DescentBB

Ferno wrote:a bit bounced Dedman? heh the one host took a giant crap on the guest's head.

True, the host acted like an @ss, that's what he gets paid to do. However, that doesn't change the fact that the guest has some issues.

Tricord wrote:I am convinced that waging war somewhere far away from the homeland does NOT affect the global freedom experienced by americans.

Maybe true, maybe not. I don't think you're looking at the big picture, though. An islamic organization exists (existed?) soley to train and equip small attack forces for the purpose of surgically destabalizing the U.S.A. (among other countries?). Iraq was believed to have ties with said organization. Iraq was believed to be developing nuclear weapons. Not only was Iraq not allowed to be developing nuclear weapons, but there's also the concern that they might slip a few to the aforementioned organization. All in all not a nice picture.

All I can say is I'm glad that foreign opinion is just that. Other countries (and individuals) will always have their own best interest in mind, not America's. So just send us some more of those chocolates and that will conclude our interest in what you have to offer.

Tricord wrote:And even less the freedom experienced by foreigners such as myself.

Who knows who'd be conquering your ass if the world wasn't shaped up the way it is.

DCrazeD wrote:Maybe the guy isn't as stupid as we all think. The first thing I thought of when I saw the "domain for sale" sign was that it was all a big ruse for generating massive interest in a domain name that could be easily sold to spammers/malware authors for a hefty sum.

Ya I called that in my first post. Playing the fool is the best way to scam anyone, because it is the first thing that most people are willing to believe.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Tricord wrote:And even less the freedom experienced by foreigners such as myself.

Who knows who'd be conquering your *** if the world wasn't shaped up the way it is.

My dad just told me that my grandfather fought the germans in Belgium in WWII. Think about that! If it weren't for him and the others of the U.S. Army you'd be hailing Hilter instead of enjoying the "freedom experienced by foreigners such as yourself", nein?

Hey, let me quote myself on this one!

Tricord wrote:To anywhom it may concern, allow me to take out some empty arguments right away: don't say it's because US soldiers are protecting my freedom 'cause that's a load of bull. And WWII was a long time ago, the world has changed a lot since then.

My grandpa's still alive, so it wasn't all that long ago. It remains a good example.

Our country isn't actively policing threats to your freedom, but without America's substantial military, with foreign alliances, things could conceivably be quite different, in my mind.

As for the military's excess of nuclear arms, it's better that we have them and not use them, than to not have them and find, someday, that some Saddam Hussein has stock-piled them.

Tricord wrote:The problem is that the military (and those controlling the military) are so disconnected from the real world. The average Joe in the street goes to school, has rights through the law and constition, has protection (hopefully) from the police corps, can get health care from government hospitals, etc. etc. In my opinion, those things determine your freedoms, your opportunities and the general functioning of socity. Not some misguided show of power in some far away country using some budget that wasn't there in the first place.

Just naive. You talk like peace is the default state of the world. The real world is a combination of what the military deals with, and what the average Joe deals with, not either one by itself.

There are a number of reasons why peace is a foreign language to areas of the middle-east. America remains fleuntly bilingual for just such situations...

To clerify...

Tricord wrote:The average Joe in the street goes to school, has rights through the law and constition, has protection (hopefully) from the police corps, can get health care from government hospitals, etc. etc. In my opinion, those things determine your freedoms, your opportunities and the general functioning of socity.

That's so obvious that I wouldn't even think it bears discussion. What kind of idiots do you take us for?

Tricord wrote:Not some misguided show of power in some far away country using some budget that wasn't there in the first place.

This is what triggered the "Just naive" comment from me. Pitting the internal operations of a democracy against the country's external obligations portrays either a very poor opinion of our intelligence on this BB, or a very naive understanding of government that doesn't differentiate between the two.

crash and burn.

Tricord wrote:I am convinced that "overkill just to be sure" is not a good way to run a military power such as the US army.

No, perhaps not (and if you think the US military policy is "overkill", you need to spend more time talking to actual military people.) But neither is "barely defend things just to the limit where a slight miscalculation will lead to a huge loss of freedoms".

I'm sure my country's army's purpose is not to protect my freedom to say and do what I like. The police and justice system already do this for me

Your police and justice system protect you within the context of the existing government. What allows your government to continue to exist? What allows your government to have a police and justice system? If some foreign enemy invaded, having the greatest police / justice system in the world wouldn't matter one bit.

I am convinced that waging war somewhere far away from the homeland does NOT affect the global freedom experienced by americans.

It does affect the global freedom experienced by Iraqis and Afghanis. And a key point to remember is: the more freedom others have, the less likely they are to try to take away my freedom.

People who have the freedom to live where they want, worship how they want, associate with who they want, etc. are generally too busy living life to attack others (unless they percieve a threat to their freedoms from those others.) There are now about 50 million more people in the world who have those freedoms, which means there are 50 million fewer people out there who want to take away my freedoms.

The average Joe in the street goes to school, has rights through the law and constition, has protection (hopefully) from the police corps, can get health care from government hospitals, etc. etc. In my opinion, those things determine your freedoms

Yes. And in order to have those freedoms, you need to be protected from those outside who would take them away. Did you have those freedoms when your country was occupied by the Germans? Would you have had them if your country was occupied by the Russians? Do "the law" and "the constitution" have any power if a foreign army is oppressing your people?

Lets not get this out of hand.

Tricord wrote:Hey, let me quote myself on this one!

Tricord wrote:To anywhom it may concern, allow me to take out some empty arguments right away: don't say it's because US soldiers are protecting my freedom 'cause that's a load of bull. And WWII was a long time ago, the world has changed a lot since then.

To expand on Lothars comment, if at the end of WW2, America simply left Europe leaving no troops stationed there, does anyone here think Stalin would have stayed satisfied with just half of Germany? Would the Baltic states be free today? Would there have even been a Pope John Paul for that matter?
Who would have kept the russian from going into your country Tricord? The French? Germans? I suggest you rethink your statement. Better yet think how the world would reshape itself if America decided to become pacifist and just eleiminated all it's military assets. When you have thought about it, post your reply here as I am curious what you would come up with.
Oh and I'd be interested in what the rest of you scoundrels think also.

The world changed a lot BECAUSE of WW2. We stayed out of the war a lot longer than we probably should have. Much longer than some were comfortable with at anyreate.

Lothar's points seem to be right on the mark to me.

I believe all attempts for peace either diplomatic or military in nature in the Middle East are ultimately futile. There will never be peace in the Middle East because the people there will never be satisfied. At best we can stop them from spreading terror as easily.

woodchip wrote:Better yet think how the world would reshape itself if America decided to become pacifist and just eleiminated all it's military assets. When you have thought about it, post your reply here as I am curious what you would come up with.
Oh and I'd be interested in what the rest of you scoundrels think also.

you mean now, or back then?

my *now* answer would be too HIPPY for your tastes, you may gag.

/oo\ Now...you hippy.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Pitting the internal operations of a democracy against the country's external obligations portrays either a very poor opinion of our intelligence on this BB, or a very naive understanding of government that doesn't differentiate between the two.

I hope you're not referring to the US there.

I was.

Lothar pretty much summed up what I was trying to say:

Lothar wrote:Your police and justice system protect you within the context of the existing government. What allows your government to continue to exist? What allows your government to have a police and justice system? If some foreign enemy invaded, having the greatest police / justice system in the world wouldn't matter one bit.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I was.

Republic: Based on individual property / rights. You can vote on everything except rights and property, with the property of the minority protected from the majority.

This is what the United States is: a Constitutional Republic. This is the reason why, when people pledge allegiance to the American flag, they say, "...to the Republic, for which it stands...".

Now you correctly know.

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

The US is a Republic. It's also a Democracy. (The CIA World Factbook calls us a "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition".)

But anyway... if you really want to nitpick, just modify Thorne's statement accordingly. The point still stands, regardless of what (appropriate) term you use to describe the US government.

A true democracy is where you can vote on everything. including who owns property.

You'd have to be able to vote who can vote and who can't. So, no. The key to democracy is not voting for anything and everything.

How about we stop attacking the straw man? Even you, Lothar, the kind of calling "straw man", should know better!

Ferno wrote:A true democracy is where you can vote on everything. including who owns property.

Mr. Dictionary disagrees. But, as I said before, if you prefer some alternate definition and/or other terminology, simply substitute it into Thorne's statement at the appropriate place.

DCrazy wrote:How about we stop attacking the straw man?

Which straw man are you referring to?

What we're doing right now is nitpicking about definitions. There's no straw man involved. Though I would like to get away from the nitpicking and get back to points such as these:

Lothar wrote:Your police and justice system protect you within the context of the existing government.... If some foreign enemy invaded, having the greatest police / justice system in the world wouldn't matter one bit.

...

the more freedom others have, the less likely they are to try to take away my freedom.

Well, to get back on track.. The US homeland was never about to be invaded by a foreign power, so the fact that the regular police is not able to withstand such an attack is a void issue.

There has been an attack on the US homeland, but it was done by semi-organized half a dozen separatists. Airport cops and security could have stopped these individuals, it's not the army ground troops or the naval fleet that could have.

So yes, I believe that if the agencies and regular police and security people do their jobs, there is no additional need to protect the homeland.

Of course, going to war and overthrow a nation to soothe the american public is another thing. I have no idea how to handle the public opinion, but if that is the only reason for war (I don't see any other) it is very feeble.

Tricord wrote:The US homeland was never about to be invaded by a foreign power

I wasn't asking about the US, I was asking about Belgium. Do you think your wonderful police / justice system would "protect your freedoms" from a foreign army? Or do you recognize that your civil government (police / justice system) requires the protection of an army in order to exist?

there is no additional need to protect the homeland.

Also note that one reason the US mainland has not been invaded since 1812 is because we've fought those who would have invaded us on their turf. Also because we're hella far away from most of the nations that would've ever dared invade...

going to war and overthrow a nation to soothe the american public is another thing.

I suggest you address the second half of what I quoted, then:

"the more freedom others have, the less likely they are to try to take away my freedom."

Iraq wasn't about soothing the American public. It was about taking out a nutjob who oppressed his people and giving those people the freedom to live how they want to live. Free people are less dangerous than oppressed people.

Lothar wrote:It was about taking out a nutjob who oppressed his people and giving those people the freedom to live how they want to live.

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that was just a bonus, capitalized upon as a main objective, for public support. I believe the main objective was to ensure that nothing like 9/11 ever happens on a nuclear level, with Saddam's government as the secret supplier.

It stands to reason that your average terrorist would want to go out in the biggest bang he possibly could...

Here's to everyone who has fought or is fighting over there! I hear the enemy is finding it more difficult securing delivery boys, as of late.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Lothar wrote:It was about taking out a nutjob who oppressed his people and giving those people the freedom to live how they want to live.

I'm pretty sure that was just a bonus... the main objective was to ensure that nothing like 9/11 ever happens on a nuclear level

Taking out the source of weapons and taking out a source of irrational US hatred are two sides of the same coin... take weapons away from a mad nut, and free people who used to live under him, and overall you greatly improve our security situation. Even if he didn't have any weapons and never planned to have them, freering the people improves the security situation...

Yes, clearly that has happened.

If you look at the bloody trail of attacks in Iraq itself, it sure didn't increase their security over there.

And yes, I believe Europe to be sufficiently stable in order for my country not to require military protection. The bigger European countries do have some military power (and rightfully so) but nothing that even compares to the US military. And that's fine the way it is, there is absolutely no need for more. The point of European military is smoothening peacemaking wherever necessary, but not to actually attack something.

Tricord wrote:The point of European military is smoothening peacemaking wherever necessary, but not to actually attack something.

What do they do invite them for tea? Maybe throw some rocks if they are being attacked?


We have worked with the German A/F and they seemed to be up to speed on dropping bombs and such. They were a tough competent bunch. The point of any military is to protect a countries interests. Not to be attacked on their own soil is the biggest of course. My branch has a main mission and that is control of the Sea. What would happen if we couldn't keep the gulf open and the flow of oil stopped? That would ruin economys around the world. Do we charge other countries for this service? No Its in our interst as well to do it and also helping out our "Allies". That freakshow in the video has had his 15 minutes of fame lets move on to the next clown.

Lothar wrote:Taking out the source of weapons and taking out a source of irrational US hatred are two sides of the same coin... take weapons away from a mad nut, and free people who used to live under him, and overall you greatly improve our security situation. Even if he didn't have any weapons and never planned to have them, freering the people improves the security situation...

You're right. I guess I was wrong in calling it a bonus.

I'm thinking of doing some reading on this whole issue. Does anyone here know of any straight-forward information sources, off-hand?

Thanks for the correction, Skyalmian. That is what I meant.

Tricord wrote:If you look at the bloody trail of attacks in Iraq itself, it sure didn't increase their security over there.

Let's all pretend that:
1) everything was all fluffy-bunnies under Saddam
2) I'm talking short-term, and that there's no expected transition / bumps in the road

I believe Europe to be sufficiently stable in order for my country not to require military protection.

Because good old Uncle Sam defeated all your enemies for you.

Lothar wrote:Let's all pretend that:
1) everything was all fluffy-bunnies under Saddam
2) I'm talking short-term, and that there's no expected transition / bumps in the road

People had food, the country was stable and people weren't about to get blown up if they left their homes. The american intrusion causes a LOT of collateral damage that wouldn't have taken place otherwise.
Second note. Saddam wasn't gonna live forever. In the long-term you're talking, a lot might have changed without war as well. Evolution takes time; not so much military power.

Lothar wrote:Because good old Uncle Sam defeated all your enemies for you.

Now that, I don't believe. I would have thought you to be more thoughtful than this. I will agree to WW2, but as stated that is a long time ago and has no bearing on the current events.
The US didn't prevent the Madrid attack, did they? Should Europe blame the US for that? No, Spanish recherche and police could have prevented that, but the world being what it is, it happened.

Also, we have domestic "enemies" in Europe. What about the ETA separatists in Spain? The religious conflict in Ireland? Is uncle Sam going to defeat those enemies for us as well?
No, we have to deal with this. By internal diplomacy and if needs be, with police force. Not with the army though.

You have a much too simple, black&white vision of this world. And it is not a honest disagreement here, you're just spewing your propaganda all over the place. The only reason why this is no problem on this forum, is that close to everyone here thinks along the same lines. That's fine by me, but don't patronize me, and put the thought that my country owes yours right out of your head.

Tricord wrote:

Lothar wrote:Let's all pretend that:
1) everything was all fluffy-bunnies under Saddam
2) I'm talking short-term, and that there's no expected transition / bumps in the road

People had food, the country was stable and people weren't about to get blown up if they left their homes. The american intrusion causes a LOT of collateral damage that wouldn't have taken place otherwise.
Second note. Saddam wasn't gonna live forever. In the long-term you're talking, a lot might have changed without war as well. Evolution takes time; not so much military power.

A lot "might" have changed without war? Yeah, true. Give me a good reason to wait and hope instead of acting.

Also, "people weren't about to get blown up if they left their homes"? Really?

Tricord wrote:

Lothar wrote:Because good old Uncle Sam defeated all your enemies for you.

Now that, I don't believe. I would have thought you to be more thoughtful than this. I will agree to WW2, but as stated that is a long time ago and has no bearing on the current events.

Things that happened decades ago *do* have bearing on current events, whether or not you acknowledge it. "I would have thought you to be more thoughtful than this." If WWII went differently, your security situation would be different as well. And let's not forget the Soviets, either.

I'm not saying the US defeated every separatist group or every local problem you might have -- but they did defeat the Nazis, and they did defeat the Soviets. Perhaps Belgium hasn't needed military protection for the past 15 years or so, but that's not a lot of time!

No, we have to deal with this. By internal diplomacy and if needs be, with police force. Not with the army though.

Right. I agree. Domestic police / internal diplomacy are the right tools for such internal conflicts. Armies are one of the right tools against Nazi Germany, the Soviets, the Wahabis, etc. Belgium doesn't need much of an army because Nazi Germany and the Soviets were already defeated by other armies, and the Wahabis aren't in your part of the world (much).

You have a much too simple, black&white vision of this world. And it is not a honest disagreement here, you're just spewing your propaganda all over the place...

See, now you're being a dick. Don't do that.

put the thought that my country owes yours right out of your head.

I'm not particularly saying your country owes mine. Just that there was *some* army out there protecting your country even when your army wasn't. You don't need an army actively protecting you right now in your region precisely because there have been armies protecting you for the past 60 years that have defeated the most significant military threats in your region.

Your police and your justice system are able to do their jobs because they're part of a larger system -- one that includes such forces as the US army. Those systems function because Belgium is protected from invasion by other governments and other armies.

To be somewhat fair to Tricord, and to make somewhat of an observation, if the French military hadn't existed about 225 years ago, there might not be a United States of America in the first place. I'm not saying that the WWII argument isn't valid to some extent, but I don't think it's of paramount importance. Remember, we delayed in entering WWII until we ourselves were attacked. While we did do a great deal of good there and liberated many people from Nazi oppression, Tricord does have somewhat of a point in saying that the military situation sixty years ago is not the same as the current situation. That being said, I still feel that the United States is perfectly justified in keeping a large and well-equipped standing military force. There are still far too many nutjobs with explosives out there for my tastes.

[To Lothar] Now you're talking as if the Nazi regime was a natural thing to come, that it is a recurring thing and that I should expect similar horrors in the future and therefore need "some" army to protect me from that.

Sorry but I'm not buying it. It's not like it was 60 years ago.

Thanks TG for being insightful.

Top Gun wrote:if the French military hadn't existed about 225 years ago, there might not be a United States of America in the first place

Right. That's an extension of my point -- governments with good justice systems and police are able to exist today because armies (either their own, or others') have protected those governments (though perhaps out of selfish motives.) These things all interact -- civil governments are able to keep the peace internally because armies protect them from external threats and because governments negotiate peace with one another.

Where I think Tricord goes wrong is that he downplays the importance of the armies, as if the situation 60 years ago (WWII) or 20 years ago (Cold War) is irrelevant, and as if "peace" is the normal state of affairs. Historically, especially in Europe, wars happened pretty regularly. The fact that Belgium doesn't need a big army now is a testament to what I said above:

1) other armies protected them very recently (from the Soviets, for example)
2) free people -- which now includes most of Europe -- don't go to war with each other.

Tricord wrote:Now you're talking as if the Nazi regime was a natural thing to come, that it is a recurring thing and that I should expect similar horrors in the future and therefore need "some" army to protect me from that.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is:

1) as little as 20 years ago, there was an army protecting your country from a significant military threat (the Soviets.) You should be old enough to remember the USSR breaking up, so you should know I'm not talking about ancient history here. WWII wasn't all that long ago, either, and while the world has changed, you have to recognize the importance of armies in both instances.

2) as long as there are oppressive governments, there will be military threats that some army will have to oppose or at least keep contained. Belgium doesn't need a big army, precisely because other countries that are generally friendly to Belgium do have powerful armies. Your civil government is able to function without a large Belgian army because there are other armies out there keeping threats at bay.

3) when oppressive governments (ex: Saddam) are toppled and replaced with reasonably free representative governments that are not oppressive, the world as a whole benefits, because free nations don't attack each other. The more oppressive governments get toppled now, the fewer there will be in the future, and the safer and better off we'll all be (whether or not those governments have WMD, associate with Al Qaeda, etc.)

So according to you, eventually, as you turn hostile governments into friendly ones, the need for an army will dissapear.

I just think that need has diminished a lot already, but I also think pre-emptive and/or offensive military actions are not required anywhere.

So in the end, we're talking about the same thing. The best option lies somewhere in the middle though -- don't get rid of the army, simply half everything of it. You will still have the greatest military power and you will have huge budgets to spend on better things. That was what I was advocating earlier on.

For instance, you don't want to start military action against North Korea, they have nukes. Supposedly the same goes for Iran. You'll need diplomacy more than anything else, should you want to tackle these "oppressive" governments. There goes the need for an army down the drain already. It doesn't solve all problems, so you shouldn't act as if it would.

Tricord wrote:So according to you, eventually, as you turn hostile governments into friendly ones, the need for an army will dissapear.

Not entirely, but it will greatly diminish.

I just think that need has diminished a lot already

I agree. We no longer have the huge Soviet army to contend with. We now have much smaller (but different) forces to deal with. You'll notice the army today is also a lot smaller than it was 20 years ago...

I also think pre-emptive and/or offensive military actions are not required anywhere.

They're not "required", strictly speaking, in most cases, but they're often the best tool to get the job done. There are multiple ways to accomplish most objectives. The question is, what's the best way? In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, they involved the military. Iran, North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. might not involve nearly so large a military presence.

don't get rid of the army, simply half everything of it.

Perhaps eventually. Not right now, though.

And understand that if you do cut it down to half, that makes it less versatile.

You will still have the greatest military power and you will have huge budgets to spend on better things.

Lower budgets = lower taxes. If we cut the military budget in half, that money better end up back in the pockets of the people, not in the hands of other programs.

You'll need diplomacy more than anything else, should you want to tackle these "oppressive" governments. There goes the need for an army down the drain already. It doesn't solve all problems, so you shouldn't act as if it would.

I hate the word "diplomacy", simply because people assume it's some magical thing... like, if you talk to the Iranians enough eventually they'll see things your way. It's not like that at all. You have to talk, negotiate, make deals, threaten, etc. depending on who you're dealing with. Every situation is different -- some require more talking, while others require more shooting.

I don't think the army solves all problems. But it does solve some. It was the right tool to use in Iraq, and we can see it paying dividends already in Lebanon, Syria, and a little bit in Iran. The only question is, how will we follow it up? Will we do the right thing in Iran? (I'm not in a position to say what the right thing *is*, because I don't get to see the classified briefings... but maybe 10 years down the road, I'll be able to look back and say "yep, we did the right thing.")