quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
In an intriguing paper, Canadian diplomat author and academic Peter Dale Scott analyses some of the issues thrown up by the decline in US power and prestige, the end of the “Pax Americana”.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32315.htm
Scott argues that the origins of World Wars I & II lie in the decline of the “Pax Britannia”, and that similar factors are at play in today’s world. He focuses on today's self-generating wars (such as the Wars on Drugs and Terror), decline in democratic institutions in the USA and the increasing militarization of the world. Scott’s solution involves re-asserting democratic control over the ‘war machines’, de-militarising the ‘War on Terror’ and a strengthening of democratic institutions in the US.
While I don’t necessarily agree with either the analysis or the solution Scott presents, I found his paper thought provoking. The issues he raises are well worth examining.
What do other posters think?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
What is notable in Scott's solution is the pass he gives to the ambitions of the Saudi Wahhabis which date back to 1801 at least. The American arms industry and military are bloated and cut backs are warrented. We have been fighting an asymmetrical enemy with a World War II army, or a modern army with WWII mind set. New tactics are needed. We confuse fighting terrorists with fighting insurgencies. We clearly need to abandon the notion of spreading democracy and nation building abroad and try a hand at expanding democracy and nation building at home. But I don't think we can retreat completely from confronting Wahhabis expansionism. Certainly not where it effects us directly. Unfortunately, I doubt if we will see a cut back in Military spending.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
What is notable in Scott's solution is the pass he gives to the ambitions of the Saudi Wahhabis which date back to 1801 at least. The American arms industry and military are bloated and cut backs are warrented. We have been fighting an asymmetrical enemy with a World War II army, or a modern army with WWII mind set. New tactics are needed. We confuse fighting terrorists with fighting insurgencies. We clearly need to abandon the notion of spreading democracy and nation building abroad and try a hand at expanding democracy and nation building at home. But I don't think we can retreat completely from confronting Wahhabis expansionism. Certainly not where it effects us directly. Unfortunately, I doubt if we will see a cut back in Military spending.

Sadly, we won't see a defense budget cutback. I even agree that we need to concentrate our focus on our domestic issues and get our house straight before we try to build a house for someone else.

I do not agree with your military descriptions, though. We do have a very modern military. Had we had a WWII mindset, we'd have gone in guns a-blazing and just romped over any and everything. We were playing doctor with our military. Surgically eradicating the bad guys with as few civilian injuries as possible (not a bad goal, but when it's becomes larger than the actual goal of the military operation, it loses its luster). Essentially, we are training military to the highest standards and then giving them slingshots and Nerf guns to fight with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
I did not intend to criticize the Military, only the strategists. Surgically eradicating the bad guys NOW, yes. But both Iraq invasions were essentially old style, as was the 'surge' in Pakistan, don't you think?

quote:


More importantly, I have been thinking about the comparison drawn by Scott between the Brit Empire and the American Influence. I mean Empire of course but some here recoil at the thought of an American Empire. [Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need some sobering truth telling?] Again anyway, I was wondering were the British classes negatively effected in the long run by the loss of Empire? By WWII they were. But after that did not Britain rise to a certain prosperity in the 80s and 90s as we did in America? What difference was the loss of Empire to the average Chap over there? What difference would it be to the average Joe here? Who benefits from Empire? What is the loss if we turn much of our resources inward while maintaining a technically superior Defense?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Essentially, we are training military to the highest standards and then giving them slingshots and Nerf guns to fight with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

if we had allowed our men and women to return fire wherever and whenever, the resistance would have crumbled faster.

quote:

Essentially, we were placing being PC ahead of the lives of our troops.

quote:

"War is Hell" was stated by someone and it's absolutely true. The things that happen during a war are not nice. They are not for the weak of heart or the squeamish. War is brutal and bloody.

quote:

The average Joe would probably see a better standard of living if resources were turned inward instead of outward. And, that is something I've been talking about for a few years now, too (since 2009 when I finally read into why Ron Paul holds the views he holds regarding the military, rather than just hearing the sound bites). Our imperialism is why I changed it to Pox Americana.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
I did not intend to criticize the Military, only the strategists. Surgically eradicating the bad guys NOW, yes. But both Iraq invasions were essentially old style, as was the 'surge' in Pakistan, don't you think?

I don't think you were criticizing the military at all. I completely agree that it's the strategies used that were in error. I'm almost willing to bet that it wasn't even the military strategists in error, but those who were putting constraints on those very strategists. Both Iraq invasions were "old style" invasions, yes. And, both were quite successful, were they not? How long did it take us to get to Baghdad? Yes, Iraqi's, if memory serves, were surrendering at every settling of the dust, but that's a good thing, really.

The problems began once we got there. While I'm not saying we should have just demolished all the mosques, if we had allowed our men and women to return fire wherever and whenever, the resistance would have crumbled faster. We forced our troops into the situation where they were under fire and could do little more than hide because of where the shots were coming from. Essentially, we were placing being PC ahead of the lives of our troops. And, that happened under Bush, which really pissed me off back then. I was vocal in my dissent, too, but I wasn't exploring my kinky side, so I wasn't even on here yet.

'Nam changed a lot of stuff. The media became closer to the action. "War is Hell" was stated by someone and it's absolutely true. The things that happen during a war are not nice. They are not for the weak of heart or the squeamish. War is brutal and bloody. War is not larping, where you can get up, congratulate your vanquished foe, and then go out for some brews.

quote:


More importantly, I have been thinking about the comparison drawn by Scott between the Brit Empire and the American Influence. I mean Empire of course but some here recoil at the thought of an American Empire. [Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need some sobering truth telling?] Again anyway, I was wondering were the British classes negatively effected in the long run by the loss of Empire? By WWII they were. But after that did not Britain rise to a certain prosperity in the 80s and 90s as we did in America? What difference was the loss of Empire to the average Chap over there? What difference would it be to the average Joe here? Who benefits from Empire? What is the loss if we turn much of our resources inward while maintaining a technically superior Defense?

Who benefits from Empire? The Emperors, mainly. The average Joe would probably see a better standard of living if resources were turned inward instead of outward. And, that is something I've been talking about for a few years now, too (since 2009 when I finally read into why Ron Paul holds the views he holds regarding the military, rather than just hearing the sound bites). Our imperialism is why I changed it to Pox Americana.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Essentially, we are training military to the highest standards and then giving them slingshots and Nerf guns to fight with.

This hardly seems like an accurate description.

You're training parts of your military to the highest standards, but by no means all of it.

For instance, the advanced sniper training is what we consider basic training for a sniper, and from what I've seen the term 'scout' sniper is little more than what we expect all snipers to master. The marines seem comparable to our paramilitary forces in several terrains. This also makes perfect sense, since you have a much larger military in terms of how many units are being trained and maintained (per capita, we have about twice as many both in total and actives, but then we also have more money per capita to spend). With more empasis on aggression, one must expect higher casualties and thus train more people to a lower standard, a matter of cost efficiency (which doesn't matter as much to us, since we're filthy rich).

I do agree that the equipment is below par, though.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
(such as the Wars on Drugs

What do other posters think?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
nothing that is planned and done at the top levels of government is an error. Never has been never will be. People need to get it through their heads that we are in fact living in the matrix.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
(such as the Wars on Drugs

What do other posters think?

I think that there would be no "war on drugs" if people stopped using drugs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
(such as the Wars on Drugs

What do other posters think?

I think that there would be no "war on drugs" if people stopped using drugs.

lol I dont think its even legal to grow hemp in the US (unless that has changed recently).. the war on drugs is ridiculous and a waste of resources but hey, if the US wants to blow big buck$ on that then let em.. much better use of money than helping the homeless or poor seniors, kids that go to school starving, bettering education or that kinda commie stuff..

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
What do other posters think?

quote:

China is likely gonna take its place..

quote:

I think in a few years China will be in the same boat as other industrial countries. A growing middle class will demand more freedom causing political upheavals and a lack of resources will slow the economy.

quote:

They are growing too fast and soon their industrial base will be undercut by other developing counties just as the US economy has been. The only saving grace for China will be the ability of the government to suppress the movement of industry to other third world counties. But this will only slow the decline.

quote:

China will remain powerful even in decline but will not be able to dominate the western world...in my opinion anyway.

quote:

Of course all this could be changed by religious and ethnic conflicts which could throw the world into war.