How cum Barry doesn't send teh drones after their arses?

[ledhead]

Really, you have a complete lack of knowledge when it comes to basic 20th century history. I shouldn't have to explain the United States Support of Chiang Kai Shek over the Communist Mao...You need to look at the steel and oil embargo over the "rape of Nanking" that lead to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Considering that North Korea successfully detonated a primitive WWII era bomb, after detonating a nuke that was equivalent to a truckload of TNT.... and Iran that MIGHT detonate a WWII level device are considered major threats to United States security, roughly 60 years later...four years is pretty soon. Likewise, you're assuming nuclear arms are the same as conventional forces in deterrence. How many missiles did the United States have that could reach the Soviet Industrial centers in 1949 and how many fighting divisions? I'll answer my question about missiles...zero...How many divisions did the Soviet Union have to overrun Western Europe in 1949?

I can only assume your opinion is based on your apocalyptic Christian view of the world...

How dare you indirectly call me a Millerite! How dare you criticize me, you know I am above reproach... For the record, I am a "perfectionist." I am almost there! How dare you re-word my posts, nice try! That goes to show how some people cannot take defeat that well. People should know when they are conquered..

Fyi, I am an expert on 20th Century World History. Your incapability to comprehend my thesis is a leading indicator you are inept on this subject. I spoon fed you the information you needed, but you are stll unable to decode what the Cold War was really about. I love how you use aphorisms as a comprehensive tool..

Here is the deal, I will give you the summation of the Cold War in a concise, precise, and all-inclusive manner.

The Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, and Kennan's Containment Policy all run parallel with one another. After WWII, America dominated the world via military and monetary. In order to SUSTAIN its world dominance the U.S. had to refurbish Europe because the U.S. needed Western Europe for mercantilism. Therefore, the U.S. could keep the money circulating, "sustaining" its dominance of the world's wealth (50%). Economics 101 says, "war creates wealth," there is "certainty" in this philosophy. Prior to WWII the U.S. was in the middle of a world depression. In 1939, the U.S. started making war armaments, the US ranked 16th on how well the countries who suffered from the depression did economically (very poor). Nevertheless, after WWII, the U.S. held 50% of the world's wealth with 5% of the world's population. WAR CREATES WEALTH... There are couple of factors to why war creates wealth, time will fail me right now. Significantly, if communism was that big of a threat, then why didn't the U.S. nuke the Soviet Union??? We had no problem bombing Japan. Remember, from 1945-1949 the U.S. was the ONLY country in the world who possessed the "atomic bomb." Theoretically, the U.S. needed an enemy to create a WAR MACHINE. That enemy was "communism." War creates wealth, the Soviets were pawns to sustain our wealth... Communism, Soviet Union, Korea, Vietnam, fear, paranoia, ideology, Eastern Bloc, Western Bloc, McCarthyism, Domino Effect and the Evil Empire are all names that keep one guessing and prevent one from asking the real questions.

Why was the Cold War started? Was communism that big of a threat?? Who was in control?Who had the wherewithal to start the Cold War? Who was playing puppet master?

Adamantly, the U.S. started the Cold War to create a war machine in order to sustain its wealth.. I talked to historians who have PhD's and 30 yrs of study under their belt, who focus on recent U.S. History, cannot debunk this theory.. There is enough "probability," and "certainty" in my theory that says I am just about right. Remember, history is "imperfect," it is all about certainties and probabilities...

In relation to Japan, the reason why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor was the U.S. enticed them because America needed an excuse to enter WWII. The Japanese invaded Southern China where we had multinational interests, so the U.S. levied sanctions on Japan. Knowing, the Japanese's only outlet was to attack the United States. Consequently, they attacked, we entered the war, and at the end we became the wealthiest country in the world. Brilliant plan, if you ask me...

 

[javaguru]

1. You are a self proclaimed expert...what is your pedigree? What have you published in peer reviewed journals?

2. The Soviet Union was perfectly capable of taking the rest of western Europe after WWII, that's why Patton was muzzled for his inflammatory statements towards war with the Soviet Union. The United States and western allies never faced more than 10% of the Wehrmacht fighting strength and the United States was so hurting for manpower in infantry divisions, even with a draft, they disbanded support units to provide replacements as early as 1943. Likewise, the United States was out of nukes at the end of WWII and would need bombers to deliver imaginary bombs to the major productions centers in the Soviet Union which were beyond the physical range of a B-29. The same realities that foiled the Nazis would only have been exacerbated in any United States campaign in Europe.

3. War doesn't create wealth, it's a Keynesian fallacy, if I burn down your house and you have to pay for it to be rebuilt are you wealthier? If I burn down your house and the Feds pay for it to be rebuilt are you wealthier? At best, war simply transfers resources in a very inefficient manner...look at cost plus accounting and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...misallocation of resources doesn't help anyone, that's what caused the economic crisis.

4. My god...and I'm an atheist...Why didn't the United States nuke the Soviet Union by 1949?...You can read Truman's personal letters about his feelings on the use of nukes with Japan and even if he wanted to there was no political will for a third world war.

 

[ledhead]

1. You are a self proclaimed expert...what is your pedigree? What have you published in peer reviewed journals?

2. The Soviet Union was perfectly capable of taking the rest of western Europe after WWII, that's why Patton was muzzled for his inflammatory statements towards war with the Soviet Union. The United States and western allies never faced more than 10% of the Wehrmacht fighting strength and the United States was so hurting for manpower in infantry divisions, even with a draft, they disbanded support units to provide replacements as early as 1943. Likewise, the United States was out of nukes at the end of WWII and would need bombers to deliver imaginary bombs to the major productions centers in the Soviet Union which were beyond the physical range of a B-29. The same realities that foiled the Nazis would only have been exacerbated in any United States campaign in Europe.

If the Soviets had the man power to take over Europe, then why didn't they?? Remember, the Soviets were invaded for centuries and were paranoid. They had the worst dictator who might have ever lived (Stalin) leading them. Therefore, speculating, with the "probability" if the Soviets were able to take over Europe they would have.. According to you, the US's military dwindled down to nothing, so the Russians could have taken Europe with ease... Erroneous assumption. In 1946, the US had long range missles, so they could have bombed Russia with no problems. Remember, the Russians did not possess the "bomb" yet.

3. War doesn't create wealth, it's a Keynesian fallacy, if I burn down your house and you have to pay for it to be rebuilt are you wealthier? If I burn down your house and the Feds pay for it to be rebuilt are you wealthier? At best, war simply transfers resources in a very inefficient manner...look at cost plus accounting and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...misallocation of resources doesn't help anyone, that's what caused the economic crisis.

If war does not create wealth then why did we become the richest country in the world after WWII, by far, the US possesed 50% of the world's wealth in 1945. I gave you the stats. Read: National Security Council, Paper Number 68. The wars in Afghan and Iraq are not the reason our economy is shot. The housing debacle and the stimulas packages are the reasons... You are speculating without proof...

4. My god...and I'm an atheist...Why didn't the United States nuke the Soviet Union by 1949?...You can read Truman's personal letters about his feelings on the use of nukes with Japan and even if he wanted to there was no political will for a third world war.

You are certainly the most evangelical atheist I have ever had the displeasure to encounter. Truman was a commie sympathizer and a pussy. The US could have easily blasted the Soviets off the map, if they would have listened to Patton... But they let spies in the White House who stole our nuke blue prints then sold them to the Soviets. However, the Soviets did not dentonate their first bomb until 1949, plenty of time for the US to obliterate them... Churchill knew to get rid of them, but like I said, Truman was a pussy... My theory has yet to be debunked, you certainly did not do it.. And precisely my point, communsim was not that big of a threat because if it was Russia would have got it... Timetables are very important, the Soviets did not even really have a successful bomb dentonation until the 50's.. That goes back to the theatre of war and the "missle gap" theory.. Think on a different level.. Stop regurgitating what you have been taught, do your own research, that is what real historians do. Stop taking things at face value! I gave you my own theory... Give us your own theory instead of some elses' Stop listening to the mainstream media and one side of the story.. Investigate both sides then come up with an analysis.

 

[javaguru]

You are certainly the most evangelical atheist I have ever had the displeasure to encounter. Truman was a commie sympathizer and a pussy. The US could have easily blasted the Soviets off the map, if they would have listened to Patton... But they let spies in the White House who stole our nuke blue prints then sold them to the Soviets. However, the Soviets did not dentonate their first bomb until 1949, plenty of time for the US to obliterate them... Churchill knew to get rid of them, but like I said, Truman was a pussy... My theory has yet to be debunked, you certainly did not do it.. And precisely my point, communsim was not that big of a threat because if it was Russia would have got it... Timetables are very important, the Soviets did not even really have a successful bomb dentonation until the 50's.. That goes back to the theatre of war and the "missle gap" theory.. Think on a different level.. Stop regurgitating what you have been taught, do your own research, that is what real historians do. Stop taking things at face value! I gave you my own theory... Give us your own theory instead of some elses' Stop listening to the mainstream media and one side of the story.. Investigate both sides then come up with an analysis.

I wrote most of my papers with a logistical bent....The United States could barely supply the troops moving into western Germany, Patton himself was forced to stop due to a lack of supplies, let alone muster enough bodies and the logistical capability to pursue a conflict against the Soviet Union. There is a reason a general staff was created to manage strategic conflict because narcissistic self-promoting field generals can't make up their own facts to advise the political leadership.

The Atlas D, the first nuke armed US ICBM wasn't developed until 1959....The Soviet R-7 became operational in 1960...

Before ICBM's, bombers were needed to deliver payloads...good luck delivering nukes the United States didn't have because we dropped both bombs we had on Japan...

 

[javaguru]

War doesn't create wealth...just because you burned down everyone elses house in your neighborhood doesn't make your house more valuable...it simply means you eliminated the competition by destroying their wealth. Blowing up a factory in Germany didn't make a factory in Michigan more productive it simply misallocated resources based on a government policy.

I doubt you understand where I'm going with this so I'll clarify....GDP as it's calculated, the basis of your argument, is a joke. Government spending should not be included in GDP and imports should NOT be subtracted from GDP because imports create wealth by re-allocating resources by the consumers. After all, the Soviet Union had a solid GDP compared to the United States during the 1970's even though their real economic power was pathetic due to their reliance on central government planning and expenditure.

 

[ledhead]

10985943]War doesn't create wealth...just because you burned down everyone elses house in your neighborhood doesn't make your house more valuable.[/b]..it simply means you eliminated the competition by destroying their wealth. Blowing up a factory in Germany didn't make a factory in Michigan more productive it simply misallocated resources based on a government policy.

I doubt you understand where I'm going with this so I'll clarify....GDP as it's calculated, the basis of your argument, is a joke. Government spending should not be included in GDP and imports should NOT be subtracted from GDP because imports create wealth by re-allocating resources by the consumers. After all, the Soviet Union had a solid GDP compared to the United States during the 1970's even though their real economic power was pathetic due to their reliance on central government planning and expenditure.

Here is the deal, I guess you "doubted" that I would pick up on your plagiarism. The anaolgy you used and refused to cite belongs to Economist Henry Hazlitt, who wrote for the New York Times during FDR's tenure. The rest of your post belongs to F.A. Hayek in his book The Road to Serfdom. I like Hayek myself, and for the most part hate Keynes. However, "war creates wealth" if it is done correctly. Like I been trying to tell you, if you claim to be an historian you have to let go of your ideology and come up with the most facts or probabilities or certainties. How did the U.S. become the wealthiest country in the world after WWII? What did Hitler do to get Germany's economy booming? What about the Opium Wars? What about the 16th and 17th century British Empire?? What about the Roman Empire... How did they get so wealthy???

Let's talk in 19th and 20th century terms.

When a country went to war they mobilized millions of men and women and sent them abroad (consumption plummeted). Then that country made war armaments, which employed millions of people to make the material. Subsequently, unemployment pretty much drindled to nothing. Nonetheless, they had to pay for the war, so how did they pay for the war? Either by raising taxes or by plundering that country they went to war with, and then set up mercantilism... That was/ is the main objective to war. (Rise of the modern World). To imperialize to create wealth. The 20th and 21st century term is called "recolinization." Hayek and Keynes both made good arguments. However, to my dismay, I give Keynes the nod on this one, history is 20/20... If done correctly "war creates wealth." There is no doubt!! On war Keynes is on spot, however, the rest of his economic policies are wrong.

Dude, I'm done taking potshots at you, at least you debate unlike others. Bro, how in the world can you make an assumption that "imports create wealth by re-allocating resources"? There are two things very wrong with your statement. First, Economics 101 says, if you are importing more than exporting you are in a economic downturn. In other words a "trade deficit," which "usually" means you are not manufacturing you own goods. Which leads to less jobs, creating more unemployment. The whole essence of economics is "scarcity." There is never enough to go around.. The U.S. never had a trade deficit until the 1930's (the worst economic downturn in US history). Jefferson, who we both like, implemented the Embargo Act, which led to no trade, which lead to a depression.. Whatever country has the most resources has the advantage.. Because you can fend for yourself and sell the surplus abroad accumulating wealth.... Second, your term "re-allocating resources" is a communist term.. Remember, communism is when a government controls the state and homogenizes goods to its people.

No, if anyone was spread thin it was the Nazis, they fought a two front war?? No, we had nukes in 1946. YES we did, look into it more... The Soviets bluffed about their nukes, YES, Their silos were empty. The U.S. knew ever move they were going to make, the U.S. knew them inside and out...They were NO threat at all... I will expound more later...

 

[javaguru]

sigh....

You are speaking in 19th century Keynesian terms...we live in a non Keynesian world...I would respond...Why did all the militaristic empires you mentioned as a reason for war creating wealth collapse? There was a misallocation towards war as opposed to trade...I have purchased a cheap PC manufactured in China and used it to make wealth. If someone can purchase cheap clothing imported from China they can turn around and decide to purchase a Ford or Chrysler with the money saved that would have been spent paying someone for over priced goods. Likewise, why not levy import duties based on states, after all, southern states are producing goods much more cheaply than northern states... If you purchase a Honda or GM vehicle they both have the same amount of parts manufactured domestically...You're lost in antiquated and debunked economic ideology.

Ummm...that means the United States was a communist country during WWII and Korea? Look at price controls and central control of the economy...socialist and authoritarian yes but communist not so much...

I'm a consultant in manufacturing and there are wild claims made about manufacturing jobs lost...and they have been but those lost have been due to advances in technology and labor intensive manufacturing (jobs Americans don't like). The actual labor cost difference between a third world country and the United States is 10% of a products cost...the real liability is regulation.

The Nazi's did fight a two front war but never committed more than 10% of their fighting strength to Italy and France. In 1941 a single Soviet factory in the Urals produced more tanks in a year than the Wehrmacht possessed...

 

[ledhead]

sigh....

You are speaking in 19th century Keynesian terms...we live in a non Keynesian world...I would respond...Why did all the militaristic empires you mentioned as a reason for war creating wealth collapse? There was a misallocation towards war as opposed to trade...I have purchased a cheap PC manufactured in China and used it to make wealth. If someone can purchase cheap clothing imported from China they can turn around and decide to purchase a Ford or Chrysler with the money saved that would have been spent paying someone for over priced goods. Likewise, why not levy import duties based on states, after all, southern states are producing goods much more cheaply than northern states... If you purchase a Honda or GM vehicle they both have the same amount of parts manufactured domestically...You're lost in antiquated and debunked economic ideology.

Keynes was a 20th century English economist not 19th century.. So you know!

No, I never lose!! Who say's we live in a non-Keynesian world?? All Keynesian economics is spend, spend, and spend some more. Therefore, we are totally living in a socialist world. What about the "stimulus packages"? What about our enormous "welfare state"? Those policies would be classified as "Keynesian economics." Why would you make such a lame statement? You hurt you own argument!!! Again, war creates jobs and wealth. When a country has to make large amounts of war material, they hire people to make the material (eco 101). War creates wealth. Here I will break it down for you because you do not understand how macroeconomics works.

The CIRCULAR-FLOW DIAGRAM shows the flow of spending and money in the economy. FIRMS sell goods and services to three groups: domestic households, FOREIGN FIRMS and households, and the government. To produce goods and services, firms use factors of PRODUCTION: LABOR, CAPITAL, NATURAL RESOURCES, and ENTREPRENEURSHIP. HOUSEHOLDS supply the factors of production to firms in exchange for income in the form of WAGES, INTEREST, PROFIT, and RENT. FIRMS make payments of WAGES and INTEREST to HOUSEHOLDS in exchange for HIRING WORKERS and other factors of production. Therefore, PEOPLE use their income to purchase goods and services, pay taxes, and save! That is practical macroeconomics, which works considering our economy 70% CONSUMERISM. When a FIRM is producing large amount of goods they are making a profit. When a firm wants to increase their profit they pay their workers an EFFICIENCY WAGE. When people have more money they spend more money expanding the economy...

Your philosophy pertains to a small percentage of people. How in the world could people buy a new vehicle if they do not have a job??? Anytime a country imports more than they export they are in a ECONOMIC DOWNTURN. The philosophy you ripped-off from CNN is somewhat accurate. However, you forgot to mention different components that correlate with that philosophy in order for it to work. First, according to your philosophy, importing goods would be advantageous, but that would eliminate jobs. Therefore, you would have STRUCTURAL UNEMPLOYMENT, which means a country would have to train people for different work, so they have the skills for the job requirements... Which can take years.. An example U.S. steel firms dropped more than half between the 80's and the early 2000s as a result of competition from foreign producers and technological change that substituted MACHINES for WORKERS. People may be structurally unemployed for years..

Then you said put a levy on goods... NO, bad economic policy. THE SMOOT-HAWLEY TARIFF ACT taxed 3,000 imported items. Foreigners passed retaliatory tariffs and refused to import U.S. goods. Our exports dropped from $7 billion in 1929 to $2.5 billion in 1932. Modern economists use this example for today's standards.. Never, put high tariffs on goods unless you have access to all the goods..

Ummm...that means the United States was a communist country during WWII and Korea? Look at price controls and central control of the economy...socialist and authoritarian yes but communist not so much...

You mean to tell me you do not know socialism and communsim have the same ideology?? lololol.. The only difference is communsim had a vanguard state, but same economic policies... That is 5th grade civics.. The term you are not able come up with is called, Totalitarian-Socialism..

I'm a consultant in manufacturing and there are wild claims made about manufacturing jobs lost...and they have been but those lost have been due to advances in technology and labor intensive manufacturing (jobs Americans don't like). The actual labor cost difference between a third world country and the United States is 10% of a products cost...the real liability is regulation.

Read my above paragraph... If you are a consultant I am moving to Iran......

The Nazi's did fight a two front war but never committed more than 10% of their fighting strength to Italy and France. In 1941 a single Soviet factory in the Urals produced more tanks in a year than the Wehrmacht possessed...

So, what does any of this have to do what we are talking about???? What is your point?? I proved the Soviets were no threat to the U.S. The Nazis were spread thin, they were everywhere.. That is why historians say they lost...but I say, they lost because the Core rocked their world...

Again, your whole post is full of aphorisms, the latest sound bite of the local news, no insightful information, lack of depth, lack of knowledge on hist, eco and everthing else...

I am bored with you....

 

[redsamurai]

led, the logistics of an invasion of the old soviet union...just the logistics bor, dude...think about it. Yeah the soviets weren't churning out enough supplies to cover all of thier trooops, that is true. But god what a logistical nightmare that woudl have been. And we would have been on our own. What was France gonna help us? The british war machine had been decimated by the Germans, they would have been of little to no help. Plus most of Europe was pretty much grateful to anyone that helped destroy the Nazi's so a move against Russia would likely have been a "let them boys duke it out on their own" scenario. We could "never" have held Russia...we could have won many battles but there's absolutely no way in hell we could have subdued the Russians.

 

[ledhead]

led, the logistics of an invasion of the old soviet union...just the logistics bor, dude...think about it. Yeah the soviets weren't churning out enough supplies to cover all of thier trooops, that is true. But god what a logistical nightmare that woudl have been. And we would have been on our own. What was France gonna help us? The british war machine had been decimated by the Germans, they would have been of little to no help. Plus most of Europe was pretty much grateful to anyone that helped destroy the Nazi's so a move against Russia would likely have been a "let them boys duke it out on their own" scenario. We could "never" have held Russia...we could have won many battles but there's absolutely no way in hell we could have subdued the Russians.

Bro, the argument was about unconventional warfare not conventional! Considering your post for a second, I think the Marines would have laughed in your face for saying such an unpatriotic statement.. Besides, the Marines landed in Russia during the Russian Revolution, and were kicked out by Wilson because they were murdering everything and everybody, even inanimated objects were being destroyed by the Marines. Remember, Marines wipeout ecosystems...Wilson, who was a commie lover did not want the core to commit genocide on his commie cousins...



"God has a hard on for Marines, because we kill everything we see. He plays His games, we play ours. To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls. God was here before the Marine Corps, so you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the corps."