Axis of evil, 1 more contender

Remove all ads!

Actually, in a way, Depaara may be right. We could have been rougher in Vietnam. Yago, mentioning LBJ, got me thinking on Barry Goldwater, the grand daddy of present day conservative politics. If he had been elected instead of LBJ, well, all of us know of the famous politcal commercial: Ten...Nine... Eight...Seven.... Ahh, I am lapsing into sarcasm again. Where is Gen. Curtis LeMay when you need him?

 

Greenlion420,
Some politicians are interested in things other than money - how about power? How about ideology? Like religious motivations, communism, anti-communism, nazism or nationalism, maybe the vision of building an empire even, gaining glory, making history ... - that's what has driven conquerers and warlords over all centuries - it isn't any different today. These are for some people fulminant reasons to kill people, to do politics and to decide for peace or war.

Certainly, simplicity has a striking charme, but "Money, money, money" is just a stereotype, with a grain of truth, but still a naive stereotype: Too simple a theory to get a grip on history and reality.

 

I fully agree with Ragusa, but I like to counter simplicity with simplicity.

Politics controled by military, wee, duh.
Anynone know what drives generals ? you all know, so fess up. Money, fame, money, power, money. How stupid, what a waste of time, energy, and life in general.

If you have the strengh to be ruthless, just be.

[ April 30, 2003, 12:42: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Soldiers who place their own judgement and legitimation as "true patriots" over that of their political leaders have been seen frequently over this century. These people became notorious for toppling their democratic governments, as putschists.
Prime example are "true patriots" like Pinochet, Salazar, the greek Colonels and so on. Lacking legitimacy and public support they ruled by force. They all gained a reputation to piss on human rights and to opress their own people.

Militaries generally are anti-democratic by nature. There's not time for a poll in war. They work based on orders and obediance. Even generals have to obey the orders of their superiors, the civilians leading the ministeries of defence.

Politicians are elected in a more or less democratic process. Their legitimacy to decide on war and peace is based on the peoples vote. No general has this legitimacy.

That is the democratic reason why militaries need political guidance. They are dangerous without.

 

I think BTA that you have a very nasty opinion about the North Korea i don't believe that they are a nation of thugs and blackmailers. And i don't think that the South Korea is not willing to give anything for free. Also the NK has demands from the USA mostly, telling them that if they can help them with their energy problem they will abandon their nuclear program. Isn't that right; The Bush administration said that NK belongs to the axis of evil and then decided not to negotiate too hard for a peacefull solution.
The way i see it is that they NK is trying to close an energy hole they have by using a card they used before and worked. (of course it worked with a different president not with Bush). It seems to me that if they could solve their energy problem they would happily exchange this solution with their nuclear weapons program. I don't like this extortion but one gets what he gives. Isn't that right;
And about Vietnam all i can say is that USA may have won the battle (Far more superior arsenal) but lost the war because USA never succeeded in convincing the Vietnamese that they came for their protection (which either way was not true).
And the troops did nothing to help in fact the way the war was going helped them to express their hate for this war in a most nasty way on the backs of the simple civilians.

[ April 30, 2003, 14:09: Message edited by: Mithrantir ]

 

Mithrantir,

Are you really stating that Bush should have been more accommodating to the demands of the N. Koreans? That it really isn't blackmail, but that it was just an honest trade. The N. Koreans need energy, and they can't produce it any other way that to use nuclear power, so if the US will just help them out with their energy problems they will dismantle their nukes?

Do you mean kind of like the agreement that Clinton made with them? The one that the N. Koreans never honored? The one where as soon as they got used to what they were getting, they started demanding more?

That my friend is the very definition of blackmail.

 

I think BTA is right.

North-Korea needs money. Japan and South-Korea would be happy to give it, IF NK would be willing to open up a little. Opening up means in the long run end of the regime.

Now NK searches a way to get the money without being forced to open up. That's by stepping on the Americans toes.

Positve for NK: The diplomatic skills of the US-administration are notorious. (Powell usually has nothing to say). So, there's a second profit for NK, more tensinos between Japan, SK and the USA. That's more time for NK.

NK has the problem, that's the regime is ****ed up. It can not last. The question is, when will it end and how.

 

I never said it was not blackmail instead i said it was.
But what you didn't understand is that this blackmail is turned against the nation that has used to blackmail other nations and this was implied by the phrase one gets what one gives.

I don't judge if this is right or wrong i just say that NK is using the exact same politic that USA used on many occasions i.e. Greece.
Greece three or four years ago was thinking of buying tanks the propositions was an american, german and russian tank. The russian tank was equivalent to the american and it was far more cheaper. At first they decided to buy the russian tank but as soon as the US learned about it the US embassador in Greece went to the Ministry of Defence and said that if the russian tank was purchased then the USA would break the 7 to 10 weapons analogy between us and Turkey in favor of Turkey of course.
Now this is blackmail is it not; So if you deal like this why should you expect that noone will deal with you the same way;
And one more thing the reactors the NK had for their nuclear weapons program was shut down until one day the NK administration decided to reopen them with the excuse that there was a demand for energy resources. I don't say this is true but i can't say this is false statement too.

 

Ragusa,

Those are only the bad examples. There have been examples of generals who have defended the democratic process as well. Many here in this country are unaware, but perhaps you may know of this event: there was a planned coup here after the election of FDR.

The rich and powerful were afraid of his New Deal program and they approached the military with a planned coup to take over the the US the day FDR was to be sworn in as President. They wanted him arrested as he entered the White House!

They were foiled by one of the generals who was a hero of WWI. I wish I could remember the general's name who stopped them from their actions, but I just can't think of it. My only point is that often the military is the last line of defense for a democracy. For every bad expmaple one can probably find a good one.

 

Chandos the red. I have to desagree. I suggest reading the Federalist Papers and it's comment on the second amendment. NOTHING IS MORE DANGEROUS FOR THE STATE THAN IT'S OWN MILITARY. That's the reason my country and your country share the same constitution-article. (Thieves !)

Amendments. The people were afraid of the constituiton and demanded amendments to protect them VERSUS THE STATE -> no establishment of church, right to assemble peacefully, the right to bear arms -> Those arms are meant to protect the Americans versus the federal state. The Federalist Papers are very explicit in that case. Even a calulation that the people will overwhelm the US-Army 20 to 1. (wouldn't be correct today, would it ?)

Secondly. In the Federalist papers you'll also find, that the fathers of the constitution were convinced, that dictatorship ALWAYS connected to the army. Mad King George ruled through his army.

Ironically. The American thought has heavily influenced the Germans. Ragusa is now only repeating, what he has learned because of a process, which other Americans on this board have described as very successfull nationbuilding.

Nothing is more dangerous to a free state than its military and generals.

European and Latin-American history is full of Generals who seized power and installed a dictatorship. Anyway, I just realized, how much time in avarage history classes are spend on "Establishing a military-dictorship, basics". Do you know what a big part in history a certain Ex-General Hindenburg had ?

My favourite General is still Franco. Unlike his contemporaries, he had quite a brain. That's why he lasted so long.

I seriously doubt, that you will ever find enough empirical evidence to prove that theory.

[ May 01, 2003, 00:11: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Yago -- Mad king? Are you referring to King George III of England, or the current mad King George who runs America?

The greatest danger to a democracy is an uninformed electorate. They are a far worse danger than the military. Americans are currently loosing their rights because they are willingly giving them away. They don't know any better, because the media here keeps them ill-informed. Jay Leno regularly makes fun of people on his program who don't know who the current Vice President is, but I bet they can tell you the brand of every car that passes them by on the street.

Yes, I agree the lessons of history support your argument, but America is not so deep in history as Europe. The situation here is new, because the American experiment is somewhat unique to history. The problem is the more information people have the less they know. This is the age of information, the greatest advances in communications, and what do Americans find of interest? Jerry Springer. And he is talking of running for office. You can add him to the list with Ventura, the former wrestler, of the absurdity of American politics.

Right now there are people being held in Amreican prisons who have not been charged with a crime. They are just sitting there rotting in jails, like in Cuba or former Iraq. Convictions are being reexamined because of DNA evidence and men who were close to being executed are now being found to be completely innocent. Now we say, "Oh sorry for having you locked up for the last 15 years, Ok you can go now."

The constitution that you speak of is being ignored by the Department of Justice and the reprenstatives in congress represent the NRA and other special interest groups that pay them to pass laws that maintain the status quo.

Now, I have nothing but respect for you and Ragusa. You are both smart guys with great depth of knowledge. But the American military is hardly the problem here. Colin Powell may be the most mild of the current bunch of war mongers who currently reside in the white house basement. And he was a former general, the rest of were draft dodgers.

I heard Shrub say that the American military is bringing democracy and prosperity to Iraq. Maybe when they are finshed there they can do the same for us in America.

[ May 02, 2003, 02:00: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Pac Man, the US may be the most advanced military in the world, but that does not necesarily mean that they would win. For one thing, you do not attack a country which can fire a nuclear missle at Hawaii or Alaska, and they wouldn't dare do jack s**t to China, because the US will lose too much money, from the war itself, and from the American Companies in China. Oh and I noticed all the references to the Vietnam war, but what about the Korean War?The Chinese were able to push the technologicaly advanced US military back, thus bringing the war to a stand still. And during the Vietnam War, many of the soldiers were Hmong Rebels, and were trained by the CIA. However, the US abbandoned them to die at the hands of the Communist goverment. To this day the Hmong are still being hunted, and only 800 are living.

 

Hmmm. Looks like I came across like a raving loonie. I'm not in favor of a military state or military supremecy. I was referring to micromanagement of the conduct of the war by people who had no idea how to win battles -- I'm thinking of the "Hamburger Hill" concept, where the decisions of back room politicos got men unnecessarily killed.

 

Woah, I didn't expect such a serious and, Big reaction. I hit a couple of nerves obviously. There seems to be a huge problem with the whole China/Korea issue. I think that China has enough to worry about with the media making it to be the new world equivelant of a rat carrying plague. They will be worrying about SARS before they will worry about NK. Really, what need is there for weapons anyway? rhetorical.

 

At Chandos the Red. Sorry, I may have overreacted a little bit. What I usally always do.

I see your point. By the way, if I would have all that written what you have written, I would be burned as Anti-american.

You're right, Colin Powell is probably the last foundation of Americanism in your Goverment. By the way, interesting how many Generals have lost their job in the Pentagon lately. And have been replaced by whom ?

But there's a another interesting point you raised, the American brain is alive and kicking. But it choses deliberately to remain uninformed, with everything that has something to do with foreing policy. Something does not quite make sense. It must be the Germans, French, Russians, Belgians, South-Koreans and something weird like "Anti-Americanism".

But I have the feeling, that issues concerning East-Asia are dealt with differently than Middle-East issues. I mean through Media-outlets. It's not so easy to ignore East-Asia. Homeland of Sony, Nintendo and a lot of other companies, important to every home in the western world.

 

Depaara,
you pointed on the superiority of soldiers when judging military action, stating that soldiers alone would fight more efficient. Simplified it is: "Let the soldiers do their job and they will do it better than with political leadership."

You can't have missed that I pointed out what happened when this thinking is used generally and consequently and the dangers related with it - in an abstract strategic dimension, in reference to democracy and to human-rights. So what part of that didn't you understand?