It’s not that complicated, really.Â
If you think we need more free trade, lower taxes, less government spending, less government intervention, and an aggressive foreign policy, vote for McCain.Â
If you think we need more restrictions on trade, higher taxes, more government spending, more government intervention, and a less aggressive foreign policy, then Obama’s your guy.
What’s somewhat unfortunate this time around is that much of America has gotten caught up in otherwise laudable enthusiasm for the first African-American President to the exclusion of noticing what policies they’re voting for, and the press (which is much more supportive of the agenda mentioned above than most Americans) has abandoned any pretense of fairness.Â
Well, it will be an interesting four years after the media drag Obama across the finish line and he starts actually governing.
UPDATE: Yes, your taxes will go up under Obama, pretty much no matter who you are. Be sure to read this whole article. Obama’s promise to cut taxes for 95% of people is, shall we say, highly nuanced.Â
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 59 comments }
Dave: I think the 2 descriptions you have presented reflect more the stereotype than the reality. It is not so clear cut.
For starters, the government intervention is already here, supported by both because it is necessary at this point. And regardles of who wins, government will be more hands on.
In foreign policy they are more or less a match although Obama will be more prone to coordinate with allies, UN, etc, whereas McCain will be more the lone ranger type. McCain will pick on Russia whereas Obama will rely more on diplomacy (reality check: we need a partnership with Russia)
As far as monetary policies go, neither may have much of a choice in light of the fiscal situation. Â
I agree. No more government money to Corporate America. You should lose your business like any other American. We absolutely need less government intervention. Remember the big Airline bailout? Why is it when a major corporation can’t make their business profitable do we hand them tons of taxpayer money? We need to get the Republicans and their big government out of the White House.
:D
I agree with Andrea that your reasoning is oversimplified. The truth is that many Americans are on board with Obama because of the utter disillusionment with the Bush administration and the war, among other things, and not because they’re so excited by the idea of an African-American president that they’d vote LL Cool J into office. People may not understand the ramifications of his policies or the changes accompanying liberal illuminati domination of the White House, but those voting for Obama generally have more complex motivations than his color.Â
Dave, I agree with everything you just said.
It’s harder to pick when you want some of the choices from column A and some from column B.Â
This election is an easy call.
True, Bush is unpopular and has been awful about limiting the size of government. The war is a bit more complex — I’m just glad that there hasn’t been any repeats of 9/11 and for that, Yes, I give credit to Bush.
McCain is an adult. He has earned it. He isn’t the Messiah. He isn’t a showhorse, he’s a work horse. Not some glib,  inexperienced do-gooder from the Ivy League via the Chicago political machine.
Yes, I like Obama. Great fresh face in Dem politics. Leader of the Free World, though?!!? Are you joking? He’s the classic guy who runs for Student Body Prez, but has someone else do his homework assignments.
Yes, my kids love him — he makes them FEEL good. He makes their teachers FEEL good, too. That is important — feeling good is important for the psyche, important for emotional stability.
The problem, Â though, is that I pay the rent. I gotta work hard. I gotta keep the marriage afloat, the income afloat, the healthcare afloat. I remember when Jimmy Carter and Dems controlled all the levers of power. It was an unmitigated disaster. Soft on our enemies abroad, hard on our pocket-books at home.
It is just awful that the Dems run every major big city in America. They breed false hope and ignorance, albeit well-intentioned false hope and ignorance. And, most of all, they seek power for power’s sake.
My standing offer to all of my liberal friends is this: I will vote for Obama, if you support the GOP for Mayor of Oakland, City Council of San Francisco, Detroit, Newark, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc, etc, etc.
The goal isn’t to identify culturally with a particular party or person — the goal is to do the hard-lifting to make our commnunities better, and our country better.
McCain seeks to do this, while Obama seeks to fulfill his own ambitions.
HankB
Go McCain!
Â
For starters, the government intervention is already here, supported by both because it is necessary at this point.
There will be more under Obama, less under McCain.
No more government money to Corporate America.
More Democrats than Republicans voted for the bailout. Also "corporate America" is, increasingly, Mom and Dad’s pension funds (hence the Dem support for bailouts).
In foreign policy they are more or less a match although Obama will be more prone to coordinate with allies
“Coordination” means leadership by committee which means it’s much more difficult to accomplish anything, hence “less aggressive.”
I have to say that Jimmy Carter is not running for office. The candidates are Obama and McCain. They are not running for the office of leader of the free world but for president of the United States. Actually, most of the world out there, free or not, simply want us out of their hair.
McCain admitted on Sunday to Tom Brokaw that he shares the same philosophy of Bush. That made me bristle. Is he going to adopt the Bush doctrine too, attacking any country that do not fit out model?Â
We can’t continue spreading democracy with bombs.
We need to concentrate on our nation for a change. We should overhaul the health care system and not just get a meager tax credit that the insurance companies will devour. Yes Obama has much less experience than McCain but McCain’s experience of one quarter of a century in the senate has been, with a few exceptions, either fruitless or with negative results.Â
McCain is the past.
Dave: do you want aggressive? are you for real?
andrea,
Under Obama’s 2006 plan, we would by now have surrendered Iraq to the extremists — Al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army. Under McCain’s surge, we have transformed Iraq into a place where there really is hope and change — and freedom and democracy.
Actually, most of the world out there, free or not, simply want us out of their hair.
Tell that to the Kurds, the South Koreans, the Taiwanese, the Israelis, the Georgians, the Kosovars…Â
We can’t continue spreading democracy with bombs.
What would Europe look like today if we had had that attitude last century? Â
Half the people that are free in the world today are free as a direct result of the application of American military force, and the other half as an indirect result.
Dave: do you want aggressive? are you for real?
A passive foreign policy has consequences too. When Dean Acheson suggested we would not aggressively defend S Korea, the Communist North promptly invaded. When Truman made no effort to aid anti-Communism in China, a billion people were sentenced to 50 years of horror and repression, and tens of millions to death. When FDR restrained Patton from entering Eastern Europe, the countries on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain paid a heavy price.
More Democrats than Republicans voted for the bailout. Also "corporate America" is, increasingly, Mom and Dad’s pension funds (hence the Dem support for bailouts).
Republicans also voted for that bill including McCain. Having a Republican in office does not necessitate "small government". The Airline bailout had a lot of conservative votes. There’s a new bailout being discussed for auto companies, especially GM who wants government money so they can buy Chrysler. If our leadership were true economic conservatives they would veto such legislature wouldn’t they?
jrogge,
Right, which is why I said there will be less under McCain, rather than none.
I suppose that is true you did say less. But yes, I do agree with the fact that Government needs to leave the market the hell alone, with the exception of regulation for crucial industries. The auto industry is not one of them, this is simply because a new auto company will most likely take over. They still have to hire American workers.
Unfortunately I differ with the promise of tax cuts. Once mandatory spending gets out of control we will be forced to raise our taxes and be further in debt with such a policy. We have to cut spending in order to lower taxes and Obama has been a lot more rational about that than McCain.
Dave,Can you expand more on who is free as an indirect result of American military action? Curious as to what you mean by "indirect". Thanks.
Feelings are stupid. They’re real, but they’re not terribly intelligent. They’re based on animal instincts evolved to increase survival. We have constructed a world in which they’re not actually all that helpful.
For an example of what I mean, look at marriage. Most marriages are based on at least one party making a decision that is at least partly emotional. Half of marriages fail. That says to me that they weren’t really terribly good choices.
I can certainly see the emotional appeal of Obama. He paints a picture of the world based on feelings. It’s seductive.
Consider the downside risks. Like a marriage, it’s there. Things can go badly, in spite of all the wonderful emotional glow. If you say there are no major downside risks to either candidate, you’re missing something.
If you can’t see serious risks with a candidate, you’re missing something. That applies to both McCain and Obama.
It is the first time I see a hawk so close lol. WWII is a special case bacause we were attacked by surprise by the Japanese and then Germany and Italy declared war on us. The allied armies stopped where they did because that was the aggreement reached in Yalta between Stalin, FDR and Churchill. To cross that line would have meant war with the Soviet Union.
You think we should have fought the USSR then?
Most if not all of the other cases you mention were part of the confrontation with the USSR or China. In most of those cases, the guys that we supported were not freedom loving governants but corrupt, blood thirsty tyrants. One exception is Israel. Do you think that Go Din Diem had any moral superiority over HoChi Minh?
Â
You are distorting the reality in such a way that I am overwhelmed. In Kosovo we support secesion but it is exactly the opposite in Georgia. Where is the moral high ground here? I have the knowledge and personal experience to know better (even though I am a woman) but almost everybody else that reads you will think that it is true – this idealized caricature of our foreign policy.
You are not helping
you you join the french foreign legion or something…you’d get a kick out of it
why don’t you tell your readers about our exploits in Iran against the lected government of Mossadheg or Guatemala (Arbenz – also freely elected)?
that will be fun
Andrea, this isn’t necessarily about "moral superiority", and I don’t think that claim was made.
Dave’s point was more about the consequences of words. Public statements of leaders have consequences. Sometimes they get people dead. Sometimes it’s a lot of people.
I’ve heard said recently that "a lot of us are going to have to die." I’ve watched how those who say that get treated by lefties. They’re accepted and included. Take your "moral superiority" and wrap it around that.
Dave,Can you expand more on who is free as an indirect result of American military action? Curious as to what you mean by "indirect". Thanks.
Well, for instance, it’s well-known Communists wanted to expand into South and Central America, as well as the rest of Asia, but they never gained much traction in places like Brazil and Thailand because they were stalled in other places. The Axis Powers also had their eyes on world domination; Japan was seizing the Pacific Rim, and Germany had designs on most of Europe, Central Asia,  and Africa.
To cross that line would have meant war with the Soviet Union.
Well, we had a 50-year Cold War, with fighting in various places at various times. But if you mean a hot war in Europe, that’s pretty unlikely. The Soviets violated all sorts of treaty provisions themselves, including mass executions of the Polish officer corps, and we didn’t end up in a shooting war.  If they thought they could win a war with us in 1945, they would have fought us in Germany; if we’d gotten to Prague first, it would have been free, most likely at little or no cost.  We’re not talking about invading Moscow, just liberating Poland and etc, which was what the war was supposedly being fought over in the first place, and by which measure we failed.
WWII is a special case bacause we were attacked by surprise by the Japanese
Not really. We were already supplying massive amounts of arms to the USSR and UK… and we had enacted an oil blockade against Japan, a country with no oil. We could have avoided that war, or shortened it; we could have negotiated an earlier peace with the Axis Powers that left their leaders in power, and saved millions of lives. That would probably have been a terrible mistake in the long run, of course.
why don’t you tell your readers about our exploits in Iran against the lected government of Mossadheg or Guatemala (Arbenz – also freely elected)?
Shrug. I never said we were blameless.Â
Also, note that when we stood back in 1979, religious nuts took over and Iranians are considerably less free because of it.
In most of those cases, the guys that we supported were not freedom loving governants but corrupt, blood thirsty tyrants. One exception is Israel. Do you think that Go Din Diem had any moral superiority over HoChi Minh?
As life rarely presents choices with absolute moral clarity, one is generally forced to choose between the lesser of evils. S Korea and Taiwan were once autocracies, but evolved into democracies by 1990 under America’s sheltering arms ( we actually imposed freedom of speech in Korea as our first act after we kicked out the Japs). China, Vietnam and North Korea did not.  The first two have only now barely begun to be livable places with their recent liberalization in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse.
Looking at S Korea, one wonders what S Vietnam would look like today if it still existed, and looking at Taiwan one weeps at China’s lost half-century.
The allied armies stopped where they did because that was the aggreement reached in Yalta between Stalin, FDR and Churchill.
I should add, a treaty that in retrospect obviously should not have been signed. FDR was far too trusting of Stalin.
Among other things, the treaty mandated free elections in Poland. That didn’t happen until the Soviet Union fell.
I got home and I couldn’t believe the spinning you are doing here… I can’t wait until this election is over.
"The Chinese half century lost"
Communist rule was certainly brutal at times and particularly during the cultural revolution tens of thousands, perhaps more, were executed or sent to prison camps. Very true…
Circa 1835 a Chinese emperor declares the opium trade illegal to protect the population from the drug. British merchants in India protest and Britain declares war on China demanding free trade…of opium. China is defeated and the British take Hong Kong and get the free trade.
Circa 1860 second China war. the French tag along the British this time. They defeat China. Take Peking.
Circa 1896. Japan attacks China, wins and takes Korea. To balance out, the Czarist Russians take Port Arthur and occupy Manchuria. The "Great Powers" force on China extraterritoriality – foreign quarters and embassies are not Chinese territory, and their citizens are not subject to Chinese law
1897. 2 German missionaries are killed. Germany attacks China and annexes the port of Tsing Tao. To compensate, The British take the port of Wei Hai Wei.
1901. Boxer rebellion – directed against foreign domination. European and American military intervention. Peking taken. Foreigh powers take control of major Chinese harbors and customs
1905Â Japan takes over Manchuria and Port Arthur after defeating Russia
1911 Chinese revolution. empire overthrown. Sun Yat Sen proclaims republic
Now, the guy that we supported in China was Chiang Kai Shek who was a disciple of Sun Yat Sen and eventually took over the Kuomintang (nationalist political party). He was the most corrupt character and was killing people since the 1920′s. He did not unify China – plagued with regional warlords – and was unable to defend China against the Japanese – instead he chased the communist Mao Tse Tung who had to retreat to the far north of China. At the end of WWII, we supported Chiang against Mao but he lost because of incompetence and corruption – his generals would sell the weapons we gave them to Mao. The communists took over in 1949 and Chiang fled to Taiwan which we protected.
Now this is what I can remember …I am sure they took more abuse from everybody. You see when people are humilliated so much and they are very hungry, the idea of democracy and multiparty system is no more than an abstraction. If China had stayed capitalist, who knows…it could be better or worse. Same for SV. I am certain of one thing though: they would have many more neon lights in the cities. But I wonder how important that is for the average…Joe
You can’t address politicals problems without addressing the social ones
You can’t address politicals problems without addressing the social ones. andrea
You forgot the quotation from Chairman Mao Tse Tung: "
On Coalition Government" (April 24, 1945), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 315.
To link oneself with the masses, one must act in accordance with the needs and wishes of the masses. All work done for the masses must start from their needs and not from the desire of any individual, however well-intentioned. It often happens that objectively the masses need a certain change, but subjectively they are not yet conscious of the need, not yet willing or determined to make the change. In such cases, we should wait patiently.
We should not make the change until, through our work, most of the masses have become conscious of the need and are willing and determined to carry it out. Otherwise we shall isolate ourselves from the masses.
Unless they are conscious and willing, any kind of work that requires their participation will turn out to be a mere formality and will fail. . . .
There are two principles here: one is the actual needs of the masses rather than what we fancy they need, and the other is the wishes of the masses, who must make up their own minds instead of our making up their minds for them.
Obama will be addressing social problems, the economy, health care, and defense because, without a strong economy and a cohesive society, there is no defense
McSame is still in the gunboat diplomacy era
McK that is what they called "objective conditions" – meaning objective=without personal prejudice
McSame is doing it: he’s telling everyone what they want to hear "cut taxes, millions of jobs, and make everyone wealthy"
poppycock lol
do you guys work at all? it’s always the same faces here
probably everyone but me is filthy rich. no wonder why you are all republicans
if the chicken burns my husband will divorce me
And Dave we do not chose the lesser of two moral evils but the lesser of two financial loses – our man is always whoever protects foreign investement
tell me: who was freely elected? Jacobo Arbenz or United Fruit Company?
Obama isn’t going to be president because he’s black.
He’s going to be president because after 8 years of Bush, only 25% of people approve of his performance. People are sick of republicans and they are about to show it.
So in Chairman Mao’s mind, it was the need of the masses that caused him to murder tens of millions of them?
Andrea moved quickly into personal attacks and stereotypes. Revealing.
Or "lol" as she is fond of so cleverly retorting.
Choey, to be honest, I do not know what brought about the cultural revolution in China – it had the elements of a party/bureaucracy purge but then it surpassed that.
but i do know it was not like the Khmer Rouge systematic elimination of all intellectuals, professionals, etc
#11 Dave: When FDR restrained Patton from entering Eastern Europe, the countries on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain paid a heavy price.
Just so I’m clear here: you think it would have been a good idea to attack the Soviet Union in 1945?
For some reason, the phrase "flittering, twittering twit" keeps coming to mind, and I have no idea why….
We have a crowd of regulars here, yes. We’re very proud of it, and we don’t let just anyone comment here.
Yes, most of us have jobs. Some of us have more than one.
I’m not a Republican, although I did vote Republican in the last few elections. I assure you that I currently am not rich; indeed, technically I am well below the poverty line at this point.
do you guys work at all? it’s always the same faces here probably everyone but me is filthy rich. no wonder why you are all republicans
… and so we continue with "as Andrea spins". Watch her mood go up, and be hopeful and cheery. Watch her mood go down, with caricature and personal attacks. Round and round she goes.
I get that you don’t like me. I get that you’re a proud member of a party that largely believes that people like me shouldn’t even be born. Maybe you’re right. My existence is often screaming agony in places most people don’t even have nerves.
I’ve got a job. I’m managing, more or less. I work from home. It lets me take the breaks I need.
What I’d really like is for all the power-mad control freaks who congregate in politics to leave me the hell alone. Unfortunately, that’s not really an option. If I ignore them, they reproduce and spread like a plague, and then you’ve got gulags, Cultural Revolutions and killing fields. Next thing you know, a couple hundred million people are dead, and more have to sacrifice themselves to cut out the cancer. My politics aren’t what I like, but they’re what is necessary.
Just keep kicking the can down the road. Eventually we may break out of our well, and maybe not be quite so vulnerable to having our existence rocked, or catching a bad flu, or whatever.
I don’t have a job, but I am rich! (oops, sorry, thought I was Ted Kennedy for a moment).
HB
p.s. Go McCain!
Your link about tax rates going up is – ahem – mistaken. Your guy claims,
Senator Obama doesn’t "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse — allowing the rates to return to a higher levels — is not actually a "tax increase."  It’s just the lapsing of a tax cut.
From the detailed PDF of the tax cut plan on BOs website:
Ordinary Income: The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990’s levels of 36% and
39.6%. All other tax brackets would remain as they are today. Obama would also restore the 1990’s levels for the personal exemption and itemized deduction phaseouts (known as PEP and Pease).
Obama would work with the Treasury Department to adjust the thresholds of these rates slightly to
ensure that no married couple making less than $250,000 (or single making less than $200,000) was
affected by these changes.
hi guys i did not burn the chicken. i would like to apologize to anyone that may have been offended by my question about the job thing…it’s none of my business
excuse? i’m really tired today…i mean physically tired
so have a great nite and happy arguing!!!!
Aziz,
You dint lkie our links so why shud we lkie yers, directly from Senator BO ?
Or as you suggested:
wrong thread. I’m not interested in your links or your comments if you cant stay on topic. Wasnt there already a thread about why Obama is Teh Ultim4t3 Socialist Suck? If not, maybe Dave can start one.
andrea, I don’t think anyone around here really gets personally offended by a stranger on the internet and baseless speculation.
I was more commenting on your having to fall back on stereotype and caricature rather than talk about the merits (or not) of an argument.
More often than not, those types of comments say much more about the speaker, than whom they are directed at.
GM everyone. weather improving TG. look forward to the day
Paul S. you certainly are gracious in accepting an apology. OK what is your argument? you have TWO comments in the entire thread and both are about ME. And I think I remember in another thread that was your thing: commenting ME; not the topic or the issues. What do you stand for, besides mysogyny? I am pro Obama, pro universal health care, pro supporting education, pro fiscal responsibility, and I am willing to pay higher taxes if that is what it takes to balance the budget and reduce the national debt.
What do you believe in?
Communist rule was certainly brutal at times and particularly during the cultural revolution tens of thousands, perhaps more, were executed or sent to prison camps. Very true…
The generally accepted figure is 50 million dead.
Just so I’m clear here: you think it would have been a good idea to attack the Soviet Union in 1945?
First off, much of Eastern Europe was not part of the Soviet Union in 1945. Had Patton been allowed to get to Prague, it would have created facts on the ground before the Iron Curtain fell.
Secondly, it’s fair to say the Soviet Union attacked the western Alllies in 1945 (and quite successfully). Remember, the war started over Britain’s pledge to defend Poland; they were the original Allied nations. Stalin promised free elections in Poland, which would have allowed them to align with the West (where they wanted to be), but reneged on that promise and essentially took Poland from the Allies by force.
Third, I would think a chance at avoiding 50 years of Cold War, much of it spent under the shadow of possible nuclear annihilation, is prima facie desirable.
All other tax brackets would remain as they are today.
Until the Bush tax cuts expire.
Andrea,
Let me give you an example of how ruinous Maoist economic policies were, in addition to the tens of millions killed.
Mao’s people had the brilliant idea of having "the workers" produce steel at home, rather than in giant "capitalist" steel plants. So they shut down the steel plants and told the peasants to make steel in their fireplaces. This was a huge disaster, and not only did steel production fall precipitously, but what they did produce was, unsurprisingly, of such poor quality as to be nearly useless. That decision alone crippled the Chinese economy, radically shrinking GDP and making life far harsher for the Chinese people — and there were many, many decisions just like it.
There’s a reason Taiwan is 3-5 times richer than China.
What do you stand for, besides mysogyny?
Awesome. I guess you really showed me that you don’t need to rely in stereotypes and caricature! Â
My comment in the other thread, by the way, was in relation to your comment that capitalism has proven to be a failure.  Not sure how that is all about YOU as I was clearly questioning your assertion, not anything about you as a human being, not every disagreement is all about you or your gender, you know.
I do not know the figure of people excuted during the cultural revolution. 50 million would be about 1 in every 12 chinese at the time. I think that is a blown figure. Perhaps if you put together the executed, the incarcerated, and the ones sent to RE camps you may get close to that figure. But I really can’t tell.
That they were incompetent in managing the economy during Mao? granted. No doubt about
Taiwan was a sleepy Japanese colony until August 1945. Chiang arrived there after losing the mainland in 1949 with some 1 million demoralized soldiers, and perhaps 2 or 3 million civilians. We evacuated them from the mainland, feed them, and put them on their feet with a sort of mini Marshall Plan. The Taiwan miracle is our doing. Of course that is all it took. The Chinese are very hard working people and very ingenious.
 Do you know what Quemoy is?
Now Poland. It was Britain and France that had given guarantees to Poland in 1939. In the Spring of 1945, the line where Allied and Soviet troops would stop was agreed upon. Poland feel under the Soviets – in fact, the Soviet army had already liberated Poland.
They went on to take Berlin, Prague, Vienna. Had we tried to continue pushing east, we would have been at war with the USSR…alone. Britain voted out Churchill in May or June 1945 and Eden was for rebuilding Britain. France was still recovering and had a very powerful communist party.
How would we had made out in the adventure? no good. We had faced in the western front some 44 German divisions and look at all the trouble we had. The Russians had faced and defeated almost 200. Their armor was vast and infinitely superior to ours (in Africa the Germans had baptized out legendary Sherman tank "Tommy cooker" because it was powered with gasoline and tended to explode and burn its crews alive).
But I agree that the Soviets either rigged or canceled all free elections in Eastern Europe. Of course that was terrible but that was their modus operandi. You got a good point there.
A little piece of info which I recalled right after I wrote the previous but i got busy here and couldn’t write until now. Does not add much to the discussion but kind of interesting if you did not know:
You mentionned Patton reaching Prague. He actually crossed the border into Bohemia at some points and it would have been very easy for him to reach Prague because all the area around the city was being defended furiosly against the Russian onslaught by what was left of German army group center under field marshal Schonen - I think that was his name. Schonen wanted to cover the retreat of as many Germans as possible so they could surrender to the allies rather than being captured by the Russians and sent to Siberia. He would have surrendered to Patton without much fuss. But in the end, the Russians would have never tolerated Patton in Prague. That was their prize.
So Patton was ordered back to the border.
Dave said:
First off, much of Eastern Europe was not part of the Soviet Union in 1945. Had Patton been allowed to get to Prague, it would have created facts on the ground before the Iron Curtain fell.
Ah, I see. You are talking about the restraints imposed at Yalta, not about Patton’s idea re: rearming the Wermacht and attacking the Soviet Union which seems to come up when the final days of the war are discussed.
Had Patton surged ahead, all it would have done would be to further antagonize Stalin in an already tense situation, and Patton would have had to retreat to the agreed upon line anyway.
Secondly, it’s fair to say the Soviet Union attacked the western Alllies in 1945 (and quite successfully). Remember, the war started over Britain’s pledge to defend Poland; they were the original Allied nations. Stalin promised free elections in Poland, which would have allowed them to align with the West (where they wanted to be), but reneged on that promise and essentially took Poland from the Allies by force.
Looked at in a skewed way, that might be true. But it is completely irrelevant. Europe in 1945 was a good example of realpolitick, and if the Soviet Union wanted Poland, well, it pretty much got it.You didn’t really answer the question though. Let’s put it this way: are you one of those people who thinks that the West should have either risked, or entered war with the Soviet Union in 1945?
Had Patton surged ahead, all it would have done would be to further antagonize Stalin in an already tense situation
Again, people have this strange idea that Stalin was negotiating in good faith. This is the same thinking that led to Neville Chamberlain handing over Czechoslovakia and declaring peace in our time.
Stalin had no intention of getting along. Just like Hitler his plan was always to seize everything he could. Negotiation was only employed when he was too weak to attack, and he never lived up to any agreement where it was inconvenient.
The Russians had faced and defeated almost 200. Their armor was vast and infinitely superior to ours
Russian competence is another strangely enduring myth. It’s true the T-34 was a good tank (probably the best in the world) and they had many of them, but nevertheless even in victory they lost many times more tanks and men than the Germans. They were poorly led due to Stalin’s purges, poorly disciplined, had little to no unit-level initiative, and their logistics were a nightmare. Something like 2/3 of their six-wheel trucks were actually made and provided by America. They had no air force to speak of.
A tank is only useful as long as it can be supplied with fuel and fire at enemies on the ground.
Had it come to war, our attack planes would have decimated their armor and supply lines from the sky while our bombers devastated their industrial base, just as happened in Japan and Germany. It might have been very difficult, but Russia could not have hoped to win such a conflict — and you can be sure if they thought otherwise they would have tried to march straight to the Atlantic.Â
And if all else failed, we had nuclear weapons and they didn’t.
Barbarossa proved the Russians’ only real quality, aside from tanks, was quantity.
We handed them Poland and Czechoslovakia when we probably could have held them without open war. At the very least, we could have forced them to hold free elections, which would have ratified their Western alignment.
Now consider what the last 60 years would look like with no Soviet Union, or at least a very weakened Soviet state. Eastern Europe free, China never falls to Communism, no Vietnam War, no Korean War, no Communist Cuba, no Communist efforts in Central America, no mujahideen fighting in Afghanistan and later becoming Al Qaeda… I don’t know if we should ahve invaded the Soviet Union in 1945, but clealy things might have been a lot better in the 20th if we had.
I am not really sure why we are talking about a hypothesis on something that happened 60 years ago (BIG ELECTION IN 4 DAYS!!!!) but I could suggest to you some good reading material on the military aspect of it…if you are interested. I find you a bit confused… i.e. Soviet army of 1941 vs Soviet army of 1944…big difference
just as a note. USSR industries were beyond the Ural mountains – out of range for any plane of period departing – let say fr Berlin (round trip w/o refuel)
One thing that I should clear out is that both China and Vietnam were indigenous movements – they were not caused by the USSR although from some point on the USSR supported them morally and some with some arms. But the Chinese Communists first took in an immense arsenal when Japan surrendered its forces in China and later on, as the civil war progressed, captured/bought a lot materiel we had given to Chiang’s army.
The French maintained some balance in Indochina until 1950 but once China began helping the VietMinh, things went downhill. But the Soviets had very little involvement. Most of the aid came from China and the VietMinh "heavy" divisions trained in Yunan. The artillery used by the VM at Dien Bien Phu was made in the USA. NV got more Soviet aid in their war against us.
I loved Saigon…that bend of the Mekong is so beautiful…
I think you fall in the rather common thing of underestimating nations that we don’t see as equal to us. Serious mistake. I mean your closing dream is good but just that…a dream
Uh oh, McCain’s dead meat. Dick Morris just said that the race is evenly matched.
Damn.
;)
aww I forgot lol the name of the German field marshall in Prague was Schoerner
Scott…the last pitch is on tuesday. until then nothing is certain
Obama/Biden 2008!!!!
We just closed our embassy in Damascus…I can’t believe how myopic our foreign policy can be
Syria is Baas party controlled – secular and semi socialist – definitely anti-fundamentalist, anti Al Qaeda…we should try to cultivate their cooperation
McCain, I fear, will continue the same "shoot from the hip" foreign policy until one day he gets us in a really big mess with somebody of our size…
history of the german general staff
1657-1945
walter goerlitz
i don’t have it but i know it is available
enjoy
I find you a bit confused… i.e. Soviet army of 1941 vs Soviet army of 1944…big difference
In neither case did they have any real air force or leadership. A reference as simple as Wikipedia will make this clear. For more detail, I would recommend Victor Hanson.
just as a note. USSR industries were beyond the Ural mountains – out of range for any plane of period departing – let say fr Berlin (round trip w/o refuel)
Not insurmountable if we held airfields in Prague, Warsaw or points east. Also, that distance is a much bigger problem for the Soviets than for the West in our putative war– that’s a hugely extended supply line and our aircraft would have made resupply very, very painful even before they started demolishing their factories. Their tanks would be immobilized.
Syria is Baas party controlled – secular and semi socialist – definitely anti-fundamentalist, anti Al Qaeda…
Yet strangely enough, not sufficiently anti-AQ to stop the flow of jihadis into Iraq. They seem to feel the enemy of their enemy is, at least, worthy of turning a blind eye.
I heard the same argument made endlessly re Iraq, but people seem to forget Saddam offered bin Laden asylum.
One thing that I should clear out is that both China and Vietnam were indigenous movements
No, definitely not. In both cases, as with Korea, there was critical support from other Communists, and of course the philosophy was not native to either country, any more than liberal democracy was to the many places it has spread. Communism was always an international movement, never indigenous (outside of Russia, of course), and always backed by force, not consent of the governed. No country has ever voluntarily voted in a Communist majority government, though some elected significant pluralities.
Dick Morris just said that the race is evenly matched.
Crap, it’s all over. 500 electoral votes for Obama, 59% of the popular vote, Dems pick up 30 seats in the Senate and 100 in the House.
Damn you Dick Morris!
Unless you are a one-issue voter where (1) the party of the candidate is the only issue, (2) the candidates have clear cut and conflicting stands on your issue, (3) you want the candidate most different than the incumbent, (4) you want to "make history" by voting in the first black president, there is some kind of decision matrix (aka Pugh mattrix) going on, see
http://www.asq.org/learn-about-quality/decision-making-tools/overview/decision-matrix.html
free trade, taxes, government spending, government intervention, foreign policy, health care were listed originally as criteria for voting.
I would add:
Apparently a lot of people care about America’s image in foreign countries, I don’t have a clue about what other countries think about McCain.
Health care; neither candidates seems to care about controlling health costs, only making sure that no matter the cost people get some kind of support so they can afford it.
Can the candidate represent my viewpoint: I have extreme doubts about McCain, and I liked very much what Obama said about personal repsonbibilties early in the campaign, although it pretty much disappeared in the campaign. Leaders in the black community were extremly uncomfortable with it, and I suspect that the view is not representative of a pretty large swath of teh black community, who I expect to vote nearly uniformly for Obama because he’s black. Obama’s committment to the campaign when the financial crisis erupted indicates that his priorities are not mine. Obama’s history of association with persons who are actively engaged against my priorities is not a good sign.
re: "utter disillusionment with the Bush administration and the war," apprvoal ratings for Congress are lower than Bush’s and yet it appears that there is not going to be a change in Congressional leadership. Ignoring the black factor is dumb. Clearly a very large fraction of voters are goign to vote for Obama just because he’s black.
Comments on this entry are closed.