Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,583 Year: 2,840/9,624 Month: 685/1,588 Week: 91/229 Day: 2/61 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush Is Back (part 2)!
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 91 of 164 (166021)
12-07-2004 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Minnemooseus
12-07-2004 8:21 PM


Re: Military Spending
That's a good point too but it doesn't look like the allies had more support than the Japanese and they were certainly more fanatical in their support.
Let's see what else comes up. Great ideas so far but I don't think they were the biggest reasons.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-07-2004 8:21 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by MangyTiger, posted 12-07-2004 8:56 PM jar has replied
 Message 105 by Dr Jack, posted 12-08-2004 7:16 AM jar has replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6344 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 92 of 164 (166024)
12-07-2004 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by JESUS freak
12-06-2004 9:32 AM


Re: Bush...A Christian Fraud
From a Washington Post article on the same find (I remember the same information being given on the BBC News at the time).
But weapons experts cautioned that the shell appeared to predate the 1991 Persian Gulf War and did not necessarily mean that Hussein possessed hidden stockpiles of chemical munitions.
IIRC the general conclusion reported at the time was that the shell was very likely left over from the Iran-Iraq war in the '80s. So basically it doesn't prove much.

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by JESUS freak, posted 12-06-2004 9:32 AM JESUS freak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by JESUS freak, posted 12-08-2004 1:43 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6344 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 93 of 164 (166025)
12-07-2004 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by jar
12-07-2004 8:25 PM


Re: Military Spending
Personally I've always thought the main reason was the overwhelming industrial capacity of the United States compared to everbody else.
Once Pearl Harbor happened there was only ever going to be one outcome to the Second World War, especially after Hitler declared war on the US. In my early teens I did a project on WWII and I remember quoting the figures for the production of tanks, airplanes, ships and all the other weapons and munitions that the US produced for itself and the other allies (even including the Soviet Union) and comparing them to the equivalent German figures. I can't be bothered to try and dig them up again, but I remember the difference was dramatic. As well as the industrial aspect the manpower to use it was - obviously - of major significance.
BTW, although I said the outcome was inevitable I don't dispute various aspects of the outcome could have been different. For example if the Normandy landings had been significantly earlier or later the location of the Iron Curtain might have been futher East or West of where it actually fell.

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 12-07-2004 8:25 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by jar, posted 12-07-2004 9:29 PM MangyTiger has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 94 of 164 (166029)
12-07-2004 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by MangyTiger
12-07-2004 8:56 PM


Re: Military Spending
Personally I've always thought the main reason was the overwhelming industrial capacity of the United States compared to everbody else.
Absolutely.
The US could build boats faster than the Japanese, Italians and Germans could sink them. The US could build planes faster than the Axis could shoot them down, build more tanks, guns, trucks, trains, helmets, rifles, cannon, mortars faster than anyone else in the world.
And why could we do that?
For one thing we had the raw materials, and the industrial base for all of that. We also had the intellectual resources needed for the effort.
No other nation had such a base.
Now back towards the comment that started all this.
There is also the corrupt businesses (like the boeing scandle) that prevent us from getting things (like tankers) that we really need, and then we have to waste a bunch of money on an investigation.
Let's look at the Boeing scandal or deal.
The US was looking for some air refueling tankers. The potential suppliers were Boeing and AirBus.
IMHO, even considering AirBus was tantamount to treason.
The US, particularly under Reagan, Bush and Bush have been actively outsourcing some of the very basic industries, steel, aircraft, boat building, design, rocketry. We even outsourced the wing design for the latest Boeing plane, the single most important feature in any aircraft and until now, the most closely guarded secret in aircraft.
If there were another major war, would the US be in any position to fight it?
So, is the issue one of coruption or total incompetance bordering on treason of our Presidents?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by MangyTiger, posted 12-07-2004 8:56 PM MangyTiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by coffee_addict, posted 12-07-2004 10:07 PM jar has not replied
 Message 96 by MangyTiger, posted 12-07-2004 10:33 PM jar has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 95 of 164 (166035)
12-07-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by jar
12-07-2004 9:29 PM


Re: Military Spending
jar writes:
The US could build boats faster than the Japanese, Italians and Germans could sink them. The US could build planes faster than the Axis could shoot them down, build more tanks, guns, trucks, trains, helmets, rifles, cannon, mortars faster than anyone else in the world.
In this case, would you say that quantity outpowered quality?
The German panzers were far more superior to the tanks produced by US industries. It is very well known that to somewhat level the plainfield US soldiers had to cover their tanks with sandbags just so their armor plating wouldn't fail too quickly. US tank units also tried to avoid direct head-on confrontations because their tanks wouldn't stand a chance against the German's.
For one thing we had the raw materials, and the industrial base for all of that.
Although this is true, getting them across the atlantic was a problem in many cases. It wasn't until RADAR technology was developed to a certain stage when it could detect surfaced submarines without the alerting them that the convoys were safe.
We also had the intellectual resources needed for the effort.
I would say that the Germans also had some of the best, if not the best, intellectual resources in the world at the time.
This is where my previous answer came in. Although Germany had many "smart" people, in many instances they squandered them simply because they had a homicidal maniac as the unquestionable leader and noone wanted to take the chance of disagreeing with him.
Take the events that led to D-Day for example. There were many people among the top ranks of the German high command who were convinced that Normandy beach was where the main landing was going to be. Rommal (Desert Fox) was the only person who had the guts to bring this intelligence to Hitler. This ultimately led him out of Hitler's favor. Even as US soldiers landed in Normandy and began to overrun the German defenders, noone had the guts to wake up Hitler and inform him so he could order reinforcement from Calaise(sp?) to drive the allied back into the sea.
The question is what would have happenned if the allied were indeed driven back into the sea? Why did the allied decide on such a risky invasion? Well, Stalin had threatened to talk to Hitler for a temporary cease fire, if not permanent, if the allied wasn't going to open up a second front soon. The war would have extended long after 1945 or even end in Hitler's favor (probably a cease fire with Hitler still in power) if someone could just get off his butt and woke up Hitler.
If there were another major war, would the US be in any position to fight it?
Even though the US has outsourced the production of many components that make up its infrastructure, it is still the single most influencial military and economic force in the world.
Although I disagree with the policies on outsourcing, I do agree that sometimes it is necessary to do so. One example is the windmills that are popping up in Illinois. Those are made in Spain. That's right, folks, the US does not have the technology and industry available to build them so they had to order them from Spain, a country we consider inferior in technological level.

Hate world.
Revenge soon!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by jar, posted 12-07-2004 9:29 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by MangyTiger, posted 12-07-2004 11:26 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 108 by JESUS freak, posted 12-08-2004 1:54 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6344 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 96 of 164 (166038)
12-07-2004 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by jar
12-07-2004 9:29 PM


Re: Military Spending
Absolutely.
Hi jar. Do I get a prize ?
Let's look at the Boeing scandal or deal.
For those of us who don't live in the last best hope of theocracy (paranoid - moi ?) could you confirm you're talking about the Darleen Druyun case ? I'm pretty sure you are but it isn't like Boeing haven't been involved in lots of scandals over the years.
IMHO, even considering AirBus was tantamount to treason.
Unless defense is exempt from WTO rules (I've no idea either way) then not considering AirBus would probably end up in one of those phoney trade wars that end up in ten years of argument at the WTO and only produces a lot of rich(er) lawyers at the end of it all. I understand your view and agree with it to some extent - but then again if every country took that view there be a lot of unemployed Americans at companies like Boeing and McDonnell Douglas.
If there were another major war, would the US be in any position to fight it?
Let's consider what sort of major war the US is likely to fight - or rather who it's likely to fight against. I would contend that the combination of the loss of trade and the possibility of MAD means that even the most extreme NeoCon hawks aren't going to go to war with China, Western Europe or (maybe) Russia. After that who is left that you don't have the capability to completely overwhelm ? Keeping control after smashing the current government of a country is another thing altogether - but as Iraq has shown that doesn't seem to figure very high on the NeoCon check list. So basically yes - in the short and near term I think the US could 'win' an overwhelming military against any country it wanted to - and actually possibly even those I listed above as exempt from consideration.
Doh ! I just read through your post again in a bit more depth and realised what (I think) you're getting at. You're pointing out that in this era of globalization the industrial base of the US is being shipped abroad (both manufacturing and R&D) - which may be great for the bottom line of corporations (and the renumeration of their executives) but is no way to fight a big war.
If this is what your view is then I have to agree with you, but I still stand by my earlier comments. In the short to medium term I can't see anyone being able to stand to up to your military. In the longer term, say a decade or more, I think you're right - but with a 'but'. The 'but' is the nuclear arsenals of the bigger countries in the world. China is the obvious country which you could forsee the US having a major war with where the lack of a manufacturing base might hurt you, but I still think the threat of MAD is going to stop such a war happening.
I will admit (before anyone points it out ) that I am ascribing a level of judgement and common sense to the NeoCons that their behaviour so far perhaps doesn't justify. If you attack Iran in the next four years I will agree I was talking out of my backside...

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by jar, posted 12-07-2004 9:29 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 12-07-2004 11:12 PM MangyTiger has replied
 Message 110 by JESUS freak, posted 12-08-2004 2:05 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 97 of 164 (166045)
12-07-2004 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by MangyTiger
12-07-2004 10:33 PM


Re: Military Spending
For those of us who don't live in the last best hope of theocracy (paranoid - moi ?) could you confirm you're talking about the Darleen Druyun case ?
Yeah, that's the one. It gets hard to keep all the scandals in order. Not quite as bad as 1939 when Boeing agreed to design an intercontinental bomber for the Japanese as long as the work was not done on their property, if say, a motel room was used instead.
Doh ! I just read through your post again in a bit more depth and realised what (I think) you're getting at. You're pointing out that in this era of globalization the industrial base of the US is being shipped abroad (both manufacturing and R&D) - which may be great for the bottom line of corporations (and the renumeration of their executives) but is no way to fight a big war.
Right on. And it applies whether we are talking about a shooting war, cold war or economic one.
If this is what your view is then I have to agree with you, but I still stand by my earlier comments. In the short to medium term I can't see anyone being able to stand to up to your military. In the longer term, say a decade or more, I think you're right - but with a 'but'. The 'but' is the nuclear arsenals of the bigger countries in the world. China is the obvious country which you could forsee the US having a major war with where the lack of a manufacturing base might hurt you, but I still think the threat of MAD is going to stop such a war happening.
The problem is twofold IMHO.
First, is the possibility of a Nation State conflict that begins with smaller nations (anyone remember what happened in Sarajevo, or the tension that developed over two little islands, Quemoy and Matsu). There is a high probability of conflict between India/Pakistan, North/South Korea, conflict over the resources in Manchuria or Siberia (often refered to as the Northern Territories), the Sprateleys, Senkaku, the Kuriles.
Second is the rise of China that will peak around 2020. By then China will have a blue water navy, subs that are the equal of ours, and long range missles.
As to MAD, that base is nowhere near what it was. In addition, with the land mass of China and the population potential, as well as the difference in attitude about losses, would MAD apply when speaking of China? Or India? Or Pakistan?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by MangyTiger, posted 12-07-2004 10:33 PM MangyTiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by MangyTiger, posted 12-07-2004 11:50 PM jar has replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6344 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 98 of 164 (166051)
12-07-2004 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by coffee_addict
12-07-2004 10:07 PM


Re: Military Spending
In this case, would you say that quantity outpowered quality?
The German panzers were far more superior to the tanks produced by US industries. It is very well known that to somewhat level the plainfield US soldiers had to cover their tanks with sandbags just so their armor plating wouldn't fail too quickly. US tank units also tried to avoid direct head-on confrontations because their tanks wouldn't stand a chance against the German's.
Yes and no from what I remember (I was really into this stuff when I was a teenager in the '70s but I haven't looked at it much since).
One of the things to realise is that Hollywood has had a very distorting effect on how people perceive this. You always hear about Tigers and to a lesser extent Panthers in war movies. In reality these were produced in much smaller numbers than the main German tanks, the PzKw III and PzKw IV (the Panther and Tiger were actually V and VI in the series). The main allied tank on the Western front, the Sherman, was no match for a Panther or Tiger but would have had a much better chance against the PzKw III/IV.
Another thing to realise is that "quality" can be measured in a variety of ways. One of the main problems of the Tiger was that the reliablity sucked. It's no good having a tank with fantastic armour and a huge gun if it breaks down regularly or is too big to fit on standard rail transport (so you can't get it from the factory to the front easily). Both the Panther and Tiger suffered from being over-designed in some ways, especially when they were exposed to the harsh Russian winter, which meant things on them broke more often than expected.
This site has some intersting info on the various tanks (and other weapons) of WWII which from what I recall is pretty accurate.

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by coffee_addict, posted 12-07-2004 10:07 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 12-07-2004 11:29 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 99 of 164 (166052)
12-07-2004 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by MangyTiger
12-07-2004 11:26 PM


very much OT
God is it good to find someone who has actually looked beyond the Hollywood representations of these issues.
Thank you sir.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by MangyTiger, posted 12-07-2004 11:26 PM MangyTiger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by coffee_addict, posted 12-07-2004 11:43 PM jar has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 100 of 164 (166059)
12-07-2004 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by jar
12-07-2004 11:29 PM


Re: very much OT
Actually, I got my info from the history channel Haven't seen any movie that talks about the tanks in WW2. The closest one was Battle of the Bulge. Even then, it didn't really misrepresent the real war that much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 12-07-2004 11:29 PM jar has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6344 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 101 of 164 (166065)
12-07-2004 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by jar
12-07-2004 11:12 PM


Re: Military Spending
As to MAD, that base is nowhere near what it was. In addition, with the land mass of China and the population potential, as well as the difference in attitude about losses, would MAD apply when speaking of China? Or India? Or Pakistan?
Great. Prior to the fall of the Soviet Union I felt MAD was a great idea - many people claimed to have nightmares about the forthcoming nuclear holocaust but I thought it was the only thing that had stopped WWIII happening sometime after 1945. Now I'm going to start having nightmares !
Seriously though you make some good points. I'm going to have to do some serious thinking on this one.

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 12-07-2004 11:12 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 12-08-2004 1:13 AM MangyTiger has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 102 of 164 (166082)
12-08-2004 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by MangyTiger
12-07-2004 11:50 PM


Extending the threat
The latest threat to the US and Great Britain is the sale of the IBM PC division to a Chinese company. It includes the right to sell the PCs under the IBM name for 5 years. Those PCs will end up in US businesses and governments, but how much will we or anyoneelse know about what is happening below the surface?
We are rapidly turning over control of technology, communications (both the undersea lines and satellite transmissions) to other nations.
How long can we continue to outsource the basic infrastructure that supports any Nation State?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by MangyTiger, posted 12-07-2004 11:50 PM MangyTiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by MangyTiger, posted 12-08-2004 2:20 AM jar has replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6344 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 103 of 164 (166098)
12-08-2004 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by jar
12-08-2004 1:13 AM


Re: Extending the threat
I suppose the only good thing about the IBM PC deal is that nowadays IBM only has about 5% of the market it created - if it was Dell or HP/Compaq you would really have something to worry about.
As an aside, IBM hasn't actually made any PCs for a while now - but the company they outsourced it to was another American one. This sale is just the end stage of IBM getting out of a market it couldn't compete in.
Ultimately though you are articulating a concern that I often discuss with my friends - how can companies in the West survive as Western based companies when all their operations except final point of sale are in the developing world ? If the companies don't survive then eventually the countries they come from also won't survive.

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 12-08-2004 1:13 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by jar, posted 12-08-2004 7:08 AM MangyTiger has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 104 of 164 (166160)
12-08-2004 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by MangyTiger
12-08-2004 2:20 AM


Re: Extending the threat
Actually, the Chinese buyer is the fourth largest manufacturer of PCs world-wide. It also looks to be yet another shell company owned by the Chinese Army.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by MangyTiger, posted 12-08-2004 2:20 AM MangyTiger has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 105 of 164 (166163)
12-08-2004 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by jar
12-07-2004 8:25 PM


Re: Military Spending
The biggest reasons we won:
1. Hitler got involved in wars on too many fronts (probably the biggest reason).
2. The Russians were on our side (Russia's role in winning the war was far greater than America's).
3. Hitler racism deprived him of valuable scientific knowledge, and the whole holocaust thing was a massive waste of effort and manpower.
4. The Germans shelved their nuclear programme after one of their leading scientists declared it impossible, had this not happened Hitler would probably have had working Nukes in early 1944 and won the war in a landslide.
5. America was on our side.
6. Us Brits broke their codes.
7. Blind luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 12-07-2004 8:25 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by jar, posted 12-08-2004 7:19 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024