Well if we're talking about biological entities/species....you're talking about civilizations/nations/empires.

one of the main characteristics of a collapsing empire is the inability of that empire to recognize that it is collapsing. this doesn't reverse (it's not causal). more symptomatic i think.

Yes, and in this case we have people profiting off that collapse and pouring fuel on the fire.

Indeed. :rolleyes:

Stay the course.

My brother in law says we are in the 18th chapter of 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.' I wouldn't know because I haven't read it, lol.

I had to look it up. There are 71 chapters, which means it's 25% complete. You still have a way to go, America!

If we are in the 18th Chapter of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, tell me who our analogue of Alaric is? And who are the modern day Visigoths?

I always thought sacking and pillaging might make a good movie.

It's all allegory-esque. Like the Bible!

"Visigoth" always sounded very chivalric to me. Not sure why.

Will, you said something above about us "breaking" all sorts of countries. You do realize that the density of variables in each of those situations is so thick that that comment makes no sense, don't you? Outside of physically invading and overthrowing a dictatorship and then occupying the place, which is what we did in Iraq, it makes no more sense to say the US "broke" any other society than it does to say that everything traces back to the Kennedy assassination -- in some ways it does but it's not significant or informative. There are lots and lots of other factors involved in every other example you gave -- and it would be nice if you paid the people in those other societies the elementary human respect of according them responsibility for their own decisions, which are far more likely to be causally determinative in their lives than anything the US government does or did. Not to absolve our govt of its responsibility for bad decisions it may make - it makes plenty - but it's far from omnipotent.

I agree we're "far from omnipotent" but as the, arguably, last remaining superpower we seem to treat ever problem as if there's a military solution. I'm not sure where I heard it but I always liked the quote "to a man with a big hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail."

actually, Tully, that is a vast overstatement. It's obvious that we use the military more than a number of other western democracies but that's a function of the fact that we have one with real capabilities, and most comparable countries don't. So we have more than one tool, as compared to most European countries, say, which have soft power and nothing else. Soft power is great, but it's even better if there is hard power behind it.
Whether we always use the power wisely is a different question. But that applies to soft power too.

I'm not sure why we have bases all over the place, why we're in Japan now 65 years after the war, or in Germany. Those deployments have become more like goodwill ambassadorships than military assignments. Not everything that happens in the world is our business, but a lot of people seem to think it is, particularly outside the US.

That I think is the biggest problem Tully, the shoot first ask questions later mentality often leads to more problems then it seems to fix. In this day and age I would think the powers that be could put a little thought into working on a problem without always having to throw bombs at it.

What part of what I said is a "vast over statement?

"we seem to treat ever problem as if there's a military solution." - vast overstatement. We spend billions on the State Dept for a reason.

You think "we seem to treat ever problem as if there's a military solution" is a vast overstatement yet you're "not sure why we have bases all over the place."

I find that to be vastly inconsistent.

Sure we spend money on the State Dept... but compare that to the money spent on the DOD, one's around 60 billion and the other is 650 billion, and I still say it SEEMS we treat every problem as if there is a military solution.

No more or less thick on average than Afghanistan (which was in the middle of a civil war when we invaded) or Iraq (which was collapsing under sanctions). If you're going to honestly sit there and suggest that somehow overthrowing democratically elected governments is somehow less intrusive than what we've done in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm afraid you've lost all perspective.

I hardly think you could call Iraq a democracy prior to our invasion. But I also fail to see how bombing the crap out of people will make them more of a democracy.

what's inconsistent about it? just because we have bases doesn't mean we treat every problem as a military one.

Remember Madeleine Albright's lament? "What good is it to have this magnificent military if we don't use it?"

Yep, whats the point of having a huge hammer if you don't pound on things from time to time?

I think your point is inconsistent and you think mine is vastly overstated... I think we'll just have to disagree.

I was talking about Iran. The United States overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran, thus "breaking" Iran. I was applying that to the principle Loq has about having to fix something one has broken.
What about Iran is so significantly different than Iraq that we're somehow absolved of your responsibility of "fixing" it?

Oh, sorry I read Iraq.

I don't understand the reasoning, 'we fucked up Haiti and didn't fix it, why should we fix Iraq?' Considering that these places are full of people and not vague sketches of land on a map, it seems to me a very flippant and spoiled attitude to have.

Besides, I think the term 'fix' is inaccurate and only serves to absolve us further from responsibility. If we can't fix it, then why bother? How terribly American of us.

Granted, I've been swinging off the 'nation state' trajectory when it comes to thinking about responsibility, duty and stewardship for a long while now. Maybe I've finally winged off course altogether. I hope, I hope.

It's not like we haven't tried. How long have we been there? "Mission Accomplished" when? I just don't see actual progress. Though we've been told we turned the corner how many times? At some point we're simply throwing good money for bad.

I think Will Rogers said it best "When you're in a hole stop digging."

---------- Post added at 08:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 AM ----------


You know I can find this quote attributed the Gen. Patton but not Albright. When did she use it?

I question whether those of you who oppose all of our military operations also oppose the federal government giving financial aid to other nations?

If our policy is to stop helping as a nation state, that means you have to stop giving aid as well. This doesn't mean the citizens of the nation couldn't give privately, if they chose. It just means the federal government no longer uses public funds to give to other nations.

Would you agree?

How does that logic hold up? If you stop giving military aid (which can be a fairly fluid term) you have to stop giving all aid? Why?

Kind of like saying "I'm a man, sharks are man eaters, therefore there must be sharks around here."

Many countries supply aid without giving or including their military in that aid.

I think foreign aid CAN be fine, but not at the expense of domestic aid. Don't spend more on hurricane and tsunami victims on foreign islands than you do on hurricane and oil spill victims on your own shores. Don't build million dollar bridges and schools in the Middle East when your own schools and bridges are crumbling, etc.

+19-sandwich

What I'm pointing out is loq isn't being consistent in applying his philosophy. While it seems like a good example of taking responsibility, the fact he's not clamoring to fix anything else we've broken suggests to me his philosophy is more an excuse than it is something he actually believes in. He's welcome to prove me wrong by demanding the United States fix other things we've broken, but until then his demand rings hollow.

And for the record, the United States isn't rebuilding something we've broken, we're creating a puppet state and we're lining the pockets of contractors and corporations with money that should be either going to balance the budget, social programs, or tax breaks. Every time you hear "the war has cost X", that 'X' isn't money we're spending that's going to the Iraqi people. That money, when it's not inexplicably disappearing by the billions into thin air, is going to no bid contracts, to private security that's above the law, and to corporations doing a really shitty job of doing what they're paid to do. If you have some idea that we're bravely doing the same thing in Iraq we once did in, say, Japan, you've got another thing coming. Japan wasn't sitting on oil and corporations didn't have the power they have now because we were just coming out of the Great Depression.

Hey now, sunshine.

I'm cool with paying soldiers, though, in fact they should probably make more. Still, we're not spending hundreds of billions a year paying for Private Smith's college tuition or to make sure Corporal Williams' humvee has proper armor.

Will, you're just playing a word game. I was using a pithy expression and you seized on the word "broke" and gave it a meaning I wasn't intending, then used it to impute bad faith argument to me. And this AFTER I said what I meant by "broke," meaning invaded the place and took down its government.

Disagree with me but don't do it dishonestly, ok?

You obviously put more store in "winning" the argument than arguing honestly. As if anyone "wins" a frickin' internet discussion.

Well, the basic difference is that military operations conducted by the US are rarely, if ever, helping a nation. The vast majority of them is about protecting loosely defined American interests.

Of course, I am talking about military actions in comparison to real aid. Not the sort of aid given to Pakistan, Egypt and Israel that is more about going along with American Military operations than anything.

I don't consider anything about the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan a game, least of which the excuses used by apologists to excuse staying there. This is serious and the red herring about me being disingenuous isn't going to distract me one bit. People are dying every day and if it can be prevented, it should be.

If the way you were using 'broke' specifically means invading and removing the government, the US has done that to more countries than Iraq and Afghanistan. 20 years ago, the United States invaded Panama and overthrew Manuel Noriega, a man in power because he played ball with the CIA during the cold war (wait, that sounds familiar). Do you know what Panama has looked like since the invasion? For several weeks after the invasion, the country descended into chaos and lawlessness. There was widespread looting so significant that it had a substantial consequence on the Panamanian economy. In the later aftermath, Panama saw tens of thousands of people become refugees, urban warfare, gangs, drugs (worse than before), and while the GDP finally reached where it had been again in the mid 90s, unemployment has still not yet recovered. The only thing the US did was give $6,500 each to families displaced by the Chorrillo fire. That's it. We didn't help them get their government in order, we didn't rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed, we didn't help to police the state so as to lessen looting or gang violence, and we certainly didn't stick around for years.

The point I'm trying to make is your excuse, which is used commonly in trying to explain why we should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, is unreasonable and it's not something you're required in the past. If we did have a policy of fixing problems we've created in other countries, that's all we'd ever do because it's common for the US to meddle in the affairs of other nations, especially militarily. Right now we've got drone attacks going on in many countries.

Here's honesty for you: I don't think we're doing anything tangibly beneficial by staying in the Middle East. We are, however, doing substantial, demonstrable harm not just to the people in the region, but eventually ourselves. 9/11 was about excessive US meddling in the Middle East, especially in respect to Israel and Palestine. If you don't think there will be blowback from Iraq and Afghanistan, you're not watching the news.

The Army College Fund: For every guy that uses it... at least four dipshits completely forget about it (TM)

I have sat down several times and tried to compose a response this post, but my mind is being pulled in several different directions right now. I have more important things I need to be (am) doing. Not more important than the issue itself, of course, but more important than debating about it - because, ultimately, what good does that do in the long run? You see things your way, I see them mine and there's not a god damned thing either one of us can do about the micro-issues that motivate us as individuals to form an opinion about how to handle the situation we are in now, here, today, Iraq.

From my point of view, your position is more politically motivated than humanitarian-based like mine and there's nothing wrong with that. Both of them are important. To me, what America is doing, does, was doing, etc. are secondary to the immediate security of the streets in Iraq. And it really is as simple as that. Escalating violence. Religious persecution. Kidnappings. Things that are already scarce becoming even more so: healthcare (as well as less support from NGOs that don't want to put their people in danger), schools, power supply, safe drinking water, a free press, the ability to communicate with the outside world, etc., etc. Admittedly, Iraq is not exactly the model of a healthy, functioning society right now, but if you look around the planet you can see plenty of examples of how much worse it can be. Particularly when you look at Afghanistan. In fact, the way Afghanistan devolved over the course of four decades is a pretty good example.

I've already spent more time on this than I intended. That's how I feel about it. And to spin one thing around on you, if you think the no bid contracts and governmental meddling are going to stop just because we don't have troops there anymore, you've got another thing coming. From what I'm reading we are essentially replacing our troops with mercenaries. Not exactly what Obama promised, is it?