Quote :

""Because, while the US might not have been dragged in at the time we had, it is quite likely that fascism & nazism would have done a great deal more damage at a worldwide scale, and still would have eventually come to us." Make a new thread, if you're that insistent on talking about this."

5/2/2007 10:54:25 AM

queer.

lock.

suspend.

terminate.

5/2/2007 10:55:41 AM

For continuing a discussion from another thread? Rubbish.

So the debate has been formed that if we hadn't been supporting the allies financially, that we would not have needed to be involved military (as pearl harbor would not have happened)

I think the argument to the contrary is basically that if we had not supported them financially, then the axis would have eventually made their offensives all the way to our continent in a direct way.

5/2/2007 10:59:17 AM

Yea, we should have just let the Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, Chinese, Koreans, etc etc been raped, murdered, and enslaved. I mean, it wasn't our problem.

5/2/2007 11:01:56 AM

Quote :

"I think the argument to the contrary is basically that if we had not supported them financially, then the axis would have eventually made their offensives all the way to our continent in a direct way."

That's not an argument to the contrary of what I said. And the question is inaccurate: the question brought up was whether our involvement in WWII was morally justifiable, not if it was 'necessary' by whatever definition.

It is not an argument to the contrary, because you are arguing with me, yet I agree with your statement, or acknowledge that it is probably true.

But, until we were attacked while not provoking, war was not justified - that is, us being blameless.

If they did eventually bring the war to us, then we are free to lay the hammer down without mercy. And neither Germany nor Japan, even if larger and better versions after our non-intervention, could ever stand a chance at being a real threat to the US' sovereignty as a nation.

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 11:07 AM. Reason : a]

5/2/2007 11:05:38 AM

I've honestly seen this discussion at least 5 times before.

Ultimately its impossible to reach a consensus.

5/2/2007 11:05:47 AM

Essentially the "no entangling alliances" argument... So we as human beings have to allow genocide, and other such crimes against humanity as a nation, because we have not been directly attacked?

5/2/2007 11:07:34 AM

Quote :

"Yea, we should have just let the Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, Chinese, Koreans, etc etc been raped, murdered, and enslaved. I mean, it wasn't our problem."

No, it wasn't.

^yes, at least as far as our government's military response.

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 11:09 AM. Reason : b]

5/2/2007 11:07:55 AM

But we didn't respond military, intentionally. We funded the "good guys", and did our best to stay out of it in a direct way. That's a no-no as well?

Or perhaps it's ok so long as we only provide food, etc and not the instruments of war?

5/2/2007 11:11:03 AM

Those are off-limits also. We have no need to pick sides in foreign wars.

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 11:13 AM. Reason : a]

5/2/2007 11:12:22 AM

How do we become an isolationist state in the global economy? Do we basically sever all ties all at once?

5/2/2007 11:13:50 AM

This is one hypothetical situation that I'm glad we can't answer...thank God we won't have to know if it was necessary or not

5/2/2007 11:15:08 AM

Quote :

"How do we become an isolationist state in the global economy? Do we basically sever all ties all at once?"

I am not at all advocating isolationism....just military isolationism. I believe in completely free trade with all nations on all goods, and documented but very liberal immigration and openness with the world. Bring on the new, global economy. Absolutely. Just keep your troops and your nose in your own business until someone attacks you.

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 11:23 AM. Reason : a]

5/2/2007 11:23:06 AM

In the global economy today, I don't think you can separate the two as easily as that.

5/2/2007 11:25:20 AM

Sure you can. Keep your troops in your own borders. Don't give anyone foreign aid of any kind for any reason. How is that NOT workable?

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 11:28 AM. Reason : v]

5/2/2007 11:27:28 AM

Switzerland hasn't been the preeminent power militarily and economically in the world today for the better part of a century. The kind of transition you're advocating here can't happen that simply, not without us taking a massive hit economically.

5/2/2007 11:29:19 AM

Quote :

"Don't give anyone foreign aid of any kind for any reason"

Even our allies? If you thought a lot of the world hated America now...

5/2/2007 11:29:20 AM

Yes, even our allies.

If it makes them hate us, then they, frankly, need to just get over having to live life without our teats to suck on.

Why would we take a massive hit economically? It would be a huge transition, with some costs (really, corrections), but the net gain would be massively positive.

5/2/2007 11:32:55 AM

Sounds like you ARE advocating isolationism

5/2/2007 11:35:07 AM

The positiveness of the end result I won't argue... because frankly I'd love for us to never be involved in another foreign war. It sounds splendid.

Regardless of calling those financial consequences corrections or costs, they'd be there. And I think they'd be massive...

I think the only way to make the change is very gradually... and the resistance to such a change would be huge, and from both sides of the aisle.

5/2/2007 11:39:07 AM

Quote :

"No, it wasn't."

It was our duties AS HUMANS to put an end to such unspeakable horrors. I cannot see how any person with ANY compassion whatsoever can look the other way in such a case and say "it's not my problem". There is no imaginable way that a simple case of geography can excuse us letting that continue. Even if it were to never reach our shores until the end of time, it should have ended.

5/2/2007 11:39:24 AM

^ You totally jumped the shark, I was headed there next.

5/2/2007 11:40:13 AM

Quote :

"Sounds like you ARE advocating isolationism"

Major parts of isolationism are limited or cut off immigration, and extremely protectionist, anti-globalization economic measures. That certainly ain't me. If "keep your military in your borders" and "don't give welfare checks to other countries" is the definition of isolationism- then ok.

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 11:44 AM. Reason : a]

5/2/2007 11:42:02 AM

Autarky does not work.

5/2/2007 11:42:24 AM

Congratulations for reading the thread, SkankinMonkey.

Autarky limits trade and exposure to the outside world. I already said I'm in favor of free trade on all goods with all nations, and very liberal immigration policies. Autarky is not relevant at all in this thread.

5/2/2007 11:45:47 AM

^^^ Don't get me wrong, I think military isolationism to whatever degree is feasible is the ideal. I just think we as a nation can't ignore the massive costs as human beings of genocide and other crimes against humanity, and that the feasibility line (given our 100+ year record of being all kinds of involved in Europe's affairs) can't be drawn at zero.

5/2/2007 11:47:26 AM

You can't be isolationist and expect to have trade to flow freely, name one country thats done this.

5/2/2007 11:57:00 AM

What are you talking about?

It's impossible to have no tariffs, generous allowances for the number of immigrants, keep your military at home and not write checks to other countries?

What about that is impossible?

5/2/2007 12:01:01 PM

Quote :

" If they did eventually bring the war to us, then we are free to lay the hammer down without mercy. And neither Germany nor Japan, even if larger and better versions after our non-intervention, could ever stand a chance at being a real threat to the US' sovereignty as a nation"

hahaha...wow.

If Germany and Japan had been allowed to advance the war unhindered by the US, they most certainly would have been a threat to us.

Fighter Jets
Rocket Technology
Atomic Weapons

Those would have been the advantages of the Axis powers. We would not have have developed the atomic bomb first. We developed it with the help of scientists fleeing the nazis. True Isolationists don't allow for war refugees to enter their border...its not their fight.

Not to mention fighting a war on both sides of the coast would have been a bitch. No highway system yet, transporting supplies wouldn't have been that easy.

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 12:24 PM. Reason : 1]

5/2/2007 12:23:25 PM

if WWII was fought in the public eye as modern wars are the public perception probably would have been a lot different

5/2/2007 1:18:53 PM

^how so?

5/2/2007 1:43:53 PM

well you'd have a bunch of bleeding hearts saying we should try using diplomacy to reason with hitler, for example

5/2/2007 1:46:06 PM

there weren't people like that in the 30s and 40s?

or are you just making ridiculous assumptions?

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 1:48 PM. Reason : .]

5/2/2007 1:48:20 PM

no, i'm not the one who has a problem understanding guth's simple and logical point

5/2/2007 1:50:13 PM

i'm with guth.

of course, back then the news gave you news with little spin so there were no human interest stories about war orphans in tokyo.

5/2/2007 1:51:12 PM

^^oh i understand his extremely sweeping generalization

that's why i was asking for some clarification. if you have any insight, please, by all means, let's hear it

5/2/2007 1:53:53 PM

Only one person in congress voted against the declaration of war.

Do you think that any modern war would have such unanimous support?

5/2/2007 1:55:44 PM

perhaps. but since WWII there's never been any conflict remotely close to its scale though, so how can we pretend to know how the country would react.

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 2:00 PM. Reason : ..]

5/2/2007 1:57:11 PM

Quote :

"Not to mention fighting a war on both sides of the coast would have been a bitch. No highway system yet, transporting supplies wouldn't have been that easy."

Am I the only one that found this funny?

We fought WW2 in two theaters effectively, both being huge oceans away from us...yet the obstacle of transporting things across our own land is too much of an obstacle?

Quote :

"If Germany and Japan had been allowed to advance the war unhindered by the US, they most certainly would have been a threat to us."

I said they wouldn't threaten our sovereignty as a nation, as in, we could not be overtaken. Potentially, they could make us bleed, but not die. Besides, there's not much of a reason for either to cross the ocean and prick us...when we're trading with them freely, not harassing them, etc., and there are dozens of easier targets out there that they actually could take over.

Quote :

"Those would have been the advantages of the Axis powers. We would not have have developed the atomic bomb first. We developed it with the help of scientists fleeing the nazis. True Isolationists don't allow for war refugees to enter their border...its not their fight."

A) I'm not an isolationist. How many times do I have to repeat that?
B) How can you tell me what we would or would not have done, when this entire line of thought is a response to what I would have us do?
C) Putting the a-bomb aside, because they really weren't very close to it....those advantages are enough to enable them to pull off one or two spectacular attacks on the mainland US a la Pearl Harbor, before they are summarily driven back into the sea, and their fool's errand would be abandoned.

Why didn't the Nazis run a blitz on Switzerland? That same reason would apply to us even moreso.

5/2/2007 1:57:20 PM

Quote :

"Putting the a-bomb aside, because they really weren't very close to it....those advantages are enough to enable them to pull off one or two spectacular attacks on the mainland US a la Pearl Harbor, before they are summarily driven back into the sea, and their fool's errand would be abandoned."

The Germans had designed aircraft with goal of bombing the US from European bases prior to US entry into the war.

A long range german bomber flew with 12 miles of NYC in 1944 as a test of air defenses.

5/2/2007 2:09:41 PM

A. When did I call you an isolationist
B. The entire line of thought is based on what us being 100% isolated would have been.
C. They were a lot closer than we would have been with out immigrant scientists. They could have at least made dirty bombs. Oh and the Germans at the end of the war, did have the ability to strike New York and Washington with bombers.

Transporting over an Ocean != Transporting over Land.

5/2/2007 2:10:13 PM

Quote :

""Don't give anyone foreign aid of any kind for any reason""

yeah, when there's a famine in some african country we definitely should let them starve to death.



you're a fruit.

5/2/2007 2:11:04 PM

this thread is just going to be a shit ton of assumptions, speculation, conjecture, guess work, and ridiculous theories thrown out by each side of the debate to reach whatever conclusion they want to arrive at.

so really, there's only one way to determine who is right and who is wrong. and that's a good ol' fashioned game of Axis & Allies.

5/2/2007 2:16:53 PM

Out of billions upon billions in Africa, how many countries can you name that are demonstrably better off in the long term because of our aid?

They should rename that entire continent "Moral HazardLand." If you take away the consequences of bad behavior, or reward it, it will never change.

They starve because we give them the proverbial 'fish.'

5/2/2007 2:20:06 PM

discussion about aid to Africa is off topic in this thread.

5/2/2007 2:23:35 PM

I disagree. The overarching theme of the thread is international interventionalism both economically and militarily... So it's game.

5/2/2007 2:25:34 PM

Quote :

"The Germans had designed aircraft with goal of bombing the US from European bases prior to US entry into the war. A long range german bomber flew with 12 miles of NYC in 1944 as a test of air defenses."

So?

Quote :

"When did I call you an isolationist "

When you said "True Isolationists don't allow for war refugees to enter their border...its not their fight." - The discussion is not on isolationism, it is me and some other non-isolationists disagreeing. You obviously thought I was an Isolationist, otherwise your point would have been as relevant as "But some flowers are red!" - because nobody said anything to the contrary.

Quote :

"The entire line of thought is based on what us being 100% isolated would have been."

I stop arguing when people prove they haven't been reading. This would be that point.

Quote :

"They were a lot closer than we would have been with out immigrant scientists. They could have at least made dirty bombs. Oh and the Germans at the end of the war, did have the ability to strike New York and Washington with bombers."

Again, so?

5/2/2007 2:27:45 PM

Yeah, thats why the title is WWII Involvement

5/2/2007 2:28:18 PM

lol Overarching theme of a thread entitled WWII Involvement - Was it Necessary?

5/2/2007 2:28:23 PM

And I won't argue with someone who has the logic that US Economy would not suffer if we stopped giving aid to other countries.

5/2/2007 2:30:50 PM