There is but one sound reason I can accept as to why the government has allowed this invasion. Certainly we can all agree there are no Nobel Prize winners in the current influx, rather the vast majority are "consumers" of government handouts, one way or another.
Looking down the road, I see but ONE viable reason to allow in this rabble.
By comparison, the United States, Canada, and Russia have large land masses but small populations. Russia as a world power is in dire straits population wise because their Asian neighbors number in the billions.
Canada number two in size, is not a world power and is a basket case if they had to defend themselves. For that they depend on us.
Looking from Turkey Eastward thru China to the Pacific, we have untold BILLIONS of people. Billions.
The United States is in the Middle East militarily to stay. We lack one vital thing, boots on the ground. No war has ever been fought without masses of men on the ground, killing each other.
When push comes to shove, our "allies" will not fight, not a one. Look at our current stand in ME, we provide over 90 per cent of the boots on the ground.
With that in mind and a massive land war breaks out, we will need unlimited cannon fodder, millions. In WW2 we scraped the barrel, taking old men and anyone that could walk in.
With that 'quality' of troop, we'd probably get our butts kicked even worse than we are now.
Yes.
With a nuclear standoff, we are at a very serious disadvantage.
The Asians can walk to war, recall the Golden Hordes rode ponies all the way to France. We are thousands of miles away.
Human life to Asian governments has always been of little interest. I read a few days ago that China alone could muster 20,000,000 men to battle in only a few months time.
Korea is a prime example. Chinese walked to war. A cheap cotton, padded uniform, a hat, a rifle and ammo and a small bag of rice, if thery were wounded, they were dead. Thousands froze to death.
We are about to engage in a war with which we have limited experience.
Actually, it's nukes that level the playing field for us in that situation. We (the U.S.) can split the core of the earth, what, 7 times or something with our nukes? 20 million man armies don't hold up well on a planet with a split core (nor do, I'm afraid, those who did split the core).
Seems a strange thing for a president of Columbia University to demand.
Deacon...
Normally I do not do the students homework for them.
Excerpt...
"Somewhat ironically General Eisenhower, who happened to be in Washington for a routine physical examination, and who would inherit this situation some two years later, stopped at the Pentagon on 28 June.60 He later wrote in his diary that he was astonished by the complacency and indecisiveness he found. “My whole contention,” he went on in his diary, “was that an appeal to force cannot, by its nature, be a partial one. This appeal, having been made, for God’s sake, get ready! Do everything possible under the law to get us going. Remember in a fight (our side) can never be too strong. I urged action in a dozen different directions….........even if it finally came to the use of the A-bomb.......... (which God forbid).”61 General Ridgway, who was later to take over for MacArthur, made notes on the chewing out: “General Eisenhower dropped in…[and] stated in most vigorous language and with great emphasis his feelings that we ought at once to begin partial mobilization; perhaps reinforce our European forces by a division or two; publicly increase our security measures throughout the country; at once remove the limitation placed on MacArthur to operate south of the 38 th Parallel; even to consider the use of one or two atomic bombs in the Korea area, if suitable targets could be found"......
I might add what does Columbia U has to do with it?
Thank you. Initially I found this information inconsistent with what I knew about Eisenhower; I guess there was more to him than I realized.
Also I am impressed that he conveyed his views to the Pentagon. I wonder if he spoke to Truman regarding this.
In 1948, Eisenhower became President of Columbia University.[38] In December 1950, he took leave from the university when he became the Supreme Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and given operational command of NATO forces in Europe.
I have tried to never ask anyone to cite their information. If I am ignorant of something, I state thus and ask if they might point me in the right direction.
For instance, you post mostly "finance/money" matters. Of which I am as ignorant as they come. Very often I have to spend time trying to reference what you and others are talking about.
Re Eisenhower...For past few weeks Ada has been posting articles that quote noted people as being against the use of A-bombs against the Japanese. Ike was one.
I did not question as to whether he said it at one time, but I did indicate to Ada that Ike was doing so, long after the fact, and that prior, that was NOT his opinion. Ada would not discuss it.
As for Columbia, I was aware of his position there, but Ike was neither an academic nor an intellectual, Columbia was merely a holding point until Baruch decided he should run for president.
No apologies necessary. I greatly appreciate the new information.
As for Columbia, I was aware of his position there, but Ike was neither an academic nor an intellectual,
Understood. Seeing as how that was where he was when North Korea invaded South Korea, I wonder how he justified -- in his mind -- his trip to the Pentagon to straighten them out.
Since nukes were not used in his administration in Korea, or even suggested, I wonder if his experiences as head of Nato caused him to to moderate his commitment to winning the war.
Understood. Seeing as how that was where he was when North Korea invaded South Korea, I wonder how he justified -- in his mind -- his trip to the Pentagon to straighten them out.
Since nukes were not used in his administration in Korea, or even suggested,
Deacon...
Unable to cite the military regulation but in the past ALL four star people theoretically remain on duty and available for consultation. In fact, it use to be that such people were kept up to date on all military matters as a courtesy and necessity.
That was true back then, now I dont know.
ON the contrary, nuclear use WAS INDEED considered during Ikes Presidency, mostly it was in the vein of veiled backdoor threats, just as Truman had done many times.
Historians are notorious for being biased, for lying, for distorting, for shaping and WORST OF ALL FOR OMITTING.
PS. I was in the Atomic bomb delivery business, in the Far East during Truman and Eisenhower.