Occupy Wall Street

2011-12-05 11:56:17

#826

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5353|London, England

RAIMIUS wrote:
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.)

I'd hate to hear his views on waiters and garbagemen.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-12-05 12:09:33

#827

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6466

i'm not a marxist and i don't buy into a marxist view of history, no, although i am influenced by hegel's dialectics. i'm just using the term "late capitalist" as a way to designate the current climate of pretty-much uninterrupted global capitalism. i do think that, yes, with the current global 'ideology' (as such) that serious threats of warfare from nation-states is greatly reduced. focus on nationhood and nationalism is, in my view, secondary to securing economic power. economic power and influence is not so much commanded by territory, therefore i do not perceive any imminent threats of invasion or land-grabbing. our original conversation was about military defense and "sleeping safer at night", and i that's where my comments originate from.

perhaps i am wrong about the peacekeeping capabilities of other smaller nations, however i don't see that as a compelling reason to keep throwing our money and human resources at the problem in order to compensate. perhaps other nations would have to step up their peacekeeping activities so that we may slacken off. nevertheless, the sentiment remains the same.

sure i don't have a degree in military history or any knowledge of how pilots need qualifications in ordnance delivery. but why would i? it's a waste of fucking time, imo.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-05 13:10:49

#828

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6406|'Murka

Jay wrote:
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.

When did I advocate that? I was merely pointing out that diplomacy, on its own, is fairly worthless without a military force and economic power to complement it. They are all intertwined. To eschew one is to lose all.

Coercive diplomacy and carrot/stick diplomacy (not the same thing) are along the spectrum of diplomatic options. They must be available for use, depending on who you are dealing with. Some governments will respond to nothing else, due to their cultural biases. Others will not respond to either of those options at all, for the same reason.

“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

2011-12-05 13:20:06

#829

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6406|'Murka

Uzique wrote:
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.

Keep in mind those other countries were able to get by with a smaller defense investment because others in their alliance were making larger investments and taking on more prominent roles. When you're not paying your alliance-mandated share toward national defense, and others take up the slack, you can get away with fielding a much smaller force than your peers.

“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

2011-12-05 13:46:29

#830

HudsonFalcon: Member; +20|5927|New York

The bottom line is we're America and we like guns.

2011-12-05 14:22:38

#831

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6466

private ownership of them, fine (although lets not get into that debate).
massive government spending of tax money, no thank you.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-05 14:30:46

#832

HudsonFalcon: Member; +20|5927|New York

Uzique wrote:
private ownership of them, fine (although lets not get into that debate).
massive government spending of tax money, no thank you.

We like both actually.

2011-12-05 14:31:13

#833

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,973|6627|949

no 'we' don't

2011-12-05 14:34:27

#834

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6466

'you' are mongs. who think moslems are gonna come into your house at night and murder you.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-05 14:35:55

#835

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6406|'Murka

If you honestly believe "we" think that, you are the true mong, Uzique.

“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

2011-12-05 14:41:49

#836

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5353|London, England

HudsonFalcon wrote:
Uzique wrote:
private ownership of them, fine (although lets not get into that debate).
massive government spending of tax money, no thank you.
We like both actually.

Speak for yourself.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-12-05 14:50:41

#837

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6466

HudsonFalcon wrote:
Fair enough but how do we defend ourselves on mulitple fronts from any enemy that wants to kill us for what we stand for?

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-05 15:11:06

#838

HudsonFalcon: Member; +20|5927|New York

HudsonFalcon wrote:
Uzique wrote:
private ownership of them, fine (although lets not get into that debate).
massive government spending of tax money, no thank you.
We like both actually.

Sarcasm ITT.

2011-12-05 15:13:31

#839

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5581

HudsonFalcon wrote:
HudsonFalcon wrote:
Uzique wrote:
private ownership of them, fine (although lets not get into that debate).
massive government spending of tax money, no thank you.
We like both actually.
Sarcasm ITT.

Backpedaling ITT

2011-12-05 16:52:22

#840

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6101|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
but I can't abide some moron expat that still lives at home and lies about holding an engineering degree calling what they do workfare.

I presume you mean me, I do hold an engineering degree - I have a Masters and I'm chartered, and the US military is largely workfare

No other country in the world has such a large and pointless military, or spends such a high proportion of GDP on it, or when it comes to actual operations relies so heavily on mercenaries while the 'military' sits at home repairing dykes and running up and down hills or waiting for a fleet of Chinese LCTs to come over the horizon.

It must be gutting to know that while you had to pay for your degree in advance I paid for mine in arrears - without needing to be shot at, thats Thatcher's 'socialism' for you I guess.

Why can't you 'abide' viewpoints which don't fit your own ever-changing opinion?

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2011-12-05 16:54:16

#841

RTHKI: mmmf mmmf mmmf; +1,736|6732|Oxferd Ohire

Dilbert_X wrote:
No other country in the world has such a large and pointless military

stopped reading here

2011-12-05 18:00:01

#842

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6406|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
Jay wrote:
but I can't abide some moron expat that still lives at home and lies about holding an engineering degree calling what they do workfare.
I presume you mean me, I do hold an engineering degree - I have a Masters and I'm chartered, and the US military is largely workfare

No other country in the world has such a large and pointless military, or spends such a high proportion of GDP on it, or when it comes to actual operations relies so heavily on mercenaries while the 'military' sits at home repairing dykes and running up and down hills or waiting for a fleet of Chinese LCTs to come over the horizon.

It must be gutting to know that while you had to pay for your degree in advance I paid for mine in arrears - without needing to be shot at, thats Thatcher's 'socialism' for you I guess.

Why can't you 'abide' viewpoints which don't fit your own ever-changing opinion?

The proportion of GDP that we spend is comparable to the UK, China (actual, vice reported), and several other countries: 5% or less.

“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

2011-12-05 18:05:11

#843

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6710|US

Bold is mine.

Dilbert_X wrote:
No other country in the world has
such a large and pointless military, Nope, China, DPRK, ROK, and Iran all have more personnel.
or spends such a high proportion of GDP on it, also false
or when it comes to actual operations relies so heavily on mercenaries while the 'military' sits at home repairing dykes and running up and down hills or waiting for a fleet of Chinese LCTs to come over the horizon. WTF?

It must be gutting to know that while you had to pay for your degree in advance I paid for mine in arrears - without needing to be shot at, thats Thatcher's 'socialism' for you I guess.Paid via taxpayers, and I volunteered to try to save people while flying. I'll take that over designing better circuits.

Why can't you 'abide' viewpoints which don't fit your own ever-changing opinion? An excellent question. Care to answer?

edit: terrible attempt at coding.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2011-12-05 18:08:00)

2011-12-05 18:09:43

#844

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6406|'Murka

Factiness is inconvenient to Dilbert. Please stop.

“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

2011-12-05 18:25:20

#845

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6101|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
The proportion of GDP that we spend is comparable to the UK, China (actual, vice reported), and several other countries: 5% or less.

You fudge your figures too, by excluding the CIA, ongoing wars for example.
Lets stick with the reported figures:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Military_expenditure_by_GDP_2008.png

The US spends ~double in GDP terms what the UK spends, same for China, and so on.

In absolute terms, they're directly comparable

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/5155a4dea5dfb19bc091a8ee793a28e6.png

Its unsustainable, good luck.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-12-05 18:25:50)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2011-12-05 18:25:39

#846

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6710|US

Uzique wrote:
i'm not a marxist and i don't buy into a marxist view of history, no, although i am influenced by hegel's dialectics. i'm just using the term "late capitalist" as a way to designate the current climate of pretty-much uninterrupted global capitalism. i do think that, yes, with the current global 'ideology' (as such) that serious threats of warfare from nation-states is greatly reduced.

I wasn't saying you were a marxist. From your comments on stages of history, I thought you were going off a marxist view of history. By that, I mean that humanity marches toward some better state, often in a somewhat predictable fashion (which is a surprisingly popular view).
I would agree that large-scale, conventional warfare (aka regional war or larger) is not too probable in the near future. I don't hold the view that it will remain that way forever. History tends to rhyme, if you will, and major regional wars seem to occur at least every hundred years or so.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2011-12-05 18:27:16)

2011-12-05 18:31:20

#847

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6710|US

D_X

You were not arguing in pure dollars, but proportion of GDP.
Your manpower statement was also false.

If you want to change your argument to pure dollar amounts, then yes, the US spends a LOT on the DoD. We train to a high standard, buy expensive weaponry, pay better than most militaries, and have a lot of benefits for our personnel...along with having a fairly large military, manpower wise.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2011-12-05 18:31:55)

2011-12-05 18:35:44

#848

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6101|eXtreme to the maX

The first figure is % GDP.
Apart from a few small freaks, the US is ahead of everyone else by a factor of two.

In terms of % of government expenditure, spending per capita, and so on, the same arguments apply.

You should be getting economies of scale really.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2011-12-05 23:58:15

#849

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6101|eXtreme to the maX

FatherTed wrote:
i don't get these credit rating agencies. ok so the euro countries decided to plan some stuff, and this made the market happy. then some credit company (who lets be honest, 99% of people didn't know existed until this money is worth shit thing started) say well you know we might downgrade you, and now the markets go down or something

tldr should these random spreadsheet nerds be allowed such power over a countries fiscal power/image? also dongs

They're so poor at their job their opinions don't matter, they're so far behind - in a business where timeliness is key - there's no point following what they say, they're so thoroughly in bed with the likes of Goldman Sachs - who are in the business of manipulating the market for their own benefit - that nothing they say can be believed or trusted.

Now is not a good time to invest in Greece, Germany is struggling somewhat, Ireland is fucked - most people who read the papers knew this a while ago, anyone with a brain with the information available to anyone prepared to spend a few hours on the internet could have predicted it years ago.

That they can only react months or years after the event, and not do their supposed job of timely evaluation and prediction should be enough warning for anyone.

Anyone who needs to wait for their child's baseball card style evaluations of complex issues should stick to bingo as an investment strategy.

(Copied from EE as I was planning to write something on this already)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2011-12-06 00:15:04

#850

TimmmmaaaaH: Damn, I... had something for this; +725|6435|Brisbane, Australia

The cynic in me leads me to think that they are well aware of the things you mention and choose not to act on that publicly until they have to. That is also because it boggles my mind that a company can grow so large/have such an impact without having a clue.

https://bf3s.com/sigs/5e6a35c97adb20771c7b713312c0307c23a7a36a.png

BF2S Forums Occupy Wall Street

RAIMIUS wrote:

Jay wrote:

HudsonFalcon wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

HudsonFalcon wrote:

Uzique wrote:

HudsonFalcon wrote:

HudsonFalcon wrote:

Uzique wrote:

HudsonFalcon wrote:

HudsonFalcon wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Board footer