Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

[MachineGhost]

Gumby, the USA did step in to keep the peace in the former Yugloslavia. In the Congo and Sudan, the USA had no part. The Rwanda genocide was allowed to go on unabated. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were (pretty much) started by the USA. I'm not getting a policeman vibe from that on balance. I'd feel much safer in a world with no one country as policeman but a united nations. My guess is that if a Hitler appeared then small countries would team up against such a tyrant. I also feel that providing for refugees and enforcing safe passage of refugees is the most important role that other countries can provide in a conflict. The world totally failed to do that in the holocaust and totally failed to do that in the Rwanda 1996 genocide.

The U.N. confiscated land from and displaced millions of Arabs in 1948 which persists to this day in promoting terrorism in the entire Middle East.  Great track record, that.

The U.S. has invaded and attacked far more countries than any Communist country ever has.  What gives the U.S. the bloody moral high ground?  If anything, the Communists seem to keep to themselves and exploit their own people rather than invade other countries just to do the same.  The Soviet Union only invaded Afghanistan and look how well that worked out for them.  I suspect the "Red Scare" was mostly political theatre and a self-serving agenda for the NeoCon larvae.

MG

[MachineGhost]

Anyway, I think the way to deal with tyranny is through providing safe passage for refugees, insurrection and non-compliance. 

I hate to point this out but...  how well is that philosophy working for the Bulgarians, Cubans or North Koreans?  Civil disobedience is only going to work if enough population is recruited to overcome the tenous power of the tyrants and the ruling class.  Almost all people are like frogs in boiling water or waiting for someone else to speak up first, so nothing ever happens.

MG

[stone]

Anyway, I think the way to deal with tyranny is through providing safe passage for refugees, insurrection and non-compliance.  

I hate to point this out but...  how well is that philosophy working for the Bulgarians, Cubans or North Koreans?  Civil disobedience is only going to work if enough population is recruited to overcome the tenous power of the tyrants and the ruling class.  Almost all people are like frogs in boiling water or waiting for someone else to speak up first, so nothing ever happens.

I think that the answer is for everyone where ever they live in the world to realize that they themselves are the only viable defense against tyrany. No weapon system is capable of helping. Mao, Hitler or whoever could never have commited the atrocities they did without millions of decent people joining in. Mao did what he did within his own country within the administrative system he created there.
Collie dogs jump through hoops for their masters, cats don't. I think collie dogs like doing that but leaving that aside, let's imagine collie dogs wanted to protect themselves against being coerced into jumping through hoops. It is all about attitude. Cats don't have bigger teeth or anything- that has nothing to do with it.
Isn't it true that none of the Danish Jews were killed in the Holocaust? The Danish people worked together to ensure that. The French people joined in with the Germans to ensure that French Jews were sent to the camps. That has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the military.

Gumby I thought that the middle East was a prosperous peaceful place for centuries before outside meddling caused the current problems?

[stone]

Machine Ghost, the USSR did fund proxy wars around the world:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld ... lbliKKDB6A
"This sculpture is made out of decommissioned weapons from the Mozambique civil war (1977 - 92), which claimed almost 1 million lives and left 5 million people displaced. It represents both the tragedy of that war and the human triumph of those who achieved a lasting peace. It was made by the Mozambican artist Cristóvão Canhavato (Kester) in 2001 for the Transforming Arms into Tools project, where some of the seven million guns left in the country are voluntarily exchanged for useful tools and hardware.
What caused the Mozambique civil war?
In 1975 Mozambique declared itself a Marxist-Leninist state after achieving independence from Portuguese colonial rule. The new government's pro-communist and anti-apartheid stance threatened the regimes in neighbouring. South Africa and Rhodesia. They funded an opposition group in an attempt to destabilize the country. In turn the Soviet Union supplied Mozambique with economic and military aid. The civil war finally came to an end after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the apartheid regimes."

[Gumby]

I think that the answer is for everyone where ever they live in the world to realize that they themselves are the only viable defense against tyranny.

Well, that almost never happens. When it does happen, it's an anomoly. Again. Show us an example of non-aggressive nations rising up, together, to fight invasions or tyranny without the help of a superpower. I am hopeful you can find examples of this, but so far you haven't convinced me.

Gumby I thought that the middle East was a prosperous peaceful place for centuries before outside meddling caused the current problems?

Here is a timeline of conflicts in the ancient Middle East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _Near_East

I think it's fair to say that the region was never entirely peaceful for very long.

Just a suggestion...you probably shouldn't waste your time looking at the Middle East for examples of non-aggressive nations banding together to fight invasions and tyranny on their own. The evidence isn't there. Even the Islamic Golden Age declined due to invasions.

I don't know, Stone. It's as if it pains you to admit that a superpower can help provide regional stability. But, at the same time, you're unable to provide any examples of non-aggressive countries coming together to fight off tyranny and foreign invasions. What's up with that?

[stone]

Gumby, a single small country can prove to be unconquerable even by a super power. Vietnam won the Vietnam war. As I mentioned before, Afgahnistan was unconqerable against the British throughout the 1800s, the USSR in the 1980s and the USA now.

Small countries have pulled together historically largely to form coalitions of "bad guys" eg in WWI, the aggression against Israel in the 1960s, and more recently in the Congo war. I don't think in principle coalitions of small countries need neccessarily be the "bad guys".

[stone]

Perhaps a rule of thumb is that if country A invades country B, then countries C, D and E could intervene to ensure that country A withdraws from country B. That is quite different from countries ganging up to invade another country for regime change or whatever. If a regime is considered tyranical, then I still think simply ensuring free passage of refugees should be the sole focus for foreign powers.

[Gumby]

Gumby, a single small country can prove to be unconquerable even by a super power. Vietnam won the Vietnam war.

Terrible example. It was a "Proxy War." The Soviet Union and China both supplied North Vietnam and the Vietcong with training, logistics and supplies. You'll have to do better than that.

As I mentioned before, Afgahnistan was unconqerable against the British throughout the 1800s

And you forgot Alexander the Great. Afghanistan is a bit of an anomaly — mostly due to its terrain. It's hardly a shining example of a thriving society today. And, I would say that they didn't really persevere the invasions too well. They are worse off.

the USSR in the 1980s

Another proxy war between the USSR and the USA. Bad example.

and the USA now.

The conflict is ongoing. And, last time I checked, the old government was replaced by the current puppet government. Guess we'll have to see how that turns out.

Small countries have pulled together historically largely to form coalitions of "bad guys" eg in WWI, the aggression against Israel in the 1960s, and more recently in the Congo war. I don't think in principle coalitions of small countries need neccessarily be the "bad guys".

I said that you should show me examples of non-aggressive nations coming together to fight off tyranny — as you originally suggested. As I keep pointing out to you, it rarely ever happens. Perhaps you can find one or two examples, but if that's the best you can do, then it would seem that a superpower is necessary to keep entire regions stable.

[stone]

Gumby, I'm certain that the USA would have lost the war in Vietnam even without USSR and Chinese aid and the USSR would have lost in Afghanistan even without US aid. Just as with herding cats, you simply can not force a government on a people who won't accept it. Control can not be enforced by a foreign military. You could have a one to one ratio of US (or Soviet) troops to Afghans with a US (or Soviet) soldier holding a gun to the head of ever single Afghan and everyone concerned would know that the USA (or USSR) would only ever be leaving under the Afghans' terms.
By the way, I don't think anything that could be described as a superpower is behind the current Afghan resistance. I have to stress that I have zero empathy with the Taliban but that is neither here nor there in realizing that it doesn't take a superpower to be unconquerable.


Basically, to me all of this discussion just reinforces my view of  how war simply doesn't work. Trying to have a global super power as an enforcer is a disaster because the superpower will have a misjudged view of what the people on the ground actually want. Nasty despots will trick the superpower into supporting them. The superpower will endevor to prop up its own selfish interests and will loose all credibility as a result.

[Gumby]

So, instead of admitting that most small nations are usually steamrolled by invading forces — which is what happens 99.99% of the time — you're basically saying that no invasion is ever truly won? And if no invasion is ever truly won, then there's no point in having a superpower?

The fact is that the United States does its best to provide regional stability for strategic areas throughout the world. But, it sounds like you'd prefer that those regions just slip into chaos on their own as North Korea, Sudan, Iran, China and Syria do whatever they please? Am I understanding you correctly?

[Reub]

+10 for Gumby!

[stone]

Gumby, I'm a lot more scared of some future despot getting hold of the US military than I am of North Korea, Sudan, Iran, China and Syria. People like the leaders of Iran, Zimbabwe, North Korea etc etc depend on having an imperialist bogey man in order to drum up support from their own people.

You say that small nations are steamrolled by invading forces. From what I can see most of the tyrany since WWII has been home grown (eg Mao, Stalin). It is not from invading forces. The superpowers USA and USSR have mainly acted to prop up regimes that are summed up by the phrase, "he's a bastard but he's our bastard". As a result, the USA is judged across the world not on its considerable merits but instead by the awful actions of such proxies.

I think the American people are victims in all of this. The military acts to ensure its own expansion and in so doing creates immense amounts of pointless aggression against the American people. 

[Gumby]

Come on, stone. I asked you...

It sounds like you'd prefer that those regions just slip into chaos on their own as North Korea, Sudan, Iran, China and Syria do whatever they please? Am I understanding you correctly?

...and you avoided the question by saying...

Gumby, I'm a lot more scared of some future despot getting hold of the US military than I am of North Korea, Sudan, Iran, China and Syria.

Well, nobody asked you if you were more scared of "some future despot."

What I was trying to ask you was...

If you were the Commander-in-Chief of a powerful country (Stonelandia!) would you allow North Korea, Sudan, Iran, China and Syria do whatever they please and slip into chaos? Or would you try your best to help stabilize those strategically important regions?

It's a very simple question.

From what I can see most of the tyrany since WWII has been home grown (eg Mao, Stalin). It is not from invading forces.

Stone, there have been at least 54 invasions — that didn't include the United States — since the end of WWII.

2011 invasion of Tunisia by Libya
2011 invasion of Bahrain by members of the Gulf Cooperation Council
2010 invasion of South Korean Yeonpyeong Island by North Korea
2008 invasion of Gaza by Israel
2008 invasion of Georgia by Russia
2008 invasion of Anjouan by the African Union
2006 invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia
2006 invasion of Lebanon by Israel
1998 invasion of Ethiopia by Eritrea
1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq
1989 invasion of Liberia launched from Côte d'Ivoire by the National Patriotic Front of Liberia
1988 invasion of Spratly Islands by China
1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel
1982 invasion of Falkland Islands initially by Argentine civilians, followed by official Argentina forces
1980 invasion of Iran by Iraq
1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union
1979–1988 invasions of Thailand by Vietnam
1979 invasion of Northern Vietnam by China
1979 invasion of Uganda by Tanzania and Ugandan exiles
1978 invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam, with Soviet support
1978 invasion of Tanzania by Uganda
1978 invasion of Lebanon by Israel
1977 invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam
1977 invasion of Ethiopia by Somalia and Western Somali Liberation Front irregulars
1976 invasion of Paracel Islands by Vietnam
1975 invasion of East Timor by Indonesia
1975 invasion of Spanish Sahara by Morocco
1975 invasion of Poulo Wai Island by Vietnam
1975 invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam
1974 invasion of Cyprus by Turkey
1974 invasion of Paracel Islands by China
1973 Invasion of Israel by Egypt and Syria
1972 invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam
1971 invasion of East Pakistan by India
1971 invasion of Laos by South Vietnam
1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Warsaw Pact led by the Soviet Union
1968 invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam
1967 invasions of Biafra by Nigeria
1967 invasions of Nigeria by Biafra
1967 invasion of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan by Israel
1965 invasion of Pakistan by India
1965 invasion of India by Pakistan Army and irregulars
1964 invasion of the Turkish Cypriot Enclave Kokkina by Cyprus and Greece
1961 invasion of Netherlands New Guinea by Indonesia
1961 invasion of Goa by India
1958 invasion of Laos by North Vietnam
1956 invasion of Hungary by the Soviet Union
1956 invasion of Egypt by France, United Kingdom and Israel
1951 invasion of South Korea by the Chinese People's Volunteer Army and North Korea
1950 invasion of South Korea by North Korea with Soviet support
1950–1951 invasion of Tibet by China
1948 invasion of Israel by Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi, Egyptian, Transjordanian and other forces
1947 invasion of Kashmir by Pakistan irregulars
1946 invasion of Northern Vietnam by France
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions

So, this idea of yours that invasions don't happen very often is clearly false. They happen all the time.

Now, I'm going to ask you again, and I hope you won't dodge the question this time...

If you were the Commander-in-Chief of the powerful nation of Stonelandia, would you allow North Korea, Sudan, Iran, China and Syria do whatever they please, and slip into chaos? Or would you try your best to help stabilize those strategically important regions?

It's a simple question.

[align=center][/align]

...President Stone, the Prime Minister of [some legitimate democratic country] is on a secure line, requesting our assistance. Our troops are in position, and ready to launch their strike mission on your "Go" order. If we don't launch this mission, their country will be overthrown by [some rogue nation] and it will destabilize the entire region...

...We need an answer, Sir.

[Reub]

"Isn't there some way that I can blame the whole problem on the rich?", the President asks.

[stone]

Gumby, I wouldn't be in favour of bringing a superpower in to join in.

That long list of invasions you give shows just how muddy real life is. Which of those invasions should have warrented outside third party countries joining in in your opinion?

If a Ron Paul style American foreign policy was put in place then IMO the immediate effect would be that despots around the world who currently consider themselves to be US protectorates would immediately smarten their acts up. Without US protection they would need to garner the support of their own people and neighbours. They would need to crack down on corruption, become reasonable in negotiations over water rights etc etc.


Reub, I realize that whether a problem is blamed on "the rich" or on anyone else doesn't help to solve the problem. All that ever matters is to try and do what will give the best result in the circumstances as we find them. Just because a situation is bad doesn't mean that outside interfearance won't make it worse IMO.

Overal Gumby I find hearing your opinions very reasuring and calming. You seem to have a very similar view to me about the nuts and bolts of how the world currently works but you take a glass half full opinion about it all. Whilst I wring my hands thinking the current set up is a catastrophe, you see the same system and view it is an optimal compromise for a tricky balancing act. I hope my hand wringing doesn't induce pointless anxiety. I guess you and Reub etc can see I'm wrong so it is water off a duck's back to you all .

[Gumby]

Gumby, I wouldn't be in favour of bringing a superpower in to join in.

Too bad, Stone.

Since you wouldn't lift a finger to help the people of that particular independent country — which was requesting your help, mind you — the Prime Minister and his family was executed shortly thereafter. The invading rogue nation overthrew the government and the entire region has been destabilized.

All foreign shipments through that strategic choke point have been stopped indefinitely. Fabrication plants owned by major international corporations have been seized, and stock market futures are crashing across the globe.

Within months, the world will run out of key supplies and millions of innocent people will now being subject to the whims of a harsh dictator. The world is worse off. All because you didn't want to help.

You can forget about providing the safe passage for refugees — which you deem paramount. The rogue nation has sealed the borders and set up fortifications around all sides of the newly occupied nation.

Well done, Stone.

That long list of invasions you give shows just how muddy real life is. Which of those invasions should have warrented outside third party countries joining in in your opinion?

That really isn't the point, Stone. The point is that the US's strategy of providing regional stability is designed to thwart and deter rogue states from invading (strategic) peaceful nations in the first place, before the invasions take place — like the one you just failed to stop, above. The list of invasions would have been even longer without the US deterring rogue nations.

Anyway, if you're curious, here are the invasions that I left out of the list (which did involve the US or UK):

2003 invasion of Iraq by United States-led coalition
2001 invasion of Afghanistan by United States-led coalition
1994 invasion of Haiti by a multinational force (MNF) led by the United States
1991 invasion of Kuwait and southern Iraq by a coalition force of 34 nations led by the United States
1989 invasion of Panama by the United States
1983 invasion of Grenada by the United States and allied Caribbean nations
1970 invasion of Cambodia by the United States and South Vietnam
1965 invasion of Dominican Republic by United States and OAS
1962 invasions of South Vietnam by the United States
1961 invasion of Cuba by Cuban allies of the United States, particularly its CIA
1956 invasion of Egypt by France, United Kingdom and Israel
1951 invasion of North Korea by United Nations and South Korea
1950 invasion of North Korea by United Nations and South Korea
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions

despots around the world who currently consider themselves to be US protectorates would immediately smarten their acts up. Without US protection they would need to garner the support of their own people and neighbours. They would need to crack down on corruption, become reasonable in negotiations over water rights etc etc.

Huh? Sudan, Syria, Iran, China and North Korea are not US protectorates. We are talking about the destabilizing actions of tyrannical mad men.

I guess you and Reub etc can see I'm wrong so it is water off a duck's back to you all .

I just don't see how you can sit back and watch the world burn — particularly when peaceful nations request your help. Seems incredibly naive and dangerous to me.

[stone]

I just don't see how you can sit back and watch the world burn — particularly when peaceful nations request your help. Seems incredibly naive and dangerous to me

Gumby, I guess it all boils down to:

"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference."

Where we differ is that I believe that inevitably, having a superpower throwing its weight around actually makes bad situations worse. You believe that the USA (and perhaps you also believe previously the USSR ) is acting on the basis of having the courage to change the things it can change for the better. I believe that the vast bulk of it actually falls under the catagory of failing to have the wisdom to see that it is incapable of not simply worsening things.

A lot of what drives tyranical mad men is fighting back against imperialism. Them and us politics always gives cover for tyranical mad men. Pointlessly adopting the role of imperialist adversary just reinforces their whole political justification.

I'm still not clear on whether you consider the Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam wars to have been on balance good actions?

[Gumby]

I would have stayed out Vietnam and Iraq, if it were up to me.

The difference is that in the hypothetical situation I described, above, you chose to let the world destabilize — which is frightening. When someone asks you for help, you don't ignore them — particularly when not helping them makes things even worse for everyone.

[stone]

I would have stayed out Vietnam and Iraq, if it were up to me.

The difference is that in the hypothetical situation I described, above, you chose to let the world destabilize — which is frightening. When someone asks you for help, you don't ignore them — particularly when not helping them makes things even worse for everyone.

The US people in charge at the time considered that the USA was simply stepping in to support the legitimate south Vietnamese government against the rogue and tyranical North Vietnamese who were hell bent on taking over South Vietnam. It is pretty much the hypothetical scenario you described.

I agree Iraq seems very murky but presumably Bush and Blair had their motivations. Saddam was a monster. Real life is almost always very very murky.

You seem to make out that ensuring free passage of refugees can not be done as a "half way house" approach. I totally disagree. It would have taken very little military involvement to have ensured free passage of refugees out of Rwanda in 1996. Don't they say a handfull of armoured personnel carriers would have done the trick?
.

[Gumby]

The US people in charge at the time considered that the USA was simply stepping in to support the legitimate south Vietnamese government against the rogue and tyranical North Vietnamese who were hell bent on taking over South Vietnam. It is pretty much the hypothetical scenario you described.

Nope. The situation I described was strategically critical to keeping supplies running throughout the world. Your inaction destabilized the world markets and cut off key supplies to everyone. Very different from Vietnam.

[stone]

The other thing that is all to easy to overlook is that different cultures have different views as to what constitutes right and wrong in many political situations. The classic example is the Falkland Islands. A study of Argentine and English primary school children  (10 years olds I think), asked each of them what consituted a country and also to complete a partial map of their country. The English children said that a country was a collection of people with a shared government and culture, the Argentine children said that a country was a geographical territory. The English children were unable to complete the map. The Argentine children could all complete the map and also added on South Georgia, the Falklands, a segment of Antarctica and bits of Chile. No wonder there are conflicting views about an essentially Argentine Island entirely populated by British people.

[stone]

The US people in charge at the time considered that the USA was simply stepping in to support the legitimate south Vietnamese government against the rogue and tyranical North Vietnamese who were hell bent on taking over South Vietnam. It is pretty much the hypothetical scenario you described.

Nope. The situation I described was strategically critical to keeping supplies running throughout the world. Your inaction destabilized the world markets and cut off key supplies to everyone. Very different from Vietnam.

Gumby, at the time they believed all of Asia including Japan could turn communist and stop trading at all with the USA.

[stone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
"The domino theory, which argued that if one country fell to communism, then all of the surrounding countries would follow, was first proposed as policy by the Eisenhower administration.[94] It was, and is still, commonly hypothesized that it applied to Vietnam. John F. Kennedy, then a U.S. Senator, said in a speech to the American Friends of Vietnam: "Burma, Thailand, India, Japan, the Philippines and obviously Laos and Cambodia are among those whose security would be threatened if the Red Tide of Communism overflowed into Vietnam."[95]"

[Gumby]

I'm not just talking about domino theory. I'm talking about a choke point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choke_point

Like the Strait of Hormuz or the Strait of Malacca. Or the Suez Canal. Or Taiwan.

It's absolutely frightening that you would willingly choose to have the world's supply lines cut off if given the choice.

I've got to say, Stone. I don't understand how — if you're so against the concept of 'regional stability' — you can invest in a broad stock market index knowing that 25% of your money is essentially funding globalization and lobbying for regional stability. Your decisions strike me as someone who would rather be a monk than an investor.

[stone]

Gumby, if all of Asia had become communist then that would have made the Strait of Malacca somewhat redundant with regard to US trade wouldn't it!

Holding stocks is a big step away from advocating wars to supposidly uphold globalization (but that in reality probably don't and simply forment hate and misery).