quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

The Russians definitely didn't have much to do with defeating Japan. I think they declared war on Japan AFTER the first A-Bomb was dropped.

It would appear from the above that you feel that terror bombing civilians is an effective method of conducting warfare? Please feel free to cite any instance in ww 2 where terror tactics were successful?
The japs "rape of nanking" did not cause chang kai sheck to surrender. Bomber harris terror bombing of dresden did not cause the nazi to surrender. Hap arnold and robert mcnamara's firebombing of millions of japs did not cause the japs to surrender...why do you think a chicken shit a bomb would do any more? It did not kill as many people?
If we study the history of warfare, it is the defeat of the enemy's military that determines the winner and the looser.
On august the 9 the russians attacked japans army of kwantoon (1;2 million) and spanked their asses purple and in three weeks had destroyed that army and was poised to invade the mainland of japan.
Japans military was deployed to defend against an american attack from the south:(which would have failed because of faullty intelligence.)
When faced with the loss of her army in china japan had no choice but to surrender.

(in reply to Dvr22999874)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Our own economy was built on exporting our industrial goods. Also without American intervention Japan would not have been defeated, and possibly Italy and Germany.

The u.s. had virtually nothing to do with the defeat of japan,germany or italy.

You're going to have to explain that one. If the US had virtually nothing to do with those defeats...what caused them ?

Body count works for me.
How many dead or captured germans did the russians produce?
How many dead or captured japanese did the russians produce?

I am still not clear on the US having virtually nothing to do with your listed defeats. Beyond the eastern front in Germany, what did the Russians have to do with defeating Italy and the Japanese ?

Tommy boy is completely insane. He doesn't think the US has ever done a single good thing ever. He thinks we fought the Second World War strictly to enrich Prescott Bush.

You'll be much happier if you put him on ignore like most of the rest of the forum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
International shipping would be greatly reduced, much more expensive, you'd pay more for nearly everything, and the economy would be slower, with fewer jobs.
Why? The US Navy makes this possible.

Would there truly be a slower economy with fewer jobs, though? Why would there be? With an increased cost of international shipping, wouldn't manufacturing jobs come back (or not have left in the first place)? Wouldn't that mean more people working for more money here?
I agree with your initial premise that international shipping would be more expensive. I'm not sure your analysis of what that would mean, in the long run, is so accurate.
If your initial premise (regarding international shipping costs) is correct, is that truly a bad thing?

Our own economy was built on exporting our industrial goods. Also without American intervention Japan would not have been defeated, and possibly Italy and Germany. We would not be able to sell our goods to most of the world.

That's if we hadn't ever gone all imperial.
The question most are addressing considers a future President making a future decision to pull the military back home and stop being World Cop.

It's not that simple. Consider for instance our present dependence on foreign oil.

Yeah, it really is that simple, Ken. It's not an overnight thing, but increase domestic drilling (will take 10 years before we see an increase in production for those new wells, right?), build the Keystone XL, and maybe increase imports from Mexico. In 0 years, how dependent will we still be on "non-North American" oil? I'm sure we probably won't be able to get everything from NA, but the more we do, the better, no?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
International shipping would be greatly reduced, much more expensive, you'd pay more for nearly everything, and the economy would be slower, with fewer jobs.
Why? The US Navy makes this possible.

Would there truly be a slower economy with fewer jobs, though? Why would there be? With an increased cost of international shipping, wouldn't manufacturing jobs come back (or not have left in the first place)? Wouldn't that mean more people working for more money here?
I agree with your initial premise that international shipping would be more expensive. I'm not sure your analysis of what that would mean, in the long run, is so accurate.
If your initial premise (regarding international shipping costs) is correct, is that truly a bad thing?

Our own economy was built on exporting our industrial goods. Also without American intervention Japan would not have been defeated, and possibly Italy and Germany. We would not be able to sell our goods to most of the world.

That's if we hadn't ever gone all imperial.
The question most are addressing considers a future President making a future decision to pull the military back home and stop being World Cop.

It's not that simple. Consider for instance our present dependence on foreign oil.

Yeah, it really is that simple, Ken. It's not an overnight thing, but increase domestic drilling (will take 10 years before we see an increase in production for those new wells, right?), build the Keystone XL, and maybe increase imports from Mexico. In 0 years, how dependent will we still be on "non-North American" oil? I'm sure we probably won't be able to get everything from NA, but the more we do, the better, no?

Tapping the strategic reserve, we absolutely could end foreign reliance on oil, until production ramped up sufficiently.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

I do wish you'd learn to use the quote system properly tx.
It's sooo annoying sometimes trying to decipher which bit is yours and which bit belongs to another poster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
International shipping would be greatly reduced, much more expensive, you'd pay more for nearly everything, and the economy would be slower, with fewer jobs.
Why? The US Navy makes this possible.

Would there truly be a slower economy with fewer jobs, though? Why would there be? With an increased cost of international shipping, wouldn't manufacturing jobs come back (or not have left in the first place)? Wouldn't that mean more people working for more money here?
I agree with your initial premise that international shipping would be more expensive. I'm not sure your analysis of what that would mean, in the long run, is so accurate.
If your initial premise (regarding international shipping costs) is correct, is that truly a bad thing?

Our own economy was built on exporting our industrial goods. Also without American intervention Japan would not have been defeated, and possibly Italy and Germany. We would not be able to sell our goods to most of the world.

That's if we hadn't ever gone all imperial.
The question most are addressing considers a future President making a future decision to pull the military back home and stop being World Cop.

It's not that simple. Consider for instance our present dependence on foreign oil.

Yeah, it really is that simple, Ken. It's not an overnight thing, but increase domestic drilling (will take 10 years before we see an increase in production for those new wells, right?), build the Keystone XL, and maybe increase imports from Mexico. In 0 years, how dependent will we still be on "non-North American" oil? I'm sure we probably won't be able to get everything from NA, but the more we do, the better, no?

That's a hilarious fantasy. Look up the total maximum estimate for the Alberta tar sands.  Then look up how much the US consumes per year.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
We're 1/5 of the global economy. I'm being gentle with you because it's clear you are unaware of basic economics. But can you not see that crawling into our shell would hurt us? We exported $2.3 trillion in 2013 -- 15% of our economy. Can you not see that cutting your business' sales by 15% is going to cost jobs?
Further, we import goods when they can be made more efficiently elsewhere. If we didn't, they would be far more expensive here, as we would have to divert production away from better producing activities to lesser ones, hurting us on both fronts. And at higher cost, consumers would buy fewer (elastic) goods (law of demand), further lowering production and costing jobs.
Closing borders is a simplistic fantasy. It would be economically catastrophic.
In fact, that Democrats (who actually do know better at the leadership level) pander to union wishes to do this (and I'm even sympathetic to unions overall) is the main reason I'd vote Republican if we actually had viable (read--reasonable and sane) Republican candidates instead of these Tea Party and Right Wing nutjobs, who have raised idiocy to new heights and love it.

quote:

On a micro level, there's a reason I don't produce everything I need myself. I like the self-sufficiency, but I have far greater wealth and leisure by specializing in areas I can sell effectively and buying what others produce more efficiently.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I am still not clear on the US having virtually nothing to do with your listed defeats. Beyond the eastern front in Germany, what did the Russians have to do with defeating Italy and the Japanese ?

Racing the Enemy by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa
Is a good place to start,

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri"

why free trade is actually good -- Libs don't listen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised

61.2% of all the crude oil we process, we get from Canada, Mexico, or our own wells.

Venezuela adds another 5.9%

If we looked at North America and Latin America, we get 75% of our crude there. We don't have to double our own production to be independent outside of the Americas.

http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=CA

In 2011, we imported 2.2 M bbl/d from Canada. Keystone XL is set to have a capacity of 830 K bbl/d.

2.2M was approximate 25% of our total import amount. Increasing that 37% certainly won't hurt, will it?

Would we even need to consume as much oil as we consume if we stopped exporting petroleum products outside the Americas?

It might be tough for some to grasp, Ken, but do try to think about some stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

I do wish you'd learn to use the quote system properly tx.
It's sooo annoying sometimes trying to decipher which bit is yours and which bit belongs to another poster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

No it isn't a good place to start as both Geoffrey Jukes and Hasegawa are full of shit. If what he suggests is true then why did the Japanese threaten the emperor's life to keep fighting ? Why also was the Soviet Japanese front never reported in Japanese archives or concurrent news as a factor in the Japanese hierarchy's decision to surrender and unconditionally to the US ?

The Soviet declaration of war on Japan was essentially a hollow one after they expended so many forces taking Germany and it was 1 million men several thousand aircraft and dozens of ship in a US invasion Japan faced, not such a Soviet invasion...if the bombs hadn't convinced them to surrender.

I mean here was a guy born in 1941 and he's going to tell us the basis of Japan's defeat in WWII ? The USSR didn't even declare war until 2 days after Hiroshima and there has been a complete debunking of what is called...revisionists history if Japan's surrender. Here

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Thompson will get it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri"
why free trade is actually good -- Libs don't listen.

Conservatives today don't listen either. They're indistinguishable on this issue.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
There are not that much untapped reserves.

quote:

The bitumen needs to be left in the ground it is exceptionally foul hydrocarbon and takes way more energy than it is worth to refine.
It is long past time to stop searching for the last dregs of oil and start moving to reneable sources of energy.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)