Do you want the USA to police the world? - Page 9 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #81 of 107 (permalink) Old 03-19-2005, 07:16 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: Do you want the USA to police the world?

Quote:
JimSmith - 3/19/2005 7:39 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 3/14/2005 10:49 PM

The long term effect of the USA and the UK footing the bill and risks of the worldwide defense of western liberal democracy is the absolute supremacy of our integrated military command, planet-wide. This has allowed other democracies the luxury of spending a larger proportion of their own GNP on non-defense issues, relying and depending on the US/UK/Australia/NZ to do the job. It worked wonderfully well. It defeated the Soviet bloc and allowed the development of liberal western democracies around the world. I would be interested in seeing decadal stats of how many liberal democracies existed since 1938. I'll bet there has been a continual increase. Those countries that were protected by our umbrella were nurtured in that development by our blood and treasure. Did we do it out of altruism? Heck no!

We did it because the world is safer in the hands of liberal democracy than any other system of government. We are safer and the people of the world are safer for us having spent the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. Nobody would claim that every adventure was good. Only a complete fool would suggest that they were all bad. The world is in no danger of exhausting the supply of complete fools.

The current adventure will be judged by history and that history will be written by the winners. The history in Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, the Ukraine, Pakistan, Bulgaria, France, Belgium, the UK, the USA etc will all reflect that reality.
While a great deal of what you said Bot is true, your perspective suggests a faith in the stability of the role of the United States in the future based on past laurels and holds nothing for those of us doubting the path forward can be successful if we merely retrace our steps over and over.

More than at any time in our past we seem to be the "Paper Tiger" we were once labelled. We are more susceptible to paralyzing economic reactions to relatively insignificant terrorist attacks than ever before. We are unable to ensure terrorists cannot attack us, and unable to find those responsible for attacking us and bringing them to justice. We have a desire to fight wars off our shores, but cannot muster the budget to ensure we have enough ships in our Navy to carry the equipment to the enemy. At our present construction rates we will have less than one hundred ships in the Navy by 2020.

Fighting wars with costs of several millions of dollars or more per ton of ordinance landed on target, or just near the target, because we have to use cruise missiles that consume a million dollars of sophisticated C4I connected electronics per shot, sophisticated bombers based on aircraft carriers that require a fleet of oilers and support ships to stay "in theater" for a week, and so on, is weakening us. It is not affordable, even by us, to engage in warfighting that is elective. We are being weakened daily by our present strategies and we cannot sustain this for another decade, let alone a few thousand years, as the residents of Iraq and Iran and the rest of the Middle East seem to be conditioned to expect for such conflicts.

While we may have been able to be the cop in the past, it is not a model to plan the future on anymore. Jim
Read what the Pentagon is doing in reforming the armed forces. They recognize that giant tank battles and huge fleet battles are gone and are actively changing the mix. This reformation has lots of enemies in Congress, some who genuinely disagree with the model.

But I suspect that most of them don't want to lose military bases in their districts, military manufacturing in their districts, and prestige of bringing home the bacon--the key to reelection.

I don't know why we maintain thousands of nucular weapons, 12 aircraft battle groups (sin't that right, 12?), a fleet of ballistic missle subs, etc. That is a tremendous expnse to fight a war that will probably never happen. God help us all if we need a thousand MIRV'd nuke missles. Or a dozen carrier battle groups. Etc.

High precision, high lethality small yield weapons are far, far cheaper to maintain than an equivalently lethal standing army. You put the bombs in a box when you don't need them. What do you do with 1,500,000 soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines when there isn't a war? I don't know, but I do know this, every one of them wants a paycheck and something to eat and a place to sleep. They want to care for their families and know that their families are safe when they are away. By shifting from large standing army to small, mobile, high lethality army the taxpayer no longer must bear the burden of logistical support. A bomb doesn't give a shit. It just sits in a box waiting for a need and a delivery.

Finally, I assert that the USA is the greatest single stabilizing force for human achievement and the dignity of man in human history.
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #82 of 107 (permalink) Old 03-19-2005, 07:56 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
RE: Do you want the USA to police the world?

Quote:
Botnst - 3/19/2005 9:16 PM
Finally, I assert that the USA is the greatest single stabilizing force for human achievement and the dignity of man in human history.
While I agree with that I think our continued existence as an entity capable of bearing that burden in the future is at risk. Bombs that cost several tens of thousands of dollars more to have precision guidance systems, that require billion dollar satellite systems and airborne support aircraft, delivered with stealth bombers protected by stealthy escorts, from either tens of billions of dollar carrier groups or "temporary" overseas bases built at the cost of several billions of dollars, staffed by tens of thousands of soldiers, and so on that are on station for decades, is just not affordable.

I applaud the DoD's efforts to understand the future threats and try to convert to an effective force against those threats. But I think we are better advised to stay the fuck at home while make the conversion. And until then, we make it clear we are likely to respond with a horrific NUKULAR event if we are attacked, or seriously threatened, and arming yourself with NUKES should be interpreted as threatening enough to warrant the delivery of a large fusion driven release of energy. It is what we spent the last century learning to do, and it is one of the few things we can do better than anyone else. When it comes to defending America, why do we feel we must play by anyone else's rules? Isn't that what all you guys and gals hated about Kerry? You thought he was saying (when he didn't) that he would live by some international standard while defending America? If we are attacked we should feel free to respond the best way we know how to win, and, in my opinion, today, that is with NUKES. Not friendly, precision, fuzzy logic driven bombs with video cameras on them that cost us a thousand or more times the actual value of the targets we hit with them. They make great news video and sound bites, but they are hopelessly irrelevent in the types of conflicts we are engaged in today. Shock and Awe did nothing but deplete our arsenal and cost us shitloads of money. Elective wars should be unthinkable, and attacking us should be equally unthinkable.

Look at the whole picture. We are not the economic dynamo we were post WWII up to the 1990's. We are a second rate manufacturing economy, bleeding our wealth to third world and other countries as we teach them how to perform our jobs for less to make the first one to rush in to these places in each job category a quick buck. Our military is addicted to the most expensive solutions to all problems. And now we have a President on a crusade to learn them Ay-rabs democracy, using our military.

But, I agree with your last sentence. I would like to see us stay in the business of being a stabilizing force for human achievement and the dignity of man by taking care of America. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #83 of 107 (permalink) Old 03-19-2005, 08:27 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: Do you want the USA to police the world?

Don't mistake me with somebody who hates Kerry. I don't hate him. I just didn't think he was a better candidate than the one I voted for and I certainly don't trust his party any more than I trust the Repos.

Her's an article in teh NY Times about base closings coming up. http://nytimes.com/2005/03/20/politics/20bases.html?hp&ex=1111294800&en=b0d5ede093a32dd1& ei=5094&partner=homepage

I'm betting it gets politicized like it did the last time. That's okay with me, I like politics to drive the military rather than vice versa. When the military thinks it knows better than Congress what is best for the people, we're in trouble.

We're not going to agree on the value, efficacy, and utility of smart weaponry. Not surprising.
Botnst is offline  
post #84 of 107 (permalink) Old 03-19-2005, 08:30 PM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1428 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: Do you want the USA to police the world?

Quote:
Finally, I assert that the USA is the greatest single stabilizing force for human achievement and the dignity of man in human history.
WTF?? Care to elaborate? That's a pretty outrageous statement to offer up without support--human history runs a fairly long span of time ya know.
Zeitgeist is offline  
post #85 of 107 (permalink) Old 03-19-2005, 08:38 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: Do you want the USA to police the world?

I offer everything in human history as compared to what the USA has done, good or bad. If you can name another, I'd be delighted to help make the comparison.
Botnst is offline  
post #86 of 107 (permalink) Old 03-19-2005, 08:54 PM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1428 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: Do you want the USA to police the world?

Uh huh, it's like trying to determine who had the most purple aorta in all of human history--Reductio ad Absurdum
Zeitgeist is offline  
post #87 of 107 (permalink) Old 03-19-2005, 09:10 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: Do you want the USA to police the world?

Quote:
Zeitgeist - 3/19/2005 10:54 PM

Uh huh, it's like trying to determine who had the most purple aorta in all of human history--Reductio ad Absurdum
Then my assertion stands.
Botnst is offline  
post #88 of 107 (permalink) Old 03-19-2005, 09:33 PM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1428 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: Do you want the USA to police the world?

Not unlike when I state that Capitalism sucks...another subjective statement of opinion demanding attention--absent that, I can declare victory.
Zeitgeist is offline  
post #89 of 107 (permalink) Old 03-19-2005, 10:29 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: Do you want the USA to police the world?

Quote:
Zeitgeist - 3/19/2005 11:33 PM

Not unlike when I state that Capitalism sucks...another subjective statement of opinion demanding attention--absent that, I can declare victory.
Sure capitalism sucks. Heck, life sucks. But both are better than all the alternatives.
Botnst is offline  
post #90 of 107 (permalink) Old 03-20-2005, 09:55 AM Thread Starter
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1761 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Do you want the USA to police the world?

It is becoming more and more obvious Bot is off his good drugs.
Shane is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome