No doubt about it, McNamara is No. 1 on list of most despised
xona
a long time ago that if he had the opportunity and McNamara
was ever within his view he wouldn't have hesitated to put a
round or two into his vile, repugnant, body.
McNamara is total human shit. May he rot in hell-- the fucken
bastard. He, along with asshole Johnson are responsible for
countless dead and maimed americans as they played politics while
the commies played war.
xona
Wanda Hodge
Johnson both inherited Ike's Viet Nam War. JFK wanted to end our
involvement in this republican war . There is much speculation that this
is why JFK was murdered in the first place. The FBI and CIA covered up
the Kennedy assassination. Gerald Ford was the FBI agent who
investigated the JFK assassination and we know GB was in the CIA at the
time only to be promoted to director as soon as Nixon became prez..
With Kennedy out of the way and Johnson looking like the culprit who got
us involved in Viet Nam, Nixon was sure to be elected with his campaign
promises of bringing our boys back home. The rest is history. Certainly
looks like JFK and Johnson were both victims of a conspiracy. Johnson
was certainly guilty of making a lot of costly mistakes based on a lot
of mis information and ill advice from the right.
Michael Ejercito
> I certainly don't disagree with you except for the fact that JFK and
> Johnson both inherited Ike's Viet Nam War. JFK wanted to end our
> involvement in this republican war . There is much speculation that this
> is why JFK was murdered in the first place. The FBI and CIA covered up
> the Kennedy assassination. Gerald Ford was the FBI agent who
> investigated the JFK assassination and we know GB was in the CIA at the
> time only to be promoted to director as soon as Nixon became prez..
> With Kennedy out of the way and Johnson looking like the culprit who got
> us involved in Viet Nam, Nixon was sure to be elected with his campaign
> promises of bringing our boys back home. The rest is history. Certainly
> looks like JFK and Johnson were both victims of a conspiracy. Johnson
> was certainly guilty of making a lot of costly mistakes based on a lot
> of mis information and ill advice from the right.
Johnson could have launched a nuclear attack on North Vietnam and ended
the war then and there. Why didn't he?
Michael
idleeric
Michael Ejercito wrote in message ...
ha ha .... so you could avoid being an irradiated aborted fetus instead of a
brain damaged toady.
Norman G. Purves
Wanda Hodge <wmh...@usa.net> wrote in article
<37C2634D...@usa.net>...
> I certainly don't disagree with you except for the fact that JFK and
> Johnson both inherited Ike's Viet Nam War.
"*Ike's* Vietnam War"? Typical leftwing bullshit. The US policy toward
Southeast Asia originated in the Truman/Dean Acheson "Containment" policy.
Didn't you read the Pentagon Papers, for crissake?
>JFK wanted to end our
> involvement in this republican war .
Part of the enduring "Camelot" myth. If Saint Jack had not been blown away,
there would have been no Vietnam War, there would have been Total Racial
Harmony, Universal Peace On Earth, and An End To All Problems All Over The
World.
Yeah Right. Trouble is, there is no evidence for this part of the Kennedy
Gospel, other than the testimony of such as T. Sorensen, who is himself
implicated, along with McNamara, in the crimes of the Kennedy
Administration in regard to Vietnam. This is remarkably similar to O.J.
Simpson's search for the "real killer".
One of the greatest feats of political bullshit in history is the success
of Liberals in shucking their responsibility for Vietnam, and pinning the
blame on such as Richard M. Nixon.
>There is much speculation that this
> is why JFK was murdered in the first place.
Along with the speculation that it was Fidel Castro, Carmine Galante,
Nikita Khruschev, Howard Hughes, Joseph Bonnano, Mao Zedong, or Casper The
Freindly Ghost who was behind the deed.
My favorite suspect: Joe DiMaggio, who had JFK bumped off in revenge for
the murder of Marilyn Monroe....
>The FBI and CIA covered up
> the Kennedy assassination.
Unquestionably true: These agencies concealed the news of the assassination
for almost an entire second.....
> Gerald Ford was the FBI agent who
> investigated the JFK assassination
This one is *really* funny. Ford was a congressman at the time.
>and we know GB was in the CIA at the
> time only to be promoted to director as soon as Nixon became prez..
This on is funny, too. GHWB was still in the oil biz in '63. But, of
course, he had been recruited by the CIA 'way back in '44, right? (BTW, the
CIA was founded in 1947....)
Also, Bush did not become director of the CIA until 1974, 5 years after
Nixon took office. The director of the CIA in the Nixon Administration
until then was Richard Helms.
You might make at least a cursory attempt to get *some* of your facts
straight before spewing.
> With Kennedy out of the way and Johnson looking like the culprit who got
> us involved in Viet Nam, Nixon was sure to be elected with his campaign
> promises of bringing our boys back home.
Gee, for a Kennedy-worshipper, you have omitted some remarkable pieces of
history: Nixon was nowhere near *sure* to be elected until Bobby was
killed. Did you forget about *this* part of the "Camelot" story? It was
Bobby who was promising to "bring the boys back home". Nixon's slogan was
"peace with honor". Now: try to link Sirhan Sirhan to Nixon. Come on,
lets' hear it.....
Just how old are you anyway? You clearly have no actual knowledge of any of
these things....
>The rest is history. Certainly
> looks like JFK and Johnson were both victims of a conspiracy. Johnson
> was certainly guilty of making a lot of costly mistakes based on a lot
> of mis information and ill advice from the right.
Advice from the RIGHT !?! Please identify the members of "the right" in the
Johnson administration....
Oh, man. My diaphragm is sore from too much laughing.....
--
Aloha
Norman
Milt
news:mejercit-240...@134.139.69.100...
and
> > involvement in this republican war . There is much speculation
that this
> > is why JFK was murdered in the first place. The FBI and CIA
covered up
> > the Kennedy assassination. Gerald Ford was the FBI agent who
> > investigated the JFK assassination and we know GB was in the CIA
at the
> > time only to be promoted to director as soon as Nixon became
prez..
who got
> > us involved in Viet Nam, Nixon was sure to be elected with his
campaign
Certainly
> > looks like JFK and Johnson were both victims of a conspiracy.
Johnson
> > was certainly guilty of making a lot of costly mistakes based on a
lot
> > of mis information and ill advice from the right.
> Johnson could have launched a nuclear attack on North Vietnam and
ended
> the war then and there. Why didn't he?
>
Um... gee, I don't know... Because the Soviet Union and China would
have objected just a little? Because it would have made the US look
really stupid and hawkish, and accelerated the "Domino Effect" that
they were so worried about? Because, except for the one the West drew,
there was no really clear border between the Vietnamese and the Viet
Cong? Because it would have been impossible to do so without fallout
in several other countries to whom we were somewhat "friendly?
Shall I go on, Mikey?
Think I'll save this one for later, too. never know when such ravings
might come in handy, y'know??
--
Milt
X-no-archive: yes
wayne mann
wrote:
Lady you're just plain NUTS! Quit spamming to a.c-e.c.w. with
your ignorant posts.
>I certainly don't disagree with you except for the fact that JFK and
>Johnson both inherited Ike's Viet Nam War. JFK wanted to end our
>involvement in this republican war . There is much speculation that this
>is why JFK was murdered in the first place. The FBI and CIA covered up
>the Kennedy assassination. Gerald Ford was the FBI agent who
>investigated the JFK assassination and we know GB was in the CIA at the
>time only to be promoted to director as soon as Nixon became prez..
>With Kennedy out of the way and Johnson looking like the culprit who got
>us involved in Viet Nam, Nixon was sure to be elected with his campaign
>promises of bringing our boys back home. The rest is history. Certainly
>looks like JFK and Johnson were both victims of a conspiracy. Johnson
>was certainly guilty of making a lot of costly mistakes based on a lot
>of mis information and ill advice from the right.
>
>xona wrote:
>
>> My father was a naval frogman in the vietnam war. He told me
>> a long time ago that if he had the opportunity and McNamara
>> was ever within his view he wouldn't have hesitated to put a
>> round or two into his vile, repugnant, body.
>>
>> McNamara is total human shit. May he rot in hell-- the fucken
>> bastard. He, along with asshole Johnson are responsible for
>> countless dead and maimed americans as they played politics while
>> the commies played war.
>>
>> xona
\\/ayne //\ann
"The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend
to be something they're not."
-- Hillary Clinton - 1992 60 Minutes interview
a friend
>
> How nice of "Milt" <mi...@law.com> to write:
>
> <SNIP>
> >> Johnson could have launched a nuclear attack on North Vietnam and
> >ended
> >> the war then and there. Why didn't he?
> >>
> >Um... gee, I don't know... Because the Soviet Union and China would
> >have objected just a little? Because it would have made the US look
> >really stupid and hawkish, and accelerated the "Domino Effect" that
> >they were so worried about? Because, except for the one the West drew,
> >there was no really clear border between the Vietnamese and the Viet
> >Cong? Because it would have been impossible to do so without fallout
> >in several other countries to whom we were somewhat "friendly?
> >
> >Shall I go on, Mikey?
> >
> >Think I'll save this one for later, too. never know when such ravings
> >might come in handy, y'know??
>
> the evidence on child-proof drills, Milt? Did you lose it like you
> lost the "cease and desist" order you were going to serve me with?
> I'll bet the entire staff still giggles about that one.
At least he only posts his drivel after hours now... probably a
condition of
his parole?
Robert Frenchu
--
How many children have to die before
YOU do something? Join M.I.L.T. today!
http://www.frenchu.com/tpg/drill.html
*NEW* Guestbook! *NEW* Drill Poll! *NEW*
Robert Frenchu
>Robert Frenchu wrote:
>>
>> How nice of "Milt" <mi...@law.com> to write:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>> >> Johnson could have launched a nuclear attack on North Vietnam and
>> >ended
>> >> the war then and there. Why didn't he?
>> >>
>> >Um... gee, I don't know... Because the Soviet Union and China would
>> >have objected just a little? Because it would have made the US look
>> >really stupid and hawkish, and accelerated the "Domino Effect" that
>> >they were so worried about? Because, except for the one the West drew,
>> >there was no really clear border between the Vietnamese and the Viet
>> >Cong? Because it would have been impossible to do so without fallout
>> >in several other countries to whom we were somewhat "friendly?
>> >
>> >Shall I go on, Mikey?
>> >
>> >Think I'll save this one for later, too. never know when such ravings
>> >might come in handy, y'know??
>>
>> Like we saved yours? Tell us, when are you going to provide us with
>> the evidence on child-proof drills, Milt? Did you lose it like you
>> lost the "cease and desist" order you were going to serve me with?
>> I'll bet the entire staff still giggles about that one.
>
>At least he only posts his drivel after hours now... probably a
>condition of his parole?
I imagine when they found 50% of his billable hours were from his
crazy USENET postings......
--
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
Thomas A. Bolig
and
>Johnson both inherited Ike's Viet Nam War.
... and Ike inherited Truman's Viet Nam War - who had turned down
HoChi Minh's friendly advances in favor of France and who re-armed
the French forces (despite his predecessor's policy of arming the
VietMinh against the Japanese...)
>...JFK wanted to end our involvement in this republican war .
BS JFK increased our involvement and developed the Green
Berets as a counter-insurgent force trained in jungle warfare...
There is much
> speculation that this is why JFK was murdered in the first place.
It was the Aliens and the Cigarette Man... don't you watch the
X-Files?
>The FBI and CIA covered up
>the Kennedy assassination. Gerald Ford was the FBI agent who
>investigated the JFK assassination and we know GB was in the CIA at
the
>time only to be promoted to director as soon as Nixon became prez..
Nope. You don't watch the X-Files... else your dates, names, and
other information might be a lot closer to correct.
>With Kennedy out of the way and Johnson looking like the culprit
who got
>us involved in Viet Nam, Nixon was sure to be elected with his
campaign
>promises of bringing our boys back home. The rest is history.
Certainly
>looks like JFK and Johnson were both victims of a conspiracy.
Johnson
>was certainly guilty of making a lot of costly mistakes based on a
lot
>of mis information and ill advice from the right.
Johnson sunk us hip-deep into VietNam becomes he was an ignorant
and culturally-bigoted dishonest politician. He lied about Gulf of
Tonkien, lied to Congress about what the GofT Resolution was for,
lied about 'light at the end of the tunnel'... He thought a few
bombs and a few marines would scare the stuffin's out of the VC and
NVA... despite what the CIA reported (which was covered up until the
'pentagon papers' were leaked) During the Tet battle in SaiGon, this
megalomaniac actually directed troops by phone - as in take a couple
of men here and down this street and up this hall and...
Oh, did you read the Nixon interviews and the tapes of his
conversations with Johnson and others... Nixon stated his biggest
regret in taking office was agreeing with Johnson administration to
continue the Johnson policy for two years so as not to give the
appearance that the VC had forced a policy change or tipped a US
election. As it was, Nixon started the 'phase out' earlier than
agreed and pushed 'vietnamation' at about 18 months (the delay
caused many to believe he never had his 'secret plan' which was
actually a version of the publicized Rockefeller plan)...
Other Tom
PS
"When I was younger, I could remember anything, whether it had
happened or not." - Mark Twain
tony G
<n...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>
>
>Wanda Hodge <wmh...@usa.net> wrote in article
><37C2634D...@usa.net>...
>> I certainly don't disagree with you except for the fact that JFK and
>> Johnson both inherited Ike's Viet Nam War.
>
>"*Ike's* Vietnam War"? Typical leftwing bullshit. The US policy toward
>Southeast Asia originated in the Truman/Dean Acheson "Containment" policy.
>Didn't you read the Pentagon Papers, for crissake?
That policy was a bipartisan one(unless it was election time) for 45
or so years. The fuck ups in Vietnam and of those 45 years or so were
generally bipartisan(especialy republicans and southern democrats).
>>JFK wanted to end our
>> involvement in this republican war .
>
>Part of the enduring "Camelot" myth. If Saint Jack had not been blown away,
>there would have been no Vietnam War, there would have been Total Racial
>Harmony, Universal Peace On Earth, and An End To All Problems All Over The
>World.
Kennedy was an empty suit. When my fellow liberals spout about him I
almost puke.
>Yeah Right. Trouble is, there is no evidence for this part of the Kennedy
>Gospel, other than the testimony of such as T. Sorensen, who is himself
>implicated, along with McNamara, in the crimes of the Kennedy
>Administration in regard to Vietnam. This is remarkably similar to O.J.
>Simpson's search for the "real killer".
>
>One of the greatest feats of political bullshit in history is the success
>of Liberals in shucking their responsibility for Vietnam, and pinning the
>blame on such as Richard M. Nixon.
Kennedy wasn't a foreign policy liberal(whatever that would be). He
was a cold warrior like Nixon, Ike, Johnson, Truman, Reagan, John
Wayne, Acheson, Dulles's Bob Dole... the list goes on of people who
jumped in feet first with the democratic admins when it came to Viet
Nam. Now you try and blame it on "liberals" it seems.
>>There is much speculation that this
>> is why JFK was murdered in the first place.
by idiots...
>Along with the speculation that it was Fidel Castro, Carmine Galante,
>Nikita Khruschev, Howard Hughes, Joseph Bonnano, Mao Zedong, or Casper The
>Freindly Ghost who was behind the deed.
>My favorite suspect: Joe DiMaggio, who had JFK bumped off in revenge for
>the murder of Marilyn Monroe....
>>The FBI and CIA covered up
>> the Kennedy assassination.
>
>Unquestionably true: These agencies concealed the news of the assassination
>for almost an entire second.....
>> Gerald Ford was the FBI agent who
>> investigated the JFK assassination
>
>This one is *really* funny. Ford was a congressman at the time.
Not attempting to feed the conspiracy mill but...
Ford was on the Warren commission.
>>and we know GB was in the CIA at the
>> time only to be promoted to director as soon as Nixon became prez..
>
>This on is funny, too. GHWB was still in the oil biz in '63. But, of
>course, he had been recruited by the CIA 'way back in '44, right? (BTW, the
>CIA was founded in 1947....)
>
>Also, Bush did not become director of the CIA until 1974, 5 years after
>Nixon took office. The director of the CIA in the Nixon Administration
>until then was Richard Helms.
>You might make at least a cursory attempt to get *some* of your facts
>straight before spewing.
>
>> With Kennedy out of the way and Johnson looking like the culprit who got
>> us involved in Viet Nam, Nixon was sure to be elected with his campaign
>> promises of bringing our boys back home.
>
>Gee, for a Kennedy-worshipper, you have omitted some remarkable pieces of
>history: Nixon was nowhere near *sure* to be elected until Bobby was
>killed. Did you forget about *this* part of the "Camelot" story? It was
>Bobby who was promising to "bring the boys back home". Nixon's slogan was
>"peace with honor". Now: try to link Sirhan Sirhan to Nixon. Come on,
>lets' hear it.....
>
>Just how old are you anyway? You clearly have no actual knowledge of any of
>these things....
To think that Bobby "would have brought the boys home" is high comedy.
About as believable as Nixon's secret plan to end the war.
>>The rest is history. Certainly
>> looks like JFK and Johnson were both victims of a conspiracy. Johnson
>> was certainly guilty of making a lot of costly mistakes based on a lot
>> of mis information and ill advice from the right.
>
>Advice from the RIGHT !?! Please identify the members of "the right" in the
>Johnson administration....
Foreign policy wise? Lyndon Johnson. That was easy.
How about all of his career CIA advisors. His career intelligence
experts in the NSC. Joint Chiefs of staff. The place was crawling
with Hawks.
Just wondering, what "liberal" advisors were in the Nixon admin. that
kept him(A guy who supported the war) in the war?
>Oh, man. My diaphragm is sore from too much laughing.....
Ah well, yours wasn't a laugher until the end there.
tony G
Oops.... I forgot Gen. William Westmoreland? Kill Kill Kill Kill
Norman G. Purves
--
Aloha
Norman
tony G <kur...@ass.ass> wrote in article
<37d00727...@news.supernews.com>...
> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 21:05:39 GMT, "Norman G. Purves"
> <n...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
>
> That policy was a bipartisan one(unless it was election time) for 45
> or so years. The fuck ups in Vietnam and of those 45 years or so were
> generally bipartisan(especialy republicans and southern democrats).
Agreed. Although such prototype Liberals as Adlai Stevenson and Hubert
Humphrey were among them as well.
The specific blunders with respect to SEA were mostly the result of an
abysmal ignorance of the sociology and history of the region. Considering
the fact that these individuals regarded themselves as the intellectual
elite of the nation, this ignorance has to be regarded as criminal
negligence.
>
> >>JFK wanted to end our
> >> involvement in this republican war .
> >
> >Part of the enduring "Camelot" myth. If Saint Jack had not been blown
away,
> >there would have been no Vietnam War, there would have been Total Racial
> >Harmony, Universal Peace On Earth, and An End To All Problems All Over
The
> >World.
>
> Kennedy was an empty suit. When my fellow liberals spout about him I
> almost puke.
I think you are in error in regarding them as your "fellow liberals". They
are not liberals, they merely use the rhetoric of liberalism (which, in its
pure, uncorrupted form, is an admirable and necessary philosophy) to
further their lust for power, and their instinctive hatred of real
democracy. An "empty suit": this term is almost perfectly apt....
I might add, here, that pretty much the same criticism applies to many
"conservatives", who are, in the final analysis, merely the mirror-image of
all the phony "liberals".
Yes, he was. But he was *not* an "FBI agent", nor did he "investigate" the
JFK matter any more than did any other commission member. He was a
reletively junior member of the house in '64, and to assign him as a leader
of some sort of conspiriacy in this capacity is no more than a matter of
mindlessness by the "idiots" you mentioned above.
Well, perhaps: but RFK was making these sorts of promises in his '68
campaign. I stood 20 ft. away from him one day in May, '68, listening to
him make these promises. Whether or not Bobby was as cynical an opportunist
as his brother was is an unanswerable question...
>
> >>The rest is history. Certainly
> >> looks like JFK and Johnson were both victims of a conspiracy. Johnson
> >> was certainly guilty of making a lot of costly mistakes based on a lot
> >> of mis information and ill advice from the right.
> >
> >Advice from the RIGHT !?! Please identify the members of "the right" in
the
> >Johnson administration....
>
> Foreign policy wise? Lyndon Johnson. That was easy.
But this poster maintained that LBJ got "ill advice from the right". You
seem to suggest that he was getting bad advice from himself. This seems a
bit silly, yes?
>
> How about all of his career CIA advisors. His career intelligence
> experts in the NSC. Joint Chiefs of staff. The place was crawling
> with Hawks.
You are in error here. The record shows that the CIA warned Johnson (as it
had warned JFK before him) that the US Vietnam policy was nonsense- that
the govt. of SVN hadn't a snowball's chance in Hell of resisting Ho Chi
Minh. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had been brutally beaten into bureaucratic
submission by McNamara and his "Whiz Kids". They knew that the McNamara
strategy would fail, but kept their official mouths shut. They were
cowards, not hawks. The career intelligence officers on the NSC were
Schlesinger/Sorenson minions, Harvard types, post-China Liberals who were
willing to "pay any price, bear any burden" (remember this phrase?) to
"contain" communism. They were arrogant bunglers, not hawks.
The *real* hawks were such as Goldwater, who said from Day One that we
ought to either go in to the situation with *everything we had* (including,
God help us, *nukes*) or cut losses and get out. The *real* hawks were
pasted with TV ads showing flower-picking little girls being vaporized by
H-bombs. To call the authors of the Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam policy "hawks"
is as accurate as calling Hitler a "socialist".
>
>
> Just wondering, what "liberal" advisors were in the Nixon admin. that
> kept him(A guy who supported the war) in the war?
Nixon wrote in his memoirs ("RN", and also "In The Arena") that he knew as
early as '67 that our strategy in Vietnam was a loser. His goal was to get
us out of the situation while preserving our strategic position in other
regions. Argue with the correctness and efficacy of his strategy if you
will, but to argue that Nixon "supported the war" is clearly wrong.
Nixon's Liberal advisors included Daniel P. Moynihan, now democrat senator
from New York. Nixon didn't always listen to them (Robt. Finch, Mark
Hatfield) but they were there, and the Nixon withdrawal policy (the troop
withdrawals began in the spring of '69, BTW, the first 6 months of the
Nixon admin.) was an obvious giveaway that Nixon's goal was US withdrawal
from Vietnam. No other interpretation fits the facts.
>
Aloha
Norman
Norman G. Purves
tony G <kur...@ass.ass> wrote in article
<37d20dfd...@news.supernews.com>...
> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 21:05:39 GMT, "Norman G. Purves"
> <n...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Advice from the RIGHT !?! Please identify the members of "the right" in
the
> >Johnson administration....
>
> Oops.... I forgot Gen. William Westmoreland? Kill Kill Kill Kill
To call *any* career military officer a member of any single administration
is nonsense. By your interpretation, Douglas MacArthur was a member of the
Truman Administration, a proposition that provokes a cascade of derisive
mirth.
Furthermore, to suggest that LBJ paid any real attention to Westy's advice
flies in the face of history. Westmoreland told Johnson from the beginning
that the McNamara strategy would require a far larger commitment than
Johnson was willing to make, as it would have required him to scale back
his "Great Society" social programs. Which interestingly enough, was the
assessment that *McNamara himself* ended up making shortly before his
resignation, if you beleive what he is saying these days.
The bottom line: Robt. S. McNamara is one of the greatest villians in
American History. His place in the Hall Of Shame is assured.
Aloha
Norman
Rudi Kazootie
>
> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 21:05:39 GMT, "Norman G. Purves"
> <n...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> ><37C2634D...@usa.net>...
> >> I certainly don't disagree with you except for the fact that JFK and
> >> Johnson both inherited Ike's Viet Nam War.
> >
> >"*Ike's* Vietnam War"? Typical leftwing bullshit. The US policy toward
> >Southeast Asia originated in the Truman/Dean Acheson "Containment" policy.
> >Didn't you read the Pentagon Papers, for crissake?
>
> or so years. The fuck ups in Vietnam and of those 45 years or so were
> generally bipartisan(especialy republicans and southern democrats).
According to a Time magazine article in 1965, there were 185 US
"Advisors" in Viet Nam when Ike left office. Johnson and only Johnson
escalated the war in Viet Nam. It was nothing but a political war that
was never intended win but to cool the US economy and step on Chairman
Mao's toes. That was obvious from outset. Hard to tell where McNamera
fits in. China was not as weak as LBJ hoped and truman proved with the
Korean war. Johnson ran the war, even approving and disproving of
bombing targets, in a manner not unlike the way Hitler ran WWII for
Germany. That's all a matter of record. Amazing about the bullshit
Democrats try to make up about it. No doubt Nixon's "Peace with Honor"
was a fiasco also. Due to China's presence and stake in the war, we
could not win. Ike new that, and JFK when he wasn't fucking MM, probably
figured it out. Johnson was an Idiot and should of stayed a Texas school
teacher.
>
> >>JFK wanted to end our
> >> involvement in this republican war .
> Kennedy was an empty suit. When my fellow liberals spout about him I
> almost puke.
But his wife had a cute ass, which really helped JFK's popularity.
tony G as Frank Cannon
<n...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
I would have responded sooner by I had a run in with demon booze then
my DSL crapped out for a few days.
>--
>Aloha
>Norman
>
>tony G <kur...@ass.ass> wrote in article
><37d00727...@news.supernews.com>...
>> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 21:05:39 GMT, "Norman G. Purves"
>> <n...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> That policy was a bipartisan one(unless it was election time) for 45
>> or so years. The fuck ups in Vietnam and of those 45 years or so were
>> generally bipartisan(especialy republicans and southern democrats).
>
>Agreed. Although such prototype Liberals as Adlai Stevenson and Hubert
>Humphrey were among them as well.
>
>The specific blunders with respect to SEA were mostly the result of an
>abysmal ignorance of the sociology and history of the region. Considering
>the fact that these individuals regarded themselves as the intellectual
>elite of the nation, this ignorance has to be regarded as criminal
>negligence.
That's what McNamara said in his book. I have got to wonder why
Kennedy would take what sounds like a middle level OSS agent and Ford
exec. and put him in charge of defense. Weird.
>> >>JFK wanted to end our
>> >> involvement in this republican war .
>> >
>> >Part of the enduring "Camelot" myth. If Saint Jack had not been blown
>away,
>> >there would have been no Vietnam War, there would have been Total Racial
>> >Harmony, Universal Peace On Earth, and An End To All Problems All Over
>The
>> >World.
>>
>> Kennedy was an empty suit. When my fellow liberals spout about him I
>> almost puke.
>
>I think you are in error in regarding them as your "fellow liberals". They
>are not liberals, they merely use the rhetoric of liberalism (which, in its
>pure, uncorrupted form, is an admirable and necessary philosophy) to
>further their lust for power, and their instinctive hatred of real
>democracy. An "empty suit": this term is almost perfectly apt....
>
>I might add, here, that pretty much the same criticism applies to many
>"conservatives", who are, in the final analysis, merely the mirror-image of
>all the phony "liberals".
Kennedy used liberal catechisms quite well it would seem. Rhetoric
minus action is just rhetoric.
I think it was Johnson who made the comment on Ford's playing to much
football without a helmet... or was it Goldwater anyways Jerry did
free eastern Europe single handedly in his debate with Carter.
I looked around for my copy of Curtis Gentry's book on J. Edger Hoover
in which I believe that he states that Ford would give progress
reports to Hoover on the Warren commission. Not attempting to feed
the conspiracy mill again.
I look at it this way, when you run as a democrat in the primaries its
the liberals who come out and vote and its these people you have to
please. Just as R.'s need to run to the right in the primaries. So
Bobby was doing this. His history of anti-communism and cold war
rhetoric go against his liberal campaigning, democratic counsel for
HUAC as evidence. Like his brother Bobby was probably just a putz.
I would wonder what he would have done concerning the mob though.
>> >>The rest is history. Certainly
>> >> looks like JFK and Johnson were both victims of a conspiracy. Johnson
>> >> was certainly guilty of making a lot of costly mistakes based on a lot
>> >> of mis information and ill advice from the right.
>> >
>> >Advice from the RIGHT !?! Please identify the members of "the right" in
>the
>> >Johnson administration....
>>
>> Foreign policy wise? Lyndon Johnson. That was easy.
>
>But this poster maintained that LBJ got "ill advice from the right". You
>seem to suggest that he was getting bad advice from himself. This seems a
>bit silly, yes?
He's a right foreign policy conservative, like every president. I
don't know what a liberal foreign policy would be, maybe something
like the late 80's when a small group of democrats were against our
dealings with third were military dictatorships.
>>
>> How about all of his career CIA advisors. His career intelligence
>> experts in the NSC. Joint Chiefs of staff. The place was crawling
>> with Hawks.
>
>You are in error here. The record shows that the CIA warned Johnson (as it
>had warned JFK before him) that the US Vietnam policy was nonsense- that
>the govt. of SVN hadn't a snowball's chance in Hell of resisting Ho Chi
>Minh.
IN "The CIA and the cult of intelligence" by Marchetti and Marks they
make the case that CIA analysts said the war was unwinable while the
covert ops types were of the opinion that the war was winnable. I
would guess it was just spinning out of control too. If Vietnam went
red the republicans would have made a big deal about it like they did
when Truman "lost us" China. This is the way I look at it.
>The Joint Chiefs of Staff had been brutally beaten into bureaucratic
>submission by McNamara and his "Whiz Kids". They knew that the McNamara
>strategy would fail, but kept their official mouths shut. They were
>cowards, not hawks. The career intelligence officers on the NSC were
>Schlesinger/Sorenson minions, Harvard types, post-China Liberals who were
>willing to "pay any price, bear any burden" (remember this phrase?) to
>"contain" communism. They were arrogant bunglers, not hawks.
I would say they were both.
>The *real* hawks were such as Goldwater, who said from Day One that we
>ought to either go in to the situation with *everything we had* (including,
>God help us, *nukes*) or cut losses and get out. The *real* hawks were
>pasted with TV ads showing flower-picking little girls being vaporized by
>H-bombs. To call the authors of the Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam policy "hawks"
>is as accurate as calling Hitler a "socialist".
Yet again we have to wonder what Goldwater would have done once in
office. At campaign time all sorts of things our tossed around such
as Nixon's "secret plan to win the war" as of yet still secret.
>> Just wondering, what "liberal" advisors were in the Nixon admin. that
>> kept him(A guy who supported the war) in the war?
>
>Nixon wrote in his memoirs ("RN", and also "In The Arena") that he knew as
>early as '67 that our strategy in Vietnam was a loser. His goal was to get
>us out of the situation while preserving our strategic position in other
>regions. Argue with the correctness and efficacy of his strategy if you
>will, but to argue that Nixon "supported the war" is clearly wrong.
I saw a Nixon doc on PBS a couple of years ago with a clip where he
came out for the war and called for republican support of the Johnson
admin it was probably pre 67. I read RN had found it a bit self
serving not as bad as Reagan's tomb but still self serving, the arena
was OK but its been a couple of years since I read it. I believe I
read it in one of Stephen Ambroses books that Nixon supported Johnson
and would only talk tough around election time.
Six crises was the only book of Nixons that I felt was almost honest.
That part about kicking the Venezuelan commie was hilarious.
Nixon had a rich history of blowing with the wind on certain things.
He worked on SALT and boosted Carter's arms negotiations with the
Ruskies and then when Reagan came to office he backed Reagans scraping
of SALT. I really can't take his PR books all that seriously.
As a side bar...
Bob Dole was famous for about two minutes in the 76 primaries when he
blamed democrats for so many wars and then somebody pointed out his
exhorting congress to support the Vietnam war. What an ass.
>Nixon's Liberal advisors included Daniel P. Moynihan, now democrat senator
>from New York. Nixon didn't always listen to them (Robt. Finch, Mark
>Hatfield) but they were there, and the Nixon withdrawal policy (the troop
>withdrawals began in the spring of '69, BTW, the first 6 months of the
>Nixon admin.) was an obvious giveaway that Nixon's goal was US withdrawal
>from Vietnam. No other interpretation fits the facts.
Kissinger.
Was he withdrawing for political reasons or an actual loathing of the
war. He did continue Johnsons expansion of the war into other
countries.
>>
>Aloha
>Norman
>
--
Aloha
Norman
Scott D. Erb
>
>He's a right foreign policy conservative, like every president. I
>don't know what a liberal foreign policy would be, maybe something
>like the late 80's when a small group of democrats were against our
>dealings with third were military dictatorships.
My opinion, a liberal foreign policy would:
1) cut defense spending dramatically, and not intervene with US military power
in hotspots around the world;
2) reform the CIA to an intelligence gathering and analysis agency that
operates in the open and without covert activities;
3) cooperate with other states to create peaceful and voluntary attempts to
solve conflicts or deal with poverty;
4) recognize that third world countries and other poor states have been hit by
the remnants of colonialism and exploitive capitalism, and work with those
states to promote natural development by refusing to engage in protectionism
against them, and allowing them some preferential trade treatment;
5) operate as an example that respect for human rights and non-oppression is
the most successful way for a country to operate; and
6) operate openly without secret agreements, and without back room deals.
I do not expect such a policy to be engaged in any time soon.
ciao, scott
PS - Yes folks, I'm back, but it'll be a month or so before you see many posts
from me as I have to catch up -- I just zipped through the posts to see if any
interesting themes are being debated. It appears a summer time lull has set
in...see ya in awhile, but real world work beckons me for the time being...but
damn, the trip was fun, the total eclipse of the sun awesome, and it was great
not to touch a computer keyboard for over five weeks...
Rob Robertson
<snip>
> PS - Yes folks, I'm back, but it'll be a month or so before you see many posts
> from me as I have to catch up -- I just zipped through the posts to see if any
> interesting themes are being debated. It appears a summer time lull has set
> in...
Ah yes, the languid summertime lull, occasionally punctuated with stories
about the Texas Rangers being fed up with the Justice [sic] Department's
cute game of 'hide the evidence' and requesting that a Federal judge take
possession of evidence showing that the FBI fired pyrotechnic devices at
Mount Carmel on April 19th, 1993.
So the FBI lied to Congress and the American people. So what? Johnnie Reno
now has to acknowledge that her credibility [sic] may be tarnished by this
latest revelation, and then hot on the heels of the discovery of *that* lie
we begin to hear new [sic] evidence that Special Forces were involved in the
deadly seige, probably from the very beginning and very likely with their
fingers on the triggers at the very end.
This might be a good time to take another vacation, Scott.
_
Rob Robertson
Martin McPhillips
>In article <37cfb309...@news.supernews.com>, kur...@ass.ass says...
>>
>>He's a right foreign policy conservative, like every president. I
>>don't know what a liberal foreign policy would be, maybe something
>>like the late 80's when a small group of democrats were against our
>>dealings with third were military dictatorships.
>
>My opinion, a liberal foreign policy would:
>
>1) cut defense spending dramatically, and not intervene with US military power
>in hotspots around the world;
Those are two separate questions, of course. Strong defense decreases the
risk of war. Sand and honest leaders decrease the risk of unnecessary intervention.
Your boy Bill Clinton likes to start a war every time he gets caught breaking
the law or with his pants down. (Bombings over arms inspections that
eliminate the possibility of arms inspections, Missile attacks on pharmeceutical
plants, humanitarian missions that bring on the tragedy they take the pose
of forestalling.)
>2) reform the CIA to an intelligence gathering and analysis agency that
>operates in the open and without covert activities;
O.K. So they gather the intelligence and analyze it and it says that U.S.
embassy X will be detonated on Y date by terrorist cell Z. What's your
prescription there? Set up some cameras and record the explosion?
Or is the covert side run out of the defense department? Or are you
suggesting that the CIA just send a fax to the terrorists to tell them
"we know what you are up to?"
Granted, the Cold War is over, and it's not a question of just finding things
for the CIA to do. But would you like a terror operation to be resisted
or just left alone?
>3) cooperate with other states to create peaceful and voluntary attempts to
>solve conflicts or deal with poverty;
Diplomacy and food here!
>4) recognize that third world countries and other poor states have been hit by
>the remnants of colonialism and exploitive capitalism,
Which countries are you talking about, Scott? And are you sure that what they
are being hit by are "remnants of colonialism and exploitive capitalism?"
Maybe they are being hit by remnants of tribal society attempting to modernize
through socialist models. You know, that's the one were the political leaders
all study Marxism in the West and then assure the people that their needs
will be taken care of. Then they fail. During the Cold War they would
try to get their payoffs from either the Soviets or the U.S.
So, under the new model you would like them to have what? Anti-statist
socialism via radical democracy? As paid for by the guilty colonialists
and exploitative capitalists of the West? And without bureaucracy of
course!
>and work with those
>states to promote natural development by refusing to engage in protectionism
>against them, and allowing them some preferential trade treatment;
Sounds like a pretty broad and open-ended policy, Scott.
It might be useful to explore our arrangement with Mexico, that nice
socialist society run by an elite oligarchy (I know, it sounds like
Arkansas, but I can't help that).
What is it that Mexico will take more of than it can get? Automobile
plants and almost any other manufacturing facility that is willing
to come on down and partake of the low wages that workers get.
Good for them, right? Good for the manufacturers too. Both sides
get what they want. Workers get jobs. Evil exploitive capitalists
get workers. U.S. loses manufacturing jobs. That is, the tariff
protects domestic production, i.e., American workers, not capital.
Capital always looks out for itself.
What do we have here, a country or an off-loading dock?
>5) operate as an example that respect for human rights and non-oppression is
>the most successful way for a country to operate; and
So you must be in favor of cutting taxes, which cumulatively oppress
about 50% of the income of a healthy working middle-class family?
Or are the earnings of people unimportant to their "rights?"
>6) operate openly without secret agreements, and without back room deals.
So, the smoke was good on the Continent?
Better lay off for a while, kid, you've probably got some unspoiled
minds to ruin this semester.
>I do not expect such a policy to be engaged in any time soon.
>ciao, scott
I don't expect that milk toast will be replacing Budweiser any
time soon, either.
>PS - Yes folks, I'm back, but it'll be a month or so before you see many posts
>from me as I have to catch up -- I just zipped through the posts to see if any
>interesting themes are being debated. It appears a summer time lull has set
>in...see ya in awhile, but real world work beckons me for the time being...but
>damn, the trip was fun, the total eclipse of the sun awesome, and it was great
>not to touch a computer keyboard for over five weeks...
It was great not to have you touching a computer keyboard for over five
weeks, so take your time catching up. Surely you'll want to treat yourself
to more than just another month on the sidelines?
Scott D. Erb
>Those are two separate questions, of course. Strong defense decreases the
>risk of war.
Actually, most of the countries who fight in wars are the ones with the
strongest defenses. Your hypothesis seems falsified.
>O.K. So they gather the intelligence and analyze it and it says that U.S.
>embassy X will be detonated on Y date by terrorist cell Z. What's your
>prescription there? Set up some cameras and record the explosion?
Guard the embassy, evacuate, and publicize the information!
>Which countries are you talking about, Scott? And are you sure that what they
>are being hit by are "remnants of colonialism and exploitive capitalism?"
Positive. I teach this stuff, you know. I can try to put together a reading
list for you one of these days. That being said, they are the ones that have
to solve the problems; the best we can do is not to make it worse by
protectionism, support for dictators and thugs, and dragging them into
geopolitical games.
(bizarre ramble deleted)
>Sounds like a pretty broad and open-ended policy, Scott.
Not meant to be specific, just some basics of what I think a good liberal
foreign policy would be like. After all, the US did quite well without a
militarist interventionist foreign policy for a long time.
(bit on Mexico deleted, too rambly and not serious)
>What do we have here, a country or an off-loading dock?
We have a country in transition, I think largely because NAFTA has forced some
changes, forced them to open up. The PRI is actually having primary
competition and losing governerships and perhaps the next election. Its a
tough transition, of course, but a necessary one.
>So you must be in favor of cutting taxes, which cumulatively oppress
>about 50% of the income of a healthy working middle-class family?
Hell, I'd cut so much government power and taxes your head would spin. It may
not be in the way or form you'd prefer, of course.
>Or are the earnings of people unimportant to their "rights?"
Your drifting off into straw man arguments here...
>So, the smoke was good on the Continent?
Ich bin Nichtraucher.
>I don't expect that milk toast will be replacing Budweiser any
>time soon, either.
Yuck. After German beer just the thought of Budweiser makes my stomach churn.
>It was great not to have you touching a computer keyboard for over five
>weeks, so take your time catching up. Surely you'll want to treat yourself
>to more than just another month on the sidelines?
Na, if my post can lure folk like you to take an interest and respond, you may
by your own choice bring me back in a little more, a little sooner. ;)
ciao, scott
Martin McPhillips
>In article <37cac8f5...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
>
>>Those are two separate questions, of course. Strong defense decreases the
>>risk of war.
>
>Actually, most of the countries who fight in wars are the ones with the
>strongest defenses. Your hypothesis seems falsified.
Right. Those without strong defenses are just rolled right the
hell over---Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic States, China,
Kosovo.
On the other hand, Switzerland has a wonderful tradition of
an armed populace prepared to mobilize on a dime and defend
its territory at all costs. Stuck right in the middle of the most
war torn continent in history and do you recall the last time it
was invaded?
>>O.K. So they gather the intelligence and analyze it and it says that U.S.
>>embassy X will be detonated on Y date by terrorist cell Z. What's your
>>prescription there? Set up some cameras and record the explosion?
>
>Guard the embassy, evacuate, and publicize the information!
And the terror cell switches to target B, or C.
You don't understand terrorism either, I see.
>>Which countries are you talking about, Scott? And are you sure that what they
>>are being hit by are "remnants of colonialism and exploitive capitalism?"
>
>Positive. I teach this stuff, you know.
Yes, I know, it's a sad fact.
> I can try to put together a reading
>list for you one of these days.
And I'm required to tell you again that I'm not one of your students, thank God.
You can either defend your statements or you can't.
> That being said, they are the ones that have
>to solve the problems; the best we can do is not to make it worse by
>protectionism, support for dictators and thugs, and dragging them into
>geopolitical games.
You're confused about so many things, Scott, but it might help for you to
remind yourself that the Cold War is over, and that most decolonialization
took place during the Cold War period, and that the new nations
created during that time were (as were most existing nations) caught up
in the swirl of tensions generated in that bi-polar conflict.
The only game in town now, on that level, is the "get your shit together"
game. The games being played on the local level are mostly the usual
battles waged between internal factions.
>(bizarre ramble deleted)
No, Scott, it's restored (regarding the problems faced by "Third World"
countries that Scott believes are afflicted by "remnants of colonialism
and exploitive capitalism."):
<<Maybe they are being hit by remnants of tribal society attempting to modernize
through socialist models. You know, that's the one were the political leaders
all study Marxism in the West and then assure the people that their needs
will be taken care of. Then they fail. During the Cold War they would
try to get their payoffs from either the Soviets or the U.S.
So, under the new model you would like them to have what? Anti-statist
socialism via radical democracy? As paid for by the guilty colonialists
and exploitative capitalists of the West? And without bureaucracy of
course!>>
My goodness, did I bring up anti-statist socialism via radical democracy
without bureaucracy? You haven't told me what that is yet, Scott, and here
I am using it without knowing its definition. I should be ashamed of myself.
>>Sounds like a pretty broad and open-ended policy, Scott.
>
>Not meant to be specific,
Right.
>just some basics of what I think a good liberal
>foreign policy would be like. After all, the US did quite well without a
>militarist interventionist foreign policy for a long time.
That's true, and you can find traditional conservatives arguing
for that since the 1920s. So, it might indeed be a "good liberal
foreign policy," but you're not going to be thought of as a
"good liberal" for proposing it.
>(bit on Mexico deleted, too rambly and not serious)
Restored. Just four very brief paragraphs that probably
contain concepts you don't understand:
<<It might be useful to explore our arrangement with Mexico, that nice
socialist society run by an elite oligarchy (I know, it sounds like
Arkansas, but I can't help that).
What is it that Mexico will take more of than it can get? Automobile
plants and almost any other manufacturing facility that is willing
to come on down and partake of the low wages that workers get.
Good for them, right? Good for the manufacturers too. Both sides
get what they want. Workers get jobs. Evil exploitive capitalists
get workers. U.S. loses manufacturing jobs. That is, the tariff
protects domestic production, i.e., American workers, not capital.
Capital always looks out for itself.
What do we have here, a country or an off-loading dock?>>
>>What do we have here, a country or an off-loading dock?
>
>We have a country in transition, I think largely because NAFTA has forced some
>changes, forced them to open up. The PRI is actually having primary
>competition and losing governerships and perhaps the next election. Its a
>tough transition, of course, but a necessary one.
The country I was referring to is the one we live in, Scott.
As in, do we have a country here or an off-loading dock for manufactured
goods made elsewhere without regard for the value of domestic
production?
>>So you must be in favor of cutting taxes, which cumulatively oppress
>>about 50% of the income of a healthy working middle-class family?
>
>Hell, I'd cut so much government power and taxes your head would spin. It may
>not be in the way or form you'd prefer, of course.
And, of course, you'll need a few months to explain the "form" of cutting
taxes that you would approve of? I know that it's pointless to ask you to
explain yourself. So I won't.
>>Or are the earnings of people unimportant to their "rights?"
>
>Your drifting off into straw man arguments here...
No. I'm asking you whether or not the earnings of people are
theirs by right, i.e., whether they own their wages, or whether the
government has unlimited access to them. That's not a strawman.
>>So, the smoke was good on the Continent?
>
>Ich bin Nichtraucher.
My German translator is out of the room. I'll assume that whatever
that means you've been bonging it up for weeks.
Time for some more context restoration here, since Scott
likes to manipulate it to benefit his sloppy appearance---
>>>I do not expect such a policy to be engaged in any time soon.
>>>ciao, scott
>>
>>I don't expect that milk toast will be replacing Budweiser any
>>time soon, either.
>
>Yuck. After German beer just the thought of Budweiser makes my stomach churn.
You're a man of such refined tastes, Scott.
More context restoration required---
>>>damn, the trip was fun, the total eclipse of the sun awesome, and it was great
>>>not to touch a computer keyboard for over five weeks...
>>
>>It was great not to have you touching a computer keyboard for over five
>>weeks, so take your time catching up. Surely you'll want to treat yourself
>>to more than just another month on the sidelines?
>
>Na, if my post can lure folk like you to take an interest and respond, you may
>by your own choice bring me back in a little more, a little sooner. ;)
>ciao, scott
Make sure you debut your Fall line with a very explicit definition
of "anti-statist socialism via radical democracy without bureaucracy."
John T. Kennedy
-
John Kennedy
Was it a "chemical spill" as the mainstream media says?
Or was Brooklyn Park torched in a lung/Schneider collaboration?
Find the real story via their pages at:
http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
W. E. Woods
"Norman G. Purves" wrote:
>
> Wanda Hodge <wmh...@usa.net> wrote in article
> <37C2634D...@usa.net>...
> > I certainly don't disagree with you except for the fact that JFK and
> > Johnson both inherited Ike's Viet Nam War.
>
> "*Ike's* Vietnam War"? Typical leftwing bullshit. The US policy toward
> Southeast Asia originated in the Truman/Dean Acheson "Containment" policy.
> Didn't you read the Pentagon Papers, for crissake?
>
> >JFK wanted to end our
> > involvement in this republican war .
>
> Part of the enduring "Camelot" myth. If Saint Jack had not been blown away,
> there would have been no Vietnam War, there would have been Total Racial
> Harmony, Universal Peace On Earth, and An End To All Problems All Over The
> World.
>
> Yeah Right. Trouble is, there is no evidence for this part of the Kennedy
> Gospel, other than the testimony of such as T. Sorensen, who is himself
> implicated, along with McNamara, in the crimes of the Kennedy
> Administration in regard to Vietnam. This is remarkably similar to O.J.
> Simpson's search for the "real killer".
>
> One of the greatest feats of political bullshit in history is the success
> of Liberals in shucking their responsibility for Vietnam, and pinning the
> blame on such as Richard M. Nixon.
>
> >There is much speculation that this
> > is why JFK was murdered in the first place.
>
> Along with the speculation that it was Fidel Castro, Carmine Galante,
> Nikita Khruschev, Howard Hughes, Joseph Bonnano, Mao Zedong, or Casper The
> Freindly Ghost who was behind the deed.
>
> My favorite suspect: Joe DiMaggio, who had JFK bumped off in revenge for
> the murder of Marilyn Monroe....
I thought it was 'cause JFK boffed her. Gee, and Clinton gives us
memories like...Monica.
"Remember, a ship in harbor is safe, but that is not
what ships are built for."
"Give me ambiguity or give me something else!"
W. E. Woods
Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> On 30 Aug 1999 20:37:52 GMT, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb) wrote:
>
> >In article <37cac8f5...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
> >>So, the smoke was good on the Continent?
> >
> >Ich bin Nichtraucher.
>
> My German translator is out of the room. I'll assume that whatever
> that means you've been bonging it up for weeks.
I think it means he is several nonsmokers.
Joe Krolikowski
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> In article <37cfb309...@news.supernews.com>, kur...@ass.ass says...
> >
> >He's a right foreign policy conservative, like every president. I
> >don't know what a liberal foreign policy would be, maybe something
> >like the late 80's when a small group of democrats were against our
> >dealings with third were military dictatorships.
>
> My opinion, a liberal foreign policy would:
>
> 1) cut defense spending dramatically, and not intervene with US military power
> in hotspots around the world;
While I can agree with the idea of not playing at being WorldCop, I'm wondering
just how you would get much more out of the DoD, which by all accounts is scraping
the bottom right now. Given the fact that the budget for next year is going to be
somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.8 trillion mostly wasted dollars, the greater
percentage of which is *not* going to the DoD, the so-called "Peace Dividend," is
a dead horse.
> 2) reform the CIA to an intelligence gathering and analysis agency that
> operates in the open and without covert activities;
How would you accomplish this one, since by definition, intelligence gathering
entails getting information that other governments would prefer that we *not*
have?
> 3) cooperate with other states to create peaceful and voluntary attempts to
> solve conflicts or deal with poverty;
> 4) recognize that third world countries and other poor states have been hit by
> the remnants of colonialism and exploitive capitalism, and work with those
> states to promote natural development by refusing to engage in protectionism
> against them, and allowing them some preferential trade treatment;
> 5) operate as an example that respect for human rights and non-oppression is
> the most successful way for a country to operate; and
> 6) operate openly without secret agreements, and without back room deals.
>
> I do not expect such a policy to be engaged in any time soon.
What clued you in on this, Scott?
> ciao, scott
>
> PS - Yes folks, I'm back, but it'll be a month or so before you see many posts
> from me as I have to catch up --
No hurry. The discussion seems to flow much better without your presence.
Joe Krolikowski
John T. Kennedy
wrote:
>Scott D. Erb wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> PS - Yes folks, I'm back, but it'll be a month or so before you see many posts
>> from me as I have to catch up -- I just zipped through the posts to see if any
>> interesting themes are being debated. It appears a summer time lull has set
>> in...
>
> Ah yes, the languid summertime lull, occasionally punctuated with stories
>about the Texas Rangers being fed up with the Justice [sic] Department's
>cute game of 'hide the evidence' and requesting that a Federal judge take
>possession of evidence showing that the FBI fired pyrotechnic devices at
>Mount Carmel on April 19th, 1993.
>
> So the FBI lied to Congress and the American people. So what? Johnnie Reno
>now has to acknowledge that her credibility [sic] may be tarnished by this
>latest revelation, and then hot on the heels of the discovery of *that* lie
>we begin to hear new [sic] evidence that Special Forces were involved in the
>deadly seige, probably from the very beginning and very likely with their
>fingers on the triggers at the very end.
>
> This might be a good time to take another vacation, Scott.
Well, Rob is certainly not off to a promising start.
Has he forgotten the wager?
I can taste those girls now.
Scott D. Erb
>>Actually, most of the countries who fight in wars are the ones with the
>>strongest defenses. Your hypothesis seems falsified.
>
>Right. Those without strong defenses are just rolled right the
>hell over---Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic States, China,
>Kosovo.
Ah, you're making an error called "ignorance of the non-occurrence." Tell me,
how many countries without major defenses have NOT been rolled over? If the
US cut down its defenses significantly and stopped intervening in foreign
wars, who would attack us? How big of a budget does the US need for defense
in order not to be "rolled over"?
>On the other hand, Switzerland has a wonderful tradition of
>an armed populace prepared to mobilize on a dime and defend
>its territory at all costs.
Note as well they stay pretty neutral and don't intervene in other people's
wars. Gee, you sort of proved my point there, didn't you? And their defense
(despite some recent corruption charges, etc.) isn't all that expensive
either. Thanks for supporting my argument!
>You don't understand terrorism either, I see.
Au contraire, I've given many lectures on it. What would you like to know? I
think Cindy Coombs' book gives a good intro (I've used it in classes -- I've
replaced cold war stuff with terrorism stuff in the intro classes since I
think that's more important and relevant for today's students to know).
You also need to study up a bit on the third world and the causes of uneven
and under development. Many Americans want to arrogantly pretend that all
problems in the third world are just because they are "tribal and backwards,
etc.," but you can't deny that until colonialism they didn't have the kinds of
problems they have now, and until the cold war petty dictators didn't control
the governments with bought arms near as much as now. They had other
problems, of course, but the volume of scholarly work on uneven and under
development is something you should acquaint yourself with. However, you are
right that they are responsible to deal with present reality, and I note you
didn't really disagree with what I suggested. You seem to be trying to
pick fights rather than discuss these things.
>That's true, and you can find traditional conservatives arguing
>for that since the 1920s. So, it might indeed be a "good liberal
>foreign policy," but you're not going to be thought of as a
>"good liberal" for proposing it.
Perhaps. I don't find "liberal" American Presidents doing much in foreign
policy I like any better than "conservative" American Presidents.
>>We have a country in transition, I think largely because NAFTA has forced
some
>>changes, forced them to open up. The PRI is actually having primary
>>competition and losing governerships and perhaps the next election. Its a
>>tough transition, of course, but a necessary one.
>
>The country I was referring to is the one we live in, Scott.
Your point was unclear. Perhaps you could be succinct and give up this
pointless attempt to ridicule and be sarcastic. Sure, I can respond in kind
and we can have a nice little time of it. But perhaps you could learn that a
straightforward and friendly response is more useful for discourse.
>And, of course, you'll need a few months to explain the "form" of cutting
>taxes that you would approve of?
Depends on how specific you want it. However, you miss the point -- that I
indeed do think taxes are too high and can be cut. Since I would obviously
cut defense spending and many government agencies that spy on and control
their citizens, that would save a lot of money. I also think that government
handouts don't really help people and instead create a sense of dependency in
many cases which actually hurts. The solution isn't a draconian "let them eat
cake" measure like your friend Newt wants, but instead a "help people help
themselves" set of programs that works with tax cuts and the private sector.
Sure, I'd regulate more than you want and cut things you don't want cut.
That's called a difference of opinion on politics. Believe it or not, some
people can have that.
>No. I'm asking you whether or not the earnings of people are
>theirs by right, i.e., whether they own their wages, or whether the
>government has unlimited access to them. That's not a strawman.
It is a poorly worded question at best. You need to define what a "right"
is, whether or not there is a middle ground between "unlimited access" and
"people having a right to wages." After all, if you deny a middle ground, you
have to get rid of all government. Is that what you want? You're throwing
out a poorly worded off topic vague question in the hopes that you can cast
light away from your ignorance of foreign affairs. I consider "political
rights" a social construction, and I find the case for natural rights to be
riddled with logical holes and not very convincing. I prefer to see us as
choosing what kind of world we want to construct, and I would prefer one where
people did have a right not just to what market wages they get, but to just
compensation for the work they do and the value they produce.
ciao, scott
Martin McPhillips
>In article <37caee4a...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
>
>>>Actually, most of the countries who fight in wars are the ones with the
>>>strongest defenses. Your hypothesis seems falsified.
>>
>>Right. Those without strong defenses are just rolled right the
>>hell over---Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic States, China,
>>Kosovo.
>
>Ah, you're making an error called "ignorance of the non-occurrence."
Do you wish to discuss critical thinking, or do you wish to discuss
war and international politics?
I'm up for either one, but not at the same time. Now be specific about
international politics or stop pretending that you have a handle on it.
(I know, I know, it's your field of specialization, and you "teach courses
about it," so put some beef on the bun, Scot.)
>Tell me, how many countries without major defenses have NOT been rolled over?
Tell me, Scott, how many strategically important essentially defenseless
countries have not been rolled over?
>If the
>US cut down its defenses significantly and stopped intervening in foreign
>wars, who would attack us?
That's an interesting conception of the world, entirely appropriate to the
19th century, and worthy of someone as completely out of touch as yourself.
For starters, I don't think that the US needs to cut down on its defenses any
more than it already has*, and it should, at the same time, stop intervening
in foreign wars. The last serious obligation that the US had in the foreign
arena was the Persian Gulf War, and that was because Iraq was a
Cold War monstrosity that needed to be defanged, and the US was the
surviving party capable of handling the responsibility. After that, the US
had little business in foreign conflicts.
[*Which is not to say that changes---such as removing troops from Asia
and Europe---are not the perfectly correct thing to do.]
But here we are with a nuclear world and an individuating nationalist
world. That includes a half-dozen emerging Islamic nations in Central
Asia, another half-dozen more established free-standing Islamic states
with a great deal of wealth, North Korea , and, of course, China. Not
to mention a massively unstable Russia.
There is nothing here that argues for shrinking the U.S. military.
There are all sorts of nation states hanging out that could obtain
or even develop nuclear weapons. That makes a top of the line
military---navy, air force, infantry, advanced conventional battlefield
capability---a very good investment for a country that is every
ideology's favorite target.
Before you get stupid and say that all that is needed to confront
actual and potential nuclear powers is nuclear deterrence, let
me explain that the reason you have conventional force is to
deter such actual and potential nuclear powers by conventional
means before it gets used in a perceived vacuum of power.
(For example, weak US leadership perceived as incapable of
responding to nuclear terror with nuclear weapons combined
with the absence of a formidable conventional US force.)
> How big of a budget does the US need for defense
>in order not to be "rolled over"?
It has a little less than it needs not to be placed at a disadvantage
in any international situation. And had not Bill Clinton been abusing
that capability----he's the criminal you've been supporting for six
years----there would be far less actual antagonism in the world
right now.
>>On the other hand, Switzerland has a wonderful tradition of
>>an armed populace prepared to mobilize on a dime and defend
>>its territory at all costs.
>
>Note as well they stay pretty neutral and don't intervene in other people's
>wars.
So do Belgium and the Netherlands.
> Gee, you sort of proved my point there, didn't you? And their defense
>(despite some recent corruption charges, etc.) isn't all that expensive
>either. Thanks for supporting my argument!
Their defense is about as large as it needs to be, whereas the Netherlands,
one of the wealthiest and the most densely populated country on earth
was stomped into the ground by the Nazis in seconds. They were bailed
out by countries with powerful militaries and no small interest in seeing
Western civilization survive Hitler.
I haven't proved *your* point any more than you *could* if you tried.
>>You don't understand terrorism either, I see.
>
>Au contraire, I've given many lectures on it.
Oh, so you've been misinforming paying customers about that too.
If only there were a consumer group that protected college students
from mountebanks such as yourself.
Perhaps I'll start one.
"I've given many lectures on it."
> What would you like to know?
Why haven't you been fired? (Well, I already know why. The whole
joint you teach at must be filled with frauds of your ilk. Or is there another
explanation for it?)
>I
>think Cindy Coombs' book gives a good intro (I've used it in classes -- I've
>replaced cold war stuff with terrorism stuff in the intro classes since I
>think that's more important and relevant for today's students to know).
Yeah, I'm sure that over the next year you'll demonstrate absolutely
zero knowledge of terrorism and complain that you told me and anyone
else who challenges you on it that you cited "Cindy Coombs' book."
As I've told you before, Scott, you get to make your own arguments,
or you get to walk.
>You also need to study up a bit on the third world and the causes of uneven
>and under development. Many Americans want to arrogantly pretend that all
>problems in the third world are just because they are "tribal and backwards,
>etc.," but you can't deny that until colonialism they didn't have the kinds of
>problems they have now, and until the cold war petty dictators didn't control
>the governments with bought arms near as much as now. They had other
>problems, of course, but the volume of scholarly work on uneven and under
>development is something you should acquaint yourself with. However, you are
>right that they are responsible to deal with present reality, and I note you
>didn't really disagree with what I suggested. You seem to be trying to
>pick fights rather than discuss these things.
First of all, you claimed that the problems in the "Third World" are the
result of "remnants of colonialism and exploitive capitalism," and that
is not true. You can pick any area of the world you want, Scott, and the
problems will boil down to one or more of three basic things (1) the
difficulty of modern societies emerging out of tribal societies, as
aggravated by an elite often eductated in the socialist arts in the West,
(2) the difficulty of somehow reorienting essentially dead civilizations
in the face of a modern world that has outpaced them by, literally,
centuries, (3) the difficulty of bringing some form of modernity to
nationalities, with long traditions, that exist on the periphery, both
within and without, of the West.
Africa is the best example of number 1. Asia the best example of
number 2. Southeastern Europe and the Caucasus region are
the best example of number 3.
Middle Eastern Islamic civilization, in decline for centuries, but
once a far superior civilization to the West, has been "rejeuvenated"
by (1) Oil wealth, and (2) the challenge to its identity represented by
Israel. Whether or not it gets much beyond that is an open question.
The emptiness of your theory that "colonialism and exploitive
capitalism" are to blame for the "third world" is that it's just so
much old juice out of a typical Politburo screed or KGB front
organization. Basically, it's bullshit leftover from Cold War
propaganda. Sorry to see you're still buying it.
>>That's true, and you can find traditional conservatives arguing
>>for that since the 1920s. So, it might indeed be a "good liberal
>>foreign policy," but you're not going to be thought of as a
>>"good liberal" for proposing it.
>
>Perhaps. I don't find "liberal" American Presidents doing much in foreign
>policy I like any better than "conservative" American Presidents.
Perhaps you just don't know what you are talking about.
I'll accept George F. Kennan's conceptual ratcheting down of the
Soviet threat during the latter part of the Cold War as a reasonable
appeal to the lessening of tensions. But that and Detente put the
West and the US in the position of reacting to every crack in the
Soviet Empire as a potential catastrophe. After all, we couldn't
peacefully co-exist and just get along if our partner in that arrangement
was falling to pieces.
So you had best wise up to Reagan's determination to put that
pile of miserable shit out of its misery being a decisive act of
genuine statesmanship in the face of a US foreign policy establishment
determined to play games and spend a fortune "supporting coexistence"
(actually, it would have been more likely called "supporting peace")
for another century, at least.
For those who say that the Soviet Union was collapsing anyway,
well, that is a process that can go on for generations. But, that said, the
problem with the Russian branch of Orthodox civilization runs
deeper than anything that even the maggots of communism feeding
on its nearly dead corpse for seventy years could define.
But I applaud your newly found conservative approach to foreign
policy, an approach that was interrupted by the Soviet disease.
Nonetheless, the nuclear genie is never going to be put back into
its bottle, and we live in a very small world. Strong defense premised
on non-intervention is the correct formulation, and anyone with any
sense knows it. And if they didn't know it last year, they know it this
year after this year-long siege of military horseshit from Clinton
(the guy you've been chummed up against all this time) every time
he faced another scandal.
>
>>>We have a country in transition, I think largely because NAFTA has forced
>some
>>>changes, forced them to open up. The PRI is actually having primary
>>>competition and losing governerships and perhaps the next election. Its a
>>>tough transition, of course, but a necessary one.
>>
>>The country I was referring to is the one we live in, Scott.
>
>Your point was unclear.
That's O.K. I didn't expect you to understand it in any case.
> Perhaps you could be succinct and give up this
>pointless attempt to ridicule and be sarcastic. Sure, I can respond in kind
>and we can have a nice little time of it. But perhaps you could learn that a
>straightforward and friendly response is more useful for discourse.
I'll start being friendly to you, Scott, when you get smart and don't keep
me waiting for months before you define concepts that you attempt to
use and when you start answering questions in a straightforward way.
As far as I'm concerned, you can *work* your way in that direction, if
you think you can get there. But I'm 99% convinced that you are pure
mountebank, through and through. I'll treat you accordingly.
>>And, of course, you'll need a few months to explain the "form" of cutting
>>taxes that you would approve of?
>
>Depends on how specific you want it. However, you miss the point -- that I
>indeed do think taxes are too high and can be cut. Since I would obviously
>cut defense spending and many government agencies that spy on and control
>their citizens, that would save a lot of money.
That's funny, because defense spending in this country is a miniscule part of
the GDP, something like 2%. But defense could probably be cut and strengthened
at the same time if troops are withdrawn from forward positions in Asia and
Europe. While at the same time the basic defense infrastructure is kept up to
par.
That's not to mention that defense is one of the few legitimate activities that
the Federal government is responsible for.
Now, if you would like to *really* cut into the meat of the Federal oppression
of its citizens, then you'd want to start looking at the Ponzi retirement scheme
and MediScare.
But it's amusing that you look first to one of the legitimate activities of the
Federal government for "reducing taxes."
> I also think that government
>handouts don't really help people and instead create a sense of dependency in
>many cases which actually hurts. The solution isn't a draconian "let them eat
>cake" measure like your friend Newt wants,
My friend Newt proposed moderately sensible reductions in the burgeoning
federal tit. Your friend Bill pulled out the usual dependency scare tactics
to demonize that effort. It's hardly "draconian" to limit the rate of *growth*
of these ridiculous programs. But I forgot that you never know what you're
talking about, so pardon me for attemting to respond honestly.
> but instead a "help people help
>themselves" set of programs that works with tax cuts and the private sector.
Jobs.
Lower taxes. More economic activity. More jobs.
That's the "help people help themselves" set of programs that works.
The "help people help themselves" set of programs that liberals favor
are the "help people help themselves at the government buffet" programs
that have people helping themselves to OPM. Currently, we have an
entire senior generation helping themselves to OPM at a rate that is
astonishing.
Not to mention the way that the Ponzi scheme and its associated
programs have insinuated themselves into the cultural fabric,
weakening the fundamental intergenerational cohesion of
families and supplanting the internal business of families
with government addiction.
>Sure, I'd regulate more than you want and cut things you don't want cut.
Well, sure, I'd fire your ass from the University and make you paint houses.
That's the least I could do for the citizens of Maine.
>That's called a difference of opinion on politics. Believe it or not, some
>people can have that.
No, some people understand that OPM doesn't belong to them, and some
don't. That's not a difference of opinion in politics, that's a dividing line
between what's yours and what's someone else's.
>>No. I'm asking you whether or not the earnings of people are
>>theirs by right, i.e., whether they own their wages, or whether the
>>government has unlimited access to them. That's not a strawman.
>
>It is a poorly worded question at best.
Oh, is it? Then answer it anyway without recourse to your flim-flamming
nonsense about "defining what a right is."
And where's that definition of "anti-statist socialism via radical
democracy without bureaucracy," Scott? Or did that delusion
go up in smoke in Amsterdam?
<snip the fat slice of boloney at the end>
Scott D. Erb
>
>While I can agree with the idea of not playing at being WorldCop, I'm
>wondering just how you would get much more out of the DoD, which by all
>accounts is scraping the bottom right now. Given the fact that the budget
>for next year is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.8 trillion
>mostly wasted dollars, the greater percentage of which is *not* going to the
>DoD, the so-called "Peace Dividend," is a dead horse.
That sort of depends on the foreign policy goals. If we are focused on making
sure no one dares attack the United States, I suspect we can get by much
cheaper. There are still a lot of cold war high price tag weapons coming off
the line that probably aren't worth the cost. Also, don't forget that we were
relatively "unprepared" for both WWI and WWII, and with a strong economy could
recover quickly. With a nuclear deterrent and a viable defense force, how
much do we need to spend?
That's the issue that is controversial. At this time only a few on either
the right or left would agree with me, perhaps also a bunch of libertarians
whose foreign policy positions were similar to this at least in the past.
>> 2) reform the CIA to an intelligence gathering and analysis agency that
>> operates in the open and without covert activities;
>
>How would you accomplish this one, since by definition, intelligence
>gathering entails getting information that other governments would prefer
>that we *not* have?
It does amuse me that we get so upset about China or Russia spying when we do
the exact same thing. But again, if we aren't involved in superpower games,
how much of this do we need? But you have a point -- perhaps much of what is
done needs to be done in private. I would prefer cutting out most covert
activities and try to keep things as open as possible. The danger to a
democracy comes when government can't be held accountable -- if the people and
press don't know what's happening, nasty things result.
ciao, scott
Scott D. Erb
>>Ah, you're making an error called "ignorance of the non-occurrence."
>
>Do you wish to discuss critical thinking, or do you wish to discuss
>war and international politics?
Excuse me, but you made that error in discussing international politics, and I
pointed it out. Every student of conflict learns early on that only 2% of the
world's population will ever find itself actively fighting a war, and that
peace is the norm. This is important because the psychological tendency is to
over estimate the likelihood of conflict and, as Robert Jervis notes, perhaps
create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Every scholar who studies this stuff learns early that you have to recognize
the cases of peace as well as war (Singer tries to do this in quantitative
studies by looking at crises and comparing those that ended with war with
those that didn't -- military buildups and arms races increased the
likelhihood of a violent end to a crisis). You tried to claim weak countries
are "rolled over" by strong ones, and gave some examples. I point out that
you ignore the fact most countries don't get rolled over, even weaker ones. I
also questioned how much the US needs to spend in order to be assured it
wouldn't be rolled over, pointing out that your example of Switzerland
supports my position.
>>If the
>>US cut down its defenses significantly and stopped intervening in foreign
>>wars, who would attack us?
>
>That's an interesting conception of the world, entirely appropriate to the
>19th century, and worthy of someone as completely out of touch as yourself.
Still trying to pick fights, eh? I prefer discussion, but if you feel you
need to insult in order to strengthen your point, go ahead.
>For starters, I don't think that the US needs to cut down on its defenses any
>more than it already has*, and it should, at the same time, stop intervening
>in foreign wars. The last serious obligation that the US had in the foreign
>arena was the Persian Gulf War, and that was because Iraq was a
>Cold War monstrosity that needed to be defanged, and the US was the
>surviving party capable of handling the responsibility. After that, the US
>had little business in foreign conflicts.
Then why do you think the US needs to spend so much money on defense?
Specifically, what threats exist, and what is needed to meet them? Be
specific, don't just assert. In any event, Iat least we agree that the US has
little (if any) business in foreign conflicts.
>But here we are with a nuclear world and an individuating nationalist
>world. That includes a half-dozen emerging Islamic nations in Central
>Asia, another half-dozen more established free-standing Islamic states
>with a great deal of wealth, North Korea , and, of course, China. Not
>to mention a massively unstable Russia.
True. Now, how much do we need to be safe from them? What kind of threat do
they pose? And, again, how do you avoid the security dilemma whereby our
buildups actually urge them to build more because they see us as a threat
(after all, we're pretty safe and don't need such a huge military -- in their
eyes we're a threat). You need to explain those specifics before you can
justify massive defense spending.
>There is nothing here that argues for shrinking the U.S. military.
>
>There are all sorts of nation states hanging out that could obtain
>or even develop nuclear weapons.
So deterrence doesn't work? Perhaps, but you could make an argument to
support your position rather than just assert it. Most of these countries
don't have delivery systems, and those that do have pretty bad ones. I don't
think any country can reach the US. They might be able to in the future, but
what kind of defense is needed to meet that threat -- how much spending is
necessary? How likely is it that a country would risk annihilation (which we
could assure quite cheaply) to attack us?
> That makes a top of the line
>military---navy, air force, infantry, advanced conventional battlefield
>capability---a very good investment for a country that is every
>ideology's favorite target.
Two points: 1) we're a favorite target because of our interventionism. Cease
that, and we'll find ourselves less a target. 2) Why do we need to fight
conventional wars? Sure, we can keep all of that at a level needed to defend
the US (though perhaps the Swiss model could work too). What else will we use
them for and why?
>Before you get stupid and say that all that is needed to confront
>actual and potential nuclear powers is nuclear deterrence, let
>me explain that the reason you have conventional force is to
>deter such actual and potential nuclear powers by conventional
>means before it gets used in a perceived vacuum of power.
I think I see your trend. Whenever you have a poor argument, you introduce it
by insulting me (or saying the opposite argument would be stupid) as a way to
hide your own poor logic. ;)
In any event, the reason we have a conventional force is NOT to deter nuclear
powers by conventional means. That is one use for them, but not the reason
for their existence. Also, you need to clearly state why conventional forces
would be needed to deter nuclear attacks. After all, the Soviets had massive
conventional superiority, and we relied on nuclear deterrents to keep the
peace in NATO. No...I've studied defense policy pretty thoroughly (even
taking grad courses from Pentagon officers), and while I disagree with much of
the conventional wisdom and thus can accept you have a different view, you
need to support your position much better before I can take it seriously.
(You note that as I criticize your position I do so focusing on the issues and
remaining polite. That usually enhances discussion).
>(For example, weak US leadership perceived as incapable of
>responding to nuclear terror with nuclear weapons combined
>with the absence of a formidable conventional US force.)
Explain precisely how this would happen, and how a huge conventional force
would be necessary and why. Your proposition is ill supported and seems
illogical. But perhaps you can explain.
>It has a little less than it needs not to be placed at a disadvantage
>in any international situation.
That rule can of course then apply to EVERY country, which assures massive
arms buildups and arms races, with no side trusting the other side. I suspect
that is not a very good rule of thumb. (It also makes war more likely in
crisis, and increases the chances of misperception) Also, the amount needed
would be much less if we were not interventionalist, we would only need to be
able to defend ourselves and deter aggression. You have yet to prove we need
spend hundreds of billions of dollars to do that.
>And had not Bill Clinton been abusing
>that capability----he's the criminal you've been supporting for six
>years----there would be far less actual antagonism in the world
>right now.
So now I'm a Clinton supporter? For your information, I did not vote for him
(I didn't vote for Dole or Bush other, to be sure).
>Their defense is about as large as it needs to be, whereas the Netherlands,
>one of the wealthiest and the most densely populated country on earth
>was stomped into the ground by the Nazis in seconds. They were bailed
>out by countries with powerful militaries and no small interest in seeing
>Western civilization survive Hitler.
Actually, the Red Army really won WWII in Europe -- the US was important in
stopping Nazism only in so far as we supplied Russia with economic aid and
equipment. If we had stayed out of Europe, Berlin would have fallen in any
event. Hitler, like Napoleon before, tried to bite off more than he could
chew. But unless you suggest the US faces such a threat from Canada or
Mexico, that hardly proves you need the size of military spending we have in
order to avoid being rolled over.
Japan would be a more interesting case. If the US hadn't gotten involved
there, Japan might have developed an Asian hegemony and posed a threat.
>If only there were a consumer group that protected college students
>from mountebanks such as yourself.
>
>Perhaps I'll start one.
(yawn) I put my notes on line, feel free to try to find errors and publicize
them if you wish. Is there a reason you feel compelled to insult and attack
just because we disagree on an issue?
>Why haven't you been fired?
Cuz I'm damn good ;) OK, rather than match your insults by insulting you
back, I'll just brag about myself for a second. I got my MA from Johns
Hopkins, my Ph.D. from U. of Minnesota (top ten school in poli-sci), worked
for a Senator as a foreign relations staff member, and get incredible teaching
evaluations from my students.
>First of all, you claimed that the problems in the "Third World" are the
>result of "remnants of colonialism and exploitive capitalism," and that
>is not true.
Your statement is correct only in so far as the last five words describe the
first part of the statement. Many problems are the result of way economies
were torn apart by colonialism, the cold war, and capitalism (articulating
with other forms of production that could not compete and had no comparative
advantage). That isn't EVERY problem, as your sentence suggests. These are
very well documented, your asserting its "stupid" and the like does not
disprove it. You need to provide evidence and do a little work on your own.
Asserting beliefs does not prove they are true.
>You can pick any area of the world you want, Scott, and the
>problems will boil down to one or more of three basic things (1) the
>difficulty of modern societies emerging out of tribal societies, as
>aggravated by an elite often eductated in the socialist arts in the West,
The socialist arts? Sigh. In any event, modernization theory (as put forth
by Rustow and others) argues precisely that point, but has been under
considerable pressure lately. The fact is that before colonialism most
countries were free of major famine and poverty, and had governing systems
that functioned well. Colonialism blew that all apart, and instituted foreign
political and economic structures designed to service the colonial power.
That warped economies in ways that still are felt. Two Latin American
scholars, Cardoso and Faletto, did an excellent job explaining how under
development was structural in Latin America. Cardoso was kicked out of Brazil
because, like you, people saw such arguments as leftist and socialist just
because they criticized the way capitalism spread. But Cardoso, now President
of Brazil, is now instituting reforms loved by economists and markets, noting
that his point was not to simply condemn capitalism, but to note that the way
it spread was part of the problem. It has to be met not by socialism (on that
we agree), but on structural re adjustments and some policy changes by the
first world.
Again, your assertions have no support, and they are contradicted by most
scholarship in the field. Perhaps you should read up about this -- and
perhaps you should stop just assuming you are right, and look at different
arguments and keep your mind open. More later. I'll try to note specifics
and facts, and avoid relying simply on assertion. I'll also try to stay
polite and on target, hoping you might see that as a superior way to have a
discussion of issues.
ciao, scott
Scott D. Erb
Continuing...
>(2) the difficulty of somehow reorienting essentially dead civilizations
>in the face of a modern world that has outpaced them by, literally,
>centuries, (3) the difficulty of bringing some form of modernity to
>nationalities, with long traditions, that exist on the periphery, both
>within and without, of the West.
Actually, you are really restating your old number one in the last two
examples, they are all part of modernization theory as it is currently
discussed by scholars looking at the developing world. The civilizations were
not "dead" by any means, just pre-modern or different. They thrived in many
areas, but were not progressing in the modern sense either (nor was Europe,
which was behind the mideast and China until the 15th century or so).
But you err in assuming that my complaint was against modernism. I agree with
you that modernism is here and must be dealt with. I note you didn't really
disagree with any prescriptive statements I made, you jumped on what you
perceived as an insult of capitalism and colonialism to try to make it seem
that I'm saying those are bad things. No, I'm saying that they way they
spread destroyed indigenous structures and cultures, and often warped them in
ways to service the core sectors (there is considerable academic work on
this). The problems you state are valid as well.
>I'll accept George F. Kennan's conceptual ratcheting down of the
>Soviet threat during the latter part of the Cold War as a reasonable
>appeal to the lessening of tensions.
Personally, I've found everything written by George Kennan to be cogent,
enjoyable, and insightful. I don't always agree with him (believe it or not,
I think people can disagree without having to disrespect the other), but he's
certainly worth reading by anyone with an interest in foreign affairs.
>But that and Detente put the
>West and the US in the position of reacting to every crack in the
>Soviet Empire as a potential catastrophe. After all, we couldn't
>peacefully co-exist and just get along if our partner in that arrangement
>was falling to pieces.
>
>So you had best wise up to Reagan's determination to put that
>pile of miserable shit out of its misery being a decisive act of
>genuine statesmanship in the face of a US foreign policy establishment
>determined to play games and spend a fortune "supporting coexistence"
>(actually, it would have been more likely called "supporting peace")
>for another century, at least.
Actually, you need to study the history of the fall of the Soviet Union as
well. You again assert things but offer no proof. First, military spending
started increasing under Carter, and Carter's projections were higher than
what Reagan actually spent. It was a Carter-Reagan build up (much as liberals
and conservatives often don't want to admit it). Second, the KGB (and
KENNAN!) knew that the Soviet system was collapsing, and by the seventies
realized it could fall apart in the nineties. That's why they went along with
Gorbachev's reforms for so long. A coup against Gorbi in 1987 or 1988 could
have spelled a much longer life for the old USSR. I'll give Reagan credit for
HALTING the increase in military spending after 1985 (in real terms) and
recognizing that Gorbachev's success was key to the ability to peacefully end
the cold war. Reagan angered many conservatives in his own party with that
policy, but I respect him for it -- he followed his gut and trusted Gorbachev.
(By now you should know that I don't have knee jerk political reactions to
figures on the Left or Right -- I agree or disagree with them on issues, and
can respect people on each side if they do the right thing.)
>For those who say that the Soviet Union was collapsing anyway,
>well, that is a process that can go on for generations. But, that said, the
>problem with the Russian branch of Orthodox civilization runs
>deeper than anything that even the maggots of communism feeding
>on its nearly dead corpse for seventy years could define.
Russia, like Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, was remaining pre-modern,
and doomed to fall. Now with the mafia running the place (btw, I was saying
YEARS ago that IMF loans to Russia were stupid because it all went into the
hands of the new wealthy elite or the old communist bureaucrats...finally
people are starting to wake up. Having a Russian wife whose father knows
politics helped give me insight on that situation!)
>But I applaud your newly found conservative approach to foreign
>policy, an approach that was interrupted by the Soviet disease.
So now you're agreeing with my approach?
>Nonetheless, the nuclear genie is never going to be put back into
>its bottle, and we live in a very small world. Strong defense premised
>on non-intervention is the correct formulation, and anyone with any
>sense knows it. And if they didn't know it last year, they know it this
>year after this year-long siege of military horseshit from Clinton
>(the guy you've been chummed up against all this time) every time
>he faced another scandal.
Strong defense is vague. It begs the question "how strong." I suspect that
wanting to be the strongest in the world will: 1) lure us into intervention,
politicians being the power hungry folk they are; 2) increase the power of the
central government in the US at the expense of local governments and
individuals; 3) provoke reactions by others who will see it as a threat,
creating an arms race that can lead to miscalculation or even a
self-fulfilling prophecy; and 4) not really provide any additional security.
Before I would agree we need to spend so much, I'd need a lot of proof that
there are threats that require these particular capabilities. Vague claims
that "we have to be strong" are not enough. We could cut spending by 75% and
still be one of the strongest militaries in the world! You need to offer a
better explanation if you want to convince me (though in a political speech to
the masses your rhetoric may work).
-snip more bits with silly insults-
>Now, if you would like to *really* cut into the meat of the Federal
>oppression of its citizens, then you'd want to start looking at the Ponzi
>retirement scheme and MediScare.
Perhaps. I think all things should be considered; certainly for the future
better ideas are possible.
-snip-
>Jobs.
>
>Lower taxes. More economic activity. More jobs.
>
>That's the "help people help themselves" set of programs that works.
I disagree -- I think its more complex than that, due to structural problems
within the economy and within society at large. I wish it were that easy,
then a political slogan could be the solution we need.
ciao, scott
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
Rob Robertson
>
> On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:13:00 -0400, Rob Robertson <rr...@gte.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Scott D. Erb wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> PS - Yes folks, I'm back, but it'll be a month or so before you see many posts
> >> from me as I have to catch up -- I just zipped through the posts to see if any
> >> interesting themes are being debated. It appears a summer time lull has set
> >> in...
> >
> > Ah yes, the languid summertime lull, occasionally punctuated with stories
> >about the Texas Rangers being fed up with the Justice [sic] Department's
> >cute game of 'hide the evidence' and requesting that a Federal judge take
> >possession of evidence showing that the FBI fired pyrotechnic devices at
> >Mount Carmel on April 19th, 1993.
> >
> > So the FBI lied to Congress and the American people. So what? Johnnie Reno
> >now has to acknowledge that her credibility [sic] may be tarnished by this
> >latest revelation, and then hot on the heels of the discovery of *that* lie
> >we begin to hear new [sic] evidence that Special Forces were involved in the
> >deadly seige, probably from the very beginning and very likely with their
> >fingers on the triggers at the very end.
> >
> > This might be a good time to take another vacation, Scott.
>
> Well, Rob is certainly not off to a promising start.
>
> Has he forgotten the wager?
>
> I can taste those girls now.
Bagged.
It was a cheap excuse to get together and drink a few beers, John.
Scott, like the bagboy, was merely a 'money in the bank' pretext.
> -
>
> John Kennedy
>
> Was it a "chemical spill" as the mainstream media says?
> Or was Brooklyn Park torched in a lung/Schneider collaboration?
> Find the real story via their pages at:
> http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
_
Rob
Martin McPhillips
>In article <37cb305d...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
>
>>>Ah, you're making an error called "ignorance of the non-occurrence."
>>
>>Do you wish to discuss critical thinking, or do you wish to discuss
>>war and international politics?
>
>Excuse me, but you made that error in discussing international politics,
No I didn't. Do you have something specific you would like to add
to the factual discussion, as opposed to pulling a rhetorical gambit
out of your otherwise empty hat?
>and I
>pointed it out. Every student of conflict learns early on that only 2% of the
>world's population will ever find itself actively fighting a war, and that
>peace is the norm.
Well, great!
>This is important because the psychological tendency is to
>over estimate the likelihood of conflict and, as Robert Jervis notes, perhaps
>create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Listen to me, Scott. You are merely stating the obvious.
That does not have anything to do with why a nation grown as powerful
as the United States, in the aftermath of the breakdown of a bi-polar
geopolitical order, needs to continue to have a powerful military.
A good example of "self-fullfilling prophecy" is Bill Clinton's misuse
of that military, and that is why endogenous circumstances have
consequences in international politics. In other words, it *means*
something to have and to allow a criminal to continue at the head
of the Executive branch of a superpower.
But neither this country nor its military needs can be judged on the
exemplar of Bill Clinton. The US has already ratcheted down its
military strength from its Cold War peak; the percentage of GDP
that maintains the military is probably at a post WWII low, and that
is about as drawn down as it needs to be, save for the withdrawal of
forward troops in Europe and Asia.
>Every scholar who studies this stuff learns early that you have to recognize
>the cases of peace as well as war
Oh, please. You know, this is so utterly stupid. For you to lapse into
these obvious considerations *as* *if* they were no part of the
very equation of the total foreign policy of which US military strength
is but a part. The US has been working so many different angles
to preserve and encourage peace *throughout* the Cold War
that it's just a joke that you would attempt to restate the obvious
as though it were a counter-argument to the military part of the
total equation.
What you need to focus on, Scott, is the consequences of supporting
a scandal ridden President as the head of the US war machine where his
criminal lack of conscience led to three military incidents in the past
year that were primarily responses to endogenous political circumstances.
Your disillusion regarding Kosovo is *totally* out of place until you
understand what people of common sense were telling you six
years ago and every month of every year since, that *character*
matters. Now you have proof of it in Clinton's military adventures over
the past year and your response is to disarm the United States in
a small world with many dangerous players.
Please, get yourself some help with the homework.
The United States cannot be made prey to disarmament because
it has elected a man who is a criminal.
>(Singer tries to do this in quantitative
>studies by looking at crises and comparing those that ended with war with
>those that didn't -- military buildups and arms races increased the
>likelhihood of a violent end to a crisis). You tried to claim weak countries
>are "rolled over" by strong ones, and gave some examples. I point out that
>you ignore the fact most countries don't get rolled over, even weaker ones. I
>also questioned how much the US needs to spend in order to be assured it
>wouldn't be rolled over, pointing out that your example of Switzerland
>supports my position.
Yes, to be sure, and you deleted my example of the Netherlands
as a very rich and the most densely populated nation on earth
being smashed in seconds by the Nazis. But you've never been known
for honesty.
You're paddling hard, Scott, but you're not getting anywhere.
For 50 years the anarchy of geopolitics was strung on the wires
of the bi-polar enmity between the US and the Soviet Union. We still
do not understand either (a) the full consequences of that conflict,
and more importantly (b) the full consequences of the termination
of that conflict.
Your gobbledegook about whether or not disarmed countries are
threatened or not is meaningless in the context of the role that the
US has played in the world, the role it is playing, and the largely
unknown circumstances that are going to follow and play out over
the next 30 years *as* the aftermath of the Cold War.
>>>If the
>>>US cut down its defenses significantly and stopped intervening in foreign
>>>wars, who would attack us?
>>
>>That's an interesting conception of the world, entirely appropriate to the
>>19th century, and worthy of someone as completely out of touch as yourself.
>
>Still trying to pick fights, eh?
No, that's a straightforward and honest assessment.
> I prefer discussion,
No you don't. You have a long record of avoiding issues
and supplanting discussion with snotty insults. There's not
a person around here who will take five seconds of your
crap, except maybe for Beck the Elder, whose patience
is that of a saint. I'm not a saint, and my patience for you
is thin indeed.
> but if you feel you
>need to insult in order to strengthen your point, go ahead.
It may come off as an insult, but it directly pins the confusion
and lack of comprehension of the subject you claim to be
instructing students in. Have you confused reading books
with comprehension? I think so.
>>For starters, I don't think that the US needs to cut down on its defenses any
>>more than it already has*, and it should, at the same time, stop intervening
>>in foreign wars. The last serious obligation that the US had in the foreign
>>arena was the Persian Gulf War, and that was because Iraq was a
>>Cold War monstrosity that needed to be defanged, and the US was the
>>surviving party capable of handling the responsibility. After that, the US
>>had little business in foreign conflicts.
>
>Then why do you think the US needs to spend so much money on defense?
First off, the US doesn't spend an enormous amount on defense as a
percentage of its GDP.
And the reason that a sufficiently powerful military is required I've explained
to you above, and in the previous post. But the short answer is: it's a small
and getting smaller nuclear world and the US continues to have strategic
interests. Military power is the best way to avoid and discourage wars,
and there are very good guidelines for its use in particular situations.
But its presence is the best deterrence for war.
The fact that Bill Clinton has repeatedly warped and misused those
guidelines argues for not electing another Bill Clinton, not for disarming.
I hesitate to point this out to you, because you are so dense, and you'll
take it and run around the room with it cackling like a fool, but you should
note that even in the hands of Bill Clinton, and his abuse of military power,
we have not been in any truly serious wars since the Gulf.
Geopolitically, the US military is the stick that looms in the background
of many carrots. That's not a theory, Scott. It's fact. And that relates back
to order in a world where a longstanding bi-polar order has only just
disintergrated a mere 5 minutes ago in historical time.
Can you sort of grasp the implications of all that?
>Specifically, what threats exist, and what is needed to meet them? Be
>specific, don't just assert. In any event, Iat least we agree that the US has
>little (if any) business in foreign conflicts.
No, we don't agree, not even on that, because your understanding of it
is clearly flawed and totally incorrect. The US doesn't have any business in
foreign conflicts that are *none* of its business, i.e. where its real strategic
interests are not at stake. It does have a number of *strategic* interests where
it will continue to play a role as a potential military force for the next
century. The rules that apply for getting involved have to do with whether
a local conflict truly threatens any of those interests. The US has vital
interests in the Mid-East and on the Pacific Rim and at various other
points in the world, including a number of dormant areas, such as
general European security. (Why is Europe secure? Because for
50 years it presented a powerful defense posture to its enemy. And, of
course, world peace has never been such a profoundly sought after
goal as it has since the emergence of nuclear weapons. Once
you catch up to the irony of that, you'll see how your entire argument
falls apart.)
For instance, if the US stayed out of a war between the Koreas, it would
be the looming presence of US forces that could prevent such a war
from becoming a general Asian war, possibly involving China, Russia,
and Japan. It's a traditional hot spot, and there are serious implications
as well throughout Southeast Asia should a power vacuum be perceived (i.e.
an *absence* of consequences for aggression).
Right now an extremely delicate situation exists in Taiwan. US military
force plays a role in that and provides the best chance that no
warfare will occur.
As the sole superpower in the world the US is in a position to prevent
wars, but not if it disarms. Your childish reaction to the abuse of
US military action by Bill Clinton is to pretend that the military is
only dangerous. Well, yes, indeed, it is dangerous, but never so
dangerous as disarmament.
>>But here we are with a nuclear world and an individuating nationalist
>>world. That includes a half-dozen emerging Islamic nations in Central
>>Asia, another half-dozen more established free-standing Islamic states
>>with a great deal of wealth, North Korea , and, of course, China. Not
>>to mention a massively unstable Russia.
>
>True. Now, how much do we need to be safe from them? What kind of threat do
>they pose? And, again, how do you avoid the security dilemma whereby our
>buildups actually urge them to build more because they see us as a threat
>(after all, we're pretty safe and don't need such a huge military -- in their
>eyes we're a threat). You need to explain those specifics before you can
>justify massive defense spending.
The U.S. is already built up, Scot, and needs to maintain that at a slightly higher
level and act prudently and diplomatically from strength.
That *does* *not* unnerve most countries in the world. Quite the opposite:
they rely on it. Potential enemies are another story, and their reaction to
U.S. power will be what it will be, but it's not anything that they can expect
to "win," as in an arms race, unless they perceive a power vacuum because
of US disarmament.
Disarming, as you propose, is the most dangerous path to
take.
>>There is nothing here that argues for shrinking the U.S. military.
>>
>>There are all sorts of nation states hanging out that could obtain
>>or even develop nuclear weapons.
>
>So deterrence doesn't work?
Sure it works, so far. Conventional forces of magnitude are a
deterrent as well, and they deter local wars from becoming regional
wars, and rogue nuclear powers from thinking that they can
simply forge a nuclear standoff. Really, the logic of this is so
simple. No serious person believes that the US should disarm
down to its nuclear deterrence capability. US conventional forces
are important both in their own right and in making nuclear
deterrence a viable and remote option.
> Perhaps, but you could make an argument to
>support your position rather than just assert it. Most of these countries
>don't have delivery systems, and those that do have pretty bad ones. I don't
>think any country can reach the US. They might be able to in the future, but
>what kind of defense is needed to meet that threat -- how much spending is
>necessary? How likely is it that a country would risk annihilation (which we
>could assure quite cheaply) to attack us?
Gosh, your thinking is so shallow and uniformed here, I just don't know
what to say. Yes, they don't have capability *now*. They may operate through
third parties. We may *not* want to respond to an incident of nuclear terror
with nuclear weapons. Our nuclear weapons may not forestall a incident
of nuclear terror. At flashpoints in the world, when there are problems
endogenous to specific nations, there often arise political/military regimes
which can threaten a variety of interests in serious ways. In those cases,
there is no reason to simply let things take their course when serious
military force can be brought to bear before more serious complications
arise. The Gulf War is the best recent example of this. That is why you
saw so many countries that normally wouldn't have anything to do with
one another aligning themselves behind the US.
We don't even know yet the full political impact of the end of the
Cold War. But history is a very good predictor, and there will
be trouble. And the best way to convert trouble back into non-trouble
is to have the force available to do so.
The United States, whether you or anyone else likes it or not, is
in the only position to provide that kind of force when it is needed.
Even with Japan re-emerging in Asia with a military presence of its
own, the US wants to be *with* Japan on that, as to principles
and responsibilities and capability, *not* disarmed and out
of the game.
A nation doesn't simply take on the kind of responsibility
that the United States has and then turn its back on it, and
neither can it plan to turn its back on it without knowing how
the aftermath of a superpower bi-polar world plays out.
It can be prudent and restrained, as any should nation with as
much power as this one (unlike the example set by
Clinton over the past year), but it would be uncommonly
stupid and absolutely dishonorable to simply roll back
through military disarmament on a *theory* that it will
solve more problems than it creates.
In fact, the exact opposite is the more likely scenario.
US disarmament would present a power vacuum that
would be an invitation to trouble.
>> That makes a top of the line
>>military---navy, air force, infantry, advanced conventional battlefield
>>capability---a very good investment for a country that is every
>>ideology's favorite target.
>
>Two points: 1) we're a favorite target because of our interventionism. Cease
>that, and we'll find ourselves less a target. 2) Why do we need to fight
>conventional wars? Sure, we can keep all of that at a level needed to defend
>the US (though perhaps the Swiss model could work too). What else will we use
>them for and why?
As to point 1, are you suggesting that the US is the target of Iraq because it
led the intervention there? Well, correct. But the intervention was a US
responsibility because Iraq was a Cold War monstrosity. If Saddam
Hussein continues to seek revenge against the US that's just the price
of dealing with him. But he's only in power because once his war machine
was destroyed his regime was less of a threat to stability in that region
than the unknown aftermath of dismantling Iraq.
Yes, intervention has consequences, but we are now also close allies
of both Germany and Japan. We have a budding cordial relationship with
Vietnam, nonetheless complicated by it being essentially the same
murderous Marxist regime that wreaked havoc on its own people
after the US exited. The US enjoys good relations with much of the
world.
Point 2 has already been addressed.
>>Before you get stupid and say that all that is needed to confront
>>actual and potential nuclear powers is nuclear deterrence, let
>>me explain that the reason you have conventional force is to
>>deter such actual and potential nuclear powers by conventional
>>means before it gets used in a perceived vacuum of power.
>
>I think I see your trend.
Yes, I've learned to anticipate stupid remarks by you.
> Whenever you have a poor argument, you introduce it
>by insulting me (or saying the opposite argument would be stupid) as a way to
>hide your own poor logic. ;)
Actually, Scott, you've demonstrated time and time again that you are
one of the most condescending and insulting individuals posting to
these groups. Your pre-vacation display of deceit and vapidity has
not evaporated from the minds of those who witnessed it.
And I'll treat you like the insufferable little snot that you are.
I'll also let you know when you start to show signs of improvement, just
as I did when you turned against your Clintooniac brethren and
argued against the debacle in Kosovo.
>In any event, the reason we have a conventional force is NOT to deter nuclear
>powers by conventional means. That is one use for them, but not the reason
>for their existence.
Well, I don't know how to say this, but conventional forces are needed to
fight in conventional wars, if the threat of those conventional forces are
not in themselves enough to deter said conventional wars, and conventional
(non-nuclear) forces are particularly important for keeping local conflicts
from becoming regional conflicts. Wars happen. The US is the sole
superpower in the world, and has taken on a great deal of responsibility
in that respect. And it has vital strategic interests and strategic allies
for whom the US is the guarantor.
> Also, you need to clearly state why conventional forces
>would be needed to deter nuclear attacks. After all, the Soviets had massive
>conventional superiority,
Not really. They had a larger army. But their equipment was inferior, and the
conventional battlefield weapons dedicated to defending Western Europe
(before you get to the tactical nuclear weapons) were designed to
annihilate a Soviet advance. You saw some of that at work in the
Gulf War, the multiple launch rocket systems being of particularly
lethal note.
>and we relied on nuclear deterrents to keep the
>peace in NATO.
We were well prepared to fight a non-nuclear defense of Western
Europe, and the use of nuclear weapons was not automatically
a part of a response to a conventional war in Europe. They were
an option. The advanced conventional warfare capability
was enough to destroy a Soviet advance. Tactical nuclear
weapons were ready, and, of course, so were strategic nuclear
weapons.
If the Soviets had wanted to test NATO in a conventional war
they would have been fools, but they probably wouldn't have
been met immediately by nuclear weapons.
That said, nuclear weapons kept the peace, but conventional
forces to fight a conventional war were not off the table. They
were very much on the table.
> No...I've studied defense policy pretty thoroughly (even
>taking grad courses from Pentagon officers),
It doesn't show. Sorry.
> and while I disagree with much of
>the conventional wisdom and thus can accept you have a different view, you
>need to support your position much better before I can take it seriously.
Scott, you are proposing disarmament for the United States and I'm
the one who needs to better support my position?
I've supported it in spades. You keep asking over and over
why the US needs a formidable conventional armed forces, including
air, sea, and infantry and the other sub-categories of same, and
I'm responding to you with the reasons why such forces are
needed, what their purpose is, and their relation to the accrued responsibilites
and strategic interests of the United States.
>(You note that as I criticize your position I do so focusing on the issues and
>remaining polite. That usually enhances discussion).
You know, if someone just dropped in from Mars, he might fall for that.
You're a known quantity, Scott. And you're known largely for not knowing
what you are talking about (but I see down below here you'll be citing
your credentials again).
>>(For example, weak US leadership perceived as incapable of
>>responding to nuclear terror with nuclear weapons combined
>>with the absence of a formidable conventional US force.)
>
>Explain precisely how this would happen, and how a huge conventional force
>would be necessary and why. Your proposition is ill supported and seems
>illogical. But perhaps you can explain.
That's very simple, even though a smart tenth grader could figure it
out for himself.
If the only option you have left yourself is the annihilative capacity
of nuclear weapons for a response to nuclear terror, and the party
engaging in nuclear terror perceives a reluctance in a US administration
to respond with nuclear force, then that emboldens the party
engaging in nuclear terror or blackmail. Substantial conventional military
force provides a number of non-nuclear options that both dissuade
the potential nuclear terrorist from acting out on a purely nuclear
precipice and even to respond to an actual incident of nuclear terror
*without* using nuclear weapons.
In fact, conventional forces are *more* important in that and virtually
all other contexts because of the non-viability, the problems associated
with using nuclear weapons.
>>It has a little less than it needs not to be placed at a disadvantage
>>in any international situation.
>
>That rule can of course then apply to EVERY country, which assures massive
>arms buildups and arms races, with no side trusting the other side.
Nonsense. You show at once a lack of and an overactive imagination.
Plus, that's an old nuclear freeze type argument that was made popular
by the Soviets when they knew that they couldn't keep up with the US.
They're gone now, but apparently their thinking lives on at American
universities.
Well, that about does it for me today.
I'll just assume that there's nothing about "anti-statist socialism
via radical democracy without bureaucracy" down below here.
Ciao and cheers to you, Scott.
jhmcclo...@my-deja.com
>
> Continuing...
>
> >(2) the difficulty of somehow reorienting essentially dead
civilizations
> >in the face of a modern world that has outpaced them by, literally,
> >centuries, (3) the difficulty of bringing some form of modernity to
> >nationalities, with long traditions, that exist on the periphery,
both
>
> >oppression of its citizens, then you'd want to start looking at the
Ponzi retirement scheme and MediScare.
>
> Perhaps. I think all things should be considered; certainly for the
future better ideas are possible.
>>>>
"I disagree -- I think it's more complex than that."
Summer's out, Autumn's in. Back to &^%$ school. Change and Decay
move on to the phase where Change mostly gives and Decay mostly takes.
The NG anti-Clinton and anti-America crickets have, neither decayed nor
changed, but modulated their tune and taken to chirping "I disagree --
I think it's more complex than that." Plus "I wish that it were that
easy."
Back in the High Summer of Impeachmentgate, the vrooks really did
perhaps think it was easy. Easiness lay all before them, and they had
only to go with the Hydeous flow and lean on the Thirteen Pillars of
GOP Incompetence, and then Clinton would automatically be expelled and
Virtue re-introduced to Yankeestan unproblematically.
It didn't go quite like that in the event. If not in general, at
least in our own present and immediate case, the re-introduction of
Virtue has turned out to be very complicated indeed. The proper answer
to the NG reactionary challenge is no doubt something like "I disagree
-- I think it's more complex than that." Sure. Of course we adults
disagree with deniers of compleixty and enemies of thinking and of
course we consider the ugly Enchanted Forest of Libertaria trolls to be
narrow-minded sectarian shameless over-simplifiers. But they are
hardly to be refuted by our own celebrating History and complexity
simply as such. We must celebrate History and complexity in a way that
comes to a discernible point here and now, a point discernible even to
the untenured. Ideally, a point discernible even to the uninstructed
-- even, perhaps, a point that could be explained to the infimal
victims of VRWC homeschooling. A POLITICAL point, a Democratic point,
a practical point, a pragmatic point, an American point, a here-and-now
point, a liberal point. An "I disagree -- I think it's more complex
than that" point that doesn't just mindlessly abandon all judgment to
"experts," but at the same time doesn't just mindlessly prescind from
taking expert opinion seriously.
What I have in mind here is very difficult to formulate, yet it is a
thing we Americans have rather distinctively specialized in and rather
outstandingly succeeded with. Our traditional name for our own
successful local specialty is "democracy." The un- or anti-democratic
vrooks now allege that we need something better than ever before here
at the End of History to keep up our "competitiveness," something
better than ourselves and our diversity and our complexity and our
humanity and (redundantly, but rhetorically) ourselves.
Full of sh*t is them.
== Yours, J. H. McCloskey == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Martin McPhillips
>In article <37cb305d...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
>
>Continuing...
>>You can pick any area of the world you want, Scott, and the
>>problems will boil down to one or more of three basic things (1) the
>>difficulty of modern societies emerging out of tribal societies, as
>>aggravated by an elite often eductated in the socialist arts in the West,
>>(2) the difficulty of somehow reorienting essentially dead civilizations
>>in the face of a modern world that has outpaced them by, literally,
>>centuries, (3) the difficulty of bringing some form of modernity to
>>nationalities, with long traditions, that exist on the periphery, both
>>within and without, of the West.
>
>Actually, you are really restating your old number one in the last two
>examples, they are all part of modernization theory as it is currently
>discussed by scholars looking at the developing world.
Actually, you don't know what you are talking about. But I knew that
before I wrote that last section, and expected you to start up
with the academic drivel. ("Academic drivel" being strictly defined
as that discourse which is engaged in by academics who
*can't* see over the nearest horizon, and hence fall prey to all
sorts of mountebankish inbred notions. Which is to say that there are
some fine people in the academy who do otherwise.)
First of all, tribal societies, as found in all regions of the world, are
not the same thing as civilizations. There are hundreds if not thousands
of extant tribal societies; there are about a half-dozen extant civilzations
or "great societies."
Pre-colonial sub-Saharan Africa is the best example of tribal societies
in isolation from civilizations. And so, for instance, contemporary
sub-Saharan Africa is the best example of the difficulty that
*tribal* societies have in organizing *modern* or *Western-style*
societies. Much of the problem in Africa did not come from
colonial masters, who merely set about to exploit rich resources,
but from badly miseducated native elite who were unduly influenced in
their thinking about creating states by Marxism, as thrown at them
by both the Soviets and the universities of the West.
But Marxism aside, sophisticated political societies do not just
grow overnight, and so the main part of the difficulty simply comes
in that form----i.e. of *tribal* societies, locked into the stringent formalities of
tribal customs, including magic, withchcraft, and the underpinnings
of animism----having a very hard time of it. The best that often comes
in a situation like that is a benevolent dictatorship that acts as a transition to
something more reasonable. Marxism only complicated the development out
of that by fostering corrupt economic concepts.
>The civilizations were
>not "dead" by any means, just pre-modern or different.
Well, yes and no. Technically, none of the extant civilizations
are "dead," (I actually wrote *essentially* dead) the way that
Sumeric civilization and Hellenic civilization and Egyptiac civilization
et al. are *dead,* but they are essentially moribund, and that includes Hindu
civilization, the main body of Far Eastern civilization (China), the Russian side of
Orthodox civilzation, as well as its main body, and Islamic civilization (which has
experienced a resuscitation of sorts, which is an odd rally very late in the game).
Yes, they are "different." They *aren't* Western civilization.
But the funniest part is you describing them as "just pre-modern."
"Modernity" is a particular era of Western civilization that began
about 500 years ago, (and it's pretty clear that we're moving out
of that era and into something possibly extremely grotesque, but
that's not a discussion I'd care to have with you) and so when you
say that these great societies (or when you say that tribal societies)
*were* "just pre-modern," all that you are saying is that they had
not yet been swept with the advances of the Modern era in the
West. (These "advances" really didn't take concrete form in the
West until the Industrial Revolution, and didn't really exert their
dominance in human affairs, such as we know them today, until
the middle of this century, but *Westernization* was all
too apparent as the "wave of the future" throughout the civilized world
by the latter half of the 19th Century, if not much earlier. The
Japanese were among the best at it, managing to borrow
Western forms and methods while maintaining that irascible
Japanese culture relatively intact, and with some good deal
of pride in doing so. (But, alas, don't they seem
to be falling prey to the very worst aspects of crass America culture,
particularly among the youth, these days.))
But as to their own internal situations, their age, the consequences
of their long pasts, they were in decline when they began to
*Westernize,* but modernization/Westernization doesn't make
them what they were, but something quite different. Hence their
"survival" as distinct civilizations is unclear, and a merger into
a global civilization remains suspect both as to possibility
and desireability. The next 200 years are most foreboding,
Scott.
Not being Nostradamus, I don't know what will become of, let's
say China, but after 50 years of inundation in the very worst Western
influence---Marxism---it's restarting a process that began in the last
century, which is "modernization," i.e., the *Westernization* of its
economic and social organization. Anyone who has dealt with
Chinese immigrants will tell you straight up that they make
*great* Americans. The parts of their traditions that instantly
meld with American opportunity is really something to watch.
If that is a sign of what is to come via the use of Western economic
methods in China, if it continues on its current trend, then good
things might be in store for China. But it's a dubious proposition,
and another 50 or 100 years will determine what happens.
>They thrived in many
>areas, but were not progressing in the modern sense either (nor was Europe,
>which was behind the mideast and China until the 15th century or so).
Scott, the *Modern* era is an era of Western history. Islamic society
had peaked and was already in decline by the time the Modern era
began in the West, which was indeed backward in relation to that
which was "Arabesque." China has been in decline for centuries.
Just how is it that you think so-called colonial powers could just walk
into these places and set up colonial regimes?
" ...In succession
Houses rise and fall, crumble, are extended,
Are removed, destroyed, restored, or in their place
Is an open field, or a factory, or a by-pass.
Old stone to new building, old timber to new fires,
Old fires to ashes, and ashes to the earth
Which is already flesh, fur and faeces,
Bone of man and beast, cornstalk and leaf."
>But you err in assuming that my complaint was against modernism.
I err in wasting my time, pal.
sal...@my-deja.com
> Johnson could have launched a nuclear attack on North Vietnam and
ended
> the war then and there. Why didn't he?
>
> Michael
>
Because he wasn't criminally insane, didn't want to go down in history
as the man who killed 30 million civilians, and didn't want to risk the
chance that the Soviets would launch a strike against the USA in
retaliation.
Only someone criminally insane would even suggest it.
W. E. Woods
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> In article <37caee4a...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
>
> >>Actually, most of the countries who fight in wars are the ones with the
> >>strongest defenses. Your hypothesis seems falsified.
> >
> >Right. Those without strong defenses are just rolled right the
> >hell over---Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic States, China,
> >Kosovo.
>
> Ah, you're making an error called "ignorance of the non-occurrence." Tell me,
> how many countries without major defenses have NOT been rolled over?
How many of those are protected by or associated with countries that
have major defenses?
> If the
> US cut down its defenses significantly and stopped intervening in foreign
> wars, who would attack us?
Anyone that felt like it.
> How big of a budget does the US need for defense
> in order not to be "rolled over"?
Not as big as it is now. They need to remember the militia concept and
work with it.
--
Scott D. Erb
>
>Actually, you don't know what you are talking about. But I knew that
>before I wrote that last section, and expected you to start up
>with the academic drivel.
(smile) You state bold assertions. I give evidence, talk about past
research, and ask you for specifics. You call that drivel.
Why do I imagine you as Archie Bunker ;)
>But the funniest part is you describing them as "just pre-modern."
>"Modernity" is a particular era of Western civilization that began
>about 500 years ago, (and it's pretty clear that we're moving out
>of that era and into something possibly extremely grotesque, but
>that's not a discussion I'd care to have with you)
Actually, you're partially right -- we are moving out of that era, though what
kind of era we're moving into is still uncertain. But if you consider it
extremely grotesque, I suspect I'll like it :)
-snip-
>I err in wasting my time, pal.
Actually, your post this time was a bit more interesting and while I could
quibble with bits, I suspect we're not really on wavelengths as different as
it first seemed. One difference -- you focus on vague aspects of culture and
technology, and you seem to ignore the physical force used to exploit and
oppress colonies (slavery the most horrid example), as well as the ability of
advanced countries to use their advantage to gain unfairly in a relationship
with premodern (or if that is too funny or suggests an inevitable progression,
non-modern or traditional) societies. You focus on the part that fits your
ideology and allows you to simply stick with a specific ideological world
view. I think much of what you write is pretty accurate, but not the whole
story. BTW, you should realize now that I don't fit into simple labels on
ideology -- the conservative vs. liberal or left vs. right doesn't work.
ciao, scott
Scott D. Erb
>
>> US cut down its defenses significantly and stopped intervening in foreign
>> wars, who would attack us?
>
How? Note I didn't say we had to eliminate defense, only cut it to the point
that we have nuclear deterrence and a reasonable self-defense conventional
force. Be specific: how much of a military do we need to answer to direct
threats to our sovereignty, what specific threats exist.
Your vague answer suggests you don't know, but you sure like being hawkish!
tony G as Frank Cannon
>In article <37cfb309...@news.supernews.com>, kur...@ass.ass says...
>>
>>He's a right foreign policy conservative, like every president. I
>>don't know what a liberal foreign policy would be, maybe something
>>like the late 80's when a small group of democrats were against our
>>dealings with third were military dictatorships.
>
>My opinion, a liberal foreign policy would:
I would tend to agree with all of the below. My extended point would
be that it would be impossible to have such policies. IN the context
of the cold war it would have been political suicide to act(it was
common to advocate) on any of the below. Among cold war hawks(the
ones who blame "liberal's" for every foreign policy "failure") Carter
has a reputation of being weak because of his rhetoric even though he
was a cold warrior with little difference from the Nixons and Reagans.
>1) cut defense spending dramatically, and not intervene with US military power
>in hotspots around the world;
>2) reform the CIA to an intelligence gathering and analysis agency that
>operates in the open and without covert activities;
IN Australia this added to the fall of the labor gov.
>3) cooperate with other states to create peaceful and voluntary attempts to
>solve conflicts or deal with poverty;
>4) recognize that third world countries and other poor states have been hit by
>the remnants of colonialism and exploitive capitalism, and work with those
>states to promote natural development by refusing to engage in protectionism
>against them, and allowing them some preferential trade treatment;
It would be impossible to convince people that our cold war policies
contributed to the wreckage of many of these countries. Its much
easier to blame "a history of poor leadership". Whenever Guatamala is
in the news its never mentioned who started the war or any history of
it being a cold war proxy battlefield. My impression is that most
people who show a passing interest are under the assumption that all
of the problems are to blamed on the nature of the region, a history
of bad government dating back to the Spanish or the most common answer
seems to be "it was the communists who caused all of the problems".
An attempt to promote a post cold war Marshall plan would have the
Jessie Helms and Pat Buchanans of the world screeching about foreign
aid. Ignoring the fact that they were all for military aid to client
states.
>5) operate as an example that respect for human rights and non-oppression is
>the most successful way for a country to operate; and
The rhetoric of Carter(not his actions) gets him labled a wimp by
righties.
>6) operate openly without secret agreements, and without back room deals.
Heh.
>I do not expect such a policy to be engaged in any time soon.
>ciao, scott
It would get who ever put it forth labled a commie.
>PS - Yes folks, I'm back, but it'll be a month or so before you see many posts
>from me as I have to catch up -- I just zipped through the posts to see if any
>interesting themes are being debated. It appears a summer time lull has set
>in...see ya in awhile, but real world work beckons me for the time being...but
>damn, the trip was fun, the total eclipse of the sun awesome, and it was great
>not to touch a computer keyboard for over five weeks...
Glad to see you're back.
vpa...@iastate.edu
: My opinion, a liberal foreign policy would:
: 1) cut defense spending dramatically, and not intervene with US
: military power in hotspots around the world;
: 2) reform the CIA to an intelligence gathering and analysis agency that
: operates in the open and without covert activities;
[snip]
How about my pet idea: privatize the School of the Americas and turn it
into a training ground for the World Wrestling Federation. Of course,
this would have to be followed by a type of G.I. Bill to provide
incentives for prior School Graduates to give up their current plush
military/government/drug-running jobs in Central/South America in the
hopes of becoming the next Stone Cold Steve Austin. But would these guys
settle for a lifestyle in which they can hope maybe to garner $6 million
a year from salary and merchandizing, I wonder??? Nontheless, they'd
still be able to indulge their passion for violence and illict/prohibited
drugs, and they would not necessarily have to put their political
ambitions on hold.
Good to see you back, Scott.
Vic
[who personally would like to see Manual Noreiga peform a pescado thru a
flaming table and Daniel Ortega hit Roberto d'Aubisson with an enziguiri]
Martin McPhillips
>In article <37cc2fe1...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
>>
>>Actually, you don't know what you are talking about. But I knew that
>>before I wrote that last section, and expected you to start up
>>with the academic drivel.
>
>(smile) You state bold assertions.
Not really, Scott. They are just unfamiliar to you in your branch
office.
> I give evidence,
No you don't. You can't bring a thing on point, and you get
basic stuff totally wrong. You don't know what you are talking
about.
>talk about past
>research, and ask you for specifics.
You dodge, dissemble, and demand.
I described a whole variety of things for you in great detail,
so I'm not surprised you've given up. But I am pleased. (You're
a bore.)
> You call that drivel.
"Modernization theory?" Yes, I call that drivel.
>Why do I imagine you as Archie Bunker ;)
Because you lack imagination, and you're thoroughly inept.
>>But the funniest part is you describing them as "just pre-modern."
>
>>"Modernity" is a particular era of Western civilization that began
>>about 500 years ago, (and it's pretty clear that we're moving out
>>of that era and into something possibly extremely grotesque, but
>>that's not a discussion I'd care to have with you)
>
>Actually, you're partially right
Actually, you're not in a position to know one way or the other.
> -- we are moving out of that era, though what
>kind of era we're moving into is still uncertain. But if you consider it
>extremely grotesque, I suspect I'll like it :)
I'd refer you to something that might make you think otherwise, but it
would be a waste of time to go fetch it up.
>
>-snip-
>
>>I err in wasting my time, pal.
>
>Actually, your post this time was a bit more interesting and while I could
>quibble with bits, I suspect we're not really on wavelengths as different as
>it first seemed.
Believe me, Scott, we are on vastly different wavelengths.
I recently had a piker in this group, from "my side" of the fence, attempt
to claim me as his "collaborator." He wouldn't state what the nature of
the collaboration was. He wouldn't provide any evidence of collaboration.
He wouldn't even state privately what the so-called collaboration was or send
supporting data to me because I told him that I would post it---redacted of
any names and places, etc that might prove embarrassing or what not.
The feeling I have dealing with you is very close to the one I have dealing
with that asshole, although I'll give you the credit of at least pretending
to present your case. (Although I don't know what that really gets you.)
So, no thanks. We really are *not* that close on anything.
>One difference -- you focus on vague aspects of culture and
>technology, and you seem to ignore the physical force used to exploit and
>oppress colonies (slavery the most horrid example),
No, I don't ignore any of that. Any disreputable and oppressive behavior
engaged in by any party is reprehensible. But the issues of *why* other
parts of the world have difficulties do not relate specifically to such abuses,
in almost all cases. The world, if you'll pardon the expression, is a very
dynamic place, and a Cheyenne or Masai tribesman, whose cosmology
is intimately woven into the cake of tribal custom, was not destined to
fare well in any encounter with a striving civilization.
In the same fashion, a civilization in decline for two or seven or eight centuries
is not likely to fare well in the breach of significant contact with a civilization
coming into its hey day. That's just the story and the tragedy of world
history.
>as well as the ability of
>advanced countries to use their advantage to gain unfairly in a relationship
>with premodern (or if that is too funny or suggests an inevitable progression,
>non-modern or traditional) societies. You focus on the part that fits your
>ideology and allows you to simply stick with a specific ideological world
>view. I think much of what you write is pretty accurate, but not the whole
>story. BTW, you should realize now that I don't fit into simple labels on
>ideology -- the conservative vs. liberal or left vs. right doesn't work.
>ciao, scott
I've described your entire approach to the study of society, at length,
elsewhere and accurately. The very fact that you now run hard from you
essentially leftist and fundamentally ideological programming is just
amusing. Here's a tip for you kid: you won't get anywhere until you
basically abandon every single thing that you think you know and start
over. (But I'm sure some of the sports fans around here enjoy your
now regular repositioning of your "views." You seem to talk a new gig
every few months, but the tune is always the same.)
Martin McPhillips
> Back in the High Summer of Impeachmentgate, the vrooks really did
>perhaps think it was easy.
What are you doing over here, McClosetcult?
Hey, as bad as Erb gets, at least his post are readable, like them
or not.
What's your excuse?
Scott Erb
>Not really, Scott. They are just unfamiliar to you in your branch
>office.
Hardly unfamiliar, just political slogans, many of which I used to believe
until I studied these issues with depth. If, instead of just trying to
pick a fight, you'd consider the questions I ask and try to support your
assertions, you may find yourself able to question some of your beliefs
and indeed open yourself to the fact that knowledge is something that, if
accepted, sometimes means letting go of illusions and idelogical dogma.
>Actually, you're not in a position to know one way or the other.
(smile) I daresay I've studied the third world (and taught it and took
grad seminars in this) much more than you have. I also note that I
haven't seen major disagreements except that you seem to ignore some
important factors in how both colonialism and western penetration did have
some negative consequences on third world development. You seem to
imagine that is a broadside attack on westernism or something else, but
that's really not the case. I'm simply trying to consider all factors in
determining what's right. Frankly, it seems to me that you just want to
pick a fight and you can't seem to figure out how so you attack. But it
doesn't make for much content in the discussion.
>No, I don't ignore any of that. Any disreputable and oppressive behavior
>engaged in by any party is reprehensible. But the issues of *why* other
>parts of the world have difficulties do not relate specifically to such
>abuses,
Evidence suggests otherwise. I can give you a reading list, but you'd
just label that "academic drivel" and cling to your ideological faith.
Furthermore, that also does not deny the importance of the cultural and
technological factors you want to assign prime causality too. Now, in
normal discourse we could discuss these differences and the weighting of
causality, etc. But since (and I think lurkers following this can see it
clearly) you avoid such discussoin and instead want to simply attack (bits
with insults I usually delete as non-productive), such a potentially
worthwhile discussion is not accomplished. C'est la vie.
>I've described your entire approach to the study of society, at length,
>elsewhere and accurately.
I'm afraid you haven't -- you really don't have a clue on how I think, and
your attempts to argue by labeling and asserting what I believe are
amusing (and helpful in understanding how in internet debates people
construct mental images of opponents and then get so tied to them that
real discourse becomes impossible).
Am I right that you dropped the foreign policy debate? Good move on your
part ;)
ciao, scott
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
(oh, and from here you can access my lecture notes and other info)
Martin McPhillips
>In article <37cc94d4...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
>
>>Not really, Scott. They are just unfamiliar to you in your branch
>>office.
>
>Hardly unfamiliar, just political slogans, many of which I used to believe
>until I studied these issues with depth.
That's funny, because every time your "depth" is probed, and I mean
a full dragging of the bottom of your lake, there's nothing there but
empty cans of Dodge.
Scott Erb
>
>That's funny, because every time your "depth" is probed, and I mean
>a full dragging of the bottom of your lake, there's nothing there but
>empty cans of Dodge.
Methinks thou doth protest too much. You assert, you insult, and yet
your arguments are mostly assertions which are vague on details and
explanation.
I specifically answered all your points on foreign policy and conflict,
pointing out what various scholars say, agreeing with you on some points,
and noting difficulties with your very vague desire to be strong enough
never to be at a disadvantage in an international affair (you need to
explain that much better). I also pointed to errors you make in terms of
analyzing American foreign policy, and holes in your theory by assertion
about the third world. Now I don't mind a strong forceful counter
argument -- indeed, I love having my ideas challenged with good arguments.
I really love it when those arguments cause me to change an opinion
because that shows I learned something, and I refuse to close my mind and
think I know it all. But you need to stop trying to pick fights and focus
on the substance.
My posts were clear, contained explanations, posed questions to you, and
were polite. Your responses were bitter, insulting, vague, and
incomplete. Lurkers can look back over this thread and compare (though I
see within this thread that I'm not the only one you seem to like to
attack...that's OK to, perhaps you just are doing this for some raucous
fun, and don't want the type of serious discussion on foreign policy I
would prefer...that's in fact probably good, because academic polite
discussions would get boring if thats all these groups contained...
ciao, scott
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
Martin McPhillips
>In article <37cd32fb...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
>>
>>That's funny, because every time your "depth" is probed, and I mean
>>a full dragging of the bottom of your lake, there's nothing there but
>>empty cans of Dodge.
>
>Methinks thou doth protest too much.
As an opening line, Scott, bad move. It's trite
and murderously affected, particularly when you've
used it so often.
<caterwalling and preening deleted as useless>
Scott Erb
>
>As an opening line, Scott, bad move. It's trite
>and murderously affected, particularly when you've
>used it so often.
Yet you've dropped all points of substance (or should I say you've
capitulated), you haven't given anything to support your assertions about
foreign policy, and your last posts have been nothing but attempts to
insult.
I hope you don't mind, but I'm feeling smug right now ;)
J G DeBerry
Scott Erb wrote:
> In article <37cd32fb...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
> >
> >That's funny, because every time your "depth" is probed, and I mean
> >a full dragging of the bottom of your lake, there's nothing there but
> >empty cans of Dodge.
>
> Methinks thou doth protest too much. You assert, you insult, and yet
> your arguments are mostly assertions which are vague on details and
> explanation.
>
Welcome back Erb. Now what was that old saying about the pot
calling the kettle black? I seem to have forgotten it. Perhaps I have
missed it but I remember someone spouting vagaries about some
Edenic government that was all thing to all people and would never
coerce others and that he would explain it all when he came back
from visiting Europe. Now just who was that person and did I miss
that dissertation?
JdB
Martin McPhillips
>In article <37cd4093...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
>>
>>As an opening line, Scott, bad move. It's trite
>>and murderously affected, particularly when you've
>>used it so often.
>
>Yet you've dropped all points of substance (or should I say you've
>capitulated),
I guess you missed that 463 line post I sent out yesterday, becuase
your response didn't make it's way here, and I get *everything*
these days.
Maybe you'll want to make your way to dejanews and retrieve it.
>you haven't given anything to support your assertions about
>foreign policy, and your last posts have been nothing but attempts to
>insult.
Scott, I supported not just my "assertions about foreign policy,"
I supported, in fact, with a few differences, what US foreign
policy *is.* I don't support Bill Clinton's odd and unstable
actions that warp the framework of that policy, but insofar
as foreign policy is bi- or even non-partisan, the maintenance of
a powerful conventional armed forces is the prudent
and correct course for the foreseeable future.
Your *theory* about disarmament relies upon wishing away
the responsibilities that the US has as the surviving superpower
from the Cold War as well as the strategic interests and
allies for which the US is the current guarantor.
And, as I pointed out in that post you apparently didn't see,
we are about 5 historical minutes past the breakdown of
a bi-polar geopolitical order, and the consequences both
of that order and its breakdown are not as yet clear and
apparent. The US is the status quo superpower, recognized
as such in all quarters, and most of those quarters are not
displeased with the stability that arrangement provides.
Neither is it an oppressive burden for the US in financial
terms, drawing as it does such a small percentage of
GDP.
It is also one of the few legitimate activities of the Federal
goverment that it actually handles well, just so long as
another Bill Clinton doesn't come along anytime soon.
American foreign policy has many aims and many arms
of which the military is but one. The armed forces are the
stick that looms large behind many carrots. And prudent
and wise use of the military is an effective *deterrent*
of war and a guarantor of peace.
Why don't you find a *collaborator* and write a scholarly
paper on how Clinton's misuse of the military threatened
the viability of that role for US armed forces. There you
go, something to do with your time.
>I hope you don't mind, but I'm feeling smug right now ;)
Well, hey, knock yourself out. If smug makes you feel good,
and keeps you away from being a snot, make a day out of it,
with my best wishes.
Scott Erb
>I guess you missed that 463 line post I sent out yesterday, becuase
>your response didn't make it's way here, and I get *everything*
>these days.
Yes, I'll have to go get it. My apologies for assuming you just dropped
the thread.
I'll deal with that rather than what you write below, except to point out:
>Your *theory* about disarmament relies upon wishing away
>the responsibilities that the US has as the surviving superpower
>from the Cold War as well as the strategic interests and
>allies for which the US is the current guarantor.
Perhaps, but: 1) I'm not theorizing about disarmament, but arguing that
the US could cut commitments and defense spending without putting itself
at risk; and 2) you are asserting particular strategic interests and
responsibilities in a vague manner. If you want to be precise (explain
what these interests and responsibilities are and why we need to maintain
them) and explain how much defense we need to do so, I'll certainly
consider your argument.
As for the breakdown of the bipolar order, my ideas are precisely because
I think interventionism and active US foreign policy will make the
transition to a new system more difficult and dangerous for all,
especially American citizens. But I'll find your post and deal with the
specifics there.
ciao, scott
Martin McPhillips
>In article <37cd4a94...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
>
>>I guess you missed that 463 line post I sent out yesterday, becuase
>>your response didn't make it's way here, and I get *everything*
>>these days.
>
>Yes, I'll have to go get it. My apologies for assuming you just dropped
>the thread.
No apologies required, Scott. I'm only here to help you break
the habit of ruining young minds at the University.
>I'll deal with that rather than what you write below, except to point out:
>
>>Your *theory* about disarmament relies upon wishing away
>>the responsibilities that the US has as the surviving superpower
>>from the Cold War as well as the strategic interests and
>>allies for which the US is the current guarantor.
>
>Perhaps, but: 1) I'm not theorizing about disarmament, but arguing that
>the US could cut commitments and defense spending without putting itself
>at risk;
Commitments and spending have already been cut. Defense spending
is at a very low level right now.
What you are suggesting is a force that would repel an invasion of
the North American continent. That kind of reduction is not in the cards.
You don't need an explanation for that from me, you can get it
in dozens of places.
> and 2) you are asserting particular strategic interests and
>responsibilities in a vague manner. If you want to be precise (explain
>what these interests and responsibilities are and why we need to maintain
>them) and explain how much defense we need to do so, I'll certainly
>consider your argument.
Oh, you'll consider my argument, I see.
You know what, Scott? Forget about it. Really.
I've explained to you clearly what my position is, and why your
position isn't going to be adopted any time soon. And why
it shouldn't be adopted.
So, I need to spend some time with work and not give you
another three or four hours of basically talking to myself.
>As for the breakdown of the bipolar order, my ideas are precisely because
>I think interventionism and active US foreign policy will make the
>transition to a new system more difficult and dangerous for all,
>especially American citizens. But I'll find your post and deal with the
>specifics there.
Like I said, forget about it.
Foreign policy isn't on my agenda this week. I should have ignored
your initial post.
Scott Erb
>Commitments and spending have already been cut. Defense spending
>is at a very low level right now.
This is the type of vague, meaningless assertion that you MUST add
substance to if you are to make a valid argument. We spend hundreds of
billions of dollars on defense. That's low? How do you define low? Who
spends more on defense than us? And that doesn't address the issue of
what threats exist, how much is needed to counter them, and the specific
issues. You remain vague and sloganistic.
>What you are suggesting is a force that would repel an invasion of
>the North American continent. That kind of reduction is not in the cards.
What's in the cards is irrelevant, I'm making a normative argument about
what "ought" to be, not a descriptive or predictive argument.
>You don't need an explanation for that from me, you can get it
>in dozens of places.
In other words, you don't know how to defend your vague assertions, but
you are sure that there must be good reasons out there. Perhaps, but in a
discussion like this if you make a proposition its usually expected you do
more than assert that its true and that somewhere "out there" one can get
the evidence supporting it.
-snip-
>Foreign policy isn't on my agenda this week. I should have ignored
>your initial post.
Yes, I do think you got in a bit over your head.
ciao, scott
Scott Erb
>
>No I didn't. Do you have something specific you would like to add to
>the factual discussion, as opposed to pulling a rhetorical gambit out >of
your otherwise empty hat?
You need a lesson on what theory is. Making the error of ignorance of the
non-occurrence is a specific cognitive error, not a theory. I was precise
in explaining what it was an error. You'd be better advised to deal with
the discussion rather than make up attacks.
>A good example of "self-fullfilling prophecy" is Bill Clinton's misuse
>of that military, and that is why endogenous circumstances have
>consequences in international politics. In other words, it *means*
>something to have and to allow a criminal to continue at the head of >the
>Executive branch of a superpower.
How on earth would all that be an example of a "self-fulfilling prophecy?"
You seem to only want to attack different people (I suspect you think that
I'm somehow bothered by your attacking Clinton, but I'm not a fan of his
either so its pretty meaningless to me), but you don't deal with the
argument.
-more similar stuff deleted-
>Your disillusion regarding Kosovo is *totally* out of place until you
>understand what people of common sense were telling you six
>years ago and every month of every year since, that *character*
>matters. Now you have proof of it in Clinton's military adventures
>over the past year and your response is to disarm the United States in
>a small world with many dangerous players.
Your response is out of place since I didn't vote for Clinton and never
expected him to have a foreign policy any different than that of Bush and
other previous leaders. American foreign policy tends to be rather
consistent. I do think Clinton probably didn't do much different than
Dole or Bush would have done, I see the problems as deeper within American
foreign policy than to try to blame one person. You seem to operate by
simply attacking personalities, however. However, it appears more a
ramble without substance than anything of import.
-snip-
>For 50 years the anarchy of geopolitics was strung on the wires
>of the bi-polar enmity between the US and the Soviet Union. We still
>do not understand either (a) the full consequences of that conflict,
>and more importantly (b) the full consequences of the termination of
>that conflict.
I deleted the points where you criticized me for stating the obvious. Yet
you do the same. So therefore I'll just turn the mirror and all the
insults you hurled can bounce back to you ;)
-snip-
>It may come off as an insult, but it directly pins the confusion and
>lack of comprehension of the subject you claim to be
>instructing students in.
I just love the fact that bugs you so much :)
-snip-
>First off, the US doesn't spend an enormous amount on defense as a
>percentage of its GDP.
But the US spends more than any other country in real terms. And that is
wholely irrelevant to what the US needs to spend to assure its defense.
It also is pretty bizarre to say the country that spends the most on
defense isn't spending much on defense.
>And the reason that a sufficiently powerful military is required I've
>explained to you above, and in the previous post.
No, here you lie. You only vaguely ASSERT the need, you never specify or
explain it. I don't think you have the ability to do so.
>But the short answer is: it's a small and getting smaller nuclear
>world and the US continues to have strategic interests.
State specifically what those strategic interests are, and what it would
take to deal with them. Remember, I never opposed complete disarmament,
even though that is the word you throw out.
>Military power is the best way to avoid and discourage wars, and there
>are very good guidelines for its use in particular situations.
Please provide evidence for this. Again, military powers tend to get into
wars more often, and the US certainly intervenes a lot. There may or may
not be good guidelines for its use, but you don't provide them. That
statement is also meaningless in defending your claim because I'm not
saying that the US should have NO military power, only that the current
amount is not necessary to assure our defense, and indeed is maintained
only to assure more intervention. Simply, you're rambling and vague.
-snip-
>Geopolitically, the US military is the stick that looms in the
>background of many carrots. That's not a theory, Scott.
No, its a really silly metaphor. You need to be more precise and talk
about reality, you need to deal with threats, possibilities and specifics.
Dumb metaphors hardly make much of a point.
-snip-
>truly threatens any of those interests. The US has vital interests in
>the Mid-East and on the Pacific Rim and at various other points in the
>world, including a number of dormant areas, such as general European
>security.
FINALLY you try to have some specifics! Refreshing. Yet you still aren't
very good at explaining why these are important. I assume the mid-east is
important for oil? But in general, you simply list places in the globe
and assert something vague called 'strategic interests.' You need to
determine why these are strategic interests and what threats exist. I
don't simply buy your claim based on your assertion.
>For instance, if the US stayed out of a war between the Koreas, it
>would be the looming presence of US forces that could prevent such a
>war from becoming a general Asian war, possibly involving China,
>Russia, and Japan. It's a traditional hot spot, and there are serious
>implications as well throughout Southeast Asia should a power vacuum
>be perceived (i.e. an *absence* of consequences for aggression).
An interesting asserted scenario, but: 1) your opinion certainly can't be
considered as fact; 2) even if an Asian war broke out, I don't see why the
US would want to get involved; and 3) such a war could spread even with US
forces.
>Right now an extremely delicate situation exists in Taiwan. US
>military force plays a role in that and provides the best chance that>
>no warfare will occur.
Its not our business if war occurs there. I really don't care if they go
to war or not. That's their choice.
>As the sole superpower in the world the US is in a position to prevent
>wars, but not if it disarms.
The US is also causing wars, helping push China and Russia together
against the growing American imperial threat, and making enemies by those
who aren't happy with the system. The US (and you) also tends to over
estimate its own power, a failing that historically has been very
dangerous, especially to the country doing the over estimation. The US
has also armed many of the thugs now threatening other countries, and even
stolen US technology is part of the problem.
> Your childish reaction to the abuse of US military action by Bill
>Clinton is to pretend that the military is only dangerous. Well, yes,
>indeed, it is dangerous, but never so dangerous as disarmament.
Alas, you lie again. I didn't claim that the military is the only danger,
I didn't say disarmament can't be dangerous (indeed, I clearly stated the
opposite in asking for a specific list of threats and what is needed), and
besides your dishonesty, you also remain vague and assertive, not really
making an argument.
-snip-
>I just don't know what to say. Yes, they don't have capability *now*.
>They may operate through third parties. We may *not* want to respond
>to an incident of nuclear terror with nuclear weapons. Our nuclear
>weapons may not forestall a incident of nuclear terror. At flashpoints
>in the world, when there are problems endogenous to specific nations,
>there often arise political/military regimes which can threaten a
>variety of interests in serious ways. In those cases, there is no
>reason to simply let things take their course when serious military
>force can be brought to bear before more serious complications arise.
No, you're a bit naive here (actually, and I don't mean this as an insult,
your arguments strike me as rather naive in general, basically ignoring
many complex issues involved in the use of military and the nature of
international relations. I really think you need to study this, more than
just slogans).
Simply: your ramble is a way for you to try to avoid admitting that the US
is NOT threatened by anyone. You claim things could change -- sure, and
we can watch the situation and respond to any emerging threats. You claim
flashpoints could become hot wars, but that doesn't mean we need to get
involved in all of them.
>The Gulf War is the best recent example of this. That is why you saw
>so many countries that normally wouldn't have anything to do with one
>another aligning themselves behind the US.
Your naive side is showing again. Syria cynically backed the US because
of Assad's hatred of Saddam, and the fact that the US would do the dirty
work of cutting down Iraq's military. Other countries had to have their
arms twisted, and the result of the war was a strengthened Iran, who is
the real threat in the region anyway. Iraq has only about 17 million
people, and would have lost to Iran in their war had they not been propped
up and helped (by the US as well as others -- Dole was in Iraq in 1990
promising Saddam aid). Actually, the Bush aid who said, "who cares if the
sign says Exxon or Texaco" probably had the right reaction to that
regional conflict. The coalition was weak and one made out of
self-interest, not out of support for the US.
>We don't even know yet the full political impact of the end of the
>Cold War. But history is a very good predictor, and there will
>be trouble. And the best way to convert trouble back into non-trouble
>is to have the force available to do so.
Again, you go for a slogan, but you avoid any real analysis. Your
statement is empty and vague.
-snip-
>A nation doesn't simply take on the kind of responsibility
>that the United States has and then turn its back on it,
Your concept of "responsibility" is also vague and sloganistic. Precisely
what responsibility do we have? My view: we determine what our
responsibility is, and it does not include keeping the rest of the world
safe from any threat. You seem to think the sky will fall if the US
somehow becomes less interventionalist and focuses on its own defense
rather than playing a world order role. Yet you don't really provide much
in the way of an argument except to assert that you're right. Not
impressive.
Sigh...I'll zip through the rest quickly, but so far you really haven't
made much of an argument that can't be asserted as such: "in an anarchic
system stability is only achieved when a hegemonic power is able to use
its position to assure order and promote trade and diplomatic solutions to
problems. The US is now the hegemon, and if it backed away from that
position of hegemony the world would become more dangerous and ultimately
US interests could be threatened."
However, that theory (HST - Hegemonic Stability Theory) has some strong
points, but historically there are problems. First, by exercising
hegemonic power, a state induces competition, as well as counter
alliances. Second, the US probably doesn't have the political will to do
everything a hegemon needs to do to retain oder, as a democracy the public
will not tolerate painful or long wars, and practically people don't see
the point. Third, hegemonic or leading positions in a system often lead
to misuse of power. You seem to want to define that problem away by just
saying a bad President misused power. But that President was popular and
re-elected, so you can't assume that many bad Presidents will come to
power and misuse power. That is build into the system. Your own
criticisms of Clinton are actually reasons why your position is dangerous.
Fourth, absent a hegemon new balances will emerge, perhaps with less war
than a hegemonic war would cause should that take place. Finally, its not
clear that the US really benefits from having a role as a hegemonic power.
I certainly think that the political will to maintain that role isn't
there. That leads to the Lippmann gap, where our commitments are greater
than our will and capacity. That is dangerous.
While more spending could increase capacity, I don't you'll increase the
will of Americans to be involved.
>We were well prepared to fight a non-nuclear defense of Western
>Europe, and the use of nuclear weapons was not automatically
>a part of a response to a conventional war in Europe.
But everyone knew that the US was relying solely on nuclear deterrence.
That's why De Gaulle hated flexible response. Now, it could have been
possible that the East European troops would not have followed Soviet
orders and thus a conventional attack would have failed. But given Soviet
superiority in conventional forces, it was assumed the US would have to
use nuclear weapons to defend Western Europe.
However, many scholars, especially those looking at old Soviet documents,
now recognize that the chances of a Soviet attack on western Europe even
without American presence were very, very low. The Soviets had their own
problems, and actually couldn't even take Afghanistan.
That's another error too often make -- over estimating the threat,
assuming that the conceivable is probable.
>Scott, you are proposing disarmament for the United States and I'm the
>one who needs to better support my position?
You need to be careful of your use of words. I obviously never said the
United States should disarm. I said the US could cut defense spending
significantly and still be able to assure its ability to defend itself and
its interests. I explained why. You've tried in this post to make the
argument that you need a force for hegemonic stability (you were vague and
disjointed in making that argument, but to be nice to you I tried to put
it in the most logical light), and I show why I think that argument isn't
valid.
ciao, scott
Martin McPhillips
>In article <37cd5ed7...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
>
>>Commitments and spending have already been cut. Defense spending
>>is at a very low level right now.
>
>This is the type of vague, meaningless assertion that you MUST add
>substance to if you are to make a valid argument. We spend hundreds of
>billions of dollars on defense. That's low? How do you define low?
The lowest level as a percentage of GDP since WWII, or close.
That's how defense spending is usually measured as a burden
on a society. It's also at a much lower level as a percentage of
the federal budget than it was at the peak of the Cold War.
<snip>
>>Foreign policy isn't on my agenda this week. I should have ignored
>>your initial post.
>
>Yes, I do think you got in a bit over your head.
That's probably true. Giving remedial classes has never been
one of my strengths.
Perhaps I can hook you up with a bright undergraduate and let
him try to get you through the basics. Don't worry, I won't tell
him that you think you know what you're talking about, if you don't.
Martin McPhillips
>In article <37cb305d...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
<snip some of the usual snotty stuff>
>>A good example of "self-fullfilling prophecy" is Bill Clinton's misuse
>>of that military, and that is why endogenous circumstances have
>>consequences in international politics. In other words, it *means*
>>something to have and to allow a criminal to continue at the head of >the
>>Executive branch of a superpower.
>
>How on earth would all that be an example of a "self-fulfilling prophecy?"
All three instances, the bombing of Iraq, the missile attack on Sudan,
and the Kosovo debacle, were preceded by months (weeks in the case
of Sudan) by a trumping up the dangers of (1) the stoppage of arms
inspections in Iraq (with the resulting military action eliminating all
possibility of arms inspections); (2) the wiles and dangers of Osama
bin Laden (with the attack on the Sudan plant later discovered to
be unfounded); (3) the new Hitler, Milosevic and his ominous
threat to the Kosovars (with the resulting military action bringing
about the trampling of Kosovo).
And all three were brought to a head at crucial moments in
Clinton's domestic travails.
Pardon me if I yet again made the mistake of assuming that
you understood how the Clinton Administration's attitudes and
statements preceding those incidents predicated the military
adventures. In each case, fundamental guidelines for using force
were ignored, bent, shifted, or abused.
And, again, in each case the incidents were initiated at peak
moments in Clinton's scandals.
So, not just self-fulfilling prophecies, but *designed* to be
self-fulfilling prophecies. And not just self-fulling prophecies
in terms of the predicate military actions, but in the cases
of Iraq and Kosovo they *assured* the exact results that they
were claimed as deterrents to.
Are you caught up on that now?
>You seem to only want to attack different people (I suspect you think that
>I'm somehow bothered by your attacking Clinton, but I'm not a fan of his
>either so its pretty meaningless to me), but you don't deal with the
>argument.
Yeah, I already know about your lack of understanding of the effect
of domestic politics on international affairs, that's why I make constant
reference to the problems caused by having a scandal ridden criminal
as the head of a superpower war machine.
But it's nice to see the distance you've put between yourself and
Clinton. I remember one post of yours where you suggested that
I was jealous of Clintion because he was so "successful."
I guess you're not that stupid now.
>-more similar stuff deleted-
<snip the whole shitload of usual stuff>
Sorry, Scott, no more remediation for you today.
I'll look around on the net for an undergraduate with
some patience to help you get up to speed. Try not
to embarrass yourself in the meantime.
tony G as Frank Cannon
wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Sep 99 16:18:20 EST, scot...@maine.edu (Scott Erb) wrote:
>
>>In article <37cb305d...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
>
><snip some of the usual snotty stuff>
>
>>>A good example of "self-fullfilling prophecy" is Bill Clinton's misuse
>>>of that military, and that is why endogenous circumstances have
>>>consequences in international politics. In other words, it *means*
>>>something to have and to allow a criminal to continue at the head of >the
>>>Executive branch of a superpower.
>>
>>How on earth would all that be an example of a "self-fulfilling prophecy?"
>
>All three instances, the bombing of Iraq, the missile attack on Sudan,
>and the Kosovo debacle, were preceded by months (weeks in the case
>of Sudan) by a trumping up the dangers of (1) the stoppage of arms
>inspections in Iraq (with the resulting military action eliminating all
>possibility of arms inspections); (2) the wiles and dangers of Osama
>bin Laden (with the attack on the Sudan plant later discovered to
>be unfounded); (3) the new Hitler, Milosevic and his ominous
>threat to the Kosovars (with the resulting military action bringing
>about the trampling of Kosovo).
>
>And all three were brought to a head at crucial moments in
>Clinton's domestic travails.
>
>Pardon me if I yet again made the mistake of assuming that
>you understood how the Clinton Administration's attitudes and
>statements preceding those incidents predicated the military
>adventures. In each case, fundamental guidelines for using force
>were ignored, bent, shifted, or abused.
>
>And, again, in each case the incidents were initiated at peak
>moments in Clinton's scandals.
>
>So, not just self-fulfilling prophecies, but *designed* to be
>self-fulfilling prophecies. And not just self-fulling prophecies
>in terms of the predicate military actions, but in the cases
>of Iraq and Kosovo they *assured* the exact results that they
>were claimed as deterrents to.
>
>Are you caught up on that now?
If I may.
Erb has repeatedly stated that he is not a fan of Clinton. You
apparently are attempting to stick him with Clinton's foreign policy.
Clintons foreign policy is a continuation of Bush, Reagan. Carter,
etc...
It is basically a conservative one.
>>You seem to only want to attack different people (I suspect you think that
>>I'm somehow bothered by your attacking Clinton, but I'm not a fan of his
>>either so its pretty meaningless to me), but you don't deal with the
>>argument.
>
>Yeah, I already know about your lack of understanding of the effect
>of domestic politics on international affairs, that's why I make constant
>reference to the problems caused by having a scandal ridden criminal
>as the head of a superpower war machine.
This would go for Reagan and Bush. Of course their scandals and
foreign policy bungling are OK since they have been put into the
correct codeified form.
If I may again.
Erb's points seem to be that no matter who is in office they are going
to get us into stupid situations. You on the other hand seem to think
that only <ahem>liberals get us into bad situations.
Scott Erb
>
>The lowest level as a percentage of GDP since WWII, or close.
Yet more spent on defense than any other country in the world. You see,
you're simply playing with criteria. If we compare to GDP its rather low,
if we compare to other countries, its rather high.
Neither is relevant AT ALL to the question of how much money we should
spend. The only issue relevant to that question is: 1) what threats
exist; 2) what force is necessary to deter or repel those threats; and 3)
what interests exist outside of legitimate threats that require a strong
force.
I suspect our disagreement centers around number 3; I'm not convinced many
if any fit into that category, you seem to think a wide variety of threats
are there. In any event, if you want to turn this into the type of
argument over definitions you had with another poster (in this case how
you define spending more than any other country in the world to be low
spending), its meaningless. It doesn't give us a clue as to how much is
needed.
I think you're basically a bright guy and I don't at all dislike you. I
just think you need to settle down a bit before you turn on your
flamethrower (after all internet insults ARE impotent -- they only sting
if you let them, and they usually make the insulter look worse than the
insulted), and seriously consider the other person's proposition. But
then again, that could I suppose get boring ;)
Scott Erb
>>How on earth would all that be an example of a "self-fulfilling
prophecy?"
>
>All three instances, the bombing of Iraq, the missile attack on Sudan,
>and the Kosovo debacle, were preceded by months (weeks in the case
>of Sudan) by a trumping up the dangers of (1) the stoppage of arms
>inspections in Iraq (with the resulting military action eliminating all
>possibility of arms inspections); (2) the wiles and dangers of Osama
>bin Laden (with the attack on the Sudan plant later discovered to
>be unfounded); (3) the new Hitler, Milosevic and his ominous
>threat to the Kosovars (with the resulting military action bringing
>about the trampling of Kosovo).
>
>And all three were brought to a head at crucial moments in
>Clinton's domestic travails.
That is not what a self-fulfilling prophecy means. You are mistaking a
claim of strategically manufacturing crises for domestic purposes as a
claim for a self-fulfilling prophecy.
A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when your fear of X causes you to do
precisely the thing that makes X more likely. It differs from the former
in that a self-fulfilling prophecy is an "honest" mistake, the person
sincerely wants to avoid X.
>So, not just self-fulfilling prophecies, but *designed* to be
>self-fulfilling prophecies.
Actually, if what you claim is true the term 'self-fulfilling prophecy'
would be most inappropriate. Illegal and cynical abuse of power would be
a better term. I'm sure as memoirs are written, we'll know more about
what went on behind the scenes.
>But it's nice to see the distance you've put between yourself and
>Clinton. I remember one post of yours where you suggested that
>I was jealous of Clintion because he was so "successful."
Hell, I'm in awe of the guy for his success at playing politics. But I
still didn't vote for him.
Again, I think you have the kernels of some interesting ideas, but you
really have to learn to accept disagreement and debate in a more cordial
manner if you're going have your ideas considered seriously. You seem so
eager to insult (and when you do I admit I slyly throw in an arrogant
sounding claim or narcissistic remark because I know that irks the heck
out of you -- I can be mischeviously playful, even if I prefer a
friendly exchange), but when we play those games we render a potentially
useful debate on the future of American defense policy into a silly
exchange with little meaning.
ciao, scott
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
Joe Krolikowski
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> In article <37CB67E8...@mediaone.net>, jkroli...@mediaone.net says...
> >
>
> >While I can agree with the idea of not playing at being WorldCop, I'm
> >wondering just how you would get much more out of the DoD, which by all
> >accounts is scraping the bottom right now. Given the fact that the budget
> >for next year is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.8 trillion
> >mostly wasted dollars, the greater percentage of which is *not* going to the
> >DoD, the so-called "Peace Dividend," is a dead horse.
>
> That sort of depends on the foreign policy goals.
However, we cannot simply ignore the military reality behind foreign policy
goals. This is precisely what is happening now with a shrinking force and
lengthening deployments by units who are short on both the personnel and the spare
parts to keep the equipment in an operational status.
Continued cannabalizing of spare parts means that when we send forces into harm's
way, the overall force is depleted because a significant percentage of the planes
and tanks and other equipment we send with the troops are little more than useless
"hangar queens."
Lengthening deployments also has it's effect on personnel who end up combatting
their own fatique, and sacrificing the training time of replacement personnel, as
well as being unable to maintain equipment that breaks down from continual uese.
As well as military reality, the other important thing that foreign policy goals
cannot afford to ignore is the physics. Nothing (and no one) has yet been able to
either escape from, or devise a way to skirt around the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics. And they never will.
> If we are focused on making sure no one dares attack the United States, I
> suspect we can get by much cheaper.
In theory, I suppose that we could, just so long as we buy *quality.* But this
doesn't seem to be happening as all branches of the military seem to be
hemorrhaging their most competent operators and replacing them with politically
correct paper pushers.
REMF's aren't sufficient deterrence to any aggressor trying to stir up trouble.
The only thing that can act as such is a visible projection of overwhelming force,
coupled with the political will to use it, should it become necessary.
> There are still a lot of cold war high price tag weapons coming off
> the line that probably aren't worth the cost.
Which, given the economics of military procurement, possess that high price tag
precisely due to a system that tries to maintain a measure of fairness so
exacting. that the contractors in question are undoubtedly adding the cost of the
bureaucracy to the items that they are producing, else their stock holders would
probably lynch the various CEO's for pouring corporate assets down a sinkhole.
> Also, don't forget that we were relatively "unprepared" for both WWI and WWII,
> and with a strong economy could recover quickly.
And we also, at least in the case of WWII, had a credible threat to defend
against. Absent that, I doubt that even a strong economy would be enough of a
motivator to kick the complacent from their slumber, unless events line up in a
way that would disturb the economic status quo.
> With a nuclear deterrent and a viable defense force, how much do we need to
> spend?
Nuclear deterrence is an extremely dangerous card to play in any conflict, as such
brinksmanship can all too easily backfire. And what is this noise about a viable
defense force? As currently constituted and equipped, we don't have one. A
viable defense force would be one where, by the time the first private steps off
the accomodation ladder of the transport, aggressors should realize that they've
bought themselves far more trouble than they can possibly handle.
Cold War military policy was to be able to equip and deploy sufficient force to be
able to handle two conventional wars simultaneously as well as a peacekeeping
mission on the side. The trouble is that this policy has been a well maintained
*fiction* from the moment it was first promulgated.
> That's the issue that is controversial.
Mainly because the believers in the "Peace Dividend" are almost wholly ignorant of
the true cost of proper defense, vs. the operators at the sharp end who have been
faced with it's geopolitical realities.
> >> 2) reform the CIA to an intelligence gathering and analysis agency that
> >> operates in the open and without covert activities;
> >
> >How would you accomplish this one, since by definition, intelligence
> >gathering entails getting information that other governments would prefer
> >that we *not* have?
>
> It does amuse me that we get so upset about China or Russia spying when we do
> the exact same thing.
In the current administration, what is upsetting is not the tacit acknowledgement
of it's occurance, but allowing it's continuance once such activity has been
detected. Contrast the handling of the Wen Ho Lee situation to others such as
Aldrich Ames and the Walker/Wentworth spy ring.
> But again, if we aren't involved in superpower games, how much of this do we
> need?
Without another superpower to be spying on, a determination of the possible
threats will dictate the amount of this sort of activity that is required.
> But you have a point -- perhaps much of what is done needs to be done in
> private.
Not only does this protect exactly *what* information has been gathered, there is
the small matter of *how* it was gathered, as well as from *whom* it was obtained.
> I would prefer cutting out most covert activities and try to keep things as open
> as possible.
The question of *how* to do this is the most pertinent one.
> The danger to a democracy comes when government can't be held accountable -- if
> the people and press don't know what's happening, nasty things result.
You know, I really *hate* this part of the argument, because I can acknowledge
both the pragmatic necessity for intelligence gathering activity, and the need to
protect against abuse of a system so easily corrupted into violating people's
rights.
The conventional response in terms of accountability is to strengthen oversight of
the agencies involved, but it is a reality that the body that is charged with
oversight is politically volatile, prone to leaks and riddled with special
interests.
I haven't got a satisfactory answer to this one. I wish I did, though.
Joe Krolikowski
Joe Krolikowski
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> In article <37CC6206...@ix.netcom.com>, wew...@ix.netcom.com says...
> >
> >> US cut down its defenses significantly and stopped intervening in foreign
> >> wars, who would attack us?
> >
> >Anyone that felt like it.
>
> Your vague answer suggests you don't know, but you sure like being hawkish!
Yet he has a point. An act of aggression can be considered to be an act of armed
robbery writ large, and any aggressor who realizes the extent of our military
capabilities can easily compare them to his military capabilities, and if such a
comparison yields what he believes to be a positive advantage can tailor and
launch an attack to try to accomplish his goals.
The military logic is inescapable, and is not necessarily dependent upon
emotional motivation or other outside consideration.
Joe Krolikowski
wayne mann
wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Sep 99 13:10:36 EST, scot...@maine.edu (Scott Erb) wrote:
>
>>In article <37cd4a94...@news.nyct.net>, cay...@nyct.net says...
>>
>>>I guess you missed that 463 line post I sent out yesterday, becuase
>>>your response didn't make it's way here, and I get *everything*
>>>these days.
>>
>>Yes, I'll have to go get it. My apologies for assuming you just dropped
>>the thread.
>
>No apologies required, Scott. I'm only here to help you break
>the habit of ruining young minds at the University.
>
>>I'll deal with that rather than what you write below, except to point out:
>>
>>>Your *theory* about disarmament relies upon wishing away
>>>the responsibilities that the US has as the surviving superpower
>>>from the Cold War as well as the strategic interests and
>>>allies for which the US is the current guarantor.
>>
>>Perhaps, but: 1) I'm not theorizing about disarmament, but arguing that
>>the US could cut commitments and defense spending without putting itself
>>at risk;
>
>Commitments and spending have already been cut. Defense spending
>is at a very low level right now.
In FACT defense spending is LOWER now than when Japan bombed
Pearl Harbor. We then had men go into training for WW-II using
sticks for rifles, and all kinds of substitutes for weapons that we
did not have. After all as ANY College Professor should KNOW, defense
is the first among very few responsibilities the Federal government
has.
If NO ONE responded any of the Dirty Dozen;
bredon
dsharp673
Erb
insanityfactory
jared476
Jed Wells
Lochner
Rosell19
trebor
Tyrbiter
Voltai29
Zepp
None of us would have to see thier crap, since most of us
have them kill filed. We are ONLY forced to see thier lies and BS
when someone responds to them. Let us all kill file and not respond
to this group.
Other than this, Erb is a complete waste of time. He is one
of the Dirty Dozen anyway. Just kill file him now and save yourself a
lot of aggravation trying to deal with his word games, ignorance and
stupidity and dishonest debating style.
\\/ayne //\ann
"The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend
to be something they're not."
-- Hillary Clinton - 1992 60 Minutes interview
Scott D. Erb
>
>
>Yet he has a point. An act of aggression can be considered to be an act of
armed
>robbery writ large, and any aggressor who realizes the extent of our military
>capabilities can easily compare them to his military capabilities, and if
such a
>comparison yields what he believes to be a positive advantage can tailor and
>launch an attack to try to accomplish his goals.
A couple problems with that. First, you assume that everyone is going to try
to attack someone if they can. By that logic, Mexico and Canada have every
reason to build up their defenses as quick as they can against us, since we
are capable of just going in and taking what we want. Maybe now we won't do
that, but if water gets scarce, Canada might need to protect themselves. By
that logic, every country needs to be stronger than every other country...that
sets up arms races and security dilemmas.
The best would be a military that is strong enough to deter and protect, but
not strong enough to threaten (or, if it is, not internventionist enough to
create a perceived threat). Practically, I think that can be done, with
diplomacy and (yes) intelligence gathering used to reassess our position and
watch what else is happening in the world.
ciao, scott
Scott D. Erb
>
>However, we cannot simply ignore the military reality behind foreign policy
>goals. This is precisely what is happening now with a shrinking force and
>lengthening deployments by units who are short on both the personnel and the
>spare parts to keep the equipment in an operational status.
That's irrelevant to my point. The point I made is that if we redefined
foreign policy goals, then a large, expensive army would not be necessary. We
could cut back military spending and military equipment to a level necessary
to achieve whatever we redefined those goals to be. Thus the debate must be
about what the proper objectives are, not simply how prepared the current
military is.
>Continued cannabalizing of spare parts means that when we send forces into
>harm's way, the overall force is depleted because a significant percentage of
>the planes and tanks and other equipment we send with the troops are little
>more than useless "hangar queens."
Given we still spend more money on the military in real terms than anyone
else, I suspect we're not as under prepared as you suggest. Still, that could
also be seen as an argument to rethink objectives and avoid the "Lippmann
gap," where capabilities and will are not equal to commitments.
>Lengthening deployments also has it's effect on personnel who end up
>combatting their own fatique, and sacrificing the training time of
>replacement personnel, as well as being unable to maintain equipment that
>breaks down from continual uese.
But if we redefine objectives, we wouldn't need such long deployments. If the
situation is as bad as you assert, and if we kept the current levels of
commitments, then your conclusion will follow. I'm not sure if it is that
bad, but I won't quibble with you on that since the point I focus on is the
level of our commitments, and whether they are necessary.
>As well as military reality, the other important thing that foreign policy
>goals cannot afford to ignore is the physics. Nothing (and no one) has yet
>been able to either escape from, or devise a way to skirt around the 2nd Law
>of Thermodynamics. And they never will.
I think everyone agrees that the 2nd law of thermodynamics can't be avoided.
I'm not sure what your point is here though.
>In theory, I suppose that we could, just so long as we buy *quality.* But
>this doesn't seem to be happening as all branches of the military seem to be
>hemorrhaging their most competent operators and replacing them with
>politically correct paper pushers.
So you think the military has to be reformed somehow? Its easy for us as arm
chair quarterbacks to criticize. I can suggest different objectives, you can
claim the military isn't doing the right thing (I would argue that they are
behaving just like any other bureaucracy, and that is part of the problem of
being so big). But what kind of reform could solve that?
>REMF's aren't sufficient deterrence to any aggressor trying to stir up
>trouble. The only thing that can act as such is a visible projection of
>overwhelming force,
>coupled with the political will to use it, should it become necessary.
A few problems with that. First, if everyone thinks that way, then you have
inevitable militarism and arms races because no one will think they are safe
unless they are the strongest (the security dilemma). Second, the political
will is there for self-defense, it is not there -- and in this society never
likely will be there -- for interventions outside our territory which are not
seen as a real threat. In WWI it took sub attacks and a perceived threat via
Mexico, in WWII it took an attack on Pearl Harbour. Even then, nobody could
really threaten the bulk of our territory. Third, your proposition is vague.
What is "overwhelming force" and how much is needed? It seems like a blank
check to simply build more and more military equipment.
>Which, given the economics of military procurement, possess that high price
>tag precisely due to a system that tries to maintain a measure of fairness so
>exacting. that the contractors in question are undoubtedly adding the cost of
>the bureaucracy to the items that they are producing, else their stock
>holders would probably lynch the various CEO's for pouring corporate assets
>down a sinkhole.
So should we nationalize the industries that produce for the military? I'm
not sure what the solution to all of this would be. But even so, the fact
remains that some of these high price weapons would not be needed if we
redefined our commitments; many think they are not needed at all in the
post-cold war period.
>And we also, at least in the case of WWII, had a credible threat to defend
>against.
Japan could not have defeated us, but could have developed an Asian hegemony
that in the long run could have been a threat. Its hard to know what would
have happened there. Germany was no threat to the US, and would have sooner
or later lost -- their war was lost on June 22, 1941.
> Absent that, I doubt that even a strong economy would be enough of a
>motivator to kick the complacent from their slumber, unless events line up in
>a way that would disturb the economic status quo.
>Nuclear deterrence is an extremely dangerous card to play in any conflict, as
Only extended deterrence. I think that in terms of real deterrence --
detering an attack from our own territory -- it probably can function well.
The problem is that when we project power via interventions, or try to defend
other states involved in other conflicts, the equation gets messy and
miscalculations are more likely. Given the geographic location of the US and
the nature of possible threats, I am convinced that nuclear deterrence would
stop anyone from launching an attack - and if we redefine our objectives, the
desire of other countries to attack would be almost nil. The cost/benefit
ratio would be enormously negative, and we wouldn't be stirring up enemies
around the world.
>such brinksmanship can all too easily backfire. And what is this noise about
>a viable defense force? As currently constituted and equipped, we don't have
>one. A viable defense force would be one where, by the time the first
>private steps off the accomodation ladder of the transport, aggressors should
>realize that they've bought themselves far more trouble than they can
>possibly handle.
A viable defense force means simply that the force is strong enough to assure
that any aggression against our territory will be repelled, or, better, that
aggression is detered. It also means that the force should not be so strong
as to be perceived as aggressive, or so interventionist, that our goals are
perceived as imperial. Once that happens, we make more enemies, and expand
our commitments to the point that a viable defense force becomes an imperial
force needing much more in the way of weapons, money, people, and political
will.
>Cold War military policy was to be able to equip and deploy sufficient force
>to be able to handle two conventional wars simultaneously as well as a
>peacekeeping mission on the side. The trouble is that this policy has been a
>well maintained *fiction* from the moment it was first promulgated.
To me the trouble is that we need to focus on one possible conventional war --
an attack on the US -- and then treat peace keeping requests very skeptically,
adding whatever cost that is to our budget based on what the public can
accept.
>Mainly because the believers in the "Peace Dividend" are almost wholly
>ignorant of the true cost of proper defense, vs. the operators at the sharp
>end who have been faced with it's geopolitical realities.
That's a vague sentence. You assume you know what 'proper defense' is, when
that's a controversial issue. You also say 'geopolitical realities' as if
there is a consensus on that. The geopolitical reality is that the US is not
very vulnerable to attack, and that decreases the size of our defense needs.
-snip parts of intelligence agency debate...you make some good points...on to
the issue of protecting the public
>You know, I really *hate* this part of the argument, because I can
>acknowledge both the pragmatic necessity for intelligence gathering activity,
>and the need to protect against abuse of a system so easily corrupted into
>violating people's rights.
To me that also is an issue of having superpower commitments. I really think
that taking an imperial role (or hegemonic role) in the world, whether
necessary or not did have the effect of dramatically increasing the size of
government and bureaucracy. I think Ike's warning about the "military
industrial complex" was recognition of this (as was his 'more bang for the
buck' policy). Perhaps the US lost part of its identity (to be poetic one
could say it lost part of its soul) when it jettisoned the basic isolationism
of its past which kept the government smaller and kept us out of other
people's fights in order to build our own system and let economic success and
an example of 'e pluribus unum' to the rest of the world. I think we should
be economically involved, work with others, and avoid pure isolationism. But
I don't think we make good imperialists or hegemons. We lack the political
will, it really isn't in our long term interests (in my opinion), and it
sacrifices individual political liberty. I know that's a controversial stance
and save some on the left, and most libertarians, its a minority position, but
I think it at least deserves consideration.
>The conventional response in terms of accountability is to strengthen
oversight of
>the agencies involved, but it is a reality that the body that is charged with
>oversight is politically volatile, prone to leaks and riddled with special
>interests.
>
>I haven't got a satisfactory answer to this one. I wish I did, though.
Governance is full of such dilemmas where there is no clear answer. But if we
need the intelligence and need such covert actions, that's still probably the
best answer (keeping the press free and unrestricted is also important -- they
are the last line of defense when government cover ups and corruption occur).
I would at least try to open it up as much as possible.
ciao, scott
Joe Krolikowski
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> In article <37CDE2B0...@mediaone.net>, jkroli...@mediaone.net says...
> >
> >
> >Yet he has a point. An act of aggression can be considered to be an act of
> armed
> >robbery writ large, and any aggressor who realizes the extent of our military
> >capabilities can easily compare them to his military capabilities, and if
> such a
> >comparison yields what he believes to be a positive advantage can tailor and
> >launch an attack to try to accomplish his goals.
>
> A couple problems with that. First, you assume that everyone is going to try
> to attack someone if they can.
I wasn't assuming anything. Determinations of the potential threats are a
standard exercise for defense. If you don't know what the opposition is capable
of, regardless of who it is, the default position for military planning is to
assume that the opposition has capabilities that are the equal of yours.
> By that logic, Mexico and Canada have every reason to build up their defenses as
> quick as they can against us, since we are capable of just going in and taking
> what we want.
This is where the politics come into play, and I was merely discussing the
calculus of forces.
> Maybe now we won't do that, but if water gets scarce, Canada might need to
> protect themselves.
That would be really dumb, and I'll tell you why. All we would need to do is to
build some desalination plants and lay a pipe into the Pacific or Atlantic,
thereby giving us all the water we would need. The technology to accomplish this
on a large scale exists, and was developed by a company in California (I don't
remember the name) who built such plants for the Kuwaiti's.
No need for aggression exists in this scenario. After all, if availability of
water became a problem, the company spoken about above would simply sell and build
another plant.
> The best would be a military that is strong enough to deter and protect, but
> not strong enough to threaten (or, if it is, not internventionist enough to
> create a perceived threat).
Which is determined by knowing what any potential opposition is capable of. We've
just come full circle on this one, Scott.
> Practically, I think that can be done, with diplomacy and (yes) intelligence
> gathering used to reassess our position and watch what else is happening in the
> world.
Quite so. However none of it is likely to happen in a vacuum, so to speak. While
it begins with not pissing off other countries, the only way to properly defend
ourselves is to know what the other guy can or cannot do.
Joe Krolikowski
Joe Krolikowski
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> In article <37CDE021...@mediaone.net>, jkroli...@mediaone.net says...
> >
>
> >However, we cannot simply ignore the military reality behind foreign policy
> >goals. This is precisely what is happening now with a shrinking force and
> >lengthening deployments by units who are short on both the personnel and the
> >spare parts to keep the equipment in an operational status.
>
> That's irrelevant to my point.
Theoretically, you may be correct. However, when foreign policy fails, that's
when the military usually steps up to the plate, so I don't see how you can unlink
the two, and still accomplish either the foreign policy or the mission.
> The point I made is that if we redefined foreign policy goals, then a large,
> expensive army would not be necessary.
Then how would we do such a thing? Appeasement? Shooting first? Stressing
foreign policy and diplomacy is all well and good, but when diplomacy fails then
what?
> We could cut back military spending and military equipment to a level necessary
> to achieve whatever we redefined those goals to be.
What would that be? Just how do you think such a thing can be achieved?
> Thus the debate must be about what the proper objectives are, not simply how
> prepared the current military is.
Then it becomes necessary to determine *what* the "proper objectives" are, and
specifically *how* they can be implemented or achieved. Since military
preparedness is part of the equation, it cannot simply be ignored.
> >Continued cannabalizing of spare parts means that when we send forces into
> >harm's way, the overall force is depleted because a significant percentage of
> >the planes and tanks and other equipment we send with the troops are little
> >more than useless "hangar queens."
>
> Given we still spend more money on the military in real terms than anyone
> else, I suspect we're not as under prepared as you suggest.
Unfortunately for this part of the argument, I have personal first-hand experience
in the military and have *seen* this for myself. Also, most of the money that the
DoD spends (upwards of 60-70%, depending on who you get your information from)
goes toward such things as bulk food purchases, housing and related costs
(utilities), military pay, clothing manufacturers (uniforms and related articles,
which is resold to military members in the various post exchanges), forms and
other office supplies (in boxed quantities that are simply *staggering* to
behold), and large quantities of all kinds of sundry items.
Let's consider fuel, for example. At the beginning of each fiscal year, each unit
is allocated a specific amount that they can use in training, and deployments. If
it gets used up too quickly, then the unit does *not* conduct ops or training
until they next allocation. This applies not only to tanks and other small
vehicles, but to ships as well. When I was in, we had a scheduled pre-deployment
work up pushed back because there wasn't enough resources left to run the ship.
I've seen the stories that discuss the problems with personnel retention and
recruiting, I've my own experience in the Navy, so I know what goes on. Hell, my
own brother-in-law is currently a Marine, so I get to hear about what's going on
*now,* and you want to know something? What I hear from my brother-in-law tends
to confirm some of the stories about readiness and personnel that we read from
experts like Col. Hackworth and others.
I don't have to *suspect* anything. So, you want to try this one, again, or what?
> >Lengthening deployments also has it's effect on personnel who end up
> >combatting their own fatique, and sacrificing the training time of
> >replacement personnel, as well as being unable to maintain equipment that
> >breaks down from continual uese.
>
> But if we redefine objectives, we wouldn't need such long deployments.
Redefine them how? And as what?
> If the situation is as bad as you assert, and if we kept the current levels of
> commitments, then your conclusion will follow. I'm not sure if it is that
> bad, but I won't quibble with you on that since the point I focus on is the
> level of our commitments, and whether they are necessary.
You do keep going on about reducing the level of our commitments, but at this
juncture, I'd certainly like to know what you would intend to actually *do* about
them, you know, in real life. I think that at this point, we need to be clear on
this.
> >As well as military reality, the other important thing that foreign policy
> >goals cannot afford to ignore is the physics. Nothing (and no one) has yet
> >been able to either escape from, or devise a way to skirt around the 2nd Law
> >of Thermodynamics. And they never will.
>
> I think everyone agrees that the 2nd law of thermodynamics can't be avoided. I'm
> not sure what your point is here though.
It might not have been the best choice as an analogy, but the point is that
reality cannot be avoided simply because you choose to try to.
> >In theory, I suppose that we could, just so long as we buy *quality.* But
> >this doesn't seem to be happening as all branches of the military seem to be
> >hemorrhaging their most competent operators and replacing them with
> >politically correct paper pushers.
>
> So you think the military has to be reformed somehow?
No, quite the opposite, actually. I think that efforts to reform the military
into something that is not, should *stop.*
> Its easy for us as arm chair quarterbacks to criticize.
"Arm chair quarterback?" Speak for yourself.
> I can suggest different objectives, you can claim the military isn't doing the
> right thing (I would argue that they are behaving just like any other
> bureaucracy, and that is part of the problem of being so big). But what kind of
> reform could solve that?
No specific reform is needed. What is required is to ensure that our military
forces are properly trained and equipped, then allow them to accomplish their
mission.
That's all, and it's really not that difficult to figure out.
> >REMF's aren't sufficient deterrence to any aggressor trying to stir up
> >trouble. The only thing that can act as such is a visible projection of
> >overwhelming force,
> >coupled with the political will to use it, should it become necessary.
>
> A few problems with that.
What problems? You don't expect the paper pushers to protect you do you? As to
the rest, I know you don't have any military experience, so we'll just let things
at this point.
> Governance is full of such dilemmas where there is no clear answer. But if we
> need the intelligence and need such covert actions, that's still probably the
> best answer (keeping the press free and unrestricted is also important -- they
> are the last line of defense when government cover ups and corruption occur).
This is almost funny, since the press has become the visible rubberstamp of
government activity.
Joe Krolikowski
Scott D. Erb
>
>I wasn't assuming anything. Determinations of the potential threats are a
>standard exercise for defense. If you don't know what the opposition is
>capable of, regardless of who it is, the default position for military
>planning is to assume that the opposition has capabilities that are the equal
>of yours.
That doesn't address the issue; namely, we spend more than anyone else on
defense and I daresay that no state could conquer the U.S. I do not see any
threat that requires the level of spending we have. You have to leave the
abstract assumptions, and look at real world situations to assess what real
spending level is necessary. However, I think that comes along below...
>This is where the politics come into play, and I was merely discussing the
>calculus of forces.
Politics is always part of the calculation.
-snip bit about Canada-
>Quite so. However none of it is likely to happen in a vacuum, so to speak.
>While it begins with not pissing off other countries, the only way to
>properly defend ourselves is to know what the other guy can or cannot do.
Fine. But if we overbuild (go beyond what is needed for defense), we
inevitable create threats (for the same reason we perceive the build up by
other states as threats to us). The only way to determine how much we need is
to consider what threats exist, and what is necessary to repel them. On that
we agree, but we disagree, apparently, on what kind of force is needed to
assure security.
ciao, scott
Scott D. Erb
>
>Theoretically, you may be correct. However, when foreign policy fails,
>that's when the military usually steps up to the plate, so I don't see how
>you can unlink the two, and still accomplish either the foreign policy or the
>mission.
But that means that foreign policy and military policy need to be in sync, and
so IF our foreign policy is such that we do not have interventionist
interests, then our military need not be large enough to handle massive
foreign interventions.
>> The point I made is that if we redefined foreign policy goals, then a
large,
>> expensive army would not be necessary.
>
>Then how would we do such a thing? Appeasement? Shooting first? Stressing
>foreign policy and diplomacy is all well and good, but when diplomacy fails
>then what?
We simply don't get involved in other people's conflicts unless we perceive a
real, growing threat. We focus on making sure no one can successfully attack
us, via nuclear deterrence and a viable conventional home force. Perhaps if a
country with potential to really conquer alot (neither Iraq nor Serbia could
qualify in that regard) we could start building more and making alliances.
But for the most part, I'd avoid military alliances unless our security is
directly at stake.
>> We could cut back military spending and military equipment to a level
necessary
>> to achieve whatever we redefined those goals to be.
>
>What would that be? Just how do you think such a thing can be achieved?
The exact level? I'm not sure. Our current spending is based on the
assumption we will intervene in other parts of the world, and based on those
extended interests, rather than security and self-defense interests. I'll
expand on that below.
>Then it becomes necessary to determine *what* the "proper objectives" are,
>and specifically *how* they can be implemented or achieved. Since military
>preparedness is part of the equation, it cannot simply be ignored.
I am not saying military preparedness should be ignored. I am saying we *are*
prepared to achieve defense goals, we are perhaps unprepared for larger
conflicts (what if North Korea, Taiwan, Iraq, and Serbia all flaired up at
once, and Iran then decided to do something...) We'll always be under
prepared if we define our needs as encompassing, that's the problem of a
globalist policy.t as under prepared as you suggest.
(on spare parts and unpreparedness:)
>Unfortunately for this part of the argument, I have personal first-hand
>experience in the military and have *seen* this for myself.
OK, I'll just trust you on that one.
> Also, most of the money that the
>DoD spends (upwards of 60-70%, depending on who you get your information
>from) goes toward such things as bulk food purchases, housing and related
>costs (utilities), military pay, clothing manufacturers (uniforms and related
>articles, which is resold to military members in the various post exchanges),
>forms and other office supplies (in boxed quantities that are simply
>*staggering* to behold), and large quantities of all kinds of sundry items.
Sounds like a government organization.
>Let's consider fuel, for example. At the beginning of each fiscal year, each
>unit is allocated a specific amount that they can use in training, and
>deployments. If it gets used up too quickly, then the unit does *not*
>conduct ops or training until they next allocation. This applies not only to
>tanks and other small vehicles, but to ships as well. When I was in, we had
>a scheduled pre-deploymentwork up pushed back because there wasn't enough
>resources left to run the ship.
>I've seen the stories that discuss the problems with personnel retention and
>recruiting, I've my own experience in the Navy, so I know what goes on.
>Hell, my own brother-in-law is currently a Marine, so I get to hear about
>what's going on
>*now,* and you want to know something? What I hear from my brother-in-law
>tends to confirm some of the stories about readiness and personnel that we
>read from experts like Col. Hackworth and others.
I'll just trust you, even while pointing out that this is a problem for
organization, meaning that (perhaps because the military is so big and gets so
much money) it has become organizationally inefficient. But my main point
remains that objectives are improperly set.
>Redefine them how? And as what?
1. Defense of the homeland via deterrence and a strong conventional home
force.
2. Defense of embassies.
3. Rejection of the Carter doctrine.
4. Notice to the EU that their defense, as well as European trouble spots, is
no longer a military interest of the US, though we will use our good offices
(much like Switzerland) to help facilitate.
5. Notice of the same to Japan and Taiwan; we will (perhaps after a
transition period) no longer be their protectors.
>You do keep going on about reducing the level of our commitments, but at this
>juncture, I'd certainly like to know what you would intend to actually *do*
>about them, you know, in real life. I think that at this point, we need to
>be clear on this.
At that time I'd start focusing on economy relations, stressing the fact that
all countries gain by trade and commerce. We could conceivably use our own
redefinement of objectives as a carrot to some countries to drop some of their
hard line policies (e.g., a deal with North Korea whereby the US leaves the
region in exchange for consessions to reduce tensions). Ultimately, though,
if other people want to fight, that's not our business. We shouldn't kill and
die because China and Taiwan fight.
>No, quite the opposite, actually. I think that efforts to reform the
>military into something that is not, should *stop.*
Or, we should decide exactly what it is, and make sure that's what its form is
best for.
>> Its easy for us as arm chair quarterbacks to criticize.
>
>"Arm chair quarterback?" Speak for yourself.
You were in the military, but you didn't run it. I worked on Senate staff on
foreign policy and study it, but I didn't make it or know all that happens.
Neither of us are more than small cogs, we see only bits and pieces. I can
learn from the bits you perceive that I don't, and take that into account, but
we're still more ignorant about the whole picture than we would like to be.
That's why I can recognize my opinion may be wrong, but I still think changing
our goals might be a better option.
>No specific reform is needed. What is required is to ensure that our
>military forces are properly trained and equipped, then allow them to
>accomplish their mission.
>
>That's all, and it's really not that difficult to figure out.
True -- the issue is what kind of missions they should be engaged in; I'm
focused more on the political question of how we define foreign policy goals
and make the decisions which create specific military needs.
(on the press)
>This is almost funny, since the press has become the visible rubberstamp of
>government activity.
They tend to be very pro-establishment, but still I think a free press is
perhaps the most important safeguard for democracy. I'm not as cynical about
the press as you are.
ciao, scott
T Michael Nelson
their back. They couldn't keep up. But to say well, we will build only what we
need for the threats that exists is ill fated. Our military should be as strong as
financially responsible. The best offense is a good defense. Having a strong
defense will not bring further threats, that is an incorrect assumption. And you
better believe there are countries in the world that can stand up to the US. If
you do not your going to find out sooner or later, and when you do it will be to
late..
Everett
> I not you failed to mention the National Debt being tripled during the
> California Vegetable and the Wimp's watch.
Since it broke the back of the USSR, that was a great investment in our
future.
tony G as Frank Cannon
<nel...@southernmedical.net> wrote:
Oh this is good.
>Reagan's building up of our defense out spent the Russians.
Technicaly true.
>Thats is what broke their back.
demonstratively false. Anyway you look at it Russian spending stayed
the same concerning defense.
>They couldn't keep up.
They didn't even try.
>But to say well, we will build only what we
>need for the threats that exists is ill fated. Our military should be as strong as
>financially responsible.
Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton have been bankrupting us.
>The best offense is a good defense.
The best defense is not getting involved in things that make people
hate us.
>Having a strong
>defense will not bring further threats, that is an incorrect assumption.
Just ask the French.
>And you
>better believe there are countries in the world that can stand up to the US.
Why would they need to "stand up to us" if we stayed out of their
business.
>If
>you do not your going to find out sooner or later, and when you do it will be to
>late..
Yawn.
T Michael Nelson
tony G as Frank Cannon wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Sep 1999 19:19:27 -0500, T Michael Nelson
> <nel...@southernmedical.net> wrote:
>
> Oh this is good.
>
> >Reagan's building up of our defense out spent the Russians.
>
> Technicaly true.
OK, there is one...maybe we can do better
>
>
> >Thats is what broke their back.
>
> demonstratively false. Anyway you look at it Russian spending stayed
> the same concerning defense.
Ours or thiers...our increased under Reagan and Bush has decreased since.
Theirs was increasing during the Reagan and Bush era's also. Leading to internal
turmoil. I'm not saying it is the only reason, but It did make the russians take notice
and realize they could not keep up.
>
>
> >They couldn't keep up.
>
> They didn't even try.
During the Reagan Bush era the did try to keep up Tony/Frank. We will have to disagree
here.
>
>
> >But to say well, we will build only what we
> >need for the threats that exists is ill fated. Our military should be as strong as
> >financially responsible.
>
> Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton have been bankrupting us.
Our government has been bankrupting us...we agree...that two. However, I prefer to have
a strong military over more worthless social programs.
>
>
> >The best offense is a good defense.
>
> The best defense is not getting involved in things that make people
> hate us.
True, thats three. But the fact still remains.
>
>
> >Having a strong
> >defense will not bring further threats, that is an incorrect assumption.
>
> Just ask the French.
The French are hidden socialists/facists who have had aggressive leaders. You certainly
can't cancel the argument based on the French.
>
>
> >And you
> >better believe there are countries in the world that can stand up to the US.
>
> Why would they need to "stand up to us" if we stayed out of their
> business.
Because regardless of our military we are not liked by many. There are many reason to
this, religion, social issues, past wars etc. You point however is correct we do spend
to much time and money sending in the military to where is doesn't belong....hey, thats
four
>
>
> >If
> >you do not your going to find out sooner or later, and when you do it will be to
> >late..
>
> Yawn.
Don't yawn, just be prepared, thats the point and surely you would agree. Our lifetime
is very short compared to that of civilization. If people believe this country can go
forever without a major conflict on our beaches they are mistaken. It has happen to
every country at one time or another.
Now see Tony/Frank we where not that far apart were we!?
Glenn MacEachern
military spended, and most likely, would have ended earlier. The cold
war basically ended when Russia got some half-intelligent leadership,
realized what the US was doing, and decided that they were not going to
play their greedy little game anymore. The US tried to push Russia back
into it, but by that time, it was too late. THEN capitialism came to
Russia and that resulted in it's current shape. (They went WAY too fast,
overnight, almost literally, the economy just could not cope)
Glenn MacEachern
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> Tax cuts for the wealthy broke the back of the USSR?
>
> Is the weather nice on your planet, Ev?
>
> Volt
>
> Ecrasons l'infame
>
> Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
> ========================================================================
> "Liberals created that term 50 years ago."
>
> --Santa Fe, Texas, School Board member Robin Clayton
> on the concept of 'separation of church and state.'
>
> "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man
> and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
> that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,
> I contemplate with soveriegn reverence that act of the whole American people
> which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an
> establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus
> building a wall of separation between church and State."
>
> -- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association,
> January 1, 1802
> ========================================================================
Joe Krolikowski
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> In article <37D043BE...@mediaone.net>, jkroli...@mediaone.net says...
> >
>
> >I wasn't assuming anything. Determinations of the potential threats are a
> >standard exercise for defense. If you don't know what the opposition is
> >capable of, regardless of who it is, the default position for military
> >planning is to assume that the opposition has capabilities that are the equal
> >of yours.
>
> That doesn't address the issue; namely, we spend more than anyone else on
> defense and I daresay that no state could conquer the U.S. I do not see any
> threat that requires the level of spending we have.
As I stated above, if you don't know what the opposition is capable of, you assume
that their capabilities are at least the equal of your own. In monetary terms, I
should think that would speak plainly to the fact that we shouldn't draw down any
further than we have currently done.
> You have to leave the abstract assumptions, and look at real world situations to
> assess what real spending level is necessary. However, I think that comes along
> below...
How in the world are you going to be able to set a spending level for military
forces if:
a) you're unaware of the state of readiness within your forces
b) you're unaware of the state of readiness of any potential opposition
In broad strokes, these two items listed above, are the minimum requirements for
determination of any level of military spending, and you don't know what they are.
How then, do you intend to proceed?
> >This is where the politics come into play, and I was merely discussing the
> >calculus of forces.
>
> Politics is always part of the calculation.
Not in terms of "force on force." The politics only comes into play when you're
determining when and where and how to use military force.
> -snip bit about Canada-
Just remember, that "bit about Canada" was *your* bit, not *mine.*
> >Quite so. However none of it is likely to happen in a vacuum, so to speak.
> >While it begins with not pissing off other countries, the only way to
> >properly defend ourselves is to know what the other guy can or cannot do.
>
> Fine. But if we overbuild (go beyond what is needed for defense), we
> inevitable create threats (for the same reason we perceive the build up by
> other states as threats to us).
You're getting circular here.
> The only way to determine how much we need is to consider what threats exist,
> and what is necessary to repel them.
Then the ability to be able to repel any oppposition is not only knowing the
maximum that they're capable of, but exceeding it by at least one (if not two)
orders of magnitude.
> On that we agree, but we disagree, apparently, on what kind of force is needed
> to assure security.
All right then, I'll tell you what. What this debate needs at this point are some
demonstrable, proven facts about military readiness and capabilities. Why don't
you see what you can dig up and I'll do the same.
Joe Krolikowski
Joe Krolikowski
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> In article <37D07EA5...@mediaone.net>, jkroli...@mediaone.net says...
> >
>
> >Theoretically, you may be correct. However, when foreign policy fails,
> >that's when the military usually steps up to the plate, so I don't see how
> >you can unlink the two, and still accomplish either the foreign policy or the
> >mission.
>
> But that means that foreign policy and military policy need to be in sync, and
> so IF our foreign policy is such that we do not have interventionist
> interests, then our military need not be large enough to handle massive
> foreign interventions.
>
> >> The point I made is that if we redefined foreign policy goals, then a
> large,
> >> expensive army would not be necessary.
> >
> >Then how would we do such a thing? Appeasement? Shooting first? Stressing
> >foreign policy and diplomacy is all well and good, but when diplomacy fails
> >then what?
>
> We simply don't get involved in other people's conflicts unless we perceive a
> real, growing threat.
This part seems to explain your Kosovo stance, but I think the threat
determination needs a bit of work.
> We focus on making sure no one can successfully attack
> us, via nuclear deterrence and a viable conventional home force.
Nuclear deterrence will only work when those we're trying to deter are in
possession some measure of rationality. I'm not certain that such a policy would
be all that effective against, say, the Chinese, who've already threatened the use
of nuclear weapons as a deterrent gambit in some of the petty squabbles about
Taiwan.
When you talk about a viable conventional force, lets compare the 500,000 man U.S.
Army vs. People's Liberation Army of China which has a number of men under arms
equal to at least (from what I've read) an entire order of magnitude more than we
do, as well as a larger base for gaining recruits.
> The exact level? I'm not sure. Our current spending is based on the
> assumption we will intervene in other parts of the world, and based on those
> extended interests, rather than security and self-defense interests. I'll
> expand on that below.
That policy is a fiction. It's time to chuck it out and re-write the book.
> >Then it becomes necessary to determine *what* the "proper objectives" are,
> >and specifically *how* they can be implemented or achieved. Since military
> >preparedness is part of the equation, it cannot simply be ignored.
>
> I am not saying military preparedness should be ignored. I am saying we *are*
> prepared to achieve defense goals,
I'm not, especially since, for matters of policy, our last coherent determination
of a credible threat was based upon the Soviet Union, which as you know, no longer
exists.
> we are perhaps unprepared for larger
> conflicts (what if North Korea, Taiwan, Iraq, and Serbia all flaired up at
> once, and Iran then decided to do something...) We'll always be under
> prepared if we define our needs as encompassing, that's the problem of a
> globalist policy.t as under prepared as you suggest.
I'm not a globalist.
What needs to be cleard out and reorganized is the bureacracy at the DoD, which
has featherbedded itself to hell and gone. Such a reform is about 50 years
overdue.
That's a start at least.
> But my main point
> remains that objectives are improperly set.
>
> >Redefine them how? And as what?
>
> 1. Defense of the homeland via deterrence and a strong conventional home
> force.
Good luck. I wouldn't want to be around when this "deterrence policy" of yours
backfires in your face. This is because the most likely test of this policy is
for some country to lob a nuke or two at us, and retaliatory strikes merely up the
ante.
> 2. Defense of embassies.
Now we need to determine how much to spend at this task. What would you say to a
reinforced brigade of Bradley fighting vehicles and a division of Marines?
In terms of the cost of manpower and equipment, are you willing to subtract the
numbers needed from your "strong conventional home force," or would these be
additions. This must then be considered for the number of embassies that we
maintain which are, what about 150 or so?
> 3. Rejection of the Carter doctrine.
Why not. It didn't work for Jimmy after all.
> 4. Notice to the EU that their defense, as well as European trouble spots, is
> no longer a military interest of the US, though we will use our good offices
> (much like Switzerland) to help facilitate.
This I can agree with.
> 5. Notice of the same to Japan and Taiwan; we will (perhaps after a
> transition period) no longer be their protectors.
Same with this.
> >You do keep going on about reducing the level of our commitments, but at this
> >juncture, I'd certainly like to know what you would intend to actually *do*
> >about them, you know, in real life. I think that at this point, we need to
> >be clear on this.
>
> At that time I'd start focusing on economy relations, stressing the fact that
> all countries gain by trade and commerce.
OK.
> We could conceivably use our own redefinement of objectives as a carrot to some
> countries to drop some of their hard line policies (e.g., a deal with North
> Korea whereby the US leaves the region in exchange for consessions to reduce
> tensions).
However, we shouldn't draw down until a significant period of time, say about a
year or so, goes by, so we gain some information about the efficacy of the
specific policy.
> Ultimately, though, if other people want to fight, that's not our business. We
> shouldn't kill and die because China and Taiwan fight.
Hey, if they want to gather their forces together for a bit of wog-bashing, that's
entirely their affair, just so long as they don't flip any warshots at us.
> >No, quite the opposite, actually. I think that efforts to reform the
> >military into something that is not, should *stop.*
>
> Or, we should decide exactly what it is, and make sure that's what its form is
> best for.
That's already been done. Military force is for killing people and breaking
things.
> >No specific reform is needed. What is required is to ensure that our
> >military forces are properly trained and equipped, then allow them to
> >accomplish their mission.
> >
> >That's all, and it's really not that difficult to figure out.
>
> True -- the issue is what kind of missions they should be engaged in;
Threat assessment is key to formulating specific responses.
> I'm focused more on the political question of how we define foreign policy goals
> and make the decisions which create specific military needs.
Once you've defined your goals, ask the operators (i.e., the shooters) what they
need (as opposed to what they want) and then fit it into the budget.
However, it should be noted at this point, that the nature of the DoD is such
that, the shooters determine the organizational needs, not the bureaucrats, whose
only purpose is to find a way to make it happen.
> (on the press)
>
> >This is almost funny, since the press has become the visible rubberstamp of
> >government activity.
>
> They tend to be very pro-establishment, but still I think a free press is
> perhaps the most important safeguard for democracy. I'm not as cynical about
> the press as you are.
If they're to act as a safeguard, this business about being pro-establishment
should take a back seat. And stay there. As for being cynical, as Rob Robertson
is so fond of saying, "Get disillusioned early, and beat the rush."
Joe Krolikowski