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  <1 23456 8>
Author
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 Topic: And McCain's VP pick is...
    Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 04:37
Oh, Pike, that thing that you said about the Cold War spending is hard to defend.

The money spent by the Soviet Union in defense was the biggest waste of money in history. The USSfrigging R is no longer around. Rather than building nukes, they would have been better off focusing on grain harvest and making working refrigerators. The USSR would still be around, and I am sure that their neighbors would have been a lot happier about a USSR focused on pressure cookers and automobiles than what they had to deal with.

The U.S. almost went bankrupt on it as well. It was that the USSR was a lot weaker to begin with, so it went belly up before hand.

Never one to learn history too well, our current administration increased military spending so that what the USSR couldn't accomplish a third rate terrorist loser will do by our overreaction.

Edited by hugoestr - 09-Sep-2008 at 14:52
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 05:00
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

 
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.
not always, that is one form of militarism. it also can involve the elevation of the military within that society and the acceptance of its use over other means to exert influence or solve problems when differences occur.
 
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

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.
The budget is proof of the elevation the military has, if not in society than politically. Its not like you spend that to aid nations into your fold or provide domestic universal health, up the level of education/opportunity and so on.
 
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

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.
that's a narrow definition as the reasons already stated above. from the outside it seems there is both a strong militaristic vein and counter vein within US society. Like wise, while we tend to look down on fastfood-media coming out of the US there is a strong independent corner, more so than in other English speaking countries. Your country is full of dichotomies

This is a subjective view as its also relative to the person's national POV and therefore open to degrees of interpretation. In Australia we would see the US as more militaristic (religious and right wing) than ourselves. Israel more so than the USA and so on.

U.S.A. President, Dwight Eisenhower, 17 January 1961

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual --is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.



en.wikisource.org/wiki/Military-Industrial_Complex_Speech


Edited by Leonidas - 09-Sep-2008 at 05:03
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: 09-Sep-2008 at 09:37
Originally posted by gcle2003

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.
 
No, i was talking about, amongst others, the oil for food scandal that rocked the UN.
 
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.
 
Yes, your right and i was wrong, i don't know what i was thinking? My stupidity i guess! I think Bush Sr & other middle eastern states wouldn't have minded regime change(Without saying it), as long as they or the US didn't have to get further involved? Ironically, we did anyways! 
 
They were right. Saddam was no longer a threat. Not even to Iran any more.
 
No, i'm right and they were wrong! No, no, no.... they say i'm wrong and their right! On and on it will likely go til the end of eternity? Sure, he might not had been still a threat, maybe not in the short term, then again... his past history definitely made him one in the long term as he had proven himself time and again.
 
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 is a subject that does seem to create some quite difference in opinions! If i have more time then i otherwise have had of late, i'll post on this subject in a different discussion board by creating my own thread topic, rather then keep monopolising this one?
 
I don't see what it has to do with the question of respect for and popularity of the US in the world.
 
You might not see it or understand my pov? But i do remember my feeling on being shocked by the end of semptember in 2001, on the attitudes that were starting on being expressed and the conspiraciy theories that were starting to crop up! To be fair, i've listened and read about them and can't believe how effective they have been in changing the history of that day and eroding the little understanding the world and americans had at that time.
 
 
 
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.
 
Of course it is, i know that. But picking and choosing what it wants to follow isn't the issue. The issue is how much the times have changed since those laws and conventions came into being, when a soldier was clearly defined from a civillian. Now a days, there is no clear distinction primarily because the method employed in many of those theatres is that of an unmarked person on the battlefield, taking up arms and killing people like a soldier, but still wants the protection provided to an innocent civillians or a uniformed soldier & vice versa. I'm sure you are aware that i am not even talking about only the targeting of the US and it's troops either.
 
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.
 
I see both as unnecessarily creating problems.
 
Associating Iraq with 911 is exactly one example of fanning flames.
 
I'm sorry, but unfortunately that issue has been warped beyond all reason. What started out as legitimate criticism at the time, has morphed into one confusing misunderstanding after another!
 
I don't quarrel with much of what you said (as my comments shoudl indicate).
 
I didn't take it like you were quarreling, just expressing our difference in opinions!
 
However, I continue to think your spectacles are overly rosy Smile
 
Duly noted. I guess it stands too reason that i should mention that i think you expect the sky too fall any moment Wink
 
 
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.
 
I was basically putting in writing what has been said and often unheard or quickly dismissed due to the volatile nature  of the current political atmosphere. I'm sure you understand what i am talking about when extreme rightist lash out at liberals and dismiss them as traitors?
 
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.
 
Personally, any attack against any nationalities on the planet is a big enough number for me, therefor... it has taken on a big deal in my mind! Turks get attacked... it is a big deal to me! British subjects get attacked... it is a big deal to me! Egyptians get attacked.. and it is a big deal to me! Germans get attacked... and yes, it is a big deal to me! I think you get my point?
 
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.
 
Yes, i remembered that shortly after posting, that you had mentioned it in a pevious posting somewhere on the forum.
 
 
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.
 
Ok... no problem! Point out most of the battles where the US military was overwhelmingly defeated? Until then i still see it as a major political defeat, which is all the N. Vietnamese leadership realized they could have ever hoped for. Not that i am trying too sound like an ultra-nationalist or a contrarian, but, ummmm... somewhere along the road of writing up the history about the war, the documentarians hardly ever metioned or acknowledged any battles that defeated the US military commitment.
 
Take care,
Panther
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: 09-Sep-2008 at 09:46
Originally posted by King John

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.
 
Was that directed towards me?
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: 09-Sep-2008 at 09:55
Originally posted by hugoestr

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 .
 
That's quite alright Smile The phenomenon has happened to me more than you might possibly know? I too find myslef respecting the force that has usally prevented me in times past of posting lengthy replies.
 
 However, it seems that that force is currently taking a long break right now, letting me spew my nonsense all over the place, to the extreme horror of other forumers here! Pinch
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: 09-Sep-2008 at 10:02
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. 
 
Point well taken!
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: 09-Sep-2008 at 11:39
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Originally posted by gcle2003

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. 
Nope. Counrter-arguments are only counter-arguments when they address the original argument.
 
My statement referred to the current state of the USA and its difference from the USA in the past. Anything that is not related to the USA now or in the past is not a counter-argument to that. It may be true, it may not be true, but it is not a counter argument.
 
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.   
You don't seem to be paying attention. My point was that the US was not militaristic in the past. And since you are agreeing with me on that point, how can it possibly be a counter-argument?
 
I challenge you to demonstrate, other than in your ill-informed opinion, that American society is militaristic.  That doesn't even make any sense.
Military spending, 2007
 
 
Militaristic societies have universal conscription.
Not necessarily. That may have been truer before warfare became so technological, but it isn't true any more. But even in the ancient world Rome, for instance, did not have uniiversal conscription, and it was very much a militaristic society.
 
Moreover non-militaristic societies like Britain and the US in the forties and fifties may be driven to universal conscription in the face of sufficient danger.
 
It's the attitude to the military that counts, plus the reliance on it for the aggressive pursuit of national interest.
Originally posted by wikipedia

Militarism is

the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.

It has also been defined as "aggressiveness that involves the threat of using military force", and the

Glorification of the ideals of a professional military class" and "Predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state

 
  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.
See the point above about the glorification of a professional military class. You seem to be arguing against yourself: up above you stated that militaristic societies had universal conscription. Now you'r emaking the same point I made.
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. 
'Mesmerised' is an exaggeration. Military expenditure is a valid yardstick, especially when the figures are so dramatic. I don't know where you got the $50 billion for Russia from, but (see above) I have less than that for 2007, and it is reputed to have been increasing under Putin, not decreasing. In fact the new militarism in Russia is just that, new. Under Yeltsin it faded away. And, moreover, Britain itself can't entirely escape the charge of becoming more militaristic, though you will still never see British troops in combat gear in public in Britain except in emergency.
 
I don't know why you seem to think I said the US was the only militaristic state in the world. In fact it's a problem that militarism has been growing in many parts of the world, but this topic is about US politics, not the dangers of global militarism.
 
 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.
And there you go...America is to have 'military superiority'. If that isn't militarism, what is?
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.
The US has military academies. I'm glad you brought that point up. A militaristic society doesn't necessarily mean civilians have to accept military discipline for themselves. It does imply that they admire and praise military discipline in others, and that attitude is widespread in the US in my experience.
 
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.
I don't think you've met many Russians.
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.   
 
The only reason Britain didn't classify as 'militaristic' is because it depended on the navy not the army. If you take what seems to be the American usage, and include the navy as part of the military, then Britain would be as militaristic certainly as France.
 
If the US has no reason to be militaristic, why does it set out - with your approval apparently - to become the world's dominant military power?
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: 09-Sep-2008 at 13:32
Panther, just a couple of points:
 
Originally posted by Panther

Originally posted by gcle2003

I don't see what it has to do with the question of respect for and popularity of the US in the world.
 
You might not see it or understand my pov? But i do remember my feeling on being shocked by the end of semptember in 2001, on the attitudes that were starting on being expressed and the conspiraciy theories that were starting to crop up! To be fair, i've listened and read about them and can't believe how effective they have been in changing the history of that day and eroding the little understanding the world and americans had at that time.
I'm shocked by them too. In fact elsewhere I've spent some time combatting them. They're not really that widely held, even in Europe Smile
 
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.
 
Of course it is, i know that. But picking and choosing what it wants to follow isn't the issue. The issue is how much the times have changed since those laws and conventions came into being, when a soldier was clearly defined from a civillian. Now a days, there is no clear distinction primarily because the method employed in many of those theatres is that of an unmarked person on the battlefield, taking up arms and killing people like a soldier, but still wants the protection provided to an innocent civillians or a uniformed soldier & vice versa. I'm sure you are aware that i am not even talking about only the targeting of the US and it's troops either.
I think you misunderstand the criticism. The point is that combatants, even out of uniform, are still protected by the conventions, unless they are specifically convicted of spying. They could be cnvicted conceivably of war crimes, but they still are entitled to due process to determine guilt.
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.
 
Ok... no problem! Point out most of the battles where the US military was overwhelmingly defeated?
[/QUOTE]
Battles are unimportant in such circumstances. What counts is winning the campaign and the war. When one side deliberately adopts the strategy of avoiding battle, they don't forfeit the game, because it isn't a game. Remember, Hannibal won the battles but lost the war.
 
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 14:07
Hello to you all
 
Some here argued that the US needs more money for defense because of high technology, well, that is good but here is the thing, why the hell the US needs 13 supercarriers for? Why does the US, which already has the most sophisticated and the largest and best equipped air force in the world need some 200 billion for the raptor program? Why does the US continue to stockpile weapons right now more than it ever did during the cold war, in terms of money spent that is?
 
Hearing and reading literature from the US in the recent conflicts I have been getting some alarming signs that the US military and its position is turning into another Prussian militarism and we all know what Prussian militarism did. Many commentators not only justify war crimes committed by American troopss, they make any attempt to hold those accountable amount to high treason. Conservative critics in particular have been advocating a hostile military policy despite the fact that most of them never been to battle and see how tough things go. If this isn't a sign of rising militarism I do not know what is.
 
AL-Jassas
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 14:22
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Originally posted by gcle2003

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. 
Nope. Counrter-arguments are only counter-arguments when they address the original argument.
 
My statement referred to the current state of the USA and its difference from the USA in the past. Anything that is not related to the USA now or in the past is not a counter-argument to that. It may be true, it may not be true, but it is not a counter argument.
 
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.   
You don't seem to be paying attention. My point was that the US was not militaristic in the past. And since you are agreeing with me on that point, how can it possibly be a counter-argument?
 
I challenge you to demonstrate, other than in your ill-informed opinion, that American society is militaristic.  That doesn't even make any sense.
Military spending, 2007
 
 
Militaristic societies have universal conscription.
Not necessarily. That may have been truer before warfare became so technological, but it isn't true any more. But even in the ancient world Rome, for instance, did not have uniiversal conscription, and it was very much a militaristic society.
 
Moreover non-militaristic societies like Britain and the US in the forties and fifties may be driven to universal conscription in the face of sufficient danger.
 
It's the attitude to the military that counts, plus the reliance on it for the aggressive pursuit of national interest.
Originally posted by wikipedia

Militarism is

the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.

It has also been defined as "aggressiveness that involves the threat of using military force", and the

Glorification of the ideals of a professional military class" and "Predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state

 
  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.
See the point above about the glorification of a professional military class. You seem to be arguing against yourself: up above you stated that militaristic societies had universal conscription. Now you'r emaking the same point I made.
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. 
'Mesmerised' is an exaggeration. Military expenditure is a valid yardstick, especially when the figures are so dramatic. I don't know where you got the $50 billion for Russia from, but (see above) I have less than that for 2007, and it is reputed to have been increasing under Putin, not decreasing. In fact the new militarism in Russia is just that, new. Under Yeltsin it faded away. And, moreover, Britain itself can't entirely escape the charge of becoming more militaristic, though you will still never see British troops in combat gear in public in Britain except in emergency.
 
I don't know why you seem to think I said the US was the only militaristic state in the world. In fact it's a problem that militarism has been growing in many parts of the world, but this topic is about US politics, not the dangers of global militarism.
 
 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.
And there you go...America is to have 'military superiority'. If that isn't militarism, what is?
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.
The US has military academies. I'm glad you brought that point up. A militaristic society doesn't necessarily mean civilians have to accept military discipline for themselves. It does imply that they admire and praise military discipline in others, and that attitude is widespread in the US in my experience.
 
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.
I don't think you've met many Russians.
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.   
 
The only reason Britain didn't classify as 'militaristic' is because it depended on the navy not the army. If you take what seems to be the American usage, and include the navy as part of the military, then Britain would be as militaristic certainly as France.
 
If the US has no reason to be militaristic, why does it set out - with your approval apparently - to become the world's dominant military power?
 
Tongue  Graham, you are a very skillful two-stepper, but you are not convincing me.  You debate "Cleverley," but you just dance around this stuff asserting that you are right.  I disagree, but......whatever.
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 09-Sep-2008 at 14:31
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: 09-Sep-2008 at 15:30
Originally posted by Panther

Originally posted by King John

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.

 

Was that directed towards me?
It wasn't really directed towards anybody. But, if you want to respond that would be nice.
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355
  Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 18:35
Tongue  Graham, you are a very skillful two-stepper, but you are not convincing me.  You debate "Cleverley," but you just dance around this stuff asserting that you are right.  I disagree, but......whatever.
 
Graham made clear observations and put forward his position that the USA has become more militarist. The opposition failed to produce credible counter-arguments. In fact you proved him right by claiming that the US should spend more than the rest of the world put together on its military because it should have military superiority, use the military aggresively for its own interests and that's fine by most Americans. I.e. that you agree with him that you are militaristic.
 
The only reason you are angry with him and write ad-hominems is because 'militarist' sounds bad. You don't want to be associated with that label but you want to stick it to others for propaganda purposes.
 
Anyway, I love to see liberal Europeans and American neo-cons violently disagree.  It happens a lot nowadays, especially in discussions of foreign policy. Hopefully these public attitudes will develop into a wedge that capable leaders (of, say, Russia) will drive into NATO and pry the both sides of Atlantic apart, weakening their hold on the planet.
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: 09-Sep-2008 at 20:35
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

Hopefully these public attitudes will develop into a wedge that capable leaders (of, say, Russia) will drive into NATO and pry the both sides of Atlantic apart, weakening their hold on the planet.
 
All has been revealed. LOL
 
Actually, whatever label one wants to put on it, if it involves defending the country in which I live (USA) and to which I pay my taxes, I support a well-equipped and trained military.  So I guess I am not shying away from the label no matter if it comes from a European elitist or an international socialist.
 
As far as "counter arguments" go, it is not as if either side would agree that they were proven wrong if verifiably true ones were put forward.  Each likes to claim that they are putting forward unassailable counter arguments but would never admit error.  Such is the postmodern, relativistic world in which we presently live.
 
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: 09-Sep-2008 at 20:44
Regarding counter arguements; most threads have them (along with stubborn egos). This one should too. Taking a point of interest and dissecting it without the personal shenanigans would be a good place to start. 
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 21:02
I do not like McCain but I do not know enough about her to judge. I am against Obama so I may have to vote for McCain; I think both are globalist anyway and would support the North American Union. Michael Savage was the only conservative that seems to be negative about her; her lack of experience. I am sure some thought John Kennedy was too young; a great leader. I vote Nobama because for me it is an obamanation-
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
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: 09-Sep-2008 at 21:27
I assume your typo meant, Palin, and not McCain? As far as being knowledgeable about Sarah Palin, who really is anyway? Most fly-by-night admirers like her simply because she is a woman -Imho. 
 
Experience in office is a must and she has that as Governor of Alaska. Though youngest of all on both tickets she is also the least experienced too. Republicans are in desperate straights and have tried desperate measures to gain the office again. Even though America has shown the capability to vote for "sameness", I think this time too many people are out of work and have too many serious issues to remain passive and allow fear to dictate their welfare. Taking a chance for change is a viable alternative to national 'insecurity'. The Republicans have had their time. Now that time has flown. Policy makers need to pay attention to the serious nature of problems we have in this country. We need somebody who is more in touch with economical issues not someone who plays the military bravado tune and nothing else, then assumes that a terrorist is waiting behind every street corner so as to elimnate the last vestiges of freedom from our minds.


Edited by Seko - 09-Sep-2008 at 21:29
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 22:35
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

Tongue  Graham, you are a very skillful two-stepper, but you are not convincing me.  You debate "Cleverley," but you just dance around this stuff asserting that you are right.  I disagree, but......whatever.
 
Graham made clear observations and put forward his position that the USA has become more militarist. The opposition failed to produce credible counter-arguments. In fact you proved him right by claiming that the US should spend more than the rest of the world put together on its military because it should have military superiority, use the military aggresively for its own interests and that's fine by most Americans. I.e. that you agree with him that you are militaristic.
 
The only reason you are angry with him and write ad-hominems is because 'militarist' sounds bad. You don't want to be associated with that label but you want to stick it to others for propaganda purposes.
 
Anyway, I love to see liberal Europeans and American neo-cons violently disagree.  It happens a lot nowadays, especially in discussions of foreign policy. Hopefully these public attitudes will develop into a wedge that capable leaders (of, say, Russia) will drive into NATO and pry the both sides of Atlantic apart, weakening their hold on the planet.
 
No way.  Wink    I am not angry with Graham, I just think he is wrong.  And he likes an argument.
 
Graham is a debater, as surely you have noticed.  If you turn things over often enough, you might make the other guy think that he thought of it, so you become "right" (actually, just the winner of the debate).  The more narrowly you define something, the closer to the end of the debate, the more likely others may see you as the winner.....maneuver room is more limited.
 
If Graham thinks he is right, fine.  He is still wrong though.  Smile 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 09-Sep-2008 at 22:48
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 23:07
Now that we can get back to the topic of the thread, Mrs. Palin's presence on the Republican ticket seems clearer as she becomes more familiar to us.  There are articles (NY Times/Wash. Post/Assoc. Press) showing that Palin may indeed be starting to draw women voters from the Democratic Party.  And, now we are aware of her Pentacostalist background (actually a "fallen away Catholic" Smile) that may be appealing to the fundamentalist evangelical constituency that has supported "W."
 
It does not hurt in the media age that she is attractive and has nice looking kids.
 
However, as with so many fundamentalists, she seems to use that as armor to deflect as much criticism as possible, and to justify political expediency.  It does not, however, qualify her to be in high office.  If pandering to Pentacostals is the only strength left to the Repubs, and if pissed off women are the swing vote (not sure if that is the case), Democratic is the only way to vote this year.
 
I was undecided until Palin's nomination.  I plan to vote for Obama.
 
 
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: 09-Sep-2008 at 23:39
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Battles are unimportant in such circumstances. What counts is winning the campaign and the war. When one side deliberately adopts the strategy of avoiding battle, they don't forfeit the game, because it isn't a game. Remember, Hannibal won the battles but lost the war.
 
 
Ok... here we go. Regarding the Vietnam war, yes a loss is a loss! We did lose Vietnam, that isn't the problem here. The probelm is that there are two views to the situation, one see it politically and the other sees it militarily. Even though my view might be looked upon as one of only an assumed fact only held by myself? History is far from done in drawing a conclusion of what actually happened there, regardless of how popular the current view of it being the hopeless war! Time is the judge, most of us are just the biased participants!
 
Now, my main problem when studying the war, is how the history of it was written shortly after the US got involved; An eventual conclusion was drawn, while the lesson wasn't even clear of what that conclusion was; Not even today is that lesson clear, hell... we are still understanding WW 2!
 
Now, onto my unpopular view! After 68' and the Tet offensive, the Northern leadership realised the war was virtually lost for them. The Viet Cong was decimated and they knew it! It was through their efforts of smuggling northern soldiers into the south, following that disasterous defeat in order too heavily reinforce their southern counterparts, that it was able to barely struggle on til the US gave up politically and withdrew militarily!
 
Once done, the North soon realised they couldn't defeat the South along the same lines employed aganst the US military, they themseleves had their limits too in how many corpses had piled up over the years. Of course an outright invasion was always contemplated once the South was isolated, even though it was considered illegal considering the treaties they had signed, a peice of paper is of little importance too most other countries, except to Western ones! 73' to 75' saw the fruits of their efforts come too pass with an outright invasion of the South. With it's death, there was no mourning in the world, least of all by the UN, except for the millions who fled from the communists death squads and their reeducation camps, who fled in rinky dink boats or any other way they could by any means necessary! Hence, the US military did the job required of it, the politicans, otoh... certainly did not!!!
 
That is my short uninfluential verison. I didn't mean to come across as condescending, like you haven't read the history yourself & not have drawn your own conclusion? But i felt a bit of an explanation of my stubborness was long due to you? Now, i'll try and stick to the topic of this thread!
 
Best regards,
Panther
 
 
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: 10-Sep-2008 at 00:17
about Palin the Financial Times remarked that her success and charisma just underlined the fact that Mc Cain lacked momentum.
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 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 0.141 seconds.