Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
paxamericana

Everybody needs to support the humongous US Military Industrial Complex

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, turningrite said:

To compare Canada's situation with New Zealand's or Australia's is essentially ludicrous. Those two countries are effectively isolated Western outposts. An increasingly aggressive China clearly poses a security risk to both. The big difference between them and Canada, as in real estate, amounts to 'location, location, location'. As I've stated elsewhere, Canada has only one natural enemy, the U.S., which for the past century or more has also been its natural ally. No other foreign country is in a position to pose a serious challenge to Canadian security interests, other perhaps than Russia on the issue of Arctic sovereignty. (BTW, the U.S. doesn't respect Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic, either.) So, Canada should allocate its resources to best address its real security needs rather than try to ameliorate phantom risks. 

Are you proposing that Canadian and American foreign policy are somehow different when it comes to defense? If by "location" you mean we're next to each other geographically wouldn't that make us in the literal sense be on the same boat? How do you deter aggression without having a credible military threat. Aggression comes in many different form and not just nuclear. You need the whole of government to deter aggression, economic, military etc...why short change yourself with only using soft power. I don't even know why Canadians consider themselves Canadians, you are all Americans already, except with a minor  medical condition called American-allergy. 

Edited by paxrom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

What are our real security risks?

Powerful corrupt politicians and the wealthy even more powerful bastards they serve.

Quote

and are they are already addressed by our military ?

Not at all and despite all the whining soldiers do about the aforementioned politicians, whenever they hold a photo op to talk about our brave men and women in uniform ya'll stand behind them glaring at everyone with your best command presence faces.  Its really pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Argus said:

This troll thread should have been deleted and the troll himself suspended for rules violations.

The thread got moved, but even when the poster ADMITS to trolling, no action is taken.  I think we need some new moderation on this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, paxrom said:

If people can't take a joke then its a fine shame all around. Hence the snowflakes.

Consider the possibility you aren't nearly as humourous as you seem to believe you are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, paxrom said:

Are you proposing that Canadian and American foreign policy are somehow different when it comes to defense?

Actually, yes. The U.S. has its own broader security objectives which are often at odds with those of many of its allies. In other words, the U.S. has international objectives which are not shared by many other Western countries and which have landed it in hot water, cost a lot of money and had negative corollary implications, as was the case with Bush II's ill-advised Iraq war. The problem with America's massive military machine is the temptation to actually use it. It was crucial in WWII but since has at times been a force for harm as much as for good. It's not comforting to learn, as we recently did, that Trump was champing at the bit for a little war against Venezuela. It's a good thing his advisors were able to rein him in.

Canada is not really at risk of invasion by any country, other perhaps than the U.S. - and maybe a Russian challenge to our Arctic sovereignty. But even in the Arctic, American policy is probably closer to the Russian and Chinese positions in some respects than to Canada's. The U.S. could take over Canada militarily at any time it wished, no matter the size of our military budget. My suspicion is that few Republicans would be interested in this because they'd likely see their new Canadian compatriots as being hopelessly "blue" in political and social orientation. So here we live, inhabiting a continent aside an often oblivious Goliath. We just have to hope it doesn't take too much notice of us. Justin Trudeau's father compared the relationship to a mouse sleeping next to an elephant but I prefer the expression attributed to Mexican president Porfirio Diaz, who eloquently described his country's dilemma as being "so far from God and so close to the United States."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, turningrite said:

The U.S. could take over Canada militarily at any time it wished, no matter the size of our military budget. My suspicion is that few Republicans would be interested in this because they'd likely see their new Canadian compatriots as being hopelessly "blue" in political and social orientation.

We'll give 2 senators and about 30 house representative in exchange for acknowledging your fealty. With good behavior, a vote for the next president. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Actually, yes. The U.S. has its own broader security objectives which are often at odds with those of many of its allies. In other words, the U.S. has international objectives which are not shared by many other Western countries and which have landed it in hot water, cost a lot of money and had negative corollary implications, as was the case with Bush II's ill-advised Iraq war. The problem with America's massive military machine is the temptation to actually use it. It was crucial in WWII but since has at times been a force for harm as much as for good. It's not comforting to learn, as we recently did, that Trump was champing at the bit for a little war against Venezuela. It's a good thing his advisors were able to rein him in.

 

America's military has been instrumental in American foreign policy since the nation's founding, Barbary Pirates, Monroe Doctrine, etc.   There is nothing magic about two world wars for the dying remnants of the British Empire, despite being held in high regard by Canada and other allies.   America invests in its military because it has every intention of using it for American interests, which may or may not be the same as allied interests.

'What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?' - Madeleine Albright (to General Colin Powell in 2001).

 

Quote

Canada is not really at risk of invasion by any country, other perhaps than the U.S. - and maybe a Russian challenge to our Arctic sovereignty. But even in the Arctic, American policy is probably closer to the Russian and Chinese positions in some respects than to Canada's.

 

Canada has repeatedly stated its defence needs in policy reviews and foreign policy objectives.   Even an an American, I can quote them from memory because they are typically the same each time:

  • meet NATO/NORAD responsibilities
  • peace making/keeping (Responsibility to Protect) - UN misions
  • domestic natural disaster / civil unrest resources
  • secure a "seat at the grown ups table"
  • defend the border & economic zones

Canada's claims on the Arctic / Northwest Passage are contrary to the U.S. and other nations' positions, as well as "international law".  The U.S. purposely transits these and other disputed seagoing straits to express its international right to do so.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Consider the possibility you aren't nearly as humourous as you seem to believe you are."

Argus: I often wonder about claims by some that they're only joking. If the joke's not apparent in the first place, you've got to wonder, right?

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

1.) America invests in its military because it has every intention of using it for American interests, which may or may not be the same as allied interests.

2.) Canada has repeatedly stated its defence needs in policy reviews and foreign policy objectives.   Even an an American, I can quote them from memory because they are typically the same each time:

  • meet NATO/NORAD responsibilities
  • peace making/keeping (Responsibility to Protect) - UN misions
  • domestic natural disaster / civil unrest resources
  • secure a "seat at the grown ups table"
  • defend the border & economic zones

3.) Canada's claims on the Arctic / Northwest Passage are contrary to the U.S. and other nations' positions, as well as "international law".  The U.S. purposely transits these and other disputed seagoing straits to express its international right to do so.

 

1.) You're proving my point.

2.) These are Canada's priorities within the current paradigm. Were that paradigm to change and the alliances to which we belong disintegrate, as appears to be Trump's preference, our priorities would likely change as well.

3.) The U.S. doesn't recognize "International law" except apparently when/where it suits it to pay lip service. Furthermore, the international law to which you presumably refer is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the U.S. has not at this point signed. The U.S. operates on a philosophy of "exceptionalism", which is entirely grounded in self interest, so it's hypocritical to argue that when Canada assets its own interests it is operating contrary to international law when the U.S. itself hasn't ratified this law. Don't you think? Furthermore, the dispute over the Northwest Passage is not an entirely settled matter. Canada asserts the applicability of its 200 mile economic zone as well as its 12 mile territorial limit, which are legitimate arguments to support a case of the passage being Canadian "territorial waters" under applicable international law. The American objection is at this point not actually based on international law but simply on grounds of U.S. policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, paxrom said:

We'll give 2 senators and about 30 house representative in exchange for acknowledging your fealty. With good behavior, a vote for the next president. 

 

Too funny! The Americans couldn't absorb Canada without conferring full citizenship. Even poor Puerto Rico, with its bizarrely inferior political status, got full citizenship for its people. The U.S. would probably have to create about 5 or 6 states if it were to absorb Canada. Leaving Quebec aside, as it would likely become independent, B.C., Alberta, and Ontario, in particular, have larger populations than do many U.S. states. So, there's be 10 or 12 new Senate seats to deal with. What's the current Republican advantage in the Senate? Two seats, right? There would be less impact on the House of Reps., but it's of less importance in the American power structure in any case. Even 30 to 40 reallocated seats there, though, could easily swing the balance in a close election. Would the Republicans be willing to take the risk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Too funny! The Americans couldn't absorb Canada without conferring full citizenship. Even poor Puerto Rico, with its bizarrely inferior political status, got full citizenship for its people. The U.S. would probably have to create about 5 or 6 states if it were to absorb Canada. Leaving Quebec aside, as it would likely become independent, B.C., Alberta, and Ontario, in particular, have larger populations than do many U.S. states. So, there's be 10 or 12 new Senate seats to deal with. What's the current Republican advantage in the Senate? Two seats, right? There would be less impact on the House of Reps., but it's of less importance in the American power structure in any case. Even 30 to 40 reallocated seats there, though, could easily swing the balance in a close election. Would the Republicans be willing to take the risk?

I'm not sure actually, a lot of the progressive views are actually in line with trump's populist views. They only really differ in that one is pro business the other is er...not so much.

I'm a constitutionalist and whoever defends the democratic values I'm all good for.  So far Bernie Sanders and Trump are really really similar in a lot of issue. Trump just gutted Obamacare because it was going to cost way too much. Of all people, Trump who is now trying to find more affordable healthcare for the poor. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1.) You're proving my point.

2.) These are Canada's priorities within the current paradigm. Were that paradigm to change and the alliances to which we belong disintegrate, as appears to be Trump's preference, our priorities would likely change as well.

3.) The U.S. doesn't recognize "International law" except apparently when/where it suits it to pay lip service. Furthermore, the international law to which you presumably refer is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the U.S. has not at this point signed. The U.S. operates on a philosophy of "exceptionalism", which is entirely grounded in self interest, so it's hypocritical to argue that when Canada assets its own interests it is operating contrary to international law when the U.S. itself hasn't ratified this law. Don't you think? Furthermore, the dispute over the Northwest Passage is not an entirely settled matter. Canada asserts the applicability of its 200 mile economic zone as well as its 12 mile territorial limit, which are legitimate arguments to support a case of the passage being Canadian "territorial waters" under applicable international law. The American objection is at this point not actually based on international law but simply on grounds of U.S. policy.

 

1)  No, my point is that WW2 seems to be some special line of demarcation for tolerated use of raw American power.   This is folly, as American power has been applied in many other instances, before and after WW2 without regard for Canadian approval/support.

2) As Canada is not an equal partner in such alliances (by choice), then it certainly should not expect an equal relationship.

3) The Northwest Passage is a navigable transit subject to the same "laws" as other straits in the world.   Canada can lay claim to economic and border limit zones, but it cannot realistically stop passage.   American and Russian nuclear submarines played cat-mouse games in the area for years during the Cold War....nothing Canada could do about it but grant "permission" after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, paxrom said:

I'm not sure actually, a lot of the progressive views are actually in line with trump's populist views. They only really differ in that one is pro business the other is er...not so much.

I'm a constitutionalist and whoever defends the democratic values I'm all good for.  So far Bernie Sanders and Trump are really really similar in a lot of issue. Trump just gutted Obamacare because it was going to cost way too much. Of all people, Trump who is now trying to find more affordable healthcare for the poor. LOL

US health care is far more expensive than anyone else in the world, and has been for a long time, well before Obama. Now that Trump has cut subsidies it will just become less affordable to more people. To suggest Trump is trying to find more affordable healthcare is a preposterous assertion. Trump knows almost literally nothing about healthcare and does not give a damn about its affordability. Nor has he authored any legislation to date. Nor is he capable of doing so. He is incapable of reading, much less  understanding complex mechanisms, programs or policies. 

Nor is he much interested in democratic values, btw.

Edited by Argus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Argus said:

US health care is far more expensive than anyone else in the world, and has been for a long time, well before Obama. Now that Trump has cut subsidies it will just become less affordable to more people. To suggest Trump is trying to find more affordable healthcare is a preposterous assertion. Trump knows almost literally nothing about healthcare and does not give a damn about its affordability. Nor has he authored any legislation to date. Nor is he capable of doing so. He is incapable of reading, much less  understanding complex mechanisms, programs or policies. 

Nor is he much interested in democratic values, btw.

I wouldn't say that... Trump's pretty progressive actually. Obamacare was unsustainable even Bernie Sanders says it has flaws. He's trying to come up with a new healthcare plan because he knows Obamacare is un-affordable. but lets move this discussion to another thread before somebody accuse me of trolling and thread derailment. People are so sensitive these days. 

 

Edited by paxrom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, paxrom said:

1.) I'm not sure actually, a lot of the progressive views are actually in line with trump's populist views. They only really differ in that one is pro business the other is er...not so much.

2.) I'm a constitutionalist and whoever defends the democratic values I'm all good for.  So far Bernie Sanders and Trump are really really similar in a lot of issue. Trump just gutted Obamacare because it was going to cost way too much. Of all people, Trump who is now trying to find more affordable healthcare for the poor. LOL

1.) Such as...?

2.) A constitutionalist? Hmmm.... I find that description bizarrely disturbing. When watching a U.S. news show yesterday evening, one of the panelists, when discussing Trump's SCOTUS nom, talked about the "magic of the founders." Wow! From a rationalist's perspective, there's a lot of mysticism woven into that notion. Can one read the minds of the founders, and if so would their views actually coincide with modern assessments and realities? Would the founders really have believed it to be constitutionally justifiable to knowingly execute innocent men, as has been permitted by avowed constitutionalists on the U.S. Supreme Court? Much of what now passes for constitutionalism is really part of a philosophy called "constitutional constructionism" and is the prevailing legal preference among U.S. conservatives. But what, exactly, did those darned founders intend? They weren't saints, for sure. As a group, they reflected Enlightenment-era rationalism (and practicality, as they found a way to accommodate slavery in the cause of political unity) and would probably shudder at the kind of modern day malarkey that's often spouted in their name. I think strict constitutional constructionism is mainly window dressing designed to justify a partisan judiciary, provided that judiciary reflects a singular ideological perspective. But can such a judiciary be free and objective? Hmmm... it might not be sufficient to maintain the legitimacy of American democracy. Oh, but it's magic! (I almost forgot.) And that saves it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1.) Such as...?

2.) A constitutionalist? Hmmm.... I find that description bizarrely disturbing. When watching a U.S. news show yesterday evening, one of the panelists, when discussing Trump's SCOTUS nom, talked about the "magic of the founders." Wow! From a rationalist's perspective, there's a lot of mysticism woven into that notion. Can one read the minds of the founders, and if so would their views actually coincide with modern assessments and realities? Would the founders really have believed it to be constitutionally justifiable to knowingly execute innocent men, as has been permitted by avowed constitutionalists on the U.S. Supreme Court? Much of what now passes for constitutionalism is really part of a philosophy called "constitutional constructionism" and is the prevailing legal preference among U.S. conservatives. But what, exactly, did those darned founders intend? They weren't saints, for sure. As a group, they reflected Enlightenment-era rationalism (and practicality, as they found a way to accommodate slavery in the cause of political unity) and would probably shudder at the kind of modern day malarkey that's often spouted in their name. I think strict constitutional constructionism is mainly window dressing designed to justify a partisan judiciary, provided that judiciary reflects a singular ideological perspective. But can such a judiciary be free and objective? Hmmm... it might not be sufficient to maintain the legitimacy of American democracy. Oh, but it's magic! (I almost forgot.) And that saves it?

1) They're both pro rules based order for the world, both want to provide some form of affordable universal health care, both are pro worker and want to see job return (albeit one blames it on big business the other blames it on china and allies who adopt predatory trading tactics all of which could be argue are two side to the same coin)

2) Constitutionalism not in the sense of that the ideas coming of the the enlighten period shouldn't be  upheld and protected. Original intent is somewhat of a misleading subject because the Constitution can be interpreted and re-written to suit the time. 

Edited by paxrom
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, turningrite said:

... Hmmm... it might not be sufficient to maintain the legitimacy of American democracy. Oh, but it's magic! (I almost forgot.) And that saves it?

 

No more or less than the Supreme Court of Canada and "Charter Politics".....it is what it is, and the president gets to nominate candidates deemed favourable to an ideology, but that doesn't always work out.   Justices are not beholden to any president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, eyeball said:

Powerful corrupt politicians and the wealthy even more powerful bastards they serve.

Not at all and despite all the whining soldiers do about the aforementioned politicians, whenever they hold a photo op to talk about our brave men and women in uniform ya'll stand behind them glaring at everyone with your best command presence faces.  Its really pathetic.

you think all those soldiers had a choice ,soldiers stand where they are told to , that's what we do for the man that pays the bills...I've seen fishermen do the same thing when the minister is in town looking for his photo op.....smile for the camera....oh ya did we tell you we care cutting the amount of licenses and lowering the quota this year. put tour arm around the minister will ya, don't forget to smile …..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, paxrom said:

1) They're both pro rules based order for the world, both want to provide some form of affordable universal health care, both are pro worker and want to see job return (albeit one blames it on big business the other blames it on china and allies who adopt predatory trading tactics all of which could be argue are two side to the same coin)

2) Constitutionalism not in the sense of that the ideas coming of the the enlighten period shouldn't be  upheld and protected. Original intent is somewhat of a misleading subject because the Constitution can be interpreted and re-written to suit the time. 

1.) I'm not sure you'd find many progressives up here who'd associate themselves with Trump's agenda. Hey, I'm not a progressive and I have as much difficulty divining progressive logic as much as I often do Trump's. I think the progressive view up here on jobs is a cop-out that largely sustains the status quo. In Canada, there's little pressure from progressives to roll back the "free trade" agenda or globalization and no pressure to rationalize Canada's huge (compared to the U.S. and most other Western countries) and problematic immigration program. The progressive left is apoplectic about Trump's immigration policies. Our progressives are very politically correct and are obsessed with diversity and "equity" (our term for affirmative action). I doubt Trump or many of his supporters care at all about these things. 

2.) The deployment of the U.S. constitution as an icon of sorts is one of the most bizarre aspects of American democracy. To imbue it with meaning that can't rationally be ascertained in a modern context seems, well, nutty to many non-Americans (and probably to a lot of Americans as well). Some studies have indicated that a significant segment of those who support constitutionalism see the document as sacred (or magically inspired, according to a TV news item I watched yesterday).  Examined objectively, the "constructionist" or constitutionalist (also sometimes called "originalist") position doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The notion that the "founders" or "framers" could have even imagined many of the issues that would come before the courts centuries later is so remote as to be ridiculous. In reality, much of the constitutionalist argument, as I stated, is merely window dressing to promote and justify a partisan judiciary, which surely would have horrified the founders, who believed in the division of powers and checks and balances. The partisan attachment to constitutionalism is illustrated in a 2014 Pew Research Center study (link below). When constitutionalists state that they espouse the values of the founders, I believe they're more often (and maybe always?) trying to cast their own ideology as preemptively superior and permanent. That's not how democracies function. Again the founders would likely shudder at the things being done in their name.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/31/americans-divided-on-how-the-supreme-court-should-interpret-the-constitution/

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Army Guy said:

you think all those soldiers had a choice ,

Of course I do, every single one volunteered.

Quote

 

soldiers stand where they are told to , that's what we do for the man that pays the bills...I've seen fishermen do the same thing when the minister is in town looking for his photo op.....smile for the camera....oh ya did we tell you we care cutting the amount of licenses and lowering the quota this year. put tour arm around the minister will ya, don't forget to smile …..

 

Well sure, they're the handful who've benefited from the ability to influence the minister. Take billionaire fisherman Jimmy Pattison for example, after the dust settled on the collapse and restructuring of what was left of BC's salmon fishery Jimmy controlled some 40% of the quota.  The fishermen in the photo-op probably work for Jimmy and were just following orders. Thousands of others just fell off the world as far as Canadians know.  You soldiers act as if you're the only working stiffs who get hosed by Ottawa.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread the template for influence peddling one sees in the military-industrial complex is used throughout many many sectors of the socio-economic stew we're in.

I stand by my point, the greatest threat to our security are powerful corrupt politicians and the wealthy even more powerful bastards they serve. That's what Eisenhower was essentially warning us about.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 12:42 AM, eyeball said:

Of course I do, every single one volunteered.

Well sure, they're the handful who've benefited from the ability to influence the minister. Take billionaire fisherman Jimmy Pattison for example, after the dust settled on the collapse and restructuring of what was left of BC's salmon fishery Jimmy controlled some 40% of the quota.  The fishermen in the photo-op probably work for Jimmy and were just following orders. Thousands of others just fell off the world as far as Canadians know.  You soldiers act as if you're the only working stiffs who get hosed by Ottawa.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread the template for influence peddling one sees in the military-industrial complex is used throughout many many sectors of the socio-economic stew we're in.

I stand by my point, the greatest threat to our security are powerful corrupt politicians and the wealthy even more powerful bastards they serve. That's what Eisenhower was essentially warning us about.

Trump’s trade war is a serious threat to the dollar reserve currency regime. The system was designed to run on permanent deficits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...