Jump to content
TSM Forums

Big Ol' Smitty

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    3664

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Big Ol' Smitty

  8. Posted · Report reply

    It's not that the US needs to pull back from interventionism.

     

    A Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich type turn by the US would be antithetical to solving the three problems that you've mentioned.

     

    I wasn't actually advocating for either of these things, btw. I apologize if it came off like that. Isolationism is, to my mind, just as wrong-headed and pernicious as imperialism. Both of them ultimately grow out of the injurious Us vs. Them line of thinking, and it's that line of thinking that I'm ultimately opposed to. I fully agree that America has a huge role to play in combating those threats I mentioned, and with our resources it's only logical that we lead the charge. The problem comes when we equate "leading the charge" with "telling other countries what to do." We need to engage the globe on its own terms, not just on ours

     

    Completely agree here.

     

  9. Posted · Report reply

    i think one more interesting question might be, given the increasing interdependency of economics, politics, etc., all over the globe, does the US have any choice BUT to make repeated interventions in all sorts of countries according to its own interests?

     

    I think so, yeah. It would take a massive ideological realignment in the country, and a concerted effort to understand the world in a fundamentally different manner than we do now. But I think it's possible. The fact is, we really cannot keep going the way we're going. As long as we stay on this path the threats that are already manifesting themselves (terrorism, climate change, economic collapse) are only going to intensify and newer, more dangerous threats are certain to arise.

     

    I think the problems you're referring to actually require strong US leadership a la Bush I and Clinton (in grand strategy parlance, engagement). A Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich type turn by the US would be antithetical to solving the three problems that you've mentioned.

     

    The past 30 years of interventionism have produced little more than mass human rights abuses and deep-seated resentment toward us in all corners of the globe. Something has to change.

     

    Again, I have to disagree. I think most of George HW Bush's & Clinton's foreign policies were pretty successful, from stopping Iraqi aggression against Kuwait to stopping genocide in the Balkans. I don't want to go into list mode again and tick off gtd, but I don't think your statement is accurate with respect to those two presidencies. Bush II and Reagan, yep.

     

    The problem isn't that we're fighting al-qaeda, it's that we're fighting al-qaeda in totally stupid and unproductive ways. Messing around in Pakistan and destabilizing that already unstable country ever more is a bad, bad, bad idea. A compl power vacuum in a country with nuclear weapons would be a much worse threat to global peace than al-qaeda could ever hope to be.

     

    I guess you're referring to the drone strikes in Pakistan here? I agree that these are problematic and are pissing off Pakistanis. But it seems pretty clear that Zardari wants the strikes and just criticizes them for show. These areas are being used as a haven for terrorists, and the drone strikes are a much better option that sending in US troops. The Pakistani military or intelligence services obviously aren't going to anything about it, so I think right now it's the best of many bad options we have.

  12. Posted · Report reply

    America was not even that active on an international role until around the turn of the 20th century.

    Come on, friend.

     

    1. There was that whole 258-years-of-trading-millions-of-African-slaves thing.

    2. Before the Spanish-American War, the US conquered the Native Americans, Mexicans, and Hawaiians.

     

    The slave trade ended by the early 1800s in the US. I guess American attacks on the Native Americans could be considered acting internationally, but in nothing more than a regional role--same with Mexico. The Hawaiian overthrow and annexation was around the time period I mentioned. But I agree that all those things were bad. I think my point pretty much stands.

  15. Posted · Report reply

    Montell Jordan- "This Is How We Do It"

    Snoop Doggy Dogg- "Gin and Juice"

     

    Tough decision on that one.

     

    Warren G. (ft. Nate Dogg)- "Regulate"

    Fiona Apple- "Criminal"

     

    Very easy decision on that one.

     

    Nirvana- "Heart Shaped Box"

    Smashing Pumpkins- "1979"

     

    Battle of the "mehs."

     

    R.E.M.- "Losing My Religion"

    Blind Melon- "No Rain"

     

    Skee-Lo- "I Wish"

    2Pac- "California Love"

     

    I'm all about Skee-Lo's cinderella run.

     

    Dr. Dre (ft. Snoop Doggy Dogg)- "Nuthin But a G Thang"

    Red Hot Chili Peppers- "Under the Bridge"

     

    New Radicals- "You Get What You Give"

    Faith No More- "Epic"

     

    Lisa Loeb & Nine Stories- "Stay"

    Meat Loaf- "I'd Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That)"

  17. Posted · Report reply

    The nuclear bombs were a favorable alternative to outright invasion, when every man, woman, and child in Japan was being trained on how to attack and kill invading Americans. The nuclear attacks were atrocious, absolutely, but we had to accept those deaths as collateral damage, and the act was what ultimately led them to surrender. Japan was in the war until the death, until they saw the nuclear attacks and realized they were going to get wiped off the face of the earth if they didn't surrender. Really, it probably averted a much greater loss of life.

     

    I don't think there's really a historical consensus that this is the case.

     

    "Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it." (Emphasis added.)

     

    The author of that statement is not a revisionist; he is J. Samuel Walker, chief historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nor is he alone in that opinion. Walker is summarizing the findings of modern specialists in his literature review in the Winter 1990 issue of Diplomatic History.

     

    Another expert review, by University of Illinois historian Robert Messer, concludes that recently discovered documents have been "devastating" to the traditional idea that using the bomb was the only way to avoid an invasion of Japan that might have cost many more lives.

     

    Indeed, as early as 1946 the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, in its report Japan's Struggle to End the War, concluded that "certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

     

    Similarly, a top-secret April 1946 War Department study, Use of Atomic Bomb on Japan, declassified during the 1970's but brought to broad public attention only in 1989, found that "the Japanese leaders had decided to surrender and were merely looking for sufficient pretext to convince the die-hard Army Group that Japan had lost the war and must capitulate to the Allies." This official document judged that Russia's early-August entry into the war "would almost certainly have furnished this pretext, and would have been sufficient to convince all responsible leaders that surrender was unavoidable." The study concluded that even an initial November 1945 landing on the island of southern Japanese island of Kyushu would have been only a "remote" possibility and that the full invasion of Japan in the spring of 1946 would not have occurred.

     

    Military specialists who have examined Japanese decision-making have added to the modern understanding that the bombing was unnecessary. For instance, political scientist Robert Pape's study, "Why Japan Surrendered," which appeared in the Fall 1993 issue of International Security, details Japan's military vulnerability, particularly its shortages of everything from ammunition to fuel to trained personnel: "Japan's military position was so poor that its leaders would likely have surrendered before invasion, and at roughly the same time in August 1945, even if the United States had not employed strategic bombing or the atomic bomb."

     

    We now know, however, that as of April 29, 1945 the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), in a report titled Unconditional Surrender of Japan, informed the JCS that increasing "numbers of informed Japanese, both military and civilian, already realize the inevitability of absolute defeat." The JIC further advised that "the increasing effects of air-sea blockade, the progressive and cumulative devastation wrought by strategic bombing, and the collapse of Germany (with its implications regarding redeployment) should make this realization widespread within the year."

     

    The JIC pointed out, however, that a Soviet decision to join with the United States and Britain would have enormous force and would dramatically alter the equation: "The entry of the USSR into the war would, together with the foregoing factors, convince most Japanese at once of the inevitability of complete defeat."

     

    http://www.ncesa.org/html/hiroshima.html

     

    The whole thing's worth reading.

  21. Posted · Report reply

    Thirdly, back then we really didn't know what kind of horrifying long-term consequences that nuclear weapons cause over the long term, and learning that information has greatly changed our policies.

     

    The first part is right, the second part really isn't. By the 50s and 60s we pretty much knew all the horrible stuff about nukes. And that didn't really change policy. In fact, they became even more integrated into national and global defense strategies, to the point that we even let the Soviets pass us in ground forces and decided to rely on a nuclear trump card in the event of aggression in Western Europe. Ike even specifically stated that he didn't want a stigma or taboo to develop around using nukes because, well, we might want to use them. The US also never took a "no first strike" pledge, while the USSR did.

  22. Posted · Report reply

    Is it really bigoted not to want your child in the first or second grade to come home and tell you they learned at school the princess could marry the princess? Or at least, have a minor problem with it?

     

    I hate to keep beating this drum, but I'm pretty sure it freaked people out to see interracial couples on TV or read about them back in the day, like in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? Most people got over it. What's so bad about acknowledging that gay people exist?

     

    Someone being uncomfortable or finding something icky just isn't a strong enough argument to marginalize a class of people.

  23. Posted · Report reply

    We simply cannot compete at the moment. We do not have the manpower nor the resources.

     

    This is, frankly, absurd. The US outspends Russia militarily greater than 10 to 1. Let me say that again, TEN TO ONE. We also have have more active duty troops and close to as many total troops, not to mention that our troops have superior training and are way better equipped. I could go into our staggering naval and airpower advantages, but I believe I've made my point.

     

    With respect to Russia's meddling in the Western hemisphere and military buildup, I basically consider them a gnat on America's ass. They've been hit as hard as anyone by the global economic crisis and low gas & oil prices. I basically see all of this as posturing designed to distract from their serious domestic problems.

  24. Posted · Report reply

    I think a reasonable compromise may be to just get the government out of the marriage business and leave it to churches. The argument against that would be that there is a significant governmental interest in encouraging the type of coupling and cohesion that marriage bring, but that could be solved by still having a governmental contract similar to marriage and leaving "marriage" just to the church. I still think anti-gay folks would demagogue any attempt to do this though.

×