you played with my little pony. dont lieS3v3N wrote:
I played with G.I. Joes.Man With No Name wrote:
I played with G.I. Joes when i was a kid.
You played with G.I. Jose.
The difference between imperialist and militarist is subtle but important. Imperialism usually requires a certain amount of militarism, but the emphasis (in a modern sense) is economic.Pochsy wrote:
You're right, I do need to tone down. I'm just tired of having these arguments with people who seem to be uncommitted to objective statements.Turquoise wrote:
Pochsy, I somewhat agree with your conclusions, but you might want to tone down your response some.
I think the main flaw in your argument is that there is a big division in American society about the military.
The government definitely is militaristic, but as a people, about half of us are wary of heavy military involvement.
Our society is too complex to label as militaristic, but our government could somewhat be described that way. Imperialist would probably be more accurate in describing our government.
You're right again, I am generalizing at a grand scale, I should make concession and state that not all Americans support the system. Unfortunately I must generalize to speak of a country as a whole, and as a result my conclusions remain.
Imperialist is a fair assessment. I can agree with that, although I still believe it to be one step further as stated.
Most of our intervention is aimed at extending our trade influence. We often claim it's about democracy, but it's really more about capitalism.
technically speaking, my G.I. Joes did capture a group of my little ponies' and execute them, then the bastards burried them in a mass grave in the sandbox. My sister was pissed.Man With No Name wrote:
you played with my little pony. dont lieS3v3N wrote:
I played with G.I. Joes.Man With No Name wrote:
I played with G.I. Joes when i was a kid.
You played with G.I. Jose.
I agree 100%. The difference is important, but the question then becomes which is the primary actor in the American case? I would argue that it is the military that defines their imperialist goals in some instances, not the other way around. Both are most definitely present, but the military is so closely tied to economic success (it's a freaking huge industry that the US needs to retain) that the line is severely blurred.Turquoise wrote:
The difference between imperialist and militarist is subtle but important. Imperialism usually requires a certain amount of militarism, but the emphasis (in a modern sense) is economic.
Most of our intervention is aimed at extending our trade influence. We often claim it's about democracy, but it's really more about capitalism.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
I used to feel that way myself, but I think it's economic.Pochsy wrote:
I agree 100%. The difference is important, but the question then becomes which is the primary actor in the American case? I would argue that it is the military that defines their imperialist goals in some instances, not the other way around. Both are most definitely present, but the military is so closely tied to economic success (it's a freaking huge industry that the US needs to retain) that the line is severely blurred.Turquoise wrote:
The difference between imperialist and militarist is subtle but important. Imperialism usually requires a certain amount of militarism, but the emphasis (in a modern sense) is economic.
Most of our intervention is aimed at extending our trade influence. We often claim it's about democracy, but it's really more about capitalism.
It's not the military itself pulling the strings. It's the manufacturers of weapons that do this. But then again... bankers can ultimately pull their strings.
I know it sounds kind of strange, but banks really have more power than anyone else because they essentially create the money we use by loaning out funds that don't technically exist until someone borrows them.
Right. But that's another issue entirely and tis late, so I'm off to bed. Thankyou for the excellent talkTurquoise wrote:
I used to feel that way myself, but I think it's economic.
It's not the military itself pulling the strings. It's the manufacturers of weapons that do this. But then again... bankers can ultimately pull their strings.
I know it sounds kind of strange, but banks really have more power than anyone else because they essentially create the money we use by loaning out funds that don't technically exist until someone borrows them.
Last edited by Pochsy (2009-04-18 21:11:20)
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Thanks... you tooPochsy wrote:
Right. But that's another issue entirely and tis late, so I'm off to bed. Thankyou for the excellent talkTurquoise wrote:
I used to feel that way myself, but I think it's economic.
It's not the military itself pulling the strings. It's the manufacturers of weapons that do this. But then again... bankers can ultimately pull their strings.
I know it sounds kind of strange, but banks really have more power than anyone else because they essentially create the money we use by loaning out funds that don't technically exist until someone borrows them.
I'm not going to apologize for being accurate. Using the whole "in your own words" gambit is usually followed by the definition police trying to show that you don't know what you're talking about...I simply removed that step from the process by going with the actual definition of the term--which happened to be the definition I was using when responding initially.Pochsy wrote:
Well I beleive I said "in you own words," so fail there.FEOS wrote:
Why don't we start with the term "militaristic":Pochsy wrote:
Please, in your own words, define "militaristic society." It may save us a lot of time here. This is not a shot, I want to make sure we mean the same thing.None of those apply to the US. Economic policy is number one, followed closely by Information, with Diplomacy and Military tied for last (those would be the four elements of National power). Military is far from "predominant". Just because it gets a lot of news and budget doesn't mean that it's the most important. Our country hardly "glorifies the ideals of a professional military class"...in fact, any amount of recognition of the military's efforts leads to cries of creating a "warrior class" akin to the Samurai and all the negative connotations that go along with that.dictionary.com wrote:
militaristic
adjective
imbued with militarism
------------------------------------------
mil·i·ta·rism (mĭl'ĭ-tə-rĭz'əm)
n.
1. Glorification of the ideals of a professional military class.
2. Predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state.
3. A policy in which military preparedness is of primary importance to a state.
So...how's that?
Support for the military =/= glorification of a professional military class. And that support is entirely regional.1.) Really? I sure as shit would say you do. I see a tonne of support for your military all over the place. Don't even ask me to justify this claim; you'd have to be a fool not to see it.
Actually, the majority of the budget goes to social programs such as Social Security.2.) Your right. It may not be the most important factor in ANY country, but as you have stated, a majority of the budget goes there, most of the major decisions are made there, and all of the international policies the US make are predominately backed by de facto power.
Most major changes are made diplomatically or economically, not militarily.
All four elements of national power are complementary. Military power backs up all the others, just as all the others back up military power. It's not an either-or situation.
The US's status as a superpower is more economic than military. So, yes, 99% of what goes down involving the US has to do with its status as a superpower...an economic superpower and a diplomatic superpower. All the news goes to the military, but the majority of the work is done using the other three elements of national power.3.) Seriously? You don't think 99% of what goes down involving the US state has to do with its status as a world superpower? Fuck me sideways.
Let's not bother with pesky facts then. We'll just go with emotional reactions that aren't founded in reality from now on.The United States of America is a militaristic society.
oh wait...
Irony is ironic.I'm just tired of having these arguments with people who seem to be uncommitted to objective statements.
And later in your exchange with Turq you essentially admit economic power is the primary driver of US policy, yet you still cling to your original and incorrect (as evidenced by your agreement with Turq) assertion.
Last edited by FEOS (2009-04-19 06:51:24)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular