the bomb wasn't necessary."

    Apparently some people believed it was. No doubt, there were more motives than just squashing possible Japanese threat beyond recognition, but unless you have access to a parallel universe where the U.S. DIDN'T drop the bombs, and the ensuing results, then this is an unwinnable debate. There's good points on both sides.

    Especially with you, who seem to have the biggest beef with the U.S. on this entire forum.
    I've had this ice cream bar, since I was a child!

    Each thought's completely warped
    I'm like a walkin', talkin', ouija board.

  10. #130
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyyukon View Post
    Boooorrrring. Though I do agree with the bold. And my point stands, though the Russians did the majority of fighting on the eastern front, they would have had nothing to fight with without american aid, and would have lost. Just ask Stalin, he agrees with me.

    As Nicodemus said, this is all a little more complex than, "dropping the bomb wasn't necessary."

    Apparently some people believed it was. No doubt, there were more motives than just squashing possible Japanese threat beyond recognition, but unless you have access to a parallel universe where the U.S. DIDN'T drop the bombs, and the ensuing results, then this is an unwinnable debate. There's good points on both sides.

    Especially with you, who seem to have the biggest beef with the U.S. on this entire forum.
    Bold was obviously a typo.

    Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower (pronounced /ˈaɪzənhaʊər/, eye-zən-how-ər; October 14, 1890 – March 28, 1969) was the 34th President of the United States from 1953 until 1961. He was a five-star general in the United States Army during World War II and served as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe; he had responsibility for planning and supervising the invasion of North Africa in Operation Torch in 1942–43 and the successful invasion of France and Germany in 1944–45 from the Western Front. In 1951, he became the first supreme commander of NATO.

    said that dropping the bombs was unnecessary.

    Sure USA did have reasons for dropping the bombs, but the reasons werent to win the war, but more to terrorize the planet and to show off.

    Again what i said: "What really happened with hitler is that soviet union did most of the work". Now if you think about what "the work" means in the context of war against nazis, you might realize that its not about shipping guns, its about actually killing the nazis..
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

Similar Threads

  1. Pick Your Top 3 Favorite Shows. And Explain Why
    By AveryFB in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-06-2017, 10:32 PM
  2. Please explain why your country sucks.
    By Habba in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 10-23-2014, 10:03 PM
  3. Why is your country of type X?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-02-2009, 04:20 AM
  4. Personality traits most valued in your country?
    By autumn in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 10-29-2008, 10:53 PM
  5. Why your diet may not be working like you want...
    By sdalek in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-03-2007, 08:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO