Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

Now is there a hint of jealousy I detect there? Most of those benefits and laws are the results of negotiations conducted by the respective unions. The same unions you despise so much if I recall correctly...

My point is that if Germany as a nation had to finance its military, it couldn't afford those wage/benefit levels, union or not.

And unless unlike ? the US, Germany learned from the past and the mistakes they made...

Oh, really. Being a major contributor to the defeat of Germany and the Axis powers was a mistake?

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

My point is that if Germany as a nation had to finance its military, it couldn't afford those wage/benefit levels, union or not.

Who do you think is paying for the military of one of the richest countries in Europe?

Are you confused about NATO, and the US bases in Europe, and how they are not the German military?

[Annoyed]

How did you come to that conclusion?

Simple. If the German govt. had to pay for its own defense, they would have to tax the economy to pay for it. That money could no longer be used for other things, such as generous wage and benefit packages.

The US military presence in Europe means Germany has a strong engineering industry, the workers get paid and can go on holiday?

I think you're overestimating the importance of the US presence.

I mean it's not like Europe has its own economy, and workers rights laws that exists independently of the US..

Did I say that the US alone was providing Germany's defense? The point is that Germany itself isn't paying those costs, it doesn't matter who actually is.

Well, that's not for you to decide. The US is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against another nation. And on civilian targets no less. I'm not comfortable with them having nuclear weapons, especially with a toddler prone to temper tantrums in the White House.

Would you have rather have seen the U.S. and the allies to have embarked on a very long and bloody land war conquest of the Island of Japan? Such a war would have killed far more civilians & military ON BOTH SIDES than the two nukes did.

We weren't dealing with a rational command. Emperor Hirohito simply wouldn't admit he had lost and surrendered. By that time in the war, Japan didn't really have a navy anymore and its ground forces weren't much better. There was no way on this earth that Japan could have won the war by that point. But Hirohito couldn't accept it. It should be pointed out that even after the first nuke, Hirohito didn't surrender.

How do you think it should have been handled? The long and bloody ground assault?

[Gatefan1976]

Simple. If the German govt. had to pay for its own defense, they would have to tax the economy to pay for it. That money could no longer be used for other things, such as generous wage and benefit packages.

What?
We pay for our defence, and we have generous wages and benefit packages. You have listened to republican excuses about why the middle class sucks and is being gutted, and has not had real wage rises in the US for so long, you actually -believe- the BS they are pushing.

Did I say that the US alone was providing Germany's defense? The point is that Germany itself isn't paying those costs, it doesn't matter who actually is.

It's quid pro quo Annoyed. Germany gets to pay a little less for defence, America get hard power projection in Europe without even having to worry about the homeland being attacked directly. It's not a zero sum equation for god's sake and it is not all about the money.

Would you have rather have seen the U.S. and the allies to have embarked on a very long and bloody land war conquest of the Island of Japan? Such a war would have killed far more civilians & military ON BOTH SIDES than the two nukes did.

We weren't dealing with a rational command. Emperor Hirohito simply wouldn't admit he had lost and surrendered. By that time in the war, Japan didn't really have a navy anymore and its ground forces weren't much better. There was no way on this earth that Japan could have won the war by that point. But Hirohito couldn't accept it. It should be pointed out that even after the first nuke, Hirohito didn't surrender.

That's right, he did not surrender after the first, he and the Imperial command -knew- what nukes could do, but still they did not capitulate, so why would a second bomb do it? Even as the second one was dropped, Imperial command was -still not willing to surrender-
So, what else was going on that could have made Japan surrender?
Think about that, do some investigation, and get back to me, ok?

How do you think it should have been handled? The long and bloody ground assault?

Would there have been one?
(do your research assignment first)

[garhkal]

Simple. If the German govt. had to pay for its own defense, they would have to tax the economy to pay for it. That money could no longer be used for other things, such as generous wage and benefit packages.

Or taking care of all the refugees they have taken in!!

[pookey]

We should give pookey a test. Trust her with your children

No, i do not like children

[Annoyed]

Not even with a side order of bacon?

[pookey]

Nah, they ruin the flavour

[Falcon Horus]

The presence of US forces contributes hugely to local economy though. They purchase fuel, food, water, electricity and other materials locally, the soldiers spend their salaries locally, many locals get employed at USA bases etc.

Another reason why they don't need to charge rent -- the contributions to the economy.

The only mitigating factor, at least in Germany's case is history. In the early part of last century, Germany was the primary instigator of not 1, but 2 world wars.
I'm not comfortable with them having their own military.

Nope, wrong Germany did not instigate WWI.

A few different events set WWI into motion.
The most important one perhaps which just made the whole tumble down into war was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and his wife by a Serbian terrorist group, in Sarajevo in the summer of 1914. He was a nephew of the Emperor of then Austria-Hungary.

In those days, there were alliances between countries which meant that if one of them declared war, the rest would automatically back them up. So when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, it was backed by Germany with which it had an alliance. Russia, backed Serbia, and was also alligned with France, Ireland and Great Britain.
Thus Germany declared war on Russia and then on France. Germany marched on to France by ways of Belgium. However, since Britain had agreed upon Belgium being neutral ground, it declared war on Germany and BAM -- WWI and its trenches were born.

As far as WWII goes, that was started by Adolf Hitler by invading Austria in 1938 and Czechoslovakia in 1939. When he marched into Poland on the 9th of September 1939, France and Britain came to Polands aid... and there you have WWII.

So, Germany instigated exactly 1 war.

Well, that's not for you to decide. The US is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against another nation. And on civilian targets no less. I'm not comfortable with them having nuclear weapons, especially with a toddler prone to temper tantrums in the White House.

Oh snap...

Now is there a hint of jealousy I detect there? Most of those benefits and laws are the results of negotiations conducted by the respective unions. The same unions you despise so much if I recall correctly.

Might have to add that the union system in the US is a little different than how we know the unions. They have a lot more power (political or otherwise), and do abuse that power occasionally.

Sure, our unions aren't angels either and occasionally you want to smack their heads against the wall but for the most part they are very saint-like in comparison to the big unions in the US.

So, I can understand his frustrations.

And I live and breath union (grew up with a union-rep, and have been a union-rep).

Thats a bit mean Mr Gatey But youre prolly right, id get em and set them all off at once, BOOM goes this pretty blue planet

And start all over again

RESET!!

My point is that if Germany as a nation had to finance its military, it couldn't afford those wage/benefit levels, union or not.

It's all about priorities, my friend.

Being a major contributor to the defeat of Germany and the Axis powers was a mistake?

Errr.... you seem to overestimate that majority a bit...

The US did not enter into the first world war until April 1917 (a 1,5 before its official end in 1918).
On December 7, 1917 the US also declared war on Austria-Hungary.

"The precise reasons for Wilson’s decision to choose war in 1917 remain the subject of debate among historians, especially in light of his efforts to avoid war in 1915 after the sinking of the British passenger liners Lusitania and Arabic, which had led to the deaths of 131 U.S. citizens.

However, by 1917, the continued submarine attacks on U.S. merchant and passenger ships, and the “Zimmermann Telegram’s” implied threat of a German attack on the United States, swayed U.S. public opinion in support of a declaration of war."

The Zimmerman Telegram contained a message to Mexico in which Germany promised to back Mexico if they wanted to retake the territory they had lost to the US. The Brits didn't even share this information initially cause they didn't want the Germans to know they had cracked their code. However, considering they were running out of options to fight the Germans attacking their submarines, they used the Telegram to sway the US to declare war on Germany and get in the game of WWI.

Would the war have been lost without the US? -- maybe, with a likelihood of probably.
Would it have lasted a lot longer than it did? -- most likely

Did the US contribute to a victory for the alliance? -- sure it did, but most certainly not as a majority.

For the most part the US didn't care what was going on accross the pond, not even when the Lusitania was sunk and US citizens were lost. Until Germany extended its hands to Mexico of course, and threatened the US indirectly.

****

The roots of World War II, which eventually pitted Germany, Japan, and Italy (the Axis) against the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union (the Allies), lay in the militaristic ideologies and expansionist policies of Nazi Germany, Italy, and Japan. The weak response of the European democracies to fascist aggression and American isolationism allowed the Axis powers to gain the upper hand initially.

The United States did not enter the war until after the Japanese bombed the American fleet in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941. So, that's 2 years after the start of the war in september 1939. And again, it was a direct threat to the US that entered you into the already going war -- direct threats are obviously good enough reasons (don't get me wrong here).

However, as far as major contributions go: in WWII the success of the allied forces was most certainly helped by the input provided by the American war industry. WWI, on the other hand, not so much. You came in rather late in the game but again, who knows what would have happened if you hadn't -- could have gone either way.

Would you have rather have seen the U.S. and the allies to have embarked on a very long and bloody land war conquest of the Island of Japan?

Conquest?

Nobody was doing any conquesting except Germany where Adolf Hitler was aiming to regain the ground Germany had lost after WWI when they had been forced to give up bits of land to neighboring countries (we still have that piece of Germany). The more the better, to fill his Third Reich.

Oh look, so was Japan who just wanted what they had fought for with all their might to regain from the enemy in WWI -- Wilson and the Brits denied them that land so payback it was against the agressors who denied them their spoils (for which they spilled Japanese blood).

If WWII was about conquest, then what did the US get in terms of land?

We weren't dealing with a rational command.

From your point of view.

How do you think it should have been handled? The long and bloody ground assault?

You just said that their navy was pretty much decimated, and their ground forces weren't much of a match either... then how do you explain "long and bloody ground assault"?

You can twist around all you like, but you'll never be able to make the dropping of those two nukes look good in any way, shape or form.
Since that moment, and into the foreseeable future (until North-Korea has something that can cross the sea), the US will still be the only country to have chosen the option to drop 2 nukes on civilian targets from an enemy.

Much, like the US is currently bombing the blazes out of Syrian and Iraqi civilians.

Or taking care of all the refugees they have taken in!!

Idiot.

[Annoyed]

And the cockroaches just keep getting crazier and crazier..

And this is the top Democrat in the Senate, by the way.

Schumer goes off on Trump supporter at NYC restaurant, witness says

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., caused a scene at a Manhattan restaurant when he began yelling at a wealthy and well-connected Donald Trump supporter that the POTUS is “a liar.”

Schumer, the top Senate Democrat, lost his cool on Sunday night at Upper East Side restaurant Sette Mezzo, according to witnesses.

He was dining with friends when he encountered Joseph A. Califano Jr. — the former U.S. secretary of health, education and welfare under President Jimmy Carter and domestic policy adviser to President Lyndon B. Johnson — and his wife, Hilary, who were having a quiet dinner.

Onlookers said Schumer was incensed that Hilary — the daughter of William S. Paley, the founder and chairman of CBS — had voted for Trump, even though her husband, Joseph, is a well-known Democrat.

One witness said of the restaurant rant, “They are a highly respected couple, and Schumer made a scene, yelling, ‘She voted for Trump!’ The Califanos left the restaurant, but Schumer followed them outside.” On the sidewalk, Schumer carried on with his fantastical filibuster: “?‘How could you vote for Trump? He’s a liar!’ He kept repeating, ‘He’s a liar!’?”

[mad_gater]

How did you come to that conclusion?

The US military presence in Europe means Germany has a strong engineering industry, the workers get paid and can go on holiday?

I think you're overestimating the importance of the US presence.

I mean it's not like Europe has its own economy, and workers rights laws that exists independently of the US..



Well, that's not for you to decide. The US is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against another nation. And on civilian targets no less. I'm not comfortable with them having nuclear weapons, especially with a toddler prone to temper tantrums in the White House.

on the issue of thermonuclear weaponry we can both agree...Fermi's and Einstein's work in thermonuclear physics should never have been weaponized

I have the same disagreement about the firebombing of Dresden (with napalm I think) which caused about the same amount of indiscriminate wide-area destruction as one of those prototype thermonukes

one of the principles of just warfare is to never intentionally target non-combatants (intent being the keyword...oftentimes in the course of even conventional warfare unintentional collateral damage does happen...which is also why one should never be so quick to declare war either)

[aretood2]

on the issue of thermonuclear weaponry we can both agree...Fermi's and Einstein's work in thermonuclear physics should never have been weaponized

I have the same disagreement about the firebombing of Dresden (with napalm I think) which caused about the same amount of indiscriminate wide-area destruction as one of those prototype thermonukes

one of the principles of just warfare is to never intentionally target non-combatants (intent being the keyword...oftentimes in the course of even conventional warfare unintentional collateral damage does happen...which is also why one should never be so quick to declare war either)

I agree here, I wouldn't have made that decision, but I can understand why the choice was made. And in this one time I just don't see it as a "great evil" of America. But it is interesting how people conveniently ignore fire bombings...I doubt that the British would have done anything different if they were the ones with the bomb.

On the flip side...People do forget that Japan was the aggressor and a practitioner of genocide. They weren't fighting WWII to recover land lost to conquerors, they were fighting it to recover land that they took from others and then weren't allowed to keep all of it. They treated the civilians of China and other nations just as badly as their German brothers.

As for Japanese surrender, after the first bomb, many in the leading council were reluctant to believe that the US actually did use an atomic weapon. The second one is what confirmed it, but even then they didn't believe the US had many weapons because they knew what it takes to make one given that they've been trying themselves, and they weren't designing their nukes to drop them on "military" targets.

To answer GF's question.....

[Gatefan1976]

But now Annoyed will not do his assignment

Oh, as for people forgetting Japan was the aggressor, not out here Tood, WW2 and the things the Japanese did to our troops (and we did to theirs), created a generational hatred (genuine hatred) of all things Asian that's only dying off now (mostly)

[garhkal]

Nah, they ruin the flavour

well if i am in my fat barstard persona.. then baby is the other, other, other white meat! I'm higher than yeu on the food chain, get in my belly! I want my baby, baby, baby back ribs!

Oh, as for people forgetting Japan was the aggressor, not out here Tood, WW2 and the things the Japanese did to our troops (and we did to theirs), created a generational hatred (genuine hatred) of all things Asian that's only dying off now (mostly)

Plus to this DAY, i don't think Japan has EVER apologized to anyone for what they did. Not the Thousands of women they enslaved to be sex workers for their military. Not to the POWs they massively inhumanely treated. Compare that to germany who has always apologized for what was done..

[Gatefan1976]

They did apologise to us, eventually.