http://www.csmonitor.com/1995/0428/28181.html wrote:IT is sometimes said that the post-Cold War world will be so different from the world of the past that the lessons of Vietnam will be inapplicable or of no relevance to the 21st century. I disagree. That said, if we are to learn from our experience in Vietnam, we must first pinpoint our failures. There were 11 major causes for our disaster in Vietnam:
No Southeast Asian counterparts existed for senior officials to consult when making decisions on Vietnam.
That's because they were all purged from the State Department during the second Red Scare (after China was "lost" to the Communists).
Last edited by MachineGhost on Thu May 28, 2015 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
I think the bastards learned very well the lessons of Vietnam as far as they were concerned.
It was the draft protesters standing up with their draft cards and saying "hell no, we won't go".
Nothing like that ever happened to that extent in American History that I am aware of (almost in the Mexican war, as I have read, but probably even more often though you don't read about it). So I believe they learned the lesson and set themselves to making sure that kind of open rebellion against the military would never happen again.
For the most part, I have to hand it to them because I think they have been very successful.
You do support the troops, don't you? Everyone knows they are fighting for our freedom.
Last edited by screwtape on Thu May 28, 2015 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I wonder how much Vietnam-style fuckuppery around the world would be solved simply by requiring that to put boots on the ground anywhere the U.S. has to declare war, formally.
I used to argue against this, given the nature of our conflicts today and the far-worse death counts of wars we actually declared vs our "shadow wars" going on today. But the more I see the corporatocracy, distractions, and lies driving our conflicts over-seas more so than any legit catastrophic threat of "terrorism," (which is a method, not a state) the more I think the requirement of a declaration would help clarify intentions and goals and highlight an end to limitless power being had by the military and president to swing their dicks around the world.
In fact, at this point, I am almost inclined to say ANY federal military action over seas that violates human rights in some manor (killing/force w/o due process) should be illegal without a war declaration. Otherwise we're de-facto in a permanent war-time state from the standpoint of government secrecy, accountability, etc. If our enemy is a state actor, either negotiate with them or declare war. If it is a non-state actor, I'm wondering if our government has the reasonable authority to do anything more than run a tight state department (don't let them in our country). Obviously, nukes change things a bit, but there is no evidence to me that individual terrorists or their groups have the ability to get enough weapons into the country or built to actually be a catastrophic risk to the safety of America as a unit. And to the degree we grant our government murderous, secretive, potentially toxic-to-freedom/accountability capabilities via "war powers," it is (or, I guess better said, SHOULD be) in the face of that catastrophic risk... not risks that seem to mimic the maximum risk-exposure to our nation similar to that of a power-plant melt-down.
I really dread the next substantial U.S. terror attack for the following reasons:
1) It will be a horrific tragedy in and of itself.
2) Our civil liberties are toast, IMO. Bring on the surveillance state, which IS the ultimate catastrophic risk to the U.S. now the way I see it.
3) Any sort of discussion like this will be either non-existent, or it will be viewed by people ranging from neo-con war-mongers to just good folks who hate violence as anti-American, selfish, and idealistic.
I always thought of civil libertarians as WAY too idealistic... arguing from a very narrow definition view of the law that while it maintained their goofy, liberal individuality, had HUGE negative utilitarian consequences (and to me, gov'ts role was ultimately a utilitarian one, at the expense of some rights). God, was I f*cking wrong. The best civil libertarian arguments are the utilitarian ones, IMO.
Last edited by moda0306 on Fri May 29, 2015 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
moda0306 wrote:
I always thought of civil libertarians as WAY too idealistic... arguing from a very narrow definition view of the law that while it maintained their goofy, liberal individuality, had HUGE negative utilitarian consequences (and to me, gov'ts role was ultimately a utilitarian one, at the expense of some rights). God, was I f*cking wrong. The best civil libertarian arguments are the utilitarian ones, IMO.
Welcome to the fold, brother! Just don't go crazy and turn into an anarcho-capitalist. There's a strict limit to how much the greed/envy motivation can be positive for society.
But boy do we ever need term limits, stat!
Last edited by MachineGhost on Fri May 29, 2015 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
I wonder what the ultimate motivation is for congress not seizing more power over military adventures. Being that people in power desire more power, why are they so asleep at the wheel on this check/balance item?
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
moda0306 wrote:
I always thought of civil libertarians as WAY too idealistic... arguing from a very narrow definition view of the law that while it maintained their goofy, liberal individuality, had HUGE negative utilitarian consequences (and to me, gov'ts role was ultimately a utilitarian one, at the expense of some rights). God, was I f*cking wrong. The best civil libertarian arguments are the utilitarian ones, IMO.
Welcome to the fold, brother! Just don't go crazy and turn into an anarcho-capitalist. There's a strict limit to how much the greed/envy motivation can be positive for society.
But boy do we ever need term limits, stat!
Oh no, I'm still a good little statist!
But not all government exercises of power are equal. While I do often point out that "all government is force, not just the kind you don't like," there is different structure around that "force."
If I don't pay my taxes, I get my property seized under some form of due process, or potentially go to jail under some form of due process and openness for all to see.
If I'm in a wedding in Yemen, I could be dead at the behest of the president and a handful of other folks.
If we can't see the utilitarian differences between uses of force in those two scenarios, we truly are blind to what the actual structure of tyranny looks like beyond the simple word "coercion."
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
I wonder what the ultimate motivation is for congress not seizing more power over military adventures. Being that people in power desire more power, why are they so asleep at the wheel on this check/balance item?
To answer my own question, perhaps they realize that any individual power they try to exercise over this, and the individual benefit they get by seizing it in general, PALES in comparison to the power benefits of making it easy for the President and/or certain elements of the executive branch to exercise their military adventure power loosely, and either hold it against the president/exec. when convenient, use it as a contributor to a tribalist scare tactic when it's convenient, or help the government and the crony corps gain a lot more power, overall, than it otherwise would have.
Simply put, the benefits of being complacent and trying to profit around the scenario in various ways is far more individually worth-while for congress-men/women than fighting the executive to get that power back, just to lose it back to all the other people they argue with every day in congress (since "congress" isn't a monolithic entity, but filled with various competing individual interests trying to get reelected).
This begs the question... how do we make it in the individual best-interests of congress-men/women to take that power back.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
For whatever reason today's Americans believe that formally declaring war and having Congress vote on it is the way things were always done. Hardly the case, and actually rarely the case. I'll leave it to the academics to define small wars vs. large wars but suffice it to say the U.S. has had a lot of armed conflicts that were not declared wars and are not on the below list. Now of course Congress has always had the power of the purse...
In addition to some of the thoughts earlier in the thread...I'm beginning to be more of the inclination that if the US is going to continue to use its military so much the draft should be re-instituted. Far too few Americans have skin in the game, that should change.
Reub wrote:
I dread the next terrorist attack on us for it will turn us into something horrible. Just horrible!
I'm glad you feel that way, Reub. Because when we get mad a lot of innocent people start dying. Usually a lot more than the attack on us brought. Not to mention expansion of the spy state that makes fooling Americans into war that much easier.
Last edited by moda0306 on Sat May 30, 2015 8:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
We actually just had a terrorist attack in Texas that was foiled while in-progress by private security. It didn't seem to turn us into anything, but maybe that's because it failed. But I think the general strategy is sane: if you see someone committing acts of terrorism, shoot him! What? You don't have a gun? What's wrong with you? It's your patriotic duty!
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Pointedstick wrote:
We actually just had a terrorist attack in Texas that was foiled while in-progress by private security. It didn't seem to turn us into anything, but maybe that's because it failed. But I think the general strategy is sane: if you see someone committing acts of terrorism, shoot him! What? You don't have a gun? What's wrong with you? It's your patriotic duty!
I'm sympathetic to the utilitarian idea that the government actually encourage individual gun ownership and responsibility.
Here in MN we have tons of highshools starting trap shooting programs that kids can actually letter in. I think this is about the most encouraging development for gun enthusiasts one could ask for.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
Pointedstick wrote:
We actually just had a terrorist attack in Texas that was foiled while in-progress by private security. It didn't seem to turn us into anything, but maybe that's because it failed. But I think the general strategy is sane: if you see someone committing acts of terrorism, shoot him! What? You don't have a gun? What's wrong with you? It's your patriotic duty!
I'm sympathetic to the utilitarian idea that the government actually encourage individual gun ownership and responsibility.
Until the past few decades when anti-gun progressives took over the Democratic party, it routinely did, and still does: http://thecmp.org This is literally a government program that will send you a "high powered" semi-automatic rifle (an M1 Garand) through the mail: http://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/rifle_sales/m1-garand
moda0306 wrote:
Here in MN we have tons of highshools starting trap shooting programs that kids can actually letter in. I think this is about the most encouraging development for gun enthusiasts one could ask for.
That is great.
Last edited by Pointedstick on Sat May 30, 2015 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
moda0306 wrote:
Here in MN we have tons of highshools starting trap shooting programs that kids can actually letter in. I think this is about the most encouraging development for gun enthusiasts one could ask for.
Good gawd! Talk about being backwards in the 21s century. What good is gun ownership going to do you when you're up against robocops or robosoldiers? You're better off being a whistleblower/hacker/engineer like Edward Snowden so you can monitor the controllers and hold them accountable.
I'm all for heading into the woods and waging a guerilla warfare at the rate of 147 violent deaths per hour against the invading Communist Russians/Chinese (see Red Dawn), but that's just not the future. Preparing to fight the last war is exactly how you get an epic fail.
You really think trap shooting is going to prepare you for when this mows down on you:
Last edited by MachineGhost on Sat May 30, 2015 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
moda0306 wrote:
Here in MN we have tons of highshools starting trap shooting programs that kids can actually letter in. I think this is about the most encouraging development for gun enthusiasts one could ask for.
Good gawd! Talk about being backwards in the 21s century. What good is gun ownership going to do you when you're up against robocops or robosoldiers? You're better off being a whistleblower/hacker/engineer like Edward Snowden so you can monitor the controllers and hold them accountable.
I'm all for heading into the woods and waging a guerilla warfare at the rate of 147 violent deaths per hour against the invading Communist Russians/Chinese (see Red Dawn), but that's just not the future. Preparing to fight the last war is exactly how you get an epic fail.
You really think trap shooting is going to prepare you for when this mows down on you:
With the weapons of the future, sure. Heck, most of today's rifles and shotguns would do a pretty decent job against those. If anything, your position is a strong argument for allowing weapons development and availability to civilians to keep pace with robot development and availability to governments.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Pointedstick wrote:
With the weapons of the future, sure. Heck, most of today's rifles and shotguns would do a pretty decent job against those. If anything, your position is a strong argument for allowing weapons development and availability to civilians to keep pace with robot development and availability to governments.
Well, that's obvious but I had in mind actually owning a robocop or robodog myself. Who needs primitive guns when you can have an AI automaton that never makes mistakes?
But, its a slippery slope if we don't make sure the controllers act in the interests of democracy with this stuff. The NSA's behavior is not encouraging.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Desert wrote:
MG, those videos are great! I like the wild cat especially, powered by a loud 2-stroke engine.
As PS said, if that's what the gummint's gonna come after me with, I feel pretty good. Heck, I'd take 'em on with my bare hands. I'd love to see a video of that wild cat on its back, spewing two stroke smoke.
Now drones, those are scary!
Two stroke smoke! The EPA will never allow it! Holy global wildcat strokes, make that thing solar powered so it can attack at night, after all that is when the criminals are out - and forget batteries - making them just contributes more to the evils than two stroke smoke.
I could not decide whether to post this in this thread or the religion thread. I report, you decide. No offense intended to my Presbyterian or AI loving friends:
It may be time to think about baptizing the Terminator, according to Reverend Christopher Benek, an associate Pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, who believes that religion may help artificial intelligence live alongside human beings. Click link to read the rest of the article.
Mountaineer wrote:
I could not decide whether to post this in this thread or the religion thread. I report, you decide. No offense intended to my Presbyterian or AI loving friends:
Amusing, but a lot of conflation between intelligence, sentience, consciousness and soul going on there.
But man, if you think athiests are bad, wait until you have an emotionless self-aware machine. Terminator, indeed!
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
No offense intended to my Presbyterian or AI loving friends: