Well, that's a possibility, but it would involve some sort of world government, don'tcha think? I mean a legitimate one, not a coalition of nations. The overemphasis of state's rights is one of the things that led to the civil war (american, that is) and as long as people identify more with their country than they do with the world body, there's still going to be conflict between nation states. I'm just extemporizing, off the top of my head here, people.

I mean, that's the nature of the internet, right? People who were previously divided by geography are now able to enter into discourse with one another. Ideas get exchanged, cultural values don't have to be what you were born with. It's a long time coming, but the real end result of the postgeographical internet community is the homogenization (sic) of world culture. Not that I believe any of this rubbish, mind you, jsut thinking out loud.

I ascend

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kradlum:
In the UK 2 types of people join the army - dumb rich kids join to become officers, dumb poor kids join to get off the streets. When the army is sent to a foreign country, the national IQ rises 2 points.

---

Mm. Yeah. I'm not going to comment on your country's military, and its IQ. The poor kids who join the military here are not necessarily dumb. To say so would be to make an unfair judgment regarding the inherent stupidity of the poor. I suppose the poor smart kids in your country go straight to the dole, eh? ;P

Secondly, getting into our military academies is a bitch. And anyone can do it. Yes, you have to get a recommendation, but those are generally earned. I know this because several of my friends went through the process. None of them had any money, all of them just tested well and earned the ticket. Some of them enlisted and then earned their way to Officer's Training.

Look, we're obviously facing a cultural divide. I'm of the opinion that the gov't should do a better job of encouraging people to be teachers, and capitalism has provided plenty of encouragement to be a doctor. But I view cops and soldiers as fairly noble. There are exceptions, there are bad apples, but generally these are good people doing good work. Probably not going to be a popular opinion on this board, but I find the people who don't like cops have generally never lived in a truly anarchic situation.

I ascend

Now, most of the people in my family have some connection to the 'military-industrial complex'. So I am not going to put down their hard work. And though I am all for global peace, I see too many bad guys out there who aren't to not want some national security. BUT. I wonder along with some other Europeans on this board about the motivations of people like ms. Lynch. It seems very unfair.

quote:

---

And I could question whether communities set up in circumstances that lacked long-term viability really deserve saving through military Keynesianism (or anything - such as the USA's burgeoning prison-industrial complex) but this is already too long.

---

THIS is my favorite subject. But not one suitable for US-bashing. One of the special charms of a military family is the endless row of desolate, run-down places one has visited or lived in. Some of them in GB, too.

JRE: there are many australian communities reliant on a single industry (quite a few without even that, but we won't go into that here). some might rely on the military, or primary industries that are unsustainable. while i don't have a solution to the bind, i think govts should work on them, instead of going for those options that focus on the short term.

in the past two months, two of my cousins, one australian and one english have gone into the military. i understand the need for a way out of poverty, but i think mark latham's notion (he's the leader of the federal opposition here) of putting the rungs back in the ladder is a better way to approach things.

i think teachers and nurses are terribly undervalued, but i do think that people in the military deserve to be compensated for the dangers associated with their work (i wouldn't have their anthrax jabs no matter what they paid me) and for the time they spend away from their families and friends. my mother barely knew her father until she was 11, when he left the british navy.

An aside to Darwnpromethious - most of your posts assume that military force is expressed as the will of the electorate. I would argue that this has not been the case in the West since WWII. Hence, the question of whether or not people left to their own devices would make war on one another is rather a moot point.

And to the rest of you commenting on this report, I would say that the bigger issue is not whether we are militarily prepared to fight on behalf of the Rich North against the Poor South, but rather what could be done to prevent the necessity of such a fight in the first place. The very fact that, however farfetched it may seem now, the US military-industrial complex is considering this problem should give us all pause.

She could steal, but she could not rob

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kradlum:
In the UK 2 types of people join the army - dumb rich kids join to become officers, dumb poor kids join to get off the streets. When the army is sent to a foreign country, the national IQ rises 2 points.

---

This is fun! Let's play more!

You might want to consider the different roles that the U.S. and UK militaries have played in getting their countries to their current, comfortable positions:

The UK is in its present comfortable state due to a hundred or so years of its military losing.

The U.S. is in its present comfortable state due to a hundred or so years of its military actually winning more than losing.

As for your chicken-egg proposition that soldiers only exist because of medicos or teachers, I have to agree. Without good Allied soldiers, the Nazis would have won WWII. Since the Nazis did show great dedication to "education" (re-education?) and "health care" (anyone up for compulsory participation in unethical trials?), you're right! If we'd sacked all our lousy, stupid soldiers back before WWII, then we'd have lots more teachers and doctors. Boy, we'd sure be better off then!

--------"Somebody hits me, I'm going to hit him back. Even if it does look like he hasn't eaten in a while." -Charles Barkley

Can somebody please get Splitcoil another moleskin notebook.

(meeeow)

Yes! An excellent idea! When I have my moleskine notebook, I don't use as many exclamation points, either!!

--------"Somebody hits me, I'm going to hit him back. Even if it does look like he hasn't eaten in a while." -Charles Barkley

quote:

---

Originally posted by misty:
JRE: there are many australian communities reliant on a single industry (quite a few without even that, but we won't go into that here).

---

Yes, I suppose it is a matter of distance/population. You need a good reason to get the town here instead of there, and that becomes the whole point. Just a feature of low population, I think.

Now, Splitcoil, you are going beyond ketchup. The British lost their will to fight, not wars. Something that happens to most Empires. And you could say the USA got where they are by paying others to fight in their place most of the time. Which is a good point from a realpolitik point of view, but usually ends up with well armed former allies that may not be so keen to remain your ally. Which would explain the shift on strategy for direct action.

José

quote:

---

Originally posted by Splitcoil:
As for your chicken-egg proposition that soldiers only exist because of medicos or teachers, I have to agree. Without good Allied soldiers, the Nazis would have won WWII. Since the Nazis did show great dedication to "education" (re-education?) and "health care" (anyone up for compulsory participation in unethical trials?), you're right! If we'd sacked all our lousy, stupid soldiers back before WWII, then we'd have lots more teachers and doctors. Boy, we'd sure be better off then!

--------"Somebody hits me, I'm going to hit him back. Even if it does look like he hasn't eaten in a while." -Charles Barkley

---

Either you are deliberately trolling or I have seriously overestimated your intelligence.

Without educators and medics your soldiers wouldn't even be able to find their way to turn up for the draft, and if they did they would have to spend 11 years educating them to the point that they could make useful soldiers.

Try training a soldier with the educational skills of a 5 year old, you'll end up with soldiers who can't read maps, soldiers who can't tell friend from enemy... No wait...

[This message was edited by Kradlum on March 03, 2004 at 05:08 AM.]

'The UK is in its present comfortable state due to a hundred or so years of its military _losing_.

The U.S. is in its present comfortable state due to a hundred or so years of its military actually _winning_ more than losing.'


I haven't got my history books handy but what war has the UK actually lost in the last hundred years? All I can think of is the Suez Incident but that wasn't even really a war. Now Vietnam, that was definitely a war, so maybe the UK actually has a higher batting average than the US. Not that that is necessarily something to be proud of.

You wrote: "The U.S. is in its present comfortable state due to a hundred or so years of its military actually winning more than losing".

I think you are mistaken.
US now prospers because of its Geo-location (there was no serious wars near US borders). I mean, you engaged in fight with Nazis after 3 years or so of WWII, after Russians almost destroyed German military machine. Your economy wasn't crushed by WWI and WWII.
And the second reason of your today's comfort is clever political play.

Long Walk To Forever

Australia has the best shock troops EVA!

Not as good as these...



...obviously.

BUT PRETTY FREAKIN GOOD!

-----
Bring me an Englishman at once.

Yes, of course I know I was full of horseshit. I was pushing to see what sort of replies would result.

My point regarding the UK/U.S. militaries was for pure entertainment value (only my own, apparently), not as a meaningful explanation of the last century of world history. I have slightly too good a grounding in history for that.

But my goofy point regarding the Nazis' devotion to medicine and education was a REAL point put in a silly way. If no one is interested in reading between the lines (Bellham, where are you?), then I'll be dry and boring about it.

To argue that one or two segments of society are the only/most essential elements of that society is pointless, vapid horseshit.

Without soldiers, Western civilization would not have survived.

Without teachers, medicos, artists, construction workers, baristas and aeronautical engineers, Western civilization would not have been worth saving.

We all feed upon one another. Without teachers, yes, soldiers would be of approximately the same quality as the Taliban's. And without soldiers, teachers in the West would be teaching us that eugenics through extermination of the unfit is a fantastic proposal, and doctors would be helping political officers to identify and exterminate those on the fringe.

I think you and I would both be exterminated in those circumstances, Kradlum. Whatever issues you have with your military, I can't help you with. But I sure feel sorry for the poor bastards who died while safeguarding your right to bad-mouth them.

And Jose, my good friend, try a little exercise with me. Let's both repeat the sentence: America existed before and after the Cold War,America existed before and after the Cold War,America existed before and after the Cold War,America existed before and after the Cold War,America existed before and after the Cold War, two more times, then stop.

--------"Somebody hits me, I'm going to hit him back. Even if it does look like he hasn't eaten in a while." -Charles Barkley

I think you're reading too much into what I have said. I don't have a problem with the military, I have a problem with a civilisation that values the military more than it values its educators and healers.

The military-industrial complex is supposed to be run by the nation, over recent years the US seems to be being run by the military-industrial complex to the detriment of education and health.

I'm not knocking current US policy for the sake of knocking it, but because the rest of the world relies on a strong US economy. It's in my interest that the US does well. The US currently has a debt of $3trillion, the dollar is slipping against other currencies on a daily basis, meanwhile Bush is making tax cuts primarily to the rich and big business and cutting back on spending for health and education, while spending $1billion a day on a war 1000's of miles away.

The Democrats in the US should go back to their campaign slogan of 92 - "It's the economy, stupid". They need to get around the scare tactics of the Bush government and show the people the real effects of policies of the last few years on the economy. You only need to look at the budgets in Texas immediately before and after Bush's governorship to see that he and his advisors have no idea of how to run an economy.

Well, first off, moleskine notebooks rock. I have to order mine online, because the only place that carries them around here only has blank page version, and I need my lines.

Secondly, we're following a dangerous line here. It's never going to win friends to summon the "we won WWII" mantra, and it's something I avoid. But also keep in mind that a large majority of the troops stationed in europe during the cold war were american, and one of the reasons that certain european countries have great social programs is because we've been bankrolling their defense budget from the sixties, on through the eighties. Not a today kind of issue, I realize, but not something to be forgotten either.

Also keep in mind that every time there's some kinda trouble in the world, the global community starts bitching for the US to show up. Liberia and Haiti are merely two recent examples. This is what comes of being the biggest kid on the block, and we accept that, but it gets tiring to hear other countries asking us to downgrade our military while simultaneously asking us to bail their asses outta the fire. Whatever.

Finally, we need to make a distinction. A lot of people here are playing an either/or scenario. We either spend money on the military or on teachers. This is ridiculous. Like JRE said...we're 42nd in the world on GDP military spending. Do we value soldiers more that teachers? Probably. More than doctors? You see a lot of drill sergeants driving BMWs?

I don't think we'll ever have the social programs of the EU here in america, certainly not on the same scale. There is a rabid distrust in america of people who won't work for a living, and it takes a lot of political power just to support people who *can't* work for a living.

Final note. America did win WWII, both in europe and in the pacific. And after that we won the cold war. Yes, geography played a role. But we get sick of people bitching that we didn't come to war soon enough, and then bitching that we started wars too early, or got involved in wars that we should have kept our nose out of. Whatever.

I ascend

Whatever you do beware of blue notebooks made in Portugal

I prefer blank notebooks and blank paper. I hate lines!

*******
Perhaps a bit off topic, I know that I'm supposed to be posting about ketchup here.

So, let's see what wars have the USA fought the last hundred years. The First world war? USA corned beef did more to keep the Western allies together than the divisions that arrived in time. All sides mostly agreed the germans had lost the war when the Kaiserslacht failed to knock the French out of the war. Or should we count casualties? Troops in combat positions? Even the Italians did much more fighting than the US(well, maybe, they suffered one million casualties and just 60000 killed, compared with 321000 and 117000). Their moral effect probably saved close to a million lives. But that is not fighting.

Wilson's support helped the UK overcome the low moments of 1916. Not military, mind, economic.

We will ignore the marines working as the executive branch of US corporations in Central America, as that fits better as a police action, not war.

The Second World War fits mostly with the First, with the USA mostly supplying the allies with tools to fight the bad guys, except for the PTO. I mean, the US were instrumental in freeing France, but that was not the critical point, the critical moment was mechanizing the Russians in 1943, to allow them to put ten million soldiers on the front. One million US servicemen in Europe in 1945 is nice, but it cannot compare. Again, a look at troops serving actually under combat conditions and combat casualties show a marked difference between the USA and their allies, specially considering the economic and size differential. So without the USA, probably half the British, most of the multi-ethnic allies (Free French, Brazilians, Poles...) and a big chunk of the Russians would not be fighting the Germans, and beating them. I do not want to play down the USA killed in WWII, as they were high (close to 300000). But the UK had the same, with five times less people. Even the French were close to that number, and the Yugoslavians over it (not counting the more than a million civilians killed).

Korea? Well, that was Cold War already...

And when I was thinking of well armed "allies" I was actually thinking of all the guerrillas in South East Asia and China, as well as the conflicts in post WWII Europe (Greek civil war, anyone).

I am not attacking the US military history. No other country has valued so much the life of its own soldiers, and indirectly probably has caused also less loss of life among its enemies. But I still believe the US way of war is mostly economic, with the Gulf war a clear example, while the current occupation of Irak is a departure from it.

José

whoever invented them deserves a medal. Usually, I prefer unlined. But my daughters gave me a modified lined one recently, and it is actually quite nice. It's kind of cool when the drawings and the lines clash..

US/global wars is a different question, one more complex than as discussed here. I'm not sure I know enough to judge, but my opinion is that the US contributed in an important way to the end of WWII, and that the cold war was ended by some peoples in the Sovjet sphere of interest, part of them much inspired by an aspiration towards the American way of life. No man is an island..

As Kradlum says: any American foreign-policy needs to be seen in relation to the economics of the given age: if any (aggressive or isolationist) policy is a mere populist excuse for bad money-management, we all get fried. US-economy is *the* setting for global economy.
IMHO this is the most important argument for a strong and robust European Union, with an equivalent joint economy. But try to explain that to the nutty nationalist racists out there...

[quote]
"I am not attacking the US military history. No other country has valued so much the life of its own soldiers, and indirectly probably has caused also less loss of life among its enemies. But I still believe the US way of war is mostly economic, with the Gulf war a clear example, while the current occupation of Irak is a departure from it." [/quoute]


How can you attack or critizice "Us military history"<?> and if you want to talk about "less loss of lifes among its enemies" you certainly would not want to start with vietnam where 3.7 million died, and if you want to bring up ww2 why not talk about the 500 000 that were obliterated in the Hiroshima bombing, or the 571 GI´s and the countless of GI´s that is suffering from the exposing of Depleted Uranium, postraumas from the Gulf war, not to mention the psychological traumas and mental illness.

And yes the point of US interventionism is indeed to spearhead for the us companys, along with the streamlining of a cosolidated global economic system with IMF, WTO and the worldbank

And as for the antics about Military vs the educational system and the importance of medical workers, all I can say if you push taxmoney into the hightech weapon industry that is the pentagon system (funneling taxfunds from the budget into hightech bizz, socialising cost and capitalizing profit) those sectors wich are for the good of the people will suffer on the cost of adventureism.