Conquer Club

Tea Party Defense Spending

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:56 pm

thegreekdog wrote:Woodruff, for my own part, anyone that I had the opportunity to help elect in 2010 (one person) will not be voted for by me again when he runs again... precisely because he's a neo-conservative and not a republican (little r).

The problem is, you DID vote them in...
and I DO lay the blame at Tea Party rhetoric.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:58 pm

Woodruff wrote:
I believe very much in a strong US military also, for what should be obvious reasons. By the same token, I well recognize the vast amount of savings that can be found in the military without damaging that role.

I came into this thread late, and this might be better in another thread, but I would be very interested in your personnal perspective on what should be cut in the military. (seriously)
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby GreecePwns on Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:05 pm

I do appreciate the Tea Party ideal of voting out those who go against the ideology. Eventually after cycling through enough, you'll find enough people who support the true libertarian cause.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2655
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby Woodruff on Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:10 am

Phatscotty wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Woodruff wrote:So if the Tea Party is so concerned with cutting our spending, why is it that they seem to be wholly against cutting military spending? Why is no one up in arms over this like they are over the more "socialistic" programs?


IDK what you are talking about, or how you come to the assumption the Tea Party is against cutting military spending.


I don't know how you can avoid that conclusion, by observing those the Tea Party allegedly swept into Congress and how they're reacting to the idea of cutting military spending. Unless you're just closing your eyes to it, which is a distinct probability.

Phatscotty wrote:Military needs to be cut. Everything needs to be cut. What part of everything do you fail to understand the last 100 times I said as much? Oh, not enough to stop Woody from creating a thread questioning futher.
Woodruffs attempt to bedazzle the Tea Party fails.


YOU are not the Tea Party, Phatscotty. What YOU say doesn't change policy at all. What those the Tea Party elected say and what those the Tea Party elected DO FOR POLICY is what matters. You should try paying attention to what they're doing.


then why the F are you asking me? :-s

I am part of the Tea Party, along with a millions of Independents and millions of Democrats. I know what I'm talking about, and it's crystal clear you are the one who is far behind the times and in denial of the revolution.


Oh brother.

Phatscotty wrote:I know my people. I can speak for the majority.
I have seen too many demands and concessions to the repeated comments that the military should be cut, so I reject your observation flat out. Sure, you might have seen one or two people make comments (Jon Mccain? LOL!) but it certainly is not an issue at any of the Tea Parties or any of our sites. Is that a valid way to come to my conclusion?


No, I would say it's not a valid way. I voted for Obama. I don't agree with what Obama has done since he's been in office. Because of that, I have been highly vocal about his failures in that regard. I don't hear many Tea Partiers being highly vocal about their politicians' (that they're so proud to have put into office) unwillingness to cut the defense budget.

Phatscotty wrote:I can safely say the Tea Party position on the issue is we can only afford just over half the money (60%) we are spending, as evidences by the reality that our gov't has to borrow 40 cents of every dollar that is spent. Everything is going to need to be cut somewhat. Nothing is off the table as far as cuts.


YOUR politicians absolutely disagree with that last statement.

Phatscotty wrote:Our Credit rating as a country is on downgrade notice. How about you stop fighting against people who are just trying to protect our AAA credit rating? When are you gonna get pissed about debts and overspending? Are you now? Do you understand what a downgrade would mean to me, you, and everyone we know? Do you?


What gives you the idea that I'm satisfied with where our debts and spending are? More of your reading comprehension skills in action, I presume?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby Woodruff on Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:12 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Woodruff, for my own part, anyone that I had the opportunity to help elect in 2010 (one person) will not be voted for by me again when he runs again... precisely because he's a neo-conservative and not a republican (little r).


The problem is, you DID vote them in...
and I DO lay the blame at Tea Party rhetoric.


That's thoroughly unfair. I voted for Obama. Obama's policies largely SUCK (capital S). I don't believe I hold any responsibility for that because Obama's CAMPAIGN PROMISES DID NOT SUCK (nearly as much, with some exceptions). It's not my fault he was full of shit. All I can do at this point is hope he's not the best candidate available in the next election cycle.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:13 am

So, nobody can show a single Tea Party reaction to proposed military cuts?

Why does this thread even exist?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby Woodruff on Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:23 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
I believe very much in a strong US military also, for what should be obvious reasons. By the same token, I well recognize the vast amount of savings that can be found in the military without damaging that role.


I came into this thread late, and this might be better in another thread, but I would be very interested in your personnal perspective on what should be cut in the military. (seriously)


Oh God, where to start...

Well, the obvious one is get us the f*ck out of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. Particularly if we're not going to fix the country and "build bridges to peace" like we should have started to do so many years ago (that has been, in my opinion, the single biggest failure of the War on Terror".

There are a lot of overseas bases that should be closed. I agree with Night Strike that our major medical facilities overseas should remain open, as the service they provide if we should have to deal with another World War situation are invaluable (and very costly to re-create). As well, some intelligence posts overseas probably need to remain intact. But many can be closed with very little harm to our national security.

There are some others that I can't think of off the top of my head, but BigBallinStalin had a poll up on this subject with some really good selections (and I can't find it now...can someone point me to it?).
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby Woodruff on Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:24 am

Phatscotty wrote:So, nobody can show a single Tea Party reaction to proposed military cuts?
Why does this thread even exist?


Do you pay attention at all to what your alleged Tea Party Congresscritters are up to, Phatscotty? Because if you were, you'd already know about their reactions.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby saxitoxin on Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:23 am

No cut to U.S. forces can occur without a fundamental shift in U.S. domestic policy.

    - The U.S. needs to continue receiving tributes from China in the form of Treasury purchases to fund domestic spending programmes.
    - China is obligated to continue sending tributes to the U.S. because of American consumption of Chinese output at levels that China cannot domestically sustain.
This is a relationship of mutualism. To prevent it from becoming parasitic, the U.S. needs to contain Chinese economic growth to a manageable level. It has effectively accomplished this by using overwhelming offensive military force to create permanent instability in the Middle East, driving up the price of oil upon which China is completely dependent. This is the same reason the U.S. can't switch off a fossil fuel based energy system. The loss of the U.S. market would further drop the price of oil and speed Chinese economic growth. As China grows it will no longer need U.S. export markets. Once it no longer needs U.S. export markets it will stop sending its annual tribute.

If the U.S. wants to cut military spending the political leadership will need to either:

    (a) cut domestic spending in dramatic fashion

    or

    (b) nationalize the entire economy (raising taxes will never be sufficient as more than a majority of the U.S. economy is already under state control)
Unless it does one of those two things the Secret State that exists behind the actors in Congress and the White House will never permit a cut in military spending or the continued application of offensive force worldwide as they realize this will lead to institutional collapse of the nation.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant saxitoxin
 
Posts: 8264
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby saxitoxin on Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:29 am

BTW, by "secret state" I'm referring to the "Deep State" as described by Dr. Tunander at the University of Gothenburg:

Ola Tunander wrote:In a 1955 study of the United States State Department, Hans Morgenthau discussed the existence of a US ‘dual state’. According to Morgenthau, the US state includes both a ‘regular state hierarchy’ that acts according to the rule of law and a more or less hidden ‘security hierarchy’—which I will refer to here as the ‘security state’ (also known in some countries as the ‘deep state’) —that not only acts in parallel to the former but also monitors and exerts control over it. In Morgenthau’s view, this security aspect of the state—the ‘security state’—is able to ‘exert an effective veto over the decisions’ of the regular state governed by the rule of law. While the ‘democratic state’ offers legitimacy to security politics, the ‘security state’ intervenes where necessary, by limiting the range of options the democratic politicians can pursue. While the ‘democratic state’ deals with political alternatives, the ‘security state’ enters the scene when ‘no alternative exists.'


The secret state is the responsible nanny of the democratic state. The secret state sees itself as the safety valve that acts to prevent unvetted leaders from introducing policies that aren't risk mitigated. I'm sure Barack Obama genuinely wanted to keep even one of his campaign promises but, after inauguration, he found himself confronted by the reality of the secret state. Barack Obama is a nice and pleasant man but, ultimately, is rather meek and timid with a bland and inconsequential life story and no real cajones unlike, say, John Kennedy.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant saxitoxin
 
Posts: 8264
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:33 am

saxitoxin wrote:BTW, by "secret state" I'm referring to the "Deep State" as described by Dr. Tunander at the University of Gothenburg:

Ola Tunander wrote:In a 1955 study of the United States State Department, Hans Morgenthau discussed the existence of a US ‘dual state’. According to Morgenthau, the US state includes both a ‘regular state hierarchy’ that acts according to the rule of law and a more or less hidden ‘security hierarchy’—which I will refer to here as the ‘security state’ (also known in some countries as the ‘deep state’) —that not only acts in parallel to the former but also monitors and exerts control over it. In Morgenthau’s view, this security aspect of the state—the ‘security state’—is able to ‘exert an effective veto over the decisions’ of the regular state governed by the rule of law. While the ‘democratic state’ offers legitimacy to security politics, the ‘security state’ intervenes where necessary, by limiting the range of options the democratic politicians can pursue. While the ‘democratic state’ deals with political alternatives, the ‘security state’ enters the scene when ‘no alternative exists.'


The secret state is the responsible nanny of the democratic state. The secret state sees itself as the safety valve that acts to prevent unvetted leaders from introducing policies that aren't risk mitigated. I'm sure Barack Obama genuinely wanted to keep even one of his campaign promises but, after inauguration, he found himself confronted by the reality of the secret state. Barack Obama is a nice and pleasant man but, ultimately, is rather meek and timid with a bland and inconsequential life story and no real cajones unlike, say, John Kennedy.

I believe that if you add in the "corporate state", then you would have close to the full truth.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Woodruff wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
I believe very much in a strong US military also, for what should be obvious reasons. By the same token, I well recognize the vast amount of savings that can be found in the military without damaging that role.


I came into this thread late, and this might be better in another thread, but I would be very interested in your personnal perspective on what should be cut in the military. (seriously)


Oh God, where to start...

Well, the obvious one is get us the f*ck out of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. Particularly if we're not going to fix the country and "build bridges to peace" like we should have started to do so many years ago (that has been, in my opinion, the single biggest failure of the War on Terror".
This one rather surprises me. That is Libya, sure. Iraq -- thought we were already moving toward that. Afghanistan, however, my reading has been that if we pull out now, we will leave the country even more rife for control by Talibahn and Talibahn-like groups. In retrospect, I think we were wrong to go in. That is, I think had we left things alone, it would have dissolved on its own for far better result. However, aren't we past that point now?

Woodruff wrote:There are a lot of overseas bases that should be closed. I agree with Night Strike that our major medical facilities overseas should remain open, as the service they provide if we should have to deal with another World War situation are invaluable (and very costly to re-create). As well, some intelligence posts overseas probably need to remain intact. But many can be closed with very little harm to our national security.
Off hand, I agree. I just don't know enough to specify which ones.

Woodruff wrote:There are some others that I can't think of off the top of my head, but BigBallinStalin had a poll up on this subject with some really good selections (and I can't find it now...can someone point me to it?).

I can remember some particular machinary (cannot remember if it was certain helicoptors, planes or what) could be stopped. I could also see some rather small tweaks in things like moving expenses. I can remember young soldiers being put up in apartments stocked with "rent a center" stuff, for example. I could go out to local stores and BUY the dishes, etc for less than a few month's rentals. On the other hand, I know of some special needs families that literally left everything they had behind, including specialized equipment, because it was too expensive to move. (in some cases "just" things to which the special needs kids were attached). I do understand the basic needs of the military to move people around and so forth, but I think there is room for some particular accomodations. Overall, even spending a tad more on a few, but in a need-based way, would wind up being balanced by "lack of need" cuts in other places. I think there are many little tweaks like this that could be implemented if the people involved were listened to more.

I also think we HAVE to pay more attention to both the mental health of soldiers, but also families. Again, this might seem to be an immediate expenditure..a nd in some cases it would be. However, the long term savings in medical and other costs would be phenomenal. Many small communities are tight, do rally around the families of those deployed. However, sometimes it seems that the government rather gets in the way instead of helping.

I probably know more about that aspect than the actual military bits. I am sure that more savings is gained from the big stuff, but I also think that paying attention to the smaller details helps make the whole system work better.. and that goes a long way.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby AAFitz on Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:49 am

Woodruff wrote:So if the Tea Party is so concerned with cutting our spending, why is it that they seem to be wholly against cutting military spending? Why is no one up in arms over this like they are over the more "socialistic" programs?


Whoa, whoa, whoa... lets not be crazy... that shit employs alot of the teabaggers...cant be cutting there. Its those damn pimped out teachers that are the problem. That $20 billion they spent air conditioning the tents in the mideast was absolutely justified.
[Adult swim]:)

(Please do keep in mind, I hardly suggest we do not need to air condition the tents. Hell, the guys are fighting for us, so if it was possible I think we should build them hotels. In fact, I think it would have been better to simply start building hotels, businesses and cities, and water parks, because I think that return investment, would have been probably a little higher than killing a bunch of people because they are pissed off because they didnt have enough food or water to feed their children, which in the end, is the real, basic source of the problems in the world. )
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby Woodruff on Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:16 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
I believe very much in a strong US military also, for what should be obvious reasons. By the same token, I well recognize the vast amount of savings that can be found in the military without damaging that role.


I came into this thread late, and this might be better in another thread, but I would be very interested in your personnal perspective on what should be cut in the military. (seriously)


Oh God, where to start...

Well, the obvious one is get us the f*ck out of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. Particularly if we're not going to fix the country and "build bridges to peace" like we should have started to do so many years ago (that has been, in my opinion, the single biggest failure of the War on Terror".
This one rather surprises me. That is Libya, sure. Iraq -- thought we were already moving toward that. Afghanistan, however, my reading has been that if we pull out now, we will leave the country even more rife for control by Talibahn and Talibahn-like groups. In retrospect, I think we were wrong to go in. That is, I think had we left things alone, it would have dissolved on its own for far better result. However, aren't we past that point now?


Here's my feeling...from the beginning (well, a tiny bit after the beginning, but you know what I mean), we should have been building both countries back up. The way to get NATIONS out of the terrorism business is by improving the lives of the citizens. Give them something so that it's NOT so easily worth dying for. But we didn't do that, and we've never really tried to do so. So it's time to just get the f*ck out. We're not helping our cause at all by staying, in my opinion, and we're not at all slowing down terrorism in the two regions by being there. We're just...there. Wasting our money.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:20 am

Woodruff wrote:Here's my feeling...from the beginning (well, a tiny bit after the beginning, but you know what I mean), we should have been building both countries back up. The way to get NATIONS out of the terrorism business is by improving the lives of the citizens. Give them something so that it's NOT so easily worth dying for. But we didn't do that, and we've never really tried to do so. So it's time to just get the f*ck out. We're not helping our cause at all by staying, in my opinion, and we're not at all slowing down terrorism in the two regions by being there. We're just...there. Wasting our money.

I absolutely agree with the first part. I am not so sure about the second.. but you may be in a position to know more than I on this.

I said a while ago that one of the best things we could have done, should STILL do in both Afghanistan and Iraq is to fund schools -- schools that recognize the culture, but that support a moderate and not extreme view. (girls and boys educated seperately, but educated. Learn the K'ran, but also about the world, etc.) Sadly, I think right now we do need a military/police force to ensure those things can happen. However, I suspect that many villagers will suddenly be a lot less friendly to the extremists if they see real hope, real education for their kids.

I.e. three cups of tea... not guns
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:24 am

saxitoxin wrote:BTW, by "secret state" I'm referring to the "Deep State" as described by Dr. Tunander at the University of Gothenburg:

Ola Tunander wrote:In a 1955 study of the United States State Department, Hans Morgenthau discussed the existence of a US ‘dual state’. According to Morgenthau, the US state includes both a ‘regular state hierarchy’ that acts according to the rule of law and a more or less hidden ‘security hierarchy’—which I will refer to here as the ‘security state’ (also known in some countries as the ‘deep state’) —that not only acts in parallel to the former but also monitors and exerts control over it. In Morgenthau’s view, this security aspect of the state—the ‘security state’—is able to ‘exert an effective veto over the decisions’ of the regular state governed by the rule of law. While the ‘democratic state’ offers legitimacy to security politics, the ‘security state’ intervenes where necessary, by limiting the range of options the democratic politicians can pursue. While the ‘democratic state’ deals with political alternatives, the ‘security state’ enters the scene when ‘no alternative exists.'


The secret state is the responsible nanny of the democratic state. The secret state sees itself as the safety valve that acts to prevent unvetted leaders from introducing policies that aren't risk mitigated. I'm sure Barack Obama genuinely wanted to keep even one of his campaign promises but, after inauguration, he found himself confronted by the reality of the secret state. Barack Obama is a nice and pleasant man but, ultimately, is rather meek and timid with a bland and inconsequential life story and no real cajones unlike, say, John Kennedy.


If the security state/secret state had such power over the democratic state, then how come several military programs were discontinued? And why is the Pentagon unable to exert more influence over the demand for military equipment more suited for asymmetrical warfare?

Morgenthau's speculation sounds great, but it's difficult to prove wrong because he's pushed his speculation into the realm of the unknowable. I think he's mistaking many different, counter-productive influences within government and upon government for one organization "behind it all."
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby saxitoxin on Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:12 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:BTW, by "secret state" I'm referring to the "Deep State" as described by Dr. Tunander at the University of Gothenburg:

Ola Tunander wrote:In a 1955 study of the United States State Department, Hans Morgenthau discussed the existence of a US ‘dual state’. According to Morgenthau, the US state includes both a ‘regular state hierarchy’ that acts according to the rule of law and a more or less hidden ‘security hierarchy’—which I will refer to here as the ‘security state’ (also known in some countries as the ‘deep state’) —that not only acts in parallel to the former but also monitors and exerts control over it. In Morgenthau’s view, this security aspect of the state—the ‘security state’—is able to ‘exert an effective veto over the decisions’ of the regular state governed by the rule of law. While the ‘democratic state’ offers legitimacy to security politics, the ‘security state’ intervenes where necessary, by limiting the range of options the democratic politicians can pursue. While the ‘democratic state’ deals with political alternatives, the ‘security state’ enters the scene when ‘no alternative exists.'


The secret state is the responsible nanny of the democratic state. The secret state sees itself as the safety valve that acts to prevent unvetted leaders from introducing policies that aren't risk mitigated. I'm sure Barack Obama genuinely wanted to keep even one of his campaign promises but, after inauguration, he found himself confronted by the reality of the secret state. Barack Obama is a nice and pleasant man but, ultimately, is rather meek and timid with a bland and inconsequential life story and no real cajones unlike, say, John Kennedy.


If the security state/secret state had such power over the democratic state, then how come several military programs were discontinued? And why is the Pentagon unable to exert more influence over the demand for military equipment more suited for asymmetrical warfare?

Morgenthau's speculation sounds great, but it's difficult to prove wrong because he's pushed his speculation into the realm of the unknowable. I think he's mistaking many different, counter-productive influences within government and upon government for one organization "behind it all."


In Tunander's view, the sec-state is not a single-minded militarism. Like there was no change in military policy from Bush to Obama, there will never be a change for the worse of the U.S. Americans could elect Justin Timberlake as president tomorrow and everything would be okay and continue to run smoothly. There would be zero risk. The parallel state is the ultimate safety valve to guard against democratic excess. The real U.S. leadership, people like Michael Morell, senior bureaucrats from square-shaped midwestern states who mysteriously have no biographies longer than five or six vague sentences and there are no photographs of - or, at best, one or two out of focus pictures - and continue their jobs across presidencies, are insulated from the bi-annual election circus.

In any case, this is beside the point. The only way things like MEU's and aircraft carriers can be cut is if there are massive domestic spending cuts and/or nationalization of the economy. The policy of the U.S. is to keep the price of oil as high as possible to checkmate China. If aircraft carriers are cut, petroleum supply destabilization ends, the price of oil drops and China is untethered from economic dependence on the U.S., stops sending an annual tribute and America immediately collapses. Therefore, emergencies in Libya, wars in Iraq, and other things that mysteriously evolve overnight with no forewarning are incubated. This is of no secretive nature, but is too complex for common people who stuff votes into ballot boxes like they stuff Big Macs into their mouths to understand. Ergo, the decision is removed from their hands.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant saxitoxin
 
Posts: 8264
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:52 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:BTW, by "secret state" I'm referring to the "Deep State" as described by Dr. Tunander at the University of Gothenburg:

Ola Tunander wrote:In a 1955 study of the United States State Department, Hans Morgenthau discussed the existence of a US ‘dual state’. According to Morgenthau, the US state includes both a ‘regular state hierarchy’ that acts according to the rule of law and a more or less hidden ‘security hierarchy’—which I will refer to here as the ‘security state’ (also known in some countries as the ‘deep state’) —that not only acts in parallel to the former but also monitors and exerts control over it. In Morgenthau’s view, this security aspect of the state—the ‘security state’—is able to ‘exert an effective veto over the decisions’ of the regular state governed by the rule of law. While the ‘democratic state’ offers legitimacy to security politics, the ‘security state’ intervenes where necessary, by limiting the range of options the democratic politicians can pursue. While the ‘democratic state’ deals with political alternatives, the ‘security state’ enters the scene when ‘no alternative exists.'


The secret state is the responsible nanny of the democratic state. The secret state sees itself as the safety valve that acts to prevent unvetted leaders from introducing policies that aren't risk mitigated. I'm sure Barack Obama genuinely wanted to keep even one of his campaign promises but, after inauguration, he found himself confronted by the reality of the secret state. Barack Obama is a nice and pleasant man but, ultimately, is rather meek and timid with a bland and inconsequential life story and no real cajones unlike, say, John Kennedy.


If the security state/secret state had such power over the democratic state, then how come several military programs were discontinued? And why is the Pentagon unable to exert more influence over the demand for military equipment more suited for asymmetrical warfare?

Morgenthau's speculation sounds great, but it's difficult to prove wrong because he's pushed his speculation into the realm of the unknowable. I think he's mistaking many different, counter-productive influences within government and upon government for one organization "behind it all."


In Tunander's view, the sec-state is not a single-minded militarism. Like there was no change in military policy from Bush to Obama, there will never be a change for the worse of the U.S. Americans could elect Justin Timberlake as president tomorrow and everything would be okay and continue to run smoothly. There would be zero risk. The parallel state is the ultimate safety valve to guard against democratic excess. The real U.S. leadership, people like Michael Morell, senior bureaucrats from square-shaped midwestern states who mysteriously have no biographies longer than five or six vague sentences and there are no photographs of - or, at best, one or two out of focus pictures - and continue their jobs across presidencies, are insulated from the bi-annual election circus.

In any case, this is beside the point. The only way things like MEU's and aircraft carriers can be cut is if there are massive domestic spending cuts and/or nationalization of the economy. The policy of the U.S. is to keep the price of oil as high as possible to checkmate China. If aircraft carriers are cut, petroleum supply destabilization ends, the price of oil drops and China is untethered from economic dependence on the U.S., stops sending an annual tribute and America immediately collapses. Therefore, emergencies in Libya, wars in Iraq, and other things that mysteriously evolve overnight with no forewarning are incubated. This is of no secretive nature, but is too complex for common people who stuff votes into ballot boxes like they stuff Big Macs into their mouths to understand. Ergo, the decision is removed from their hands.


<munches on his Big Mac>

Huh?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby Woodruff on Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:14 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Here's my feeling...from the beginning (well, a tiny bit after the beginning, but you know what I mean), we should have been building both countries back up. The way to get NATIONS out of the terrorism business is by improving the lives of the citizens. Give them something so that it's NOT so easily worth dying for. But we didn't do that, and we've never really tried to do so. So it's time to just get the f*ck out. We're not helping our cause at all by staying, in my opinion, and we're not at all slowing down terrorism in the two regions by being there. We're just...there. Wasting our money.

I absolutely agree with the first part. I am not so sure about the second.. but you may be in a position to know more than I on this.

I said a while ago that one of the best things we could have done, should STILL do in both Afghanistan and Iraq is to fund schools -- schools that recognize the culture, but that support a moderate and not extreme view. (girls and boys educated seperately, but educated. Learn the K'ran, but also about the world, etc.) Sadly, I think right now we do need a military/police force to ensure those things can happen. However, I suspect that many villagers will suddenly be a lot less friendly to the extremists if they see real hope, real education for their kids.

I.e. three cups of tea... not guns


I agree.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby Baron Von PWN on Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:12 pm

Woodruff wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Here's my feeling...from the beginning (well, a tiny bit after the beginning, but you know what I mean), we should have been building both countries back up. The way to get NATIONS out of the terrorism business is by improving the lives of the citizens. Give them something so that it's NOT so easily worth dying for. But we didn't do that, and we've never really tried to do so. So it's time to just get the f*ck out. We're not helping our cause at all by staying, in my opinion, and we're not at all slowing down terrorism in the two regions by being there. We're just...there. Wasting our money.

I absolutely agree with the first part. I am not so sure about the second.. but you may be in a position to know more than I on this.

I said a while ago that one of the best things we could have done, should STILL do in both Afghanistan and Iraq is to fund schools -- schools that recognize the culture, but that support a moderate and not extreme view. (girls and boys educated seperately, but educated. Learn the K'ran, but also about the world, etc.) Sadly, I think right now we do need a military/police force to ensure those things can happen. However, I suspect that many villagers will suddenly be a lot less friendly to the extremists if they see real hope, real education for their kids.

I.e. three cups of tea... not guns


I agree.


Us policy should definetly emulate three cups of tea. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... f-tea.html
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Baron Von PWN
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: Capital region ,Canada

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby Woodruff on Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:53 am

Baron Von PWN wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Here's my feeling...from the beginning (well, a tiny bit after the beginning, but you know what I mean), we should have been building both countries back up. The way to get NATIONS out of the terrorism business is by improving the lives of the citizens. Give them something so that it's NOT so easily worth dying for. But we didn't do that, and we've never really tried to do so. So it's time to just get the f*ck out. We're not helping our cause at all by staying, in my opinion, and we're not at all slowing down terrorism in the two regions by being there. We're just...there. Wasting our money.

I absolutely agree with the first part. I am not so sure about the second.. but you may be in a position to know more than I on this.

I said a while ago that one of the best things we could have done, should STILL do in both Afghanistan and Iraq is to fund schools -- schools that recognize the culture, but that support a moderate and not extreme view. (girls and boys educated seperately, but educated. Learn the K'ran, but also about the world, etc.) Sadly, I think right now we do need a military/police force to ensure those things can happen. However, I suspect that many villagers will suddenly be a lot less friendly to the extremists if they see real hope, real education for their kids.

I.e. three cups of tea... not guns


I agree.


Us policy should definetly emulate three cups of tea. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... f-tea.html


Sadly, based on that article, I'm pretty sure it already does.

But that doesn't change the points that PLAYER made regarding a more effective way to combat terrorism.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby Baron Von PWN on Sat Jul 16, 2011 7:56 am

Woodruff wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Here's my feeling...from the beginning (well, a tiny bit after the beginning, but you know what I mean), we should have been building both countries back up. The way to get NATIONS out of the terrorism business is by improving the lives of the citizens. Give them something so that it's NOT so easily worth dying for. But we didn't do that, and we've never really tried to do so. So it's time to just get the f*ck out. We're not helping our cause at all by staying, in my opinion, and we're not at all slowing down terrorism in the two regions by being there. We're just...there. Wasting our money.

I absolutely agree with the first part. I am not so sure about the second.. but you may be in a position to know more than I on this.

I said a while ago that one of the best things we could have done, should STILL do in both Afghanistan and Iraq is to fund schools -- schools that recognize the culture, but that support a moderate and not extreme view. (girls and boys educated seperately, but educated. Learn the K'ran, but also about the world, etc.) Sadly, I think right now we do need a military/police force to ensure those things can happen. However, I suspect that many villagers will suddenly be a lot less friendly to the extremists if they see real hope, real education for their kids.

I.e. three cups of tea... not guns


I agree.


Us policy should definetly emulate three cups of tea. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... f-tea.html


Sadly, based on that article, I'm pretty sure it already does.

But that doesn't change the points that PLAYER made regarding a more effective way to combat terrorism.


Actualy I agree with that part as well. However a problem with school funding without security is the taliban's habit of attacking them. I beleive the Canadian mission at least attempted to find a ballance and spent a fairly significant portion of the funds allocated to afghanistan on aid/development however a large problem is the level of corruption in the afghan government so large portions of the money would get stolen.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Baron Von PWN
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: Capital region ,Canada

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:58 am

Baron Von PWN wrote:
Actualy I agree with that part as well. However a problem with school funding without security is the taliban's habit of attacking them. I beleive the Canadian mission at least attempted to find a ballance and spent a fairly significant portion of the funds allocated to afghanistan on aid/development however a large problem is the level of corruption in the afghan government so large portions of the money would get stolen.

The first is why we do need to have security with schools. However, as I noted, if kids are truly being educated, then people will stand up against the warlords, Taliban, etc. People in countries like Afghanistan are more aware than we are here of the value of education. Per the rest... its complex. Partly, we in the west tend to be rather hypocritical or disengenious regarding things like bribes and corruption. We consider direct payments "high crime", but then turn around and very much ensure that our companies, etc get far greater benefits and profits. I don't advocate either, but some of what we see as corruption is actually more limited, less skewed than many of our policies. And.. has more potential to change when there is opportunity.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:25 pm

Why do certain people engage in terrorism? And what are the justifications for certain terrorist organizations?

Exporting Western education and western ideals, which may be incompatible, would probably fail if the essential problems are not addressed. I don't think education would provide the lasting solution because even in the US, there are many uneducated who aren't joining terrorist groups and fighting a war against the nation.

Opportunity cost matters. Americans, even at the bottom, have a lot to lose, yet many people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, do not. They're fighting military occupants, which was a good enough cause for the American Revolution. Others fight for their family's welfare, because it pays well to be a suicide bomber. Others fight and support such endeavors for reasons which were taught in schools--much like the US schools and society's way of supporting the "empire spirit" or "promoting nationalist pride."

Now, some of you jump, and say, "OMG, BBS, you just made our point for us! If it works here, let's export it there!" Nay, I say:

Education alone isn't the issue. A country and its people need a healthy economy in order to increase one's opportunity costs. If you make good enough money and the state and/or your community provide you with what you need, then you'd be less encourage to forego those benefits. These "problem-countries" need not only education, but also infrastructure, technology, security, legitimate courts, a non-predatory state, and other resources required to exploit more resources, provide jobs, provide opportunities, basic needs, and all that crap that individuals within developed countries find dear.

But how does one cause that? Shall Western institutions and liberal democracies by exported by gunpoint? I'm pretty sure we agree that it shouldn't be done that way. So, shall "education" alone be exported? And then what? There's no jobs there for higher education, and the problem of security and the problem of corrupt government still remains.


____________________________________________________

tl;dr Exporting education is pointless if there's no opportunity to use with the education. Healthier economies, and improving the welfare of people, begins with stability. Predatory states won't provide that, and the historical record from the 1960s to the 1990s (and probably even today) has shown that foreign intervention fails to promote this much needed stability.
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Tea Party Defense Spending

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:27 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:
Actualy I agree with that part as well. However a problem with school funding without security is the taliban's habit of attacking them. I beleive the Canadian mission at least attempted to find a ballance and spent a fairly significant portion of the funds allocated to afghanistan on aid/development however a large problem is the level of corruption in the afghan government so large portions of the money would get stolen.

The first is why we do need to have security with schools. However, as I noted, if kids are truly being educated, then people will stand up against the warlords, Taliban, etc. People in countries like Afghanistan are more aware than we are here of the value of education. Per the rest... its complex. Partly, we in the west tend to be rather hypocritical or disengenious regarding things like bribes and corruption. We consider direct payments "high crime", but then turn around and very much ensure that our companies, etc get far greater benefits and profits. I don't advocate either, but some of what we see as corruption is actually more limited, less skewed than many of our policies. And.. has more potential to change when there is opportunity.


You speak as if you know how life under the Taliban is. Would you care to enlighten us on the period before the Taliban? What's a better alternative than the Taliban in promoting stability/security?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

PreviousNext

Return to The Recovery Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: degaston, DoomYoshi