US political culture becoming more militaristic?

US political culture becoming more militaristic? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Staleek -> US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/24/2016 6:50:12 AM)
As a European looking in from the outside I have to say that the current state of the USA political climate is a cause for concern. Watching the election cycle is sometimes reminiscent of military junta making victory speeches after a coup. Unless Sanders is speaking there is little to no debate about the requirements of the people voting. It's mostly either who is going to keep people safe, who is ironically going to allow people to own the most guns, and who is going to kill the most terrorists. The rhetoric is coming from both the left and the right of US politics, but mostly from the right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JDu4Jh4bbY Sarah "IQ" Palin just used the phrase "commander in chief" an average of once every 15 seconds while talking about the office of the President of the United States. TECHNICALLY, Obama is the commander in chief. Quoting article 99 of page 62 of some constitution proves it I am sure. But that isn't the point. For all practical intents and purposes Obama, Bush, or whomever is President is NOT a "commander-in-chief". Nor should the US be willing to elect a "commander-in-chief" as their leader. Why? Well let me give you an example of how a president who is also a commander-in-chief dresses: [image]http://howafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/saddam-hussein-and-Muammar-Gaddafi1-710x422.png[/image] There are some commander in chiefs. Military leaders who believe that the civilian office of president is also the military office of general. They tend not to make for benevolent governments. But all that fruit salad they go and shove on their chest, or that military outfit worn by someone who doesn't know one end of a gun from another, in an attempt to make the population think of them as mighty warriors or soldiers, is mirrored in the way certain elements of the US political class have been talking and behaving. [image]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130314211048-14-iraq-war-horizontal-gallery.jpg[/image] Is this a sign that the USA is becoming more and more like the old Roman empire, looking for military conquests and using them to not only project power abroad but use that projection of power as a means to mesmerize and even beguile its own citizens?

BamaD -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/24/2016 7:12:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek As a European looking in from the outside I have to say that the current state of the USA political climate is a cause for concern. Watching the election cycle is sometimes reminiscent of military junta making victory speeches after a coup. Unless Sanders is speaking there is little to no debate about the requirements of the people voting. It's mostly either who is going to keep people safe, who is ironically going to allow people to own the most guns, and who is going to kill the most terrorists. The rhetoric is coming from both the left and the right of US politics, but mostly from the right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JDu4Jh4bbY Sarah "IQ" Palin just used the phrase "commander in chief" an average of once every 15 seconds while talking about the office of the President of the United States. TECHNICALLY, Obama is the commander in chief. Quoting article 99 of page 62 of some constitution proves it I am sure. But that isn't the point. For all practical intents and purposes Obama, Bush, or whomever is President is NOT a "commander-in-chief". Nor should the US be willing to elect a "commander-in-chief" as their leader. Why? Well let me give you an example of how a president who is also a commander-in-chief dresses: [image]http://howafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/saddam-hussein-and-Muammar-Gaddafi1-710x422.png[/image] There are some commander in chiefs. Military leaders who believe that the civilian office of president is also the military office of general. They tend not to make for benevolent governments. But all that fruit salad they go and shove on their chest, or that military outfit worn by someone who doesn't know one end of a gun from another, in an attempt to make the population think of them as mighty warriors or soldiers, is mirrored in the way certain elements of the US political class have been talking and behaving. [image]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130314211048-14-iraq-war-horizontal-gallery.jpg[/image] Is this a sign that the USA is becoming more and more like the old Roman empire, looking for military conquests and using them to not only project power abroad but use that projection of power as a means to mesmerize and even beguile its own citizens? You clearly do not have any understanding of our system. The pictures you provided were examples of the "civilian" government being controled by a military dictator. In our system the president as stated in the Constitution ( not technically but literally) is the commander in chief. This means that the military is always subordinate to civilian control. Do some research, gain some understanding of our system and get back to us. In the mean time don't lecture us when you are so far off track as to be absurd.

BOXMOOR74 -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/24/2016 8:02:14 AM)
Dear Sir, With China,Russia,ISIS etc becoming more militaristic and wide spread a counterbalance is required and quite a number of the small nations in the FAR EAST and in EUROPE seek aid and protection from the USA and thus could start WORLD WAR III. BOXMOOR74

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/24/2016 10:25:48 AM)
quote: For all practical intents and purposes Obama, Bush, or whomever is President is NOT a "commander-in-chief". Wrong.

tweakabelle -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/24/2016 6:52:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You clearly do not have any understanding of our system. The pictures you provided were examples of the "civilian" government being controled by a military dictator. In our system the president as stated in the Constitution ( not technically but literally) is the commander in chief. This means that the military is always subordinate to civilian control. Do some research, gain some understanding of our system and get back to us. In the mean time don't lecture us when you are so far off track as to be absurd. It seems to me that while you are literally correct in your post, you are missing Staleek's point. My take on his post was that, in the USA, its becoming more and more difficult to distinguish the military from the civilian and vice versa. One example of this was Obama's close personal identification with the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden. Not only did he personally order and direct it, it was used in subsequent election campaigns as an example of how "presidential" Obama was. This seems to have struck a chord with voters as the great boost in his personal approval ratings following this exercise shows. Another aspect to be considered is the trend towards the militarisation of police forces throughout the USA

BamaD -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/24/2016 7:25:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You clearly do not have any understanding of our system. The pictures you provided were examples of the "civilian" government being controled by a military dictator. In our system the president as stated in the Constitution ( not technically but literally) is the commander in chief. This means that the military is always subordinate to civilian control. Do some research, gain some understanding of our system and get back to us. In the mean time don't lecture us when you are so far off track as to be absurd. It seems to me that while you are literally correct in your post, you are missing Staleek's point. My take on his post was that, in the USA, its becoming more and more difficult to distinguish the military from the civilian and vice versa. One example of this was Obama's close personal identification with the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden. Not only did he personally order and direct it, it was used in subsequent election campaigns as an example of how "presidential" Obama was. This seems to have struck a chord with voters as the great boost in his personal approval ratings following this exercise shows. Another aspect to be considered is the trend towards the militarisation of police forces throughout the USA You would know more about that than I would since you live in the middle of it every day and I am viewing it from thousands of miles away. Every leader has used and taken credit for military success paid for failures. See Disraeli after Isandiwan, and Chruchill after the Dardanellles, you should know about that one, it was mostly Australians who were sacrificed. Carter even used the disasterous Iran rescue mission to his advatage.

MrRodgers -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/24/2016 7:38:33 PM)
Well presidents will need to be good commanders in chief especially in that slow march to the 4TH Reich. It also helps when one needs to 'lead' the people into war undeclared as [it] may be and that's anywhere and since 1980. Whether its selling missiles to terrorist nations, or cocaine on the streets of America to illegally finance an illegal war in Latin America or bombing eastern Europe or dysfunctional Africa, or sending in the boys, 1000's strong to kill either 100's or 1,000's depending on whether you believe the aggressor or the victims...to merely apprehend a former CIA operative that turns cocaine dealer or you need to use false MI6 or CIA intel (taking his pick) to invade two counties alleged to have harmed you or others in someway, or to take out a small nation that threatens oil hegemony, then yes...you need a strong commander in chief. In fact one of the reasons the right in America so hates Obama, is specifically because he hasn't militaristic enough. They want war now in the ME. It really all depends on the proper function of the position if CIC and with the malleability of that position as reflected in the last 36 years...the writing is on the wall whether you 'call' him a civilian or not. Oh, and your perception be may correct at least in the view of many around the world feel and at least as it relates to the role of the CIC, in that it is felt that the US is now the world's greatest threat to world peace.

Aylee -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/24/2016 8:11:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Oh, and your perception be may correct at least in the view of many around the world feel and at least as it relates to the role of the CIC, in that it is felt that the US is now the world's greatest threat to world peace. Another reason to leave the UN and NATO.

BamaD -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/24/2016 8:45:09 PM)
in that it is felt that the US is now the world's greatest threat to world peace. Yep, heard that since the 60's. Sure Russia is invading their neighbors, Iran wants the bomb to destrory Isreal, ISIS wants to kill everyone, but by God the real threat to world peace is an American with a gun.

lovmuffin -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/24/2016 9:15:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You clearly do not have any understanding of our system. The pictures you provided were examples of the "civilian" government being controled by a military dictator. In our system the president as stated in the Constitution ( not technically but literally) is the commander in chief. This means that the military is always subordinate to civilian control. Do some research, gain some understanding of our system and get back to us. In the mean time don't lecture us when you are so far off track as to be absurd. It seems to me that while you are literally correct in your post, you are missing Staleek's point. My take on his post was that, in the USA, its becoming more and more difficult to distinguish the military from the civilian and vice versa. One example of this was Obama's close personal identification with the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden. Not only did he personally order and direct it, it was used in subsequent election campaigns as an example of how "presidential" Obama was. This seems to have struck a chord with voters as the great boost in his personal approval ratings following this exercise shows. Another aspect to be considered is the trend towards the militarisation of police forces throughout the USA I have no idea what you mean by "it's becoming more and more difficult to distinguish the military from the civilian and vice versa". How exactly do you see that ? I don't think the killing of Osama was a main factor in getting Obama elected again. I think the electorate was out of its mind. As for "the trend towards the militarisation of police forces throughout the USA", I think you're spot on.

BamaD -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/24/2016 9:22:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You clearly do not have any understanding of our system. The pictures you provided were examples of the "civilian" government being controled by a military dictator. In our system the president as stated in the Constitution ( not technically but literally) is the commander in chief. This means that the military is always subordinate to civilian control. Do some research, gain some understanding of our system and get back to us. In the mean time don't lecture us when you are so far off track as to be absurd. It seems to me that while you are literally correct in your post, you are missing Staleek's point. My take on his post was that, in the USA, its becoming more and more difficult to distinguish the military from the civilian and vice versa. One example of this was Obama's close personal identification with the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden. Not only did he personally order and direct it, it was used in subsequent election campaigns as an example of how "presidential" Obama was. This seems to have struck a chord with voters as the great boost in his personal approval ratings following this exercise shows. Another aspect to be considered is the trend towards the militarisation of police forces throughout the USA I have no idea what you mean by "it's becoming more and more difficult to distinguish the military from the civilian and vice versa". How exactly do you see that ? I don't think the killing of Osama was a main factor in getting Obama elected again. I think the electorate was out of its mind. As for "the trend towards the militarisation of police forces throughout the USA", I think you're spot on. I think moderators like Patricia Crowley lieng to help Obama had somethig to do with it. Then the week before the election Sandy struck allowing Rommney to be ignored while Obama got lots of photo ops being "Presidential" while his lies about Benghazi were being ignored. And yes the electorate was both crazy and stupid.

Staleek -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/25/2016 6:01:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BOXMOOR74 Dear Sir, With China,Russia,ISIS etc becoming more militaristic and wide spread a counterbalance is required and quite a number of the small nations in the FAR EAST and in EUROPE seek aid and protection from the USA and thus could start WORLD WAR III. BOXMOOR74 A counterbalance you say? [image]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/4A8078449E794DFB8CC33ADD00A6F1AF.gif[/image] Who is balancing who here? The USA is one of the few nations which haven't yet ratified ICCt, it has the biggest military the world has ever seen, an abundance of weapons of mass destruction, doesn't appear to recognize the Geneva Convention, and is engaged in wars in several countries with drone and air-strikes. They even are willing to send troops into soverign states and assassinate citizens within that state without contacting said states government or even UN security council approval first. The question on my mind is whether or not the various administrations of the USA, and the machinery behind Washington, are actually using these military adventures to maintain power and approval among the citizens of the USA. So, for example, does Washington invent a threat (ISIS, China, Russia), and convince the gullible public that they are the only ones who can protect them from that threat, distracting them from more real and immediate threats (guns freely available, a lack of healthcare leading to thousands of premature deaths, poor social welfare and infrastructure etc) and also solidifying their powerbase. Most of the responses in this thread only appear to confirm that this appears to be the case.

Aylee -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/25/2016 7:39:38 AM)
ISIS, China, Russia, Iran - invented threats? The real threat to Americans is 2nd amendment gun rights and health care? What color is the sky in your world? And as far as your chart goes = more reasons that Obama should abrogate the NATO and UN treaties.

JennyDevine -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/25/2016 7:58:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD in that it is felt that the US is now the world's greatest threat to world peace. Yep, heard that since the 60's. Sure Russia is invading their neighbors, Iran wants the bomb to destrory Isreal, ISIS wants to kill everyone, but by God the real threat to world peace is an American with a gun. Oop

Staleek -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/25/2016 8:07:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee ISIS, China, Russia, Iran - invented threats? The real threat to Americans is 2nd amendment gun rights and health care? What color is the sky in your world? And as far as your chart goes = more reasons that Obama should abrogate the NATO and UN treaties. How many Americans die by firearms each year? How many Americans die because they can't access proper healthcare? How many are killed in conflict with the Chinese, Russians, Iranians etc? In the past 10 years how many American citizens have died from terrorism? How many have died in wars that America itself didn't start? Run those numbers, and you will see the true colour of the sky.

Aylee -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/25/2016 8:16:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee ISIS, China, Russia, Iran - invented threats? The real threat to Americans is 2nd amendment gun rights and health care? What color is the sky in your world? And as far as your chart goes = more reasons that Obama should abrogate the NATO and UN treaties. How many Americans die by firearms each year? How many Americans die because they can't access proper healthcare? How many are killed in conflict with the Chinese, Russians, Iranians etc? In the past 10 years how many American citizens have died from terrorism? How many have died in wars that America itself didn't start? Run those numbers, and you will see the true colour of the sky. How many will die if we do not control the shipping lanes? Seriously, I do not think you understand the power of the deterrent of projected force?

MercTech -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/25/2016 8:20:39 AM)
Calling the President of the U.S. "Commander in Chief" is done to reinforce the concept of civilian, elected, government having precedence over the military chain of command. At least that is my memory on the subject from a military organization and protocol class taken way way back when.

RottenJohnny -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/25/2016 9:10:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek A counterbalance you say? [image]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/4A8078449E794DFB8CC33ADD00A6F1AF.gif[/image] Who is balancing who here? Well, considering most of the countries shown here are our allies, I expect it's more of a case of us helping to protect them in ways they can't afford. quote: The USA is one of the few nations which haven't yet ratified ICCt... In other words, other countries haven't either but we're the bad guys. quote: it has the biggest military the world has ever seen... ...which most of those previously listed allies have been grateful for at one time or another. quote: an abundance of weapons of mass destruction... ...that we've been carefully reducing for the past 30 years or more. quote: doesn't appear to recognize the Geneva Convention... ...which we've been having our own internal debate about for some time now. quote: and is engaged in wars in several countries with drone and air-strikes... ...because we're at war. quote: They even are willing to send troops into soverign states and assassinate citizens within that state without contacting said states government or even UN security council approval first... ...because one countriy's citizen might be another's terrorist and the UN doesn't make those kinds of decisions. quote: The question on my mind is whether or not the various administrations of the USA, and the machinery behind Washington, are actually using these military adventures to maintain power and approval among the citizens of the USA... ...because events like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 never happen. quote: So, for example, does Washington invent a threat (ISIS, China, Russia), and convince the gullible public that they are the only ones who can protect them from that threat Yes, we've totally invented the threats of Russia marching into Ukraine, ISIS chopping off heads, and China threatening war over Taiwan independence. Not to mention the North Korean atomic bomb and all their threats to use them against us. I suppose it's too much to ask you Brits to protect us from all that? quote: distracting them from more real and immediate threats (guns freely available... Yes, guns are legal to own in our country. Too bad. quote: a lack of healthcare leading to thousands of premature deaths, poor social welfare and infrastructure etc) The budget for Health and Human services for this year is over one trillion dollars. Almost twice the military budget of around 585 billion. http://www.hhs.gov/about/budget/fy2016/budget-in-brief/index.html http://www.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/FY16-Budget quote: Most of the responses in this thread only appear to confirm that this appears to be the case. That's okay. Most of the intent behind this thread appears to me like mil-spec penis envy.

blnymph -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/25/2016 9:13:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Oh, and your perception be may correct at least in the view of many around the world feel and at least as it relates to the role of the CIC, in that it is felt that the US is now the world's greatest threat to world peace. Another reason to leave the UN and NATO. but why? both were founded and "designed" by the USA

joether -> RE: US political culture becoming more militaristic? (5/25/2016 9:51:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek As a European looking in from the outside I have to say that the current state of the USA political climate is a cause for concern. Watching the election cycle is sometimes reminiscent of military junta making victory speeches after a coup. Unless Sanders is speaking there is little to no debate about the requirements of the people voting. It's mostly either who is going to keep people safe, who is ironically going to allow people to own the most guns, and who is going to kill the most terrorists. The rhetoric is coming from both the left and the right of US politics, but mostly from the right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JDu4Jh4bbY Sarah "IQ" Palin just used the phrase "commander in chief" an average of once every 15 seconds while talking about the office of the President of the United States. TECHNICALLY, Obama is the commander in chief. Quoting article 99 of page 62 of some constitution proves it I am sure. But that isn't the point. For all practical intents and purposes Obama, Bush, or whomever is President is NOT a "commander-in-chief". Nor should the US be willing to elect a "commander-in-chief" as their leader. Why? Well let me give you an example of how a president who is also a commander-in-chief dresses: [image]http://howafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/saddam-hussein-and-Muammar-Gaddafi1-710x422.png[/image] There are some commander in chiefs. Military leaders who believe that the civilian office of president is also the military office of general. They tend not to make for benevolent governments. But all that fruit salad they go and shove on their chest, or that military outfit worn by someone who doesn't know one end of a gun from another, in an attempt to make the population think of them as mighty warriors or soldiers, is mirrored in the way certain elements of the US political class have been talking and behaving. [image]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130314211048-14-iraq-war-horizontal-gallery.jpg[/image] Is this a sign that the USA is becoming more and more like the old Roman empire, looking for military conquests and using them to not only project power abroad but use that projection of power as a means to mesmerize and even beguile its own citizens? You clearly do not have any understanding of our system. The pictures you provided were examples of the "civilian" government being controled by a military dictator. In our system the president as stated in the Constitution ( not technically but literally) is the commander in chief. This means that the military is always subordinate to civilian control. Do some research, gain some understanding of our system and get back to us. In the mean time don't lecture us when you are so far off track as to be absurd. Further, that each level of our government; the civilians control the law enforcement/military of their domain. Police are held accountable to local towns, the sheriff to the county, National Guard/State Police to the state, and finally, federal law enforcement (i.e. the FBI) and US Military to the President of the United States of America. However, the President does not have unlimited authority with that military. Any conflict in which our military is used that exceeds 90 days (I think this is the current number), the President must report to our Congress whom then decides whether further conflict is allowed or not. You can call the US Military whatever you want. To me, they are FUCKING AWESOME! They have the cool toys, the amazing skills, and can kick any other nation's ass!

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875