Why We Fight Movie: Must-Watch Eye-Opening Film

[selfAdjoint]

I'm sure the number provided is accurate, but the point is that it is intentionally misleading. It would be interesting to know, though, how many bases we have with, say, 1000 personnel in them. Apparently, the producer of the movie thought it better to just throw out the bigger number and not look for the relevant one. I'm not going to do his job for him.

I just thought it was ironic that the producer of the movie followed an intentionally misleading statistic with a quote about how statistics can lie.

This is a debating trick. You concede the number quoted is accurate and then introduce an additional question of your own choice and insist the statement is defective because it didn't answer your "interesting" question. The number of bases is as stated, so the statement is accurate, and you have no valid grounds to criticize it.

 

[Bystander]

Not really --- liassons with JSDF units, NATO, and elsewhere, military attaches at embassies and consulates --- there's a lot of "spin" built into the "numbers game" --- an expectation that inferrences of "military activities" will be substituted for "bases" which is a substitute for "stations."

 

[russ_watters]

Some better, (though still not great) stats can be derived from this wik article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States

Using the number of active troops (1,415,289), subtracting the number of them stationed in the US (1,112,684), and the top 5 plus the middle east...

Germany 69,395
South Korea (United States Forces Korea) 32,744
Japan (United States Forces Japan) 35,307
Italy 12,258
United Kingdom 11,093

As of mid- 2006, nearly 150,000 U.S. troops are currently deployed in the Middle East. Most of these forces are currently engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.

... and dividing by the remainder (wik's number, 702 - perhaps 50 bases in those combined areas) yields an average troop strength of about...

oops - heh, I actually started writing before calculating. That little exercise yields a negative number of remaining troops. It seems once you subtract those top 5 countries and the Middle East, the rest of our bases are so insignificantly small that they don't even show up inside the error margin of those stats!

Well, let's go with gross numbers - Both the active total and the domestic are 2006 numbers. The 150,000 for the ME was an estimate, so let's just ignore it. So altogether, we have 302,605 troops in about 702 bases (Wik's number). That's an average of 431 troops in each. Since we know only a small handful of countries have the vast majority of the bases, we can conclude that the vast majority of those 702 bases likely have under 100 personnel.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a debating trick. You concede the number quoted is accurate and then introduce an additional question of your own choice and insist the statement is defective because it didn't answer your "interesting" question. The number of bases is as stated, so the statement is accurate, and you have no valid grounds to criticize it.

? And 'the sky is blue' is a fact too, but that doesn't mean the fact that the sky is blue supports the contention that the US is an empire and has a military industrial complex problem. Just because something is a fact doesn't mean it can't also be an intentional deception. As you said - its a debating trick.

And my "interesting question" was a paraphrase of cyrus's - he wanted to know how many were "significant" and how many were "insignificant". I think that's a reasonable (and interesting) question. If you don't like the 1000 troops criteria for being "significant", pick another one, but if you want to argue against the question, I'm not the one who posed it.

 

[Cyrus]

When was the last time our empire grew, under the definition of the term that fits what the Romans did?

Well, if it was a bad analogy, then it was a bad analogy. Who cares, this thread is not about the comparisons of us to the roman empire anyways. So that's the end of that.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm sure the number provided is accurate, but the point is that it is intentionally misleading. It would be interesting to know, though, how many bases we have with, say, 1000 personnel in them. Apparently, the producer of the movie thought it better to just throw out the bigger number and not look for the relevant one. I'm not going to do his job for him, but I can say that somewhere on the neighborhood of 200 of them are embassies, most (all?) of which have a Marine Corps detatchment for security. Here's a list: http://usembassy.state.gov/

I just thought it was ironic that the producer of the movie followed an intentionally misleading statistic with a quote about how statistics can lie.

Well, without any actual numbers from you, I will consider that some of them are small. But I won't totally discount his point unless someone provides a more accuate picture.

Edit: I just saw your post about 702 people. That is not all that large, indeed.

Roughly 700 troops is the equivalent of a small high school at most.

 

[Cyrus]

The part of the movie about the military industrial complex; however, is alarming.

Do you take issue with that point?

 

[edward]

The part of the movie about the military industrial complex; however, is alarming.

Do you take issue with that point?

I for one don't take issue with that point. I spent most of my working years in the midst of the American military industrial complex. I think one thing that Ike did not expect was the sale and global proliferation of weapons by the industrial complex.

For instance, the USA developes a weapon then sells it to Israel, Isreal then reverse engineers it and sells it to China. The Chinese now sell it to Iran and we end up with one of our own weapons which may be used against us at some point in the future.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0509-07.htm

The whole thing has gotten totally bizarre.

 

[Mickey]

You're last post tried to put what he said into context, and yet you went outside the context of what he was talking about with the above statement. He was referring to nuclear war, not ME terrorism.

Exactly! His speech cannot be meaningfully applied to our current problems. Doing so would be taking his speech out of context and is basically a sham.

Unless one thinks that the MIC is leading to the downfall of religion. One could use Eisenhower's statements as a very good support for that, because maintaining religion amidst the growth of the MIC was the intention at the time.

 

[kyleb]

"Religious" leaders and groups are propping up our military industrial complex as it does run wild in direct contradiction to what Ike warned us to guard against.

 

[Cyrus]

Exactly! His speech cannot be meaningfully applied to our current problems. Doing so would be taking his speech out of context and is basically a sham.

Unless one thinks that the MIC is leading to the downfall of religion. One could use Eisenhower's statements as a very good support for that, because maintaining religion amidst the growth of the MIC was the intention at the time.

Um, no. Not really. I did not take his speech out of context, you did.

Why do you keep bringing up religion. Read what Kyleb wrote, for an answer in terms of religion if that's what your after. I read his entire speech, and I suggest you do too. If you think his point of that speech was religion, then I'm afraid you missed the whole point of the speech.

Yes, there was some mention of religion. Sure, it was on his mind. But *No,* what was not main reason for his message.

 

[BobG]

Um, no. Not really. I did not take his speech out of context, you did.

Why do you keep bringing up religion. Read what Kyleb wrote, for an answer in terms of religion if that's what your after. I read his entire speech, and I suggest you do too. If you think his point of that speech was religion, then I'm afraid you missed the whole point of the speech.

Yes, there was some mention of religion. Sure, it was on his mind. But *No,* what was not main reason for his message.

The main reason to contrast US religious values against Soviet values was to show they weren't like us. Because they didn't think like us, you couldn't rely on our logic to analyze their actions.

In other words, saying the Soviet buildup in nuclear arms was motivated by the experience of losing 10,000 per day during World War II and a commitment to ensure no war was ever fought in their country again would be a mistake. Using such logic, some Americans would question whether we needed to build up our own nuclear arsenal in response. It was important that Americans perceived Soviet nuclear weapons as a direct threat.

There was a practical reason for this, since one had to look at how the Soviets acquired 'buffer' states and wonder just how big that buffer had to be. If the Soviets had a superior nuclear arsenal, they could make that buffer as big as they wanted with nothing to slow them down. The only serious threat of being nuked by Soviets would have been if we interfered in Soviet activity in Europe with nothing to back us up (the obvious argument against US nukes being don't interfere - let the USSR do what they want in Europe). In other words, the Soviet nukes provided an indirect threat - something harder to understand than a direct threat.

Religion definitely wasn't the main point of his speech. Was the author of that Positive Atheism site created at the same time as Pat Robertson, the two being the equivalent of matter and anti-matter?

 

[Mickey]

Um, no. Not really. I did not take his speech out of context, you did.

Well...

I just finished watching the movie tonight. Man, all I can say is that you *MUST* go out and rent this movie and watch it. Amazing stuff! It will open your eyes to what eisenhower predicted in terms of the American Military Industrial complex.

We are becoming the Romans, aye carmba!

... what exactly were you referring to, then, when you mentioned "what eisenhower predicted in terms of the American Military Industrial complex?"

 

[Cyrus]

Here, this might help Mickey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-Industrial_Complex

 

[Mickey]

Well, that was underwhelming. I was already familiar with that page. Let me rephrase the question.

Remember that he didn't predict the MIC's existence, since it was already around as he spoke. So what else are you saying he predicted? Modern troubles? Current socioeconomic and political problems? Moral decline?

 

[pcorbett]

Roughly 700 troops is the equivalent of a small high school at most.

And as we all know from Red Dawn, a small high school is the foundation of the American warfighting machine.

 

[Mickey]

kyleb, do you think Jefferson would have approved of Eisenhower's theistic laws?

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

If he wanted God in the constitution, I think he would have put God in the constitution. Instead of, say, the establishment clause.

 

[kyleb]

kyleb, do you think Jefferson would have approved of Eisenhower's theistic laws?

I don't see any reason to even consider the possibility, and that leaves me wondering why you ask.

 

[scott1]

Oh, I thought this thread was about you, pengwuino & yomamma.

yomamma is currently responsible for world war III
pengwuino is currently responsible for end of the world.
cyrus is currently responsible for yomamma and pengwuino being responbile for what there responsible for.

I don't see why this wouldn't be about pengwunio,cyrus and yomamma.

 

[Cyrus]

Ummmm......what...

 

[Pythagorean]

I saw this movie a while ago, and it agrees with my beliefs, that the militairy is running a racket. I never much trusted Rumsfield and his goons in the first place.

This all, of course, conjecture, since I'm not there, but seriously, watch the video before you judge it.

It's definitely not like Micheal Moore.

 

[Mickey]

I don't see any reason to even consider the possibility, and that leaves me wondering why you ask.

Well, it just shows how weird Eisenhower's laws are, considering that a slave-owner wouldn't even pass them.

 

[Cyrus]

Finally found the clip I wanted to show. Want more on our becoming an empire,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4078254699358348828&q=charlie+rose+british+harvard+book

watch the second half with Caroline Elkins, 2006 Pulitzer prize winner.

Important information.

 

[Pythagorean]

When was the last time our empire grew, under the definition of the term that fits what the Romans did?

I hate to necropost, but I'd like to offer a sort of compromise to these conflicting ideas.

I think, at least in the social sector, the global masses have reached a less violent sort of society, we are becoming more civilized in that aspect. News also travels faster nowdays, and large amounts of countries are united in treaties. You can't be like Rome today, you'd get your ass handed to you by the EU or UN and their allying with anyone you're wrecklessly conquering.

Instead, we set up economic institutions and figure out ways to slowly drain their economy into ours, but also making their economy appear to be stronger (i can't say whether it really does or not, because it's so complicated of an interaction. I know in some cases it does, and in some it doesn't.) .

We do go to war, and conquest, but we have to come up with very convincing reasons, and obviously we're willing to push the bounds on cases where the UN or EU (or whoever would try to handle the US if it went Rogue) can't really take harsh action against us, but isn't obligated to support us either.

When people say 'we are the new Rome' they're referring to an evolution of the idea of conquest that is less (note, less, not non) violent, and more economically based.

Further more, the idea of empire is more evolved too. We're a representative democracy, we don't chose to go to war as the people, hell we don't always get to chose our president. The whole idea of war is run in our immediate physical interests but absent of our moral interest or long-term well-being. I have no say in cabinet members (edit:) which have a lot of say in our foreign affairs... which eventually comes back to the US individuals and domestic businesses in some form or another.

Economically, it's been shown (starting with the Hobbes/Locke era) that being an empire sucks, because that limits your profits. If the markets to free, you won't be able to make money off of it as the government, but if you find a spot in between, you can effectively make more profits and still manage the consequences of a free market.

Superpower is the new form of Empire, that's all. Same underlying concept, different means, and we're the leading Superpower.

disclaimer: damn it jim! I'm a scientist, not a political economist (but I'm taking a political economy class, so forgive me if I'm drawing premature conclusions about the current state of affairs)

 

[Pythagorean]

Well, it just shows how weird Eisenhower's laws are, considering that a slave-owner wouldn't even pass them.

I don't support slavery, but I agree that the militairy industrial presence in the U.S. is more cavalier than it ought to be.

So if a slave owner disagrees with my opinion on the U.S., it makes my ideas weird, because he's a slave owner?

THAT's weird... What if he would have been a garbage man or a priest disagreeing with me? Then would I have been more in line?

 

[Yonoz]

Instead, we set up economic institutions and figure out ways to slowly drain their economy into ours, but also making their economy appear to be stronger (i can't say whether it really does or not, because it's so complicated of an interaction. I know in some cases it does, and in some it doesn't.) .

There's also the question whether this is intentional or simply the natural course of things. While I agree there is such a thing as economic colonialism, it could be a natural phenomenon.

 

[Pythagorean]

There's also the question whether this is intentional or simply the natural course of things. While I agree there is such a thing as economic colonialism, it could be a natural phenomenon.

I didn't mean to imply it was a conspiracy or even intentional evil, it's more inconsiderate business sense. The bototm line and all that...

The people selling weapons are just as interested in pimping their product as Multinational Corps like McDonalds. They're not working together to make everone fat and violent, they're just aren't concerned about the consequences of their marketing techniques.

 

[Yonoz]

I didn't mean to imply it was a conspiracy or even intentional evil, it's more inconsiderate business sense. The bototm line and all that...

The people selling weapons are just as interested in pimping their product as Multinational Corps like McDonalds. They're not working together to make everone fat and violent, they're just aren't concerned about the consequences of their marketing techniques.

You're right, but you really can't do much about it. Someone will always be willing to make a dishonest buck. Have you seen "Lord of War"?

 

[Pythagorean]

You're right, but you really can't do much about it. Someone will always be willing to make a dishonest buck. Have you seen "Lord of War"?

Was that the one with Nicolas Cage? Good fact movie, and I love Cage, but I don't remember much else from it as it didn't hold my attention very well, after the intro where the statistics are mentioned.

There's probably not much that can be done about it, but I'm still very vocal about not supporting the war racket.

 

[Yonoz]

There's probably not much that can be done about it, but I'm still very vocal about not supporting the war racket.

Are there any initiatives to curb the US arms industry by regulation? Is this even on the public agenda in the States?