The Military

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you want a response fix your quotes. There is really no need for that sort of quoting unless your trying to take things out of context.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

be careful of the gloom and doom theories, they are usually exaggerated. besides are miltary power and world influence are far to strong for us to fall over the current issues we are having. beside if a nation can survive the civil war and depression i believe terrorism and minor capitial declines are not significant enough to trump are great nation!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He is right of course such ebb and flow are inevitable. However it's a matter of timescale. It's not likely to happen in the lifetimes of any of the people here, or even their children.

 

One event can be a catalyst that totally upsets the natural order though.

[BattleCookiee]

If you want a response fix your quotes. There is really no need for that sort of quoting unless your trying to take things out of context.

 

So many quotes just break the board, can't fix that.

Still, on the way I type it is still easier to read then your "find what this is a reply to all by yourself in the above major quote. Note I have not even responded to all, otherwise it might even be easy to read/reply" <_<

 

EDIT: Just noted you even replied to everything... but in a screen where you can see bold only as and such it is really nearly impossible to see where you replied on. Please number the lines next time around...

 

EDIT: Odd, it works...

Edited December 20, 2005 by Battlewookiee

[moreKOTORplz]

remember Africa was freed of apatheid in the late 80's! so they are a very new nation and by no means any different from other thrid world nations struggling with a lack of a stable politicial system. besides africa is still rich with natural resources the world (WORLD not just the US and Europe) are still exploting. As far as Asia, the US and Europe are not the only ones to have exploted areas of Asia (remember Chinese and Vietnamese feuds). i agree with shadowit is a difference of systems that makes a difference but don't forget currcumstances either like battle is saying.

[moreKOTORplz]

you have to agree that european and us societies are as close to utopian as it gets. I just don't see any new order of society poping up.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

remember Africa was freed of apatheid in the late 80's! so they are a very new nation and by no means any different from other thrid world nations struggling with a lack of a stable politicial system. besides africa is still rich with natural resources the world (WORLD not just the US and Europe) are still exploting. As far as Asia, the US and Europe are not the only ones to have exploted areas of Asia (remember Chinese and Vietnamese feuds). i agree with shadowit is a difference of systems that makes a difference but don't forget currcumstances either like battle is saying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Apatheid only applies to South Africa. Ironic that it was instituted by people who Britain went to war with at one time. No one actually supported it in Europe hence the sanctions , sports boycotts etc.

 

It's important not to mix up exploitation and investment. Obvious example would be everyone having their call centers in India. People are not going to do that if they are being blamed for all your woes, since they then become the obvious target for any agression.

[moreKOTORplz]

i agree with you shadow the people of africa are not as useful to the powers as say the asian markets. however apartheid is symbolic of what africa has always been (a place to be pludender with people who have never been allowed to be part of the grand society). i do agree with you that africa has allowed itself to continue to be a victim. if you speak to people from africa they will tell you that the level of uneducated makes the society more savage than modern so its not reasonable to expect they are prepared to be a great power. the explotation is within too so keep thatin mind

[Commissar]

Regardless, the very essence of my argument lies in progressivism, which typically follows decadence.  Once a civilization has grown sufficiently decadent, it collapses and a new civilization rises to the challenge - rising, so to speak, in the embrace of progress.  If there is one thing that I am faithful of it is the inevitability of change and the unfailing ability of people, not nations, to become greater than they are if they so choose.  Americans are not doomed; our future lies in whether we can shake off the decadency of modern society and reinvent ourselves for progress.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's fantastic. It's flawed and wrong, but fantastic. It also doesn't address the question of the thread; the military. History doesn't have an ebb nor a flow, it doesn't have shifting patterns, it doesn't have any of that stuff: history is history. A society is doomed only when it loses the ability to perpetuate itself, which is not in any way inevitable. Even granting your premise for the briefest of moments, however, it still doesn't change the fact that the one thing that could never possibly even be seen as ebbing nor flowing is warfare. It's a constant throughout all of known history, and there's a reason for that.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

i agree with you shadow the people of africa are not as useful to the powers as say the asian markets. however apartheid is symbolic of what africa has always been (a place to be pludender with people who have never been allowed to be part of the grand society). i do agree with you that africa has allowed itself to continue to be a victim. if you speak to people from africa they will tell you that the level of uneducated makes the society more savage than modern so its not reasonable to expect they are prepared to be a great power. the explotation is within too so keep thatin mind

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats kind of true. Although it applies even before any European intervention. War like sex is one of those human commonalities.

 

Thats why I dont agree with shipping off tons of aid which is ultimately wasted in the long term. It dosnt allow them to strike a balance with the place they live in and that is important unless you want to be subsidised for the rest of your existence.

Most of the current exploitation is African in origin (which is what I've been sayind for the last two pages). But as long as people just take the easy out and blame it all on events that happened in history then they wont progress because people will keeep spoonfeeding their corrupt regimes.

[moreKOTORplz]

But as long as people just take the easy out and blame it all on events that happened in history then they wont progress because people will keeep spoonfeeding their corrupt regimes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

amen brother

[Azarkon]

That's fantastic. It's flawed and wrong, but fantastic. It also doesn't address the question of the thread; the military. History doesn't have an ebb nor a flow, it doesn't have shifting patterns, it doesn't have any of that stuff: history is history. A society is doomed only when it loses the ability to perpetuate itself, which is not in any way inevitable. Even granting your premise for the briefest of moments, however, it still doesn't change the fact that the one thing that could never possibly even be seen as ebbing nor flowing is warfare. It's a constant throughout all of known history, and there's a reason for that.

 

A society's ability to perpetuate itself lies in its relationship to progressivism. Decadent societies do not survive because their cultures tend towards pessimism. Sooner or later, self-interest becomes the order of the day over self-improvement, and what naturally follows is vulnerability and weakness because self-interest does not hold a nation together.

 

Military might can protect a land, but it can't protect a society or a culture. Once the core principles of your society no longer represent progress there is nothing you can do but be conquered - whether economically, culturally, or militarily - by other, more progressive societies. Thus it is that American culture has become, as of late, dominated by other cultures whereas its traditions of disciplined, frugal self-improvement (forwarded by the likes of Benjamin Franklin) have been all but forgotten. Thus it is that traditional European values have evaporated in the face of secularism.

 

To deny the ebb and flow of history is to deny its interpretation. To you, history is history. To me, history, like the natural world, is full of patterns and rules. Victory in war did not save Britain from taking a backseat. Defeat in war did not prevent Japan from overtaking Asia economically and now, culturally the US.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Azarkon

[BattleCookiee]

When do you start to realise they just can't get such a major step forward due to the fact that most of their economics is based on piss poor prices for export and major (especially for Africa) prices for the import products...?

 

They cannot build up a better economy to preserve themselves if the International Market makes it impossible for them to enter and thus completely pushes them out...

Edited December 20, 2005 by Battlewookiee

[Judge Hades]

That is why you work on being self sufficient first then go globally. Once you maintain self sufficiency the global aspects is just creme off the cake.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

When do you start to realise they just can't get such a major step forward due to the fact that most of their economics is based on piss poor prices for export and major (especially for Africa) prices for the import products...?

 

They cannot build up a better economy to preserve themselves if the International Market makes it impossible for them to enter and thus completely pushes them out...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That dosnt mean they cant progress. It may mean they cant progress fast to the point where we are now. But it took us 100's of years to get where we are now.

 

They can progress to a point where they are advancing at a steady pace. As long as the leaders have the will to do so. Which right now they dont. They are not exactly encouraging investment with their antics. Although South Africa shouldnt be lumped together with Africa in general.

 

I certainly wouldnt be against getting rid of the African leaders (the corrupt ones anyway) but if you are embarking on that sort of project you need to get the more dangerous ones out of the way first and that would be the Middle East.

[Judge Hades]

That would require more interference and what right do we have to impose our ethics and morals on another culture. None whatsoever.

[BattleCookiee]

That is why you work on being self sufficient first then go globally.  Once you maintain self sufficiency the global aspects is just creme off the cake.

 

But they can't, can they, because due to colonisation they started right away in a global enviroment. And due to hue debt with where only the RENT is higher than the national profit there is no way to look for any advanchment...

And they also cannot be self-sufficient because due to lower technological level, their farming techniques and such take about 4x the terrain to produce the same as the Western. And then they need to have place for export-products too...

Edited December 20, 2005 by Battlewookiee

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

And they also cannot be self-sufficient because due to lower technological level, their farming technices and such take about 4x the terrain to produce the same as the Western. And then they need to have place for export-products too...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well you know all that aid they get ? Farming technology is a lot cheaper than a tank.

[Judge Hades]

If a nation can't be self sufficient then it needs to die off. Social Darwinism.

[BattleCookiee]

But modern farming also needs alot of education.

 

Big point now in Help Care is that we (the Western) thought that if we just give them modern stuff like tractors and advanched machinery, they would get up.

 

But machines break, and if nobody knows how the things actually work, you can't fix them and continue on with that less advanched (read: ancient) way.

 

That is also why the *current* way of aid is mainly education, to learn people how to use the stuff they get better, or how to create it themselves, and how to use the land better etc.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Battlewookiee

[Judge Hades]

Are we supposed to be their caretakers, their nursemaids, their police, and so forth? At what point is enough is enough? Let me tell you something here Battlewookie in the US we have millions of people below the poverty line, millions of homeless, and the such. We have people in our own country, the most powerful nation in the world, that has no needed medical care or insurance for medical care.

 

We cannot even take care of our own fraking people and here you are saying that we should take care of the world. That is a load of bull. A nation's government needs to take care of its own citizens first. A nation has to look to fulfill its own needs before serving the needs of others. If a nation cannot be self sufficient, cannot learn on its own, evolve on its own, then it needs to die and make room for a country that can.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

But modern farming also needs alot of education.

 

Big point now in Help Care is that we (the Western) thought that if we just give them modern stuff like tractors and advanched machinery, they would get up.

 

But machines break, and if nobody knows how the things actually work, you can't fix them and continue on with that less advanched (read: ancient) way.

 

That is also why the *current* way of aid is mainly education, to learn people how to use the stuff they get better, or how to create it themselves, and how to use the land better etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats why you need a decent government. Since we are on a millitary thread. You know like how the US sends their experts to train the armies of other countries will they develop the expertise themselves ?

 

If you ship modern equipment , you ship engineers along with it to keep it running(like the army does). Until such a time as they pick it up for themselves. Same with parts. Some parts are too complicated, but other parts can be made quite simply. No one really wants to go to Africa, because it's not a safe place. Which means no "expertise" unless you count those idealistic types who work for aid agencies.

 

Thing is the government dosnt want educated people. Educated people are harder to control. By educating someone you are also impossing on them a particular way of doing things, rather than letting them find the way which works best for them.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Are we supposed to be their caretakers, their nursemaids, their police, and so forth?  At what point is enough is enough?  Let me tell you something here Battlewookie in the US we have millions of people below the poverty line, millions of homeless, and the such.  We have people in our own country, the most powerful nation in the world, that has no needed medical care or insurance for medical care.

 

We cannot even take care of our own fraking people and here you are saying that we should take care of the world.  That is a load of bull.  A nation's government needs to take care of its own citizens first.  A nation has to look to fulfill its own needs before serving the needs of others.  If a nation cannot be self sufficient, cannot learn on its own, evolve on its own, then it needs to die and make room for a country that can.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not quite how I would have worded it. But I agree with most of it.

[BattleCookiee]

Are we supposed to be their caretakers, their nursemaids, their police, and so forth?  At what point is enough is enough?  Let me tell you something here Battlewookie in the US we have millions of people below the poverty line, millions of homeless, and the such.  We have people in our own country, the most powerful nation in the world, that has no needed medical care or insurance for medical care.

 

We cannot even take care of our own fraking people and here you are saying that we should take care of the world.  That is a load of bull.  A nation's government needs to take care of its own citizens first.  A nation has to look to fulfill its own needs before serving the needs of others.  If a nation cannot be self sufficient, cannot learn on its own, evolve on its own, then it needs to die and make room for a country that can.

 

No, you just have to train them so they can be all that themselves.

And I don't talk about the US here that should specifically help Africa. We (the Europeans) colonised it and so we should help it.

But your America sees himself als "policeman and caretaker" of the World. If you really wan't to be know as that act like one. Don't start invading countries who really don't need it right away, leave citizens crying for help in a dictatorship and poison the whole world by refussing the Kyoto-Treaty...

 

And h

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

No, Africa isn't that a dangerous place at all. Recently in Afghanistan a teacher got executed because of giving education. In Africa they would probably welcome educational aid with open arms...

 

And yes, they train NOW. They didn't do so before, because we (European and US) thought giving them stuff was enough to help them out. Now they finnally get what you are talking about, "The expertise to do it themselves"

 

And yes, education can lead to rebelion against oppressors. See the ex-colonies of Europe. Most rioted after we gave them education atlast, and it didn't really hurt them, just us...

So if the dictators try to stop giving education to their "servants" force them. It is not like the US also forced some European countries to do this during the Cold War, why can't they do it with other countries as well?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tell that to the farmers who were murdered or had their land siezed. The people might welcome them. But it's not like the regimes have not burned down schools (sometimes with the people still in them). What I dont agree with is aid that goes with some sort of religious message. Then again If I was starving I'd probably be less choosey.

 

I doubt it somehow although the training may have not been good. It would have been parts that were a problem.

 

Sure you can force them. But then thats no different from what is going on in Iraq , forced democracy. So how can you be in favour of one and not the other?

As I said I'm not against it in principle. But if it were my army I would focus on wiping out the dangerous threats first.

[Judge Hades]

I don't want the US to act like it. We need to take care of our own people first instead of going to wars over lies or send resources to other countries when they are needed at home. We need leadership in the US that puts the US first.