Canadian army....

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Bond

It's been a long held view of many Western intellectuals that some powerful democracy (in this case, the United States) must dictate objective morality throughout the world. If not, by default, that morality will be dictated by dictatorships. You could look at our military as a proxy to serve these means.

Aren't we sort of like moral dictators though...in a sense.

[Professor S]

I find there is one major flaw in the "military is bad" philosophy, and that is the supposition that military's cause violence. They do not. People cause violence and as long as man proves himself to be a violent creature, armies will be necessary to protect the more enlightened from the less enlightened.

We are blessed to live in relatively free societies governed by their people. These freedoms were not handed to us, but won from those who would tell us otherswise, and whether it's France, Britain, Germany or the US, freedom was not won through force of reason, but by force of arms from those who would not see reason.

EX. American colonists begged King George to reconsider his policies before the Revolution. Most of the colonist leadership entered the Revolutionary War with regret, not vigor, and viewed revolution as the last resort but still necessary. No one is arguing that was is the ideal, but this world is not the ideal and those who have power would take it from you.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
~ Thomas Jefferson


And I believe the Western intelellctuals that Bond refers to are also known as "neo cons" to many, and it's a reaction to the old Reagan era philosophy of propping up foreign dictatorships to keep greater threats at bay. Surpisingly enough, many liberal intellectuals agree with this philosophy and quote it when arguing against the Iraq war.

The "neo con" philosophy is very new and it's first real (JFK's Bay of Pigs was the first attempt) experiment in culture building is Iraq and we'll have to see how it turns out. Right now, it looks pretty positive over the long run after a period of uncertainty. Is it a bit totalitarian? Absolutely, but so was our occupation of Germany after WW2, and its success is derived by the idea of moral superiority; that forced democracy (toppling tyrants on behalf of it's people) is > tolerated tyranny/dictatorship. The philosphy is that an opressed people will always support an opportunity for self-rule regardless of how it is won.

My opinion? The Iraqi people will have to fight for their freedom. I believe the allied military has given the Iraqi people an opportunity, but it is still unknown whether or not the people value their own freedom enough to fight for it once we leave and a second, lesser fight begins. Success or failure will be measure on how the battle ends and it's effects on the region. Until that happens, we will not see if the "moral authority" vision of foreign policy is correct or at least correct in the case of Iraq (an admittedly westernized nation). I have my doubts, because I don't know if people can value freedom when it is handed to them instead of won through the will of it's people.

[Ric]

Originally Posted by Professor S

So the American military is responsible for world poverty? And by the way the US publicly and privately donates more money to figt world hunger than any other country in the world, as also is the largest contributor to the UN's fight against pverty and world hunger as well.

No not at all. I meant in your oun country (assuming you are American). And I am not discounting the second part of your statement, you are correct. More or less.

Originally Posted by Professor S

So you're evidence to disprove these numbers is the fact you saw some new boats? I think your personal objection to military spending are tainting your objectivity on this subject.

No I was not trying to disprove the numbers, I said I was unsure as to their accuracy or I believed they were incorrect. This has been cleared up by BaB who stated that the figures are for 2007. A point I overlooked. And when I say boats, I mean three destroyers an aircraft carrier and at least one nuclear submarine that I saw. Those things are expensive.

For the record I am not opposed to military spending, just to how much spending it takes. For someone living in a country that doesnt even have a national health service, can they really justify the spending on wmd's.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Old facts. More facts? Rolls Royce supplied Nazi Germany with over half of its fighter and bomber engines. Is that a reason to hate Rolls Royce today? No, because those people are dead and gone. All we can expect from the past is to learn from it, not judge people today based on it.

Wrong! Rolls Royce supplied these things before the war broke out. After that the Rolls engines were adapted by the Nazi's. We then put our new Rolls engines in our Spit Fires etc. Seriously mate, my Grandmother used to build the planes. England were one of the first countrys to place an international trades embago upon Nazi Germany.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Thats a very simplistic argument, with too many rebuttles to post here.

Not only am I a financial advisor, so I know I am correct. But as for well trained armies. Give me an example, go on, and I am not blaming the Americans on this one, but look at the fucking mess we have caused in Iraq, Afganistan, etc.
Why should these people fight it out and solve it themselves, when we messed it up. A tyrant though he was, at least saddam kept these people in check. Iraq was and is not a third world country. It was all about oil and Bush's personal vendetta ...'let's not forget, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad'... that says it all.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Suffice to say: Enjoy the freedom, peace and prosperity your military powers have afforded you. Good intentions do not defeat men with evil intentions. Well trained armies do.

Actually thats the whole point of the UN. And they have kept our planet pretty peaceful for a long time. The trouble comes when countries ignore them and do what they like anyway. As with Iraq.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Ric

Wrong! Rolls Royce supplied these things before the war broke out. After that the Rolls engines were adapted by the Nazi's. We then put our new Rolls engines in our Spit Fires etc. Seriously mate, my Grandmother used to build the planes. England were the first country to place an international trades embago upon Nazi Germany.

I didn't argue whether or not the war had broke out, I argued that they supplied the engines to Nazi germany, and they did even after they annexed Austria. Chamberlain knew quite well who they were dealing with and didn't care. It wasn't until Prime Minister's changed and England ended their nationalist policies that what you're talking about took place. Please don't attempt to revise history by quibbling over small points.

By the way, I'm not saying that America was any better, my point was that all of this is in the past, and it doesn't affect out current situation in the least. Long story short: Everyone you're angry with is DEAD and their kids are RETIRED or DEAD. Get over it and lets concentrate on reality. Searching back nearly 80 years ago for arguments only appeals to our emotional senses of vengeance and generational justice.

Not only am I a financial advisor, so I know I am correct.

LOL!! Really? Because to me it looks like financial advisors shat the bed quite recently. Argue facts, not your profession. Financial expertise is immaterial when the argument is there would be no wealth to redistrubute if we didn't have a strong military to support and protect it, and not only protect it nationally but internationally. Read The Case for Goliath to see how important that military spending is to the world, not just the US.

Why should these people fight it out and solve it themselves, when we messed it up. A tyrant though he was,at least saddam kept these people in check. Iraq was and is not a third world country. It was all about oil and Bush's personal vendetta ...'let's not forget, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad'... that says it all.[/quote]

Does your financial expertise tell you all this as well? These are all old arguments that we've argued about relentlessly over the last 6 or more years, so I'll pass on beating a dead horse. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe. If there is nothing new to add except for stale platitudes like "he killed mah daddah!!", "blood for oil", etc. I think we can put this exchange to rest.

[Ric]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I didn't argue whether or not the war had broke out, I argued that they supplied the engines to Nazi germany, and they did even after they annexed Austria. Chamberlain knew quite well who they were dealing with and didn't care. It wasn't until Prime Minister's changed and England ended their nationalist policies that what you're talking about took place. Please don't attempt to revise history by quibbling over small points.

Ok you are more or less correct. It seems they teach us differently in schools over here. The fact that the engines were already commissioned and paid for before then makes no odds I suppose.

Originally Posted by Professor S

By the way, I'm not saying that America was any better, my point was that all of this is in the past, and it doesn't affect out current situation in the least. Long story short: Everyone you're angry with is DEAD and their kids are RETIRED or DEAD. Get over it and lets concentrate on reality. Searching back nearly 80 years ago for arguments only appeals to our emotional senses of vengeance and generational justice.

My father is not retired or dead. And a generation as short as my grandfather ago is not a very long time at all. Concentrate on reality you say. I lived in Berlin 2 years ago and watched todays equivilent of the Nazi party growing in favour. Thats todays reality. We would be foolish not to learn from the mistakes of our history.

Anyway as I said in my origional post on this subject. I am going off on a tangent and this was not the point I wanted to discuss.

Originally Posted by Professor S

LOL!! Really? Because to me it looks like financial advisors shat the bed quite recently. Argue facts, not your profession. Financial expertise is immaterial when the argument is there would be no wealth to redistrubute if we didn't have a strong military to support and protect it, and not only protect it nationally but internationally. Read The Case for Goliath to see how important that military spending is to the world, not just the US.

No actually I pulled out because I saw the trade defecit coming in 2007. And I did not say we dont need an army to protect our interests. I said we dont need to spend so much money on it.

You want me to argue facts, do I really need to explain how Europe is directly affected by America and in turn China. It is a world trade circle. Made possible by, among many other factors. The petro chemical dollar, I trust you know what that is.

And heres another fact, before everything else, money makes the world go round so my profession puts me in a perfect place for this discussion.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Does your financial expertise tell you all this as well? These are all old arguments that we've argued about relentlessly over the last 6 or more years, so I'll pass on beating a dead horse. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe. If there is nothing new to add except for stale platitudes like "he killed mah daddah!!", "blood for oil", etc. I think we can put this exchange to rest.

Yes, good. And now we can get back to the whole point of my topic all the way back in my first post. Can you really justify this kind of spending on the military? We are talking about an exchange of money greater than that of the entire wealth of some countries.

When we go to war against another country it comes down to a few basic facts, what the military and government want us the public to believe, and what is actually going on.

Why are we in Afganistan? Opium, thats why! The backbone of the developed worlds medical and health treatments. The same drugs you get in paracetamol or asprin even morphine are all derived from one plant. Poppies, the same one they make heroine out of.

Why are we in Iraq. Oil. 25% of the worlds supply of it. Enough to keep the US and Europe's economy strong for the next 50 years.

The three most valuable commodities on the planet. G.O.D.
Gold - Oil and Drugs

EDIT - for the record. Yes this is what armies are for. But charity should start at home. England just printed 75 billion pounds in new banknotes. And there are still homeless people living in the streets in our country.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Ric

paracetamol or asprin

Really? I didn't know that.........so I ask, are you sure?

Morphine and Heroin I knew since they are both opiates and walla you get opium from poppy seeds. Did not know about Aspirin or Paracetamol.

[Ric]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Really? I didn't know that.........so I ask, are you sure?

Morphine and Heroin I knew since they are both opiates and walla you get opium from poppy seeds. Did not know about Aspirin or Paracetamol.

Yes, absolutely. There are minute traces. Like you would have to eat a box of them to equivalent a teaspoon of morphine. Which I dont advise you do for the record. You might die

Not all of them contain this, just most. A clue can come in the part of the word 'ine' like cod'ine' for exaple.

Morphine, one of the most effective pain killers in the world. What do you put in your little head ache tablets? A derived form of it. Makes sense really

They even use it in horse tranquilisers.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Ric

Yes, good. And now we can get back to the whole point of my topic all the way back in my first post. Can you really justify this kind of spending on the military? We are talking about an exchange of money greater than that of the entire wealth of some countries.

When that military protects those countries, then yes, there is an argument for it. It's easy to argue against the American miltary footprint when the only alternative is something we'll never know until goliath is no more. Something tells me the world's safety and economic security would be far worse off if it wasn't for the American military. Poland recently asked America to complete their missile defense system and most Eastern European nations that are free would be scared to death if an American led NATO were to cease to exist, of not already reabsorbed back into mother Russia.

When we go to war against another country it comes down to a few basic facts, what the military and government want us the public to believe, and what is actually going on.

Agreed, but lets not let our imaginations get away from us.

Why are we in Afganistan? Opium, thats why! The backbone of the developed worlds medical and health treatments. The same drugs you get in paracetamol or asprin even morphine are all derived from one plant. Poppies, the same one they make heroine out of.

Wow. Thats a pretty damning statement. I'm sure you have damning evidence to support it. Because there is a whole lot of evidence that some peopel flew two planes into the NYC skyline. It was, you know, on TV and stuff.

Looking up articles, most of the arguments are about whether to burn outright or buy and burn.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/25/po...tary.html?_r=1

As for "trace amounts" of things, that is a straw man. There are trace amounts of everything in everything. There are trace amounts of peanuts in almost every processed food. That doesn't prove we fought the Civil War to get the southern Peanut fields.

Why are we in Iraq. Oil. 25% of the worlds supply of it. Enough to keep the US and Europe's economy strong for the next 50 years.

The three most valuable commodities on the planet. G.O.D.
Gold - Oil and Drugs

EDIT - for the record. Yes this is what armies are for. But charity should start at home. England just printed 75 billion pounds in new banknotes. And there are still homeless people living in the streets in our country.

Once again, these arguments are old, stale and weak. We've argued and debunked each other over and over again. No need to further this excercise in redundancy.

You seem to think that a imperfect society is a failed society. What I think you are forgetting is what previous efforts to create perfect societies reaped their people...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

[Szymon]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

BaB just informed me that:



France spends more money on their military than Canada!

Canada....yo army so whack Poland could invade yo country!

Also, the US spends a lot of frickin' money on military...

As a Polish Canadian I am dually offended. Well done!

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Szymon

As a Polish Canadian I am dually offended. Well done!

I'm Polish too so it's okay.

Potatoes vs. Blitzkrieg, bet you know who wins!!!!!!

Seriously though, I took a Polish History course and although the Polish military gets shit for folding in WW2 (basically, that wasn't fair since Poland was struggling as a country through that stretch). But Poland was hugely influential in western Europe over the past 2000 years, and they were ahead of the times. The country had a solid army at one point, and it was refuge for all the people that the rest of Europe hated.

I mostly kid about stuff.........except for my hatred towards Canada.