Intervention vs Non-intervention

[Centrehalf]

No...no....no....

yes, yes, yes!

You call providing military hardware of all sorts, to the Brits, TRADE.

Nope. But, that's not what we were doing in the '39-'41 time frame.

It was a provocation..interventionist and NOT TRADE. What do you think all that equipment was used for? It was used to kill Germans. Do you not think that a provocation in the minds of Germany? It most certainly is NOT following a policy of non-intervention or neutrality.

This is only true if you accept the proposition that America was sending mass-quantities of offensive weapons to the Brits in the 1939-1941 timeframe, and that this gear was used to kill Germans. We had not ramped up our production at this point, our Army was practically non-existent until 1942, and at this time the British gear was superior to ours. Did we send the raw material and machinery needed to produce weapons? Yep.

What American military hardware before our entry into the war was used to kill Germans? I've looked on-line just to make sure I'm not wrong. Can't find it. There were some things the Home Guard may have used, but by definition that wouldn't have been used to kill Germans. Maybe you are talking about the Destroyers for Bases deal? Those Destroyers weren't anything special.

Can you please name all these American merchant ships sunk by Germany PRIOR to their declaring war on us?

I could, but I'm not going to. I just went on-line to make sure I'm not wrong, and I'm not. There are plenty of easily accessible sites which list the ships and in many cases show the shipping manifests. That makes this common knowledge and I'm not going to spoon-feed you links for anything considered common knowledge. This question also shows that you haven't even bothered to double-check yourself.

The Barbary Wars are a good example of non-interventionist policy. We took care of the problem and left. It is not comparable to intervening in foreign wars we had no business being involved in....like WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq...that is INTERVENTIONIST!!!

I agree with you on Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

The House of Representatives--where all the monetary approval must come from--needs to be more activist and de-fund bad programs.
That is also why we need to remove all the crap added to bills (pork) to sneak insane items into the legislation.

That was the idea of "the people's House"--so that they alone could make or break funding. Nothing proceeds without funding.
Just as the Senate can stop legislation--the House can give the death penalty to bad programs--if they have the guts to.

The Founding Fathers set it up well--if it was allowed to run as constructed.
You can never change the federal government by anything other than financial strangulation.
It's just the way it is.

 

[Centrehalf]

I do not believe that is historically correct. The Soviets moved 18 divisions from Siberia to fight the Germans. I do not think that number of soldiers is insignificant.

The number of soldiers had nothing to do with it. The Germans weren't able to move large numbers of soldiers to anywhere near Moscow in '41. Some advanced elements were there, that's it.

The Soviets did have good intel because all their diplomats were spies. Stalin had a spy in Tokyo who informed him the Japanese had no intention of invading the USSR in 1941. This allowed the movement of all those divisions and equipment, which broke the back of the German invasion.

I'm aware of Richard Sorge. As for breaking the back of the invasion, no need to repeat myself.

The Japanese army was a potent force in 1941. Had it attacked the USSR, the effect would have been significant. Japan and Russia had a long history of conflict prior to 1941. And most recently they had heavy battles along the Russia/China border in 1939. Japan fared quite well.

I'm not questioning the fighting spirit of Japanese troops at that time. I'm questioning their ability to deal with the weather, terrain, and logistical issues which would have hampered them had they tried to move into Siberia.

 

[Gipper]

The number of soldiers had nothing to do with it. The Germans weren't able to move large numbers of soldiers to anywhere near Moscow in '41. Some advanced elements were there, that's it.



I'm aware of Richard Sorge. As for breaking the back of the invasion, no need to repeat myself.



I'm not questioning the fighting spirit of Japanese troops at that time. I'm questioning their ability to deal with the weather, terrain, and logistical issues which would have hampered them had they tried to move into Siberia.

Who said anything about Moscow? The front was much larger than just Moscow. The size of the two armies was very similar when the Soviets counterattacked in late 1941. The Soviets merely concentrated forces at strategic points to push back the Germans.

Never said you questioned the fighting spirit of the Japanese. Why would infer I did?

Yeah...the Japanese army had problems dealing with weather, terrain, logistics...come on you reaching for straws. Japan had a large army in China that was very well provisioned and they had been there fighting for several years. Their problems would have been no different than the Soviets would have had.

 

[BigRob]

You are dreaming.

There is no doubt that the political reality of the situation will not see this bear out -- that said, a mechanism is in place to do exactly what you want -- and simply creating a new one is not going to address the issue any more than what we currently have does.

 

[Gipper]

yes, yes, yes!



Nope. But, that's not what we were doing in the '39-'41 time frame.



This is only true if you accept the proposition that America was sending mass-quantities of offensive weapons to the Brits in the 1939-1941 timeframe, and that this gear was used to kill Germans. We had not ramped up our production at this point, our Army was practically non-existent until 1942, and at this time the British gear was superior to ours. Did we send the raw material and machinery needed to produce weapons? Yep.

What American military hardware before our entry into the war was used to kill Germans? I've looked on-line just to make sure I'm not wrong. Can't find it. There were some things the Home Guard may have used, but by definition that wouldn't have been used to kill Germans. Maybe you are talking about the Destroyers for Bases deal? Those Destroyers weren't anything special.



I could, but I'm not going to. I just went on-line to make sure I'm not wrong, and I'm not. There are plenty of easily accessible sites which list the ships and in many cases show the shipping manifests. That makes this common knowledge and I'm not going to spoon-feed you links for anything considered common knowledge. This question also shows that you haven't even bothered to double-check yourself.



I agree with you on Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.

If you are trying to claim that FDR and American ships supplying the Brits before Dec 7, 1941 were merely innocent victims of German aggression, we can go no further. Because that is factually incorrect.

Hitler told Donitz not to fire on any US vessel because he wanted to invade USSR and avoid bringing the US into the war. Germany was doing all it could to avoid a confrontation, though some did occur primarily because of American efforts to instigate them. On the other hand, FDR was doing all he could to CAUSE a confrontation. He told Churchill as much at their meeting at Placentia Bay Canada in early AUGUST of 1941...four months BEFORE Pearl Harbor.

Hitler was intent on keeping America out of the War, especially as he was about to invade the Soviet Union. He ordered Dönitz's U-boats to avoid all U.S. warships. After an incident with the USS Texas (June 20), Admiral Dönitz signaled the U-boat fleet, "Führer orders avoidance any incident with USA during next few weeks. Order will be rigidly obeyed in all circumstances. In addition attacks till further orders will be restricted to cruisers, battleshiops, and air craft carriers and then only when identifued beyond doubt as hostile. Fact that warship is sailing without lights will not be regarded as proof of enemy identity." [Dönitz, pp. 189-190.] This greatly complicated U-boat operations. It was not always possible to identify the nationality of the vessels targtted. Another problem was that with American and British/Canadian vessels intermingled, the U-boats were not always sure how to respond to the escorts. The restrictins according to Admiral Dönitz "... meant that the U-boats could no longer attack their most dangerous enemies, the destroyers, frigates and corvettes, whether British or of any other nationality. With this intermingling of British and American naval forces the U-boats found themselves in a situation which was unique in the history of war. All the British employed on anti-submarine duties pursued the U-boats with every means they possessed, while the latter had passively to suffer all their attacks without trying to defend themselves or strike a counter-blow." [Dönitz, p. 190.] It is interesting to read these NAZI accounts. Dönitz complained bitterly that Roosevelt frustrated "all the efforts made by Germany to prevent a deterioration of relations". He explains that "Roosevelt wanted war". [Dönitz, p. 190.] This from a leader of a country that had just invaded and occupied 13 countries. Dönitz and other NAZIs were outraged when countries actually resisted
Karl Donitz, Memoirs
http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/us/pr/41/unw.html

 

[Gipper]

There is no doubt that the political reality of the situation will not see this bear out -- that said, a mechanism is in place to do exactly what you want -- and simply creating a new one is not going to address the issue any more than what we currently have does.

Why do you persist with this silly belief the Constitution is the mechanism, when it is has proven it is not?

 

[Centrehalf]

If you are trying to claim that FDR and American ships supplying the Brits before Dec 7, 1941 were merely innocent victims of German aggression, we can go no further. Because that is factually incorrect.

Bolding added by me. Don't play this piss-ant game with me. I told you earlier that you were wrong. I'm positive you went out to the Internet to look for anything, anything at all to support the statements you made earlier. If you had found anything, and I do mean anything, I'm sure I would be looking at a link right now. I'm not looking at one.

There's a lot I could say in response to you, I'm not going to say anything, other than this: do you think I dind't have my "this is pointless" moment? I didn't drop that bomb on you, but you dropped it on me. We're done.

 

[BigRob]

Why do you persist with this silly belief the Constitution is the mechanism, when it is has proven it is not?

Congress (and the Judicial) is the mechanism to prevent the Executive Branch from gaining to much power and sending us off to war unilaterally. The only thing history shows us is that Congress has been unwilling to take action to prevent this. They certainly have the power -- maybe they ought to use it?

 

[Gipper]

Congress (and the Judicial) is the mechanism to prevent the Executive Branch from gaining to much power and sending us off to war unilaterally. The only thing history shows us is that Congress has been unwilling to take action to prevent this. They certainly have the power -- maybe they ought to use it?

Agreed. Not only Congress, but also the Supreme Court. Both institutions have allowed numerous unconstitutional actions, by many presidents, become law. Obamacare being a perfect example.

I suppose I too am dreaming for hoping our leaders will return to a non-interventionist foreign policy envisioned and implemented by our Founders.

 

[Gipper]

Bolding added by me. Don't play this piss-ant game with me. I told you earlier that you were wrong. I'm positive you went out to the Internet to look for anything, anything at all to support the statements you made earlier. If you had found anything, and I do mean anything, I'm sure I would be looking at a link right now. I'm not looking at one.

There's a lot I could say in response to you, I'm not going to say anything, other than this: do you think I dind't have my "this is pointless" moment? I didn't drop that bomb on you, but you dropped it on me. We're done.

Please forgive me for insulting you.

I have studied American history my entire life and that is a fairly long time. So, I can get a bit testy now and then.

 

[Gipper]

Yet another intervention with no American interest. Now in the worthless nation of Mali. Our foolish leaders will never learn.

And, sadly, President Obama and Defense Secretary Panetta did not hesitate for a second before offering U.S. military assistance to France. They thereby intervened in yet another war where America has no interests, but one which will harden and make more skillful the mujahedin that U.S. ground forces will have to fight when our soldiers and Marines eventually are deployed to West Africa to protect such life-and-death U.S. national interests as access to oil, sea lanes, uranium, and other strategic minerals. Our assistance for the French is thus another useless and wasteful intervention. It seeks to protect no recognizable U.S. national interest and will recall to Muslim minds bin Laden’s warning that the U.S. and its allies will intervene to kill Muslims anywhere they seek to establish God‘s law on earth.
Sixteen years after the late-Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States, we are being treated in Mali to a rare and explicit glimpse of how deep the arrogance and incompetence of Western leaders are when it comes to the religious war al-Qaeda and its allies are waging on the West.
The worldwide presence of al-Qaeda and other Islamist fighting groups have grown greatly since 2001 for three main reasons: (a) the enduring resonance of al-Qaeda’s message invoking the religious requirement to wage jihad to stop Western intervention in the Muslim world; (b) the West’s continuing intervention in the Muslim world; and (c) the now clear and complete mujaheidin victories over hapless U.S. and Western military forces in Iraq in Afghanistan. As an aside, it is worth asking whether there could be a more powerful galvanizing force toward jihad among today’s young Muslim males than to know that their fathers and brothers defeated the Soviet and U.S. superpowers?
http://non-intervention.com/