StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Now please don't flame me over this as I believe it is a legitimate criticism of a flaw that has been demonstrated again and again.

The US Military and government is so egostatistical and firm in their beliefs that they are "undefeatable" etc etc etc (you know what I mean), that they have hamstrung themselves. The public nowadays demand instant gratification and the moment they see a body-bag they run away in fright.

The military can only have public support for an absolutely minimal time and without casualties, because they have told the public that they can do it this way.

Well, thats it thus far.

Criticisms?

I think it depends on the conflict. Americans will not tolerate casulties in a place like Somalia. But we lost what was it, eight soldiers in one day, in Afghanistan. I did not even sense an inkling of hesitation from the American public.

The worst thing someone like Osama, Hussein, or N Korea can do is underestimate our willingness to see a fight to the end. The trick is knowing when the American public will support it or not.

I do have problems with our whole military/industrial complex. It has much room for improvement and sucks up huge amounts of money yet seems to ignore the guy on the ground. I just dont think we are as egotistical as you might believe, but its just my opinion.

Depends, if the public wants revenge they would be all for war. Otherwise people usually doesn't want to get involved especially if we are losing soldiers.

The whole 'fear of bodybags' thing is vastly overstated IMO.

Vympel wrote:The whole 'fear of bodybags' thing is vastly overstated IMO.

I agree, the media plays that issue up too much and I don't think it represents the majority of Americans.

It's not just the US, but any country really. The Dutch had the same problem in Bosnia, and as a result, they left people (who were under their care) to be butchered by the war criminals, rather than risk lives. It's just a fact.

Vympel wrote:The whole 'fear of bodybags' thing is vastly overstated IMO.

They did a survey not to long ago that showed the average American was less concerned about high body counts than were most politicians and Generals.

The supposed excessive fear of losses was never something I've noticed. The media just oftened needs something to let them expand a 15 second sound bit into a 3 minute report.

The US can however win decisively, quickly and with minimal if any losses to its own forces. It merely requires the use of nuclear weaponry.

weemadando wrote:Now please don't flame me over this as I believe it is a legitimate criticism of a flaw that has been demonstrated again and again.

The US Military and government is so egostatistical and firm in their beliefs that they are "undefeatable" etc etc etc (you know what I mean), that they have hamstrung themselves. The public nowadays demand instant gratification and the moment they see a body-bag they run away in fright.

The military can only have public support for an absolutely minimal time and without casualties, because they have told the public that they can do it this way.

Well, thats it thus far.

Criticisms?

IMO the attitude that the US Military is "undefeatable" really came out of the ass spanking of Iraq in the Gulf War. During Desert Shield we thought it could potentially be a big mess. Personally, I don't think we got involved in anything really big because of bad aftertaste of Vietnam. Sure we still had all the Cold War stuff with the Russians but I don't know of anyone who seriously thought that we could just stomp their ass whenever we wanted and any big conflict at that time could easily turn into a big conflict putting the Russians on the other side.

Actually, it was probably the Cold War and the after effects of Vietnam that kept the US from getting into crap like it is now. Now we seem to have gotten over both

Personally, I think that the US government has been acting like asses on the World stage for awhile now. Maybe we have for a long time but it just seems more blatant to me now. I certainly would have been much happier if McCain had been the Republican nominee.

Tsyroc wrote: Personally, I think that the US government has been acting like asses on the World stage for awhile now. Maybe we have for a long time but it just seems more blatant to me now. I certainly would have been much happier if McCain had been the Republican nominee.

Good God NO! The man is a liberal in the Republican party. I am not generally a man who votes along party lines (well, let me amend that, I do tend to vote more for republicans because they tend to be less liberal, but good candidates can come from either party - for example: we had a pretty good congressman in this district for years who was a democrat, and I always voted for him because he was a moderate who was progressive on some issues but was not far left like the current leadership of the democratic party).

Don't forget that McCain was also the driving force behind Campaign Finance Reform (aka "The Incumbent Protection Act"). Maybe campaign finance did need reforming, but they did exactly the wrong thing to do it. What he promoted, and the congress passed is blatantly unconstitutional (I expect the Supreme Court will overturn it once it comes up for review). It limits free speech. More to the point it limits political free speech. As Patrick Henry said:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.

Well Senator McCain has approached it, and I no longer trust him. I am highly suspicious of anyone who would limit one of our most basic civil liberties. I am suspicious of the rest of the congress who passed the bill, and I am suspicious of the president for signing it into law. But above all, I am suspicious of McCain and Feingold for authoring the bill. Thank God he's not president.

Tsyroc wrote: Sure we still had all the Cold War stuff with the Russians but I don't know of anyone who seriously thought that we could just stomp their ass whenever we wanted and any big conflict at that time could easily turn into a big conflict putting the Russians on the other side.

Bah,you do not have to search for long before finding bunches of jingoistic assholes trying to convince you that a a platoon of marines was all that was needed to wipe out the whole Red Army.
The USA has currently by far the most powerful military in the world.It is not however omnipotent.You cannot for example take over North Korea without the permission of South Korea or even only do something more than a demonstrative bombing while you are tied by Iraq (which I suspect is the reason why they are currently behaving in that way).

I think the main thing being forgotten here is that America is not a militaristic country. Our military is first and formost a defense force and our citizens don't sit around all day dreaming of conquest. Nor do they think of building bigger and better armies. Most Americans are concerned with themselves, their daily affairs, and in general have only the desire to be left alone. We as a nation havn't come unhinged since Perl Harbor, and even then it was still with restraint.

Perinquus wrote: Good God NO! The man is a liberal in the Republican party. I am not generally a man who votes along party lines (well, let me amend that, I do tend to vote more for republicans because they tend to be less liberal, but good candidates can come from either party - for example: we had a pretty good congressman in this district for years who was a democrat, and I always voted for him because he was a moderate who was progressive on some issues but was not far left like the current leadership of the democratic party).

Don't forget that McCain was also the driving force behind Campaign Finance Reform (aka "The Incumbent Protection Act"). Maybe campaign finance did need reforming, but they did exactly the wrong thing to do it. What he promoted, and the congress passed is blatantly unconstitutional (I expect the Supreme Court will overturn it once it comes up for review). It limits free speech. More to the point it limits political free speech. As Patrick Henry said:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.

Well Senator McCain has approached it, and I no longer trust him. I am highly suspicious of anyone who would limit one of our most basic civil liberties. I am suspicious of the rest of the congress who passed the bill, and I am suspicious of the president for signing it into law. But above all, I am suspicious of McCain and Feingold for authoring the bill. Thank God he's not president.

I always thought he was more middle of the road and sensible than what we usually got stuck with from the Republican party because of the religious right. So actually being a liberal in the Republican party works for me because I can't stand the right of the Republican party and there's an even longer list of reasons why I strongly dislike the Democratic party.

I think we need campaign finance reform. It's too easy to buy elections and there's too much campaigning and not enough work getting done. There's too much money in our political system period.

I do agree that every form of campaign finance reform that's even been hinted at so far is crap. I don't know that there is a viable solution to the problem that would jive with personal freedoms in the US. But lets face it, if you have money (corporate or private) in the US you've got a lot more rights and privledges than people who don't have money. There's free speach and then there's what you can say (and get away with) if you have money backing you. Anyone can go to the street corner and spout off about politics but we can't all purchase ads on TV, national newspapers etc..

You know what, I've changed my mind. You're right about the finance reform and hindering of free speach. My real problem is with the dumbass American public that believes the crap it's fed. It's not like political commercials aren't required to diviluge who paid for them. Sometimes it's even explained who the group is and and what they are about. If people can't get through the misleading crap we'll keep getting stuck with the kind of "leadership" choices we've currently been blessed with lately.



Is it just me or does the world seem to be moving more towards the government by massive corporations like in the original Rollerball?

Admiral Piett wrote: Bah,you do not have to search for long before finding bunches of jingoistic assholes trying to convince you that a a platoon of marines was all that was needed to wipe out the whole Red Army.
The USA has currently by far the most powerful military in the world.It is not however omnipotent.You cannot for example take over North Korea without the permission of South Korea or even only do something more than a demonstrative bombing while you are tied by Iraq (which I suspect is the reason why they are currently behaving in that way).

Sure, there were always idiots like that but the key was that they didn't make up a significant part of the government. Since the Gulf War I get the impression that the US government is convinced it can do pretty much what it pleases and that it won't have a problem stomping ass if need be.

Of course we always have to go the military route because there is no way the US government is going to have the balls to try any kind of serious financial embargo. That would be bad for business and if there's anything that comes first in the US it is making $$$$. Not to mention, using up a bunch of million dollar missiles is good for business because buying replacements is good for the economy too (Tomahawks, built right here in Tucson).

Its not that there is too much money in politics, its that we've got a bunch of corrupt politicians who are influenced by the money. The rest of the problem lies with an ignorent public that is easily lied to. Unfortunately the people get what they want, and what they want isn't usually very good. The only reason America has done so well for so long is that the Constitution keeps the fickle masses from harming themselves fatally.

Falcon wrote:I think the main thing being forgotten here is that America is not a militaristic country.

Hmmm...that must be why you DON'T have the largest army in the world...no wait...

Falcon wrote:Our military is first and formost a defense force and our citizens don't sit around all day dreaming of conquest.

When was the last time the U.S. defended it self against an invasion? Whan was the last time the U.S. invaded someplace? Name one country in which the *ordinary* citizen dream of conquests.

Falcon wrote:Nor do they think of building bigger and better armies.

Hmmm...that must be why didn't just recently increase your defense budget...no wait...

Falcon wrote: Most Americans are concerned with themselves, their daily affairs...

You got that right.

Falcon wrote:...and in general have only the desire to be left alone.

Well then you should leave everyone else alone.

Falcon wrote: We as a nation havn't come unhinged since Perl Harbor, and even then it was still with restraint.

What do you mean "unhinged"? And I wouldn't excatly call nuking Japan as a show of restraint.

Falcon wrote:Its not that there is too much money in politics, its that we've got a bunch of corrupt politicians who are influenced by the money.

Yeah, I think these are commonly referred to as 'the Republicans'.

Falcon wrote:Its not that there is too much money in politics, its that we've got a bunch of corrupt politicians who are influenced by the money. The rest of the problem lies with an ignorent public that is easily lied to. Unfortunately the people get what they want, and what they want isn't usually very good. The only reason America has done so well for so long is that the Constitution keeps the fickle masses from harming themselves fatally.

Yeah, that we can't change the constitution very easily probably has kept us from royally screwing the pooch. We've tried pretty hard though. We have managed to ignore bits and pieces of the constitution when we wanted though.

The ignorance bit is what convinced me Perinquus was right about finance reform. I was coming at it from the wrong way again. Certainly greed is a problem in our country but ignorance is probably the worst and the biggest problem. Unfortunatly I think a lot of people like it that way.

Sir Sirius wrote:

Falcon wrote:Its not that there is too much money in politics, its that we've got a bunch of corrupt politicians who are influenced by the money.

Yeah, I think these are commonly referred to as 'the Republicans'.

There's plenty to go around on both sides. The Republicans just get their cash from the corporations (so they generally have a little more) while the Democrats get it from organized labor, other organizations and Barbra Striezand . Unfortunately for the Dems labor got pounded in the 80s because many unions screwed themselves and drove companys overseas.

Sir Sirius wrote:

Falcon wrote:I think the main thing being forgotten here is that America is not a militaristic country.

Hmmm...that must be why you DON'T have the largest army in the world...no wait...

We don't. China has a larger army than ours.

Sir Sirius wrote:

Falcon wrote:Our military is first and formost a defense force and our citizens don't sit around all day dreaming of conquest.

When was the last time the U.S. defended it self against an invasion? Whan was the last time the U.S. invaded someplace? Name one country in which the *ordinary* citizen dream of conquests.

At least our political system, much as you seem inclined to sneer at it, is a bit better at keeping Hitlers and Stalins from coming to power.

Sir Sirius wrote:

Falcon wrote:Nor do they think of building bigger and better armies.

Hmmm...that must be why didn't just recently increase your defense budget...no wait...

So let me understand you, we should not spend money to keep our armed forces as advanced as possible, particularly in an age when we are more likely to face unconventional threats like terrorists and guerrilla forces?

Sir Sirius wrote:

Falcon wrote: Most Americans are concerned with themselves, their daily affairs...

You got that right.

Which of course makes us completely different from the rest of the world's people, who are, as we all know, overflowing with altruism and a completely disinterested desire to help others...

Sir Sirius wrote:

Falcon wrote:...and in general have only the desire to be left alone.

Well then you should leave everyone else alone.

So we should be isolationist? And suppose we had done that in the 1940s? I suppose you'd prefer living in a world with the Swastika and Rising Sun flags flying over half of it?

If we did just "leave everyone else alone" people like you would be screaming just as loud at what selfish, uncaring bastards we are, and how we're content just to let the rest of the world go to hell as long as we can be fat, safe and happy in our land of plenty, etc.

Sir Sirius wrote:

Falcon wrote: We as a nation havn't come unhinged since Perl Harbor, and even then it was still with restraint.

What do you mean "unhinged"? And I wouldn't excatly call nuking Japan as a show of restraint.

I'd call it the lesser of two evils.

Sir Sirius wrote:

Falcon wrote: Its not that there is too much money in politics, its that we've got a bunch of corrupt politicians who are influenced by the money.

Yeah, I think these are commonly referred to as 'the Republicans'.

Selective memory is a wonderful thing isn't it? The Republicans are the bad guys. And it's at least partly because America rattles its saber and uses its military might to interfere with other countries. Nevermind that it was Clinton and the Democrats who sent us on more foreign deployments than any other President in U.S. history (and nevermind that it was Kennedy and Johnson - two more Democrats - who got us involved in Vietnam), and that Clinton conveniently timed some of our military strikes to distract attention from his impeachment. The Republicans are the big bad bullies because... well, because they just are!

The American government will never operate at peak efficency until money is eliminated from the election process. Campaigns are now financed by one of two things,

1) Corporations

2) The (blank) Party

The problem with 1) is that the donatees will be inclined to pass and propose legislation that unfairly favors the corporation in question. This is what we call 'The Blindingly Obvious'.

The problem with 2) is that the legislation will be, most of the time, drawn strictly across party lines-yes, there is the occasional maverick and differant candidates have slightly differant views, but by and large, the ones who hold the views closest to party lines will have more publicity, a larger bank account, and thus, a better shot at winning-, and as a result voters are faced with opposing sets of views polarized around two points with nothing in the middle, save for the occasional independent who never wins, because, faced with these two viewpoints, the average voter, who cannot be bothered to educate himself about the choices, will pick whichever one his parents voted for, and will indoctrinate, if merely by example, his children to vote strictly across party lines, thus stagnating the political arena further.

This has been an attack of the Bloody Frickin' Obvious. Have a nice day.

HemlockGrey wrote:The American government will never operate at peak efficency until money is eliminated from the election process. Campaigns are now financed by one of two things,

1) Corporations

2) The (blank) Party

In addition, I would propose the following change:

3) No more winner takes all. Let's say that a state has nine electorial votes, and 51% of the state's population votes for presidential candidate A , and the other 49% for candidate B. A will not get all nine votes, he/she will get five, and B will get four. That way, whoever wins the popular vote, also wins the electorate. A few states already have this policy inacted.
House seats would be determined almost the same way. Let's say a state is alloted seven representives. Each two years, all the parties in that state nominate seven people to go to the House. They rank these individuals one through seven. The people then vote for the party list. If the Reps get 43%, their top three people get elected. If the Dems get 43% also, their top three go. If a third party gets 14%, their top man goes to D.C. This way, the selection of politions is better matched to what the people want.

Tsyroc wrote:

Sir Sirius wrote:

Falcon wrote:Its not that there is too much money in politics, its that we've got a bunch of corrupt politicians who are influenced by the money.

Yeah, I think these are commonly referred to as 'the Republicans'.

There's plenty to go around on both sides. The Republicans just get their cash from the corporations (so they generally have a little more) while the Democrats get it from organized labor, other organizations and Barbra Striezand . Unfortunately for the Dems labor got pounded in the 80s because many unions screwed themselves and drove companys overseas.

Actually thats not entirely true. Republicans in fact get most of their money in the form of 1,000 dollar or less contributions from individual people. Much more than the Democrats do thats for sure. Of course Republicans get quite a bit of corporation money since they're known as the best friend of business

Wicked Pilot wrote:

HemlockGrey wrote:The American government will never operate at peak efficency until money is eliminated from the election process. Campaigns are now financed by one of two things,

1) Corporations

2) The (blank) Party

In addition, I would propose the following change:

3) No more winner takes all. Let's say that a state has nine electorial votes, and 51% of the state's population votes for presidential candidate A , and the other 49% for candidate B. A will not get all nine votes, he/she will get five, and B will get four. That way, whoever wins the popular vote, also wins the electorate. A few states already have this policy inacted.
House seats would be determined almost the same way. Let's say a state is alloted seven representives. Each two years, all the parties in that state nominate seven people to go to the House. They rank these individuals one through seven. The people then vote for the party list. If the Reps get 43%, their top three people get elected. If the Dems get 43% also, their top three go. If a third party gets 14%, their top man goes to D.C. This way, the selection of politions is better matched to what the people want.

If you want to do that (no more winner take all in states) I suggest we go back to the old electorate system where the people elect representatives who vote independently for the President. We should also go back to a state legislature elected federal Senate too. I disagree with the interfearing of districting, the point is that representatives be elected by what the people in that district want, not what the whole rest of the state wants. If we did it that way the representatives would no longer have a district to represent, they'd be representing a poll of an entire state, I don't think thats acceptable. If two or three big cities who were heavily in favor of 1 party it would deny equal representation to the rest of the citizens in the state. Remember, the object of American government is not democracy.

Falcon wrote:The only reason America has done so well for so long is that the Constitution keeps the fickle masses from harming themselves fatally.

There's an irony in someone saying that while simultaneously saying (in another thread) that strict separation of church and state should be ignored because people have been trampling over it for decades, and so this "precedent" outweighs the constitution.