🚀 go-pugleaf

"Joseph Crowe" <jcrowe@io.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0212181518110.944-100000@fnord.io.com...
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Larry G wrote:
>

> > Nice sentiments, Alan.  But you fail to address the consequences.
> >
> > 1.  The neutral-isolationist movement in America allowed Hitler time to
> > start rounding up the Jews in Europe and ship them off to the death
> > camps.
>
>   1. Rebuttal - had Wilson not gotten the U.S. involved in the first
>      conflict (after outright lying about never sending our boys over
>      there), then events leading to the rise of the Nazis may never have
>      even occurred.  Even at that, do you believe that the U.S. government
>      has a mandate, either constitutionally (no) or ethically (no) to
>      correct all of the conflicts in the world?  If so, please explain
>      how FDR and Stalin were such bossom buddies..after all, Stalin had
>      many more people killed than did Hitler.

The Nazis came into power because England and France demanded that
Germany pay full reparations for WWI, putting a tremendous economic onus
on the people, and building a hell of a lot of resentment and anger at the
British
and French in the first place.  It is my understanding that Wilson helped
broker
the peace with Germany, but Britain and France over-ruled his plan as being
too lenient and not sufficiently punitive.  FDR was much more astute than
that
moron Truman who followed him.  I get the impression that FDR appeased
Stalin only to maintain the alliance long enough to beat the Third Reich.
Truman
was the clown who gave away eastern europe and half of Germany because he
pulled a George W. Bush, looked someone in the eye and thought he was a
sincere and honest statesman.



> > 2.  Bringing our military home means that they will either be
unemployed,
> > or pressed into service guarding the national borders, if not actively
> > suppressing critics of the administration.  You may wish to recall the
> > Army was used to crush the WWI veterans' groups when they assembled
> > to demand that Congress address their needs after the war.
>
>   2. Rebuttal - the scope of the military is to defend the country,
>      period.  Bush's current strategies should have him impeached, tried
>      for treason and punished accordingly.  The current economic woes
>      amount to the logical conclusion of government manipulation of the
>      economy, now with the underlying strength of the economy per se. Of
>      course, millions of citizens wanting some sort of free ride or
>      another does not help.

It is generally to our economic advantage to defend America on somebody
else's soil.  If we wait to fight here at home, we have to absorb and
replace
all kinds of collateral damage.  The profiteering which goes on, war or
shine,
is both unfortunate and very corrupting.  But it isn't likely to go away any
time soon.



>
>  >
> > 3.  Military and defense spending is about the only thing really
sustaining
> > our economy right now.  Cut it in half, and you wipe out a fair amount
of
> > the cashflow necessary to maintain even our modest levels of commerce.
>
>   3. Rebuttal - military and defense spending is a net loss to the
>      economy.  If we had a free market, we would not have the problems
>      we now see in the economy.  Military and other spending does not
>      buy our economy anything.  It merely consumes a much higher
>      percentage of private sector capital that cannot then be reinvested
>      to really improve the economy.

Military spending is one method certain people use to acquire and maintain
wealth.  I'm not sure that I want a truly "free market" selling arms and
weapons
of mass destruction to the highest bidder.  And while soldiers and sailors
do not produce any material of value, they are essentially infrastructure
and
spread money around in the economy where they would be otherwise
unemployed and unproductive.



> >
> > I wish it were otherwise.  I too fear an overly powerful government.
> > And, as you correctly point out, our military is controlled by ingrates
> > sending others to fight for the prosperity of a privileged few.
>
>    This is true, however....
>
> >  But if you
> > will recall the War of 1812, the best way to lose our remaining
liberties
> > is to demand a minimalist, ill prepared military.  And that is just what
> > you are doing.
>
>    This is not.  If anything, the War of 1812 proved how difficult it is
> for even a powerful nation to win a war overseas.  It ended up in
> stalemate, which was to the advantage of the U.S.  All in all, England
> never had a chance.

Don't forget, that England was still busy paying off a huge debt after
fighting Napolean for the better part of a decade.  To fully prosecute
a war with the U.S., in which the prospects for meaningful gain were
fairly dubious, would meant that it might wreck its own economy by not
retiring that war-debt when they could.


>   Our military has the capability to defend the U.S.
> right now and is in no way ill-prepared or minimalist.

Major military powers tend to be behind the curve in development
of tactics, strategies and preparation.  In WWI, allied commanders
ordered their men to charge across open fields into the line of fire
of machine guns.  A similar situation occured in the American Civil
War, with troops being thrown foolishly against well armed, entrenched
soldiers on the opposing side.  And in WWII, Hitler's generals had
developed the blitzkreig as a way of overwhelming the soldiering of
WWI.  There are countless many other such examples.

> What the U.S.
> military is not prepared for, but which Bush favors anyway, is to go and
> occupy a significant part of the rest of the globe.  Every friggin'
> empire in history has learned that lesson and now Bush's will too.

Pax Americana!  It will be a race between the empire builders and the
corrupting interests to see which can bring America to her knees first.



Cheers,
Larry G.
>
> --
> Joseph Crowe
>