US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[Ithekro]

Well one difference is that there is no real religious elite to take orders from for our politicians. There is no national church. There are thousands of churchs of hundreds of christian (Protestant) sects all over the country. Half of them won't talk to the other half on the issue of religion. Plus we have many non-Christian religions represented, as well as a number of Catholics.

My state infrustructure knowledge is a little shaky, but most states don't have a specific religion it follows. About the only one I can think of that have some leaning is Utah and that is the Church of Latter Day Saints...which a lot of the other Christians don't pay attention to (and in some historical cases actively dislike).

I also recall that one of the worries in 1960 was that if Kennedy was elected that the White House would be run by the Pope because he was Catholic. That didn't happen either.

We have some vocal yahoos in the Bible Belt (Southern Baptist?) and other groups that are vocal...but most of the country really ignores them. Sure there is a definate Christian base in our laws and politics...but there isn't any single group that can claim to run the government politically based on religion.

The US Government is rather secular, and has been for a very long time. Even when the country's religion views were more standardized in the 18th century and into the 19th century. "In God We Trust" and all that is still there. But is shows a faith...but within the giant grab bag of sects of Christianity...it doesn't point to any one group.

A place like Iran, has a very definate religion behind the power when you have a cleric as the Supreme Leader. He is the one that can declare war and peace...not the President of Iran. it is fortunate maybe that the present Ayatollah does not seem to be crazy like his current President.

[Kaiba]

Seriously, not even China or Russia openly talk about who they want to invade next.

Sure, they just do it when no one's paying attention(South Ossetia? Chechnya?). I don't know why that's an improvement.

Now I'm not entirely against the idea of interventionism, but it has to be done right. For instance Libya is an example of the right kind of interventionism, and I think the intervention there should have positive results. It was also a lot cheaper and shorter then, say, Iraq. Obama doesn't deserve all the credit there, of course, the French and British were also very heavily involved. he does deserve some credit though. I say job well done.

Almost every military junta or dictator they've put in power has ended out causing blowback, with the junta usually being overthrown by an even more unfriendly regime! America shouldn't be in the business of allying itself with right wing autocracies.

I disagree heavily there. That idea, that America should only intervene to spread democracy, is a concept I'll never understand. If America intervenes, it should be out of its own self-interest, and no other reason.
Intervening means conflict, and at times war. And war is something which a nation should seek to avoid no matter what. That means that intervening should be a matter of last resort, or if it can be assured that the benefits outweigh the costs (eg. Libya).

As someone who's working on attending OCS after he graduates, I really think the problem is that Americans just don't understand war, and are way too naive and cavalier about their view on foreign policy. Even now. The wars in the Middle East are far away, and soldiering really now seems to be something that is the province of certain families as opposed to a collective national duty.

[Zetsubo]

What was US foreign policy like during the peak of the cold war, when the USSR was very formidable ?

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Zetsubo

What was US foreign policy like during the peak of the cold war, when the USSR was very formidable ?

Much simpler. There was a clear enemy to focus on. There was something tangible to demonize. With the USSR gone - you got the right-wing desperately looking for something to demonize.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

The US is the only country in the world to have invade 2 (Iraq and Afghanistan) other countries in the last 20 yrs and 4(Grenada and Panama) in the last 30yrs. The US has been directly responsible for the rise of military juntas in South American in the 70s. The father of the previous President of Chile was executed by the a US back military dictatorship and she herself was held prisoner and torture. The same goes to Africa in the proxy battle with the Soviets. The US back turn blind eyes to murderous dictators and as long as they toe the US line they got hundreds of millions of dollars while their people starve. The Middle East could also be consider a bitter fruit of past US foreign policy. The US back a coup against a democratically elect government in Iran and replace it with dictator (the Shah). When that back fire on the US in the late 70s, the US back a murderous dictator in Saddam Hussein against Iran, guess what happen in the 90s.

i could go on but i think you got the idea.

Originally Posted by Zetsubo

What was US foreign policy like during the peak of the cold war, when the USSR was very formidable ?

that answer your question?

Originally Posted by Kaiba

Sure, they just do it when no one's paying attention(South Ossetia? Chechnya?). I don't know why that's an improvement.

Georgia fire the first shot and the people in South Ossetia did want Russian involvement.

Chechnya was never a country, it attempted to secede form Russia but fail.

I disagree heavily there. That idea, that America should only intervene to spread democracy, is a concept I'll never understand. If America intervenes, it should be out of its own self-interest, and no other reason.
Intervening means conflict, and at times war.

The US foreign policy statement might have been about spreading Democracy but that has been rarely put in practice. In the 50s, 60s and 70s, the US would routinely engineer coups against democratically elected governments and put in place dictators if they felt the democrally elect government wasn't sufficiently pro-US and by extension also pro-US business.

As someone who's working on attending OCS after he graduates, I really think the problem is that Americans just don't understand war, and are way too naive and cavalier about their view on foreign policy. Even now. The wars in the Middle East are far away, and soldiering really now seems to be something that is the province of certain families as opposed to a collective national duty.

CNN actually did recent article about this disconnect between the arm forces and the civilian population.

http://battleland.blogs.time.com/201...-civilian-gap/

the best remedy to this is to reinstate the Draft. when Senators sons and daughters are sent to the frontline, let see how many are willing to go to war.

[ChainLegacy]

Reinstate the draft once you stop going to all those wars.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Reinstate the draft once you stop going to all those wars.

tsk tsk tsk everyone has go to do their fair share. Not my fault i am 35 and you are 22

[ganbaru]

Not too sure than some drafted troup would be a good idea for the current US millitary.

[Ithekro]

The draft is a hot potato issue for Congress. They know if they try to put it back without a major war against the United States....they are finished in politics.

Though te draft still does exist. All males between 18 and 35 have to register for said draft. But since the miltary is priding itself on being all volunteer these days, a draft would seem to be counter to the specialist ideals (as the draft is usually to fill the Armies firing line and nothing more).

In fact I think it was only a few months ago that the last Draftee retired from military service.

(The Draft was also an issue with the ERA (women's rights) since the concept went through that if you want to be treated exactly equally...well then you get to get drafted, too)

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

tsk tsk tsk everyone has go to do their fair share. Not my fault i am 35 and you are 22

Personally, I'd be happy to do 2 years if I knew *everyone* was doing their 2 years of "national community service". Even now at my age.

[solomon]

I don't think that mandatory military service in any respect will do anything to make more americans critically aware of our miltary exploits. They will gain an appreciation for how tough the job is, but probably not be willing to criticize the government any more than they do now, in fact it may lead to mollification.

While I respect miltary personell for their effort and sacrifice, it's not exactly a culture that lends itself towards critical self examination. At least in the context of missions.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by solomon

I don't think that mandatory military service in any respect will do anything to make more Americans critically aware of our military exploits.

While I respect military personnel for their effort and sacrifice, it's not exactly a culture that lends itself towards critical self examination. At least in the context of missions.

it is not about making americans more aware of the exploits but 1. mixing the civilians and military more. 2. put the sons and daughter of our congressman/woman in harms way. it is easy to say go to war when it is someone else kid on the frontline. I doubt it is easy when it is your kid who is on the frontline.

[Endless Soul]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

tsk tsk tsk everyone has go to do their fair share. Not my fault i am 35 and you are 22

I tried to do my share way back in '88. Did pretty good on the ASVAB (scored around 80) but got stopped at the eye test in the MEPS center. That's when they kicked me out and told me that I couldn't even be drafted.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Endless Soul

I tried to do my share way back in '88. Did pretty good on the ASVAB (scored around 80) but got stopped at the eye test in the MEPS center. That's when they kicked me out and told me that I couldn't even be drafted.

Same here ... failed on the eye exams. It wasn't as if I couldn't be useful (I went in engineering and ended up spending some of my career on military flight simulation trainer projects). But there are also a huge number of tasks that could handled via some national civilian task corps if one isn't doing military service.

[Ithekro]

I declined to serve as I had no respect for the then Commander in Chief.

[ganbaru]

^ That's not really a working reason, right ?

[Ithekro]

That is a reason to choose not to volunteer for military service right out of High School. I could have (and for another year still can) been drafted. But I decided to not serve because I really didn't want that particular President to be my over all boss. It was enough he's signiture is on my Eagle Scout card.

That and from the experiances of those veterans around me...they said if you go in, go in as an officer.

[solomon]

Xellos does make good points about building awareness.

Me frankly, I am not too enthused about playing world police all the damn time. I'll fight for my own shores, but I am not into these periphrieal wars.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Kaiba

I disagree heavily there. That idea, that America should only intervene to spread democracy, is a concept I'll never understand. If America intervenes, it should be out of its own self-interest, and no other reason.
Intervening means conflict, and at times war. And war is something which a nation should seek to avoid no matter what. That means that intervening should be a matter of last resort, or if it can be assured that the benefits outweigh the costs (eg. Libya).

Wars should only be carried out as a moral duty, to help others escape oppression. I don't think the US should work against it's own interests in doing so (that would be a bit absurd), but I don't think America should go into a war just because it directly benefits them either, which is a bit like you destroying a rival business with an armed gang. America shouldn't invade a country just because that country is an economic rival, or holds resources America needs. If the country is a clear threat that's another matter... but very few countries are real threats against a country the size of the US.

War is such a terrible thing that it should only be carried out when it's clearly called for. If a despot is killing his own people I think that's grounds for an intervention. It would be unethical for America not to stop him. It would be like you witnessing a mugging and not calling the police.

The libyan intervention is the perfect model, because the US was taking few risks, it lost almost no soldiers in the entire conflict, it cost relatively little, it achieved an outcome that will (hopefully) benefit the citizens of that state, AND the resulting government will likely be friendly towards the United State as well, and could become a stable prosperous long term ally.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The libyan intervention is the perfect model, because the US was taking few risks, it lost almost no soldiers in the entire conflict, it cost relatively little, it achieved an outcome that will (hopefully) benefit the citizens of that state, AND the resulting government will likely be friendly towards the United State as well, and could become a stable prosperous long term ally.

I truly believe the reason Libya worked out, was because it is the first conflict in a long time where America actually understands what it can and cannot do, and thus did not try to over-reach its capabilities.

Yes, technically USA is still the greatest military might on the planet. However until now there had always been a massive over-estimation of what is actually achievable with military might alone. And further, there was underestimation of how much it would cost in both lives and money, as well as how long it would take. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were assumed to be much easier military targets than they actually are, and the end goal was also unrealistically projected.

With Libya, the goal was small, the use of force was minimal, and the expectations were no more than "let the Rebels decide themselves what to do, don't try to control politics". It's not so much that this is the best course of action, but it IS the only course of action America is actually realistically able to achieve with resources available. America just has to realise there is such a thing as "limits".