Americal Politics III

[StrayLight]

I respect your opinion Stray, but such a blanket statement like that demands closer inspection.

It depends first what you consider a real military, if by real military you mean only actual real soldiers, China has the worlds largest standing army.

If you include Power Projection (political science term) or Force Projection (military term) then you come up with the same top four, though their order differs: the US, China, UK and Russia. Though at the moment the US is extremely worried about China's increasing force projection in the Pacific. So even though the US is ahead only because of superior military spending, China isn't that far behind.

If you include nuclear capability you have to look at the M. A. D doctrine, I hope you are familiar with it because that is what has kept everyones finger off the nuclear button all these years, and that would make Russia our military equal.

For those that don't know M. A. D stands for Mutual Assured Destruction meaning the russians and americans have an equal amount of nuclear weapons and both use the same nuclear "triad" meaning ICBM's, nuclear subs, and Bombers. So no attack could ever fully destroy the others nuclear capability and as such, in the event of a nuclear confrontation, both would face M. A. D. Both governments know this and that is why we play nice.

If you are talking about the most technologically advanced military because of the highest amount of government spending on defense, an argument could be made that the U. S, at the moment, has that distinction. With that said, the Russians are at this moment starting to increase the amount of money spent on research and development with help and funding from India and China. If they are behind the U. S on anything it is by a few years only, And as I recall wasn't Rumsfeld crying to China a few months ago about their increased military spending. Maybe he isn't quite as sure as you are.

There was a time when the Egyptians held the title and then came the Romans and then the Mongols and then the Ottomans and later the Spanish and then the British, and who beat the british? How did they beat them?

The US colonists did. Did they do it fighting by the " rules "? No, they fought and won using gorilla tactics they learned from the native americans.

That lesson was learned a long time ago, if there are two lines of opposing fighters and they are just shooting at each other point blank, the side with more soldiers alive at the end wins, now what kind of military genius thought that strategy up, well whoever he was, the US colonists didn't listen to that guy. They used age old gorilla tactics and won against " the strongest " real" military on the planet".

Over the ages many governments have told their citizenry they had the worlds most powerful war machine on the planet and no one, save the invading martian hordes, could ever hold a candle to them.

Well Napoleon quickly learned that it's easier said than done, if you attack a comparable opponent on their own ground chances are that crowning yourself the world strongest, most invincible super power means f*** all on the battlefield.

And I think Nazi Germany also made that claim, and most of Europe, that was cowering in fear at the time, believed it, and their actions proved it in most cases. And in the end who defeated the Nazi's? That could be debated, but what is not debated is their greatest military mistake was Operation Barbarossa, Most scholars agree that, if not for that, they would have easily won the war. So in the end it could be said they defeated themselves.

If you include troop moral, home advantage, and ones willingness to give ones life for a cause, I think that changes alot of things.

There is a famous written dialog between Nixon and Ho chi minh that HAS been illustrated in Iraq and Lebanon.

Nixon asks Ho: why? (referring to the continued resistance)

Ho reply's: You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win."

This is a Quote from President Kennedy (1963) about why America should continue to fight in Vietnam, now someone tell me if it isn't word for word verbatim what we hear about Iraq.

"we want to see a stable government there, carrying on a struggle to maintain its national independence. We believe strongly in that. We are not going to withdraw from that effort. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam, but Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there."

My point is two fold. First, the lessons of Iraq aren't lessons at all, well maybe only for those that don't know history. Just to go over a few examples, the British Empire fighting US colonists, the Original Sandinista revolution that expelled US marines during the 1920's and 30's, then you have Vietnam. And of course you can't forget the Soviet Unions' ill fated occupation of Afghanistan. Isn't there a saying about those that don't learn from history are doomed to ****** it.

Second, maybe it helps some to think the US is omnipotent, but history tells a different story. All great powers come to an end. Military planners aren't quite as sure as you are and their scholarship makes that very clear. They know a full scale war against a comparable opponent would only result in severe mutual civilian and structural damage at best, that is why war by proxy was invented. The US knows who they can mess with and who they most certainly can't mess with. It is no silly coincidence the US has never gone to war with China or Russia directly, but they HAVE invaded Cuba, Panama, Granada, Nicaragua, just about every central american nation, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Hawaii, Haiti and so on.

Again, I respect your quote, but I find the reasoning flawed.

Badboy.

Noted.

SL

[BadMan]

I respect your opinion Stray, but such a blanket statement like that demands closer inspection.

It depends first what you consider a real military, if by real military you mean only actual real soldiers, China has the worlds largest standing army.

If you include Power Projection (political science term) or Force Projection (military term) then you come up with the same top four, though their order differs: the US, China, UK and Russia. Though at the moment the US is extremely worried about China's increasing force projection in the Pacific. So even though the US is ahead only because of superior military spending, China isn't that far behind.

If you include nuclear capability you have to look at the M. A. D doctrine, I hope you are familiar with it because that is what has kept everyones finger off the nuclear button all these years, and that would make Russia our military equal.

For those that don't know M. A. D stands for Mutual Assured Destruction meaning the russians and americans have an equal amount of nuclear weapons and both use the same nuclear "triad" meaning ICBM's, nuclear subs, and Bombers. So no attack could ever fully destroy the others nuclear capability and as such, in the event of a nuclear confrontation, both would face M. A. D. Both governments know this and that is why we play nice.

If you are talking about the most technologically advanced military because of the highest amount of government spending on defense, an argument could be made that the U. S, at the moment, has that distinction. With that said, the Russians are at this moment starting to increase the amount of money spent on research and development with help and funding from India and China. If they are behind the U. S on anything it is by a few years only, And as I recall wasn't Rumsfeld crying to China a few months ago about their increased military spending. Maybe he isn't quite as sure as you are.

There was a time when the Egyptians held the title and then came the Romans and then the Mongols and then the Ottomans and later the Spanish and then the British, and who beat the british? How did they beat them?

The US colonists did. Did they do it fighting by the " rules "? No, they fought and won using gorilla tactics they learned from the native americans.

That lesson was learned a long time ago, if there are two lines of opposing fighters and they are just shooting at each other point blank, the side with more soldiers alive at the end wins, now what kind of military genius thought that strategy up, well whoever he was, the US colonists didn't listen to that guy. They used age old gorilla tactics and won against " the strongest " real" military on the planet".

Over the ages many governments have told their citizenry they had the worlds most powerful war machine on the planet and no one, save the invading martian hordes, could ever hold a candle to them.

Well Napoleon quickly learned that it's easier said than done, if you attack a comparable opponent on their own ground chances are that crowning yourself the world strongest, most invincible super power means f*** all on the battlefield.

And I think Nazi Germany also made that claim, and most of Europe, that was cowering in fear at the time, believed it, and their actions proved it in most cases. And in the end who defeated the Nazi's? That could be debated, but what is not debated is their greatest military mistake was Operation Barbarossa, Most scholars agree that, if not for that, they would have easily won the war. So in the end it could be said they defeated themselves.

If you include troop moral, home advantage, and ones willingness to give ones life for a cause, I think that changes alot of things.

There is a famous written dialog between Nixon and Ho chi minh that HAS been illustrated in Iraq and Lebanon.

Nixon asks Ho: why? (referring to the continued resistance)

Ho reply's: You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win."

This is a Quote from President Kennedy (1963) about why America should continue to fight in Vietnam, now someone tell me if it isn't word for word verbatim what we hear about Iraq.

"we want to see a stable government there, carrying on a struggle to maintain its national independence. We believe strongly in that. We are not going to withdraw from that effort. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam, but Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there."

My point is two fold. First, the lessons of Iraq aren't lessons at all, well maybe only for those that don't know history. Just to go over a few examples, the British Empire fighting US colonists, the Original Sandinista revolution that expelled US marines during the 1920's and 30's, then you have Vietnam. And of course you can't forget the Soviet Unions' ill fated occupation of Afghanistan. Isn't there a saying about those that don't learn from history are doomed to ****** it.

Second, maybe it helps some to think the US is omnipotent, but history tells a different story. All great powers come to an end. Military planners aren't quite as sure as you are and their scholarship makes that very clear. They know a full scale war against a comparable opponent would only result in severe mutual civilian and structural damage at best, that is why war by proxy was invented. The US knows who they can mess with and who they most certainly can't mess with. It is no silly coincidence the US has never gone to war with China or Russia directly, but they HAVE invaded Cuba, Panama, Granada, Nicaragua, just about every central american nation, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Hawaii, Haiti and so on.

Again, I respect your quote, but I find the reasoning flawed.

Badboy.

Actually, there's not a "real" military on the planet Earth that can even hope to stand up to the American war machine. Not one, and not even several operating as a coalition.

Unfortunately, though, the American war machine is optimized to fight similar war machines on classic battlefields. The events in Iraq have shown its tremendous weakness in dealing with situations that are less than actual war. This lesson has not been lost on countries like Iran, North Korea, China, etc. And we will probably never have the good luck of meeting a classic war machine on a classic battlefield ever again.

Think of the Martians in "War of the Worlds," beating the Earth militarily, but then getting defeated by common cold germs. It's pretty much the same thing.

SL

[StrayLight]

If the Iraqi resistance is doing this to our "superior" war machine, I can just imagine what a real military could do.

Actually, there's not a "real" military on the planet Earth that can even hope to stand up to the American war machine. Not one, and not even several operating as a coalition.

Unfortunately, though, the American war machine is optimized to fight similar war machines on classic battlefields. The events in Iraq have shown its tremendous weakness in dealing with situations that are less than actual war. This lesson has not been lost on countries like Iran, North Korea, China, etc. And we will probably never have the good luck of meeting a classic war machine on a classic battlefield ever again.

Think of the Martians in "War of the Worlds," beating the Earth militarily, but then getting defeated by common cold germs. It's pretty much the same thing.

SL

[El Perro]

Badboy,

Nice links to the Neo-con's grandiose database. Our "good fortune" is that some of the administration's neo con advisors are slightly out of favor, with Condi's star on the rise. Not that she is too far away from their paranoid, meglomaniacal mindset. You know you are in the shit when Condi Rice is your big hope for turning things around a little. Colin Powell was the voice of reason, but he will live in infamy as the "house nigger" that the neo cons sent to the United Nations with a fistful of bogus info detailing Iraq's WMDs. IMHO.

Dogg

[BadMan]

would agree with that comment only in the sense that the task seems to go nowhere, but in the sense that it is meaningless, I would disagree.

There are very good reasons why we are there and don't want to leave just yet. It would be nice to believe that we are staying just because we don't want to admit defeat but the truth is never that simple.

I would refer to the following comments that I didn't write,

Full-spectrum dominance is the proposed ability of United States armed forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations. To achieve this dominance, the U. S. would have to invest in and develop new military capabilities, namely dominant maneuvers, precision engagement, focused logistics, and full-dimensional protection.

The term was defined in the Joint Vision 2020 of the Department of Defense.

Harold Pinter referenced the term in his 2005 Nobel Prize Lecture:

"I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

http://www.dtic.mil/futurejointwarfare/

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2..._20006025.html

So I guess this is the " Project for the new american century", sounds like alot of fun. Iran seems the next target and then Syria and then who knows. I wonder whats up with all the foreplay, why don't we just knuckle up, ball up and go head up with China and Russia?

If the Iraqi resistance is doing this to our "superior" war machine, I can just imagine what a real military could do. I think we should just stick to punking the little guys. Hey I know, why don't we invade Grenada again.

Laughing my ass off because ignorance is bliss,

The Bad One.

[El Perro]

Was there ever a national enterprise more Sisyphean than the war in Iraq?

As mindnumbingly misdirected and wasteful as it is, this bears remembering:

Vietnam War dead:

USA-58,000

South Vietnamese military-230,000

Vietnamese civilians-2-4 million (McNamera estimated 3.2 million) and,

Reportedly 40,000 civilians killed or wounded since combat ended by unexploded ordnance.

Whatever happened to that "Domino Theory" business?

Dogg

[BadMan]

In the words of the immortal Bart Simpson " HA HA "

The US can not and will not ever control the " insurgency ".

It needs to admit defeat, tuck its tail neatly between it's legs, ala vietnam, and leave, something they won't do until another 2000 US marines die, another 100,000 Iraqi's die, and another 1 trillion goes nicely into the coffers of the chinese government. Who do you think is paying those first trillion?

All in all, if the US doesn't stop waving the flag around the world, we are going down hill from here on out. It is the law of the universe everything has a limit, including US empire, and we are reaching that point soon. I believe that if you live by the sword it is only natural that you will one day be finished off by that same sword.

Iraq CAN stand up, it is the US imposed government that can't stand up because we are "propping" it up. You can't have a democratically elected government in a country under military occupation. Can you?

My vote is for peace, an end to war and an end to arrogance, but as long as their is aggression there will allways be a resistance to that aggression, It is a fundamental rule of physics.

War costs accelerating.

In spite of all the hype about controlling the insurgency, violence is increasing. Iraq can't stand up, so we can't stand down. We're trapped in a no-win, no-exit conflict, policing a civil war. And unfortunately America's domestic partisan politics is creating inflexible strategies that are draining huge resources: The Iraq and Afghan wars are now estimated to top $1.27 trillion amid mounting Middle East tensions and rising domestic terror threats, while a depleted military is unprepared for another major war.

[El Perro]

War costs accelerating.

In spite of all the hype about controlling the insurgency, violence is increasing. Iraq can't stand up, so we can't stand down. We're trapped in a no-win, no-exit conflict, policing a civil war. And unfortunately America's domestic partisan politics is creating inflexible strategies that are draining huge resources: The Iraq and Afghan wars are now estimated to top $1.27 trillion amid mounting Middle East tensions and rising domestic terror threats, while a depleted military is unprepared for another major war.

What's so hard about packing your shit and getting the fuck out? I've done it many times. It has always worked for me. Whatever problems might get worse because of the departure get settled in the long run. Let the problem become Iran's mess to deal with. The bigger issue for the administration is explaining what was "accomplished" if we get out now. Most of the military realize it's a no win situation at this point. IMHO.

[Monger514]

Troll out.

[Easy Go]

Why are you people encouraging this clown? Did you learn nothing from our earlier adventures with trolls? Anybody that doesn't believe in government is so far removed from reality that their opinions are completely irrelevant.

As far as chess goes, just take a quick look at the world champions to see the relationship between the real world insight and chess prowess.

He's a troll. Ignore him.

[El Perro]

HG,

Let me explain my ire re the Libertarians. Over the years it appears that they have become more cultish and insular, with little real regard for the realities of governing, politics and the like. Libertarians strike me as out to lunch sophists, who revel in their ability to have all the answers to all the tough questions, and will let you know of this with their beatific smiles, patronizing manner, and empty platitudes. They ignore the frailties and imperfections of human nature, and announce,"It doesn't have to be this way". Yes, well unfortunately, it does have to be this way and will continue to be this way. At this point Libertarianism has become more a fashionable "philosopy" than anything else. They have about as much to contribute to a meaningful discussion on how to make progress in the world as scientologists. Maybe they can come up with their own L. Ron Hubbard and at least make some real money while they are whiling away their time in their placid ivory towers.

All IMHO.

[Monger514]

I would like to hear more about which road you are further down, how "government is bad in of self"

I would refer you to those two sites I mentioned, simply because people who have a lot more time than me (ok, maybe some of them are smarter, too) have graciously written volumes on the subject.

and of course your prowess in chess.

I was pretty good when I was young, beat a master in a tournament once, but then hit puberty and got interested in girls instead.

I wait expectantly by my keyboard. Please fucking help me.

You know if you haunt this board you are beyond help.

[Dickhead]

I believe that the government which governs least, governs best. I also believe the true measure of any society is how it treats its weaker members. I further believe that in class-stratified societies, people are born with unequal opportunity sets. And, even in non-stratified societies, intelligence is distributed unequally (bell curve). Intelligence affects talents. That's the root of stratification in the first place; to the victors go the spoils.

So I think that sound government seeks to mitigate some of this, although I don't believe inequality can ever be eliminated. It could be mitigated by other institutions, such as religious or charitable institutions, but it isn't. I'm a capitalist, so I want to eliminate this inequality for purely selfish reasons: reducing it creates a higher percentage of productive citizens in the long run.

Of course as John Maynard Keynes noted, "in the long run everybody is dead."

I haven't played chess in a long time. The last time was in this market in the Andes in Perú where this guy was selling life-size chess pieces. Well, almost life-sized; Peruvians are pretty short. All the people on the tour bus were cheering for me and all the people in the market place were cheering for him. I did beat him. I'd like to start playing chess again but I have to finish teaching Rosie how to play cribbage first. Plus it would cut into my time to play computerized baseball.

[El Perro]

I would like to hear more about which road you are further down, how "government is bad in of self" and of course your prowess in chess. I wait expectantly by my keyboard. Please fucking help me.

DH, I'm sure we agree on a lot more than we disagree on, but I imagine I'm further down the road to realizing how the the very idea of government is bad in of itself, whereas you (like many, many other people) are still clinging to the idea that government can do good things, if only the right people with the right ideas were in charge. And yes, I'm totally reading between the lines of your posts and inferring things and putting words in your mouth, so just correct me if I'm wrong.

For sure, though, you cannot beat me in a game of chess.

HG

[Monger514]

DH,

I'm sure we agree on a lot more than we disagree on, but I imagine I'm further down the road to realizing how the the very idea of government is bad in of itself, whereas you (like many, many other people) are still clinging to the idea that government can do good things, if only the right people with the right ideas were in charge. And yes, I'm totally reading between the lines of your posts and inferring things and putting words in your mouth, so just correct me if I'm wrong.

For sure, though, you cannot beat me in a game of chess.

HG