[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
In a volunteer military, a tiny percentage of the population will bear the cost of war. That’s the strongest argument for a draft, in my book, despite all the problems it would cause the military, that it could lead to a regeneration of civic virtue and responsibility.[/quote]
I agree 100%.
It would set our readiness back, but I think everyone should have to serve their country. Paying taxes not withstanding.
As much as I like the occasional historical comparison, I believe that a gap of over a thousand years is just too much and more of a mental exercise.
While you’re perfectly right, some of the items are just normal for the global village. Restless Barbarians, ok, but how far can they swim? I mean, Rome had them as neighbours.
Uncontrolled Immigration, OK, but how will you fill your ranks of soldiers without more sons?
Reliance on imports, OK, but that is THE characteristic of a rich country.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Neither Republicans nor Democrats have sought any kind of sacrifices from the population; after 9/11 Bush famously told Americans to go out and spend money.
It’s not about “banging their wives and partying.” The saying “the Army is at war, the country isn’t” is heard a lot these days, and it’s true. [/quote]
On this point, Gdol, I wholeheartedly agree - and this is one of my, if not my biggest, criticism of Bush.
In a post-9/11 world, America was ripe to sober up and wake up to a new world. In order to that, sacrifices and commitments had to be made. Instead of good statesmanship and talk of public sacrifice for a greater good, we got a GOP using the exigent circumstances to fatten their wallets and their constituents and using the new threat as an opportunity to party-build.
That doesn’t make the GOP the evil conspiracy its mindless detractors claim it to be, just not up to the challenge of truly working in the national interest in a deadly serious time and instead opting for partisan politics when we craved national leadership (and I should add, not all of the GOP’s work was in this vein). And, of course, the alternative is the current Democrats, so - nuff said on statesmanship and leadership in wartime.
And, of course, Bush was in a perfect position to tame the GOP Congress and demand that this war be “America’s war” and not just “the Army’s” - he could have called for sacrifices, vetoed bills, and used his “bully pulpit” to call for sacrfice and duty.
He opted not to, and it is the worst failure of his presidency, in my opinion.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The people who run our country are well aware of all the problems mentioned. They created them purposely. Now, why’d they do that?
History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives - Abba Eban
Queue the comments about Lixy the antisemite quoting a Jew, in 3, 2, 1…[/quote]
My point was that we’ve been taught that unselfishness is good. Is it?
Should the strong, intelligent, and brave be drained for the benefit of the weak, the incompetent, the diseased?
When Keynes and his buddies created the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, their explicit goal was to drain the wealth of the United States for the benefit of a world that was recovering from a war. Where has that gotten us? Is the world a better place for the trillions of dollars expropriated from America?
Unselfishness, rooted in ancient rituals, is a morality for robber gangs and victims. It is at conflict with a modern industrialized society. It robs potential for the benefit of lack.
We look in dazed wonder as the world goes to hell in a handbasket, when all along it is our morality that has to change. Using force to drain the strong for the benefit of the weak just kills everyone. The current state of the United States should be a big fat example of what happens when unselfishness (not benevolence, btw) is the accepted morality.
Here’s a quote to end this with: “I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life…It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.”
— Ayn Rand (a Jew, btw Lixy :D)
[quote]pookie wrote:
vroom wrote:
Restless barbarians worldwide… check.
Hmm. I’d be important to note the vast technological gulf that exists between “the best army” and the “barbarians” in these modern times.
In Rome’s time, while Rome had better tactics, weapons, commanders, etc. the difference with what the barbarians were fielding was not that wide. Swords, spears, arrows… better tactics could offset superior numbers, but only up to a point.
When you can obliterate millions (hell, billions) of people in a few instants, the situation is much different.
Add to that the possibility to view any spot on the globe rather easily (the disappearance of “the fog of war”) and I think that drawing parallels between the Roman era and our current times is going to lead to pretty suspect conclusions.
Population on welfare… check.
It’s a pretty low proportion of the entire population. Corporations on welfare is probably a worse problem.
[/quote]
Pookie
Exactly right. The barbarians this time around are much further down the food chain. The world economy is also not agrarian. If Rome no longer exists the rest of the world simply goes about it’s business. Less comfortable and more brutally but it goes about it’s business.
This time the “Romans” are much much further along socially, economically and militarily. The barbarians are where they are do to very bad choices they made. A lot of little Romes also exist who don’t want to see the big Romans collapse. Those little Romes also enjoy their comfortable existense provided by the historic relative calm.
The world isn’t ready for an extended dark age since the chances of the world disengaging from the US economy and technological networks are nil. Far easier to eliminate the barbarian threat once and for all and let the world get back to order.
And to those who say the US military is overextended you need to rethink your position. It’s a catchy phrase and an overused buzzword but it’s hardly overextended. Most aircraft, ships and combat troops are not deployed. The nation is hardly mobilized for war and the economy isn’t on a war footing.
When the situation becomes necessary the US has demonstrated what a mobilization for war looks like. You may see it again. A massive conventional army, that is at least a generation ahead of it’s allies and two ahead of it’s opponents can pretty much fix any problem it encounters. The threat of WMD’s against such a force, although serious, will not save the opposition unless they have thousands of them.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
In a volunteer military, a tiny percentage of the population will bear the cost of war. That’s the strongest argument for a draft, in my book, despite all the problems it would cause the military, that it could lead to a regeneration of civic virtue and responsibility.[/quote]
Gdollars,
I have to ask you, do you think a draft would make the public incredibly quick to vote out the party that sent their sons to war?
I’m not sure I’m being clear, but if there was a draft, then in theory everybody would be sharing the burden. Once a war became unpopular, bang, the government would face a landslide that would make the current slight Dem majority an complete landslide, wouldn’t it?
Beware the ides of march.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
My point was that we’ve been taught that unselfishness is good. Is it?
[/quote]
The rest of your post isn’t needed. Unselfishness is good, but that doesn’t mean one has to go to incredibly foolish extremes with the concept.
Can the idea be taken too far? Yes. Can the unselfish be taken advantage of? Yes. That doesn’t make it bad. It means some wisdom is required in it’s use.
Another analogy with ancient Rome: the well-being of the Empire was dependent on how good the emporer was. Bush can be our Claudius I, stumbling and bumbling but basically a good guy.
Clinton then is Caligula, if we go chronologically.
Who would be a good Nero? John Edwards? Hillary would be a good Agrippanilla. 
[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
In a volunteer military, a tiny percentage of the population will bear the cost of war. That’s the strongest argument for a draft, in my book, despite all the problems it would cause the military, that it could lead to a regeneration of civic virtue and responsibility.
I agree 100%.
It would set our readiness back, but I think everyone should have to serve their country. Paying taxes not withstanding. [/quote]
Ah, pro-slavery?
Hedo, Pookie,
I think there is a propensity to look at the barbarians as a conventional enemy. They don’t really exist in that form these days.
We have barbarians in every country, virtually indistinguishable from any other citizen, with the potential to act against groups other than the military.
As for whether or not the military is over extended, I’m certain that it could bear as much as is asked of it, but the ability to fund it while continuing to have a healthy economy is what I’d question.
Anyway, I’m not trying to suggest the sky is falling, but the direction we are going right now does not look like it would be a good idea to sustain for all that long. At least not if there is a possibility of other large economic events taking place.
Hmm, also, keep in mind, that exerting control over the “empire” or “world” has the effect of increasing the barbarian count. There may be the possibility of working harder to crush the barbarians while in actuality giving them power to recruit.
Just some thoughts.
[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
In a volunteer military, a tiny percentage of the population will bear the cost of war. That’s the strongest argument for a draft, in my book, despite all the problems it would cause the military, that it could lead to a regeneration of civic virtue and responsibility.
I agree 100%.
It would set our readiness back, but I think everyone should have to serve their country. Paying taxes not withstanding.
Ah, pro-slavery?
[/quote]
Nope. Pro-service.
[quote]hedo wrote:
The barbarians are where they are do to very bad choices they made. [/quote]
Please clarify who are these barbarians you speak of.
What order?
I don’t doubt for a second that everybody will rush to pick up their uniform once the country is in danger. As for now, it’s as extended as can be be for fighting a BS war.
You can’t push it any further at this point. The population barely tolerates the current situation as it is.
Exactly. Because it’s a BS war.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I have to ask you, do you think a draft would make the public incredibly quick to vote out the party that sent their sons to war?
I’m not sure I’m being clear, but if there was a draft, then in theory everybody would be sharing the burden. Once a war became unpopular, bang, the government would face a landslide that would make the current slight Dem majority an complete landslide, wouldn’t it?[/quote]
Duh! That was established back during Vietnam.
I don’t think there’ll be a draft anytime soon for the simple reason that no country on the planet will dare make a move on the US.
[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
The barbarians are where they are do to very bad choices they made.
Please clarify who are these barbarians you speak of.
Far easier to eliminate the barbarian threat once and for all and let the world get back to order.
What order?
And to those who say the US military is overextended you need to rethink your position. It’s a catchy phrase and an overused buzzword but it’s hardly overextended.
I don’t doubt for a second that everybody will rush to pick up their uniform once the country is in danger. As for now, it’s as extended as can be be for fighting a BS war.
You can’t push it any further at this point. The population barely tolerates the current situation as it is.
Most aircraft, ships and combat troops are not deployed. The nation is hardly mobilized for war and the economy isn’t on a war footing.
Exactly. Because it’s a BS war.[/quote]
Your a bigot who makes up his mind before he reads something so actually lecturing you about a subject in which you are ignorant is foolish. However, others may be interested:
First of all it’s a metaphor, used in the context of this thread but Iran would be at the top of the list, Syria, North Korea…
What order? The order that allows a whiny bitch like you to have the leisure time to spread the cyber Jihad on a US bodybuilding site…(you do workout don’t you?) Free Trade, Global banking, commerce on the high seas…you know things that happen in a world with laws.
Generally referred to as order. Somewhat foriegn to you considering your background but those in the West rather enjoy it. Take the US out of the equation and much of this collapses in the hypothetical examples given. Do you think China would be so benevolent?
BS War…wow. Some argument. Please keep striving for mediocracy, you don’t seem to be having any problem reaching it.
Actually it is because the force is not needed…yet. It is certainly avilable and the nation would respond if called upon.
Always good for the enemy to underestimate the US. Lixy you should hardly be suprised that the US doesn’t seek advice from the enemy and those who support them.
[quote]vroom wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
In a volunteer military, a tiny percentage of the population will bear the cost of war. That’s the strongest argument for a draft, in my book, despite all the problems it would cause the military, that it could lead to a regeneration of civic virtue and responsibility.
Gdollars,
I have to ask you, do you think a draft would make the public incredibly quick to vote out the party that sent their sons to war?
I’m not sure I’m being clear, but if there was a draft, then in theory everybody would be sharing the burden. Once a war became unpopular, bang, the government would face a landslide that would make the current slight Dem majority an complete landslide, wouldn’t it?[/quote]
Depends on the timing and situation that presents itself. Defense spending during Vietnam was much higher as a percentage. Many young people these days are well rounded and patriotic.
Again depending on the timing it wouldn’t be that much of a negative if the people support it. At present it’s not supported by the military and only Charles Rangel, a Democrat, has proposed it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
vroom wrote:
I have to ask you, do you think a draft would make the public incredibly quick to vote out the party that sent their sons to war?
I’m not sure I’m being clear, but if there was a draft, then in theory everybody would be sharing the burden. Once a war became unpopular, bang, the government would face a landslide that would make the current slight Dem majority an complete landslide, wouldn’t it?
Duh! That was established back during Vietnam.
I don’t think there’ll be a draft anytime soon for the simple reason that no country on the planet will dare make a move on the US.[/quote]
The Republicans did not have a majority in the US Congress since the 40’s. Nixon, a Republican, won in 1968 and 1972, at the hieght of the Vietnam War. He resigned because of watergate not because of the draft. Carter was elected for 1 disasterous term in 1976 and lost in 1980. The nearest election that changed congress substantially was in 1994 and was a Republican majority.
Your argument that the draft caused a landslide victory for one party or the other is false and no more then wishful thinking presented as fact…typical.
Lixy I know you can’t coprehend reality but you are having a very bad week on T-Nation. Time to go to Dafur.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Exactly. Because it’s a BS war.[/quote]
Establishing a functioning democracy is ‘BS’?
[quote]vroom wrote:
I think there is a propensity to look at the barbarians as a conventional enemy. They don’t really exist in that form these days.[/quote]
Their not stockpiling nukes nor flying spy satellites over our head either.
They only enjoy an appearance of success because the US, and the West by extension, are unwilling to do wholesale slaughter.
The US could decide to nuke everything between Israel and India, and technologically, no one could stop them. Only the sheer horror of such a carnage makes that option uncontemplable.
Even if terrorist use guerilla tactics and hide among populations, if you can identify and isolate large enough groups, they have nothing they can seriously oppose to a cruise missile or a daisy cutter.
That’s the kind of technological rift I was referring too. In Rome’s time, the rift was much smaller and could be offset by sheer numbers or better tactics.
Today, it’s public opinion and media presence. Still, all the contrary world opinion didn’t stop Shock & Awe or even slow it one bit.
Yes, they tend to target civilian populations. Because A) it’s easier, they don’t fight back as much and B) it creates fear and panic and greatly amplifies the effects of an attack.
I think the ability of the US to really fund a war is underestimated. Look at a crowd of people: When was the last time any of those bastards had to tighten his belt because of the sacrifices required in a time of war?
What people spend on entertainment in a year is probably enough to fund the Iraq war indefinitely.
Might be a good idea too. With less entertainment, maybe people would start paying attention to what their governments are doing.
I’m more worried by the slow trickle down of technology. I’d like to have the terrorist problem solved before it becomes feasible for small, well-funded group, to field nuclear/biological/chemical WMDs. For real.
But who fills the void if the US/Western “empire” draws back into its cocoon. Would the world really be better if Russia was in Iraq (I bet they’d have a nice peaceful nation of very light sleepers by now) or as someone else mentioned, China was vying for control of the Middle East?
It’d be hunky-dory if every nation was nice and friendly and we could settle all our differences by meeting under big thinking trees and chat our way to international agreements. Unfortunately, the method doesn’t seem to enjoy much popularity. It’s not a bad idea, just as the UN was not a bad idea; but for various reason, they don’t seem to work when they meet reality.
Thanks for pointing it out. For a second there, I thought I was looking at an X-Ray of a box of Alphabits.
[quote]pookie wrote:
They only enjoy an appearance of success because the US, and the West by extension, are unwilling to do wholesale slaughter.
The US could decide to nuke everything between Israel and India, and technologically, no one could stop them. Only the sheer horror of such a carnage makes that option uncontemplable.[/quote]
I’m not arguing that the power isn’t very lopsided in terms of weaponry.
However, honestly, executing the option above would create large numbers of barbarians within our own borders. Of course, our own governments could turn into police states to try to control this dissention… thereby begging for their own overthrow in time.
The fact that the power is available does not make the barbarians powerless, as you might expect. The use, and especially the abuse, of such power, in this day and age, is part of what creates barbarians.
The minute a government becomes too draconian it will create barbarians out of it’s own citizens.