Political Roundtable - Part VII

[Induveca]

There wouldn't have been two fronts. The German factories wouldn't have been decimated. Italy wouldn't have been taken out of the war. Japan would have been still going strong. Just saying...

Oh, and there was that little thing of six million Jews slaughtered - sometimes we want to forget - but we shouldn't.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganbergen-belsen.htm

Thank you for stating the obvious, the "squeeze" is what defeated Germany.

[dckingsfan]

Talk about biyatches - hahaha - waaaa

[dckingsfan]

As for the effectiveness of the bombing campaign it is still debated. Don't make it out like it is completely agreed upon.

It started with "strategic bombing" of military targets - but that was ineffective because the ordinates weren't accurate enough. Then we tried to bomb the factories - but that didn't stop output. But then they settled into bombing the refineries which was effective. If you don't try, you don't usually find out what works.

And the bombing campaign did force Germany to devote huge resources to the defend German, and the German air force had huge losses at the hands of Allied fighter escorts.

And my main point - I am sure that the English were happy to be doing the bombing rather than being bombed.

[dobrojim]

For one thing, what he says one minute, and what he proposes the next in writing (his budget) are completely
dissimilar.

Could you expand on this?

one example/one subject

talks a good game on raising taxes on higher income folks, the actual proposals
fall well short of what a typical listener might have expected.

[dobrojim]

Remember that isolationism has a price too... And under the US as the world cop, poverty has shrunk substantially and until recently world migration rates have been quite stable.

pure speculation - we don't know and therefore can't say would might have happened if
we had done things differently in the past.

True - we could have stayed out of WWII and things could have turned out fine...

the exception that proves the rule?

[dobrojim]

Trump is a moron with a ton of moronic tv fans who are voting for him because they're too dumb to recognize any of the other candidates. Idiocracy here we come.

You can believe that if you want. You are wrong, but I prefer for your side to continue to misdiagnose the Trump phenomenon.

I've been very surprised by Trump's strength in the GOP primary. I'm not sure whether to credit Trump for being a good campaigner or to blame the Repubs for backing such an immature punk.

If Trump does make it to the general election where Dems and Independents get to weigh in with their votes--and Hispanics get to go upside his head--I believe the Trump "phenomenon" will become an historical footnote

I continue to pose the question of why do 'pub primary voters (or polling) continue to reflect
broad dissatisfaction with the pols they have elected in the past esp relative to the 'pol'
wannabes that have never held public office. Then there is the issue of how generally
poorly informed they are (BHO is a muslim foreigner etc). Makes me question (not that
I already wasn't predisposed to this point of view), why I should trust their current
judgement.

[dckingsfan]

pure speculation - we don't know and therefore can't say would might have happened if
we had done things differently in the past.

True - we could have stayed out of WWII and things could have turned out fine...

the exception that proves the rule?

That is actually a legitimate point other than the two world wars, we could probably have ducked out of every conflict (although I am sure those from South Korea are pretty happy we didn't). I think it doesn't take into account what we did after WWII in helping to rebuild Europe was important to the world economy as well. And I am pretty sure those from eastern Europe are pretty happy that they aren't under auspices of the Soviet Union.

What is interesting is that a majority of Americans are trending toward getting out of all world conflicts. I think as a candidate running for office you would reach a plurality of Americans by saying that you would pull troops back from all foreign bases and "rebuild" the US.

It is fascinating.

[dobrojim]

I'd agree with that. We've arguably for many americans to grasp is that it happens
in response to things which are not known or understood to americans. We can't
understand why someone is PO'd at us because we deliberately weren't informed.
The people on the receiving end of our policies understand all too well what's happened.
It's no secret to them.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Russia says they lost 20 million people to WWII and other sources say they lost half that. Germany lost about 3 million soldiers. Something historians quibble over.

Quibbling over how many lives Russia lost, and how many of them were soldiers is a pointless endeavor. If you're ever in St. Petersburg and have the chance (and don't mind feeling at least a little depressed for the rest of the day), go to the Piskaryovskoe Memorial Cemetary. Huge rectangular mass graves with thousands of bodies in each as far as the eye can see, and it represents just a drop in the bucket. World War 2 for Russia was nothing like anything North America has ever seen or even imagined in their wildest dreams. Russia did the heavy lifting, absolutely, and that price was horrifying.

[nate33]

For one thing, what he says one minute, and what he proposes the next in writing (his budget) are completely
dissimilar.

Could you expand on this?

one example/one subject

talks a good game on raising taxes on higher income folks, the actual proposals
fall well short of what a typical listener might have expected.

Agreed. Symbolically, it would have helped to hike the highest income bracket, even if only a little bit. He contends that he will remove some of the tax exceptions enjoyed by the high income class, but I haven't seen the specifics.

[dobrojim]

I would be somewhat surprised if this wasn't also the case for many of the
other policy issues he has talked about. What he says doesn't align with
his formal policy documents.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Weird political question for this group of political weirdos:

Would the United States have been better served nuking Afghanistan post 9/11?

Potential reasons in favor:

1) We would have killed Bin Laden and decimated al qaeda immediately
2) While the collateral damage of innocents would have been massive (I assume), it probably would have been less than that of the combined damage of the Afghan and Iraq wars; there's an imbedded assumption that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq if we had nuked Afghanistan
3) Post 9/11, we could have gotten away with it politically in the world community
4) It would have been a huge display of American might and primacy that may have deterred future attacks. We nuked Japan 70 years ago and are now close allies, somehow.

Really just spitballing curiously. I don't know anything about nuclear weapons and how they have evolved since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

1) No. Bin Laden is a symptom and symbol, sure he would have been dead instead of hiding in caves, hauling his dialysis machine around. But if not al Quaeda, other organizations would have blossomed. At least Al Qaeda we had intel on and effectively neutered them fairly well after that.

But flexing of American might and military supremacy simply recruits more volunteers for asymmetrical warfare. That's exactly how you lose a war against terrorism, whose mission is less to 'win' and more to earn honor points from the masses and more importantly Heaven.

Honor points. Using the ultimate weapon and heedlessly killing civilians proves the point of the fundamentalist extremists: that we are amoral and dangerously arrogant with no regard for human life or mercy. Makes martyrs. Its counter-intuitive but the way to 'kill' terrorists is to export our civic values as well as or better than our commercial ones or political aims. 'We hold these truth to be self evident, that all men are created equal'. If we can promote that image of ourselves overseas that's what gives us the white hat and allows us to counter-recruit.

2) Hell no See 1) above. And 3) below.

Plus: putting an armed force in the Middle East was the goal of Cheney Romney and the Project for the New American Century cohort: to have a base of operations from which to overwatch areas of strategic interest in the MIddle East, without having to beg for permission from Turkey or bribe them with favors, ordnance etc in order to fly sorties in the area. It had nothing to do with 9/11 except as a convenient excuse. Saddam was a universally disliked tyrant with out significant military power who had no allies in the region nor strong religious support. We could feel free to attack, occupy, 'liberate' and build a foothold there. The concept was that then we could 'roll up' Lybia, Syria etc and initiate american control over the regions oil resources etc. and have a Pax Americana that would last one hundred years, as the Romans were able to flex their military might and conquer their world in the past. Seriously. This was the position paper written by that neocon thinktank (PNAC) before W was in office. Cheney, Romney et al cosigned it. This is not a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, this was their published position paper.

What Iraq did do was give a hard target of an armed force for terrorists to take a poke at if they wanted to try it, nearby to their home instead of here on our soil. A volunteer military force (or highly paid mercenary operatives in the case of Blackwater et al) held as a proxy target, and a training ground for the how to's of urban occupation in the age of guerilla warfare. Doesn't work so well, is what we found out. The lessons of Vietnam still stand. Or Stalingrad. Superior military might does not long overcome resistance of people who have nowhere to retreat and nothing to lose. Occupying force suffers all the difficulty of siege warfare: resources, supply lines, political resolve of your faraway leaders. The occupied simply have to make it expensive to continue and the occupiers will eventually tire and question the point. What is the strategic gain?

3) World War Three level No.
Use of nuclear weapons without censure causes WW3. Consider nearby nuclear capable neighbors Pakistan. India. China. North Korea. Russia. This last is key. Russia has been emboldened by the lack of action in the world community to our various unilateral actions of aggression. We get away with it in Iraq for no reason-- so they may as well get away with it in the Ukraine for actual economic gain. Or in Syria to playtest their armaments. If Nukes were an option on the table that did not merit a nuclear response in turn, best believe there are areas where they would happily use a tach nuke instead of having to commit costly ordnance. And seriously, how would Russia react when we have nukes in the air a few lines of latitude away from their oil pipelines to the Middle East.

Consider also the drift pattern of radioactive fallout. Weather tends to flow west to east since that is how the world turns. Then back up again to that nuclear capable list: Pakistan, India, China, North Korea. You are poisoning their citizens. Making mini Chernobyls.

4) What future attacks? We haven't been attacked on our soil except by home grown nutjobs and mass shootings, unless the Boston bombers count. And when it comes to fanatic martyrs they are not deterred by death since death simply sends them to heaven quicker. You can't use conventional weapons to fight asymmetrical war, unless you are planning to roll in and stomp the entire country flat like Russia in Chechnya. Or the Israelis in the West Bank bulldozing entire communities. Though they are basically dug in for a perpetual civil war as an occupying force in their own country since they are constantly manufacturing martyrs and have to basically imprison a significant portion of the population of their country and keep them at a stone age level of military technology and poverty level in order to remain 'safe' for long. Meeting a single RPG attack with cruise missiles and bulldozers; one kidnap killing is met with tanks and razed city blocks.

Use of nukes is a seriously bad idea. The greatest failure post 9/11 was not in picking an inappropriate military reponse, but a political one. We missed the opportunity to use the sympathy of the world for political gain, and within the intelligence community, to actually root out and address the bad actors and the causes of terrorism and make deep and lasting allies politically. And instead we squandered a budget surplus and robust economy in an attempt to use our temporary position as the world's only superpower to make that a permanent status. And made more lasting enemies. Made more more terrorists. Rejuvenated Russia. Ceded our position as economic superpower to China. Failed to shore up our infrastructure in energy, bridges, roads, transportation, etc. And lost ground in biotech research and renewable energy etc etc to religious fanatics (stemcell technology opposition) and oil economy profiteers.

Realgm on iPhone app is really bad. It's hard for me to respond when I can't see what I am typing.

Nice post, doc. I was going to add something but you've said it better.

[nate33]

I would be somewhat surprised if this wasn't also the case for many of the
other policy issues he has talked about. What he says doesn't align with
his formal policy documents.

To be fair, he's only posted 3 formal policy documents: immigration, guns, and taxation.

His rhetoric on immigration and guns line up pretty consistently with his policy documents.

[montestewart]

Russia says they lost 20 million people to WWII and other sources say they lost half that. Germany lost about 3 million soldiers. Something historians quibble over.

Quibbling over how many lives Russia lost, and how many of them were soldiers is a pointless endeavor. If you're ever in St. Petersburg and have the chance (and don't mind feeling at least a little depressed for the rest of the day), go to the Piskaryovskoe Memorial Cemetary. Huge rectangular mass graves with thousands of bodies in each as far as the eye can see, and it represents just a drop in the bucket. World War 2 for Russia was nothing like anything North America has ever seen or even imagined in their wildest dreams. Russia did the heavy lifting, absolutely, and that price was horrifying.

And don't forget the Chopin funeral march music piping in throughout the place. Nearly as many as in Arlington Cemetery, but not from multiple wars in multiple eras, but all from Leningrad in WWII

Looking at the Wikipedia page regarding Russian/Soviet war deaths, I see the average of estimates quoted from Western historians is over 20 million, with the average Russian estimates well above that, many over 40 million. Historians do quibble, but in a higher range.

[montestewart]

It looks to me like Clinton is pulling a Trump, because I think she's going to get a lot of good, free publicity out of this hearing. I can't see that this day will hurt her in any way, and I wouldn't be surprised if she gets a bump in popularity among independents, undecideds, etc. Still not voting for her, but I think the Pubes miscalculated. Again.

[dobrojim]

Seems like history is repeating itself as far as the Clintons are concerned. They
benefit from who their enemies are. Once again, it seems as though to a neutral
party, her enemies are completely unhinged. This doesn't necessarily make me as happy
as some here might assume. It's another example of how gerrymandering hurts our
ability to govern effectively.

[popper]

More breathtaking incompetence.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/22/easy-to-cheat-obamacare-medicaid-gao-says-no-sweat/

[Zonkerbl]

Seems like history is repeating itself as far as the Clintons are concerned. They
benefit from who their enemies are. Once again, it seems as though to a neutral
party, her enemies are completely unhinged. This doesn't necessarily make me as happy
as some here might assume. It's another example of how gerrymandering hurts our
ability to govern effectively.

Ahhhhhhhh. If it was anyone but Hillary...

I hope Trump surprises me. I just wish it was Chris Christie vs. Cory Booker and then I wouldn't care who won.

Ben Carson seems ok. But he just seems like a solid vice president to me, not really POTUS material.

[Zonkerbl]

Russia says they lost 20 million people to WWII and other sources say they lost half that. Germany lost about 3 million soldiers. Something historians quibble over.

Quibbling over how many lives Russia lost, and how many of them were soldiers is a pointless endeavor. If you're ever in St. Petersburg and have the chance (and don't mind feeling at least a little depressed for the rest of the day), go to the Piskaryovskoe Memorial Cemetary. Huge rectangular mass graves with thousands of bodies in each as far as the eye can see, and it represents just a drop in the bucket. World War 2 for Russia was nothing like anything North America has ever seen or even imagined in their wildest dreams. Russia did the heavy lifting, absolutely, and that price was horrifying.

And don't forget the Chopin funeral march music piping in throughout the place. Nearly as many as in Arlington Cemetery, but not from multiple wars in multiple eras, but all from Leningrad in WWII

Looking at the Wikipedia page regarding Russian/Soviet war deaths, I see the average of estimates quoted from Western historians is over 20 million, with the average Russian estimates well above that, many over 40 million. Historians do quibble, but in a higher range.

Yeah I'm not pretending to be an expert. I have read a lot of WWII history and the number of dead on the Soviet side seems to be a thing that historians like to argue about. Apparently nobody really knows. It was a LOT, which I guess is why it would be interesting to know exactly how much A LOT is.

[nate33]

Ben Carson seems ok. But he just seems like a solid vice president to me, not really POTUS material.

Yeah, I'm struggling to see why anyone think Carson's background has prepared him for a presidency. He has no political experience and minimal executive experience as Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery. Basically, he is saying we should vote for him because he's a really smart, likable guy. He does seem like a really smart, likable guy, but I don't really think that's all we need in a president.