Top U.S official: There's no way to stop Iran's nuclear program

[spookyturtle 9,465]

You do know why Japan doesn't have an effective military force? Hint, it's not because they want to sponge of the US.

It's what the US dictated at the end of WWII. They wanted to make sure that Japan and Germany would never threaten the world again.

Actually read many books on this to try to understand if we had or what made them and they came up with this on their own. We did insist on them giving the woman suffrage and some other stuff but the Japanese insisted on refuting war forever. Mac Arthur thought it was nice of them and allowed it. Since that time we even pay them for the use of bases there. They have since then been able to have a token police force with some militarization and the rest can be funneled into a nice Socialist network. Very smart of them.

What about Germany? I studied this so long ago the memory is fuzzy. I thought that part of the deal was that we would protect Japan, or at least this is what I remembered being taught. I took several history courses in college about Nazi Germany, Russia and the war in Europe. I am less learned on the war with Japan. But all of my studeis were so long ago.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Everything I also had read showed me they expected the Russians to do what they did. They did hope that Russia would pretty much go back home but have influence in the countries overran but from what I had read they also knew Russia would probably do most of what they eventually did.

Patton was right. He wanted to fight the Russians while we had our army over there. He wanted to kick their a$$es so far into Russian that they would never come out.

He did for sure. There were others that wanted to be tough with Russia but others did not. Even in America we were wanting our troops home and right away. There were even a few clashes. Of course after the war the powers got together and made zones of influence. They even both sides made noise that they would have fair elections and abide by them. From what I read Russia sent in specialists behind the troops and started right away to liquidate anyone that could maybe squeak loud. We all pretty much know what happen. We became a occupation force and so did Russia on the other side. It was supposed to be for a set time and of course events moved to where we drew lines. Europe was broke and weak. America was strong and rich. We stuck it out there and built up our new friends and even had a Marshal plan to combat a wave of what we saw Communism coming. It cost the American taxpayer a lot of money over many decades and made it where we could never demilitarilize.

Eventually the wall fell and we should have turned over all the bases and left. Of course I remember Germany and other countries fought hard for us to stay as we were still pumping in huge amount of money into the local economies. Economies that the governments would then have to siphon from their social network. I remember going back again over there and they were arguing about how we could not abandon them and the crying and whining. We closed some bases and consolidated others.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Everybody likes our money.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I will just make my views simple. These countries are now strong and rich. They can now afford to do what we have been doing all these decades. Europe can together make a formidable force if they choose and confront a resurgent Russia. It will cost them if they choose to be strong but it is their choice not ours anymore.

Japan the same. They are wealthy now. They can afford to choose their path.

American after so many years of spending all of our hard earned taxes to keep these now strong and rich countries safe needs to come home and fix ourselves. We are now clamoring for the social networks that these so called friends have had for a long time. We can't afford to do so unless we tax ourselves a lot more or bring our military home and downsize to what we need for ourselves and then siphon off the military budget to our own social network.

To be the worlds policeman is hugely expensive. It is taking a huge chunk of our wealth away and also this global welfare we give takes another huge amount of our wealth away. Our global friends have shown they are our friends only if we have voted the way they like. If we vote a certain way they hate us. We have Obama and they love us. Bush hate us. Fair weather friends. It is now time for us to come home and enjoy some comfort and stop worrying about all these global hot spots that do not threaten us here at home but our so called friends.

We want socialized health care here and many other social programs but they will cost a huge amount of money. The rich pay already most of the taxes and we can tax them more but eventually we will need to tax ourselves to have this. A lot less global policeman ####### means our taxes can be decent but on top of military spending to protect the world and given our money to countries that we will never see and the taxes we will pay will hurt a lot. We have to decide what we want, not the rest of the world.

Edited January 29, 2009 by luckytxn

[luckytxn 2,264]

Everybody likes our money.

Yeah no kidding.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Not to mention all the money we spent rebuilding the countries we bombed off the map. The financial crisis would be over and we would have a surplus.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Preaching to the choir here Spooky.

Also there were two people running for President that said all this exact stuff. Actually one with exactly with my same beliefs. He even said he would bring all the troops home worldwide. We marched into these countries and we can march out. He was shunted off to the side and called a quack and rediculed. Now we got our change and everyone is happy. Right now this year we are going to have a record deficit that will leave us where we were years ago. He is going to shift troops from one theatre of operations to another. same old #######.

[Chuckles 0]

I would never defend the Soviet Union for its actions before, or after the Great War, but I find American opinions very interesting about their role in WWII.

Here is some quick facts for you. 21.3 MILLION Russians lost their lives in WW2. British AND American deaths? 888 THOUSAND. That includes the Pacific arena...

Who fought the WW2(Europe)?... Well it almost could be characterized as a war between Germany and Russia. In fact, outside 3 certain countries, it is.

It seems a comman fallacy that America/Brits won the war. They never took Berlin. Yet lots of Americans talk like that. We have been kind of brain-washed since youth to think like that. Yes, American equipment helped the Russians immensly, and the 'Western front' served as a great distraction to what was going on in the East. I am very proud of my country for stepping in and making the sacrifice. But...

Anyway, that was a long time ago, and peoples distortion of the facts really do not make a difference. But, then again, it is worth remembering who really paid the price for Germany and Hilter's madness.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I would never defend the Soviet Union for its actions before, or after the Great War, but I find American opinions very interesting about their role in WWII.

Here is some quick facts for you. 21.3 MILLION Russians lost their lives in WW2. British AND American deaths? 888 THOUSAND. That includes the Pacific arena...

Who fought the WW2(Europe)?... Well it almost could be characterized as a war between Germany and Russia. In fact, outside 3 certain countries, it is.

It seems a comman fallacy that America/Brits won the war. They never took Berlin. Yet lots of Americans talk like that. We have been kind of brain-washed since youth to think like that. Yes, American equipment helped the Russians immensly, and the 'Western front' served as a great distraction to what was going on in the East. I am very proud of my country for stepping in and making the sacrifice. But...

Anyway, that was a long time ago, and peoples distortion of the facts really do not make a difference. But, then again, it is worth remembering who really paid the price for Germany and Hilter's madness.

Americans didn't take Berlin because their armies were ordered to halt their advance so Russia could "liberate" Berlin.

[Chuckles 0]

I would never defend the Soviet Union for its actions before, or after the Great War, but I find American opinions very interesting about their role in WWII.

Here is some quick facts for you. 21.3 MILLION Russians lost their lives in WW2. British AND American deaths? 888 THOUSAND. That includes the Pacific arena...

Who fought the WW2(Europe)?... Well it almost could be characterized as a war between Germany and Russia. In fact, outside 3 certain countries, it is.

It seems a comman fallacy that America/Brits won the war. They never took Berlin. Yet lots of Americans talk like that. We have been kind of brain-washed since youth to think like that. Yes, American equipment helped the Russians immensly, and the 'Western front' served as a great distraction to what was going on in the East. I am very proud of my country for stepping in and making the sacrifice. But...

Anyway, that was a long time ago, and peoples distortion of the facts really do not make a difference. But, then again, it is worth remembering who really paid the price for Germany and Hilter's madness.

Americans didn't take Berlin because their armies were ordered to halt their advance so Russia could "liberate" Berlin.

Well, that is not historical fact, it is only speculation. Eisenhower himself gave a different account.

"Eisenhower offered three reasons for his decision to abandon a northern advance to Berlin and instead target those remaining German forces in the south. First and foremost were the zones of occupation. Eisenhower himself had argued against these zones, specifically the placement of Berlin deep in the Soviet zone. Once this decision had been made, however, all strategic planning at SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force) took these boundaries into consideration. Although Eisenhower was willing to alter his plans if ordered to do so, there would be no such orders from Washington.

Eisenhower and American General Omar Bradley, Commander of the 12th Army Group, also believed that the capture of Berlin would entail huge losses for the attacking forces. Critics have dismissed Bradley's estimate of 100,000 casualties as far too pessimistic, as it would mean a greater number of casualties than the Americans had suffered since landing at Normandy. However, it should be noted that the Soviet Union placed their own casualties as over 300,000 in the two weeks of fighting from the Oder to the collapse of Berlin. This number included killed, wounded and missing. Interestingly, recent western sources place the total casualties suffered by the Soviets as even higher. "

This source is from the University of California College of Graduate Studies. Again, it is funny how speculation turns into fact. We think that doesn't happen in America, but it happens all the time.

[NickD 202]

China was far worse than the Soviets after we saved their a$$ also to join with the Soviets to form yet another dictatorship. Never want to use the word communist when talking about the Soviets or the Chinese. It's that magical 10% of the population that somehow manages to control the other 90%, whether it's in religion, armed strength, or in this country, wealth, less than 10% of the population is controlling the other 90%. You find that magical 10% in the so-called communists countries, in the Nazi party, and in wealth.

The only thing I can conclude, is that the other 90% of us are stupid for letting this happen. Even Jesus referred to us as sheep, a very obedient loving and trusting animal that can be easily led to the slaughter house.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I would never defend the Soviet Union for its actions before, or after the Great War, but I find American opinions very interesting about their role in WWII.

Here is some quick facts for you. 21.3 MILLION Russians lost their lives in WW2. British AND American deaths? 888 THOUSAND. That includes the Pacific arena...

Who fought the WW2(Europe)?... Well it almost could be characterized as a war between Germany and Russia. In fact, outside 3 certain countries, it is.

It seems a comman fallacy that America/Brits won the war. They never took Berlin. Yet lots of Americans talk like that. We have been kind of brain-washed since youth to think like that. Yes, American equipment helped the Russians immensly, and the 'Western front' served as a great distraction to what was going on in the East. I am very proud of my country for stepping in and making the sacrifice. But...

Anyway, that was a long time ago, and peoples distortion of the facts really do not make a difference. But, then again, it is worth remembering who really paid the price for Germany and Hilter's madness.

Americans didn't take Berlin because their armies were ordered to halt their advance so Russia could "liberate" Berlin.

Well, that is not historical fact, it is only speculation. Eisenhower himself gave a different account.

"Eisenhower offered three reasons for his decision to abandon a northern advance to Berlin and instead target those remaining German forces in the south. First and foremost were the zones of occupation. Eisenhower himself had argued against these zones, specifically the placement of Berlin deep in the Soviet zone. Once this decision had been made, however, all strategic planning at SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force) took these boundaries into consideration. Although Eisenhower was willing to alter his plans if ordered to do so, there would be no such orders from Washington.

Eisenhower and American General Omar Bradley, Commander of the 12th Army Group, also believed that the capture of Berlin would entail huge losses for the attacking forces. Critics have dismissed Bradley's estimate of 100,000 casualties as far too pessimistic, as it would mean a greater number of casualties than the Americans had suffered since landing at Normandy. However, it should be noted that the Soviet Union placed their own casualties as over 300,000 in the two weeks of fighting from the Oder to the collapse of Berlin. This number included killed, wounded and missing. Interestingly, recent western sources place the total casualties suffered by the Soviets as even higher. "

This source is from the University of California College of Graduate Studies. Again, it is funny how speculation turns into fact. We think that doesn't happen in America, but it happens all the time.

So you chose to believe this speculation, I choose to believe my sources of study. Do you seriously believe that the US couldn't have taken Berlin or for that matter Russia?

[Chuckles 0]

I would never defend the Soviet Union for its actions before, or after the Great War, but I find American opinions very interesting about their role in WWII.

Here is some quick facts for you. 21.3 MILLION Russians lost their lives in WW2. British AND American deaths? 888 THOUSAND. That includes the Pacific arena...

Who fought the WW2(Europe)?... Well it almost could be characterized as a war between Germany and Russia. In fact, outside 3 certain countries, it is.

It seems a comman fallacy that America/Brits won the war. They never took Berlin. Yet lots of Americans talk like that. We have been kind of brain-washed since youth to think like that. Yes, American equipment helped the Russians immensly, and the 'Western front' served as a great distraction to what was going on in the East. I am very proud of my country for stepping in and making the sacrifice. But...

Anyway, that was a long time ago, and peoples distortion of the facts really do not make a difference. But, then again, it is worth remembering who really paid the price for Germany and Hilter's madness.

Americans didn't take Berlin because their armies were ordered to halt their advance so Russia could "liberate" Berlin.

Well, that is not historical fact, it is only speculation. Eisenhower himself gave a different account.

"Eisenhower offered three reasons for his decision to abandon a northern advance to Berlin and instead target those remaining German forces in the south. First and foremost were the zones of occupation. Eisenhower himself had argued against these zones, specifically the placement of Berlin deep in the Soviet zone. Once this decision had been made, however, all strategic planning at SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force) took these boundaries into consideration. Although Eisenhower was willing to alter his plans if ordered to do so, there would be no such orders from Washington.

Eisenhower and American General Omar Bradley, Commander of the 12th Army Group, also believed that the capture of Berlin would entail huge losses for the attacking forces. Critics have dismissed Bradley's estimate of 100,000 casualties as far too pessimistic, as it would mean a greater number of casualties than the Americans had suffered since landing at Normandy. However, it should be noted that the Soviet Union placed their own casualties as over 300,000 in the two weeks of fighting from the Oder to the collapse of Berlin. This number included killed, wounded and missing. Interestingly, recent western sources place the total casualties suffered by the Soviets as even higher. "

This source is from the University of California College of Graduate Studies. Again, it is funny how speculation turns into fact. We think that doesn't happen in America, but it happens all the time.

So you chose to believe this speculation, I choose to believe my sources of study. Do you seriously believe that the US couldn't have taken Berlin or for that matter Russia?

How is that speculation? It is historical fact? If you truly studied this, you wouldn't argue against this.

Yes US (we) could have taken Berlin. But they would have lost hundreds of thousands more. They were smart not to. No, I do not think they could have taken Russia. Sure, they could have fought them and won 'numbers', but we would never have won the hearts and minds of the poeple, which means we would lose. That is speculation of course, but how can it not be for events that never happened?

[luckytxn 2,264]

We could have taken Berlin and I am positive we could have taken Russia. Russia would have been a bloody and hard slog but we could have. Actually you both are right. It had to do with spheres of influence. It was drawn up before even D-Day. Patton and even others wanted to race into Berlin. Patton was a great General but he often had to be restrained as he was known to over stretch his lines of support and thus endanger his army.

The one point that is known is that the American people had enough of war. They were demanding the troops come home and a draw down of the military. Our objectives had been reached in Europe. I highly doubt that the politicians could have used all their propaganda to get the people to fight who was our allies (The Russians).

[mawilson 2,133]

The US forces in Europe were originally deployed to protect everyone from the mighty Communists. That they are still there is less to do with protecting Europe and more to do with US self interest, but hey, carry on, bring them home. I don't object, I simply object to this idea that the world has been begging for the US to look after them. That's just silly.

They are still there to protect Europe from Russia. You don't think Russia is a threat? Well, Georgia thought so too and look what happened.