News Just a thought: killing in the name of?

[russ_watters]

So you wouldn't say that the last 10 years haven't been characterised by belligerent foreign policy?

The only time period in the 1900s where the US had any kind of isolationism was between WWI and WWII. Remember, Roosevelt was elected partly on a promise to stay out of the war. And we profited handily from it at the time (though we were drawn-in partly due to a refusal to actually be neutral and sell to Germany).

Well can you prove antagonism is a worthwhile strategy? Any examples in the Western world, from the last 100 years, at all?

I've given several examples of what I think, but since you haven't been at all clear on your criteria, no, I cannot give you any examples that I can be sure would meet them.

Do you really think I care what you think my supposed motivation is?

No, I don't. But I want to make sure that it is clear. Argument by inuendo is dishonest.

As usual your world famous for reading your own reality into something and then trying to force someone to agree with your own opinion and not the real intent(Your characteristic strategy, if you can't answer the question yourself, make up other peoples answers and then destroy them) If you are going to learn how to debate I suggest you try and let people answer there own questions instead of making allegations or spoon feeding the responses for them,and reading something into a situation that isn't there, and then proceeding to try and brow beat someone into agreeing with your mistaken assumptions.

I suggest you reread the P&WA guidelines. You started this thread. You are required to both make and defend a clear argument. It is not possible for the thread to go anywhere useful unless you do that because there will never be a clear starting point.

Right now can we continue without some pointless reworking of my "supposed" intent, I'll reiterate so that Russ can't do the usual, rewrite reality thing: my intent is solely to point out the futility of aggressive action in the 20th/21st century, and that's it OK?

If that is your intent, then you need to:

1. Be specific about your criteria and your characterization of certain conflicts. How can we know your opinion if you refuse to state it? Right off the bat, in post #2, you were asked a very specific question and you did not give an appropriately specific answer.
2. Respond to specific counterexamples and people pointing out the flaws in your thesis.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The only time period in the 1900s where the US had any kind of isolationism was between WWI and WWII.

I did say post 1945 by the way, and I did particularly single out recently.

I've given several examples of what I think, but since you haven't been at all clear on your criteria, no, I cannot give you any examples that I can be sure would meet them.

You honestly don't know what I mean by my criteria? Is that what you are saying OK here are some more examples.

China:Tibet guess who's the antagonist, OK not western but a pretty good result for antagonists, no?

Germany annexes the Sudatanland and Reichland invades northern Checkoslovakia and then the South, Poland is next? Guess who the antagonists are?

Russia does not withdraw from Poland and Hungary etc, enforcing a communist government on said countries?This is debatable as warfare though as technically it never is at war with the countries in question, but anyway for the sake of argument, any guesses who the antagonist is?

Iran-Iraq war Iraq invades Iran? Any guesses who the antagonist is, and who the defenders are?

Is that clear enough or do you want more examples?

No, I don't. But I want to make sure that it is clear. Argument by inuendo is dishonest.

Then kindly establish the facts before you make assumptions, I am not arguing by innuendo I am being blunt, my critique is against the worthiness of antagonism or war of invasion etc in the 20th century and beyond not against one particular country but against war in general in the West.

1. Be specific about your criteria and your characterization of certain conflicts. How can we know your opinion if you refuse to state it? Right off the bat, in post #2, you were asked a very specific question and you did not give an appropriately specific answer.
2. Respond to specific counterexamples and people pointing out the flaws in your thesis.

Oh come off it It's pretty clear what I meant from post one, antagonistic wars the examples given? But people are playing games with the argument for some pretty odd reasons if you ask me.Ok is it clear now? If it's not clear by now, frankly it never will be.

 

[russ_watters]

...my intent is solely to point out the futility of aggressive action in the 20th/21st century, and that's it OK?

Ok... Let's try one example - one of your prime examples. It seems relatively clear that you consider the US to be the antagonist in Afghanistan. Setting aside for a moment how you arived at that, you are arguing that such action is futile. Ie, doomed to failure. So:

1. What goals did the US have/what reason did the US invade?
2. Did any of those goals succeed?

To me, the goals are relatively clear:
1. Depose the Taliban.
2. Establish a democratic government.
3. Disrupt Afghan-based terrorism.
4. Capture/kill/marginalize Bin Laden.

And our level of success in these:
1. Done and highly successful.
2. Done, but it isn't stable yet (thus the reason the troops are still there).
3. Done and highly successful.
4. He's not dead or captured, but he has certainly been marginalized. This must at least be considered a partial success.

Since it is your argument, perhaps you could write a similar analysis for this and the other big examples you have used (starting with Iraq)?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Ok... Let's try one example - one of your prime examples. It seems relatively clear that you consider the US to be the antagonist in Afghanistan. Setting aside for a moment how you arived at that, you are arguing that such action is futile. Ie, doomed to failure. So:

1. What goals did the US have/what reason did the US invade?
2. Did any of those goals succeed?

To me, the goals are relatively clear:
1. Depose the Taliban.
2. Establish a democratic government.
3. Disrupt Afghan-based terrorism.
4. Capture/kill/marginalize Bin Laden.

And our level of success in these:
1. Done and highly successful.
2. Done, but it isn't stable yet (thus the reason the troops are still there).
3. Done and highly successful.
4. He's not dead or captured, but he has certainly been marginalized. This must at least be considered a partial success.

Since it is your argument, perhaps you could write a similar analysis for this and the other big examples you have used (starting with Iraq)?

The war isn't over yet, and neither is the certainties your claiming? To be honest I wish you'd never bothered, and just gone after Osamah.

The place is liable to remain a war zone for years, and it's not clear if the costs outweigh the advantages, as is so often being asserted, your losing the war on terror, but holding up x as a victory, games not over yet? I think you need to accept that neocon warmongering is detrimental to the war on terror, and redefine what you consider a victory, but this is based on an incomplete picture.

 

[Cyrus]

Edit: I said bushed asked for 2 billion for the next two years for war. It should have read 245billion.

 

[Cyrus]

1. What goals did the US have/what reason did the US invade?
2. Did any of those goals succeed?

To me, the goals are relatively clear:
1. Depose the Taliban.
2. Establish a democratic government.
3. Disrupt Afghan-based terrorism.
4. Capture/kill/marginalize Bin Laden.

Im going to have to diagree with you on these points.

1. Replace Taliban with "Al Qiada", there still there.
2. If you leave the city, its run by tribal leaders. Some democratic government you got there.
3. Absolutely not. Attacks on US soldiers are on the rise in Afganistan.
4. Ok, and we created 50 new bin-ladins to replace him. What did that accomplish? (And we did not catch him nor kill him.)

Im sorry, but whole mess has been bungled.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

You forgot:-

5:bring stability to the Middle East
5:floundering and floundering badly

You might like to note as well that for the first time in Afghanistan suicide bombers have started to hit various locations, this never happened when the Russians were there, and thinking about the Afghan Russia war, they reinforced Kabul secured it within a few days, then spent years trying to root out insurgents, eventually giving up and leaving? Anyone think the same thing is going to happen again?

I have some nice little statistics on a related war and the number of terrorist attacks after Iraq.

It appears that the number of attacks in the middle east is large, and around the world is growing too? The war on terror in action, or do you think there's no causal link, if I can find the stats I'll put them up. I'll try and fish something out, but I'm sure you've seen the reports already.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042802181_pf.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/

Here's a report about a suicide bombing in Afghanistan though, I suspect you heard about it?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20070227-1304-afghan-explosion.html

3. Disrupt Afghan-based terrorism.
3. Done and highly successful.

You mean 3.Failed and failed badly no?

Although the bomber did not get closer than roughly a mile to the vice president, the attack highlighted an increasingly precarious security situation posed by the resurgent Taliban. Five years after U.S.-led forces toppled their regime, Taliban-led militants have stepped up attacks. There were 139 suicide bombings last year, a fivefold increase over 2005, and a fresh wave of violence is expected this spring.

The guerrillas, according to NATO officials, have the flexibility to organize an attack quickly and may have been able to plan a bombing at the base while Cheney was there after hearing news reports on Monday that he was delayed by bad weather. The Taliban have attacked in the area north of the capital in the past even though people living in the Bagram area have not been supportive of the guerrillas. Col. Tom Collins, the top spokesman for the NATO force, said the Taliban had a cell in Kabul that could have traveled the 30 miles north to Bagram.

Asked if the Taliban were trying to send a message with the attack, Cheney said: “I think they clearly try to find ways to question the authority of the central government. Striking at Bagram with a suicide bomber, I suppose, is one way to do that. But it shouldn't affect our behavior at all.”

OK any more shining examples?

 

[Futobingoro]

About the military-industrial complex:

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4319/defensespendingok2.png http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf (note that data for 2007-2012 are estimates)

Those graphs don't include discretionary budget, but they still show a general trend over time. WW2 and the Korean War show clearly; Vietnam to a lesser extent. Perhaps of more interest is the surprisingly small increases during the Reagan & Bush Jr. years. I have read some very fiery criticism of Reagan and Bush Jr.'s defense spending, but it looks like it's mostly hype. Budgeted defense spending is at all-time lows. All those boldface triple-digit billion-dollar numbers are non-starters. I will try to make a graph of defense spending (including discretionary spending) and another of human resources spending later.

Edit: http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/2548/defensespending2tl6.png Note how, in terms of percent of outlays, one increases at the expense of the other.

 

[Gokul43201]

Iraq were the antagonists in that case. Usually you can take antagonists as those who instigate the war by invasion normally. In the case of Afghanistan it was the allies...

Your logic, which again, you fail to actually show us, eludes me. I've explained more than once, that it was al Qaeda+Taliban, who instigated the invasion of Afghanistan, not the Allies. You simply refute this without any explanation whatsoever.

It seems that in each case, you apply the label instigator/antagonist, to the group that you believe has gained nothing out of the war. Of course, you do not clearly explain why you believe that these groups have gained nothing either.

Here's a counterexample: Bush - your instigator of the war in Afghanistan - gained a re-election here as a result of going into war.

 

[Cyrus]

About the military-industrial complex:

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4319/defensespendingok2.png http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf (note that data for 2007-2012 are estimates)

Those graphs don't include discretionary budget, but they still show a general trend over time. WW2 and the Korean War show clearly; Vietnam to a lesser extent. Perhaps of more interest is the surprisingly small increases during the Reagan & Bush Jr. years. I have read some very fiery criticism of Reagan and Bush Jr.'s defense spending, but it looks like it's mostly hype. Budgeted defense spending is at all-time lows. All those boldface triple-digit billion-dollar numbers are non-starters. I will try to make a graph of defense spending (including discretionary spending) and another of human resources spending later.

Edit: http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/2548/defensespending2tl6.png Note how, in terms of percent of outlays, one increases at the expense of the other.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/WorldMilitarySpending.jpg

Just because it has declined from an absurd number does not mean its good.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2003 the United States spent approximately 47% of the world's total military spending of US$956 billion.

While the overall U.S. military budget has risen over time, as a percentage of its GDP, the United states spends 3.7% on military. This compares higher than France's 2.6%, and lower than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[3] This is historically fairly low for the United States. While the spending budget has been slowly rising, the spending rate has been in a slow decline since peaking in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP. Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.[4]

Yet some say that to compare government spending on the military to the total sum of all goods and services produced by the national economy in a year (the GDP) is to mislead, since the U.S. GDP has dramatically risen over time, and therefore the military budget can still go up, while simultaneously demanding a smaller percentage of the GDP. For example, according to the Center for Defense Information, the US outlays for defense as a percentage of federal discretionary spending, has from Fiscal Year 2003 consumed more than half (50.5%) of all such funding and is steadily rising.[5] It should be noted, however, that discretionary spending accounts for approximately 1/3 of all federal outlays[1], and that comparing nominal dollar values of military spending over the course of decades fails to account for the impact of inflationary forces, for which military spending as a percentage of GDP does account.

Finally, it must be stressed that the recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are funded outside the Federal Budget (i.e. are paid for through supplementary spending bills) and are therefore external to the military budget figures listed above.[6] In addition, the United States has long had a history of black budget military spending which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures. Thus, the true amount spent by the United States on military spending is significantly higher than the given budgetary figures.

Intersting. It appears your graphs are on the mark in terms of low GDP overall.

 

[Futobingoro]

Keep in mind that China and Russia's military spending look less benign when one takes purchasing power into account. Although the Big Mac index is probably an oversimplification here, it has an accurate premise. At least as far as Big Macs are concerned, Russia and China have about double the purchasing power of the US. I remember having read (sorry, I don't remember the source) that Russian spending in some sectors of military technology enjoys purchasing power 15 times greater than comparable American sectors. Additionally, it seems that China, and probably Russia, also practice black budget spending:

Chinese defense spending
Russian defense spending

I do not think I will be able to fully account for discretionary military spending in revising my earlier graphs, as my http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf includes discretionary figures only from 1976 onwards. I will say that a revised graph will show a higher proportion of military spending, as military spending has historically accounted for a large portion of discretionary spending. I predict that, even when corrected for discretionary spending, however, military budget authority will still not approach the budget authority for human resources.

And, to be honest, US policies have favored having enough power (whether measured in manpower, technology, purchasing power, etc.) to be able to defeat all enemies on all fronts, so that may be a good explanation for the fact that US defense spending almost outstrips the combined defense spending of the rest of the world.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Your logic, which again, you fail to actually show us, eludes me. I've explained more than once, that it was al Qaeda+Taliban, who instigated the invasion of Afghanistan, not the Allies. You simply refute this without any explanation whatsoever.

So the mostly Pashtun, Afghani Taliban, invaded their own country and then requested Al-qaeda invade their country? You've lost me now? Did I not explain that civil wars can't really be counted as a victory or loss, since both sides are from the same country.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

I think you need to find out who the Taliban are, they are Afghani Mujahideen, I'm not sure entirely how they can invade their own country, maybe they were anatagonistic to there own country and against themselves? The civil war never really ended it just simmered down after one faction the Taliban gained control, there was no invasion, this is comparable to Vietnam, for the Russians.

It seems that in each case, you apply the label instigator/antagonist, to the group that you believe has gained nothing out of the war. Of course, you do not clearly explain why you believe that these groups have gained nothing either.

No it seems that you have no comprehension of what invader and defender means

Here's a counterexample: Bush - your instigator of the war in Afghanistan - gained a re-election here as a result of going into war.

Did you read my clarifiication or was that just an inconvenience?

Iraq were the antagonists in that case. Usually you can take antagonists as those who instigate the war by invasion normally. In the case of Afghanistan it was the allies, in the case of Iraq it was the allies, in the case of the Iraq-Kuwait war it was Saddam, in the case of a civil war there can be a number of antagonists, if another country gets involved then it's an antagonist/ally regardless of what side it's on, as is the original instigator in this case, although obviously it's a bit hard to judge a win or a loss for a country in a civil war. By antagonist I mean the invading army generally, those who are on the aggressors side rather than the defenders. Germany in WWII with England and its allies as the defenders. The Falklands, Argentina as the aggressors, UK the defenders.

initially civil war-which country won?

Here's a counterexample: Bush - your instigator of the war in Afghanistan - gained a re-election here as a result of going into war.

oh dear, I suppose Bush personally invaded Afghanistan as well, I'm talking about countries here not individuals, what country benefits from this?

 

[Werg22]

The whole armed fight against terrorism is plainly absurd. Terrorism is not a State or a singular organization - its head is not centralized. Rather, it's an ideology, and an ideology cannot be tamed with weapons. On top of this, I have to say that the state of affairs is quite alarming. First, why does terrorism exist? The short answer: the existence of Israel. It all starts there. Tensions between the West and the Middle-East all have their roots in this single issue. As long as it isn't solve, terrorism will always exist. Fighting terrorism is like trying to fill a holed bucket - we are not solving this the right way.

 

[Futobingoro]

The whole armed fight against terrorism is plainly absurd. Terrorism is not a State or a singular organization - its head is not centralized. Rather, it's an ideology, and an ideology cannot be tamed with weapons.

I am certain there have been many ideologies that have been destroyed, but I can't name any off the top of my head.

 

[denverdoc]

I am certain there have been many ideologies that have been destroyed, but I can't name any off the top of my head.

Flat-earther numbers are down according to a recent poll, rumor has it they slid off the edge.

 

[Futobingoro]

Getting back to Chinese defense spending, there was a relevant development today:

China will boost military spending by 17.8 percent this year, a spokesman for the national legislature said Sunday, continuing more than a decade of double-digit annual increases that have raised concerns among the United States and China's neighbors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030400168.html

By comparison, page 58 of http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf predicts a 9.6% increase in American defense spending from 2006 to 2007, with projected decreases by 2012.

In my opinion, China's defense spending is not an immediate cause for concern. At the very least they are modernizing, though they are probably working toward something more ambitious.

 

[denverdoc]

Getting back to Chinese defense spending, there was a relevant development today:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030400168.html

In my opinion, China's defense spending is not an immediate cause for concern. At the very least they are modernizing, though they are probably working toward something more ambitious.

True, i worry much more about our outspending the entire world.