Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

And McCain's VP pick is...
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: And McCain's VP pick is...
    Posted: 07-Sep-2008 at 19:17
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

B.E.:
 You forgot that due to the "increasing militarisation of the society" we have all become Prussian.  Buy yourself a monocle.
 
Same point. If you don't think America is more militaristic now that at any point in its history, you are simply ignorant of history.
 
Outside WW2 possibly, whenever before did the US spend so much of its money and time and effort on supporting the military?
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800 		  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Sep-2008 at 19:55
Originally posted by gcle2003

This kind of wild exaggeration of what I said is a great way of covering up the feeling that I was closer to the mark than you want to admit.
 
Alright then.  Removing all the "wild sarcasm," we are then left with the fact that the USA has, except in a few fringe coastal areas, police who do their jobs and keep the peace? 
 
By comparison, let us look at other more enlightened areas of the Western world where there are openly subversive and hostile elements preaching hatred and anarchy in the streets, where there are gangs of drunken and disgruntled "youths" knifing each other in broad daylight.  How do these enlightened western governments plan on restoring peace in these instances, with "police" armed with water guns from the local supermarket?
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

As a matter of fact I have myself seen soldiers parading through Atlanta airport, in a way that wouldn't happen in any other western country. And I know from others that's not unusual. Neither are the cheerleaders who were w^sent out ahead of the parade to encourage people to cheer and applaud.
 
What is wrong with soldiers being out in the open in a public place, a place which they freely volunteered to protect and preserve with their lives?  I am guessing you are going to say in response that the evil dictator Bush culled these unfortunate poor and uneducated bumpkins, brainwashed them, and forcibly impressed them into military service?
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

Moreover it's now trivial that the administration has arrogated the right to detain citizens without trial for as long as rthey care to.
 
Yes, and please pardon the "wild exaggeration" again, but these poor citizens were most likely "detained" in a plush, hotel-like "prison" where they had air-conditioning, cable TV, and three square meals a day.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

Sarcasm is only a refuge for those with no sensible answer.
 
It sure seemed to get my point across to you I think.  It is a useful tool when dealing with the misinformation spewing from conspiracy theories and geopolitical snobbery.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

Your last paragraph is simply idiotic tosh.
 
Sorry, I never liked reggae music like that of Bob Marley and Peter Tosh anyways.
 
Examine European history, especially that of the last 70-75 years, and notice the prominence of several dictators who managed to lure entire populaces into the ideologies, and even into the actual practices, of the kind that I outlined in my "wild exaggerations" above.  Perhaps silly Americans like us were onto something when we expelled King George way back in the Revolutionary War.  Perhaps.
 
Late Byzantine Military
Ottoman perceptions of the Americas
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221 		  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Sep-2008 at 23:37
gcle:
 
In the last 200 plus years, about 150 of those have been characterized by European militarism.  Europeans were not able to overcome that without killing 50 or 60,000,000 people (give or takeOuch), so outsiders did it for you.  In the last 60 years, European states have been huddled under the American umbrella and not pulling their military weight.  The costs for the US, military and otherwise, which we really would have preferred not to bear, only BEGAN after 1945.  You are not the only human alive with an historical perspective, nor with historical knowledge.  
 
Trash talk about how "militaristic" America is, and the implications about how naive, and how clueless Americans are is just the residue of an exhausted, weak continent whose collective efforts now amount to how many weeks of vacation they can get.  Yours is rather a condescending attitude as Europe is now just a chess board on which others play. 
 
If you want a real historical example of militarism, look east of Poland.  That is closer and might be a larger concern, but then you haven't had to be concerned about that have you?
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 08-Sep-2008 at 00:29
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987 		  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 01:10
Pike and B.E.,

We should listen with respect what other people have to say about the U.S. Decide if what they are saying is true or not, rather than just defend the country in a reflexive manner.

What gcle says is true. The U.S. has become militarized to an obscene degree. Our regular civil liberties have been trampled on to a point of humiliation. And the people who brought all of these things were the conservative party in Congress and in the presidency.


The fact that Russia is highly militarized, which I personally ignore if this is the case today or not, is not the issue.

The issue is, do we really think that the U.S., with its good historical record overall, should be compared with Russia on account on what war hawk conservatives in power have done?

Rather than resent people from Europe pointing out that the emperor has no close, let's hold accountable those who are responsible for making the comparisons even possible.

This is why it is so important to vote against the Republican Party in this election. It is not about the candidates per se; it is about the terrible policies that the Republican Party has brought to this country, and whether we are going to hold them accountable or let them get away with it.

The conservative media machine is pumping the shameful talking points about how terrible things will happen if they don't stay in power. This is nonsense. Republicans in Congress know how to be a good opposition party. Nothing radical can happen under their watch, and they know it.

Are we as a country gullible and stupid? It all depends. We can prove that statement wrong by denying a 3rd term to Bush. Yet, if we fail to hold the people who brought the broken economy, the Iraq War, and Katrina accountable, there will be hard evidence against us.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221 		  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 08:46
hugo:
 
Thanks for your reasoned comments.  B.E. has to speak for himself, but I am not required to respect all the views of some in the faux-intelligentsia who don't respect the views of others.
 
But then I am "simply ignorant of history," so what can one expect?  Wink  
 
What Graham wrote is not "true," it is his opinion.  Ignorant, provincial clod that I am, I stand by what I wrote concerning Europe, and the historical militarism of Russia. 
 
 
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818 		  Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 11:26
Hello gcle2003,
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

Depends which Balkan country you are talking about. Not in Serbia, certainly. But most of Western Europe was firmly on the side of the other ex-Yugoslav groups. As for general popularity, Clinton was received with ovations wherever he went, whereas Bush effectively has to stay out of the light.
 
In fact if Clinton was criticised in Europe over the Balkans it was because of his hesitancy in acting.
 
There are two sides to most issues. One side says the US was popular and the other says the US was resented for it's power or interference in Europe's or anyone else's backyard. Ok... let's just go ahead and say Mr. Clinton was well recieved throughout the world, it doesn't change the fact that there is any understanding towards things Americana, especially within the border's of the US from it's own citizens? People may honestly dislike Mr. Bush and look at it as the honest issue, but under the the thin layer of anti-bushism, there is that sneering elitist disregard for the US and it's average citizen. I don't really support that kind of elitist, low brow rudeness against anyone, even if it has nothing to do with the US!
 
The coalition dissolved once Kuwait had been freed. You can't really blame either Bush Sr or Clinton for that: it had served its purpose. Most people then lost interest in Iraq, since it was no longer a real threat to anyone. Many people were upset over the US failure to support the Shiite rising that they had encouraged, but that was under Bush Sr, not Clinton.
 
All that Iraq meant after that was an occasional emergence of 'no-fly' enforcement into the news, but it was hardly an emotional issue.
 
The coalition didn't dissolve, it drifted away and eventually collasped to a few remaining core members primarily made up of Britain and the US, until many of it's former members were in an easier position for bribery. So it did fulfill a short term purpose, but in the long term, unbeknowst too many people, it's original goals were on the verge of falling apart prior too the 2003 invasion because of any lack of direction of purpose from Washington and it's old coalition of remaining allies from the first gulf war. In my view most people in the world didn't view Saddam as a threat because most of those countries were not doing the containing anymore, and saw more reason for a return to a business as usal attitude of the 80's! I agree, the encouragement of the shiite uprising was a disgrace and should not have been pushed unless the allies were prepared too help them!
 
Unfortunately, the no-fly zone was an after thought, a sad side effect of our lack of support for the uprisings. The implimentation of which, kept Saddam from launching a much worse mass genocidal campaign from taking place against not only the shiites primarily in the south, but also against the kurds to the north as well! The world may not have thought much of it, and giving the shiite failure in their uprising following the gulf war, didn't feel much appreciation for the effort due to our uninvolvement in helping to over throw Saddam; But for the kurds, the benefit of the no-fly zone was an enormously emotional issue, giving them a barrier from... and the first real taste of freedom from Saddam's brutal rule over them! Buit, then most of us don't have a real idea of what it is like too live under governments like that!
 
What have the twin towers got to do with the subject. Yes the attack profuced a large upswell of emotion favourable to the US, but the Bush adminstration frittered that away within two years.
 
The destruction of the twin towers have alot to do with it! 9-11 wasn't the only time the twin towers were attacked by Al Qadea and it's extremist groups, it was just the most successful of the other attempt(s)! While many look at it as only a word representing a tatic employed by the weak, it is also a tatic many state supporters of terrorism use illegally too hide behind & too keep from suffering the consequences of their actions from the UN! It has proven to be a highly successful tatic too further their agenda and campaigns while holding onto the legitimacy of a supposive legitimate peaceful state, while at the same time making a mockery of the UN and the principles it was founded under! That is the short version, if you want the longer version, i would be happy to supply it to you if you ask?
 
 
Abandonment of international agreements and conventions, disregard for the US constutition and the rights of citizens, tightening surveillance of private activity, stirring up fake fears and xenophobia, eight spendthrift years encouraging profligacy, domestic and national, increasing militarisation of the society... doesn't terrify you?  
 
Answers correspomding to your parargraph, in which he is hardly the first, nor the last, too cause controversy or have it plans implimented and then eventually reversed:
 
1.) Only if congress signed it into law and even then can be negated due to the nature of this new type of conflict; Example "enemy combatant vs. a uniformed soldier" 2.)... a debateable point & the fear only held by those on the extreme left, in which itself has done some disregarding itsef with it's own activist judges, as an example... 3.) Does "Echelon" not ring a bell with anyone???... 4.) the current government/administration hasn't even tried too fan those flames which has caused it too lose a few far right supporters within it's base... 5.) another reason why it has lost even more from within it's base, of whom forget that there is a conflict going on... 6.) Ignorance of American society can be very deadly, it is not and still hasn't become an militaristic society, it is a society that greatly appreciates those who serve for them, but at the same time do not expect those who serve too control them either (No posse comiattus is going on here!). Nor do those whom serve want too control them or even could if it tried, but they do swear & take seriously their ultimate alliegance too the constitution and don't care to impress any civillian or foreign admirer's; it is still a careful balance of civillian control over the military most foreigners and even some native born often overlook in their regrettful paranoid fears...
 
Does that respectfully explain why i am not terrified of this administration to you? Now, if Mr. Bush tried too pull a Chavez or a Saddam... or believe himself to be a demigod along the lines of the N. Korean leader... then your points amonst others, might start too resonate with me? Until then... i confidently expect him to be a memory in history books after Jan 2009!
 
 
True. However 911 changed all that, until, as I said, the administration threw it all away.
 
It has been said that the administration itself didn't have much too throw away in the first place? It has also been said, that it was because the US was a victim & finally been attacked, that it acquired any sympathy that day as being equal amongst all the rest? There were even those who sympathised enough in helping us replace  the Taliban in Afghanistan? But, of those very same ones, they who felt they had their own legitimate or not...reasons for not supporting the Iraq operation? Even then... in a more sinister light, across the world and regardless of nationality, many have said that the US deserved what it got? Even though it was primarily civillians who were targeted and not the military that suffered the predominance in death that day! Whatever a persons belief, the equation of victimization wasn't going to stay the same for very long and i don't know why anybody thought otherwise?
 
Reagan was never as unpopular outside the US as Bush. He had quite a few supporters around the world: the eighties marked an upswing in right-wing sentiment in much of the world - notably of course in Britain with Margaret Thatcher, whom Reagan emulated in many ways. Of course the left-wing didn't like him, but the right did and the middle found him acceptable in foreign policy. In contrast, today right, left and middle ALL find Bush and his associates intolerable (except in a few near-puppet states, but the US doesn't have the wealth to support many of those any more).
 
Reagan's deleterious effect was domestic, on the whole his foreign policy worked OK with the people outside the US.
 
Forunately for the Regan era, there was the USSR & communism too help people on the left, middle and right too easily figure out & agree on which represented more of a threat in that world era! Not so in this one! Actually, i'm wrong... there will always be Bush!
 
 
[quote]
Why would that happen? You can always wave the banner of the war on terror to justify anything. And if that doesn't work, bring up Roe vs Wade and family values. And of course, lie.
 
I suspect that you don't understand or have failed too comprehend the character that makes up the ordinary US citizen? 
 
[quote] 
Most people, me included at the time, didn't care about the Vietnam war. Apart from anything else, US motives for the war weren't suspect, even if the conduct of it wasn't brilliant.
 
I see... no disresepct is meant with this comment, but then what was the big deal about our involvement in the first place? Was there a media distortion that highly favored an anti-war view against a soveriegn state that was wiped off the map because of an aggressor to it's north?
 
The conduct of it wasn't brilliant from the political angle, but for the military... it did the job that was asked of it and then some!
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 11:37
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

Originally posted by gcle2003

This kind of wild exaggeration of what I said is a great way of covering up the feeling that I was closer to the mark than you want to admit.
 
Alright then.  Removing all the "wild sarcasm," we are then left with the fact that the USA has, except in a few fringe coastal areas, police who do their jobs and keep the peace? 
It also has the whole Homeland Security apparatus, the FBI, the ATF, the Secret Service, the DEA, the National Guard and I don't know what else. It's even a crime in the US to lie to a federal agent.
 
The local police aren't a problem in general. No more than they've ever been, anyway, and that's no more than in other countries.
 
By comparison, let us look at other more enlightened areas of the Western world where there are openly subversive and hostile elements preaching hatred and anarchy in the streets, where there are gangs of drunken and disgruntled "youths" knifing each other in broad daylight. 
You don't have street gangs in the US? No hate crime? No drug dealers quarrelling over markets? Take the US and any other western country (and most other ones). Which one has the bigger percentage of people in prison? Which has the most murders? Which the most muggings? Where did the term 'drive by shooting' get invented and why?
 How do these enlightened western governments plan on restoring peace in these instances, with "police" armed with water guns from the local supermarket?
We have peace. How many western European countries can you name that have had significant rioting in the last ten years? And where in the same countries has there been any equivalent to, say, the Rodney King riots, just for one?
 
You need to learn about mo^tes and beams and eyes.
Originally posted by gcle2003

As a matter of fact I have myself seen soldiers parading through Atlanta airport, in a way that wouldn't happen in any other western country. And I know from others that's not unusual. Neither are the cheerleaders who were w^sent out ahead of the parade to encourage people to cheer and applaud.
 
What is wrong with soldiers being out in the open in a public place, a place which they freely volunteered to protect and preserve with their lives? 
What I said was that it was 'militaristic'. It doesn't happen in other countries. In the UK at least - and I believe elsewhere - soldiers are forbidden to wear uniform in public unless they are on ceremonial or actie duty, and when being shipped abroad they don't take over civilian airports. (Lufthansa was forced to give up valuable check-in space to the army at Atlanta; another example of the military dominating the civilian.
 
What I described is militaristic. Whether it is right or wrong is a different question, and not one I addressed.
I am guessing you are going to say in response that the evil dictator Bush culled these unfortunate poor and uneducated bumpkins, brainwashed them, and forcibly impressed them into military service?
Not in the least. You don't seem to have been paying attention to what I've been saying. The US has become a militaristic society to an extent it never was before. In such a situation you shouldn't have any problem getting recruits, without any brainwashing or propaganda. And indeed there hasn't been a problem until the death toll in Iraq started getting over to people that maybe it wasn't as glamorous as they thought.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

Moreover it's now trivial that the administration has arrogated the right to detain citizens without trial for as long as rthey care to.
 
Yes, and please pardon the "wild exaggeration" again, but these poor citizens were most likely "detained" in a plush, hotel-like "prison" where they had air-conditioning, cable TV, and three square meals a day.
Is that relevant? Even if it's true, which isn't apparent. Detained is detained, quotes or not. And prison is prison, quotes or not.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

Sarcasm is only a refuge for those with no sensible answer.
 
It sure seemed to get my point across to you I think.  It is a useful tool when dealing with the misinformation spewing from conspiracy theories and geopolitical snobbery.
No it's not. It's simply a defensive strategy to make up for the lack of serious argument, and it is obviously so to anyone reading.
 
It dodn't get any point across to me. It irritated me of course, but then childish behaviour always does.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

Your last paragraph is simply idiotic tosh.
 
Sorry, I never liked reggae music like that of Bob Marley and Peter Tosh anyways.
 
Examine European history, especially that of the last 70-75 years, and notice the prominence of several dictators who managed to lure entire populaces into the ideologies, and even into the actual practices, of the kind that I outlined in my "wild exaggerations" above.  Perhaps silly Americans like us were onto something when we expelled King George way back in the Revolutionary War.  Perhaps.
 
Back to wild exaggeration agaon. It's the fact that Europe saw what can happen when militaristic societies arise that makes Europeans sensitive to the dangers now. And it is certainly no useful reply to an assertion to say, well other peoples did it too.
 
Where's your evidence that the US is no more militaristic now than it used to be?
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 11:50
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

gcle:
 
In the last 200 plus years, about 150 of those have been characterized by European militarism.  Europeans were not able to overcome that without killing 50 or 60,000,000 people (give or takeOuch), so outsiders did it for you. 
What has that got to do with anything. I'm not talking about the last 200 plus years buit about now. I'm a great admirer of the US that used to be, and I bemoan its vanishing.
In the last 60 years, European states have been huddled under the American umbrella and not pulling their military weight.  The costs for the US, military and otherwise, which we really would have preferred not to bear, only BEGAN after 1945.
That 'preferred not to bear' is unconvincing. The US was not only motivated by a desire to help or shelter European societies (though I accept that was indeed part of the motivation): it was also determined in its opposition to Soviet Communism for its own sake.
 
Moreover, the UK and France at least deliberately in the 'fifties chose to adopt a nuclear first-strike option if attacked. In that situation you don't need to spend so much money on defence.
  You are not the only human alive with an historical perspective, nor with historical knowledge.  
 
Trash talk about how "militaristic" America is, and the implications about how naive, and how clueless Americans are is just the residue of an exhausted, weak continent whose collective efforts now amount to how many weeks of vacation they can get.  Yours is rather a condescending attitude as Europe is now just a chess board on which others play. 
There was a while when that was true. But it's over. The EU is now richer than the US, and in the crunch money counts. Meanwhile, financially strapped, the US is reduced to dependency on its military strength, now it's only claim to being a superpower. 
 
And, incidentally, where did the US get the money from to build up that military in the last 25 years (since Reagan)? From western Europe, Japan, and parts of the Middle East. Europe may have 'huddled' under an umbrella, but in the last generation it has certainly been paying for it.
 
If you want a real historical example of militarism, look east of Poland.  That is closer and might be a larger concern, but then you haven't had to be concerned about that have you?
 
Don't try and be snide. I had to be concerned about it. I was in the army. But again, that misses the entire point.
 
Nothing you said here relates to the question of the creeping militarisation that has been going on in the US (compared for instance to the way things were in the '70s). What happened or is happening elsewhere is immaterial to that.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818 		  Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 12:11
Originally posted by hugoestr

Pike and B.E.,

We should listen with respect what other people have to say about the U.S. Decide if what they are saying is true or not, rather than just defend the country in a reflexive manner.
 
Hello Hugoestr,
 
I hope i am not being rude, seeing that i wasn't addressed from the above, i feel i should answer in a way as i only know how... has it occurred that many of them have listened with respect and disagreed, only for the points to constantly be addressed with no resolution? It's like if they don't agree, then keep pumping them full of propaganda until the desired results are reached? Personally, i would rather have a discussion with a human who disagreed with me politically, rather then have them echo everything i have too say on a subject.
 
 

What gcle says is true. The U.S. has become militarized to an obscene degree. Our regular civil liberties have been trampled on to a point of humiliation. And the people who brought all of these things were the conservative party in Congress and in the presidency.
 
Hmmm...

The fact that Russia is highly militarized, which I personally ignore if this is the case today or not, is not the issue.
 
I don't know why Russia should not be under the microscope of the media and it's 24/7 obsession with the evils of militarism? If a person really cares about equal standards with no bias, then you would think of a highly militarized Russia, amongst others, with an alarm similiar too events preceding every global conflicts from history of the past? I'm not saying it is primarily because of the Russians it will happen, i'm not that blind; But when major powers are in a much higher state of alertness, is when things are incredibly more dicey in the international arena and the stage is set and prime for a misunderstanding that can lead to another catastrophic global war!
 
 
The issue is, do we really think that the U.S., with its good historical record overall, should be compared with Russia on account on what war hawk conservatives in power have done? [/quote
 
They haven't done anything different then when Democrats were in power. I think that that is a nonissue? Especially when you bring the US historical record into it nowadays, you find more often than not, enough citizens and foreigners who think the US record stinks to high heaven, regardless of the facts or lies!

Rather than resent people from Europe pointing out that the emperor has no close, let's hold accountable those who are responsible for making the comparisons even possible.
 
Personally, i still respect people from Europe, even those who disagree and possibly resent my view! Besides, you know better than i do that accountability is restored every 2 to 4 years during elections & bi-elections, when people vote whichever party they have grieviance with, the lesser power! I mean, just look at which party is now in power in congress. Democrats didn't get back control just because of their issues with Bush? But many conservative voters were fed up with the corruption going on from their party, that they couldn't care enough too get out and vote to sustain their power!
 
This is why it is so important to vote against the Republican Party in this election. It is not about the candidates per se; it is about the terrible policies that the Republican Party has brought to this country, and whether we are going to hold them accountable or let them get away with it.
 
I already addressed that above!
 

The conservative media machine is pumping the shameful talking points about how terrible things will happen if they don't stay in power. This is nonsense. Republicans in Congress know how to be a good opposition party. Nothing radical can happen under their watch, and they know it.
 
I listen too neither media machines, and look for my own information and have tried too constantly choose to the best of my ability, on whom to throw my vote too! 
 
Are we as a country gullible and stupid? 
 
Sometimes i wonder myself?
 
 We can prove that statement wrong by denying a 3rd term to Bush.
 
Ermm
 
Yet, if we fail to hold the people who brought the broken economy, the Iraq War, and Katrina accountable, there will be hard evidence against us.
 
I remember reading about a time when the parties had no control over the eonomy. Now i am living in a time when everybody and their dog, think they do control even a smidgen of it? Yes, the republicans brought us the Iraq war. No i still think Katrina was a supreme failure on the part of the state of Louisianna to prepare for the possiblity of Katrina making land fall, though they did do a magnificent job with Gustav! The evidence is already there... it's just getting through all the political biased mumbo jumbo thrown about by either party, that we might even begin to see the truth for ourseleves.
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 12:30
Originally posted by Panther

Hello gcle2003,
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

Depends which Balkan country you are talking about. Not in Serbia, certainly. But most of Western Europe was firmly on the side of the other ex-Yugoslav groups. As for general popularity, Clinton was received with ovations wherever he went, whereas Bush effectively has to stay out of the light.
 
In fact if Clinton was criticised in Europe over the Balkans it was because of his hesitancy in acting.
 
There are two sides to most issues. One side says the US was popular and the other says the US was resented for it's power or interference in Europe's or anyone else's backyard. Ok... let's just go ahead and say Mr. Clinton was well recieved throughout the world, it doesn't change the fact that there is any understanding towards things Americana, especially within the border's of the US from it's own citizens? People may honestly dislike Mr. Bush and look at it as the honest issue, but under the the thin layer of anti-bushism, there is that sneering elitist disregard for the US and it's average citizen. I don't really support that kind of elitist, low brow rudeness against anyone, even if it has nothing to do with the US!
I can't disagree with that. However I don't think the elitist, lowbrow attitude is as widespread as is often implied by Americans. A lot of quite serious and moderate people are sincerely alarmed by what has been happening in America, and that shouldn't be disregarded.
 
The coalition dissolved once Kuwait had been freed. You can't really blame either Bush Sr or Clinton for that: it had served its purpose. Most people then lost interest in Iraq, since it was no longer a real threat to anyone. Many people were upset over the US failure to support the Shiite rising that they had encouraged, but that was under Bush Sr, not Clinton.
 
All that Iraq meant after that was an occasional emergence of 'no-fly' enforcement into the news, but it was hardly an emotional issue.
 
The coalition didn't dissolve, it drifted away and eventually collasped to a few remaining core members primarily made up of Britain and the US,
Well, that's what I meant by 'dissolved'.
until many of it's former members were in an easier position for bribery.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. The first Gulf War was largely financed by Kuwait itself, Saudi Arabia and Japan. Presumably they were the ones doing the bribing.
So it did fulfill a short term purpose, but in the long term, unbeknowst too many people, it's original goals were on the verge of falling apart prior too the 2003 invasion because of any lack of direction of purpose from Washington and it's old coalition of remaining allies from the first gulf war.
It's original goal was to eject Iraq from Kuwait. That done, the coalition had served its purpose (as the coalition saw it). It wasn't just Bush Sr that didn't want to go as far as regime change, it was everyone else too.
In my view most people in the world didn't view Saddam as a threat because most of those countries were not doing the containing anymore, and saw more reason for a return to a business as usal attitude of the 80's!
They were right. Saddam was no longer a threat. Not even to Iran any more.
I agree, the encouragement of the shiite uprising was a disgrace and should not have been pushed unless the allies were prepared too help them!
 
Unfortunately, the no-fly zone was an after thought, a sad side effect of our lack of support for the uprisings. The implimentation of which, kept Saddam from launching a much worse mass genocidal campaign from taking place against not only the shiites primarily in the south, but also against the kurds to the north as well! The world may not have thought much of it, and giving the shiite failure in their uprising following the gulf war, didn't feel much appreciation for the effort due to our uninvolvement in helping to over throw Saddam; But for the kurds, the benefit of the no-fly zone was an enormously emotional issue, giving them a barrier from... and the first real taste of freedom from Saddam's brutal rule over them! Buit, then most of us don't have a real idea of what it is like too live under governments like that!
 
What have the twin towers got to do with the subject. Yes the attack profuced a large upswell of emotion favourable to the US, but the Bush adminstration frittered that away within two years.
 
The destruction of the twin towers have alot to do with it! 9-11 wasn't the only time the twin towers were attacked by Al Qadea and it's extremist groups,
I'm a little lost here. I really meant what had it to do with Iraq. With regard to US popularity it helped a lot. So it has nothing to do with America's loss of respect in the world.
 it was just the most successful of the other attempt(s)! While many look at it as only a word representing a tatic employed by the weak, it is also a tatic many state supporters of terrorism use illegally too hide behind & too keep from suffering the consequences of their actions from the UN! It has proven to be a highly successful tatic too further their agenda and campaigns while holding onto the legitimacy of a supposive legitimate peaceful state, while at the same time making a mockery of the UN and the principles it was founded under! That is the short version, if you want the longer version, i would be happy to supply it to you if you ask?
I don't see what it has to do with the question of respect for and popularity of the US in the world.
 
Abandonment of international agreements and conventions, disregard for the US constutition and the rights of citizens, tightening surveillance of private activity, stirring up fake fears and xenophobia, eight spendthrift years encouraging profligacy, domestic and national, increasing militarisation of the society... doesn't terrify you?  
 
Answers correspomding to your parargraph, in which he is hardly the first, nor the last, too cause controversy or have it plans implimented and then eventually reversed:
 
1.) Only if congress signed it into law and even then can be negated due to the nature of this new type of conflict; Example "enemy combatant vs. a uniformed soldier"
What difference would it make if Congress signed it into law? The US is a signatory to the conventions - it cannot just pick and choose what it wants to follow and what it doesn't. That is tries to do so is exactly what the complaint is.
2.)... a debateable point & the fear only held by those on the extreme left, in which itself has done some disregarding itsef with it's own activist judges, as an example...
It's not just the extreme left. It's the other way around. It's the extreme right for instance that says torture is constitutional. How you get that past 'cruel and unusual' I have no idea.
3.) Does "Echelon" not ring a bell with anyone???...
A warning one. That the US is not alone is not at issue. Whether or how far it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights is a separate question. Basically though it the matter of increased surveillance is worrying wherever it happens.
4.) the current government/administration hasn't even tried too fan those flames which has caused it too lose a few far right supporters within it's base...
Associating Iraq with 911 is exactly one example of fanning flames.
 5.) another reason why it has lost even more from within it's base, of whom forget that there is a conflict going on...
I didn't mean to imply that only the left was terrified. (I'm not particularly left wing myself.) Yes there are a lot of people on the right and in the centre who are worried about the profligacy, just as there are libertarians on the right who are worried by things like Echelon and Federal demands for informtaion from phone companies, libraries and so on. A pity there aren't more.
6.) Ignorance of American society can be very deadly, it is not and still hasn't become an militaristic society, it is a society that greatly appreciates those who serve for them, but at the same time do not expect those who serve too control them either (No posse comiattus is going on here!).
Interesting you should say that. It's close. In 2006 (came into force 2007) the posse comitatus  and Insurrection Acts were in effect repealed by Congress, and the President given power to use Federal forces within states for various reasons. This year, the acts were reinstated, power having returned to the Democrats. 
 Nor do those whom serve want too control them or even could if it tried, but they do swear & take seriously their ultimate alliegance too the constitution and don't care to impress any civillian or foreign admirer's; it is still a careful balance of civillian control over the military most foreigners and even some native born often overlook in their regrettful paranoid fears...
 
Does that respectfully explain why i am not terrified of this administration to you? Now, if Mr. Bush tried too pull a Chavez or a Saddam... or believe himself to be a demigod along the lines of the N. Korean leader... then your points amonst others, might start too resonate with me? Until then... i confidently expect him to be a memory in history books after Jan 2009!
 
I don't quarrel with much of what you said (as my comments shoudl indicate). However, I continue to think your spectacles are overly rosy Smile
 
True. However 911 changed all that, until, as I said, the administration threw it all away.
 
It has been said that the administration itself didn't have much too throw away in the first place? It has also been said, that it was because the US was a victim & finally been attacked, that it acquired any sympathy that day as being equal amongst all the rest? There were even those who sympathised enough in helping us replace  the Taliban in Afghanistan? But, of those very same ones, they who felt they had their own legitimate or not...reasons for not supporting the Iraq operation?
Iraq had nothing to do with 911. The attempt to connect them, the blatantly selfserving attack on Iraq, and the refusal to follow UN procedures were what alienated people more than anything.
 Even then... in a more sinister light, across the world and regardless of nationality, many have said that the US deserved what it got?¨
Some but not many. A more common view was that 3,000 people killed is not that big a number, but it was enough to horrify most.
Even though it was primarily civillians who were targeted and not the military that suffered the predominance in death that day! Whatever a persons belief, the equation of victimization wasn't going to stay the same for very long and i don't know why anybody thought otherwise?
 
Reagan was never as unpopular outside the US as Bush. He had quite a few supporters around the world: the eighties marked an upswing in right-wing sentiment in much of the world - notably of course in Britain with Margaret Thatcher, whom Reagan emulated in many ways. Of course the left-wing didn't like him, but the right did and the middle found him acceptable in foreign policy. In contrast, today right, left and middle ALL find Bush and his associates intolerable (except in a few near-puppet states, but the US doesn't have the wealth to support many of those any more).
 
Reagan's deleterious effect was domestic, on the whole his foreign policy worked OK with the people outside the US.
Forunately for the Regan era, there was the USSR & communism too help people on the left, middle and right too easily figure out & agree on which represented more of a threat in that world era! Not so in this one! Actually, i'm wrong... there will always be Bush!
Why would that happen? You can always wave the banner of the war on terror to justify anything. And if that doesn't work, bring up Roe vs Wade and family values. And of course, lie.
 
I suspect that you don't understand or have failed too comprehend the character that makes up the ordinary US citizen? 
I'll point out that my wife is American, and I've spent quite a lot of time here, averaging about three months a year between retiring in 1998 and her mother dying in 2005. But I will accept that I'm most familiar with Georgia and the South, and I'll accept the South has a more militaristic tradition than the North.
 
 
Most people, me included at the time, didn't care about the Vietnam war. Apart from anything else, US motives for the war weren't suspect, even if the conduct of it wasn't brilliant.
 
I see... no disresepct is meant with this comment, but then what was the big deal about our involvement in the first place? Was there a media distortion that highly favored an anti-war view against a soveriegn state that was wiped off the map because of an aggressor to it's north?
Internationally there wasn't a big deal about it. There was more opposition to it in the US than there was in the world at large (not counting communist states Smile )
 
It was seen as a legitimate effort to aid a sovereign state against an internal uprising. Much indeed as Afghanistan was seen in 2002 (and still is).
 
The conduct of it wasn't brilliant from the political angle, but for the military... it did the job that was asked of it and then some!
 
Come ON! It was a military defeat.
 
Actually that refusal to accept that the US forces were defeated in Vietnam is one of the signs of the insidious grip that militarism has got on America lately.


Edited by gcle2003 - 08-Sep-2008 at 12:35
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221 		  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 15:14
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

gcle:
 
In the last 200 plus years, about 150 of those have been characterized by European militarism.  Europeans were not able to overcome that without killing 50 or 60,000,000 people (give or takeOuch), so outsiders did it for you. 
What has that got to do with anything. I'm not talking about the last 200 plus years buit about now. I'm a great admirer of the US that used to be, and I bemoan its vanishing.
In the last 60 years, European states have been huddled under the American umbrella and not pulling their military weight.  The costs for the US, military and otherwise, which we really would have preferred not to bear, only BEGAN after 1945.
That 'preferred not to bear' is unconvincing. The US was not only motivated by a desire to help or shelter European societies (though I accept that was indeed part of the motivation): it was also determined in its opposition to Soviet Communism for its own sake.
 
Moreover, the UK and France at least deliberately in the 'fifties chose to adopt a nuclear first-strike option if attacked. In that situation you don't need to spend so much money on defence.
  You are not the only human alive with an historical perspective, nor with historical knowledge.  
 
Trash talk about how "militaristic" America is, and the implications about how naive, and how clueless Americans are is just the residue of an exhausted, weak continent whose collective efforts now amount to how many weeks of vacation they can get.  Yours is rather a condescending attitude as Europe is now just a chess board on which others play. 
There was a while when that was true. But it's over. The EU is now richer than the US, and in the crunch money counts. Meanwhile, financially strapped, the US is reduced to dependency on its military strength, now it's only claim to being a superpower. 
 
And, incidentally, where did the US get the money from to build up that military in the last 25 years (since Reagan)? From western Europe, Japan, and parts of the Middle East. Europe may have 'huddled' under an umbrella, but in the last generation it has certainly been paying for it.
 
If you want a real historical example of militarism, look east of Poland.  That is closer and might be a larger concern, but then you haven't had to be concerned about that have you?
 
Don't try and be snide. I had to be concerned about it. I was in the army. But again, that misses the entire point.
 
Nothing you said here relates to the question of the creeping militarisation that has been going on in the US (compared for instance to the way things were in the '70s). What happened or is happening elsewhere is immaterial to that.
 
Please....you were in the army because of National Service.  American troops are volunteers one and all.  That mere fact puts you closer to the historial European militarism that outside powers had to dismantle. 
 
Actually it is not the points, opinions or historical "truth or dare" that concern me as much as the hortatory assertion that everyone else misses the point and that others' counterarguments are immaterial.  That is arrogance of the highest order.
 
So, we disagree and let's leave it at that.
 
 
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595 		  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 15:49
Well, looks like a few of you have had a jolly good time. I must say that I am impressed with much of this dialogue and that the facts, or assumed facts, have been delivered with some gumption. A few comments though. Instead of taking remarks personally there are two things you guys can do to keep from getting feelings hurt. Don't demean another through personal criticism and don't be too sensitive to cutting remarks. The topic turned into an exciting and intense sub-discussion. Keep writing about the change in America as viewed by Americans and foreigners (to some extent) with a type of maturity you can be proud of. 
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366 		  Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 16:37
Personally as an American from the "liberal, elitist northeast" I would have to agree with gcle. All Americans have seen their rights eroded. The Patriot Act is the major contributer to such erosions. For a party that came to power preaching little government the Republicans have sure done a great job of instilling BIG government. Why is it that anytime somebody disagrees with another person's political views, the disagreer immediately resorts to calling the other person's argument propaganda? Simply put a disagreement is not propaganda, especially if the disagreeing point has facts behind it.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 18:37
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

[
 
Please....you were in the army because of National Service.  American troops are volunteers one and all. 
At the same time the US also had conscription. There was a severe danger of major war (in fact the one in Korea was on when I was serving, though I wasn't there). In that kind of situation you need conscription, largely because the society wasn't militaristic (either the US or Britain). As I was at pains to point out. Militarism is a new phenomenon in America. That it isn't new anywhere else is beside the point.
 
Even in the US Civil War conscription had to be introduced on both sides, because the military establishment was so tiny. Certaonly as late as the thirties the US military was minimal, compared to now.
That mere fact puts you closer to the historial European militarism that outside powers had to dismantle. 
My point is about the US now and over the last 25 years or so. Going on about other countries or other times is irrelevant, unless you can show that the US was more militaristic in the past than it is now, and I am sure you can't do that.
 
Actually it is not the points, opinions or historical "truth or dare" that concern me as much as the hortatory assertion that everyone else misses the point and that others' counterarguments are immaterial.  That is arrogance of the highest order.
So, we disagree and let's leave it at that.
But you're not making counter-arguments. A counter argument would be one that suggested either that the US is in no way a militaristic society now, or that it was more militaristic in the past. Everything else just distracts attention from my original point: that the US now is a militaristic society. Not that it is more militaristic than anyone else (though compare the size of the US military budget with anyone else) but that it has developed a very different attitude to militarism in the last quarter century, and is much more militaristic than it traditionally was.


Edited by gcle2003 - 08-Sep-2008 at 18:39
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120 		  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 21:16
to a large extend military spending is a mean to an end and should be judged according to its achievements. and there I guess no one can deny that the past 8 years have been a major failure
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987 		  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 21:33
Hi, Panther,

I have twice tried to write to you a lengthy answer, and twice it was erased by the miracle of the back button.

Some force is preventing me to answer your points, so I should respect it, whatever that is .
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221 		  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 00:02
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

[
 
Please....you were in the army because of National Service.  American troops are volunteers one and all. 
At the same time the US also had conscription. There was a severe danger of major war (in fact the one in Korea was on when I was serving, though I wasn't there). In that kind of situation you need conscription, largely because the society wasn't militaristic (either the US or Britain). As I was at pains to point out. Militarism is a new phenomenon in America. That it isn't new anywhere else is beside the point.
 
Even in the US Civil War conscription had to be introduced on both sides, because the military establishment was so tiny. Certaonly as late as the thirties the US military was minimal, compared to now.
That mere fact puts you closer to the historial European militarism that outside powers had to dismantle. 
My point is about the US now and over the last 25 years or so. Going on about other countries or other times is irrelevant, unless you can show that the US was more militaristic in the past than it is now, and I am sure you can't do that.
 
Actually it is not the points, opinions or historical "truth or dare" that concern me as much as the hortatory assertion that everyone else misses the point and that others' counterarguments are immaterial.  That is arrogance of the highest order.
So, we disagree and let's leave it at that.
But you're not making counter-arguments. A counter argument would be one that suggested either that the US is in no way a militaristic society now, or that it was more militaristic in the past. Everything else just distracts attention from my original point: that the US now is a militaristic society. Not that it is more militaristic than anyone else (though compare the size of the US military budget with anyone else) but that it has developed a very different attitude to militarism in the last quarter century, and is much more militaristic than it traditionally was.
 
Here again, counter-arguments are not counter-arguments unless you say so. 
 
The United States is not, and has not been "militaristic" at any time in its history.  Has it been "military" when necessary?  Yes.  In the years 1861-65, and 1941-45, although not bred to war, it has been equal to the challenge.  Same for the UK 1939-45.   
 
I challenge you to demonstrate, other than in your ill-informed opinion, that American society is militaristic.  That doesn't even make any sense.
 
Militaristic societies have universal conscription.  The US hasn't had a draft since 1973.  The UK also had conscription and national service when they were needed, but that did not make Britain a militaristic society.
 
You are mesmerized by military expenditure...OK.  The military expenses of the UK for FYE 2005 were 42.8 billion US$.  For Russia, expenditure for 2004 was 50 billion US$, so I guess the UK is a roughly equivalent militaristic state to Russia.  Come on, you know better than that.  American military superiority is expensive; the air force and navy like the high tech options, and that is fine by most of us.  Force multipliers cost money, but they are still ultimately cheaper than the ongoing expenses of millions and millions of troops.
 
A militaristic society of necessity assumes a general acceptance of military discipline, and if you can identify that in the US, other than in the services, and at the military academies, good luck.
 
Prussia was a militaristic entity with its peculiar society; Russian society, generally, was not much different, it translated readily into Soviet militaristic society, and probably is still the same under the capitalist veneer.  Even the French had militarist tendencies.  It is understandable.  They are continental nations and have had historical adversaries right on their borders.
 
The Brits are not.  The Yanks are not.  Neither has reason to be, so....they aren't.   
 
 
 
   


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 09-Sep-2008 at 03:51
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221 		  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 01:08
Originally posted by Seko

Well, looks like a few of you have had a jolly good time. I must say that I am impressed with much of this dialogue and that the facts, or assumed facts, have been delivered with some gumption. A few comments though. Instead of taking remarks personally there are two things you guys can do to keep from getting feelings hurt. Don't demean another through personal criticism and don't be too sensitive to cutting remarks. The topic turned into an exciting and intense sub-discussion. Keep writing about the change in America as viewed by Americans and foreigners (to some extent) with a type of maturity you can be proud of. 
 
Thanks for your comments.  I am done with this topic, and I assume Graham is as well since neither of us is ever going to convince the other.  The discussion has been heated, but it has been a good one.
 
What ever happened to Sarah Palin as McCain's VP choice?   Confused
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 09-Sep-2008 at 03:27
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221 		  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 02:26
Originally posted by Maharbbal

to a large extend military spending is a mean to an end and should be judged according to its achievements. and there I guess no one can deny that the past 8 years have been a major failure
 
How about the last 63 years?  I am no fan of the USSR, but the expenditure of the bi-polar WW II era, both US and Russia, was, frankly, money well spent.  There was no wholesale butcher's yard a la 1939-45.  That has been almost 2/3 of a century.
 
As (I am assuming) a French national, you were not so much financially impacted by the last 8 years.  But, would you rather pay taxes or live through something like WW II?
 
EDIT:  This whole discussion should have a thread of its own.
 
  


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 09-Sep-2008 at 03:26
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987 		  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 04:31
Pike,

The U.S. historically has not been militaristic. You are right on that. The draft that existed since WWII is actually the historic anomaly. You are right about that as well.

That said, the amount of money that we spend in war costs is huge. It is approaching half of our budget, once all costs of having wars are counted in. Let me repeat this: the U.S. spends more money on war costs, for this and past wars, than we do in social security and medicare, which are the next two biggest expenses.

We as people may not be militaristic, but the U.S. as a government is. And we have enough people who like the idea of having a super strong military power when the reality is that our geography has been and is our biggest defense.

It it is so terrible to fight the wars of others, maybe we shouldn't.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.