Bombings at the Boston Marathon

First, your linking to the Holocaust is pretty poor.

Secondly, I'm going to ask you to do something very, very basic - can you show some statistics to prove your "facts"?

Third, do you condemn or condone those who dance in the streets to celebrate a death of somebody who can be seen as their enemy?

Counter-terrorist actions also produce fatalities. Perhaps the most salient form of counter-terrorism are drone attacks. Since 2004, drone strikes have killed an estimated 3,110 people in Pakistan. Less than 2% of those have been high-profile targets. Many have been innocent bystanders (source). Torture is another problem. Some data here.

Once the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and Germany, by virtue of its alliance with Japan declared war on the US, the US entry into the war in Europe became inevitable.

But even if Pearl Harbor never happened, I still think the US would have entered the war in Europe. First of all, Roosevelt hated Hitler and fascist ideology.  Second, two months before in October 1941, the USS Reuben James was sunk by a u-boat.  Third, and this is more speculative, but I believe the US had pretty good intel by this time about Hitler's plans to scale up the extermination of Jews.  It wasn't until mid-late 1942 that articles began appearing in US newspapers, but I think it had to be clear to Roosevelt well before then that the US could not be on the sidelines while a holocaust was occurring.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, there simply was no better way to get out of the great depression than massive government spending on arms manufacture.  And lastly, the Lend-Lease act meant there already was a rather large investment to protect. The US expected to, someday, be paid back by the UK and by the USSR (approx. $50B), and that would not have happened if Hitler won the war.

So, call it a 70/30 or maybe a 60/40 ratio of financial to moral reasons, but I do think it took both for Americans and their elected officials to overcome their desire to avoid another war in Europe.  But Pearl Harbor changed everything, and It did so overnight.  From that point on, every propaganda poster showed not just Tojo alone, but Hitler and Mussolini right next to him. There was no going to war with Japan alone -- the enemy was the Axis.

Hook

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

How are readers who are interested in a gay marriage discussion supposed to know that it exists buried under Margret Thatcher's grave unless it carries its own topic and how many followers of the bombing of the Boston Marathon feel bogged down by long tales of saving private Ryan?

Hopefully less padding and more to the point will do the cell some good.

Regards,

Haim

"How are readers who are interested in a gay marriage discussion supposed to know that it exists buried under Margret Thatcher's grave...?"

Excellent point, Haim!  And well stated. 

Russ

.Hi Hain, ..........well.............you could copy and paste the relevent posts into a new topic if you feel that strongly about it.

Fortunately, because we won the war, "for the sake of good order" doesn't feature too strongly in the British pscyche. It was still going strong in the Fatherland when I worked alongside a (mediocre) German squadron back in the early 80's, However, its a bit dissapointing to see it has now crossed the Atlantic.

Cheers

Don

Hook: You bring up a couple of points I had not either not thought of or you have brought up additional considerations--first, in particular, the moral issue of the Holocaust--FDR came under a lot of flack in the closing months of the War and, posthumously, afterward, for failure to bomb the perimeters of the camps.  Of course, his position was that the best thing that could happen to Jews trapped in Fortress Europe was to penetrate the Continent and kill the German resistance as soon as possible--otherwise, "wasting" (my word, not the government's) personnel and aircraft on temporary measures would still leave the Jews stranded in the camps.  As one whose children are Jewish, I have pretty heavy feelings about it all, but I suppose in the end, I agree with the U.S. strategy.  We will never really know the result of any alternative.

You also bring up the very important moral question: "What should militarily powerful nations such as the U.S. and Britain do to put a stop to genocide--or indeed, mass exterminations of any kind?"  I am not certain I know the answer, but what really chaps me is the degree to which the question is politicized.  The Republicans were gung ho about going after Saddam Hussein and cited the use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish population as part of their justification.  The Democrats weren't and still aren't buying the argument.  But when Clinton intervened in the Bosnian War--call it aggression or civil war or whatever--the Republicans in this country went ape-shit with criticism. 

All in all, it is my opinion that for a nation like the U.S.--and to some extent, the UK, who are developed and de-facto powerful enough to be the World's policemen--I think we have a duty to intervene wherever genocide is taking place--perhaps not to invade and nation-build, but at least to create "no fly" zones and give aid to the victims.  (Set aside, for the moment, the fact that when the "victims" take over, the shoe is often reversed.)

Finally, I really never had thought about the possible side issue of the U.S. having an incentive to preserve the British nation(s) for economic reasons.  I have always felt, of course, that FDR did not facilitate the end of the Great Depression so much by implementing the New Deal as he did by dragging the U.S., kicking and screaming, into World War II.  So the economic boost was indeed tremendous.

But (you may know this--I do not) did the U.S. ever actually demand payment back from Great Britain and the Soviets for Lend Lease?  Interesting point.

Best regards,

Russ

I think this is an interesting paragraph. I've always felt uncomfortable with the 'world's policeman' idea for the USA/UK axis, indeed for anyone. How would we feel if India, China, Brazil etc started interventions in Syria, or Mali or Palestine (or Northern Ireland two decades ago)-would we consider it expansionism and politically threatening? Surely those nations have as much right to assume authority in these situations as the traditional Western Allies?

From the point of view of the UK I see no justification for assuming that role, we are historic powers not current. We have no moral authority. The intervention of the USA has followed (predictably) selfish principles; the protection of borders, preservation of oil supplies, 'war on terror', 'war on drugs' but has ignored (and continues to ignore) greater tragedies of human rights abuse, despotic regimes and civil war. I don't especially blame it for doing that, ultimately nations individually rarely act altruistically.

In the end the 'worlds policeman' was supposed to be the UN. That doesn't appear to work either.

I offer no solutions, but I think our assumption that we can take on this role has worsened international relations as often as it has improved them.

Bruce

The UN is the "World's Policeman"

Nato, and in turn the USA, UK, France (sometimes) Canada etc so often take on the role of implementing the UN's requirements, that I think people (convieniently) forget the role each nation if fulfilling. We ought to be far more vocal in telling the world we are acting on behaf of the UN

OK, its not as simple as that in reality. For one, the UN is bloody useless, mainly because due to bloody-mindedness and self-interested nations we don't always get clear resolutions. For two, the UK and some extent France etc have colonial ties (eg Mali) and these ties can either help or hinder the occasional unilateral external involvement. again, we should be very clear when we intervene at the request of a legitimate government.

And for sure there are lots of "other" situations (Syria) where its probably best to stand aside and watch, rather than get involved.

It needs sorting out. But politicians need to be careful not to use such events for points-scoring.

Cheers

Don

The UK made its final repayment in 2006. 

TM-P:  Thank you.  That is nteresting.  As I said, I had not know that.  I will try to read more about it.  My first, only semi-educated thought on the subject is to be disappointed that we did not forgive the debt--Britain is as close an ally as we will ever have, and we have forgiven debts to countries far less deserving.  But as I say, I know very little about it.

Bruce: I am not comfortable with the role as "World's policeman" either.  While I confess that the United States does sometimes commit the horrible, mortal sin of acting in its own interests, and while I recognize that there are other sovereign nations who also have the moral right to intervene into the affairs of others, I think it could be argued that given the fact that we are the by far the most powerful nation by which operates as a democratic republic.  Personally, I do not object to the assistance (or, for that matter, independent action) of any other nation which would tend to promote democracy in places where there is tyranny.

Now, having said that, let me add that I now think there are only two instances where we or any nation can morally enter into conflict: first, when attacked or where attack is obvious and imminent, and second, where genocide or other killings are being committed.  I supported the invasion of Iraq and still do--with one important reservation.  I do not know whether President Bush meant it when he said he believed in nation building or whether it was a ruse--sometimes Presidents--any President-- do not tell the entire truth.  At the time, I believed in nation building--I no longer do.  I believe that where we engage in military intervention in a state like Iraq, we need to get in--do the deed, then get out.  Both Bush and Obama have made the mistake of staying.  I do not pretend that leaving a failed state behind is optimum--but getting bogged down is anathema. 

Best regards,

Russ

Hi Russ -

The history books say we lent the USSR $11.4B under Lend-Lease (so, about $140B in today's dollars).  But...the agreement was that any  material that was lent but consumed (e.g., food) or destroyed (e.g., in combat) did not have to be paid for. Also, material that was returned did not have to be paid for either. There was also plenty of stuff that was collected by US vessels from the Soviet Union that was taken out to international waters and dumped into the sea.

It's kind of hard to tell, but I think the final number we've negotiated for payback is about $100M, and Russia (which inherited the USSR's debts) has until 2030 to pay it back.  

According to Wikipedia, the aid to the USSR was: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks); 11,400 aircraft and 1.75 million tons of food. 

Hook

There was no charge for Lend Lease aid during WW-II, but the deal was subject to the return to US of new & used serviceable capital equipment – in UK case this was primarily ships & transport.

UK wanted to keep some of this equipment; Congress would not authorize it as a gift & charged for it at 10% of nominal value.

In the case of UK, £GBP1.075 billion payment was scheduled over 50 annual payments from 1951. The final payment of £GBP42.5 million ($US83.3 million) was made on 29 December 2006.

The Lease lend story to USSR is another story altogether …….. worth a read if you like modern history & politics.

Additionally to Lease Lend was the post war reconstruction plan for Europe , better known as the Marshall Plan.  The UK received $US385 million in the form of loans under this scheme.

Unconnected to the Marshall plan, UK also received direct loans from the US amounting to $US4.6 billion.

All told the cost of the war & the payoff of the loans for years after effectively bankrupted the UK. That said it was hard to see how it was possible to fight & win the war from the standing alone position in the early 1940’s. 

T M-P: My mention of the Holocaust was not to draw parallels between it and present-day terrorism, but simply as another example of something which undeniably took place and which some attempt to deny.  No more--no less. 

Thank you, Hook and MikeB for an interesting historical perspective that was somehow missing in my education.  I suppose we were justified in charging both the UK and USSR, something, especially given that it was not "full price" as it were.  Two comments about the Soviet/Russian debt: first, as a child of the Cold War (Hook--I seem to remember you are quite a bit younger), who rode around in his '58 Ford with the trunk full of dried food and water during the Cuban Missle Crisis, I waste no particular sympathy in that quarter, and second, I am really, truly surprised they paid it, given relations between the two super powers all those years.

The UK is a different matter.  Perhaps it was incumbent on Truman and Ike to show some return on the "investment" of Lend Lease--but I never even dreamed that we charged them--or rather, I suppose I did know that at some level, but assumed we had forgiven the debt.

I am also surprised--though I certainly accept the statement--that that degree of debt had such a negative effect on the UK.  Given that it was so harmful, in my opinion, whatever temporary political advantage the two U.S. parties got out of being able to assure the American People that the debt was being paid, was more than made up for by the harm done to a major ally in the Cold War we all knew was coming in those years.  Not saying that the UK would have been an equal super power, but it was not a good move to bankrupt her or even to hurt her recovery.

Thanks again for the lesson.  I may have to do some reading.

Best regards,

Russ

Russ,  this bankruptcy thing needs putting in perspective;  if UK was a cmpy or individual & its expenditure & debt exceeded income & ability to pay off the debt, as was the case accounting for the cost of WW-II, it was bankrupt.

That said we did not consider cost & future bankruptcy when the enemy was massing in readiness for invasion & the planned capture & capitulation of our country; if that was the case we would have surrendered when the Nazis invaded Holland & Belgium.   

Up to the point when Lend Lease kicked in during 1941,  UK held off 24/7 air attacks, fought a running battle to hold back the Nazi capture of the Mideast oil fields, prevented Nazi dominance of the north & south Atlantic & the Indian Ocean keeping open all those vital supply routes.  During that time we were able to make more aircraft than the enemy could destroy, ditto general munitions tanks & warships. 

What we were not able to do was to mount a counter attack with an overwhelming force that drove back the enemy; just as Hitler discovered invading UK, marching over a land border that is just a line on a map is one thing, whereas the 21 miles of English Channel is a barrier that practically prevents a manpower lead invasion.

The overwhelming force in men & machinery that was to become D-Day could never ever have taken place without the UK investing in vast qualities of men & munitions (bankruptcy) & to have the required overwhelming superior forces to achieve this was impossible without the same investments from USA, Canada & the other British Commonwealth countries.     

Thanks to the US, the deal to pay off the Lease Lend residual equipment cost at 10% of nominal value & the 50 year Marshall Plan loan eased the pain of the bankruptcy.

And as a final observation it does seem that UK came out of WW-II long term worse off than others  ............  But that’s another story.     

There is a world of difference between an act of terrorism, such as 9/11 and the invasion of a state under a UN resolution.

Cheers

Don

Civil victims are civil victims regardless of the form of the resolution used to justify the act. Or Don are you saying that a life in Iraq has less value than in US?

No. I'm saying that there is a world of difference between an act of terrorism and the invasion of a state under a UN resolution. You do accept this, don't you ? Or are you a total and absolute pacifist who will always stand by and allow others to commit muder, including your own ?

There is a world of difference between a murderer and two policemen who are authorised by "a democratically elected and accountable state" to shoot and kill a man who has committed a murder and threatens to kill others. Or again, are you a total and absolute pacifist ?

Cheers

Don

And would there be a difference between "two policemen who are authorised by 'a democratically elected and accountable state' to shoot and kill a man who" is holding a gun

and

"two policemen who are authorised by 'a democratically elected and accountable state' to shoot and kill a man who" is holding a gun but it turns out he was holding a banana?

Depends entirely on the perceived level of threat. That's why we give firearms officers 9 weeks intense training, noit just to shoot straight, but to assess the level of threat and act accordingly.

Cheers

Don

I've changed my name to avoid Naughty Word Issues... I'm him, and he is me...

Coo coo ca choo

M

No - you are simply wrong to use the Holocaust as a means of giving "support" to your argument. It really is poor behaviour, and intellectually bankrupt as well as extremely tasteless.

I asked you to support your "undeniable fact" that most terrorist bombings have been perpetrated by Muslims - can you do so?

The Army refer to this as "PID" - Positive Identification".

Pretty sure the Police would have similar guidelines - you need to be pretty sure before you use lethal force.

Umm......I think Adam may have been continuing with the metaphor.....

US involvment in the middle east may not explicitly be a religious war, but it seems entirely plausible that popular support for the actions is reinforced by the notion that middle eastern people have a different sky fairy than most of the US do.