Does the US have to be aggressive?

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

The military-industrial-newsbusiness complex demands it.Cheney a couple weeks ago said we will have war as far as he can see. He is comfortable with it.The neocons promise an ugly future.
With our history of agressively trying to alter governments ,through war ,bribery, and CIA intervention ,you can expect imore of the same.
No ,I dont believe it is necessary. If we truly have a better system it will prove out by example. That is noy how we have chosen to go.

[BrainGlutton]

@xtisme

And I think a key point is…every time we went to fight one of those wars where we essentially had to mobilize from scratch it was a bloody shambles for out troops initially while we re-learned all the shit we had gone out of our way to forget. Oh, and of course, using conscripts (if you are going to mobilize rapidly this is pretty much the only way to do it) exacerbated this (a small, poorly trained ‘regular’ force, hopelessly outdated attempting to spin up a bunch of civilians REALLY fast and toss them into the fire of combat). Eventually of course we would learn the lessons (paid in the blood of our young boys), and by the end we’d be pretty good…and then we’d immediately disband our army and forget the lessons learned. Until the next time.

Sorry, but I’m not seeing this as an ideal model to base things around.

-XT

But the days when a massive conscript force, raw or seasoned, were essential to get the job done are past. Technology and changing political circumstances have made that kind of approach obsolete – possibly forever.

[tomndebb]

@xtisme

Methinking . . . rjung . . . is driving the fishing boat nice and slow with his lines out in the hopes someone (like me) will bite…

And I am thinking that you know much better than to accuse anyone of trolling in GD.

Do not do this again.

[ /Moderating ]

[XT]

My appologies to both you and rjung Tom. Won’t happen again.

-XT