The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

I never expected Mexico to pay for it. Sure, the argument can be made that they are paying via indirect methods, but that is accounting BS. (Accounting is on the same level as statistics as far as spreading BS goes).

That doesn't mean the wall should not be built, and at this point, I wish he would just go ahead and build it without congressional authority using the executive authority and the military. The Democrats will never pull their heads out of their arses on this, simply because they oppose Trump. Many of them advocated barriers long before Trump did. They flipped because Trump wants it.

The people who really need to be called on the carpet for this are the Republicans who failed to support this BEFORE the House flipped. This should have been over and done with last year.

This is why the constant flow of outright lies matters Annoyed.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...uld-write-che/

[Gatefan1976]

And just for fun:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/10/p...ess/index.html

[Gatefan1976]

too many non americans want to both ***** about our presence everywhere (i say the same thing) AND then say we have to stay everywhere

cannot have both positions!

You don't have to stay "everywhere" but where you are is either in furtherance of your own geopolitical goals (which is ultimately self serving) or area's where you have tried and failed to nation build.
It is NOT the "rest of the world" who cannot have it both ways, it is, in fact YOU as a nation.

i still see no reasons given why it has to be the US to be the bulk of any challenge to any threat whether that be russia, china, iran, whomever

Because you see it as a soldier, not a general or politician. Why were ANZAC's troops deployed in Vietnam?
Wasn't our fight, wasn't our problem, WE did not pick a fight with the Viet Cong, YOU did, yet we STILL sent troops to aid you.
Don't you think they (the soldiers) too would be asking the same question you are now?
As a soldier, you can see their point, as a political alliance between 3 nations, it is for the sake of larger alliances.

why doesn't the UK form a "commonwealth military force" to help defend itself and former territories?

The Commonwealth is no longer about projecting military power and adventurism, and does not have a centralized command structure. In theory if it DID, the US GDP still outstrips the entirety of the Commonwealth by currently some 9 trillion dollars US. It could fuel a commonwealth armed service, and it would stand as the only closest competitor to you, no argument.
Would the US want such a military "competitor?" I am not so sure it would.

as i posted before, nothing holding back Aust and its neighbors from forming their own south asian/oceania defense block either

Actually, there is, it's called treaties.

PINE GAP was mentioned above. and yes, i had then same thought (also watched SECOND CITY similar theme so different circumstances) of "well, i did not know the Australian public opinion on the US was so low"

but then, we get (in this thread and in other arenas) "you can't leave us, we need you" from them

Pine gap is a trade off.
You want out?
Are you prepared to loose all spy satellite capabilities across a third of the globe?
Do Australians want out?
Are they prepared to loose the advantages of close intelligence connections with the US?
This is the danger of turning complex problems into "your side, my side" in geopolitics, so we cut deals where both parties get the most they can.
It's called international diplomacy.

you have far too many people, it would seem,to interested in serving themselves rather then serving their nation

Serving your diplomatic alliances IS serving your nation.

the need to serve seems to supplanted by the very notion that if something goes wrong the americans will show up and "save us"

Much like in every war the US has declared, the ANZAC'S have turned up to help the US, and we are the ONLY nations who have.

SCREW THAT!!! a person-a a nation should do all it can to help itself before it asks for help from others

International treaties bind your allies to aid you, and post 9/11, you guys certainly asked.

its no wonder that a few years back, the AUst military was actively recruiting former,even retired US, Canadian and UK officers and NCO's in certain military occupations

The US military ALSO recruits Ex Defence force personnel from other nations

they offered high pay and citizenship for the soldiers and their families as enticement. so, someone on here asked it the US were 'mercenaries'? Well looked who asked us to be for them?

No one, it was a politically expedient trade, which is diplomacy. You want payment, then payment is all you get, and that makes you mercenaries.

"Overseas recruits
Overseas or ‘Lateral’ recruits are military personnel who have gained entry to the Australian Defence Force based on prior experience in foreign defence forces.

The ADF lateral recruitment program addresses capability shortfalls that cannot otherwise be filled using Australian personnel. Visit the Defence Recruitment website for eligibility criteria."

from: https://www.defencejobs.gov.au/joini...in/citizenship

Again, the US does the same.

the american people, and the american soldier, is exhausted from going everywhere and being everything for far too long!

And I sympathize with the soldier, all of them, but they do not get the choice on how to serve their country, and they do weather they recognize that or not.

the world is scr#wed!! you all need to sort it out without the US helping for once

I would be very careful what you are asking for here.

[mad_gater]

The Canadian border is practically unguarded and a transit point for illicit goods and confirmed entry points of terrorists and suspected terrorists (unlike the Mexican border) and an increase of illegal immigration (also unlike the Mexican border). Yet for some reason a wall is to be built on the Mexican border but not the Canadian one. Put your money where your mouth is and start advocating for a wall with Canada or admit that race plays a role in this.

I think that's because Canada's normal winter climate and weather patterns do most of the border guarding.....anybody stupid enough to try sneaking into Canada by going for a swim in any of the Great Lakes during winter for example would likely be a popsicle by the time they got to Canada

[Gatefan1976]

This is why the constant flow of outright lies matters Annoyed.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...uld-write-che/

Additional as it's more recent:
this is why you REALLY should care:
https://www.apnews.com/c9539cdeaa394fc2a00277f876ff3e43

[mad_gater]

If you are referring to the old tenants of "just warfare" as defined by Aqiunas and Augustine (which I am sure you are), neither WW was fought under such a doctrine. Here is one area where you and I definitely agree MG.

Yeah...I'm well aware of the fact that a land invasion of Japan would've lasted longer but at the same time we would've had better control over the amount of "collateral damage" as Chaka and Annoyed put it and I think Japanese citizens are still suffering the effects of the radiation from those bombs to this day...some of which were likely passed on genetically

[Gatefan1976]

Yeah...I'm well aware of the fact that a land invasion of Japan would've lasted longer but at the same time we would've had better control over the amount of "collateral damage" as Chaka and Annoyed put it and I think Japanese citizens are still suffering the effects of the radiation from those bombs to this day...some of which were likely passed on genetically

See, I don't agree with that, (lasting longer) simply because we cannot know if it would or it wouldn't, nor do we know if it would have cost more US troops. Japan, whilst willing to sacrifice it's own troops or civilians in order to fight "on principle" (and yes, weather we agree on the principle or not, it's still principle), it's no different to the US going off to Vietnam to "stop the commies" as a principle.

Let's just start a new year with some of us on sometimes (oftentimes?? ) diametrically opposed views finding some common ground.
It's what we need going forward, don't you think?

[Annoyed]

The Canadian border is practically unguarded and a transit point for illicit goods and confirmed entry points of terrorists and suspected terrorists (unlike the Mexican border) and an increase of illegal immigration (also unlike the Mexican border). Yet for some reason a wall is to be built on the Mexican border but not the Canadian one. Put your money where your mouth is and start advocating for a wall with Canada or admit that race plays a role in this.

Puh-lease. You're comparing the northern border to the southern border?
You love statistics. Look these up. How many illegals have entered the country from each border?

The problem on the southern border is several orders of magnitude high than that on the northern border.
How many caravans from Canada have been making their way into the US?

According to https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nation...nada-1.4863636 a good percentage of those coming in from Canada are people who tried to go to Canada from the US and Canada rejected them.

At least 32,000 asylum seekers have crossed from the U.S. into Canada in recent months, and that influx continues. But the leading edge of those claimants, say authorities with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, are likely to soon face deportation from Canada — so now some of them are heading back south.

Also, it would seem that some folks trying to come into the US from Mexico are using Canada as a waypoint.

[Chaka-Z0]

See, I don't agree with that, (lasting longer) simply because we cannot know if it would or it wouldn't, nor do we know if it would have cost more US troops. Japan, whilst willing to sacrifice it's own troops or civilians in order to fight "on principle" (and yes, weather we agree on the principle or not, it's still principle), it's no different to the US going off to Vietnam to "stop the commies" as a principle.

Sorry bud but it is quite obvious that the war would've lasted much longer. We're talking about a full scale ground invasion VS dropping 2 bombs with 0 US casualties, except the pilot if he'd get shot down.

Japan and its islands were one of the thoughest battlefield for US soldiers. We're talking heat and humidity, bugs and snakes, illnesses. We're talking guerilla war which the Japs were incredibly effective at with their extensive network of tunnels throughout its territory. The flamethrower was the weapon of choice to neutralize the many machine gun nests hidden in the jungles. Even then, every square inch had to be fought nail and teeth.

The Philippines war and invasion by the Japs caused over a million Filipinos casualties (from all causes). The nukes killed about 200k. The deathtoll would've been much worse in the invasion scenario that is 100% clear to me.

[Gatefan1976]

Sorry bud but it is quite obvious that the war would've lasted much longer. We're talking about a full scale ground invasion VS dropping 2 bombs with 0 US casualties, except the pilot if he'd get shot down.

Did you consider a full scale trade embargo?
Japan was already on it's knees as a nation. Yes, it's spirit was not broken, but spirit only gets you so far when you are starving to death and having your own citizens possibly rising up against imperial rule. The war may have just as easily ended with an internal coup as it was with nukes.
Let me be clear here, I'm not saying that nuking was not the most effective course of action, or even the most, err, "harmless" in terms of casualties.
What I am saying is we will never know -either- way, and we cannot say "it was the only way"

Japan and its islands were one of the thoughest battlefield for US soldiers. We're talking heat and humidity, bugs and snakes, illnesses. We're talking guerilla war which the Japs were incredibly effective at with their extensive network of tunnels throughout its territory. The flamethrower was the weapon of choice to neutralize the many machine gun nests hidden in the jungles. Even then, every square inch had to be fought nail and teeth.

So, the allies would have used jungle warfare specialists. Guess who they were, and guess who was pissed enough at Japan to all but volunteer for what many would consider a suicide run?

The Philippines war and invasion by the Japs caused over a million Filipinos casualties (from all causes). The nukes killed about 200k. The deathtoll would've been much worse in the invasion scenario that is 100% clear to me.

Death toll to whom?
The Filipinos were a non combatant state, and were unprepared, Japan was.

[Chaka-Z0]

Did you consider a full scale trade embargo?

Good idea, but I think we need to put ourselves in the mindset of the situation before the nuking. Germany was defeated, every single soul in the US was sick and tired of the war. Besieging Japan like you suggest would've taken even longer than an invasion, obviously the Jap High Command didn't care much if their people starved to death if they were not even willing to vacate them when bombing was imminent. Some speculated that the reason why no evacuation order was given was to motivate the Japanese people even more not to surrender due to the high amount of civilian casualties; to raise passion and defiance in the population. A little bit like the terrorists in ME use the civilian casualties by the US drones bombings.

Japan was already on it's knees as a nation. Yes, it's spirit was not broken, but spirit only gets you so far when you are starving to death and having your own citizens possibly rising up against imperial rule. The war may have just as easily ended with an internal coup as it was with nukes.
Let me be clear here, I'm not saying that nuking was not the most effective course of action, or even the most, err, "harmless" in terms of casualties.
What I am saying is we will never know -either- way, and we cannot say "it was the only way"

Could've been I guess, as you said, we'll never know.

So, the allies would have used jungle warfare specialists. Guess who they were, and guess who was pissed enough at Japan to all but volunteer for what many would consider a suicide run?

General Douglas MacArthur? (This man was the definition of badass)

Death toll to whom?
The Filipinos were a non combatant state, and were unprepared, Japan was.

https://ww2db.com/country/philippines

57k military / 900k civilian casualties. Japanese occupation was full of atrocities at the very beginning of their occupation, they treated the Filipinos like absolute garbage and maintained control of the country's administration, whereas the US were on the brink to grant full independence to its colony. They were a non combatant state indeed, but in the same fashion than La Résistance they fought back the best they could along with some left-over American officers.

[Womble]

SThe Philippines war and invasion by the Japs caused over a million Filipinos casualties (from all causes). The nukes killed about 200k. The deathtoll would've been much worse in the invasion scenario that is 100% clear to me.

The Japanese killed 100 000 Filipinos in the Manila massacre alone. That doesn't include people who died from starvation, diseases etc. The country (previously second-richest in Asia after Japan itself) was so devastated that population continued to decline for 5 years.

[Annoyed]

I agree with you. (Mark it on your calendar, a 2019 first!)

The only aspect I differ is that Hirohito was Japan's Emperor, yes, but Hideki Tojo was the head of the military and called the shots military wise. He was a clever man, this surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was an absolute success, but his biggest mistake was not to push on and bomb the oil factories and actual ships that mattered.

1: While the attack on Pearl was a battlefield success, he caught us with our pants down despite some advance warning, on the whole, the very idea was a disaster for hem.

He destroyed a fleet of WW I era battleships. But they were last generation weapons.

But he did it with the new weapon, the aircraft carrier. And by good fortune our Pacific Fleet carriers were not in Pearl that day. So not only did a sneak attack wake an unholy furor in our population that would have pursued him till the end of time, he failed to disable our best weapons.

Considering that Japan is a small island, dependent upon imports for almost everything and the US was far larger and more rich in resources, as well as attaining the status of most powerful navy in the world, well, that was a fight he couldn't have possibly won.

2: I'm pretty sure that oil fields & production facilities in the mainland US were never in the operational range of his carriers. To some extent, that's was one of the long term objectives of the Japanese was; Get at least Midway and other points in the pacific to supply a fleet operating close to the US. He never got that.

[SoulReaver]

The only aspect I differ is that Hirohito was Japan's Emperor, yes, but Hideki Tojo was the head of the military and called the shots military wise.

you make it sound like Tojo was some sort of pre-restoration shogun or something

And by good fortune our Pacific Fleet carriers were not in Pearl that day

you mean those 3 carriers? at a time when the US was building like 1 carrier a day what would the loss of those 3 boats have changed - delayed the Normandy invasion by 3 days?


and back to the topics that hurt: now that your king's finally "fessed up" how do you feel about you having to pay for the wall?

[Chaka-Z0]

you make it sound like Tojo was some sort of pre-restoration shogun or something

you mean those 3 carriers? at a time when the US was building like 1 carrier a day what would the loss of those 3 boats have changed - delayed the Normandy invasion by 3 days?

The US navy was spread thin in Europe waters already, that was all they had to defend the US at the time.

and back to the topics that hurt: now that your king's finally "fessed up" how do you feel about you having to pay for the wall?

Yea sorry I was complicit in the derailing of this thread.

You know the irony is that the US will probably need to hire Mexican workforce and pay them good wages in order to finish it.

They will pay for the Wall is now we will pay them for our Wall.