Morley wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 3:19 pm
Dr. Shades wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:25 am
Dude, as someone who's avidly studied the second world war for nearly 40 years, I don't think you've ever met anyone who needs that lecture LESS than I do.
Then maybe you'll demonstrate some of the knowledge by answering the question as to what the US should have done when Japan took Philippines and bombed Pearl Harbor while Germany declared war on the US.
It should have declared war, which is exactly what it did.
Should the US have just tucked tail and asked the axis powers to spare them?
No.
Should the US have just turned the other cheek and handed over her possessions while watching her people being slaughtered?
No.
Your suggestion that the Pacific Fleet should not have been in Hawaii is a dodge.
No. The question of whether the United States was morally obligated to avoid being attacked in the first place vs. what it should have done AFTER it foolishly
didn't avoid being attacked--as happened historically--is not a "dodge." It is
an entirely separate issue.
While we're at it, let me ask you two questions: Should the U.S. military have "boots on the ground" in Ukraine? If not, why not? Your answer to these two questions will get you far closer to understanding my point of view than anything I can type.
Dr. Shades wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:25 am
Here's a hypothetical for you: If World War III were to break out, and the United States wasn't involved, would you want the government to draft you and send you over to fight in it anyway? If not, why not?
I'm a former Army Ranger who volunteered and served in combat in a war much less necessary than WWII. If, at this point, they wanted my wrinkled ass, sure, I'd serve again.
Really? You'd sacrifice your life even if there was no reason to do so?
Dr. Shades wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:25 am
What if YOU were one of the lives lost? Would it still be worth it to you?
Absolutely. Read the above.
Then I guess there's no need for us to continue conversing.
Dr. Shades wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:25 am
And if the U.S. had kept its fleet on the West Coast, as any sane leader would've done, the Axis powers wouldn't have forced it to, ruthlessly and very effectively or otherwise.
Here's your dodge. You're doing a Monday morning quarterback move to avoid answering the question about what actually
did happen.
It's not a dodge if I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY
DID HAPPEN. WHAT ACTUALLY
DID HAPPEN IS A DONE DEAL, SET IN HISTORICAL STONE. I'm only discussing whether what actually did happen could have--and if so, should have--been avoided; NOTHING MORE.
What should the US have done after Pearl Harbor, Philippines, and Germany's declaration of war?
The Philippines was taken long after Pearl Harbor.
But let's take the bait and say the fleet was not in Hawaii. The Japanese would have still brutally taken Philippines (and had designs on Hawaii).
I disagree.
Should the US have just made Philippines a gift to Japan? Should the US have just ignored the deaths of its citizens and ignored atrocities like the Bataan Death March?
No.
Whenever someone threatens the US, should she just roll over and beg for mercy?
No. I never said, or even so much as
implied, that it should.
I respectfully request that you address the words that I actually DID type, not ones that you merely
wish I did.
Morley wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 3:30 pm
Dr. Shades wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:25 am
Yes, the North should've let the South secede, under the reasoning enumerated within the first three sentences of the Declaration of Independence.
Which, as I'm sure you know, still wouldn't have avoided war.
You don't know that.
The ostensive reason for the South's secession was the curtailment of the right to expand slavery into the territories.
No, it was due to what it viewed as repressive legislation by a northern-dominated, uh, legislature.
There would have been an eventual war over who got what territories and what happened to fugitive slaves.
I disagree.
The slavery question had been kicked down the road for so long that a war over it was almost inevitable.
"Almost" being the operative word.
drumdude wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 3:38 pm
By your logic, the US should not have a military because no one wants to be killed.
No, my logic is that governments are obligated to preserve their citizens--both in and out of uniform--whenever possible, not to recklessly squander them so the stockholders of the military/industrial complex can get even richer.
Shades, the entire reason that militaries exist is to protect civilians.
I'm probably the one person on this planet who LEAST needs to hear that.
The reason I pointed out how extremely high the civilian casualties were in Europe was because their militaries failed.
Yep. Lots of German civilians perished too, thanks to the U.S. military carpet-bombing them. But let's not concern ourselves with that. We only need to sacrifice our citizens to protect the civilians that the brass deems worthy of protecting. Kill the rest.
A hostile country invaded and started exterminating their civilian populations. Your philosophy would have us roll over and be similarly destroyed.
WRONG. Point out where I said that nations shouldn't defend themselves when attacked. (SPOILER ALERT: You can't.)
I don’t believe you’ve studied WWII, or if you have, you have studied it without understanding anything academics have said. You claim the US didn’t care about limiting soldier deaths, when that is exactly what the use of atomic weapons did. Every civilian in Japan was ready to fight hand-to-hand against US soldiers. US casualties could easily have doubled during an invasion of Japan to force them to capitulate.
And U.S. casualties could've been multiplied by 0 if it had kept its Pacific fleet on the West Coast. That's an even better limitation of soldier deaths, don't you think?
You have no answer to the success of the Marshall plan, which does the US was not just “running amok.” Why didn’t we claim Germany and Japan for ourselves, if we were so unhinged?
Please point out where I said the U.S. ran amok after the war. (SPOILER ALERT: You can't.)
Please point to one academic who has studied this professionally and come up with the same conclusions you have. Academics have to study this as their job, and put their reputations on the line. If you can’t find one, please acknowledge that this is a really extremely fringe unsupported personal belief.
The winners write the history books. This has always been so. Hail to the Chief and all that. Once everyone has drunk the Kool-Aid, those who
haven't drunk it look like the abnormal ones. It's a tale as old as time.
This is like flat earther bizarre, shades. Watch some interviews with WWII veterans to get a little more grounded on the topic. See if you can gauge that even through their immense loss of friends and brothers, that they deeply believed it was worth it.
I'm sure plenty of members of the Willie & Martin Handcart company deeply believed it was worth it. Doesn't mean the LDS leadership wasn't criminally negligent in so cavalierly instructing them to depart so late in the year, wouldn't you say?
While we're at it, let me ask you two questions: Should the U.S. military have "boots on the ground" in Ukraine? If not, why not? Your answer to these two questions will get you far closer to understanding my point of view than anything I can type.
Morley wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 4:48 pm
Dr. Shades wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:25 am
And if the U.S. had kept its fleet on the West Coast, as any sane leader would've done, the Axis powers wouldn't have forced it to, ruthlessly and very effectively or otherwise.
Hmm, let's try this out.
If the guy hadn't carried a knife, the gang wouldn't have been forced to murder him. If the woman had not worn such a short skirt, the man would not have been forced to molest her. If the Jews had not been so successful, the Nazis wouldn't have been forced into the Final Solution. If John Lewis had not crossed that bridge, the police wouldn't have been force to beat the crap out of him. If the wife hadn't engaged in backtalk, he wouldn't have been forced to smack her.
Please point out where I said that the attacker isn't 100% responsible for the attack. (SPOILER ALERT: You can't.)
Let's say you attend the funeral of your next-door-neighbor's teenage son. This son was killed in gang violence. Then you learn that your next-door-neighbor dressed his teenaged son in a red hat, a red shirt, and red sweatpants, then dropped him off in the middle of Los Angeles's Crip territory without a vehicle or a cell phone.
Yes, it's 100% the Crips' fault for killing the teenaged kid. But would you say that the next-door-neighbor's conduct is advisable, or inadvisable? Is doing that to one's son the mark of a good father, or is it the mark of a bad father? Please tell me the answer to these questions.
drumdude wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 5:20 pm
Morley wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 4:48 pm
If the guy hadn't carried a knife, the gang wouldn't have been forced to murder him. If the woman had not worn such a short skirt, the man would not have been forced to molest her. If the Jews had not been so successful, the Nazis wouldn't have been forced into the Final Solution. If John Lewis had not crossed that bridge, the police wouldn't have been force to beat the crap out of him. If the wife hadn't engaged in backtalk, he wouldn't have been forced to smack her.
Shades can’t be serious.
That's right. It's impossible for me to be serious about something
I didn't write and that
I don't agree with.
PROTIP: The words I myself write will appear as small black characters on your computer monitor. They will be arranged in clear, straightforward American English. On the other hand, the words that I myself
don't write will not appear in any such way. As a matter of fact, they won't appear
at all.
That's the key to discerning the words I write vs. the words I don't write.
You're welcome.
Morley wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:12 pm
Declaration of Independence wrote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I dunno, Shades. This reads more like a justification for the Union to do whatever is needed to force the end of slavery, than it does for the South to secede in order to maintain it.
"The people" refers to "the governed," which are the citizens
of the country with an odious government, not individuals living on the other side of the world. By your logic, since the 13 colonies had slavery when the Declaration was written, then it was clearly an invitation to all other nations on earth to declare war upon, and subjugate, the declaring colonies.
canpakes wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 1:49 am
Morley wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:12 pm
I dunno, Shades. This reads more like a justification for the Union to do whatever is needed to force the end of slavery, than it does for the South to secede in order to maintain it.
Especially since what the South wanted to maintain was against the principles stated in the first three sentences.
As I explained, the slavery that all 13 colonies--which includes the North--wanted to maintain was against the principles stated in the first three sentences. Should every nation on earth have declared war on the 13 colonies? If not, why not?
Since I have you here, let me ask you two questions: Should the U.S. military have "boots on the ground" in Ukraine? If not, why not? Your answer to these two questions will get you far closer to understanding my point of view than anything I can type.