Grins? Giggles? Really? Reality?

[Shafted]

Anarchism is liberty, no guise needed.

It's absolute liberty actually, not necessarily a good thing.

[meganiwish]

A fair point, and an interestingly moot point.  Can we have too much liberty? Discuss. (30 marks)

[ilikekicks]

A fair point, and an interestingly moot point.  Can we have too much liberty? Discuss. (30 marks)

 The furthest and most liberal means of liberty is to be able to do as you wish so long as you harm nobody else. Harm nobody elses property or well being.

 

Anarchy is ' anything goes ' and one could harm others. There arent any restrictions applied in anarchy.

 

Theres quite a bit of difference between the 2

[Shyheels]

As Saint Augustine said, Love God and do what you will. Under those circumstances, if people were following that precept, anarchy would be benign since everybody would be guided by their better nature. So anarchy, absolute liberty, is not intrinsically a bad thing. It is the bad apples that make it so.

[ShoeDre]

To me it seems that there are a number of logical disconnects occuring here.

 

- You're not paranoid, you just don't trust the government and believe that both the government and regulation should be decreased.  Instead of showing your trust to prove you're not paranoid, you rationalise your distrust in government regulation.  Even more ironicallly, you are trying to join the governmental ranks.

 

- You believe that the good of an individual is of upmost importance, using Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao as examples proving your point,  The problem here is that these people are great examples of dictatorships where the interaction of people working together in forming a social structure was actually denied.  Dictatorships are not socialist movements.  Democracy is a far better socialist structure in that the masses are involved in shaping the structures in their civilisation.

 

- You say that people should be responsible for their own health care.  As my wife told me, if you have no insurance and get sick, who pays?  Say you have a stroke and go into a coma for ten years, who pays then?  Want a guess?  Or what should you do about children, or those too mentally ill to choose? For those who don't know the US system, in some cases the taxpayer pays for critical types of care of others that are not insured.  Othertimes, the patient gets sued for the costs, which often leads to medical bankrupcy and increased insurance and healthcare costs.  Meanwhile non-medical types profit off the ill.

 

- All this talk about the evil Obamacare plan.  It's forcing people to have medical insurance, which would mean less responsibility for the government as there would be less uninsured people having the government pay for critical care.  It's making it illegal for insurance providers to reject high risk applicants.  To someone with government run healthcare, this system is about the smallest infringement possible on personal freedom.  It's just another tax really.

 

- You attempted to correct my references to government healthcare as medical insurance.  These two things are not the same.  As Dr. Shoe has previously stated, in places where governmant healthcare exists, you can choose to have extra medical insurance which you pay for individually.  Unfortunately the US system is not even close to having government healthcare, which is why you may have difficulty understanding this point.

 

- I'm not sure how you link the good of the community to higher suicide rates, but it seems like a bit of a stretch.  Studies have shown that the distribution of wealth plays a large part in the overall happiness of a society.  The greater the gap between the rich and the poor, the greater the social disruption and unhappiness.  What you see in the US is a perfect example of this fact.  The steady increase in disparity occuring in the US is mirrored by the increasing prison populations and the rise in violent behaviour.

 

- As mentioned by others, my reference to anarchy and liberty is relevant as one is an extension of the other.  It's probably hard to understand that US thinking is quite extreme to the right on the spectrum.  What you see as socialist is not accurate.  By saying that healthcare and education should be in the hands of the government is not even close to the ideas that someone like Mao believed.  A moderate view tries to blend liberty and social responsibility.

 

- In an attempt to say that you have life experience to forge your opinions from, you neglected to tell me of the many different cultures that you have experienced, or even truly understand.  For example, my wife has lived in four different continents.  I've experienced a number of cultures and have further researched others as part of my philosophical studies.  The social democracy reference I made earlier can be seen 2000 years ago in Greece.

 

It is challenging to discuss a topic such as this, when most people when asked, cannot tell the difference between capitalism and a free market.  When understanding capitalism, very few people agree with the ideology it promotes.  Liberty is much the same.  To it's extreme, there is no liberty in anarchy.  We have thousands of years to observe the feudal systems which prevailed prior to any socialist types of movements.  Since the introduction of nuclear weapons, we have been further pushed away from our primitive past.  We are now forced to negotiate.  Negotiation in itself is a way of moderating our desires with the desires of others.

 

Furthermore, it seems that when discussing topics such as these, we must avoid thinking in dicotemies.  I'm sure there is enough modern evidence to the errors of fundemental thinking.  If you want to follow a dionysian approach to liberty, be sure someone is being hurt.  Therein lies another failing in the as long as it hurts no one paradigm.  Within the infinite diversity of humanity, there is no state where everyone agrees.  Just look at the problems involved in attempting to create an international justice system.  The outlook of the Chinese in that humans have the right to exist in completely independent sovereign states, clearly twists the human rights issue on its head.

 

Another point of interest lies in education.  Can we truly experience liberty when we do not understand the implications and effects of our choices?  Have the issues of poverty restricting availability of education been factored in?  How about generational poverty, or long term social repression?  Advocating liberty would thus mean advocating education, unless you mean that we have the liberty to have no liberty.  The logos even associated to the principles begins to fall down.

 

It's important that we carefully examine the rhetoric spewed upon us by those professing a complete understand in how we should be building our social and governmental structures.  Anyone saying they know what needs to be done, immediately becomes dubious in my mind.  I normally try to avoid getting involved in these sorts of discussions, but seeing so many overly verbose posts adding little to the topic has sort of motivated me to respond in this way.

[ilikekicks]

To me it seems that there are a number of logical disconnects occuring here.

 

 

 

 

Not at all. You might feel such as its in your programming. Myself? I just opened my eyes and took a good look around me and found out people are forcibly divided.

 

 

 

- You're not paranoid, you just don't trust the government and believe that both the government and regulation should be decreased.  Instead of showing your trust to prove you're not paranoid, you rationalise your distrust in government regulation.  Even more ironicallly, you are trying to join the governmental ranks.

 

 

The way to defeat anything is from ' within '. Maybe you dont understand such a concept but its what globalists have done to the republic for which I live in. What I dont trust and even despise are those whom have the mindset that they can force their will upon others by means of ' government '.

 

 

 

- You believe that the good of an individual is of upmost importance, using Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao as examples proving your point,  The problem here is that these people are great examples of dictatorships where the interaction of people working together in forming a social structure was actually denied.  Dictatorships are not socialist movements.  Democracy is a far better socialist structure in that the masses are involved in shaping the structures in their civilisation.

 

 

Have you studied Castro? How about most of the South American Dictators of today?

 

" Democracy " isnt a social structure. By definition alone and example set in just this past week, its tyranny of a majority. Its far from perfect but its also a work in progress.

 

- You say that people should be responsible for their own health care.  As my wife told me, if you have no insurance and get sick, who pays?  Say you have a stroke and go into a coma for ten years, who pays then?  Want a guess?  Or what should you do about children, or those too mentally ill to choose? For those who don't know the US system, in some cases the taxpayer pays for critical types of care of others that are not insured.  Othertimes, the patient gets sued for the costs, which often leads to medical bankrupcy and increased insurance and healthcare costs.  Meanwhile non-medical types profit off the ill.

 

You speak of all these bankrupcies.. Lets see your figures on how many people went bankrupt for ' medical reasons '. Compare those to people now wondering how they will afford to put food on their tables and the impact on the whole economy of this new government ' regulation '.

 

Your crying, just as others did here in the States, in the same fashion that lead to that demonic bills inception and passage. Its a very narrow viewpoint in its overview.

 

You keep using the term ' health care ' instead of medical insurance. Can you not see the difference between the 2? In order for you to recognize such, you would see why your thoughts dont hold merit in such a discussion. Its the means used to usurp a system.

 

 

- All this talk about the evil Obamacare plan.  It's forcing people to have medical insurance, which would mean less responsibility for the government as there would be less uninsured people having the government pay for critical care.  It's making it illegal for insurance providers to reject high risk applicants.  To someone with government run healthcare, this system is about the smallest infringement possible on personal freedom.  It's just another tax really.

 

 

Look at what you stated. Its " FORCING ". Would it be ok if someone caught you at a red light, pulled you from your car and took it? Would it be ok for someone to walk into your house and empty your fridge without even saying thank-you for the eats?

 

Forcing people to do something is never a good thing. For a Government to FORCE something upon its citizenry, something 3/4ths of its citizenry doesnt like as its NOT what they even elected their representatives to vote in favor of.. That doesnt sound like ' we the people ' at all.

 

You say this is ' just another tax '. Apparently you havent read the bill yourself. Ive had discussions with others from this site on the phone and we ALL have read and looked into it. *IF* you took a good look at what it fully entails, you would understand why people are clamoring to guns and the topic of States leaving the Union came up.

 

Im sure you will have an intellectual type of response but I dont think you have really looked into the full Bill ( now law ). You took what the news stated and ran with it.

 

 

- You attempted to correct my references to government healthcare as medical insurance.  These two things are not the same.  As Dr. Shoe has previously stated, in places where governmant healthcare exists, you can choose to have extra medical insurance which you pay for individually.  Unfortunately the US system is not even close to having government healthcare, which is why you may have difficulty understanding this point.

 

 

Your telling me the V.A. Medical system, something that has a 100 billion plus dollar budget isnt Government run? I bet 75 million American Veterans would tell you your wrong. I bet the employees at those facilities would say the same. " Not even close to having " you say? Hogwash. I feel your quite ill informed.

 

I have NO difficulties in seeing what happened in the past, whats happening in the present, and where it leads. I believe the difficulties are with your perspective which is limited as you havent fully informed yourself of the topic at hand and are limited in your knowledge of experiences ( first hand ) on such a thing here in the States.

 

- I'm not sure how you link the good of the community to higher suicide rates, but it seems like a bit of a stretch.  Studies have shown that the distribution of wealth plays a large part in the overall happiness of a society.  The greater the gap between the rich and the poor, the greater the social disruption and unhappiness.  What you see in the US is a perfect example of this fact.  The steady increase in disparity occuring in the US is mirrored by the increasing prison populations and the rise in violent behaviour.

 

Higher suicide rates? Where did that come from?

 

You were asked, blatantly : Where does ' good of the community ' end? When will it be satisfied enough. No response about it was stated.

 

The rest of what you speak of is more about the theme of division currently present in the U.S. system. Its being used as a method to do more harm then good. Its your belief and Im not going to mock it, your free to believe as you wish.

 

People have what they earn. I dont owe anyone anything. You dont owe me anything. We are free to go make something of ourselves. You can tout whatever theories you wish, but they apply only to you as others are free to say ' see ya later ' to them.. That is until you FORCE them upon others to which they might just retaliate in some fashion, rightfully so.

 

- As mentioned by others, my reference to anarchy and liberty is relevant as one is an extension of the other.  It's probably hard to understand that US thinking is quite extreme to the right on the spectrum.  What you see as socialist is not accurate.  By saying that healthcare and education should be in the hands of the government is not even close to the ideas that someone like Mao believed.  A moderate view tries to blend liberty and social responsibility.

 

 

There you are again using ' health care '. Do you even know what ' Medical Insurance ' is?

 

- In an attempt to say that you have life experience to forge your opinions from, you neglected to tell me of the many different cultures that you have experienced, or even truly understand.  For example, my wife has lived in four different continents.  I've experienced a number of cultures and have further researched others as part of my philosophical studies.  The social democracy reference I made earlier can be seen 2000 years ago in Greece.

 

 

Have you ever been around the planet with a machine gun? Ever been on the DMZ in Korea? How about the invasion of Panama in the 80's? How about the First Gulf War? Okinawa and mainland Japan? Mexico? Canada?

 

I can say I have seen some of the worst humanity has to offer. I didnt read about it in a text book ( like others ) and proclaim to have an understanding of it. Its not something I often share with others ( my military years ) as to them, its only something a barbarian or someone who has no brains would get involved with, right? Its not something ' intellectuals ' can even fathom as they dont have the basics of comprehension to begin to absorb.

 

I didnt neglect anything nor did I try to shove my ' intellectualism ' into the picture. I wish for others to think for themselves. I want for them to look at their surroundings and figure out things for themselves. Im confident that most of them can do so for themselves if given the choice and freedoms.

 

Something all the ' intellectuals ' tend to forget is human beings are mammals, animals, and there are instincts that go with such a thing. We wish to be free. When you start forcing we the ' animals ' into corners, what happens?

 

I have a good feeling you might believe differently. Rightfully so.

 

It is challenging to discuss a topic such as this, when most people when asked, cannot tell the difference between capitalism and a free market.  When understanding capitalism, very few people agree with the ideology it promotes.  Liberty is much the same.  To it's extreme, there is no liberty in anarchy.  We have thousands of years to observe the feudal systems which prevailed prior to any socialist types of movements.  Since the introduction of nuclear weapons, we have been further pushed away from our primitive past.  We are now forced to negotiate.  Negotiation in itself is a way of moderating our desires with the desires of others.

 

 

' primitive past '. What a concept. Theres nuclear missiles sitting in bunkers all over the planet ( presently ), A religion running wild still stoning women and cutting off heads.. theres a monetary system of banking that was baselined by the Knights Templar hundreds of years ago ( and the shylocks ) and you believe the past is primitive? 

 

Because theres an iPhone and computers and an Internet, Because theres TV's and radios.. Because theres gun powdered weapons and not just edged ones does NOT make present day society any less ' primitive ' then the past. The mindset of forcing others to do things, just as it was with the days of Monarchy are still present. 

 

' Might makes Right ' still runs the world. Its a sad reality that will *never* change. No ' education ' is capable of removing such a thing. Your gonna hate hearing this but : You and I are just as primitive as those of a century ago. We just have a few more nicer things then they had in caves .

 

Furthermore, it seems that when discussing topics such as these, we must avoid thinking in dicotemies.  I'm sure there is enough modern evidence to the errors of fundemental thinking.  If you want to follow a dionysian approach to liberty, be sure someone is being hurt.  Therein lies another failing in the as long as it hurts no one paradigm.  Within the infinite diversity of humanity, there is no state where everyone agrees.  Just look at the problems involved in attempting to create an international justice system.  The outlook of the Chinese in that humans have the right to exist in completely independent sovereign states, clearly twists the human rights issue on its head.

 

Another point of interest lies in education.  Can we truly experience liberty when we do not understand the implications and effects of our choices?  Have the issues of poverty restricting availability of education been factored in?  How about generational poverty, or long term social repression?  Advocating liberty would thus mean advocating education, unless you mean that we have the liberty to have no liberty.  The logos even associated to the principles begins to fall down.

 

It's important that we carefully examine the rhetoric spewed upon us by those professing a complete understand in how we should be building our social and governmental structures.  Anyone saying they know what needs to be done, immediately becomes dubious in my mind.  I normally try to avoid getting involved in these sorts of discussions, but seeing so many overly verbose posts adding little to the topic has sort of motivated me to respond in this way.

 

 

Do you even know what the topic is? What the original theme was?

 

Everything you have stated reinforces exactly what I have stated.

 

"Guys : The riducule any of us might recieve for wearing heeled footware is quite miniscule and even laughable in comparrison to the HUGE picture of whats really going on. Dont give it a second thought, put on some kicks and go out and strut. "

 

 

I dont think you realized how greatly you have reinforced what I originally stated. I offer you many thanks for doing it.

 

Peace to you

-ILK.

As Saint Augustine said, Love God and do what you will. Under those circumstances, if people were following that precept, anarchy would be benign since everybody would be guided by their better nature. So anarchy, absolute liberty, is not intrinsically a bad thing. It is the bad apples that make it so.

 

I dont necessarily believe in a ' God '. BUT!

 

What you have stated is why I feel there is a ' good ' in theological means amongst people. 

[ShoeDre]

I like the way you reference text that you don't understand, then make an argument which leaves no doubt in displaying your ignorance.  At the beginning of this exercise, I aimed to display an alternate view.  I hope others may have enjoyed the points I made, even if in no other way than aesthetically.

 

Alas I feel there is no point continuing this argument any further.  Unfortunately even the most basic attempt to understand, seems to be missing.  You kept trying to correct the term health care, yet you didn't even google it, or get a dictionary.  Pathetic!

 

From Dictionary.com

 

health·care [helth-kair] Show IPA

noun Also, health care.

1.

the field concerned with the maintenance or restoration of the health of the body or mind.

2.

any of the procedures or methods employed in this field.

adjective Also, health-care.

3.

of, pertaining to, or involved in healthcare: healthcare workers; a healthcare center.

Origin:
health + care

 

From Wikipedia

 

Health care (or healthcare) is the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, illness, injury, and other physical and mental impairments in human beings. Health care is delivered by practitioners in allied health, dentistry, midwifery-obstetrics, medicine, nursing, optometry, pharmacy, psychology and other care providers. It refers to the work done in providing primary care, secondary care, and tertiary care, as well as in public health.

 

Wasn't that hard to do!

[Shafted]

Play nice, guys.

[ilikekicks]

Play nice, guys.

 

I will.

[meganiwish]

 The furthest and most liberal means of liberty is to be able to do as you wish so long as you harm nobody else. Harm nobody elses property or well being.

 

Anarchy is ' anything goes ' and one could harm others. There arent any restrictions applied in anarchy.

 

Theres quite a bit of difference between the 2

Well this why I prefer 'anarchism' to 'anarchy'  The latter has such negative overtones.  Of course, both come from the Greek an archos meaning 'without a ruler'.  Up your street, ILK.  Godwin and Proudhon, who'd never have used the word anarchist because the word hadn't been coined, but were anarchists nonetheless, lived in a pre-industrial world.  It may be that in our industrial world we can't manage without rulers.  I don't know, I'm not that clever.  Anyway, they were gentle, rural men.  Anarchy got taken over by the likes of Max Stirner and Mikael Bakunin, who were men of the industrial age and advocated destruction.  It's sad but inevitable that young men who wanted to be anarchists took the Stirner/ Bakunin view.

[Shyheels]

Humans are social animals and in every grouping of social animals, be it ants or a wolf pack, a leader will inevitably arise. I don't think it matters that we live in an industrial world.

 

It would have been nice for humans to have evolved out of this Darwinian stew, and to be able to live in a society of equals, without rulers, and in an atmosphere of mutual respect and tolerance but as you say the notion of anarchy, anarchism and anarchists has been usurped by people advocating destruction and disorder. Ironically enough, if they were to be successful and impose their views, they would in effect become the new rulers - shaping the lives of reluctant others and filling a power vacuum that simply seems destined to be filled one way or another.

[meganiwish]

No, I think you misunderstand me.  There's never been such a thing as a non-hierarchical society.  What I meant was that Godwin's and Proudhon's ideas were feasible (though still never likely to be taken up) in their age, but they were quickly to be made obsolete by industrialisation.  They both dealt with economics rather than politics. (One must remember that politics at that time wasn't  something that mattered to the majority, but day to day economics was.  How to live and eat.)  The conditions for their ideas were swept away by industy's need for wage-slaves.  With the Reform Act of 1832 the people started to be enfranchised politically (and much good it did them, except for 30 odd years in the second half of the twentieth Century) but not economically.  Of course, I'm only talking about Britain here.

[Shyheels]

Yes, I did misunderstand you possibly because Proudhon and Godwin were, to my mind more economists than anything else, although of course they were political theorists and philosophers as well. Their ideas were of a time and place, and while they were attractive and in theory workable, they would have relied upon a more broadly enlightened human nature than is likely to be found in society, no matter what level you're looking at. Don't get me wrong either. I'm not cynically sneering at such ideas. My negativity is more wistful than not.

[Dr. Shoe]

What the US needs is "People's Healthcare" like we have here in the UK and in many places in Europe and in places like Australia, etc.

 

I suspect that that is what Barack Obama wanted but his plans were thwarted by a Republican majority, probably encouraged by the Healthcare industry. This is what Americans voted for, a system where the president has no power because he does not have enough support on Capitol Hill. This is the Americans' idea of democracy. Then they complain that the President hasn't done anything and is ineffectual.

 

Instead of fighting for the right to pay $800 a month for medical insurance, good Americans should be fighting for the right to have all of their healthcare paid for from their taxes. OK, this may lead to a small increase in tax but no more than about $100 a month for normal people.

 

By saying "why should I pay for someone else's healthcare?" is a bit like someone in an apartment in New York wondering why his taxpayers' dollars are being spent on farmers' subsidies. OK, you don't have children at school so why should you pay for education? "I have a gun so why should my tax dollars go to pay for the military?". You might not live in a county with a high crime rate so why pay for the police service and you don't know any old people so why pay pensions? I could go on.

 

If everyone who lived in any given country paid no tax but had to pay for all the services that their government provides then that country would be a very expensive place to live. Imagine, you'd have to employ a bodyguard because there's no police and everybody who think they're tougher than you will rob you. You want your kids educated and you'd have to pay thousands a year for school fees. There'd be no subsidies for farmers so most would go bust leading to famine and even more crime. Without law and order, anyone out of the ordinary will be fair game for abuse, including guys in heels. You fall ill and it costs you a fortune to get better.

 

No. I think we're all lucky to be living in stable civilized countries and arguing about who has the best system of government is, in my opinion completely absurd!

[ilikekicks]

What the US needs is "People's Healthcare" like we have here in the UK and in many places in Europe and in places like Australia, etc.

 

 

 

What the U.S. Needs to do is : as a nation, put the rest of the planet out of the equation and solve our own problems instead of invading other countries and starting more.

 

 

I suspect that that is what Barack Obama wanted but his plans were thwarted by a Republican majority, probably encouraged by the Healthcare industry. This is what Americans voted for, a system where the president has no power because he does not have enough support on Capitol Hill. This is the Americans' idea of democracy. Then they complain that the President hasn't done anything and is ineffectual.

 

 

Not at all. What Obama wanted was more government. When the ACA passed, the Democrats had both the House and Senate. Teh Bill passed in the house with a surplus of votes.

 

The President has very *Limited* powers/duties. Outside of appointments, he can sign bills into law or Veto them. He can travel the world and make all sorts of promises, but the President really doesnt have all the powers people believe he does.

 

There are MANY things Obama could have done and done well at. Instead, the nation has DOUBLED the National Debt, has more people jobless and dependent on social programs, drones watching the Nation and attacking citizens overseas and now an exchange returning 5 very bad people to their freedom. ' Cash for Clunkers ' was abysmal.. 

 

In Comparison, its not hard to say the guy is WORSE then G.W. Bush in spending, policies AND in keeping civility inside the Nations Boarders.

 

"Instead of fighting for the right to pay $800 a month for medical insurance, good Americans should be fighting for the right to have all of their healthcare paid for from their taxes. OK, this may lead to a small increase in tax but no more than about $100 a month for normal people."

 

TRhats what the ACA was suppoosed to do through the exchanges. It has failed miserably for all but 2 people that I know.. 

 

"By saying "why should I pay for someone else's healthcare?" is a bit like someone in an apartment in New York wondering why his taxpayers' dollars are being spent on farmers' subsidies. OK, you don't have children at school so why should you pay for education? "I have a gun so why should my tax dollars go to pay for the military?". You might not live in a county with a high crime rate so why pay for the police service and you don't know any old people so why pay pensions? I could go on."

 

Keep going!

 

"If everyone who lived in any given country paid no tax but had to pay for all the services that their government provides then that country would be a very expensive place to live. Imagine, you'd have to employ a bodyguard because there's no police and everybody who think they're tougher than you will rob you. You want your kids educated and you'd have to pay thousands a year for school fees. There'd be no subsidies for farmers so most would go bust leading to famine and even more crime. Without law and order, anyone out of the ordinary will be fair game for abuse, including guys in heels. You fall ill and it costs you a fortune to get better.

 

No. I think we're all lucky to be living in stable civilized countries and arguing about who has the best system of government is, in my opinion completely absurd!"

 

Absurd you say?

 

In this week in history, my nation rescued yours. .

 

Im not arguing whos system is better. Im stating the obvious : People deserve their liberties and to be able to make decisions for themselves.

[meganiwish]

Yes, I did misunderstand you possibly because Proudhon and Godwin were, to my mind more economists than anything else, although of course they were political theorists and philosophers as well. Their ideas were of a time and place, and while they were attractive and in theory workable, they would have relied upon a more broadly enlightened human nature than is likely to be found in society, no matter what level you're looking at. Don't get me wrong either. I'm not cynically sneering at such ideas. My negativity is more wistful than not.

Well Godwin was primarily an educationalist and an EXCEPTIONALLY bad novelist.  Neither had any interest in politics. 

 

I didn't take you wrong and intimated no sneering.  Hmm, you might be worked on. @

 

 

 

In this week in history, my nation rescued yours. .

 

 

I appreciate the wink.

[Shyheels]

I've not had the pleasure of reading one of Godwin's novels. I shall take your word for it if ever his name pops up on my fiction reading list! :-) And I didn't take anything you said to intimate any sneering on my oart. It was more a self declaration. I was afraid that in my negativity I might be sounding as though I were affecting some kind if cynical world-weary ennui. And ILK - you are aware that while Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander, Operation Overlord was largely the brainchild of the British General Montgomery. And that 75% or more of the planes, ships, landing craft used on the big day were British? And that the Royal Navy had responsibility for Operation Neptune, the naval part of the invasion?

[ilikekicks]

And ILK - you are aware that while Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander, Operation Overlord was largely the brainchild of the British General Montgomery. And that 75% or more of the planes, ships, landing craft used on the big day were British? And that the Royal Navy had responsibility for Operation Neptune, the naval part of the invasion?

 

I have a good feeling the People whom work in the NewportNews shipyards would beg to differ about those landing crafts. I would beg to differ in regards to the planes as most were of British design, but werent built in the U.K.

 

The Spitfire ( one example ) was originally equipped with .303 brit guns. It was changed/evolved to take on 4 U.S. made Browning machine guns ( I believe Brownings were supposed to be the original guns but there was a lack of supply? ). The only thing that was really left ' british ' about the plane was the Rolls Royce engine ( some of which were actually produced in the U.S. for them ). A neighbor ( about 30 miles away ) has a Spitfire, a Corsair and is *trying* to put together an ME109. Hes a retired flyer/aviator/historian.

 

Prior to D-Day, much of the equipment being used by the ' allies ' ( and even the USSR for some of it ) was built in the States.

 

True or not, he ( my neighbor ) did state something about the P51 ( Mustang ) being used by the RAF and it was the British whom designed the plane and asked the Americans to built it for them ( they didnt have enough facilities that werent being bombed by the Germans at the time ). They didnt have the resources/time to retool from the spitfire to the new plane.

 

The European allies took around 85,000 Casulties. The States took 125,000. Wasnt even our real-estate . 

 

Its amazing how history works. The U.S. kicked the English Crown in the teeth, then helps them with the Germans. The ' Allies ' then had to deal with the USSR after WW2, one of the former ' allies '. China was onboard with the ' Allies ' at one time, helped them with their ' Japan ' problem. Now Japan is considered a ' good neighbor ' and china is looked down upon for civil rights/environmental entities/currency manipulations.

 

Its only a matter of time till ' Russia ' is loved by all and the E.U. is considered ' evil ', right along side the U.S. .

[Shyheels]

Well, of the 1213 warships involved 200 were American and 892 were British. Of the 4126 landing craft, 805 were American and 3261 were British. Of the 12,000-odd aircraft, roughly two thirds were British. I say this not to belittle the American effort, but to point out some facts and offer a little perspective. As for real estate involved, it wasn't ours either. England lost its last toehold in France, Calais, back in the early 16th century

[ShoeDre]

Sorry, can't help but laugh whilst thinking, "Don't call me stupid!"

[meganiwish]

It was all our 'real estate'.  The US was aware of the danger of existing in a world controlled by Japan and Germany, so acted in self interest. No shame in that. Britain could defend itself to a point, but couldn't alone have invaded Nazi Europe.  That's why Churchill lived in America   WW1 made the US the economic power because Europe had bankrupt itself.  Because the war never touched the American mainland in WW11 that was reinforced, but staying out was never an option, even without Pearl Harbour.  Actually, D-Day was a joint effort and both the US and Britain should be proud that they did it together.  We made a good team.

[Shyheels]

Let's not forget the Canadians. Nor the Russians, for that matter, although of course they were not at Normandy. It was the titanic battles on the eastern front that bled and weakened the German army and by doing so did much to enable the victories of 1944. My point above was that Britain was not rescued, like a damsel in distress, by knights on white chargers from across the pond

[meganiwish]

Quite right, Canadians are never slow to help. I like Canadians.

 

The Soviet Union lost 20 million (!) citizens in WW11.  For Britain the number is in the thousands, for the US too.  Let's not be too smug.

[Shyheels]

No, the Russians had the nastiest of wars. And Stalin for the aftermath.

[ilikekicks]

Let's not forget the Canadians. Nor the Russians, for that matter, although of course they were not at Normandy. It was the titanic battles on the eastern front that bled and weakened the German army and by doing so did much to enable the victories of 1944. My point above was that Britain was not rescued, like a damsel in distress, by knights on white chargers from across the pond

 

No, they werent rescued, but saved ( along with France ) from the bad decisions made by *all* in the treaty of Versailles. WW2 was ( kind of ) an extension of WW1.

 

Whats not really common knowledge is that Japan had soldiers in WW1 fighting with the Allies. They ( Japan ) were at the negotiating table of WW1 and were tossed aside. They felt dishonored or ' shunned ' and gained a different perspective about the U.S. and Europe from it. Some say its part of the reason their empire took the direction it did.

 

I think the Canadians took some of the biggest beatings in WW2. They are often forgotten in the full picture of their sacrafices. They lost many good men and never turned away like the French did.

 

 

 

It was all our 'real estate'.  The US was aware of the danger of existing in a world controlled by Japan and Germany, so acted in self interest. No shame in that. Britain could defend itself to a point, but couldn't alone have invaded Nazi Europe.  That's why Churchill lived in America   WW1 made the US the economic power because Europe had bankrupt itself.  Because the war never touched the American mainland in WW11 that was reinforced, but staying out was never an option, even without Pearl Harbour.  Actually, D-Day was a joint effort and both the US and Britain should be proud that they did it together.  We made a good team.

 

I believe quite a bit of the German Hierarchy thought the war was lost once War was declared by them upon the U.S. and that it was only a matter of time. Attrition and having a HUGE industry with lots of resources coming to the table against you is a huge obstacle.

 

As Europe Bankrupted itself in WW1, the U.S. is presently Bankrupt ( but wont admit it ). Once again, times have changed.

[Shyheels]

There are a lot of myths worth popping about the French in WWII. They lost a couple hundred thousand men in the opening stages of the war. D-Day was the biggest amphibious assault in the war, but the second biggest was that of the Germans coming across the Rhine. At the time the Germans had the mightiest army in the world, bar none, and a formidable military-industrial complex to back it. Their Blitzkrieg attack was irresistible For an interesting perspective on the French response try reading Antoine de Saint-Exupery's Flight to Arras. This was written by a guy who was there, and indeed who returned by a miracle of good fortune from what was meant to have been virtually a suicide mission against the German advance. In his account he rationalises the French capitulation. You might not agree with his conclusions, but it is a very interesting and thought provoking book. Very well written too. And he was no coward.

[ilikekicks]

D-Day was the biggest amphibious assault in the war, but the second biggest was that of the Germans coming across the Rhine. 

 

I thought the second Biggest was in the Pacific on Okinawa ( 180,000+ people coming in off ships ). I guess it depends on your perspective of Amphibious. The Germans were able to have the support of bridges to cross over water whereas the Allies in the Pacific had Naval Escort/Support of ships.

 

As for the French : May they do well.

[meganiwish]

The French Army has been ridiculed for years for doing the right thing.  Their job was to protect their civilians and as such capitulation was the only option.  The German war machine was irresistable and had a particular anger towards the French.  Had they had to fight their way into France there can be no doubt that they would have treated the French populace abominably.

 

French soldiers were incredibly brave in WW1, especially at Verdun.  Their uniform consisted of blue coats and red trousers because camouflage was considered cowardly.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verdun 

[Shyheels]

Yes, and remember Verdun was the bloodiest and longest battle in all of human history (so far) and in the end it was the Germans who blinked, not the French.