BF2S Forums Occupy Wall Street

Jay wrote:

A pretty solid argument can be made that the world has been relatively aggression free due to the US playing world police. What would've happened if we hadn't kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in '91?

oh and professor pinker says the world has been aggression free because we're psychologically evolving to be that way. less credit to you

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

A pretty solid argument can be made that the world has been relatively aggression free due to the US playing world police. What would've happened if we hadn't kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in '91?

oh and professor pinker says the world has been aggression free because we're psychologically evolving to be that way. less credit to you

We're not evolving that way, certain parts of our culture are pushing us that way. We have anti-bullying laws, and a constant de-emphasis of things like success or test scores, or whatever. It's not evolution, it's conscious attempts to socially reengineer the human race in order to make us more passive. If you can't legislate mediocrity by decree, make mediocrity the goal by more subversive means: control education.

Sounds like a NWO conspiracy.

it's not thinking completely one-dimensionally at all... i think using armed forces raised by citizen's taxmoney to further economic control by force is completely unnecessary and unethical (ha! working towards a multinational ethics in the era of global capital... now isn't that idealism) you talk about "coercive diplomacy" as if its some inviolable and a priori law of late capitalism - i don't think it is. i think most advanced nations can get by just fine without any need for (expensive) coercive military force in order to achieve ends that are, ultimately, about economic advantage. i do think that there is a place for the military in foreign peacekeeping - especially when we have prior historical responsibilities as western nations - but that is hardly on a budgetary scale with keeping a fullblown standing army. as i've said, other un and nato member states manage to fulfill their 'obligations' to concerns of human rights and humanitarian missions without needing to build new supercarriers and without having to keep pumping money into these massive industrial-military complexes. the complicated issue here is that the most advanced western societies, in their civilizing mission and in their urge to bring global democracy and 'peace', are also propping up huge slices of their economic might using the aforementioned industrial-military complex; it's one of their main concrete economic strengths, being able to produce on a technologically advanced level. i'm not one-dimensional, i'm just idealistic: in a world where there is no real ideological struggle, where supposedly capitalism has won and we are at the end of the materialist dialectical history (fukuyama), i don't think we need this huge taxpayer's investment in vulgar force. peacekeeping, sure. huge defense budgets? almost a sad joke to call it 'defense'.

i mean look at where the majority of your 'defense' spending is going, and then try to tell me even 10% of that is on defensive measures, or anything to do with 'diplomacy' and the health of the global marketplace. it's all completely suspect.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-12-05 09:41:11)

HudsonFalcon wrote:

.......but it is defense.  Just because the fighting takes place on foreign shores doesn't mean we're defending our interests any less.  Having a large army keeps the balance of power in check and if that means spending huge dollars to keep things that way then so be it.

".......but it is defense." War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Uzique is largely correct. Our military budget dwarfs its purpose: defending our national borders.

Coercive diplomacy is an abomination. "Big Stick Diplomacy" a la Teddy Roosevelt where if people don't do what we say we'll topple their governments, rape their women, and their resources. Or, from a modern standpoint, Neo-Conservatism.

Personally, I want the hawks sidelined permanently. Take away their toys. Take away their ability to be bullying assholes forever. Transform the military from one where millions of people stand on active duty, to one where millions of people sit in reservist roles.

FEOS, I lost a lot of respect for you when I saw you actually advocating offensive action as a diplomatic tool.

Last edited by Jay (2011-12-05 09:51:56)

and galt you've just come around to say exactly what i've been saying ALL ALONG. the military is a big expensive drain on taxpayer's money that serves no 'real' purpose (e.g. defending from a very real threat, or securing any meaningful peace that effects us in any way). all i called for was heavier investment in technology that can defend and act far more efficiently than a giant standing army - "less full-salaried men" was my point, because it's fucking expensive to have all these bases and schools open training soldiers we don't really need. a reservist army, fine, of course. every major power should be able to call up a fighting force in a time of need. my problem is the fact that the military is a go-to career path for many here, and that's all it stands for: an easy, qualification-free career path, paid for by taxpayer's money. people complain when kids carry on studying at university for many years just for the sake of it "on their dime", but then don't bat en eyelid here when some idiot that fucked around throughout school joins the army because he has no other job prospects. oh right, because he's performing a 'use', whereas a student isn't? what bull. we keep huge and costly armies for no practical reason other than to remind the rest of the world that our dick is bigger than theirs.

Uzique wrote:

and galt you've just come around to say exactly what i've been saying ALL ALONG. the military is a big expensive drain on taxpayer's money that serves no 'real' purpose (e.g. defending from a very real threat, or securing any meaningful peace that effects us in any way). all i called for was heavier investment in technology that can defend and act far more efficiently than a giant standing army - "less full-salaried men" was my point, because it's fucking expensive to have all these bases and schools open training soldiers we don't really need. a reservist army, fine, of course. every major power should be able to call up a fighting force in a time of need. my problem is the fact that the military is a go-to career path for many here, and that's all it stands for: an easy, qualification-free career path, paid for by taxpayer's money. people complain when kids carry on studying at university for many years just for the sake of it "on their dime", but then don't bat en eyelid here when some idiot that fucked around throughout school joins the army because he has no other job prospects. oh right, because he's performing a 'use', whereas a student isn't? what bull. we keep huge and costly armies for no practical reason other than to remind the rest of the world that our dick is bigger than theirs.

No, it does serve a purpose, I just disagree with the current stance our government has taken. Soldiers don't make policy (usually) so they aren't the ones to blame for whatever situation we currently have set up. They're doing a job, and that job is necessary (to an extent). I just took issue with you throwing the lot of them into the same bucket and labeling them as pointless. Your issue should be with your government and their policies, not with the soldiers or sailors. They're blameless.

If you do a thread search (I don't recommend it ) you'll see me arguing at least a dozen times for the size of our military to shrink dramatically. We have no enemies, we have no threats to our defense. Our borders are with Canada and Mexico, any naval invasion would be seen months in advance via satellite. There's no rational justification for the size of our military except for the hawks wanting to flex their muscles.

Last edited by Jay (2011-12-05 10:17:50)

Uzique wrote:

earlier on you were talking about the military helping you "sleep safe at night", which i think is 100% jingoistic bullshit. give me one tangible example of how having an army that is completely committed to some war thousands of miles away in the middle-east helps westerners sleep more safely. that sounds like a bush speech around the time of the patriot act. we are not threatened by anyone.

That a military is necessary is fact. The size required is opinion.

Uzique wrote:

and i'm sorry but i do blame a lot of the soldiers and sailors. most entry level military kids i've seen fucked around in school, had no prospects, and just went into the army because it was an easy done-thing. army provides all the structure, discipline, meals, roof and a paycheck (courtesy of the taxpayer). it's one degree away from being institutionalised in prison, where everything is taken care of and paid for you. if the people i'd known to join the military did so out of some high-minded principle of 'freedom' or 'democracy', sure, huge applause. they're doing a tough job for a noble cause, with shitty direction from politicians. but that's hardly ever the case, really, to be cynical about it. as you said yourself, you joined because it was a free college education. most people here in the UK join because they require that you can remember your own name and know your left from your right, and that's it. so i do blame them. they're taking advantage of an easy system to claim a slice of the national budget that shouldn't really be allocated to them. it would better go on homeland education, or civil services, or healthcare, than it would on ensuring the incomes of a bunch of fucking mongs.

So blame the politicians that want the large military. It's not the soldiers/sailors fault, and it's not like they're on the dole doing nothing in return for the pay. They sacrifice a huge part of their humanity for a shit paycheck and to possibly die at the whim of a politician.

maybe not their fault, but i don't respect them anymore for it, either. it's entirely their choice to put themselves in dangers way. the problem over here is that the mentality these people have is "i don't care, i won't try, i'm just going to end up joining the army anyway". they were terminal slackers at school, tearaways, people with no foreseeable future. but they knew that a roof, daily meal and a paycheque was waiting for them in the army. that just annoys me, because nobody is joining out of any good principle or to fight for any good reason. they'll lazily accept the army career option because the entry requirements are nil and because they obviously have no qualms or questions about fighting in a war that many see as unethical and illegal... because it'll pay them. just as you saw no problem in joining to get a free college education. you're being paid for by other taxpayers to easily profiteer off other's misery, in my opinion.

Tripulaci0n wrote:

I think you'd be pleasantly surprised how difficult it is to join the military. Not saying it's that hard, but it's not as easy as being a complete fuckup and deciding to kill people for a living.

the videos of us recruitment drives that i have seen and anecdotal evidence i know from the british army tells me very different.

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

We had entrance physical and mental entrance exams. They also require a high school diploma, a clean police record, and a clean drug test. Minimal standards maybe, but they do exist.

please. to wipe up old people's shit in a care home you'd need more qualifications and background checks.

Well, I had a security clearance so my background check was a bit more thorough.

anyway i'm all for demilitarisation, period. the problem is a demographic one here in the uk, and that's the reason they probably won't do it any time soon. the army puts a lot of idle hands to work that the devil would take good care of otherwise. a lot of chavvy useless cunts end up going into the army here in order to have a career and some order and structure that they'd never get anywhere else. that in itself is fair enough, working a hard job for a modest wage and living a good life. but it's paid for by the taxpayer and the mentality, as i said, is "fuck trying, i'm going to join the army anyway". it's a safety-net for layabouts, an always-dependable job option for people that can't take the heat in tough economic/employment markets. i don't respect them, because they aren't joining out of principle. most don't even understand the basic history or ideology of the middle-eastern conflicts. many are motivated out of crass racial stereotype or hatreds that are conveniently overlooked by their superiors. not going to argue that they do a tough job, but it's their choice, and their choices in life hardly involved any noble conviction.

So, let me see if I understand the arguments and assumptions here, Uzique.
A) You fully and truly seem to believe in a marxist progression of history.
B) You think we are in a "stage of capitalism" where military threats from nation-states are almost non-existent.
C) You believe either the stage in B will last for a long time, or the next stage will have an equally non-existent threat of war.
To a guy with a degree in military history, some of those assumptions are rather tenuous, and some rather dangerous to bet a nation on.

D) You support nuclear deterrence.  (Do you understand the shortcomings of such extreme measures?)
E) You think conventional military forces are mostly workfare. 
F) You hold those in the conventional military in low regard (slackers, unemployable, unprincipled, and unable to meet standards)

Personally, I think your assumptions are not sound enough get rid of conventional military forces.  I also think you underestimate the ability and contributions of many nations with small "peace-keeping" military forces.  Most of those nations send their forces as a show of moral support rather than an effective use of power.  Many of them wind up being well-armed security.  Several nations have such prestigious duties as guarding part of their coalition base.  That is not an effective military, if you consider force projection a valid role.
Heck, the UK was depleting their Tomahawk missile supply in Libya (after 2-3 weeks?!), and had to do a fast qualification course in ordnance delivery for some of their pilots.  That doesn't sound very good to me.  (They weren't the first, the entire US Far-East stockpile of AT weapons in 1950 could not stop a single North Korean tank advance.)

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2011-12-05 11:45:43)