My decades of being a staunch Independent are history
-
btw, Hitler did not have the tech to fight two wars, he spread his troops far, far too thin. He might have succeeded even then,
except America finally stepped in, after the war exploded in size, and made the difference.
-
"In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state."
And the main point of the article was that we could not do the above because of lack of funding for the military^^^^^^^
If the goal of our military is to have the ability of fighting two wars at once we were not adequately funding the military to do it.
Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response. I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers, I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play.
The goal of our military, our leaders and our people shouldn't be to fight two wars at all unless absolutely necessary to the defense of this country. Hence my "streamlined" comment. See - WWII. Since that point, when has the USA ever been in a necessary conflict with that many theaters which requires constant preparation? If the President is so hell-bent on forcing NATO to step up their contributions, that should immediately lower the need for the US to have such a sole response ready for any Russian aggression sans our Western Coasts.
If you're saying the military wasn't properly funded under Obama, you might want to take a peek back and see how far those budgets go at lesser levels. Are you prepared to make the argument than previous Presidents haven't been prepared for that for the better part of 30 years?
The goal of our military, our leaders and our people shouldn't be to fight two wars at all unless absolutely necessary to the defense of this country. Hence my "streamlined" comment. See - WWII. Since that point, when has the USA ever been in a necessary conflict with that many theaters which requires constant preparation? If the President is so hell-bent on forcing NATO to step up their contributions, that should immediately lower the need for the US to have such a sole response ready for any Russian aggression sans our Western Coasts.
If you're saying the military wasn't properly funded under Obama, you might want to take a peek back and see how far those budgets go at lesser levels. Are you prepared to make the argument than previous Presidents haven't been prepared for that for the better part of 30 years?
just completely wrong. I've shown it to be. And I never even mentioned that I was selected to be a part of a huge Inspector General Readiness Task Force - an assignment that lasted several weeks. I typed up readiness reports, higher up reports - had to have my usual security clearance upped ahead of time - (never knew it til I was part of it) - referring to military strategy and readiness/support studies. I was in SAC.
-
Fortunately for the world Hitler made the mistake of starting a war on two fronts. You would never want to be in two wars at once but I'm thinking of the possibility of being forced to fight two wars at once. I believe in the principle there is only peace through strength. China right now is investing heavily in their military and we should be concerned about it
And you're a Jesus following Christian which makes the black and white nature of this comment a bit more absurd.
China has been a cleverly used boogeyman for nearly 20 years now. What scares nations, such as China, is nuclear deterrent. Fortunately for many, China, similar to the US, has a no-first-use policy. This should be something the US continues to lead the way in.
Simply attempting to match them dollar for dollar, man for man in military force and then watching each country raise the bar only to spend itself into a military stock-pile that 99% will never be used isn't a strategy for longevity. Strength is an admirable trait, but that doesn't mean simple might. Strength also means engaging ones neighbors to see how we might peaceably continue to co-exist as well. If my neighbor's house is on fire, loaning him a gun won't be as beneficial as a water hose, will it?
This is an area where our diplomatic and economic relations have seen a short-fall in the last 10 years IMHO. I say that because the company I work for has various products we ship to China. They are an economic companion and both countries would do well to continue viewing each other as such.
And you're a Jesus following Christian which makes the black and white nature of this comment a bit more absurd.
China has been a cleverly used boogeyman for nearly 20 years now. What scares nations, such as China, is nuclear deterrent. Fortunately for many, China, similar to the US, has a no-first-use policy. This should be something the US continues to lead the way in.
Simply attempting to match them dollar for dollar, man for man in military force and then watching each country raise the bar only to spend itself into a military stock-pile that 99% will never be used isn't a strategy for longevity. Strength is an admirable trait, but that doesn't mean simple might. Strength also means engaging ones neighbors to see how we might peaceably continue to co-exist as well. If my neighbor's house is on fire, loaning him a gun won't be as beneficial as a water hose, will it?
This is an area where our diplomatic and economic relations have seen a short-fall in the last 10 years IMHO. I say that because the company I work for has various products we ship to China. They are an economic companion and both countries would do well to continue viewing each other as such.
Even apart from my faith the concept of peace through strength is a well established principle
https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/peace-through-strength
-
btw, Hitler did not have the tech to fight two wars, he spread his troops far, far too thin. He might have succeeded even then,
except America finally stepped in, after the war exploded in size, and made the difference.
btw, Hitler did not have the tech to fight two wars, he spread his troops far, far too thin. He might have succeeded even then,
except America finally stepped in, after the war exploded in size, and made the difference.
Hitler had already won the war for western Europe and did not have a two war front when Operation Barbarossa began in June 1941. By the time America came ashore at Normandy, the Germans had already lost the key Battle for Stalingrad over a year earlier and were on the run back where they started. They're underestimation of Russia's ability to take a blow and key up their war machine was a far greater factor. Hitler thought he could win it well before America was attacked by Japan causing the US to enter the war.
-
btw, Hitler did not have the tech to fight two wars, he spread his troops far, far too thin. He might have succeeded even then,
except America finally stepped in, after the war exploded in size, and made the difference.
btw, Hitler did not have the tech to fight two wars, he spread his troops far, far too thin. He might have succeeded even then,
except America finally stepped in, after the war exploded in size, and made the difference.
Actually I think the Soviet Union had a much larger impact than the USA.
-
btw, Hitler did not have the tech to fight two wars, he spread his troops far, far too thin. He might have succeeded even then,
except America finally stepped in, after the war exploded in size, and made the difference.
Actually I think the Soviet Union had a much larger impact than the USA.
Actually I think the Soviet Union had a much larger impact than the USA.
Hitler had already won the war for western Europe and did not have a two war front when Operation Barbarossa began in June 1941. By the time America came ashore at Normandy, the Germans had already lost the key Battle for Stalingrad over a year earlier and were on the run back where they started. They're underestimation of Russia's ability to take a blow and key up their war machine was a far greater factor. Hitler thought he could win it well before America was attacked by Japan causing the US to enter the war.
I disagree.
The Russian troops would have failed without the huge influx of aid from America, and less so, the Brits.
Were it not for our material/weapons/transportation(trucks/planes)... the Soviet Army would have lost the war.
"Besides weaponry and food, Lend-Lease provided the Soviet Union with other resources, ranging from clothing to metals. With the start of the Cold War, Lend-Lease became a forgotten chapter in Soviet history and was only revived after glasnost. Now, thanks to Russian researchers and this excellent study, the West will have access to the real story. Lend-Lease provided vital help for the Soviet Union when the country was in desperate straits and made a significant contribution to the final victory. It also strengthened Josef Stalin, a fact that did not bother its chief architect, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who saw beyond the Allied victory and looked at Stalin as a counterbalance to the European colonial powers."
" Without Western aid, during the war the Soviet population would have been in danger of sharing the fate of those trapped in Leningrad and the earlier victims of collectivization. Even with the American aid, many Russians died from lack of food. "
" American aircraft, flown by Russian ferry pilots across the vast expanse of Siberia, were put to good use by the Soviet air forces even with planes that were less than popular with Western pilots. A case in point was the Bell P-39 Airacobra, used both as a low-altitude fighter and as ground support. Its odd shape gave Soviet censors fits because it was difficult to conceal that it was the favorite mount of their second-highest-ranking ace, the future marshal of aviation, Aleksandar I. Pokryshkin. "
-
No fucking way. The Germans feared the Soviet Union much more than the USA.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
you reply with the WASHINGTON POST ??? lol
No, I was correct. It's history.
Consider that the Soviets had twice as many soldiers in the War as we did, sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States_during_World_War_II
"During the war some 16 million Americans served in the United States Armed Forces, with 405,399 killed in action and 671,278 wounded. There were also 130,201 American prisoners of war, of whom 116,129 returned home after the war. "
https://www.quora.com/How-many-Russians-soldiers-served-in-World-War-2
How many Russians soldiers served in World War 2?
A total of 34,476,700 Soviet servicemen participated in the fighting during the war years for the USSR. In the Army and the Navy, 490,000 women were drafted. According to the number of deaths in the Second World War from the USSR, the data is not accurate. According to the General Staff: the total irrecoverable losses of the Red (Soviet) Army amounted to 11,944,100 people. Among the victims of the war, 13.7 million people are civilians. The total number of dead Soviet citizens military personnel and the civilian population is from 26,600,000 to 29,592,749 people, including those missing.
***************************************************************
as I already have shown - the historical fact is, without western (primarily American) weapons and material support, the Soviet army would have starved to death, wouldn't have had the trucks to deliver support. Including military and civilian deaths, the Soviet deaths count was about 3/4 of the entire amount of American soldiers who served in the war.
If nothing else, Germany feared the soviet army's huge numbers. it was in their own country after the nazis invaded them, of course. The answer is, the Russians didn't have the transportation/material/aircraft supplies to be able to win. Look at how many died.
The comprehensive truth is,
https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/96czjp/america_and_soviet_union_in_world_war_2/
It’s very complicated. Some people will try to give definitive answers, these answers typically zero in on one specific aspect and then support heavily with facts and figures. An American may go through the voluminous list of lend lease material given to the USSR explaining how the Soviet counter offensive would not have been possible without the US contribution (or at least painfully delayed). A Russian would probably cite the gross inequality of Germany’s commitment of men, equipment, and quality of troop to the Eastern front vs Western Front during the critical years of 42-44. And a British person might quietly remind both that neither did much of any fighting at all for the first 33% of the war anyways when Britain largely stood alone.
These counter factuals are not productive. It is useful to evaluate how each nation contributed, but to weigh that and engage in counter factuals of “what if they didn’t do X?” is useless and better left to fiction writers.
Russia bore an incomparable burden in terms of destruction and loss of life in World War 2, and faced the best and most of the Nazi army. They also received critical supplies from the Allies, were able to ignore Japan entirely because their other allies bore that fight alone, did not face the better part of the luftwaffe, and mind you actually aided Germany in 1939-1940 which created the very situation that they had to save themselves from because Germany was able to focus on France first and fought effectively two one-front wars consecutively until 1944 and not one two-front war like in WW1 (when Russia did in fact collapse).
-
No fucking way Cal. Without the Russians, Europe would be all Nazi.
-
LOL. Newsweek now? LOL
nice, the Russian people think the russians didn't need the help of America and the Brits to win the war.
Except they probably don't know about the material aid and food, and trucks, etc etc etc etc and planes...
LOL.
63% of those polled didn't want to end up in a prison.
-
btw, Hitler did not have the tech to fight two wars, he spread his troops far, far too thin. He might have succeeded even then,
except America finally stepped in, after the war exploded in size, and made the difference.
btw, Hitler did not have the tech to fight two wars, he spread his troops far, far too thin. He might have succeeded even then,
except America finally stepped in, after the war exploded in size, and made the difference.
My point was that Hitler never had to fight the two front war until his army was already going under trying to take Russia. Since that was what we were discussing, I thought it appropriate to clarify that point. If fact Stalin was furious that once America came into the war they did not hurry up the timetable to invade Europe as quickly as he thought they ought to.
-
No fucking way. The Germans feared the Soviet Union much more than the USA.
No fucking way. The Germans feared the Soviet Union much more than the USA.
The story about the Nazis in Berlin piling in vehicles to go West to surrender to the US troops instead of the Soviets was telling enough. They knew what would happen to them.
I went to Auschwitz over the summer. Soviet soldiers never made it more than a day in most cases at the camp. The guards focused on them even over the Jewish prisoners.
-
Fortunately for the world Hitler made the mistake of starting a war on two fronts. You would never want to be in two wars at once but I'm thinking of the possibility of being forced to fight two wars at once. I believe in the principle there is only peace through strength. China right now is investing heavily in their military and we should be concerned about it
And you're a Jesus following Christian which makes the black and white nature of this comment a bit more absurd.
China has been a cleverly used boogeyman for nearly 20 years now. What scares nations, such as China, is nuclear deterrent. Fortunately for many, China, similar to the US, has a no-first-use policy. This should be something the US continues to lead the way in.
Simply attempting to match them dollar for dollar, man for man in military force and then watching each country raise the bar only to spend itself into a military stock-pile that 99% will never be used isn't a strategy for longevity. Strength is an admirable trait, but that doesn't mean simple might. Strength also means engaging ones neighbors to see how we might peaceably continue to co-exist as well. If my neighbor's house is on fire, loaning him a gun won't be as beneficial as a water hose, will it?
This is an area where our diplomatic and economic relations have seen a short-fall in the last 10 years IMHO. I say that because the company I work for has various products we ship to China. They are an economic companion and both countries would do well to continue viewing each other as such.
-
The conflicts between modern day conservatism and the Christianity many of those conservatives claim to follow are displayed all over this board.
pretty unfair, since you are not a Christian and neither is? Tiam.
-
The conflicts between modern day conservatism and the Christianity many of those conservatives claim to follow are displayed all over this board.
pretty unfair, since you are not a Christian and neither is? Tiam.
pretty unfair, since you are not a Christian and neither is? Tiam.
I was raised Catholic for a while. I've taken Communion and all of that.
But the beauty of religion is that it's all just made up interpretations based off of a text that his been edited countless times. Someone can find some passages and interpret them in a way where they feel Jesus would want everyone to have guns or that Jesus wouldn't want to support the poor with social programs. It's a la carte in how one interprets and follows it.
Romney voted to impeach based off of his religious beliefs. He's super religious. But other super religious people (that may just be putting party first...) will tell you he's wrong and a bad person. Trump can go on the attack about him falsely using his faith, which is fucking hilarious coming from Trump, and staunch Christians will find a way to defend Trump.
And don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are similar examples of this with other religions in other countries.
At the end of the idea it's a man made belief system so all of these flaws and conflicts are going to be present. It's just funny seeing people trying to talk out of both sides of their mouth but still say it all follows with their religious beliefs.
-
pretty unfair, since you are not a Christian and neither is? Tiam.
I was raised Catholic for a while. I've taken Communion and all of that.
But the beauty of religion is that it's all just made up interpretations based off of a text that his been edited countless times. Someone can find some passages and interpret them in a way where they feel Jesus would want everyone to have guns or that Jesus wouldn't want to support the poor with social programs. It's a la carte in how one interprets and follows it.
Romney voted to impeach based off of his religious beliefs. He's super religious. But other super religious people (that may just be putting party first...) will tell you he's wrong and a bad person. Trump can go on the attack about him falsely using his faith, which is fucking hilarious coming from Trump, and staunch Christians will find a way to defend Trump.
And don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are similar examples of this with other religions in other countries.
At the end of the idea it's a man made belief system so all of these flaws and conflicts are going to be present. It's just funny seeing people trying to talk out of both sides of their mouth but still say it all follows with their religious beliefs.
I was raised Catholic for a while. I've taken Communion and all of that.
But the beauty of religion is that it's all just made up interpretations based off of a text that his been edited countless times. Someone can find some passages and interpret them in a way where they feel Jesus would want everyone to have guns or that Jesus wouldn't want to support the poor with social programs. It's a la carte in how one interprets and follows it.
Romney voted to impeach based off of his religious beliefs. He's super religious. But other super religious people (that may just be putting party first...) will tell you he's wrong and a bad person. Trump can go on the attack about him falsely using his faith, which is fucking hilarious coming from Trump, and staunch Christians will find a way to defend Trump.
And don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are similar examples of this with other religions in other countries.
At the end of the idea it's a man made belief system so all of these flaws and conflicts are going to be present. It's just funny seeing people trying to talk out of both sides of their mouth but still say it all follows with their religious beliefs.
You clearly don't understand the true beauty of religion..
Maybe someday.
Our musical works to date http://www.arielsatticmusic.com/ -
I was raised Catholic for a while. I've taken Communion and all of that.
But the beauty of religion is that it's all just made up interpretations based off of a text that his been edited countless times. Someone can find some passages and interpret them in a way where they feel Jesus would want everyone to have guns or that Jesus wouldn't want to support the poor with social programs. It's a la carte in how one interprets and follows it.
Romney voted to impeach based off of his religious beliefs. He's super religious. But other super religious people (that may just be putting party first...) will tell you he's wrong and a bad person. Trump can go on the attack about him falsely using his faith, which is fucking hilarious coming from Trump, and staunch Christians will find a way to defend Trump.
And don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are similar examples of this with other religions in other countries.
At the end of the idea it's a man made belief system so all of these flaws and conflicts are going to be present. It's just funny seeing people trying to talk out of both sides of their mouth but still say it all follows with their religious beliefs.
You clearly don't understand the true beauty of religion..
Maybe someday.
You clearly don't understand the true beauty of religion..
It was invented to explain the, at the time, unexplainable. It also serves the purpose of controlling the masses.
Yes some get a good feeling from it, based on the wiring of their brain. And yes it can build community. But can also be used to justify wat and violence.
For the most part though, it's just a remnant of early man, and a means of control.
-
You clearly don't understand the true beauty of religion..
It was invented to explain the, at the time, unexplainable. It also serves the purpose of controlling the masses.
Yes some get a good feeling from it, based on the wiring of their brain. And yes it can build community. But can also be used to justify wat and violence.
For the most part though, it's just a remnant of early man, and a means of control.
It was invented to explain the, at the time, unexplainable. It also serves the purpose of controlling the masses.
Yes some get a good feeling from it, based on the wiring of their brain. And yes it can build community. But can also be used to justify wat and violence.
For the most part though, it's just a remnant of early man, and a means of control.
Faith keeps us free, prayer makes us strong, and God alone is the author of life and the giver of grace.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login