Shouldn't democracies get military bonuses?

[gdijedi7]

Originally posted by more_cowbell
@Unimatrix111:

I'm confused with your arguments. You seem to be making a nice case for my viewpoint, but I want to make sure that is what your intention was.

You argue that one of the reasons why the Germans under Hitler did not respond with Panzers to the Amercans at Normandy was because they were fooled by the diversonary army (thought to be) led by General Patton. Thats a GREAT argument for the inferiority of American generalship. Only very STUPID generals would try to decieve their enemy and increase their chance for victory. Score one for you.... err, maybe not...

Then you argue that the Germans were not able to move their Panzers because the bridges were blown up as part of the American battle plan. That also refutes the superiority of American Generalsip... err, maybe it doesn't....

I'm not sure what point you are trying to prove here, but you do a fairly good job of proving mine...

What in tarnation are you talking about Cowbell??

Deception is a VERY wise thing to try in war, and so is blowing up bridges. How can the fact that American generals used two very good ideas be an argument for the inferiority of American generals?

[Unimatrix11]

He tried to be sarcastic...

I just want to point out, that if the american generals had had the same experience as their german adverseries, they might have done just as well. It's not about them being american or Rommel being german...

Nationality by itself has as little to do with a general's competence as ideology has...

[EscapedGoat]

Cow, there are many problems with your arguments, most have been pointed out allready. Here are some more:

In a democratic society, taken as meaning a society where you can vote and do pretty much what you want to do with your life, do you really think the best and brightest are gonna join the army? Or do you think they are more likely to become business people or scientists? If all the brains go to MIT and become engineers or business people, those people are unavailable for a career in the military. Thus, the current civics work well and reflect this reality by giving an economic boost, not a military one.

Besides, if I remember correctly, the 'democracies' of WW2 all had to draft soldiers. Drafting is not exactly something that gives you superior motivated troops. Nobody with their brains intact actually WANT to fight and risk their life invading some foreign country. Thus you end up with the best and brightest in the economy rather than in the army. Again, reflected in the civics.

As for professional armies, well... I hate to say it, but the army is usually a place for the poor and uneducated classes who have no other options, not the brightest of the working class OR the elite of society, who as groups are both more interested in a career in the more peaceful sectors.

[Unimatrix11]

I agree to everything EscapedGoat said in this post ! BTW: What flag is that ?

[Amarsir]

While this thread has just enough angst that I'm more inclined to threadjack it than actually contribute, EscapedGoat makes a point I think worth commenting on.

In a democratic society, taken as meaning a society where you can vote and do pretty much what you want to do with your life, do you really think the best and brightest are gonna join the army? Or do you think they are more likely to become business people or scientists?

The implication there though is that people can be judged linearly - that the "best and brightest" are universally superior and any field that doesn't get them is lacking. Given self-determinism, I believe those who join the army are those who would best serve and be served by the military. Accordingly, those who don't are better off elsewhere. And while the average enlisted person may not have what it takes for superconductor research or bond trading, I'm equally convinced that the military might not benefit from drafting those specialists either.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
I agree to everything EscapedGoat said in this post ! BTW: What flag is that ?

East Timor

[gdijedi7]

Amarsir makes ye good point

[EscapedGoat]

The implication there though is that people can be judged linearly - that the "best and brightest" are universally superior and any field that doesn't get them is lacking. Given self-determinism, I believe those who join the army are those who would best serve and be served by the military. Accordingly, those who don't are better off elsewhere. And while the average enlisted person may not have what it takes for superconductor research or bond trading, I'm equally convinced that the military might not benefit from drafting those specialists either.

I agree with you. People are different and thrive in different enviroments! I wasn't really trying to make sweeping generalizations, just pointing out that the natural 'pull' for most young, talented people is not the army, but civilian life of some sorts, and it is therefore more natural with an economic rather than a military bonus for this particular civic.

[Amarsir]

Fair enough! Agreed, all other things being equal the army does have a harder time recruiting when it has to appeal rather than draft.