06-10-2005, 07:19 AM | #51 | |||
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Quote:
|
|||
06-10-2005, 08:36 AM | #52 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Inaction would be worse. |
|
06-10-2005, 08:43 AM | #53 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Would you prefer a soldier get nothing in return for his service? I don't understand what you're suggesting is a "good" idea for federal service. |
|
06-10-2005, 09:29 AM | #54 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Diego
|
Quote:
Completely agree, and the really important thing to realize is that there is no choice between "inaction" and "action" here. There really isn't. The question that's being raised is whether or not our military is going to be a part of the action. Our culture and corporations are not going to leave the so-called "arc of instability" or the "Gap" or whatever terminology you want to use for these places that have yet to enter into globalization's rule sets and the connectivity and stability they create. So the action is going to be there, pretending that removing troops is going to remove the friction is missing the point. Poverty, oppression, jobless and hopelessness are the real recruiting tools for extremists, when you integrate peoples into a system that defeats those things, give them ownership in that system, then they have a lot less motivation to destroy it. Ultimately that integration is going to be next to impossible without the physical presence of military personnel to help maintain some degree of stability while these states transition. I don't understand why people get so pessimistic about what's going on in Iraq, there's a lot of hope there. And I understand that the administration has not been a great spokesperson for the "plan," and unfortunately W, even as a second term President (probably because he's trying not to torpedoe Jeb for '08), hasn't had the courage to fully elucidate that plan. But the plan is bring these places into the global economic and social fold, put extraordinary amounts of pressure (militarily when necessary) to force societal change, and make a better world. If you look at the truly remarkable amount of stability in the nations that have bought into globalization's rules, you'll see that we've got an historical opportunity to transform the world into a place where I'm selling FOF2 on ebay to some guy in Basra, and getting pwned in an FM network game by some lethargic Saudi teenager. There is a plan, the next few years (shit decades) are just the messy part of it. I think if we just had a little eensy frigging bit of leadership people would rally to that, but I could be way off. |
|
06-10-2005, 10:23 AM | #55 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
I wasn't advocating inaction. |
|
06-10-2005, 10:24 AM | #56 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
I don't think that's what he was saying. I think what he's saying is that making it so that the only way you can qualify for any federal student aid is through service is unfair. |
|
06-10-2005, 10:34 AM | #57 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Quote:
Give back directly to your country. Sacrifice. I guess those things don't apply to everyone here. |
|
06-10-2005, 10:36 AM | #58 | ||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Well, of course there isn't. You either do something or you don't. Semantics aside, there's a myriad of options that fall under the category of "action". It's my belief that invading Iraq wasn't the best option. Quote:
I've bolded the part I think is gravely mistaken. I'd like an example of where this technique was successful in the long term. Fact is, if you want these societies to change and enter the global economic world, you're going to have to let them come to that decision themselves, instead of having it forced upon them. Support moderate and modernist elements in these countries as much as you can without undermining them (i.e. too overt a connection to America is bad). Help with trade to let the global economic system get a hold. Given time and opportunity, people will agree that economic opportunity and jobs are better than bin Laden and theocrats. But a messy military operation only accentuates the negative, and allows the fundamentalists to control the dialogue. |
||
06-10-2005, 10:41 AM | #59 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Quote:
|
|
06-10-2005, 10:42 AM | #60 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
I think you've got my argument backwards. I don't have a problem with federal aid being available to those who serve the country (i.e. G.I. Bill), and I'd never advocate that it be taken away. I'm just saying that moving to a system where only those who serve their country are eligible for federal aid is an unnecessary and unfair exclusion. I think I'm fine with the system as it exists now, to be honest. I'm sure the number of folks who go to school free because they served (or are serving) their country greatly outnumbers the number who go to school free who aren't serving their country (in that sense). Sounds fine to me. If you serve in the Armed Forces, or via a similar type of service, a reward of that type sounds appropriate. |
|
06-10-2005, 10:43 AM | #61 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
I'll let it go as soon as there's an Exit Strategy. Otherwise, it's just Vietnam all over again, and, as we know, that accomplished nothing. Vietnam's an interesting example of course. Nowadays it's a reasonable responsible member of the global capitalist economy, even though *shock*, we let the Godless Communists get a hold of it. |
|
06-10-2005, 11:05 AM | #62 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Quote:
Second, the question I have is that is it fair that some must serve their country or give back to their country in order to get this benefit and some do not? Maybe I'm a little myopic, but I don't see many situations where it would be appropriate to give government aid to someone who doesn't serve their country. |
|
06-10-2005, 11:08 AM | #63 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Merit scholarships for budding geniuses? Aid for smart kids who otherwise couldn't afford college? |
|
06-10-2005, 11:12 AM | #64 | ||
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Diego
|
Quote:
Two hugely successful military examples, Germany and Japan. Other hugely successful non-military examples (if they can really be separated from the military factor's inherent pressure), China and Russia (Regardless of any criticisms you may have of these two countries they have undergone a huge amount of societal change and are now a part of our integrated world, and are being judged accordingly. An American President having a dialogue about his disappointment with a particular ruling in the Russian legal system would have been beyond absurd twenty years ago. The same with the fact that the greatest threat China poses to America is the number of cotton pants they're shipping over. These are HUGE changes.). There are as well conflicting successes with regard to your "don't associate too heavily with countries lest they be undermined by us" theory. Look at South Korea. Compare it with North Korea. Not only have our troops not undermined the government, they've given that society a chance to grow into one of the richer nations in Asia without falling under the thumb of an oppressive miserable regime to the north plaqued by poverty and stagnation. What I disagree with, and think is gravely wrong, is the notion that we shouldn't rock the boat in regions where the freaking boat is already rocking. You're approaching these problems as though the places we're dealing with in this discussion play by the same rules that we do, they don't, as though we fought a preemptive war with France or Canada or something, we didn't. We went into a place, and should go into more places, with a history of complete disregard for the structures of international law and order, of human decency, of value systems that champion certain rights for everyone. Places where a reasonable solution to airing grievances is strapped to your chest. These places are not a part of the stability we enjoy, we should be more concerned with Entrance Strategies to bring them into the fold than we are with Exit Strategies to get out of the places that need us most. I feel strongly about that, and I think we're strong enough to do that, not as just a country, but as an international order of the people that we're connected with. Unfortunately, right now it's mostly us, we start selling a plan and maybe others will follow. Last edited by MalcPow : 06-10-2005 at 11:20 AM. |
||
06-10-2005, 11:18 AM | #65 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Quote:
|
|
06-10-2005, 11:19 AM | #66 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Quote:
|
|
06-10-2005, 11:20 AM | #67 |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Also, to be clear, we are not forcing societal changes on the middle east. We are granting the people freedom to be in a situation where they can hold their leaders accountable. Liberty.
|
06-10-2005, 11:23 AM | #68 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Diego
|
Quote:
Right . I meant extraordinary amounts of pressure to aid societal change. |
|
06-10-2005, 11:23 AM | #69 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
I hope no one's waiting for the Iraqi Army to be ready to take things over.
Quote:
|
|
06-10-2005, 11:32 AM | #70 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Diego
|
Quote:
Articles like that are great, and it's good to get a sense of what's happening but I've got two big problems with it. One I've read literally hundreds (as part of a research project, and it was not comprehensive in any way) of letters from Union soldiers talking about the impossibility of victory to their loved ones, that they were in dire straits, that not only would they not take back the South but that they truly felt the North was very vulnerable to invasion. I'm just saying one man on the ground has almost no real historical perspective, and very little understanding of the scope of societal change. And my second point is totally different, but I think it's important to make. I just don't see this as a problem we're going to "hand over," an integrated world is the world's problem. We've got troops in Italy for christ's sake, why would we not keep some troops in Iraq? Last edited by MalcPow : 06-10-2005 at 11:33 AM. |
|
06-10-2005, 11:40 AM | #71 | |||||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Quote:
No societal change happened in Germany. They went from being ruled by a Nazi dictator, to not being ruled by a Nazi dictator. We enabled Japan to become an economic power, but didn't force it upon them. The Soviet Union fell under the weight of its own mismanagement, coupled with the general populace realizing their life could be better under another model. China? You've got to be kidding me. The ruling caste long ago realized the need to engage the global marketplace in order to make money. They've hardly been forced to affect societal change. Quote:
What they heck do you mean by this? Quote:
Until they invade Taiwan or decide to stop buying U.S. T-Bills and let our currency sink out of sight. Quote:
So, we know best, and we should make others come around to our point of view. Gotcha. |
|||||
06-10-2005, 11:45 AM | #72 | |||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Speaking of historical perspective, has it occured to you that for much of the Civil War the outcome was very much in doubt? Quote:
? Presumably if we want the "world" to deal with the problem of integrating nations with each other, we do need to hand over this "problem" to the "world"? This is why you guys can't develop an Exit Strategy. You don't even understand the context of what we're doing in Iraq. Quote:
The troops in Italy serve a NATO mission, a mission with which Italy is involved and Italians approve. It's not analagous to Iraq. Last edited by flere-imsaho : 06-10-2005 at 11:52 AM. |
|||
06-10-2005, 11:47 AM | #73 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springfield, USA
|
I was just recently talking to a young man who was being recruited by the Arny. His recruiter told him that 1) No one goes to Iraq or Afganistan in their first term, and 2) Tours in the War zones are voluntary. I nearly laughed my butt off. How do recruiters get away with such bald-faced lies, and how do kids fall for them? I told the kid to talk to the local resident that tried to refuse deployment with his NG unit. You can contact him in Fort Leavenworth for the next few years.
Last edited by HomerJSimpson : 06-10-2005 at 11:48 AM. |
06-10-2005, 11:48 AM | #74 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
And now the problem reaches the officer core. From Reuters:
Strained US Army relaxes new officer requirements By Will Dunham Thu Jun 9, 6:36 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army, facing recruiting woes and a reorganized force, will relax requirements for new officers, welcoming older candidates and allowing more tolerance of past minor crimes, officials said on Thursday. ADVERTISEMENT Trying to stem the loss of current personnel, the Army also has made it more difficult to kick soldiers out of the military for alcohol or drug abuse, being overweight or "unsatisfactory performance," according to a recent memo. "We are an Army at war and increasing levels of attrition of first-term enlisted soldiers in both the training base and units is a matter of great concern," the memo stated. These changes come as the Army struggles amid the Iraq war to sign up new soldiers at the same time it restructures its force to add numerous additional combat brigades. The regular Army has missed four straight monthly recruiting goals and is in danger of missing its first annual goal since 1999. Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman, said in a statement the Army was seeking 300 currently enlisted soldiers and 300 civilians with college degrees, up to age 42, to enter Officer Candidate School. Its graduates are second lieutenants, the Army's lowest-ranking officer. The average age for graduates of the 14-week program is 27. Hilferty said current policy normally requires a waiver for anyone over 30 to enter the school. The oldest person to get such a waiver was 40, Hilferty said. A May 25 memo also stated commanders "may recommend waiver of civil or military offenses" that otherwise might disqualify an applicant. Hilferty said this was not meant to lower quality standards for officers, adding, "Felonies cannot be waived. Drug offenses and sex offenses are not waived." "An example may be a conviction for underage drinking that occurred prior to enlistment several years ago," Hilferty said of offenses that might be waived. Col. Joe Curtin, another Army spokesman, said as the Army creates more brigades, there is a greater demand for lieutenants as well as the higher-ranking captains and majors. Curtin downplayed the issue of having junior officers much older than those in the current Army, stating they would possess the virtues of experience and maturity. REDUCING ATTRITION Separately, a May 5 Army memo sought to stem the numbers of soldiers being kicked out or allowed to leave the Army before their volunteer commitment ends. By reducing attrition by 1 percentage point, the Army can keep 3,000 soldiers in the ranks who otherwise would have to be replaced by new recruits, it said. The memo informed battalion commanders, responsible for 300 to 1,000 soldiers, they cannot remove soldiers from the military for reasons such as "alcohol or other drug abuse rehabilitation failure," "failure to meet body fat standards," pregnancy and "unsatisfactory performance." These commanders generally have made such decisions in the past. The decisions will now be elevated to brigade commanders, responsible for 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers, the memo stated. "It's one more check to ensure that a soldier who's being recommended for release may have some redeeming values," Curtin said. "Let me give you an example. You may have a soldier who is the best mechanic in the company yet can't meet height and weight standards. Is there a way to fix that?" "Each soldier retained reduces the strain on Recruiting Command and our retention program, which must replace every soldier who departs the Army early," the memo added. |
06-10-2005, 11:52 AM | #75 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
So, two guys named Shadid and Faneiru quoted a 1st Lt as saying we have a 5-star general?
Quote:
|
|
06-10-2005, 11:54 AM | #76 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Attack the messenger, not the message, eh? Way to support the troops, bud. |
|
06-10-2005, 12:12 PM | #77 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
*sigh*... |
|
06-10-2005, 12:36 PM | #78 | ||||||||||
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Diego
|
Wow I'm not trying to pick a fight here, we don't have to just take up opposite sides for the sake of our manhood or anything. Some of the stuff you're saying flere is pretty crazy.
Quote:
No societal change? They went from a fascist dictatorship with goals of world domination and racial extermination and are now a democracy with goals of selling Mercedes cars and hosting international soccer tournaments. Quote:
Same deal. Dictatorship, totalitarian society. Now a democracy, and one of the free-est and richest countries in the world. Quote:
Wow, how did they come to these conclusions? Meditation? Maybe the influx of new ideas from the West and the inability of these regimes to maintain an impenetrable grip on society forced them into a process of change. Quote:
I mean Russia has transitioned from a state where the totalitarian ruling party imprisoned and oppressed its people as a matter of course to a state where the rule of law is important enough that one trial with simply the appearance of impropriety is worthy of international diplomatic dialogue. Quote:
This is the equivalent of, as someone around here likes to say, punching themselves in the dick. Except with a sledgehammer. Coated with broken glass. Not going to happen, except of course to a small degree as there is legislation in Congress to FORCE China to sell some dollars. Quote:
Is this what you say when a police officer arrests someone for breaking the law? I have a problem with simple rights not be afforded entire groups of people because they've been dominated and oppressed by totalitarian rulers. Are these people subject to our laws? No. I think the world would be a better place if they were. And do I think we know better than rulers digging mass graves and gassing their own people? Yup, you got me. Quote:
Has it occured to you that the 1Lt you quote doesn't seem to have any doubt? Maybe he should. That was my point. Quote:
I don't know there are just so many countries with their hands up dying to help out with Iraq, we're probably just having trouble picking which one we would like give it to. Others not stepping up is not an excuse to sit down. And you're not listening to me, you think of this part of the world as a place we should leave, and I see it as the most important part for us to be. Quote:
This is at least a reasonable point, but it almost supports what I'm saying. This is the part of the world that needs us, the Iraqi government approves of our troops, we need to have a standing NATO like force in the Middle-East. We've fought much more large scale conflicts in that region than in Europe in recent history. And I'm spent... |
||||||||||
06-10-2005, 01:02 PM | #79 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
That's never really crossed my mind, or at least not anytime in my lifetime.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
06-10-2005, 01:03 PM | #80 | |||||||||||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Fixed that for you. Quote:
So all Germans were fascist Nazis? I find your understanding of Germany social history lacking. Quote:
Yeah, but they attacked us, dude. We didn't wade in there with the intent of enforcing societal change. We fought Japan so they'd stop killing people. Quote:
Sure. Explain how "put extraordinary amounts of pressure (militarily when necessary) to force societal change" (your words) moved this along. Quote:
I'm not disputing this. You seem to claim that we "put extraordinary amounts of pressure (militarily when necessary) to force societal change" and it is this which forced them to change. That's baloney. It was going to happen anyway. Quote:
Wow, nice tortured analogy. I'll add "global currency issues" to "Germany social history". Quote:
1. You're not talking about "simple rules". You're talking about complete societal and economic changes. 2. Why aren't we involved in the Sudan and Zimbabwe, as well as Burma & East Timor? How about Tibet? How do you prioritize places which "need our help"? By your criteria, we should invade China, where billions of people are kept from the opportunities of a free society and a free market. Quote:
Give me a break. They guy's training Iraqi soldiers, and says they're not suited for the task, and won't be soon. I'd say he's in a pretty good position to say so. Quote:
So, if a large number of people disagree with the way you're going about something, you should continue to do it your way? Yep, sounds like George Bush to me. A guy who, before 2000, had never left the country. He knows a lot about world affairs. Quote:
Good for you. When do you enlist? Quote:
NATO existed to counter a threat upon which everyone could agree. Aside from terrorism (which isn't helped by Bush's somewhat nebulous definition of it), there's nothing similar in Iraq. Instead, there's a gathering sectarian war. Here's an idea - let's put British troops in Belfast. That should calm the Catholics down. |
|||||||||||
06-10-2005, 01:04 PM | #81 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Your President & his administration think otherwise. |
|
06-10-2005, 01:39 PM | #82 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Ike was qouted as saying that the iraq police forces would be ready. |
|
06-10-2005, 02:39 PM | #83 | |||||
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Diego
|
Quote:
Thanks. Quote:
Well they were citizens of and participants in a society that imprisoned and exterminated people because of their racial makeup or religious beliefs. They were citizens of a country that invaded other countries for resources and territory under the ethos of world domination. If all Germans were opposed to these things, they probably wouldn't have happened. And if they were, then it apparently required the military defeat of their government (which they at one point elected) for their true society to re-emerge. Thankfully, that happened. Quote:
No I agree, but I thought we were looking for examples where military force (and in the case of both Germany and Japan a long and costly presence and rebuilding project to shape a new nation) led to the transformation of a society. Quote:
Everything I've read by every expert worth anything acknowledges that it was Russia's attempts to keep up with the US with regard to military buildup and maintaining force levels that ultimately bankrupted the country. So I think US military posturing had a profound effect on the Soviet Union's fall, but I also see how you could say it was inevitable, but only inevitable in the context of the growing tide of globalization. There were too many inefficiencies to survive in the new competitive world market place. And those are ultimately the sorts of extraordinary pressures I'm talking about. Quote:
Ugh, I've got a great article from the Economist that lays this out pretty well, but it's long and would just kind of clutter an already cluttered thread. China is just as dependent on the status quo as we are, they have no real motivation to start selling dollars, weakening the dollar, making their exports more expensive and less attractive, and sending their economy into recession. I'll post a new thread when I get back to my desk with the article, it's a good read in general. I've got to run to a meeting so I'll just give a quick rundown on your other points. Why aren't we in the Sudan? I don't know. I don't make policy, clearly it's fits the criteria of places I think we should be. When do I enlist? It's something I looked at, ultimately there were better opportunities for me to do what I believed in other than entry-level military work. I have trouble with your ideas about regime change in Iraq when you seem to believe that all that was necessary for societal change in Germany, Japan, and Russia were their "inevitable" governmental regime changes, and the people themselves were already on board with value systems very similar to ours. I don't think Iraq is the template to use for any other country in the world other than North Korea (and that's just the messiest fight I can think of, but the post-war transition might be easier), even Iran I think can be brought in without invasion and occupation. So when I say "militarily when necessary" I really mean when necessary, not hey whenever baby! So that's that, and ultimately no one else in the world has the military to do this job, we'd have to be the point country no matter who was involved, so although I think we need to do an infinitely better job of explaining our thought process to the world, I don't think coalition building lightens our load all that much. |
|||||
06-10-2005, 02:51 PM | #84 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Just inserting a short post in here for readability.
|
06-10-2005, 02:57 PM | #85 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
06-10-2005, 02:59 PM | #86 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Quote:
|
|
06-10-2005, 03:02 PM | #87 | ||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
I saw the entire model. It's bullshit. So you have to either join the military or national guard or peace corp to get any money to go to college? All it is is another way of fucking over the poor, who don't have the money to tell the government to take a flying leap over this plan. You can't get loans or grants unless you put in some time with the government (Daddy will just pay for the rich kids to go anyway). Being someone that believes in personal liberty, I find that very distasteful. I can see the draft as a necessary evil when the country's very being is threatened, but beyond that? Pffft! Quote:
What in the world are you going on about? The author is saying give the soldier the benefits by STRIPPING them from people who don't volunteer for a government or peace corp position. I don't understand how this is a "good" idea for the country. The reason we have a volunteer military is because we believe it is wrong to force someone to join the military unless the country's existance is threatened. I have no problem in offering more federal aid for college for military members. I think we should. But at the expense of offering grants and loans to non-military (or non-peace corp) members? That's silly. The reason those loans and grants exist in the first place is because we believe that even poor people should get the benefits of college. To make them join the military or the peace corp or do some 'service' while the rich kids can avoid it is ridiculous. If you want compulsory military service, make it for everyone. Don't penalize the poor.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
||
06-10-2005, 03:03 PM | #88 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
I see... and you are the final arbiter of 'bullshit classes', I take it?
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
06-10-2005, 03:03 PM | #89 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
|
Quote:
Except when those leaders are secular as opposed to Islamic (see Pakistan, Algeria). Lets at least be honest -you're helping to install new leaders that you hope will be better partners- liberty is less important than their Islamic leanings. |
|
06-10-2005, 03:10 PM | #90 | |||||||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
There's a wide range of academic books written on the subject of the Germans, psychology and their society, and how it so happened that the Nazis got control. Quote:
Overstated. The seeds for economic collapse were planted by Stalin, who abandoned any pretence of economic sustainability in favor of a dictatorship-oligarchy. The Soviet Union only lasted as long as it did, economically, due to massive natural resources. The seeds for political collapse were, ironically, planted by the detente between Brezhnev & Nixon. This allowed Brezhnev to rule for so long, and with so much control, that the Politburo decided to follow him up with two old, ineffectual guys (Gromyko & Andropov). Those years of interregnum weakness then led to the Politburo going for someone younger, who happened to be the reformer Gorbachev. Quote:
Well, if that's the way you want to define "extraordinary pressures", then we may agree on more than it appears at first blush. However, your rhetoric initially led me to believe that you advocated direct diplomatic, economic, and military action to speed societal change. Quote:
I'm well versed in this issue. Suffice it to say that there's no incentive for China to do this to us now, because we represent the largest market for their goods. But what about the time when we don't? What's to keep them from dropping out T-Bills then? Quote:
Well, as I've said, there was no societal change in Germany, and we didn't intend to drive social change there anyway. We didn't drive social change in Japan, we just wanted to stop them from killing us, and they changed their own society. And, of course, the Soviet Union did fall in an "inevitable" manner. It should be pointed out that both Japan and Germany emerged and prospered in the post-WWII era economically by employing decidedly non-Free Market approaches to global capitalism. Both favored a high level of government-industry integration, and pursued economic and social programs that led to a high level of government-sponsored distribution of wealth. So, it's difficult to claim, really, that we forced them to change to "our" way. Quote:
Iran's an interesting case, really. Years of being ignored diplomatically by the U.S. has resulted in greater ties amongst the people with folks in Europe (Germany, especially) and the actual growth of a moderate political movement. Case in point, I think, of what can be achieved without the U.S. being overt. Quote:
Compare & contrast Gulf War I to Gulf War II. Coalition building is important. |
|||||||
06-10-2005, 03:16 PM | #91 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Quote:
|
|
06-10-2005, 03:29 PM | #92 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
We didn't install new leaders. The Iraqi people did. We only helped give the Iraqi people the liberty to choose. This is definately a battle over information and how it's presented isn't it? |
|
06-10-2005, 04:21 PM | #93 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alabama
|
Quote:
why don't all those Young Republicans who believe we are protecting American freedoms by invading Iraq answer the call? Oh wait, sacrifice........ |
|
06-10-2005, 04:33 PM | #94 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Colorado Springs
|
Quote:
Never once have I used this, but.... |
|
06-10-2005, 05:24 PM | #95 | |
Banned
Join Date: May 2003
|
Quote:
Riiiiiiiiiggghhtt. |
|
06-10-2005, 06:34 PM | #96 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Care to explain which part of the process you disagree with? |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|