Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 22, 2017, 04:22:57 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Hysterical History  |  Topic: 75 Years Ago Today...
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]  All Print
Author Topic: 75 Years Ago Today...  (Read 6824 times)
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,523

« Reply #80 on: December 14, 2016, 06:25:41 PM »

I knew that...

Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 488

« Reply #81 on: December 14, 2016, 09:06:43 PM »

I meant the Niblack.

The narrative states the Niblack was picking survivors, when the U-boat returned for the kill.

That states the U-Boat returned. That, to me, puts the Niblack in danger.

We will have to agree to disagree. All we know that survivors were being picked up. Survivors of a torpedoed ship are usually in the water. The U-Boat was going to sink the cargo ship. As far I can tell, the Niblack was in no danger. It is also the Niblack's statement that the U-Boat returned. I have done extensive reading on WWII U-boat operations. They usually don't leave the scene. The U-boat would have been there all along and simply moving in closer for the kill.

Quote
But remember that when the United States iterated on its neutrality it stated that it would sell materials of war it would do so if the buyer used its own ships.

If that is all the US did and did it equally for all parties, we wouldn't have an argument. But the US went well beyond just selling. It provided armed escorts in international waters for only one side and attacked only the other belligerent party. That is not the actions of a neutral party.


Quote
The United States government had plenty of reasons to behave in the way it did regarding Germany.

I have no issue with the issues you mentioned. However, the people of the US, at the time, wanted no part of another European war. The US government did everything it could, short of declaring war, to make it happen. Even US senators were calling FDR out on that issue. If you have reasons to go to war, then go to war - if the people are behind it.

Quote
If I am walking with a Red Cross flag, and state I am neutral, and you fire at me, don't get too upset if I fire at you.
.

If you are with the Red Cross, you aren't supposed to be armed. If you are then you just made yourself a valid target. The example was a Red Cross worker, trying to stop a on-going battle. That isn't going to happen. The RC might risk their life trying to save another one, but none of them would expect one side to stop shooting just so they could aid someone.

Quote
And during WW I it instigated an attack from Mexico.

The infamous Zimmerman Telegram.

First of all, the telegram was an offer of alliance. The offer was that if the US entered the war against Germany, then Mexico would enter the war against the US and Germany would help Mexico recover its lost territory. Mexico refused the offer. Your statement implies that an actual attack from Mexico happened. None did. From the German point of view, the offer made perfect sense. The US was breaking every convention in international law at that time that governed neutral nations in war. The Germans were right to view the US as a non-neutral. So it makes sense to try to have an alliance with another party that had "issues" with the US. If you think US/Mexico relations are bad now, they were worse in that period. Black Jack Pershing and the Punitive Expedition had recently invaded Mexico and failed to capture Pancho Villa. A few years earlier the US seized Veracruz and there was almost another war with Mexico. That was barely averted. Mexico declared itself neutral in WWI and that allowed the Germans to operate in Mexico, much to the dismay of the US. But what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.


Logged
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 488

« Reply #82 on: December 14, 2016, 09:17:54 PM »

No accents in Florida?
When it appears that more than half of Florida residents are Hispanic?
Maybe that is the reason why there is no southern accent....

The following are some very broad generalizations, in the that every group can be found in just about every part of Florida. However, the following is generally considered "home turf" for various groups.

South Florida - Dade/Miami, Broward and parts of Palm Beach County. Hispanic.

Palm Beach County - the ocean side or east side of the county, much older population due to being some of the first arrivals. Mostly white, very liberal Democratic. West county - newer gated communities, mostly white, younger lean independent or Republican

Atlantic Coast of Florida - Georgia border to Dade/Miami. Most New England, New York and Atlantic seaboard transplants move here.

Gulf Coast of Florida - mostly transplants from mid-west settle in this part of the state.

Orlando area - mixture of everyone

Central part of the state, between the coasts, north of Orlando and stretching into the panhandle - Florida Cracker country (most of them are proud of the label). If you are trying to find a multi-generational "real" Florida native, this is where to look. This is the original and still surviving "cowboy" country of Florida. Okeechobee, which is south of Orlando and north of the lake still has rodeos.

So if you have an accent or not, will depend on where you come from and what part of Florida you move to. In my area, I don't have an accent but we can all pick out those people from New Jersey.
Logged
USACAP
Forum Regular

Posts: 101
Unit: MV0181

« Reply #83 on: December 14, 2016, 10:15:38 PM »

The number of hoplophobes here is somewhat surprising.
And disappointing.

Was someone boneheaded enough to compare Curtis Lemay's strategic air campaign to the barbarous murder the Japanese committed?
Insane.
Are you on drugs? You must be.

Finally: this made me laugh out loud.
Victors write history, but I guess you never read the Constitution.
We also named quite a few military installations after those "traitors."
The Lost Cause is just that, a group of rebellious traitors (Lee, Jackson etc took oaths to support and defend the US Constitution) lost the war.
Logged
AirAux
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 743

« Reply #84 on: December 14, 2016, 10:23:19 PM »

General Lemay is the man.  Too bad he wouldn't be able to wear Air Force Blue today because of the weight standards.
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,523

« Reply #85 on: December 14, 2016, 11:24:03 PM »

Quote

First of all, the telegram was an offer of alliance. The offer was that if the US entered the war against Germany, then Mexico would enter the war against the US and Germany would help Mexico recover its lost territory. Mexico refused the offer.


Skips the issue. The point I made is, the offer was made. Period.

Quote

Your statement implies that an actual attack from Mexico happened. None did.


Where did you read that? Do not put any words in what people write!

Quote

If you are with the Red Cross, you aren't supposed to be armed. If you are then you just made yourself a valid target.


Another instance of you putting words into what I wrote. If I am fired at after I declare myself neutral, I will arm myself. Like Belgium and Luxembourg. And Netherland. You did not say anything about the points I made. I restate that after all those 9 items happened, all the things the US did were attempts to protect itself.
Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,864

« Reply #86 on: December 15, 2016, 01:21:11 AM »



If you are with the Red Cross, you aren't supposed to be armed. If you are then you just made yourself a valid target.


Another instance of you putting words into what I wrote. If I am fired at after I declare myself neutral, I will arm myself. Like Belgium and Luxembourg. And Netherland. You did not say anything about the points I made. I restate that after all those 9 items happened, all the things the US did were attempts to protect itself.
[/quote]

If you're with the Red Cross YOU CAN NOT SHOOT BACK!!!!!  The only time you're allowed to shoot back is to save the life of your patient. You don't count. Just the patient.
Of course if you're the Red Cross they're not supposed to shoot at you in the first place!
Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,809

« Reply #87 on: December 15, 2016, 10:00:16 AM »

The number of hoplophobes here is somewhat surprising.
And disappointing.

Was someone boneheaded enough to compare Curtis Lemay's strategic air campaign to the barbarous murder the Japanese committed?
Insane.
Are you on drugs? You must be.


Finally: this made me laugh out loud.
Victors write history, but I guess you never read the Constitution.
We also named quite a few military installations after those "traitors."
The Lost Cause is just that, a group of rebellious traitors (Lee, Jackson etc took oaths to support and defend the US Constitution) lost the war.

How very leaderific of you. Take a few seconds and actually read what was written. Take more time and actually look at the events and the circumstances. If Japan had won the war, Le May would have been hung.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
AirAux
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 743

« Reply #88 on: December 15, 2016, 10:09:23 AM »

However, your point is moot.  With leaders like Truman and Lemay, there was never any question about Japan winning the war.
Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,809

« Reply #89 on: December 15, 2016, 10:13:17 AM »

However, your point is moot.  With leaders like Truman and Lemay, there was never any question about Japan winning the war.

That was actually the conversation about differing points of view.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,523

« Reply #90 on: December 15, 2016, 03:32:53 PM »

Quote

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on Yesterday at 11:24:03 PM

If you are with the Red Cross, you aren't supposed to be armed. If you are then you just made yourself a valid target.
Another instance of you putting words into what I wrote. If I am fired at after I declare myself neutral, I will arm myself. Like Belgium and Luxembourg. And Netherland. You did not say anything about the points I made. I restate that after all those 9 items happened, all the things the US did were attempts to protect itself.
Quote
From PH:

If you're with the Red Cross YOU CAN NOT SHOOT BACK!!!!!  The only time you're allowed to shoot back is to save the life of your patient. You don't count. Just the patient.
Of course if you're the Red Cross they're not supposed to shoot at you in the first place!

Please stop reading between the lines. Again if it was not clear, I was speaking figuratively and you are grabbing at straws and missing the forest for looking at the trees.

The situation was Germany did A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P. The US was thus justified in doing all they did without an actual declaration of war since it was a certainty that Germany would have done Q! The same with Japan!
« Last Edit: December 15, 2016, 03:37:31 PM by Luis R. Ramos » Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 488

« Reply #91 on: December 15, 2016, 09:54:07 PM »

The situation was Germany did A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P. The US was thus justified in doing all they did without an actual declaration of war since it was a certainty that Germany would have done Q!

As a matter of international law you are wrong. If Germany did A thru O and they mostly likely did to the Europeans, that does not justify the US attacking any element of Germany, including their Navy, short of a declaration of war by the US. Your own record shows that the US was the aggressor in the Atlantic before Pearl Harbor. The US violated international law regarding neutrality, self-serving declarations do not hold any weight, in international law. They only hold up under victors justice.
Logged
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 488

« Reply #92 on: December 15, 2016, 10:09:40 PM »

The number of hoplophobes here is somewhat surprising.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. the term was originally coined by the legendary Col Jeff Cooper and is a
Quote
pejorative to describe an "irrational aversion to weapons." It is also used to describe the "fear of firearms" or the "fear of armed citizens."

 It is quite a stretch to infer someone's opinion on that topic from their opinion on the origins of various and sundry American wars.

The opposite of hoplophobe is hoplophile.

Quote
We also named quite a few military installations after those "traitors."

And there is a movement afoot to change those. I know some public schools in Florida ditched the traitors' names from buildings in Florida over the last several years.

I know that last year there was made much ado about a military installation in NYC, where several streets are named after the traitors. The problem is that some of the traitors, before they violated an oath they took several times, were heroes of the Mexican-American War. I doubt the US military, whose flags carry battle streamers reflecting combat against the traitors in the Civil War, would honor their later treachery as opposed to recognizing their earlier bravery.

Also don't forget the US had a policy of forgiving traitorous behavior. See Shay's Rebellion (limited to MA but most participants pardoned), the Whiskey Rebellion and Fries's Rebellion. The fact that the traitors and rebels were eventually pardoned doesn't lessen the fact that they were traitors.
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,523

« Reply #93 on: December 15, 2016, 10:19:50 PM »

Quote

...that does not justify the US attacking any element of Germany...


In my view it does. Self-preservation. If it was done mostly to Europeans, what assurance will I have we would have been treated differently? None.

Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
RRLE
Seasoned Member

Posts: 488

« Reply #94 on: December 18, 2016, 09:34:22 AM »

What you are describing is a preemptive or first-strike, which is not allowed in international law. The US has specifically stated for decades that it would use nuclear weapons in a first strike, for example.

And if first-strike is your justification for us attacking the German Navy, while allegedly neutral, then you have also justified the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had many reasons to fear that the US, in particular, and Western Civilization in general, was about to do to Japan what the west had done to China.

Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,523

« Reply #95 on: December 18, 2016, 12:59:18 PM »

This back-and-forth continues!

What I described was not a pre-emptive strike considering all the previous agreements and violations.

Which was the same with Japan.

1. Remember the Panay?
2. And others in China...?

What you find justifying Japan and Germany, others and me find justifying for the US!

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander...


 >:D


Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,316
Unit: Classified

« Reply #96 on: December 18, 2016, 03:20:20 PM »

The US has specifically stated for decades that it would use nuclear weapons in a first strike, for example.

Really because everything I have read and learned about use of such weapons says otherwise.
Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,864

« Reply #97 on: December 18, 2016, 07:53:22 PM »

The US has specifically stated for decades that it would use nuclear weapons in a first strike, for example.

Really because everything I have read and learned about use of such weapons says otherwise.

The 12 years I was in SAC I was always told that the US would not do a First Strike. But we would do a massive retaliatory strike though.
At least that's what I was taught while I was studying and certifying the various SIOP sorties I was standing alert for.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Hysterical History  |  Topic: 75 Years Ago Today...
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.078 seconds with 20 queries.