How the Pentagon Got Its Shape 473
Pcol writes "The Washington Post is running a story on the design process for the Pentagon building and why it ended up with its unusual shape. In July 1941 with World War II looming, a small group of army officers met to consider a secret plan to provide a permanent home for War Department headquarters containing 4 million square feet of office space and housing 40,000 people. The building that Brig. Gen. Brehon Burke Somervell, head of the Army's Construction Division, wanted to build was too large to fit within the confines of Washington DC and would have to be located across the Potomac River in Arlington. "We want 500,000 square feet ready in six months, and the whole thing ready in a year," the general said adding that he wanted a design on his desk by Monday morning. The easiest solution, a tall building, was out because of pre-war restrictions on steel usage and the desire not to ruin Washington's skyline. The tract selected had a asymmetrical pentagon shape bound on five sides by roads or other divisions so the building was designed to conform to the tract of land. Then with objections that the new building would block views from Arlington National Cemetery, the location was moved almost one-half mile south. The building would no longer be constructed on the five-sided Arlington Farm site yet the team continued with plans for a pentagon at the new location. In the rush to complete the project, there was simply no time to change the design."
One page version rather than five pages ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:One page version rather than five pages ... (Score:3, Funny)
Animated gifs, a dynamic JavaScript title bar, icons that follow the mouse, a confusing layout, AND embedded background music?
BEST. WEBSITE. EVAR.
I bet it would get 6 stars from Bob's Top 50 List of Super-Cool Intartube Webpages.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Principia Discordia reference (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Principia Discordia reference (Score:5, Insightful)
impressive.
Re:Principia Discordia reference (Score:2)
Re:Principia Discordia reference (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Principia Discordia reference (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Principia Discordia reference (Score:5, Interesting)
The Illuminatus Trilogy is a humorous work of non-fiction. It successfully tries to explain everything. It is a comedy novel, like Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, except about conspiracies instead of space-travel. It finds an audience in the post-LSD era, because it is still relevant.
("Both of the preceding statements are true. Both of the preceding statements are false. Both of the preceding statements are irrelevant.")
The passages on Celine's Laws [slashdot.org] are particularly relevant today. You don't need a conspiracy to explain Gulf War II. You just need Saddam's lieutenants swearing up and down that the WMD projects are going well -- because they know they'll be shot if they tell the truth. Nor do you need a conspiracy on the American side -- you just need a bunch of paranoids listening in on the conversations between Saddam and his lieutenants.
Saddam: "How are my nukes?"
Lieutenant: "What nukes?"
Saddam: *BANG*
Lieutenant #2: "Gulp... umm, actually, they're going very well, sir!"
Lieutenant #3: "Yes, it's going very well!"
America: "What's Saddam up to?"
Spies: "Well, every one of his lieutenants say his nukes are almost ready, sir!"
America: "Launch the missiles!"
Some folks might even find the following little snippet of dialogue to be relevant.
Not bad for the 1970s.
It's not true unless it makes you laugh.
But then, to bring us back on topic, my first thought on 9/11 was to wonder if he got out of the Pentagon. Unfortunately, it looks like he did.
Re:Principia Discordia reference (Score:3, Informative)
Back around 1975, I read an interview with those two drug-addled bozos. They'd propound some lame conspiracy theory. The interviewer would point out some obvious flaw in their theory. They'd say "Yeah, I guess you're right, but isn't it interesting that..." and proceed with something equally lame. They weren't interested in thinking about any flaws in theirs ideas. They just wanted to propound them faster than sceptics could shoot them down. Which has always been SOP for the Secret Truth crowd.
Nowadays, idiots who are in love with their own ideas and can't be bothered defending them have replaced "but isn't it interesting that" with "lighten up!" It's still a cop out.
Re:Principia Discordia reference (Score:2)
Re:Principia Discordia reference (Score:3, Funny)
Hail Eris!!
All Hail Discordia!!!
Cheney's House (Score:5, Funny)
Really in the Middle of the Basement Was... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cheney's House (Score:2)
Re:Cheney's House (Score:5, Insightful)
What a bunch of superstitious bullshit.
Devils don't exist.
Everyone knows it is a captured shoggoth from the 1930s Miskatonic University Antarctic expedition...
Re:Cheney's House (Score:4, Insightful)
The shoggoth's Antarctic iceblock is in the Disney Concert Hall [about.com] in LA, keeping Walt's head frozen.
Re:Cheney's House (Score:2)
How the Pentagon Got Its Shape (Score:4, Funny)
This vividly reminds me of "the time when the milkman was 47 minutes late" [wikipedia.org]
Re:How the Pentagon Got Its Shape (Score:5, Funny)
The "War Department" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The "War Department" (Score:2)
Re:The "War Department" (Score:3, Interesting)
why math (Score:2)
the names of the chief alternative designs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the names of the chief alternative designs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the names of the chief alternative designs (Score:5, Funny)
Nah, it was just they thought the discussion would go on for ever
Re:the names of the chief alternative designs (Score:5, Funny)
What!? (Score:4, Funny)
why fight it? (Score:2)
I'm not trying to pooh-pooh the article, but it's just kind of...well...you know, my shoe is shaped kind of oblong and rounded because, well, that's how feet are shaped. Isn't that amazing?
I guess what I'm getting at is...erm...why is this interesting? I guess the only news here is the bit about how it was shaped to fit one site, then moved. Riveting stuff, that.
Re:why fight it? (Score:3, Interesting)
When the bureaucracy worked (Score:5, Insightful)
The lessons were learned in WW1. When that war started, the British officer corps was incompetent. They were in charge of the empire's troops and there were massacres of Canadian, Australian, Newfoundland etc. troops. The colonies weren't about to put up with that. In fact there is a story that the Canadian prime minister hauled the British prime minister out of his chair by his lapels and made it very clear that, if there was another such massacre, the Canadians were going home. The incompetent British officers were replaced by competent colonials. By the time the Americans arrived, they had some very good models of military efficiency to copy. (You could also make the argument that they weren't that stupid in the first place.) In any event, when WW2 came along, the lessons learned in WW1 were still living memory.
Sadly, given enough peace time, the fat bloated bureaucracy rears its ugly head again. The meritocracy is suppressed. If we had to build another Pentagon today, it would cost too much and take too long, and some company close to certain politicians would get rich. In fact, looking at the corruption and waste of money in Iraq, I'm feeling very depressed.
Lessons Learned, and Forgotten (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:When the bureaucracy worked (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When the bureaucracy worked (Score:3, Informative)
There was definitely corruption and inefficiency on the part of the U.S. during WWII (as in any war I know of). However, there were people in government dedicated to finding such corruption, exposing it, and resolving it. That's specifically how Harry Truman came to public fame. If only our current administration allowed such a thing!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman#Defe
Re: When the bureaucracy worked (Score:3, Interesting)
Canada didn't actually get a constitution until 1982. During WWI, there was talk of implementing conscription to fill the war need, and there actually was some conscription going on in Quebec and parts of the prairies, but there was a huge backlash against that. Thankfully, the war ended before any of those conscripts were sent overseas.
After the war, we didn't update our constitution, because we didn't have a constitution to update. We did, however, pass a law that banned conscription outright.
*sighs* I wish we'd gotten rid of income tax, too. Officially, it's a "temporary war measure", that was supposed to be repealed at the end of WWI, lol. Here we are, almost 90 years later, and they still haven't gotten rid of it.
It was incompetence! Criminal incompetence. (Score:3, Informative)
The English and French leadership used their own men as cannon fodder thought out WWI.
Tactics simply hadn't caught up with weapons. Modern infantry tactics are all about mobility and flanking. America learned that in the Civil War. England and France had not learned it in WWI.
General Pershing was a hero for telling the English and the French that there was no way in hell American troops would be put under the incompetent English and French officer corps.
the onion had it right (Score:2, Funny)
Prison of Yog-Sothoth (Score:3)
Sounds vaguely familiar (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, never mind, I'm sure they'll get it right in rev 2.
Pentagon is traditional for military buildings (Score:4, Informative)
A pentagon is a very traditional shape for fortifications. Reason is very simple. If you have a pentagon shaped fort then each side of the fort can provide supporting fire to its two adjacent sides.
A sides on a square fort cannot provide supporting fire at all. Sides on a hexagonal fort can but with a hexagonal fort you can only get 50% of the defenders firing against an attack on a side. With a pentagonal fort you can get 60%. This basic fact makes a pentagon the most effective shape for a fortification, assuming no terrain features to change the situation.
It would be an amazing coincidence if The Pentagon was pentagonal for any reason but this.
Re:Pentagon is traditional for military buildings (Score:5, Insightful)
Um... other than the fact that the Pentagon is NOT a fortified facility, and that fortifications of pretty much anything bigger than a bunker were already old news by the time the building was designed. It could be a bit of an homage to the old fort designs, but in the middle of WWII, they weren't feeling particularly arty at the time. Occam's Razor goes to the story in the article: the very rushed designs were drafted around a roughly pentagonal plot of land in Arlington, and construction was quickly moved a bit at the last minute, without time or inclination to redesign it. It's hard for people today to even begin to know what it felt like to be truly wrapped up in a period like WWII... we know nothing (as civilians) of that degree of nationwide effort and expense aimed at combatting forces intent on our subjugation/destruction and how much that tends to dimish things like architectural squabbles and design life cycles.
Re:Pentagon is traditional for military buildings (Score:3, Insightful)
You could have at least SKIMMED the article... (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, if you read at least the first page of the article you would have learned that the Pentagon was originally sited close to Arlington National Cemetery on an oddly shaped tract of land bounded on five sides, thus necessitating the five-sided nature of the building. When members of Congress and other officials protested that the monolithic design would obscure the view of Washington from L'Enfant's tomb, the building was moved to its current location.
When I was about nine years old, my father and I were discussing the shape of the Pentagon and the reasons for the unique shape of the building. I concluded that perhaps the shape recalled the branches of the military of government that occupied the various wings of the building; Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Joint Chiefs/Secretary of Defense. That's what I thought, at least.
This is not true. (Score:4, Funny)
TLF
Screw the pentagon (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Screw the pentagon (Score:5, Informative)
the Nazi swastika is "right-facing", with the arms of cross bent clockwise or to the right. The Hindu swastika is also usually right-facing, although you can sometimes see right and left facing mirror image swastikas in Hindu art. The Jain in India also use that right-facing bend usually.
WWII looming? (Score:4, Interesting)
Can we please get rid of the attitude that WWII started on 7 December 1941. I always find it interesting that the British (and even the occupied Dutch) declared war on Japan the same day the Americans did, but not only did the Americans take two years to declare war on Germany, they didn't even declare war on Germany first--Germany declared war on the US [wikipedia.org]! Looming indeed!
Re:WWII looming? (Score:4, Informative)
In the United States, World War II was looming in July 1941. Many countries were involved, Germany was on the move, the Pacific was looking to heat up, and here in the U.S. there was much debate between isolationists and non-isolationists about our potential involvement.
We weren't directly involved yet, so for us it did still LOOM in 1941. I expect someone in Russia would describe it much differently, with different dates. Similarly, Russians call it something like the "Great Patriotic War" rather than "World War II".
It's the old "three blind men describe an elephant" problem.
Re:WWII looming? (Score:5, Funny)
Then I realized -- the new "pro-active" America bothers me a LOT MORE.
July 1941?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:July 1941?! (Score:4, Informative)
The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.
As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.
But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounded determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire."
skyline??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hold up... skyline!! What skyline? DC has laws stating that no buildings may be over 20 feet taller than the width of the street they face. What DC has is a profound lack/i> of skyline!
Poor urban planning and laws like this have, of course, caused many of the city's problems. The sprawl around DC is absolutely unbelievable.
bad shape for aerial attack (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:bad shape for aerial attack (Score:5, Insightful)
A pilot would easily find it even without a map.
Uh, yeah. I think that actually happened. Heard about it on the news or something.
Re:Pentagon or Pentagram? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pentagon or Pentagram? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pentagon or Pentagram? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pentagon or Pentagram? (Score:4, Funny)
This is proof that the Flat Earth Society was working in league with the Satanists and the Teamsters to create the cold war. Stalin was in on it, and so was Eisenhower and Truman. Pudge knows, but he's not saying. He's avoiding military service, because if he were caught by the terrorists in Iraq and the secret got out, it would be the end of our way of life. I salute you, Pudge, for keeping our secrets safe within the borders of the nation, and away from the terrorists in Iraq. Such a brave man.
Re:Pentagon or Pentagram? (Score:5, Funny)
I totally agree. Like all open source ventures, the quality just isn't there. The proprietary masons would have done it properly.
Re:Pentagon or Pentagram? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are in IT, construction, or just about any other business where one has to deal with stringent project deadlines, you know exactly how true this situation is.
But simple truth is way too mundane when compared to the rich fantasy available with conspiracy theories, Freemason plotting, The New World Order, Zionist global domination, Extraterrestrial influence, etc.etc. ad nauseam!
Re:Pentagon or Pentagram? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the Slashdot community? Most of Americans? Most of Government? Most of humanity?
Just who are you trying to dehumanize with that statement?
Earlier up this thread you said "The symbols are important, only because our population is comprised mainly of poor fools who know how to respond to nothing else."
Setting aside your hubris and arrogance, the point that you have failed to grasp is that the Pentagon's shape may not be as "Symbolic" as previously surmised. But please continue to embarrass yourself and wallow in self pity all you like, it may be totally off topic, but it is a bit entertaining.
Re:Pentagon or Pentagram? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Permanent home? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Permanent home? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Permanent home? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Permanent home? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the full-time professional army was allowed to fight like their enemies in Iraq do, then the situation there would be different.
If we were actually fighting a War of Conquest, as people seem to insist that we are, then the situation would be different. We aren't fighting a War of Conquest though. We are fighting some sort of wet-dream nation-building exercise created by the Neo-Cons that assumed we'd be welcomed as liberators and only planned on being there for six months or so after the war. We are fighting Dubya's war because he had to one-up his Dad and go to Baghdad.
Irregular/guerrilla warfare only works if you assume that the occupying power has to follow certain conventions and rules of war that you (as the guerrilla) don't. If the occupying power is free from any political constraints then the guerrillas are screwed. Guerrilla warfare never worked against Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.
It also never really worked against the early Romans. They were only too happy to slaughter entire villages. Kill every male of military age and sell the women and children into slavery. Yeah, it's not pretty, but by the rules of the day it worked quite well. Lay down your arms and you can join the empire, resist us and we will crush you utterly and enslave any survivors.
People who accuse the United States of trying to "conquer" Iraq or Afghanistan don't know what true conquest is.
Re:Permanent home? (Score:3, Insightful)
People who accuse the United States of trying to "conquer" Iraq or Afghanistan don't know what true conquest is.
Only those here in the US; those abroad (and especially local to those areas) do know what it is, but don't think we have the balls to outrage the whole world by doing it. The complaints are a political [quotationspage.com] ploy [quotationspage.com].
Re:Permanent home? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not convinced (Score:3, Insightful)
We weren't allowed to go after major NV cities/production centers, we weren't allowed to bomb Chinese supply convoys, often weren't allowed to go north of an imaginary line drawn on the map by our politicians.
Yeah, Vietnam is such an example of how unrestrained warfare can't work.
Please note that I don't like some of what happen in vietnam. On the other hand, we could of avoided much of it if it wasn't for politicians running the war. You don't win a war by holding back.
I also feel that part of the problems we're having in Iraq is that we've gotten too clean with our attacks. People are more afraid of the terrorists than they are of us.
Treat the cause, not the symptoms (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember the Vietnam war, but I do. The US was never officially at war against North Vietnam, they spent ten years helping South Vietnam fight the Viet Cong insurgents. They dropped a few million tons of bombs in North Vietnam, for sure, just like they did on the Viet Cong supply routes in Laos and Cambodia, but they never attempted to invade North Vietnam.
If the US had wanted to win the Vietnam war they should have invaded North Vietnam. Land there in an amphibious attack and war would have been won in a matter of weeks. Likewise, if they want to win the Iraq war now, they should invade Syria and Iran. If the US Army had stopped at the German border after liberating France from Nazism they would have lost WWII.
Ever since Truman refused the MacArthur request to attack China during the Korea war, the US has had this doctrine of limited wars, fighting proxy armies as if the power behind them did not exist. A very expensive way to obtain limited results.
Re:Not convinced (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahh your solution is to kill everyone who isn't you.
I bet you didn't play very well with others at school, or were you the one they all made fun of and this is what you turned into?
The other way to stop people whose country you royally fucked up from trying to kill you is to simply STOP.
Re:Permanent home? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Permanent home? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Permanent home? (Score:2)
Re:Permanent home? (Score:2, Offtopic)
If we were really at war with Iraq as a whole, we'd do much better. This was the case early on, when we were fighting Saddam's army. We still tried to minimize hurting civilians; we could have won even quicker if we didn't.
Yes, I said won. We won that first war, then got stuck in a no-win situation in the follow-on war to decide how to fill the power-vacuum we created. Bush's biggest crime here was starting the first war without a viable plan for winning or avoiding the second one.
Re:Permanent home? (Score:2)
Re:Permanent home? (Score:2)
Re:Permanent home? (Score:2)
Re:Permanent home? (Score:2)
Face it, to win wars like Iraq you have to kill every single person willing to fight.
Re:Permanent home? (Score:2)
Any amount of civilian casualties are OK, so long as all the "bad guys" get killed and there are "some" civilians left?
Re:Permanent home? (Score:2)
Re:Permanent home? (Score:2)
Re:Permanent home? (Score:2)
Re:Permanent home? (Score:4, Interesting)
Like most people, I'm disgusted by the actions of those guards at Abu Ghraib. However, the suggestion that the guards at Abu Ghraib would have signed up anyway is contrary to experimental data. The prison environment converted normal Stanford undergraduates into abusive prisoners and a well-established professor into a vindictive superintendent.
Das experiment. (Score:2)
Re:Permanent home? (Score:3, Informative)
I wouldn't say that one should use the ZP Experiment to excuse or condone torture, so much as to explain and avoid it. Simple third-party oversight can do wonders, as the experiment showed. Which was lacking, for example, at Abu Girhab. But it's also common wisdom that you don't have regular army perform police duties.
Reference also the Milgram Experiment [wikipedia.org]. Or even his lesser known one, where he determines how many people, on average, have to be standing on a street corner, staring at nothing in the sky before passers-by start looking too.
Men in Black summed it up best: 'A person is smart. People are dumb.'
Re:Permanent home? (Score:4, Insightful)
One could take the cynical route, and say that the Congress is as anti-war as it is anti-corruption. A more realistic read might be that the niceties of actual states carrying out "diplomacy by other means" using uniformed organizations along civilized lines is simply OBE.
Re:Permanent home? (Score:5)
Beyond that, you are yet another one of those fools that blames the military for any of this crap. The military does what it is told to do by civilian authority, just like the constitution says. The civilians say they can't do something, and that means they can't do it. You want to fix this, quit bitching and trying to screw over the men that serve their nation, and go fix the men that serve themselves (politicians). Further, while not paying politicians sounds very attractive, it would just further the whole lobbyist problem. When the military DOESN'T do what the civilians tell them, you have a military coop, and I am reasonably certain you would rather have the military continue to follow bullshit directives from idiot civilians that you can replace democratically than have to deal with a military coop (which by the way would probably rather quick once you opted to quit paying them).
The idea that you could fight and win in modern warfare just by grabbing a bunch of untrained people and not paying them is just unbelievably ignorant of what the military does. Beyond that, I seriously doubt you are aware of or give a damn about what the military does that ISN'T part of our idiot politicians agendas. The US military is usually one of the first responders to natural disasters globally, and other humanitarian things. Here [state.gov], this is why we should definitely quit paying them.
Re:Permanent home? (Score:2)
First, most military actions are guided by civilian authority, but controlled by the military. The Presidents recent admonition to the congress that it should not try to micromanage the war. Likewise, I enjoy watching how the military does not torture humans simply because the civilian authority says not to. In reality, when you send a bunch of people to kill other people, there is little that can be done to completely control the situation.
Second, it is a popular conception that the modern military works best with hand picked uber trained soldiers. This is true only because many modern conflicts have minimal casualties, at least on the American side. In a real war, where the winning side is the side that lose the most people, the metric is no longer training, but merely people willing to die. WWI central powers lost 4 million+, the 'winners' lost 5 million+. WWII the axis lost 8 million+, the 'winners' lost 12 million +. In Iraq, the US has lost several thousand, and all out might is kept a bay by the hundred of thousands untrained unwashed militia willing to die at 10 times the coalition numbers. Vietnam war the communist forces lost 600,000 people, the losers lost half that many.
And given the familiarity of 1941, I am in wonder that why the military is not blamed for the current situation. One reason why WWII was successful, and WWI was such a shambles(might as well have taken 10,000 men a day and shot them) was that in WWII the military was forced to act a a professional organization and complete the job, not just a bunch of mercenaries. There were plan. This is different from, say, Iraq, where the military does part of the job, then is not ready to complete the job in a timely manner. To be specific, WWII starts in around 1939. The US is eventually involved, and ends the war in 1945, at which time the UN is set up. In 1947 the US forms a plan to rebuild europe, which is completed by 1952. 7 years after the war ended and four year after the plan was implemented.
By contrast, we are 4 years after the end of major conflict in Iraq, and the job is still not done. Even with all the major technology, experience of hind sight, and a decisive and low costs victory, we cannot do what we did at the end of WWII.
And just because it is the day it is, let us take a moment to remember those untrained people who were willing to serve their country and give their life, with very little to no pay, to protect their family and their beliefs.
Re:Permanent home? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um... it's worth mentioning that at the time we were rebuilding France, Germany, Italy, and every other spot in Europe that got economically and physically trashed during that war, we did NOT have religiously-driven suicidal crazies trying to kill pizza-shops full of their brothers and cousins in order to terrorize them out of wanting a democracy in which evil things like Women Reading Books, Music Being Played In Public, and Daughters Choosing Their Own Husbands might come about. There weren't well-financed groups of hidden Nazis willing to kill themselves and everyone in a vegetable market because a cave-dwelling extremist with buckets of cash has pursuaded them that Allah will open the doors to Virgin-Mart on their behalf if they can cause as much horrifying death as possible to scare people out of wanting a simple democratic, constitutional governement, and scare them back into settling for a brutal, theocratic, medieval-style thugocracy. With nukes.
It's not the same thing. Oh, and neither has it been 7 years since the end of hostilities or even close to it, because the people stoking the current conflict (the Iranians) are still busy DOING it.
Re:Permanent home? (Score:2)
And it looks like, generations later, our army is still volunteer based. Ite nice that they still have a place to call home. As long as people want to stand up and fight for their country there will be an "army". And there needs to be a centralized permanent command structure to count on.
Oh, and just try being effective with the worry your family wont have a house to live in, or food to eat while you are away. Not being compensated is ludicrous.
Re:Permanent home? (Score:2)
And once you control the civilans, there are ways to break the resistance. Not that are available to the US since they're playing the good guys, but if you look at Nazi Germany's occupation of Europe, the Soviet Unions military presence in Eastern Europe, you'll know what I mean. Threats against the civilain population, giving them a little leash when they're being good puppets, yanking their chain when they're not. "Real fear" of their families, friends and properties is a two-way street because they can also be held hostage to force you into surrender. Despite all international courts, UN resolutions and the Geneva convention it's rarely more than an aftermath where only high-profile losers are punished.
War is ugly, reslly ugly. If you think 9/11 was ugly, you should try being invaded and occupied for several years. Chances are you'd be a great fan of a War department, to keep the enemies of the nation away. Now, how much you should use it on the offensive is a different question, since there are ways to strike back that don't play by military rules. But every country should defend itself. Which is why I'm more than a little scared of my government here in Norway, Russia is slipping away from democracy while we're building down our defenses. NATO has been threatening to remove their stockpiles because we can't hold on long enough to make use of them, and I don't blame them.
I don't think the threat of nuclear holocaust is enough to stop WWIII. Let's say Russia a few decades down the road, after doing a Hitleresque buildup of the military and a desired to reestablish itself as the worlds other superpower rolls into Europe. The Amercians say "Stop, or we'll nuke" and the Russians reply "Do that, and we nuke back". Would they be willing to launch first strike, or would they pull a Chamberlain on us? I don't know. But I do know I'm in favor of a real military, though it won't stand up to Russia on its own, which says that we will defend this country with all the military force we can muster.
Re:this reminds me (Score:5, Informative)
More correctly, it was a headline they thought went a little too far, and was not actually used. If memory serves it was something like "America Stronger Than Ever, Say Quadragon Officials."
~Philly
Re:Get Your Priorities Straight (Score:2)
So be a little less prickly today. And don't forget to perhaps thank a serviceman who is still living; it isn't the expressed purpose of the day, but I'm sure they would be grateful anyway.
Re:Get Your Priorities Straight (Score:2)
While they are not responsible for the policies they are being asked to enact, it hardly seems fitting to honor them for their sacrifice when we're looking at over a million dead Muslims by their hand.
A million? Why not use seven million in your delusion, then you'll be able to accuse the U.S. of killing more than the Jewish Holocaust.
Because only NOW counts? (Score:3, Insightful)
Good solid thinking.
Re:Get Your Priorities Straight (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Get Your Priorities Straight (Score:2, Informative)
Lancet had Iraqi casualties at 655,000 [guardian.co.uk] and that was over a half year ago and doesn't count military.
And of course, that doesn't count what we did in Afghanistan, where we spent months bombing civilian targets that lay along the pipeline routes, bombings that took place long before we went after Tora Bora and bin Laden. And missed.
Add the sanctions under Clinton responsible for at least a half-million Iraqi dead. Add the millions dead from the Iran-Iraq war, which we clearly instigated. Or the Gulf War, which we probably manufactured (see April Glaspie [wikipedia.org]). The depleted uranium getting into everything, including the mothers breast.
Most of the Bush White coming out of Afghanistan since the invasion is destined for Iraq as well, so we need to consider that too.
It is genocide and in truth the number is way over a million, it's in the many millions.
Your saying otherwise is no different than the "good" Germans denying the "Holocaust".
Please, have the heart to become human again, and stand against this atrocity.
--
Censored by Technorati [blogspot.com]
Re:am i an idiot? (Score:3, Informative)
"War Departmnet" = Army (this is before the Department of Defense)
"2. navy"
Department of the Navy != War Department (see previous parenthetical)
"3. air force"
Army Air Corps was War Department at the time still.
"4. marines"
Department of the Navy
"5. coast guard"
Department of the Navy during wartime, Department of Commerce during peacetime (at the time)
So, at the time of the building's construction, only two of the five you listed were being considered, and they were the same branch at the time.