Incredable...

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords It's worth pointing out that many economists & historians think the regime collapsed under the weight of trying to keep up with American military spending.*

That may well have been the proximate cause of death, but the economy they had was dysfunctional enough that it was only a matter of time.

It is amazing to think of how much and how long the Soviet people suffered. I wonder if they ever dreamed that things would actually be worse after they threw off the CP?

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 I wonder if they ever dreamed that things would actually be worse after they threw off the CP?

We'll have to ask the people who are "voting" for Putin...

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords Hey, don't shoot the messengers, no matter how blissfully ignorant they may be! *You won't achieve world peace, or even border security, by getting rid of the military. *We have to get rid of the problem that's creating the "need" for the military. People feel the same way about police officers, lawyers, prison guards, and septic-tank pumpers. *No one wants to support (or pay for) such despised systems until we need them-- and then we can't figure out why they're not ready to do their jobs. *It's not as easy as we claim to make it look. *

Like I said, I try really hard to separate my visceral hatred for the military from the actual men and women in it who are just doing their jobs. Having said that, I am not willing to give a moral free pass to those who VOLUNTARILY choose to become part of that benighted institution. The cycle of violence won't end if everyone just says, "well, I'm just doing my job, don't blame me." We already know where that leads to.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 The cycle of violence won't end if everyone just says, "well, I'm just doing my job, don't blame me."* We already know where that leads to.

The implicit problem with that approach is embodied in this statement:

"OK, you go first."

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords The implicit problem with that approach is embodied in this statement: "OK, you go first."

Exactly my point. That's what everyone says, and here we sit in our own filth.

It would be nice if the US at least stopped ratcheting up the war machine, spooking everyone else and getting them in the race, too.

[PsyopRanger]

Wow, as for the original topic. This is something we deal with since the Anti-Bush era. After 9/11 everyone loved you, 5 years later it is hit and miss.

As to why someone would serve in the military. ER at 40 for one. Believe me though, the day we have world peace and no longer need militaries, I will be the first to hung up the uniform.

Not to mention the militaries purpose in the present is not killing foreigners as the biased media likes to portray, we actually build schools, roads, wells for drinking water and help end poverty and other world problems. But, those stories don't increase ratings.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Exactly my point.* That's what everyone says, and here we sit in our own filth. It would be nice if the US at least stopped ratcheting up the war machine, spooking everyone else and getting them in the race, too.*

"Hey, he started it!!"

[jclarksnakes]

Brewer,
......Slavery? I believe if you will have a look at some of Abe Lincoln's speeches you will see that the emancipation proclamation was no surprise.
......Fascism? No argument with you on that one.
......Nazism? I think your analysis is too simplistic and basically incorrect. More importantly you seem to be insinuating that we were wrong for becoming involved in WWII and helping save Europe from Hitler. If that is what you mean then you and I have nothing to talk about.
......Communism? Like Nords says the Russians imploded trying to keep up with Reagans continued military buildup. I see China's rapidly growing free market system as a very good thing.

.....I think Winston Churchill was the most important and heroic figure of the 20th century followed closely by Ronald Reagan. You probably totally disagree with my opinions and you are wrong.
jc

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsyopRanger Not to mention the militaries purpose in the present is not killing foreigners as the biased media likes to portray, we actually build schools, roads, wells for drinking water and help end poverty and other world problems.* But, those stories don't increase ratings.

Yeah and the tanks and aircraft carriers and B52s and ICBMs are just for show, right?

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jclarksnakes then you and I have nothing to talk about.

Ding, ding, ding!!!

Its OK to agree to disagree.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jclarksnakes You probably totally disagree with my opinions and you are wrong.

Let's keep it civil. Remember: "Hey, this is the War Room. You can't fight in here!"

We're not arguing the goal, only its implementation.

[PsyopRanger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Yeah and the tanks and aircraft carriers and B52s and ICBMs are just for show, right?

If you look at current military doctrine and the past 10 years of conflicts. Intial conflict is minimal and the main tasks are:

Stability Operations
Peace Operations

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsyopRanger If you look at current military doctrine and the past 10 years of conflicts.* Intial conflict is minimal and the main tasks are: Stability Operations Peace Operations

That's been working out real well lately, I understand.

FWIW, I've little doubt that there is nobody that wants to see peace in Iraq more than the US soldiers who are serving there (well, maybe nobody other than the Iraqis). But to suggest that the whole point of military action is peace is pretty, well, lets say disingenuous.

[REWahoo]

Nords your "Hey, don't shoot the messengers" post is one of the best things I've seen on the forum, and I'm embarassed to say that I've read almost every last one of the 160,000 messages here. As a former cold warrior, I could not agree more.

"Let him who desires peace prepare for war."

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo! "Let him who desires peace prepare for war."

And he will only get war. Big militaries standing around are just irresistable toys for most politicians. Its like leaving Mad Dog around the house when living with an alcoholic.

[jclarksnakes]

Nords,
....I did keep it civil. And it still is. Brewer and I agree that it is okay to disagree.
jc

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo! Nords your "Hey, don't shoot the messengers" post is one of the best things I've seen on the forum, and I'm embarassed to say that I've read almost every last one of the 160,000 messages here.* As a former cold warrior, I could not agree more.

Thanks. *But I'd rather be out of a job and on Brewer's side...

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo! "Let him who desires peace prepare for war."

West Point, keeping the classics alive, has taught my nephew the Army Ranger a slightly different version: *
"Peace through superior firepower."

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Big militaries standing around are just irresistable toys for most politicians.* Its like leaving Mad Dog around the house when living with an alcoholic.

Pretty ironic considering how few of them are veterans.* At least an alcoholic understands what he's getting into, whether or not he can abstain.*

GWB's ANG muster sheets notwithstanding, maybe members of government should only be able to proclaim military decisions or vote on war issues if they've served-- or if they have a family member in the service.

Geez, I guess I should start taking that personally.* The USNA Blue & Gold Officer is making a special visit to our kid's high school next week, and right now our kid would pay money to talk to a real live BGO.

[bow-tie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords ..GWB's ANG muster sheets notwithstanding, maybe members of government should only be able to proclaim military decisions or vote on war issues if they've served-- or if they have a family member in the service...

I think that's a very good idea... to have some skin in the game. Methinks it gives a little clearer perspective.

[REWahoo]

Better yet, just leave it to the generals. Although that's certainly not a new idea...

"...do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war? He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, fifty years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought.

...do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream? You know when fluoridation first began? Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core commie works.

I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

---Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper to Group Captain Lionel Mandrake, "Dr. Strangelove"

[PsyopRanger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 That's been working out real well lately, I understand. FWIW, I've little doubt that there is nobody that wants to see peace in Iraq more than the US soldiers who are serving there (well, maybe nobody other than the Iraqis). But to suggest that the whole point of military action is peace is pretty, well, lets say disingenuous.

This is the change we face. For years the military focused on large scale cold war operations despite many warnings as far back as the 1960's of the coming low intensity conflict, guerilla wars and terrorism.

Although many detest Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield they are the first administration to try to change this policy and deal with the current issues of terrorism, nation building, and peace keeping.

As to your comment about the whole point of military action is peace, know one ever said that? Military conflict today is short “war” engagements followed by long periods of nation building, peace keeping, and stability operations.

This is what is happening is Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.

I believe the whole reason for a military is national defense, however, with terrorism there also has to be offensive action to counter the threat.

The passive Clinton Administration approach to Terrorism, Al Qaeda’s threats and terrorists attacks led to the largest terrorist attack on American soil in US history.

I also wonder why we continue to point the finger towards the government and military when terrorists and radical Islam are to blame?

Until we deal with the root of the problem, it will never go away.