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:



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.



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?

quote:

For all practical intents and purposes Obama, Bush, or whomever is President is NOT a "commander-in-chief".

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek
A counterbalance you say?



Who is balancing who here?

quote:


The USA is one of the few nations which haven't yet ratified ICCt...

quote:


it has the biggest military the world has ever seen...

quote:


an abundance of weapons of mass destruction...

quote:


doesn't appear to recognize the Geneva Convention...

quote:


and is engaged in wars in several countries with drone and air-strikes...

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...

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...

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

quote:


distracting them from more real and immediate threats (guns freely available...

quote:


a lack of healthcare leading to thousands of premature deaths, poor social welfare and infrastructure etc)

quote:


Most of the responses in this thread only appear to confirm that this appears to be the case.

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.

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:



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.



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.