Brexit: The DT Poll

[zslane]

Speaking of caps, we can all agree on Lenin.

Not if he only appears on ugly-ass cylindricals.

[Muirium]

Hey I wouldn't turn down a Beamspring mount Lenin. Or a Wingnut for that matter. As some of us have requested before…

[jacobolus]

Yeah, it's almost like...conflict of interest is forbidden in a court of law or something. [...] Clearly RACIST! EXECUTE HIM!!!

Please please keep the Donald Trump discussion confined to the existing thread. This kind of commentary is painfully stupid, but it’s also off topic.

[adhoc]

Yes, off topic is coincidentally also the name of this sub forum.

I usually find poorly argumented statements stupid, but hey, to each his own.

[fohat]

USA has convinced the world they did more than absolutely bare minimum to ensure their part of the after-war goodies.

We built over 300K planes and suffered over 300K combat deaths. We fought the Pacific war with very little help from anybody.

All of that to help other countries - we were under little direct threat ourselves, for the time being at least.

[adhoc]

USA has convinced the world they did more than absolutely bare minimum to ensure their part of the after-war goodies.

We built over 300K planes and suffered over 300K combat deaths. We fought the Pacific war with very little help from anybody.

All of that to help other countries - we were under little direct threat ourselves, for the time being at least.

Ha-ha-ha.

Your losses throughout entire war were less than a single conflict in WW2. You joined the war for the riches, when a winner was more clearly defined. And you talk like Pearl Harbor was nothing.

The US did pretty much nothing (relatively to others) in WW2. But of course they taught you otherwise. Of course.

[Khers]

Leninpic

That's awesome! Should've skipped the front print, but I guess I can overlook that minor glitch.

Also, cylindrical, the way it's supposed to be.

[fohat]

Your losses throughout entire war were less than a single conflict in WW2. You joined the war for the riches, when a winner was more clearly defined. And you talk like Pearl Harbor was nothing.

But of course they taught you otherwise.

That is so asinine that it embarrasses me to dignify it with a response. The US spent far more money on the war (and its aftermath) than it received, and made huge contributions to all of our allies on every level. As a pacifist, personally, I can imagine plenty of reasons that we might have wanted to stay out of other people's conflicts on other continents, particularly so close of the heels of WW1, surely the most ridiculous and wasteful conflict of all time. And there would never have been any possibility of us taking sides with Germany or Japan in any case.

Pearl Harbor was a relatively minor event, in and of itself, with a death toll on the order of the 2001 World Trade Center destruction, and thousands of miles from the US itself. But it was the spark that finally lit the bonfire.

And my father and uncles and most of their friends served in WW2, and it was no picnic or war of conquest. My uncle came back (decorated multiple times for sacrifice and bravery) with scars both physical and mental and died at a young age. The men who "taught" me about WW2 were the ones who were there, in reality, fighting far from home for somebody else's freedom.

[Muirium]

Not wanting to pick sides in this bloody battle over bloody battles, but this chart says a lot about that war.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Especially when you then look at this one:



The total number of American civilians killed was 12 thousand. British civilians: 67 thousand. German civilians: >1.5 million. And Soviet civilians: 10 million.

The US played a vital rôle in the war, destroying Japan, which was already fighting an immensely bloody war with China. Yes, they were in World War II. And lost >7 million civilians in the process. American intervention also speeded the end of the war in Europe. Germany might have held out for much longer against the Russians without D-Day, in which American involvement was critical.

But make no mistake. The English speaking nations weren't the heart of the war. What's telling is how few Americans and British died, compared to all the credit both our cultures like to take for winning it.

[fohat]

What's telling is how few Americans and British died, compared to all the credit both our cultures like to take for winning it.

Numbers of dead soldiers is not a primary metric for success or failure in war. We Americans, post-Civil War anyway, have proven to be particularly good at winning with minimal casualties on our side. Superior technology all but guarantees it.

However, clearly, not having soldiers and tanks blasting away on your own soil is the preferable scenario during wartime. Japan would have had considerably larger slices in those pies if we hadn't nuked them.

[jacobolus]

The US waited very long to get into direct fighting in WWII, and wasn’t located anywhere near the conflict. The main American support before 1944 was in providing supplies, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Soviet logistics was made possible by Americans providing railroad equipment and trucks, as well as huge supplies of fuel, food, airplanes, raw materials, etc.

I want to tell you, from the Russian point of view, what the President and the United States have done to win the war. The most important things in this war are machines. The United States has proven that it can turn out from 8,000 to 10,000 airplanes per month. Russia can only turn out, at most, 3,000 airplanes a month. England turns out 3,000 to 3,500, which are principally heavy bombers. The United States, therefore, is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines, through Lend Lease, we would lose this war.

You can’t just look at casualty rates to determine what kind of effect different participants had on the war.

Without US involvement, it’s anyone’s guess what would have happened. With full US involvement, and particularly with Germany and the USSR on opposite sides, the outcome of the war was a foregone conclusion, because US industrial output was ultimately about as much as all the other participants combined, while Europe was a bombed-out wreck facing steep shortages of pretty much every resource.

After the war, the Marshall Plan was vital to getting Europe back on its feet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

Obviously the US was partly motivated by its geo-strategic interest in counterbalancing the USSR and later China by helping to rebuild Germany and Western Europe and Japan. But it made for a much better long-term outcome than the aftermath of WW I: the basic idea was to build a lasting peace by giving everyone economic incentive via trade and prosperity. If US leaders in the late 40s had been less public-spirited and idealistic, or stupider, the results in Europe could have been decades of economic misery instead of robust recovery.

Unfortunately US foreign policy w/r/t the rest of the world has been a shitshow for the past 70 years.

[Muirium]

Indeed. I agree with all of that. What makes a good movie is quite different from what actually wins wars. But the version of history people believe in is Saving Private Ryan and The Great Escape. Ho hum, such is culture.

As for American foreign policy since then: I'd qualify it a little differently. American policy towards non-white nations has been an almost total shitshow. Australia and New Zealand did fine with you guys too, and goodness you were nice to white South Africa long before Mandela finally took it back, and infinitely forgiving to Israel to this day.

Only Japan, Korea and Taiwan come to mind as real exceptions. If you were Britain, you would have officially added them to your empire, like MacArthur was doing with the Philippines! Empire gets a bad name. It's all about love and compassion, really. (The liberal side of me is laughing at the thought. But then Britain's former dominions seem to get on fairly well with us for the most part. Nostalgia or whitewashed bloody history? Who knows…)

[jacobolus]

Which former British “dominions” are we talking about here? Jamaica? Sierra Leone? India? Egypt? Burma? Malaysia? Papua New Guinea? Somalia? Yemen? Ireland? Zimbabwe? Palestine? Sudan? Kuwait? Hong Kong? ...

What do you mean they “get on well”?

On net, I’d say British rule was an unmitigated disaster for most of its colonies. A few came out alright, and surely many would have had equally tumultuous history without any help from the British. But still. The most successful former British colonies are ones where new settlers killed all of the original inhabitants.

[Muirium]

Bear in mind I'm an independence minded Scot who'd rather share their position re: London than be "British" myself!

You've heard of The Commonwealth, right? That's who I'm talking about. Getting on well is a typical English kind of weaselling over complexity! In truth, it ranges quite a lot. For some, like Zimbabwe, it means we play eachother at the Commonwealth Games and that's about it. Many others are a lot closer, though. Ireland's one of Britain's closest pals, working together with ever-so-touchy Northern Ireland hanging between us. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa are all at least as closely allied with Britain as they are the US. A great many ex pats live there, and vice versa. Most black people in Britain are from Trinidad, Tobago, or Jamaica (the equivalent term to African American here is Afro Caribbean) where cultural ties are close and celebrated much the same way as Irish Americans. Then of course our main minority: the Indian and Pakistani community, who are almost an afterthought in such a list as they're truly ubiquitous.

There's a sense in America that European nations are much more homogenous. Same language, same religion, same skin colour, same history. That's much less true nowadays. London in particular is a multicultural city beyond even Los Angeles and New York. That's even ignoring EU migration! It's complex, out there beyond America, as well as within it.

[adhoc]

Your losses throughout entire war were less than a single conflict in WW2. You joined the war for the riches, when a winner was more clearly defined. And you talk like Pearl Harbor was nothing.

But of course they taught you otherwise.

That is so asinine that it embarrasses me to dignify it with a response. The US spent far more money on the war (and its aftermath) than it received, and made huge contributions to all of our allies on every level.

That's fine. The entire world hates you (the US), me not withstanding.

Your rhetoric is unpleasant enough I would have no remorse whatsoever if I lost another chance to converse with you.

Even your allies, the US is the type of person that needs to pay for coffee so anyone would even think of hanging out with.

And my father and uncles and most of their friends served in WW2, and it was no picnic or war of conquest. My uncle came back (decorated multiple times for sacrifice and bravery) with scars both physical and mental and died at a young age. The men who "taught" me about WW2 were the ones who were there, in reality, fighting far from home for somebody else's freedom.

That's a pathetic understanding level of WW2 and the US' involvement.

US joined 1.) because of Pearl Harbor (that is what I wanted to tell you before, but the meaning of words was lost on you) and 2.) because it bought itself the status of world power.

US has nothing but gained so, SO much from WW2 and their involvement while investing almost nothing (again, relatively to others) it's almost comparable to Italy.

And you keep doing it again, and again, and again. Knock on your chest, fuck an irrelevant country up, knock on your chest some more. All the while profiteer on human lives, but it's OK, because hey - it's not the americans that keep dying!

I don't hate the americans, but I hate the US with a passion. If your imperial politics would be gone, the entire world would be off for better.

And Trump? Trump is a reflection of american public. You deserve an idiot like him.

[Muirium]

That's fine. The entire world hates you (the US), me not withstanding.

Not all of us. I personally prefer the US to the UK, in which I live. This place is much too dominated by old money and old class privilege, and quite blind to it from top to bottom. America would be a fraction of the nation it is, if it were as stuffy and wilfully stupid at its core.

And Trump? Trump is a reflection of american public. You deserve an idiot like him.

Well, that might be a little true! Because as much as I honestly admire America, it's gone to shit this generation. The trouble then is: does the rest of the world deserve him too? Because we're the ones he'll have in his sights.

[adhoc]

I'm pretty sure there's plenty of anti-US rhetoric also in the UK, but might not be AS prevalent. You can find anti-US rhetoric pretty much all over the world. Their bullying and human lives profiteering needs to stop, the problem is noone can stop them. How could anyone stop them? They're the ones who buy an army, fuck everyone up, profiteer on their backs, then import all the scholars from the very same countries they've destroyed.

Export idiots, import scholars, kill everyone else. That's the american way!

And yeah, Trump will be a problem for everyone. Oh well, maybe next year we will be the one that need to die for the great AMERUCAH. The only difference I can foresee is, that Trump will elaborate it a bit worse [than Bush or Obama].

[Muirium]

You hear a hell of a lot more anti-Romania and anti-Turkey than anti-US rhetoric over here these days. And it comes from very close to the top, now that Trumpean naked racism is apparently quite acceptable in modern politics. This very referendum is bringing out the worst in the English Establishment's soul. Well, not the worst. They're still just getting started on the classic anti-African stuff.

[adhoc]

I still haven't really seen any statement on why Trump is a racist whatsoever. An idiot? Yeah. Ignorant? Yeah. Racist? How exactly?

[Muirium]

Your choice, mate!

[adhoc]

What do you mean "my choice"? Are you refering to anti muslim rhetoric? How is being a muslim a race? Or what?

I NEVER get an answer to this question from anyone. Everyone's just like "oh yeah well you know...you know right". No, I don't, please explain.

I have a feeling y'all can't call him out on being an idiot, because that's just fine in the west. So you're going with the latest in easy&lazy critique - racism.

[Muirium]

Yeah, that's what I mean. By your terms, he isn't being a racist. But they're pretty damn white, European terms. The prospect of him as president scares a lot of black and hispanic Americans. I can quite understand why. He's a fucking lunatic level evil racist fuckface. By my terms. And, I assume, theirs.

[adhoc]

And it doesn't scare a whole lot more of hispanics and blacks americans. Point being?

Calling him a racist is a critique that is not only false, but also lazy. What race are jews then? And christians?

He's doing exactly what Bernie is - scapegoating someone. They're idiots at the very same level. The difference is, one is more politically acceptable than the other.

[Muirium]

I know where you're coming from. But why defend, to borrow from your argument, anti-semites and islamophobes? Just because the language is awkward about the technical vector of their hate? These are not gentle, erudite, philosophical people. They are much more into smashing skulls.

I'd prefer all such prejudices to be consigned to the dustbin of history, along with slavery, human sacrifice and goodness knows what else we've been up to all these thousands of years. There's a lot of shit in the bowels of human history.

[adhoc]

Because words are words and despite how hard people try to simplify them, I want to see correct usage of them! Calling him a racist is lazy, inaccurate and wrong. Call him out on what he is. Call him an ignorant, a simpleton, islamophobe, but racism simply does not apply.

As for your second paragraph - leave me out of this, thank you very much! We NEVER had anything to do with all of that, that burden is on YOU (not you personally, obviously). Just because I'm white I do not carry this burden with you. You're rich (mostly, not entirely) based on other human suffering, we're not. Simple as that.

[jacobolus]

Mu, fohat: just give it up.

troll 2 |trōl|
verb [ no obj. ]
1. fish by trailing a baited line along behind a boat: we trolled for mackerel.
• carefully and systematically search an area for something: a group of companies trolling for partnership opportunities
2. informal submit a deliberately provocative posting to an online message board with the aim of inciting an angry response

adhoc: seriously, take it to the Trump thread.

That's a pathetic understanding level of WW2 and the US' involvement.

So you’re saying you have a better understanding of US involvement in WW II than Stalin, who I quoted upthread?

[adhoc]

Mu, fohat: just give it up.

troll 2 |trōl|
verb [ no obj. ]
1. fish by trailing a baited line along behind a boat: we trolled for mackerel.
• carefully and systematically search an area for something: a group of companies trolling for partnership opportunities
2. informal submit a deliberately provocative posting to an online message board with the aim of inciting an angry response

adhoc: seriously, take it to the Trump thread.

You sure do use a lot of words to say basically nothing!

No thank you, I am participating in an on-going discussion in an off-topic sub forum. You are the one contributing nothing to the on going discussion, but it's also ok, because this sub forum is intended to be used in such a way.

That's a pathetic understanding level of WW2 and the US' involvement.

So you’re saying you have a better understanding of US involvement in WW II than Stalin, who I quoted upthread?

Good job, you sold a lot of equipment and boosted your economy on the fact that there was a war going on in Europe. You were selling long-term loans through your manufacturing. Oh praise the lord, how the USA saveth us!

Kind of sad you don't know what the Lend-Lease program was, though.

[Redmaus]

...

[adhoc]

Racist is a one-card-shut-em-up expression that kills discussion. I hate it for what it's used. Same as word "troll".

It's a getaway word for people with no arguments to shut someone up.

[Muirium]

Aye, I don't like it either. Mostly because trolls are supernatural creatures from folklore, while racists are all too real.

As for Trump: "he's a rabble rousing demagogue speaking in racial themes". Is that weassely enough for you nitpickers? Nah. I doubt it. But I'm all out of weasel!