Obama announces cuts to military spending.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

Allow me to correct Wasdie... this shows that you know nothing about the US from 1939-1945[Frame_Dragger

Whatever man. Please englighten me if you feel it's so obvious that I'm wrong.

How can we enlighten somebody who's head is clearly up his own ass?

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

You serious? Their country was brutally ravaged by war. They had every right to be a little pissed off. Although Germany took the heat for Austro Hungary big time.

Ilovegames1992

Because they knew that there was going to be a depression. And that it would lead the german people to desperation, and that would lead to Hitler coming to poer, and that would lead to war. I don't think so.

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"] That it was, and I'm not saying they didn't have a right to be angered. But when you're willing to screw over yourself and the rest of Europe by imposing hilariously unrealistic and brutal reparations on a cornerstone of the continent, you reap what you sow.Verge_6

Because they knew that there was going to be a depression. And that it would lead the german people to desperation, and that would lead to Hitler coming to poer, and that would lead to war. I don't think so.

So France caused the Great Depression now?

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

Because they knew that there was going to be a depression. And that it would lead the german people to desperation, and that would lead to Hitler coming to poer, and that would lead to war. I don't think so.

Ilovegames1992

So France caused the Great Depression now?

They were part of the cause yes.

A big problem with the military today is that having a lot of military personnel is essentially pointless for anything but regime change scenarios.

The focus should be on asymmetric warfare and power projection. For asymmetric warfare, missles, submarines, drone aircraft and cyber warfare are important. For power projection, aircraft carriers and air bases are important.

None of these things require hundreds of thousands of soldiers, but that's exactly where a lot of the budget is going.

So France caused the Great Depression now?

Ilovegames1992

I did not say that (however there are schools of thoughtwith signficant backing that support it, look up an essay by Doughlas Irwin), I am merely pointing out the well-established fact that they were a key factor in bringing about the Great Depression.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

Because they knew that there was going to be a depression. And that it would lead the german people to desperation, and that would lead to Hitler coming to poer, and that would lead to war. I don't think so.

Ilovegames1992

So France caused the Great Depression now?

France demanded reparations that economists of the time warned were far excessive and potentially disasterous. The total amount of financlal reparations was far in excess of Germany's means to pay*. This led to a collapse in the German economy, which lead to a destablizing of the country, which lead to the rise of the Third Reich. I'm not sure the impact these reparations had on causing the Great Depression, but I don't doubt it. Even then major world economies were becoming intertwined.

*As an aside Germany finally made the last reparation payment demanded by the Treaty of Versailles some 92 years later.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

How can we enlighten somebody who's head is clearly up his own ass?

Frame_Dragger

First of all, I didn't know direct personal insults were now accepted in GS, and from a mod even, how sad. The fact you're reverting to that sort of tactic instead of laying out an argument pretty much says it all.

Second, you two, Wasdie and Frame_Dragger, need to make up your minds. Wasdie's quote from above:

You don't think that increased political pressure from the USA wouldn't have changed anything?

I don't think WWI could be stopped, the USA still wasn't a major power yet, but at the start of WWII, the USA could have made a much bigger difference politically.

Wasdie

If the USA could have made a much bigger difference politically and didn't do it, it means they didn't really want it. So my original point stands:The US had no real interest in stopping WWII from taking place.

Furthermore, you chose to ignore the bulk of my point (read a couple of pages back) and instead nitpick on a trivial thing just for the hell of it. I wasn't even bashing the US yet you felt the need to defend it somehow.

So, which one of us clearly has his head up his own ass?

Complete US dominance? Dunno, Russia would disagree.

Ilovegames1992

Russia was a superpower no doubt, but in the end their approach was bound to fail. It's not just about military power, the entire Western world became Americanised, for the good and the bad. American culture spread to the whole world. We see American movies, American TV series, we hear American music, McDonalds is everywhere, Coca-Cola is everywhere, etc. Even part of the reason English is the international language today is because of the US global dominance.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] It is imperialism in the sense of influence. America hasn't taken over any countries, but there's a pretty hefty lists of governments in power today who were put there by the good old US of A. Wasdie

That's really expanding the definition of imperialism. But I guess you gotta justify the constant stream of USA bashing I see on this board.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="Wasdie"] This...nunovlopes

First of all, I didn't know direct personal insults were now accepted in GS, and from a mod even, how sad. The fact you're reverting to that sort of tactic instead of laying out an argument pretty much says it all.

Second, you two, Wasdie and Frame_Dragger, need to make up your minds. Wasdie's quote from above:

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

You don't think that increased political pressure from the USA wouldn't have changed anything?

I don't think WWI could be stopped, the USA still wasn't a major power yet, but at the start of WWII, the USA could have made a much bigger difference politically.

If the USA could have made a much bigger difference politically and didn't do it, it means they didn't really want it. So my original point stands:The US had no real interest in stopping WWII from taking place.

Furthermore, you chose to ignore the bulk of my point (read a couple of pages back) and instead nitpick on a trivial thing just for the hell of it. I wasn't even bashing the US yet you felt the need to defend it somehow.

So, which one of us clearly has his head up his own ass?

If the USA didn't want to profit from WW2 and was genuinely on the side of good vs evil, surely they would have stepped in in 1939? Not year later after Hitler had already annihilated half of Europe and Britain was in crippling debt to America arms companies? Dismiss it as 'america bashing' if you like, or step into the realm of reality. Ninja-Hippo

Of course they were profiting. Neutrality was the smart move really.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="Wasdie"] This...nunovlopes

First of all, I didn't know direct personal insults were now accepted in GS, and from a mod even, how sad. The fact you're reverting to that sort of tactic instead of laying out an argument pretty much says it all.

Second, you two, Wasdie and Frame_Dragger, need to make up your minds. Wasdie's quote from above:

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

You don't think that increased political pressure from the USA wouldn't have changed anything?

I don't think WWI could be stopped, the USA still wasn't a major power yet, but at the start of WWII, the USA could have made a much bigger difference politically.

If the USA could have made a much bigger difference politically and didn't do it, it means they didn't really want it. So my original point stands:The US had no real interest in stopping WWII from taking place.

Furthermore, you chose to ignore the bulk of my point (read a couple of pages back) and instead nitpick on a trivial thing just for the hell of it. I wasn't even bashing the US yet you felt the need to defend it somehow.

So, which one of us clearly has his head up his own ass?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]If the USA didn't want to profit from WW2 and was genuinely on the side of good vs evil, surely they would have stepped in in 1939? Not year later after Hitler had already annihilated half of Europe and Britain was in crippling debt to America arms companies? Dismiss it as 'america bashing' if you like, or step into the realm of reality. Ilovegames1992

Of course they were profiting. Neutrality was the smart move really.

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]If the USA didn't want to profit from WW2 and was genuinely on the side of good vs evil, surely they would have stepped in in 1939? Not year later after Hitler had already annihilated half of Europe and Britain was in crippling debt to America arms companies? Dismiss it as 'america bashing' if you like, or step into the realm of reality. sonicare

Of course they were profiting. Neutrality was the smart move really.

Yup. Although i reckon the Swiss wanted us to win really. As did Spain.

If the USA didn't want to profit from WW2 and was genuinely on the side of good vs evil, surely they would have stepped in in 1939? Not year later after Hitler had already annihilated half of Europe and Britain was in crippling debt to America arms companies? Dismiss it as 'america bashing' if you like, or step into the realm of reality. Ninja-Hippo

Or look up the United State's foreign policy in the 1930s. You may see the word "isoalationsit" quite a bit.

You need to step out ot the realm of consperiacy theories and BS.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

Of course they were profiting. Neutrality was the smart move really.

Ilovegames1992

Yup. Although i reckon the Swiss wanted us to win really. As did Spain.

Do you not know about the whole spanish civil war which tore apart the country before WWII started? They were in no shape to fight and even if they were, they had a heavy facist party in control.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]If the USA didn't want to profit from WW2 and was genuinely on the side of good vs evil, surely they would have stepped in in 1939? Not year later after Hitler had already annihilated half of Europe and Britain was in crippling debt to America arms companies? Dismiss it as 'america bashing' if you like, or step into the realm of reality. Wasdie

Or look up the United State's foreign policy in the 1930s. You may see the word "isoalationsit" quite a bit.

You need to step out ot the realm of consperiacy theories and BS.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]If the USA didn't want to profit from WW2 and was genuinely on the side of good vs evil, surely they would have stepped in in 1939? Not year later after Hitler had already annihilated half of Europe and Britain was in crippling debt to America arms companies? Dismiss it as 'america bashing' if you like, or step into the realm of reality. Wasdie

Or look up the United State's foreign policy in the 1930s. You may see the word "isoalationsit" quite a bit.

You need to step out ot the realm of consperiacy theories and BS.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]If the USA didn't want to profit from WW2 and was genuinely on the side of good vs evil, surely they would have stepped in in 1939? Not year later after Hitler had already annihilated half of Europe and Britain was in crippling debt to America arms companies? Dismiss it as 'america bashing' if you like, or step into the realm of reality. Ilovegames1992

Of course they were profiting. Neutrality was the smart move really.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]If the USA didn't want to profit from WW2 and was genuinely on the side of good vs evil, surely they would have stepped in in 1939? Not year later after Hitler had already annihilated half of Europe and Britain was in crippling debt to America arms companies? Dismiss it as 'america bashing' if you like, or step into the realm of reality. Ninja-Hippo

Or look up the United State's foreign policy in the 1930s. You may see the word "isoalationsit" quite a bit.

You need to step out ot the realm of consperiacy theories and BS.

This.

All this talk of good and evil is BS. Countries/people do what is in their best interest and couldn't care less if people are dying a continent away, or a country away. If they can profit from it even better, they will let it happen.

I'm not bashing the US, my own country (Portugal) stayed neutral during WWII, although we did help the Allies namely through our islands in the Atlantic.

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] Just ask the swiss about neutrality. They were more than happy to accomodate the nazis and there plundered loot.Wasdie

Yup. Although i reckon the Swiss wanted us to win really. As did Spain.

Do you not know about the whole spanish civil war which tore apart the country before WWII started? They were in no shape to fight and even if they were, they had a heavy facist party in control.

I know. I was just saying they wanted us to win secretly.