|
|
#131
08-30-2010, 01:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
I can't really discriminate between the US political spectrum, as i lack the experience of living there. What it seems like is that each party's presidents fight wars with different justifications and different means. Also, the main difference during the past decade has been the choice of front, with Democrat administrations favoring pro-muslim involvement in the Balkans as a means to curb the pro-Russian nations and Republicans favoring involvement in the middle east.
As for the economic problems in Greece, there's a variety of causes. A big one is nepotism and corruption in the higher echelons. It might be hard to believe, but even with state-run education, health care and pension programms, our debts were non-existent until the early 80s and very manageable until the mid-90s. It was the entry into the Euro-zone that made it very easy to borrow money, coupled with the "usual suspects" who descended on government funds like locusts that brought the situation where it is today. The vast majority of the people being called upon to contribute in limiting the debt had no involvement whatsoever in its creation. One of the main reasons however is that a nation of 10 million has to sustain a modern military of 100000 just to maintain a credible deterrent and that's still being out-numbered 7 to 10, having to rely on operational planning and geography to ensure parity in the event of a conflict. As a comparison, Germany is a nation of 70 million and they have 200000 military personell. This is done with extensive use of conscription as there are no funds for a 100% professional army and it incurres great debts on society as a whole, not only directly in money but also in affecting the working life of every male in the country, as well as human lives. Economically speaking, a farmer who's a father of three boys can count on about 3 years of work-hours being lost from the family due to his sons' army obligations and that's with today's reduced terms of 9 and 12 months (dependant on service branch), as terms used to be 18 to 25 months a few years ago. There's also the cost fuel, maintenance and ammunition for exercises and maneuvers, as well as the fact that our air force is involved in intercepting the air force of another NATO member daily over our islands, the same ones that tourists flock to during the summer. It's not unusual to be having a swim and hear jet engines overhead in the distance. Since 1976 when these overflights started, the cost of jet fuel alone for these very much operational flights has reached tens or even hundreds of millions of Euros. And finally, there's operational and training accidents, many times involving conscripts. Also, despite having one of the lowest accident rates even when having such a rigorous schedule, when accidents do happen they seem to happen all at once. In the past month we've lost an Apache helicopter and the crew on a training exercise and a couple of days ago a couple of F-16s operating out of Suda bay AB had a mid-air during a dogfight exercise, one pilot was killed instantly, one survived and the other succumbed yesterday in the hospital. This is all during peace time and only about the air force. Add to that the maintenance of the border lines that also guard against human trafficking and drug smuggling, a job pretty much exclusively undertaken by conscripts, naval operations and international commitments and it starts taking its toll. We don't have combat troops in Afghanistan and we didn't send any to Iraq (we could get out of that since the NATO charter states that an obligation to send troops arises when an attack against another member has originated from that state...Iraq never attacked a NATO state so we managed to skip that), but we still have engineers and medics in Afghanistan and a couple of frigates on the EU anti-piracy mission off Somalia, expensive missions during a time of intense economic crisis where simple people left and right see their hard-worked-for cash and benefits diminish. If these missions provided something of value for the state, the financial cost would be justified. However, the war in Afghanistan mostly serves to send flocks of immigrants bound for Europe and usually stuck in Greece due to legalities. The Somalia mission holds more favor due the abundance of Greek merchant shipping around the world and its more or less internationally sanctioned nature. This is usually a staple of Greek involvement abroad, the public wants to know what it's for, why it happens and under what legal and moral justification. For example, we had troops in international missions as early as the Korean war, but that was also a UN sanctioned campaign. Same with Kosovo, we didn't participate in the campaign but contributed to the peacekeeping force because it was covered under a UN resolution. This is all to the knowledge of both the US and the EU, as they are our main weapon suppliers. However, as long as we're left to deal with being the "wave breaker" of Europe without a formal statement of support in the event of conflict or guarantee of sovereignity, we can't really cut down on military spending. 
|
|
#132
08-30-2010, 10:23 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This discussion has moved fast. I would just like to apologise to Blackdog for suggesting the Kosovo war was "clarcut". It was not, but it was a lot less muddy that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, possibly because parts of the Serbian opposition was the regular army rather than semi-civilian insurgents.
I would also like to comment on the "Why go to war" post by Splitter: Quote:
The objectives you cite are civilian parameters, and do not naturally translate into military objectives. Any war fought in a far away country on these terms is bound to end up in an unfocused campaign with obscure military objectives. At home, the backing for this kind of warfare is going to drop fast. If you can’t achieve what you set out to do in 2-3 years, people are going to ask themselves whet the heck their nation is doing in this war in the first place. And as I am sure you can see, non of the above objectives can be reached in that timeframe. The second factor is that pre-emptive wars are deemed morally wrong and are actually forbidden by international law. Your allies won’t like it. Yes, you do have to wait until your country is under direct threat! It may not be what a world superpower wants to hear, but is nevertheless the law. And there are good reasons for it being so. If the notion of pre-emptive wars being legal was true, the German attack on Sovjet in 1941 would be a perfectly just war: war between Nazi-Germany and the Sovjet Union was inevitable, Hitler just happened to attack first. The same goes for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Had Japan expanded their empire into the Pacific, a war with the US would have ensued, Japan just happened to strike first in a hope of taking out the US fleet and stop them from entering sooner rather than later. You could even translate it to the modern day and say that Al-Qaida happened to strike first in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre. Laws go bout ways, if the US can legally meddle in other states affairs, then so can Al-Qaida. However, such actions are wrong, morally and juridically. The only way one can justify talking about “moral fibre” and accuse the opposition for relativism in connection to pre-emptive wars is by carefully changing the definition of the words. Only by calling resolve “moral fibre”, and calling ethics and moral “moral relativism” and use it as a degrading term can one make pre-emptive wars seem just. This is called “newspeak”, and I am sure Andy is going to enlighten you on the concept if you are not familiar with it. Last edited by Friendly_flyer; 08-30-2010 at 10:58 AM.
|
|
#133
08-30-2010, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Greece: I had no idea so much European "fall out" was effecting them. It make sense, Greece has always been in a strategically significant position. Greece was just the first to fall, others are teetering and may follow shortly. As "larger" nations fall, baling them out is going to become more and more difficult and possibly lead to still larger nations falling.
Preemptive wars: Interesting take, Friendly. What you write is true until there is a "direct threat" to one's nation. What people will argue over is when a threat becomes a direct threat. US foreign policy changed in the early 21st century. We no longer took an approach of "measured response" to attacks. In the 90's, under Clinton, if you blew up one of our ships, we might take out one of your training camps and call it even. That sort of policy emboldened adversaries and led to more attacks. After 9/11, we decided that anyone who supported terrorism was a direct threat. People point to the absence of WMD's in Iraq as evidence that the war was not justified. While it is true that most intelligence sources agreed (foreign and domestic) that Iraq had WMD's, they were not the only only reason we went to get Saddam. Saddam was thumbing his nose at UN inspectors, financially supporting terrorist organizations, and preaching for the destruction of the West. Did he have WMD's? The answer appears to be no, but he had used them in the past (and nothing says that he had them and shipped them elsewhere prior to the invasion). For those reasons, he was deemed to be a direct threat. Do preemptive strikes work? People want to say "no", but if you will remember, Khadafi was a supporter of terrorism at one time. A series of strikes that almost got him, and killed some of his family, led him to get out of the terrorism business. His decision stopped any further action against him. So, yes, they can work. The attacks against Libya were VERY controversial at the time on the foreign front. France would not even let our bombers fly over their territory (from England) on the way. Convoluted American Politics.: Liberals (Democrats) in the US did not want to go to war in Iraq. They wanted to go to war in Afghanistan where the Taliban was supporting Al-Qaeda who had brought down the world trade center. They didn't see a direct link between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks. Conservatives (Republicans) wanted to go to Iraq and Bush was a Republican. So we went to Iraq first and took out that threat. Now the Democrats are making the mistake of reversing themselves in Afghanistan and wanting to withdraw our troops. Even when commanders on the ground said they needed "X" number of troops, the present President would only send a portion of the troops requested (same as Vietnam). Now, all that our opponents need to do is wait until we pull our troops out of Afghanistan and they can come in and take over. We certainly won't be "winning" that war in the time frame allotted, with the present rules of engagement, and with the resources that are there. It appears that Iraq will be much more stable as we draw down troops levels, but that could (and probably will) change. Many of us think we were unwise to stay there and that we should have left and let the different factions battle it out among themselves. They hate each other almost as much as the US lol. And if they are fighting each other, they won't be exporting their war. People bash me for seeing world politics in a "pessimistic" light. That some nation's leaders are "evil" and that there are powerful people in the world who want to destroy anyone who doesn't believe their way. Obviously, I say that such a view is only "realistic" given world history and WWII is a great example of that. Put simply, if other nations will not respect yours, you better hope they have enough fear of your nation to make them leave you alone. If they lack either a basic respect or fear of retaliation, your nation will be attacked in some way. This plays out over and over again on the world stage. So the answer, Friendly, to the question of how you prevent the "radicalization" of a country is to make the rewards for rejecting the radical beliefs too great to ignore. And, of course, the consequences for accepting the radical believes too severe. You want them to either respect you enough to reject those beliefs or fear you enough to reject those beliefs. If you fail on both counts, the radicals take over and come after you. Example: Did Hitler fear France? Did he respect France's sovereignty? Answers are no and no. Hitler takes France. Example: Did Japan fear the US? Did Japan respect US sovereignty enough to prevent them from attacking US territories? The answers are more vague. No they did not respect US sovereignty within their sphere of influence, but they did fear US might.....just not enough. Example: Did Hitler fear Britain? Did he respect their sovereignty? While he did not respect their sovereignty, he did fear them enough (after being shown) to not throw his troops away on an invasion. Lesson: As long as there are bad people in the world, stay strong. Bad people won't respect you but they may fear you enough to leave you alone. Splitter
|
|
#134
08-30-2010, 03:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The Iraq war was big business. If the west truely wanted to stop terrorism in the middle east they should probably stop selling them stuff. The west could ban all trade to these countries until they sort their internal problems out. But they won't because the US government among others, values money higher than human life, and because that also happens to be where all the oil is. One point about similarities between the 1930's and now. There is a country currently that could be compared to Nazi germany in the late 30's. Massive armed forces, invading soveriegn states, taking away civil liberties in the name of patriotism, ignoring international consensus, right wing fundamentalism.. USA anyone? I'm not anti american by the way, my bookshelf is full of American writers, my CD collection is full of American artists and my movie collection too.. Since Bush went it's improved but 9/11 was the biggest oil family in the middle east vs one of the biggest oil families in the west convienientley wrapped up as Islam vs the world. If these terrorist groups want us out of there then I say we go, and we cut all ties including financial. Leave them to it.
|
|
#135
08-30-2010, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
This isn't even 'newspeak'. It is utter garbage. Quote:
Splitter, your arguments are not only wrong, they are dangerous.
|
|
#136
08-30-2010, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Back to Japan and Nukes, can you imagine the carnage that would of been been inflicted on the Japanese nation and the Allied soldiers if an invaision of Japan was the only option, the losses to human life would of been catastrophic, It would of been okinawa on a much larger scale, The Japanese propergander machine had already groomed the population to fight to the bitter end using whatever means necessary.
Although tragic the nuclear bomb brought a swift end to the conflict and left the Japanese no option but to lay down their arms thus saving many thousands of lives on both sides. Whether we should see it in a flight sim is another storey, but we crave realism and it did happen after all. P.S a very good post from Blackdog, kind of sums up where Im at with world politics. Last edited by Tree_UK; 08-30-2010 at 04:22 PM.
|
|
#137
08-30-2010, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#138
08-30-2010, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with a lot of stuff said by FriendlyFlyer. Also, the bottom line tends to be this little gem here:
Quote:
If i'm used to driving cars with engines as huge as 6.0L instead of using 1.4L cars with a turbo engine for the same amount of horsepower, it's true that i'm going to be up in arms over lack of cheap gas. Simplified example, but it shows us how the forces of habit and social inertia affect more than what we see at first look. In the above example, why didn't the US automotive industry move to smaller yet still efficient models? It's not only the economic cost of research and shifting lines of production to a new concept, or even making sure to build cars with high consumption so that the oil companies can turn a profit as well (in the sense of an "industrial complex cartel"), it's also things like a sense of tradition/pride in workmanship, character in the machine (eg, when flying German planes in IL2 i get the same feeling as when riding in a German made car, the ruggedness and sense of purpose, similar for aircraft and cars made by other nations, they tend to exhibit similar traits although they are different classes of machinery) and the nice sound your old Camaro makes when you touch the gas pedal. It took a combination of the 1976 oil crisis and proven health issues concerning leaded fuels (without lead you can't have high compression engines due to the premature detonation effect, hence you have to move to smaller ones) to start designing and producing cars with smaller engines. There's more to a lot of our lives than meets the eye and it all ties down under the concept that people fight mainly to preserve their way of life. What i usually object to is enforcing one's way of life upon others, or pursuing a lifestyle that is detrimental to more people that it is beneficial. The million dollar question here is how much does the force of habit of the common man makes him co-responsible for his government's morally dubious pre-emptives against third parties. For example, it's commonly argued in a simplistic manner that it's ok to disregard civilian casualties because "they support guy X who's our opponent anyway". This argument not only punishes beliefs and thoughts instead of actions, something dangerous enough in its own right, but it sets the stage for the dismantling of its own self. This happens simply because the argument's application to the one advocating it would be so detrimental, that the only way to make it a feasible one is to resort to double standards regarding it's application. Well, that is the tell-tale sign of a flawed argument. For example, a guy trying to raise a family of 10 without access to basic amenities like water/electricity/health care in a situation like the Gaza blockade (just the most recent example, you could also put this hypothetical family man in the Warsaw ghetto during WWII just to be objective and not blame the Israelis all the time  ) is considered co-responsible for the actions of militant groups, not because he actively supports their cause but because he takes a neutral stance towards it.He doesn't want to get involved in active fighting since he's a family man, but he obviously won't take up arms against the only party fighting against the ones that deprive him of the aforementioned basic amenities. In the end this is used as a justification to make him a target, a form of "guilty until proven innocent" collective punishment, which is essentially what the fascist ideologies practiced during WWII with de facto dehumanizing based on racial background and mass reprisals against civilians following resistance operations. Simply put, it's like expecting him to take up arms on the side of what he considers a foreign occupation force. Well, it's obvious it won't happen easily, soon, or at all. Contrasting this guy with someone more like us, how much of a responsibility do you think we bear in that guy's eyes for his misfortunes? We want to drive our cars no matter how small the distance to travel, so his counrty is invaded to secure our cheap oil. We want our cheap iPods, so workers in China have to work 12-18 hour shifts in electronics assembly plants where even exchaning a "good morning" with your colleague on the next bench in front of the conveyor belt is punishable by losing your job. It costs in productivity when workers talk among themselves, which will raise the price of iPod componets, the price of the iPod itself and then the manufacturers will turn to another component provider, hence no talking allowed (i'm not making this up btw). We are not directly responsible for the workers who jumped to their deaths in that factory plant a few months ago, but it's our force of habbit that creates the chain of events which set certain events in motion. And while it is utopian to think that our realization of the fact alone will change it and maybe even useless to feel remorse about things outside under our direct control, it's not useless to exercise some critical thinking to expand our "horizons of empathy" outside our direct surroundings and act accordignly in a mitigating fashion. It would be a bit hypocritical of me to accuse a man as an accomplice just because he doesn't arrest the criminals himself while he has problems more immediate to his survival to contend with, like lack of access to running water, while at the same time i'm comfortably crusing around in my car and listening to my MP3s. I'm not exactly starving to death or dying of thirst like, you know, he is, i'm just upset i'll have to walk an extra 10 miles this month and i'm going to run a shorter playlist on my MP3 player because the prices of SDRAM and gas have gone up and when i think of it, it makes me feel like a spoiled brat with an entitlement complex. Kind of puts the whole thing in perspective. I took a brief look at the pdfs linked a few pages back about British COIN methods and there was a very important bit there, make the locals see and realize that you are operating within the law, not above it, if you want them to accept it as law. That's why i'm all for maintaining a sense of morality in the current worldwide happenings and conflicts. If we advocate unconditional co-responsibility and collective punishment, we set ourselves up for receiving the same. The only thing that changes is the weapon delivery, but dead non-combatants of any national heritage and religion don't really care if they got hit by a suicide bomber in a cafe or a laser guided bomb dropped from 20000 feet, they would just prefer if it hadn't happened at all. This is getting a bit too philosophical at this stage and it's also somewhat straining for me, as i'm typing much more than is needed to convey the point, just in order to make sure i don't leave any gray areas that could be misunderstood as bias towards either one. I'll just say i enjoyed this good natured debate immensely and i'll rest my case while on a good note, before i accidentally slip up and get caught in a mud flinging contest, like so often happens to all of us when touchy subjects are discussed through the written medium alone. Cheers to everyone involved
|
|
#139
08-30-2010, 07:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Let me just sadly say, they voted not to surrender (1) after 90 percent of their cities were destroyed, (2) after the first bomb was dropped, (3) after the second bomb was dropped. Plus, they fought to every last soldier over and over again in many battles with an entire society based on a warrior code. So in my opinion, I do not look back and see them considering surrender "fairly soon" or any reasonable alternatives short of magically "de-brainwashing" the entire population.... makes one wonder how North Korea will end. Scary stuff repeated all over again. Last edited by katdogfizzow; 08-30-2010 at 07:58 PM.
|
|
#140
08-30-2010, 08:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It is entirely untrue that 'they fought to every last soldier over and over again' - In the Okinawa campaign, large numbers of Japanese troops surrendered for example. I've seen no evidence the Japanese population was any more 'brainwashed' than say the Germans (or even, arguably, than Allied populations). The term amounts to little more than cold war propaganda anyway - it certainly isn't recognised by most psychologists. In any case, regardless of the will to fight on, the Japanese no longer had the means, at least on the Japanese mainland
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
