Herearethree articles about Bush’s claims during the 2000 election. His claims that the Army was not ready for war and promoting missle defense were two fairly significant parts of his campaign. In an election in which the military figured in more than in the previous elections defense was still the 22nd ranked issue. I would think that if a country was militaristic one of its top priorities would be keeping its military at the highest level of readiness. Clearly this was not the case in America.
I am not saying that we need a large army to fight injustices in the world. I am claiming that the majority opinion in America is that the military is used primarily to defend democracy any place in the world and to stop gross injustices.
I see I’m banging my head up against the same wall every time. I point out ways in which the US is not militaristic, but indeed places a far greater importance and value on its military than probably any other Western country. In retort, you point out that the military was ranked number 22 on a list of concerns in one poll taken around the 2000 election. I see a pattern developing.
Point: The US spends more on its military than the next 20 nations combined. Counterpoint: The military was ranked number 22 on a list of concerns in one poll taken around the 2000 election.
Point: The American people hold such a positive view of the armed forces that there is little problem in maintaining more than 2 million volunteers in uniform during times of peace and war, while many other nations are forced to rely on mandatory national service. Counterpoint: The military was ranked number 22 on a list of concerns in one poll taken around the 2000 election.
Point: The US maintains far more forward-deployed troops than any other country, yet no other nation even attempts to implement a national security strategy based on the projection of military power. Counterpoint: The military was ranked number 22 on a list of concerns in one poll taken around the 2000 election.
Point: With the enthusiastic support of the American people and US industries, the US readily dedicates roughly a quarter of its huge military budget to the development of technology for weapons that are already leaps and bounds ahead what other countries possess, but our allies show little interest in pursuing the same types of technology. Counterpoint: The military was ranked number 22 on a list of concerns in one poll taken around the 2000 election.
Point: The platforms of both major political parties call for an extremely powerful military in comparison to others, and it is universally acknowedged that politicians who would advocate significant cuts in military spending (on the order of 10 or 20 percent or greater) would not stand a chance in a national election. Counterpoint: The military was ranked number 22 on a list of concerns in one poll taken around the 2000 election.
Thank you for your informative, interesting post.
Yes these are questions that on their own maybe can answer already quite a bit of my OP.
I am used to that. I developped a habit to disregard such posts because there are always members who have something interesting to say about the issue that is brought up instead of posting merely some opinion they have about the poster who brings them up (and about his “intentions”).
You may think what you like. I simply ask questions. Which by the way you answer with your post.
Yes. And this must have a reason, no?
Again, this must have its reasons.
I don’t count that because such air shows have an attraction on military aircraft from everywhere.
Quite right.
That also. Glorifying war and soldiers is a US habit par exellence. In my opinion it is part of the pepp talk producing high levels of US patriotism while at the same time villifying what the US wants to be seen as “the enemy”.
(The “Bad Sovjets” are replaced by the “bad terrorists” who are usualy M.E/Arab looking, Arabic speaking types.)
Actually, that made laugh.
But yes, once again there was this staging of “Heroic War President” greeting the US Hero Soldiers on an impressive US air carrier.
(I do find them beautiful and I do admire all this technology. I have a weak spot for all sorts of aircraft, military or civil,old or new. As such the Stealth became recently my favourite beauty in the US military section. Yet I would wish the US kept all its beautiful toys at home for practice).
Salaam. A
What are you talking about? I claim that if we were militaristic, defense would be a key issue in electing the leader of said military. You came back and said that there was little difference between Repbulicans and Democrats. I came back with cites showing that one canidate was claiming that the military was not ready for war while the other wasn’t. I think thats a pretty big distinction.
Here is an idea why don’t you come up with your first argument why the United States has a militaristic society. Continually pointing out the fact that we have the most powerful, largest and most technically advanced. To use an analogy we have Joe Moneybags who donates 3 million of his 100 million dollars a year to his church but only goes twice a year. We also have Jim Richdude who gives 1 million of his 100 million dollars a year to his church but goes to church every day. Clearly Jim Richdude is more religous that Joe Moneybags becuase religion is part of his daily life. Joe Moneybags can’t be called religious becuase he only goes to church twice a year. America is like Joe Moneybags becuase we spend a lot of money on our military giving us by far the best military in the world however outside of war Americans only think about the military on two days a year.
We see displays of military equipment at air shows and sports events for basically two reasons. The primary reason the military provides equipment for such thing is for publicity and recruitment. The second reason is that fighter jets, stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, and all sorts of other military equipment is just so darn cool. A lot of us don’t have many opportunities to see military equipment and it’s a treat.
Yes, glorifying war and soldiers is a US habit. You haven’t really demonstrated that it’s excessive when compared to many other places. Is it more prevelant here then it is in Canada? Iraq? Israel? China? Palestine?
What’s the point of owning all those beautiful toys if you’re not going to use them?
You are a prime example of why I posted my questions in the first place.
How did you came to the reasoning that it is absolute normal for the US not only to develop them, but also to “use” them outside the USA?
Here is a list of the top 316 gross movies in U.S. history. First war movie is #47 Saving Private Ryan then #57 Gone With the Wind #80 Topgun (I don’t really count this one its about fighter pilot training. No real combat IIRC) #120 Rambo First Blood Part II (never seen it) #151 Platoon (about the Vietnam war). #252 Blackhawk Down. Five movies out of the top 316 grossing movies in America were about war. Saving Private Ryan left me with a feeling of “man war espicially D-day is hell”. I slept through Gone With the Wind but its about the Civil War. Topgun is more of an action flick, didn’t villify any enemy as far as I remembered. Platoon left me with the feeling of “man Vietnam sucked”. During Blackhawk Down nobody cheered when Somali’s were shot like they did in Somalia when American’s were shot. Frankly during these movies nobody was glorified or villified the driving message was “war sucks ass”.
Maybe we adopted it as standard operating procedure because we were colonized by Europeans. Europeans who evidently believed that it was quite normal to raise a military force and use it outside of their borders. In fact Europeans continued to believe such things even in modern times.
I contend that development of military technology and using them is hardly a US invention nor is it primarily a US thing.
Aldebaran, between the founding of the UN and the end of the Cold War, there were 680 conflicts between states. [Source: Nov. 26, 2004 The Economist, p. 25]. According to wikipedia, the United States was involved in 11 of them. If you look at it either from the POV of the United State’s population or GDP, the US is underrepresented.
Is the US preoccupied with the military and war? Probably. But then again, so is everyone else.
[oversimplification]
Prior to 1900 or so, the US did not maintain a standing army of any real size. That came back to bite us in the War of 1812, and didn’t help matters during the Mexican, Civil, and Spanish-American Wars. This last war, which left us with an Asian colony at the same time that we annexed Hawaii, coincided with Mahan’s work suggesting that a powerful navy was the best way to ensure America’s prosperity. Technology was advancing such that hiding behind the size of the Atlantic Ocean wasn’t going to work anymore, and our cities and the Panama Canal were (plausibly) vulnerable to German (presumably) dreadnoughts. So, the US started to build a large navy. We had British support in this, since somebody was going to build a big navy and for European strategic reasons it was better to support us than either support Germany or take the chance we’d make common cause with the Germans.
That’s part 1.
Part 2 is that, strange as it may seem today, WWII really was a battle for the future of the world and the continuation of liberal democracies. Honest. By 1942 it was an alliance between liberal democracy and communism vs. fascism. While the liberal democracies included countries like France and the Netherlands (and Czechoslovakia), for most of the war it was really just the US and UK. When the war ended, the Cold War began. Again, it was a battle for the future of liberal democracy. And while it seems weird to look back on, it was not obvious that fighting wouldn’t just start up again. And if it did, it wasn’t obvious that the USSR would lose.
But by this point, Europe’s economy was a disaster. Germany was occupied, and certainly couldn’t be “trusted” with an army for a while. The UK wasn’t in great economic shape, and was going through the turmoil of decolonization including losing great manpower resources in India. France was also fighting colonial wars. In order to keep the Russians at bay, the forces of the US were used to protect liberal democracy. As Western European nations started to recover, they began to take up some of the defensive burden, but not as much as the US. It was in the collective interest of the NATO countries to allow the European economies to grow without the burden of fully defending themselves. The US economy could pick up the slack easily enough. Plus, from the US point of view, it was a handy bit of leverage. But make no mistake-- the Europeans also gained from the exchange.
Now, the US has been a liberal democracy for over 200 years. There were periods when it was the only liberal democracy in the world. Our forces have been engaged on the front lines of “protecting democracy” for over 60 years. It’s not surprising that the attitudes described elsewhere in this thread have taken root, in my opinion.
Note that I am not saying that everything done in the Cold War period actually advanced the goal of protecting democracy. With hindsight, one could question all sorts of things, and indeed many were questioned at the time. But I think the American attitude that we’re using our army to protect democracy by deploying (and occasionally using) it outside North America comes from the fact that for large stretches of the past century it was unquestionably true.
[/oversimplification]
…I think what Ravenman basicly is saying is that you are not reading his posts, and your refutations are to points he is not debating. He clearly states this:
Yet, you insist in later posts that Ravenman says the United States has a militaristic society?
PaulInSaudi:
“I would point out the US did not have a large standing military until World War I (when we had to save Europe).”
Do you put the “we had save Europe” bit in for a laff, to wind Europeans up or because you actually believe it? Just wanted to know as it seems to touch cloth in so many threads.
I think that’s it’s true that some people find it normal to talk about waging war, but not every soldier is considered a “hero.” In general, Americans are grateful to those who serve their country honorably. A majority of us have contempt for those who serve mindlessly no matter what their rank. Some of us also find honor in those who refuse to serve because of conscience and in those who protest the war.
Those on the right generally see it as a way of protecting our country and thereby making it still stronger. They don’t have much patience for other countries that feel the same way. Those on the left see it as increasing the danger of a nuclear disaster.
If you are speaking about many of the people and not all of the people, I’m afraid you are correct.
It’s a combination of all of these things. Keep in mind that all of these sources still present a mixture of viewpoints. There are both liberal and conservative teachers, for example. The one that I am most concerned about is the press. Our news sources are owned by a few big corporations. Blogs may be our salvation.
I see an America that is very different from the one in which I grew up. Peace wasn’t a dirty word then. People seem meaner now. The idea of tolerating torture is so beyond me. I knew someone tortured by the Japanese in World War II. I grew up knowing that torture was bad. Now 40% of Americans say it is okay in some circumstances. WTF?
I don’t know. Could the allies have won the Western Front if the U.S. hadn’t entered the war? You have to remeber that by 1918 the French were pretty much out of commission following the mutinies of the previous year, and Commonwealth forces were stretched very thin, espcially after the Somme. Although Germany was running very low on supplies (even food), they had the numerical advantage, supplemented by relatively fresh divisions brought in from the East after the Russian cease-fire. American-sent munitions were a great help to British forces - posibly even more than the actual troops - and while the AEF wasn’t that large compared to the rest of the European forces, and lacked batte experience, it was large enough and fresh enough to help tip the balance and allow an Allied counterattack.
YKMV, of course. While it’s certainly possible to overestimate the U.S. contribution in the Great War, you shouldn’t dismiss it out of hand.
All wrong. RE: Cities in stone == too numerous to mention. Throughtout Mesoamerica, almost all cities were stone construction. Massive volumes of concrete required to build cities collapsed ecosystems due to deforestation before Rome was built. At the time of contact with the Aztecs, Tenochtitlan was one of the most impressive cities in the world. Bernal Diaz del Castillo, one of the conquerors of Indian Mexico, described arriving in Tenochtitlan, the greatest city in Anahuac on Nov. 8, 1519 as follows:
“”…we saw so many cities and villages built in the water and the other great towns on dry land and that straight and level causeway going towards Mexico, we were amazed and said that it was like the enchantments they tell of in the legend of Amadis, on account of the great towers and cues and buildings rising from the water, and all built of masonry. And some of our soldiers even asked whether the things that we saw were not a dream … I do not know how to describe it, seeing things as we did that had never been heard of or seen before, not even dreamed about."
I recommend reading the entire volume.
Of course, they introduced small pox via a black slave they “owned” and nearly the entire population died, allowing the conquest and then the leveling of the entire city. The survivors became slaves, and had to rebuild the city they leveled (now Mexico City) in a European style.
RE: Roads. Some of the best roads in Mexico have a prehistoric base of stone and concrete. In the Yucatan, these roads still travel in perfect straight lines directed at tall pyramids of stone and mortar construction. The roads were far wider than the modern roads, and have survived 1000 years.
RE: Metalworking. Some of the most advanced metalworking technology in the world was in the Americas at the time of contact, albeit in the Andes. Metalworking is a hazardous occupation, and ingesting metals can cause brain damage. Not having metals cooking vessels, etc. may actually be a sigh of higher intelligence. Today, we continue to poison our children with lead via our “advanced” in home plumbing systems, and from other sources.
RE: Writing. There were many books stored in of the stone masonry buildings at the ends of the perfectly straight roads, but the Europeans did not know how to read them. They did think of them as instruments of the devil and burned them. At the time of contact, only books approved by the Crown and the Church could be published. Almost every prehispanic book in the Americas was burned. About 13 survive, and now we know they contain valuable scientific information, such as more accurate astronomy than existed in Europe and Renaissance Italy, where people were persecuted for thinking the sun was the center of our solar system.
The entire nation of the United States of America is on invaded, conquered and stolen land. Today is Thanksgiving, a great day to realize and consider this fact. If contact had not occurred, we might still be living in squalid cities in Europe, thinking the earth the center of the universe, having repeated plagues from the many rats in our cities, burning books by heretics (not to mention the heretics in their dunce caps and anyone who failed to attend their burnings), censoring the texts of our catechisms, and not eating turkey, potatoes, corn, squash, avocado, tomato, chili, etc.
War is how the United States of America was founded and built. War, after war, after war, until many of the Native nations were genocidally exterminated, and the surviving nations reduced to a very small fraction of their original numbers and territories. We still keep them in the concentration camps we created, now called reservations. When will we give back some of their lands? Perhaps a token in Thanksgiving for all that was was stolen. How about giving back all the public lands in the West? Or at least all the wilderness. Would that be compensation enough? I doubt it!!
RE: Wilderness … “large villages, but no towns or cities.” While not true, perhaps cities are not the wisest adaptation. Consider pollution, industrial diseases, half-a-million chemicals in workplaces, auto accidents, asthma in children, crime, poverty, homelesssness, drug abuse, obesity, etc. etc. Cities are symptomatic of out-of-control populations, not the end all of human existence. Is this a cultural bias? Save yourselves, leave the cities! Get as close to wilderness as you can.
There are archaeological sites almost everywhere in the Americas, even in the most extreme cold and uninhabitable regions, and certainly in all the few remaining “wilderness” (read unplowed or not clear-cut) areas.
Additionally, the English colonial contact period encounters were influenced by the 90% die-off of the Native populations after Spanish introduction of European diseases. Don’t believe the myths of cultures dissappearing conveniently a few decades before European diseases.
Perhaps this is the perfect day to assess how the highly advanced civilizations of the Americas, and their discovery, influenced the course of European history, from the large infusions of stolen gold, the products of vast numbers of new slaves on productive American plantations, the introduction of better medicines, and the gift of immensely useful domesticated plants to the intellectual impact of the discovery of a “New World,” to mention only the most obvious. How did the Native Americans change Europe? After 500 plus years, how few Europeans are not part Native American given the number of slaves brought back to Europe and mixed into the genetic pool today?
Continued influences from the numerous Native American nations and cultures may someday save us from our preoccupation with war. That is if its not already too late. Any day now, I’m expecting some nuclear revenge for our current wars. Part of waging war is suffering the consequences. Another reason to leave the cities, esp. Washington, D.C. Where are all the guys leaving CIA going?
I look for the origin of preoccupation with military and war sometime near the origin of slavery.
