Should we have participated in WWII?

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
My current foreign affairs position is that we should withdraw our troops from most locations overseas and have a much smaller land army along with specializing in technology keep a sharp edge but a much smaller footprint.

Sovereign countries should have their sovereignty respected by the USA. We should stop meddling in other's affairs.

But that leads me to ask, when is it necessary to intervene? Is it when people are being beheaded and lit on fire? Is it when a certain number of people die? Is it when there is genocide occurring? Is there a line when we should always intervene if we can?

That leads me to ask, should we have intervened in WWI and WWII?

Many people here agree with the idea of 'bringing the troops home' So, I guess the general question is to you. Is there a time when intervention is required? Are there specific wars that we should have participated in?

This is brought to you by the strain 'Fine Dining'
 

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
The only problem with your question is the nature of our involvement in ww2.

Japan declared war after they supprised attacked our fleet. Going to war there was not avoidable.

Germany declared war on us shortly after. Again, I don't know how we avoid that.

We had the opportunity to at one point to pick the side. Germany would have gladly ceased hostilities with England.

I think world history might have been better off had we sided with Germany against the Soviet Union.

Due to Germany being allies with the Ottoman Empire just 25 years earlier, they would have had better outcomes with the way things evolved in the mid east.

The one draw back is how the Germans were treating the jews. BUT form strictly a number of lives lost, Stalin was more evil than Hitler.

I'm not sure I buy that Hitler was more evil becuase his targets were ethnic minorities as opposed to political enemies and others. Stalin was just as evil.
 

bearkat42

Well-Known Member
Taps For A Jim Crow Army: Letters from Black Soldiers in World War II

Why did the army disrespect black officers, question their leadership abilities, and treat them so unevenly during World War II? The answer to this question is in the fact that black officers were generally considered unqualified to command troops, even all-black units. According to the military, black officers never quite measured up to Army standards. Why? Unfortunately, they suffered from a legacy of racist epithets. No matter how educated they were, what special training they had, or how many years they had served, black officers were viewed as men “past the stage of youthful daring and initiative, short on education,...

We? Lol, now that's funny! I wouldn't have. America didn't want me there anyway.:finger:
 
Last edited:

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
The only problem with your question is the nature of our involvement in ww2.

Japan declared war after they supprised attacked our fleet. Going to war there was not avoidable.

Germany declared war on us shortly after. Again, I don't know how we avoid that.

We had the opportunity to at one point to pick the side. Germany would have gladly ceased hostilities with England.

I think world history might have been better off had we sided with Germany against the Soviet Union.

Due to Germany being allies with the Ottoman Empire just 25 years earlier, they would have had better outcomes with the way things evolved in the mid east.

The one draw back is how the Germans were treating the jews. BUT form strictly a number of lives lost, Stalin was more evil than Hitler.

I'm not sure I buy that Hitler was more evil becuase his targets were ethnic minorities as opposed to political enemies and others. Stalin was just as evil.
The question is not really about our involvement in the war, it is whether there is some sort of trigger that requires us to go to war.

Your points seem to include that there is a trigger when our country is physically attacked on our own soil. That one seems pretty obvious and agreeable.

However, what about beyond that? What are our obligations to the world in terms of interference in local conflicts?
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Taps For A Jim Crow Army: Letters from Black Soldiers in World War II

Why did the army disrespect black officers, question their leadership abilities, and treat them so unevenly during World War II? The answer to this question is in the fact that black officers were generally considered unqualified to command troops, even all-black units. According to the military, black officers never quite measured up to Army standards. Why? Unfortunately, they suffered from a legacy of racist epithets. No matter how educated they were, what special training they had, or how many years they had served, black officers were viewed as men “past the stage of youthful daring and initiative, short on education,...

We? Lol, now that's funny! I wouldn't have. America didn't want me there anyway.:finger:
Thanks for bringing racism into a thread that has nothing to do with race... :/
 

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
The question is not really about our involvement in the war, it is whether there is some sort of trigger that requires us to go to war.

Your points seem to include that there is a trigger when our country is physically attacked on our own soil. That one seems pretty obvious and agreeable.

However, what about beyond that? What are our obligations to the world in terms of interference in local conflicts?
Well there are treaties and alliances. The global community has come together on this and Christopher Hitchens has a great bit in this with all his defense of the Iraq war.

When a country repeatedly attacks and occupies it's neighbors.

War is demanded to prevent or punish genocide.

Tinkering around and violating the non proliferation treatirs.

There is a fourth that I cannot remember. But whatever it was it was also a fairly valid reason to go to war.

I think economic reasons are also valid for going to war.

Think if Iran decided to block the straights of hormuz... the global economy would suffer. Send in a couple carrier groups and wipe their navies from the sea.
 

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Believe it or not, I actually wasn't the first person in my family to have ever been born. My point stands.
For what it's worth, I think any African American at the time had a very legitimate gripe.

On the flip side, by and large AA soldiers weren't used to go to the front line in most cases. They were truck drivers and bottle washers. There were AA combat units. And sometimes truck convoys got bombed. I'm just saying the typical AA soldier had better odds at surviving the war than a typical combat infantry soldier.

Ironically, it was their experience fighting in the war and coming back home to racism was the catapult that started the civil rights movement in earnest. Without that it could have taken much longer.
 

bearkat42

Well-Known Member
For what it's worth, I think any African American at the time had a very legitimate gripe.

On the flip side, by and large AA soldiers weren't used to go to the front line in most cases. They were truck drivers and bottle washers. There were AA combat units. And sometimes truck convoys got bombed. I'm just saying the typical AA soldier had better odds at surviving the war than a typical combat infantry soldier.

Ironically, it was their experience fighting in the war and coming back home to racism was the catapult that started the civil rights movement in earnest. Without that it could have taken much longer.
You forgot to mention the fact that they were treated like shit (almost sub-human) for the entire length of their service.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
You forgot to mention the fact that they were treated like shit (almost sub-human) for the entire length of their service.

Many of the Presidents a lot of people consider "great" were very racist.

FDR and Lincoln come to mind.
 

bearkat42

Well-Known Member
Many of the Presidents a lot of people consider "great" were very racist.

FDR and Lincoln come to mind.
Yep, many people certainly feel that way. I've encountered many a text book feeding me that exact line of bullshit. I ain't buying it though.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Well there are treaties and alliances. The global community has come together on this and Christopher Hitchens has a great bit in this with all his defense of the Iraq war.

When a country repeatedly attacks and occupies it's neighbors.

War is demanded to prevent or punish genocide.

Tinkering around and violating the non proliferation treatirs.

There is a fourth that I cannot remember. But whatever it was it was also a fairly valid reason to go to war.

I think economic reasons are also valid for going to war.

Think if Iran decided to block the straights of hormuz... the global economy would suffer. Send in a couple carrier groups and wipe their navies from the sea.

The question is not really about our involvement in the war, it is whether there is some sort of trigger that requires us to go to war.

Your points seem to include that there is a trigger when our country is physically attacked on our own soil. That one seems pretty obvious and agreeable.

However, what about beyond that? What are our obligations to the world in terms of interference in local conflicts?

Only individuals can obligate themselves. That does not mean groups comprised of willing individuals should not act in unison or accord though.

upload_2016-2-16_12-25-30.png
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
You forgot to mention the fact that they were treated like shit (almost sub-human) for the entire length of their service.
You forgot to mention that due to their skill and service those black soldiers changed a lot of perceptions. Why dont you raise them up rather than trying to tear everyone else down?

The thread is supposed to be a discussion on what would require the USA or any country to go to war. Especially interested in people who say we never should go to war for any reason.
 

bearkat42

Well-Known Member
You forgot to mention that due to their skill and service those black soldiers changed a lot of perceptions. Why dont you raise them up rather than trying to tear everyone else down?

The thread is supposed to be a discussion on what would require the USA or any country to go to war. Especially Especially Especially interested in people who say we never should go to war for any reason.
"Why don't you raise them up rather than trying to tear everyone else down?"

America loves to ignore those little historical details that she don't like, doesn't she?

"The thread is supposed to be a discussion on what would require the USA or any country to go to war. Especially interested in people who say we never should go to war for any reason."

That's exactly what I'm doing, my man. I'm telling you why I'm not going to war for this country under almost any scenario. Count me in the latter group.
 

hondagrower420

Well-Known Member
People still believe pearl harbor was a surprise attack. Read a fucking book. It's called the art of war.

The US cut trade off to Japan basically starving the Japanese economy.

It's how every war starts. You hide under lies to sway public opinion.

WE ARE A FEAR BASED ECONOMY.

you know how Iraq caused everyone to think gas was going to run out. Gas is now cheaper than it was 10 years ago. Why? Fear.

Are any of you familiar with the Geneva conventions. There are clear rules for what war is and isn't. And what dictates an act of war.

Do you know how we send black ops in and kill I. countries that were are not at war with?

A solider is allowed to fire upon an enemy when said solider is fired upon or attacked by and enemy force. This is not an act of war.

War is for men if honor. Our military was once a proud group. Now, most soilders are reluctant and scared.

I fought every day hoping that the motherfucker that got me better do that shit face to face. Bombs scare the shit out of me.

Those days are over now. It changed me.

Rant over.

To answer the op question. I think that we should leave countries alone. War should be avoided at all costs.

We don't need to conquer land like back in ancient times. Greece, Egypt, Rome all fell because of a co Stanton need to conquer.

So history tells us, war mongering usually leads to a inability to protect yourself.

I'm high and I'm done. Was I rambling?
 

hondagrower420

Well-Known Member
Oh. And about pearl harbor, here is a good read.



In 1944, I was flying Navy transport planes in the South Pacific. Along with the cargoes we delivered to combat areas, we often carried military passengers, and during the long hours between islands, I would often turn the plane over to the co-pilot and go back into the cabin to talk with the passengers. One of them was a young naval intelligence officer on his way to Okinawa.

We had some engine trouble on that trip and had to lay over unexpectedly in Guam. The trouble wasn't serious, and we were booked out the next morning. So my new intelligence friend and I went to the local officer's club to tip a few before we turned in. And there, over the third drink, he told me a story that he probably shouldn't have that stayed with me until I was home after the war.


He told me that the Nov. 22, 1941, issue of the New Yorker magazine--two weeks before the attack on Pearl Harbor--carried an advertisement that in retrospect was full of double meanings and was considered by the intelligence community as a warning to someone about the timing of the upcoming Japanese offensive. He described the ad as best he could from memory and said it was accompanied by a pair of dice with the numbers 12 and 7--the date of the Pearl Harbor attack--exposed.

He had been assigned to investigate the ad and ran into nothing but dead-ends. It had been placed across the counter in New York and paid for in cash. Both the main ad and the smaller lead-in ads had been set in type somewhere else and a matrix pulled for delivery to the New Yorker. The clerk who had accepted the ads had no recollection of who placed them, and neither the game that was offered in the double-entendre copy nor the company whose signature was on the ad existed. So my friend had drawn a total blank, and it was still eating at him. He was convinced that someone--for reasons he couldn't fathom--had been instructed to convey information about the upcoming attack in this manner.

I never forgot that conversation, and when I returned to college after the war, I went to the library and found bound editions of the New Yorker. Although it was only a one-column ad in a thick magazine, it was easy to spot. And it was every bit as mysterious as the intelligence officer had described it.

The illustration above the ad copy showed an air raid in progress and, immediately below it, a group of people in an air raid shelter playing a dice game. The headline is "Uchtung, Warning, Alerte!" And the copy begins: "We hope you'll never have to spend a long winter's night in an air-raid shelter, but we were just thinking . . . it's only common sense to be prepared. If you're not too busy between now and Christmas, why not sit down and plan a list of the things you'll want to have on hand. . . . "

Then followed a list of items useful in an air raid shelter that concluded with this sentence: "And though it's no time, really, to be thinking of what's fashionable, we bet that most of your friends will remember to include those intriguing dice and chips which make Chicago's favorite game: THE DEADLY DOUBLE." This was followed by the sign of the double cross: two X's inside a shield--and a tag line that the game was available in department stores everywhere.

Then, scattered throughout the issue, were a half-dozen small ads repeating the headline and referring to the main ad, surrounding a pair of dice--one black, one white--containing numbers not found on conventional dice on which 12 and 7 and the double cross were prominently displayed. The small ads were signed by the Monarch Publishing Co., New York. I remembered the assurances of the intelligence officer that there was no such company and no such game in the stores, and the ads took on a significance--and a malevolence--to me that has been very real ever since.
 
Top