downsizing US military

[C0ckney]

Others. I see your point though. Look at my last post before this one for a better answer.

ok, i can see your point, and that's a reasonable interventionist position; one i disagree with but which at least isn't insane. anyway, i don't want to make this thread about the ukraine, as there is already one on that subject. my point in this thread though is that having and using a large military may have the effect of bringing peace, as you say, but that it also can bring the exact opposite of stability and peace. unfortunately, the latter happens more often than the former. or, to put it another way, america having and using a large military to intervene in other countries may be in america's interests, but it can be, and usually is (as in the examples i gave), completely against the interests of the people in countries that it intervenes in.

[100% Wolf]

Indeed. Putin is smart though. If he believes there is a chance to escalate to hot conflict with the U.S. I don't believe that he would proceed. The U.S. has to make a decision. Is Ukraine where you draw a line for the New Russian Empire, or do you cede Ukraine and draw the line further West. If Putin believes we will draw the line in Ukraine, then my bet is Ukraine is where the line will be.

But if Obama is smart he would never be willing to get into a hot conflict with Russia over parts of Ukraine. So not only does Putin need to be smart, he also has to think Obama is stupid. Of course if Obama is an 11th-dimensional chess master he could pretend to be stupid and hopefully scare Putin.

[PLATO]

ok, i can see your point, and that's a reasonable interventionist position; one i disagree with but which at least isn't insane. anyway, i don't want to make this thread about the ukraine, as there is already one on that subject. my point in this thread though is that having and using a large military may have the effect of bringing peace, as you say, but that it also can bring the exact opposite of stability and peace. unfortunately, the latter happens more often than the former. or, to put it another way, america having and using a large military to intervene in other countries may be in america's interests, but it can be, and usually is (as in the examples i gave), completely against the interests of the people in countries that it intervenes in.

It is a well taken point. In a democratically elected society, it should be the duty of the people to be informed on how to use their military resources. If we truly do believe in freedom and self determination, then the use of force must be carefully calculated and thourghly thought through. The U.S. is quick to act to protect our interests, but often does not perform these essential tasks. The existence of our military and the presence of our troops in many overseas posts does, imo, create a greater stability than would exist without them. The fact that we may have ( caough...cough) misused the military might of the U.S. in the past may have lessened that influence, but I believe that it remains a central factor in world stability. While it sure would be nice to save some greenbacks on cutting the military, it may well have a greater cost in the long run as decreased stability can have unforseen consequences.

[PLATO]

But if Obama is smart he would never be willing to get into a hot conflict with Russia over parts of Ukraine. So not only does Putin need to be smart, he also has to think Obama is stupid. Of course if Obama is an 11th-dimensional chess master he could pretend to be stupid and hopefully scare Putin.

I don't believe that Obama will or should get involved in Ukraine. I do believe that it would be in our national interests and the interests of international stability to remind the Russians that we have the ability to project large amounts of force and that we are pissed about Ukraine. The moves I described above should do just that. Anything further West for the Russians needs to have a big fat Nyet from us and this is a good way to make that point.

[Aeson]

I am sure you feel that that is a quippy comeback. If you disagree with the lessons of history, then fine. If you want to stand by your implied assertion that force projection does not create stability, then fine. If you want a history lesson, I get $220/hr plus expenses. Let me know when and where and I will send you an initial invoice.

There are also many instances in history where force projection created/exacerbated instability for the one projecting force.

[Felch]

But if Obama is smart he would never be willing to get into a hot conflict with Russia over parts of Ukraine. So not only does Putin need to be smart, he also has to think Obama is stupid. Of course if Obama is an 11th-dimensional chess master he could pretend to be stupid and hopefully scare Putin.

That's the problem with having a sane world leader. Nobody would've pulled a stunt like this with Nixon.

[Alexander's Horse]

You think you better start upsizing your military pronto

and could you try and get it right this time in Stalingrad?

[pchang]

They changed the name. No more Stalingrads.

[onodera]

Or like, if you're Ukrainian and happen to have some food stored for the winter, socialism restricts your property rights to that as well.

It's more like, you're a farmer and you're told that you have to provide grain for the greater good and the law says you can keep X grain to yourself, and you think "ha, why should I work for free to feed some workers that will make harvesters for a collective farm I'm not even a member of, I'll sow just enough to reap X grain, my grain quota will be zero, try eating zero, suckers!". But then the commissars come and show you the fine print that says "the minimum quota is Y grain, smartass, cough it up". And Ukraine just happened to have a higher than average proportion of smartass farmers.

[Hauldren Collider]

They changed the name. No more Stalingrads.

Except for one day a year now apparently, because Putin Stalin for whatever reason. Maybe he reminds him of the good old days when you could do more than just jail your primary political opponent. Something about ice picks...

[Felch]

It's more like, you're a farmer and you're told that you have to provide grain for the greater good and the law says you can keep X grain to yourself, and you think "ha, why should I work for free to feed some workers that will make harvesters for a collective farm I'm not even a member of, I'll sow just enough to reap X grain, my grain quota will be zero, try eating zero, suckers!". But then the commissars come and show you the fine print that says "the minimum quota is Y grain, smartass, cough it up". And Ukraine just happened to have a higher than average proportion of smartass farmers.

Is that seriously how Russians rationalize killing five million of their Ukrainian "brothers?" No wonder they're so keen on not being a puppet of Moscow.

[molly bloom]

Given their history, communist governments are guaranteed to be oppressive. Governments propped up by America have had an X% chance of being oppressive, with X less than 100%. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement.

I think it's bonkers.

Should we list some of the more unpalatable regimes propped up by the U.S. and see how un-oppressive they were ?

We could start not terribly far away with El Salvador (civil war, 75 000 + dead, paramilitary hit squads, and four dead American women who apparently weren't as useful as the unharmed 'hostages' in Grenada when it came to sparking armed intervention by the United States.

The Dominican Republic under Trujillo- one of those typical brutal dictators backed by the U.S. who so festooned himself with medals that he earned the nickname 'Bottlecaps' . As well as torturing and killing his domestic opponents (and anyone else he didn't like) his regime was responsible for the deaths of over 20 000 Haitians who were working in the Dominican Republic.

This atrocity even has a nice non-threatening name- the Parsley or Perejil Massacre- the Francophone Haitians couldn't pronounce 'perejil' so anyone dark skinned was asked to do so. Failure in elementary Spanish pronunciation meant death.

Francois 'Papa Doc' Duvalier in Haiti- his Tontons Macoutes managed to do away with 30 000 Haitians- political opponents or people who were just in the way.

Then of course there's the genocide in East Timor- one of the world's least known, but in comparable terms quite appalling in its death toll- 200 000 + died in the invasion, repression and man made famine which followed.

Of course the pretext for the illegal invasion used by Indonesia (client of U.S., recipient of arms and training) was the usual preferred one- the prevention of the spread of Communism.

And this was the same for most of Central America- Guatemala after the U.S. backed coup against the non-Communist government of Arbenz saw death squads and the genocidal slaughter of Mayan Indians. Still, at least Americans could enjoy cheap bananas courtesy of United Fruit.

South America- well do the names Stroessner and Pinochet ring any bells ? Guess what- two more dictators who were avowedly 'anti-Communist'. So helpful was that claim, that you could get away with killing even American citizens and there'd be no armed intervention a la Grenada.

it's also the economic system that is downright immoral to its very core by denying people their essential property rights.

The usual toss. Ever wonder where the world's worst kleptocrats' money came from ? Do you think it was from their support of people's essential property rights, you colossal tool ?

Mohammed Suharto , friend of the U.S. and, yes, avowed anti-Communist, amassed in the region of US $ 15-35 Billion. His wife's nickname was 'Madame Ten Per Cent'- her standard commission if you wanted things done.

While these two unlovelies were piling up the wealth, Suharto's regime did manage to slaughter 2 million Indonesians following an unsuccessful Communist coup- but just in case you were wondering, not all those killed were involved in the coup or Communists.

Then of course there was the illegal invasion of East Timor and the ensuing genocide and over the years of their rule, the Suhartos somehow managed to find time to torture and murder a further couple of hundred thousand Indonesians.

There may have been explosive economic growth, but the people who saw the most benefits were the Suhartos and their supporters- not ordinary Indonesians.

[molly bloom]

Our killing fields? Because Cockneyverse America supported the Khmer Rouge?

Actually after their defeat by Viet Nam, the U.S. did support the Khmer Rouge, such was its distaste for Viet Nam.

"Brzezinski himself claims that he concocted the idea of persuading Thailand to cooperate fully with China in efforts to rebuild the Khmer Rouge.... Brzezinski said, " I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. I encouraged the Thai to help the DK [Democratic Kampuchea]. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could not support him but China could."

Elizabeth Becker author of 'When The War Was Over'

[molly bloom]

you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

But don't you admire his consistency ?

[regexcellent]

Is that seriously how Russians rationalize killing five million of their Ukrainian "brothers?" No wonder they're so keen on not being a puppet of Moscow.

Those lazy ****s had it coming, they weren't willing to work their asses off producing **** they didn't get paid for while enjoying much fewer rights than the city folks.