Obama Promises to Dismantle Our Armed Forces(?)

[Makalakumu]

Tez3 has it right, but there is only a little more then I can add. The "image" of war is carefully controlled in our country. Images of death an destruction are, for the most part, controlled. American's aren't allowed to really see what is happening in regards to this war or any of the modern wars.

Now, back to the whole funding issue. This point weaves its way in and out of any thread about the Military Industrial Complex. Everyone needs to ask a simple question. "Who pays for these wars?"

Not a single taxpayer dollar has been spent on the war in Iraq. It's all debt. Where does that money come from?

 

[Makalakumu]

Where does that money come from?

Oh yeah, the answer to this question is why Obama, or any other president, will never be able to do anything about out of control military expenditures.

 

[Twin Fist]

Tez,
I am sorry but this "wars cannot be won" stuff is errant non-sense composed primarily of lofty minded semantics and idealism. i dont mean this as an insult to you, but I cannot disagree strongly enough with your posted opinion. It also happens i agree with you, to an extent.

The IDEA that "if you have to fight, you have already lost" is just that, an IDEA, war is a creature of REALITY. I was in the military for 12 years. War is reality. No one knows this more than a soldier.

Yes, war means dead people. So in a way, everyone loses. But thats just semantics, and idealism. I happen to agree with you that everyone loses in war, because it should never HAVE to happen. But that is idealism. And i guess i am a bit of an idealist.

The reality is that as long as there are evil men, willing to do evil to achieve thier goals, and other men willing to stand up to them, there will be war.

In REALITY WW2 was WON because an evil, vicious dictator (3 of them actually) was defeated and stopped from taking over the continent.

Every war that has ever been fought has been won by someone and lost and someone else. Simply put, you have won or lost when the fighting stops.

And BTW- you posted this:
"This isn't a war about right and wrong, it's a war about oil and money and egos."

can you back up that with some facts? or at least explain WHY that statement should be given any serious consideration?

cuz so sorry, i think that is pretty much 100% crap.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Look, it's as simple as this:

Humans have always been social creatures, so anywhere they congregate, attempts have been made to stabilize societies. Humans also possessing a degree of individualism, not every society agrees on the same codes of behavior.

Now every so often, one society, or more often a smaller, more fanatic group within that society, will develop its societal ideal so far outside the "norm", and their will to impose it will become so overdeveloped, that they must be brought down by violence before they destroy *every* society, and break the *whole* machine down.

In this case, I'm no idealist, just a realist, but the way I see it it's having to choose between two wrong courses of action which is the less wrong, is all: On the one side it's the oil greed business, but one way or another, however much they try to halt the advance of alternative energy sources, THEY can be fixed.

On the other, are the ones who, despite all that, ARE still religious fanatics who would STILL like to see all of us and our families wiped out, and institute a totalitarian theocracy wherever they can, and that's not our current administration's fault, whatever else may be.

THEY cannot be fixed but by force at this point. Nobody gets this, and so it's gonna end ugly no matter what way it goes.

So being a realist, to me they are the more immediate and long term damaging threat, they've gotta go if it can be done, and then we fix the other.

There is no "heroism" in any of this apart from the willingness to sacrifice one's self for their fellows despite danger to oneself.

This isn't, in a true sense, "good" versus "evil"-- it's just the way it's going to be for as long as humans live on this earth.

Nobody understands thet the purpose of war is not, has never been, and WILL never be to determine who is RIGHT. The purpose of war is after all the RIGHT ways to handle it have failed, to determine who is LEFT.

 

[Tez3]

Tez,
I am sorry but this "wars cannot be won" stuff is errant non-sense composed primarily of lofty minded semantics and idealism. i dont mean this as an insult to you, but I cannot disagree strongly enough with your posted opinion. It also happens i agree with you, to an extent.

The IDEA that "if you have to fight, you have already lost" is just that, an IDEA, war is a creature of REALITY. I was in the military for 12 years. War is reality. No one knows this more than a soldier.

Yes, war means dead people. So in a way, everyone loses. But thats just semantics, and idealism. I happen to agree with you that everyone loses in war, because it should never HAVE to happen. But that is idealism. And i guess i am a bit of an idealist.

The reality is that as long as there are evil men, willing to do evil to achieve thier goals, and other men willing to stand up to them, there will be war.

In REALITY WW2 was WON because an evil, vicious dictator (3 of them actually) was defeated and stopped from taking over the continent.

Every war that has ever been fought has been won by someone and lost and someone else. Simply put, you have won or lost when the fighting stops.

And BTW- you posted this:
"This isn't a war about right and wrong, it's a war about oil and money and egos."

can you back up that with some facts? or at least explain WHY that statement should be given any serious consideration?

cuz so sorry, i think that is pretty much 100% crap.

I have been in and with the services since 1969, I have seen a few wars first hand.
In America as I said you haven't had a war on your mainland since the Civil war, you have no idea what it's like to pick yourself up after a war.Your soldiers came back to a country that was in the same condition as they left it. Ours came back to devastation. While our soldiers were away fighting their families were being bombed to hell, many soldiers survived fierce fighting only to find their loved ones had been killed at home. Home, workplaces, towns all over Europe were destroyed. Millions died, millions displaced, millions had to rebuild their lives with or without their loved ones. That's why wars are never won. Victory is in name only. We kicked the dictators out and restored democracy and I thank G-d we did but the cost was almost unbearable.This isn't theory or semantics, this is the real truth of war.

The Allies won the Second World War and there's no doubt that without the help of the Americans it would have been impossible. This is where Europe and America differ though and why America seems more willing to send it's army in than the rest of the world. You send your soldiers off and live your comfortable lives at home, we know what war is like, too many haven't forgotten. Your soldiers, brave as they were and as grateful as we were still got on their boats and sailed home to comfort, we had a country to build, people to mourn and lives to restart.
Winning is simple for you, your soldiers do it for you.
Do I care whether you give my opinions serious consideration, no, not really. You are entrenched in your belief of glorious war and American might is right , nothing I say will cause you to pause for thought or even question your beliefs. I however don't chose to insult you by calling what you believe crap.

 

[Sukerkin]

Nice,balanced, post, Andy.

TF, I take your points on the losing or winning of wars in that, when one side can no longer effectively project power then they have lost. I think what Tez meant tho' is less philosophical and more hard-cash economics and social dynamics than you took her words to say.

In the sense that we (technically) stopped looting the fallen and plundering the cities of the vanquished, war has not been a profit-making institution for a couple of centuries now. So even if you win, you lose. Also, normal mortality rates are so low in our developed societies that the loss of an individual is felt many times more strongly than in decades past because families (thank the gods) are not used to losing their children any more. So, in the cases of those families, even if you win, you lose.

Projection of foreign policy and influence is predicated on the ability to back up words with force, it is true and is why almost every country in the world maintains as much standing army as it can afford. But actually putting that 'force' into play is such an expensive undertaking that it is economic suicide to do so - the States are building up one heck of a big depression for themselves once the Banks come calling for their money back.

The modern-world case where that side-effect might be counterbalanced is where the 'payoff' for the war is big enough to offset the business risks - that's what we have had with the operations in the Middle East i.e. the investment return may well be good enough to make it worthwhile.

I know that some members here, like Don and TF do not see things in this light and I have no problem with their holding those views. I do see them as incomplete and not taking into account the very real machinations of global real politik but it's certainly a less cynical and depressing mindset than I have on events.

 

[Tez3]

Thank you Sukerkin, I rarely argue from a philosophical point of view, it's nearly always from a practical point. I don't see numbers, I see people. i don't see the glory of fighting battles I see the coffins arriving from the planes. I see the point of fighting for what you believe is right but I believe you must be so sure and check, check and check again that what you are doing is right. If you send your army in you must then take responsiblity for that army, to know that those deaths that will inevitably occur are on your concience and not to blithely mouth the words oh there will always be collateral damage and hey it's so sad. You must feel each of those deaths and be very very sure that they died for the right reasons, that you did not waste those precious lives. You must be able to look into your heart and know that each of those sacrifices was worth it. To be a good and just leader you must suffer too.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Thank you Sukerkin, I rarely argue from a philosophical point of view, it's nearly always from a practical point. I don't see numbers, I see people. i don't see the glory of fighting battles I see the coffins arriving from the planes. I see the point of fighting for what you believe is right but I believe you must be so sure and check, check and check again that what you are doing is right. If you send your army in you must then take responsiblity for that army, to know that those deaths that will inevitably occur are on your concience and not to blithely mouth the words oh there will always be collateral damage and hey it's so sad. You must feel each of those deaths and be very very sure that they died for the right reasons, that you did not waste those precious lives. You must be able to look into your heart and know that each of those sacrifices was worth it. To be a good and just leader you must suffer too.

Continuing on your earlier US Civil War analogy, a wee quote from the time that sums it up:

"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it"--Confederate General Robert E. Lee.

Which in itself speaks to us now--trying to make war this civil, polite little chess game that gentlemen play over tea makes it worse because it'll drag on because it "isn't so bad" , and in future if we ever have to have a "disagreement" with another country they won't be scared because the last war with us "wasn't so bad".

That's the reason why Northern/Southern American relations have in some cases NEVER fully healed even to this day, was because of how war was conducted in the Civil War. They understood that the idea of war was to make it as horrible for the other side as you possibly could, not because you enjoyed it, and not because it was the right or morally correct thing to do, but so that when peace finally came, it would LAST.

Did it work?

Well we've never had another Civil War anyway. (though I'm beginning to wonder...... )


But---not for no reason is it still, nearly a century and a half later, considered "Fightin' words" in the South to call someone a "Sherman"......

 

[Tez3]

Continuing on your earlier US Civil War analogy, a wee quote from the time that sums it up:

"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it"--Confederate General Robert E. Lee.

Which in itself speaks to us now--trying to make war this civil, polite little chess game that gentlemen play over tea makes it worse because it'll drag on because it "isn't so bad" , and in future if we ever have to have a "disagreement" with another country they won't be scared because the last war with us "wasn't so bad".

That's the reason why Northern/Southern American relations have in some cases NEVER fully healed even to this day, was because of how war was conducted in the Civil War. They understood that the idea of war was to make it as horrible for the other side as you possibly could, not because you enjoyed it, but so that when peace finally came, it would LAST.

Did it work?

Well we've never had another Civil War anyway.


But---not for no reason is it still, nearly a century and a half later, considered "Fightin' words" in the South to call someone a "Sherman"......

Very wise words! wars that have been over for decades, centuries even still cause pain in many places. The aftermath of those wars, such as in the Middle East after the 1914-18 war are still reverberating now.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Very wise words! wars that have been over for decades, centuries even still cause pain in many places. The aftermath of those wars, such as in the Middle East after the 1914-18 war are still reverberating now.

The damage to the old railroads and farm fields in Georgia are still visible today from Sherman's March To The Sea.

 

[Andrew Green]

In REALITY WW2 was WON because an evil, vicious dictator (3 of them actually) was defeated and stopped from taking over the continent.

I think this is what Tez means:

The total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II was roughly 72 million people. The civilian toll was around 47 million, including 20 million deaths due to war related famine and disease. The military toll was about 25 million, including the deaths of about 4 million prisoners of war in captivity. The Allies lost approximately 61 million people, and the Axis powers lost 11 million.

Look carefully at those numbers, 47 million CIVILIAN casualties, That is less then .01% the civilian casualties suffered due to 9/11. If going to war meant that the US would suffer millions of civilian casualties, have not just a couple of building destroyed, but huge pieces of its infrastructure, and that the bombs would not only be dropping on the other side of the world, but in US cities, would overthrowing Sudam, on charges that proved false, have been worth going to war? Not to mention that victory had almost 6x the casualties on the winning side compared to the losing side.

US "war" history is very different then it is in other countries. Some of your people like to tease France as "surrender monkies" and what not, but ignore the history. The US came in at the end, but over WW1 and WW2, as well as the time in between France probably did as much, if not more then the US to fight against Germany. They also suffered occupation, something the US has never been on the receiving end of, just the giving end. I imagine that would give them a very different perspective on the US occupation of Iraq.

Remember that in both World wars while Europe was fighting, and cities being destroyed the US was selling stuff to them for a good chunk of it, and staying out of the fighting. But no US cities where bombed, no US territory was occupied, and the battle was already turning by the time the US got involved, and when they did it was in Europe and Japan, not Washington or New York.

So when she says no one wins, remember that for a lot of other countries, war meant your own cities getting leveled, massive civilian, not just military casualties, homes destroyed, workplaces destroyed, etc. And that was if you "won." Hard to call yourself the "winner" there IMO.

 

[Twin Fist]

Tez,
I am making every effort here to be as polite as possible. If i fail, it wont be to lack of effort I assure you, and if I come across as gruff, or rude, I will apologize, now, in advance.

You are right in that no, we havnt had to fight on our own soil since the 1800's. That does give us a different perspective. I freely admit that.

You also seem to think that we dont "really" get it. Or that our perspective is worth less than say YOURS. I say hogwash.

is our perspective Different? yes, invalid? no.

Yes, AGAIN, i get what you are saying, and AGAIN in a way, I agree, wars are never won.

But in another way, they are. Stopping Hitler from turning the continent into one big Germany was a win no matter how you slice it, no matter what it cost. The Cold War was a win, because it stopped the USSR from turning a big chunk of the world into Soviet real estate. A "win" is when good triumphs over evil.

BTW- You dont know what i think, so please stop attributing things to me that you are in reality just making up as you go along. I do not think that american might makes right. i think American IDEALS makes right.

And clearly, your posts HAVE made me pause to think, or I wouldnt have bothered responding to them. So again, when it comes to me, stop assuming.

And here is the thing, the reason i asked you for some explanation is because the statement "this war is about oil and greed" without any other explanation IS crap. I dont want to think that you are mearly spouting platitudes, thats why i asked for some more info, so I could understand where you are comming from.

I can refute that claim, for example, if it is about oil, why are we in the US paying more than ever for oil and gas? If we were stealing their oil, we would be paying less. So clearly, we are NOT there stealing their oil. Hell, itis a fact that the Iraqi's are charging us more for petrol in country than they charge natives. If anything, THEY are ripping US off......

Now, can you back up your statement? can you give anything to WHY you think that, if indeed you do?

Andy,
That was a nice post. I particularly liked this:
"religious fanatics who would STILL like to see all of us and our families wiped out, and institute a totalitarian theocracy wherever they can, and that's not our current administration's fault, whatever else may be."

very wise words

Sukerkin.
I get what you are saying. War is, on many levels, a lose/lose business. But the thing is, once you get to a certain point, you cant look at it that way. I dont know anyone who WANTS America in this fight against global islamic radicals.I certainly dont WANT this fight.

But most everyone I know is glad that we are. Because it MUST be done.

 

[Makalakumu]

...war has not been a profit-making institution for a couple of centuries now.

But actually putting that 'force' into play is such an expensive undertaking that it is economic suicide to do so - the States are building up one heck of a big depression for themselves once the Banks come calling for their money back.

I disagree with the bolded statement strongly. Modern wars are always profitable for the few that perpetrate them. No mattter if said war sinks the country into a depression or worse. This is just another reality that the global financial elite stick us with time and time again. These same cabals have funded both sides all of the way back to Napoleon.

Your second statement that I highlighted is something that I think drives home my point nicely.

 

[Sukerkin]

I agree, Upnorth. In the first extract you highlighted, I was speaking from a macro-economic level. In any war there are always small groups who profit from the generalised loss that hits everyone else.

 

[Twin Fist]

I concur about getting on track.
So I don't try to change your minds anymore. The rest of us here would appreciate the same courtesy.

I aint trying to change anyone's mind. But if i see something that i KNOW to be false,i will speak up.

If I see something I disagree with, but dont think i can prove,i may or may not.

And my mind isnt closed, if someone posts some FACTS that prove me wrong, i'll admit it. Even a good reasoned argument.

 

[Sukerkin]

Well, you've stumped me with that. That takes some doing by the way. Well done.

I had noted an improvement in the way you approached what you posted and that is to be lauded - as I often say, we love debate here at MT and hate arguments.

I've tried on several threads to show what I think is missing from what you portray as the 'way of the world' and have conceded that just because I happen to think that something is such-and-such a way doesn't necessarily make it so.

But I've failed and, therefore, if you follow the logic through, you must be right ... because there is no reasonable middle-ground after all ... or is there?

Anyhow, may the world-view you perceive endure for a thousand years (but let there be an opt-out clause so that those of us who don't agree can have our objections duly noted).

 

[Tez3]

Okay, a question, non political. If the Armed Forces awere to be dismantled, what would you do with all the now redundant people?

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Adopt them as family and head for the mountains. It's gonna be a bumpy ride.

 

[Twin Fist]

But I've failed and, therefore, if you follow the logic through, you must be right ... because there is no reasonable middle-ground after all ... or is there?

Oh no My friend, there very much IS a middle ground. Some things are facts like did saddam violate the ceasefire?, many things are opinions, like morality and the "cost of war" 9in the terms we were discussing it earlier)

I didnt agree with EVERYTHING you said, but i understood it, and i think it is valid, from YOUR point of view.

tez,
You quoted me but your responding to Don.

 

[Big Don]

Okay, a question, non political. If the Armed Forces awere to be dismantled, what would you do with all the now redundant people?

Doctors, attorneys, technicians, law enforcement (MP's), Clerical staffers, drivers, pilots, who exactly is redundant, aside from those Pollyannas who just hate the idea of violence?