US military improvements?

Well I want to cut the NHS by 20% or £25 billion in the UK, but I don't expect anybody to take me seriously until I learn more about the NHS and can point out the things I think are wrong, where savings could be made or things could be moved over to the private sector. Where as you expect people to take you seriously, when you have no idea what you are talking about and not understanding of how it could affect the world.

So you have never heard of the partition of Indian? Where 2 million Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs muderded each other for control of an area which would become part of India or Pakistan, so they started killing each other, whole villages whipped out, whole city districts where destroyed and people forced to leave their homes, gangs of Muslims and Hindus in the cities going in to peoples homes and killing them because of their religion. It was a disgrace, when the British had troops and they did nothing, in just 5 years Indian went from fighting the Japanese in WW2, then civil war and then 2 different countries, that speed of change is never a good thing and it lead to multiple wars.

Well that's the problem the government has not place in society or being the key part of the economy. We have had multiculturalism forced on the UK by the central government, which has destroyed the influence fo the Anglican church making it no longer a British church for British values and culture, but for lots of different values and cultures. The Monarchy used to have power and influence within the government for two reason, it was the head of the Anglican church and head of armed forces, now it is no longer the head of the armed forces and the church has lost all it's power, meaning the monarchy has no power to stop the government going to war, like it tryed to do before WW1. Then you have British common law, which has been over taken by the EU and European court, meaning the British courts have no real power to do what the British people want or stop the government from passing anti freedom of speech laws. The British state used be have the 5 British Ideals as it's pillars, moderate Christianity, Capitalism, Common Law, Democracy, Sicentific and Intellectual freedom, now we only have the Capitalism left with any power, that is the government elected to spend our taxes. All this has happened because of the welfare state and that so many people need it for work now after they nationalised everything under Attlee and other Labour and Conservative governments.

The US military is vital for defending world trade and getting enough aid to the right places, when that huge wave hit Japan a couple of years ago, who was the ones sending thousands of tons in aid on ships, that's right the US military, not the UN. When countries in Arabia need to get their oil tankers to be defended or another nation invades another who comes to their aid, that's right the US military, not the UN. Why did the US go into Afghanistan? It's wasn't because it wanted to, but because the American people wanting to kill Al Qaeda. How about Iraq, was that done for US cooperations, or so the American people didn't need Saudi oil anymore? Yes in both case they have gone wrong, but the reasons for starting both were justifed. My problem is why did the UK go along with it in the half arsed manner it did.

So you want to stop spending money from the US space program which parts of the program or the whole thing? Which drones do you want to cut and why? What are the Stealth and Nuclear programs? I have never heard of them. Who would employ the thousands of former military personnel you would get rid of and the thousands more jobs loses in the private sector becuse you just cut R&D spending. From the list of money spent in Iraq which two things would you want to cut the most?

 

Did you notice the part where I said that in its current state the UN is not a just and fair system? I mean to make it clear that when I speek of the "powerful" I mean the "powerful."

If we look at the history of the UN we see an array of problems inherent in lacking balanced international representation. It is not a democratic organization. It does not speak for the people's voice or even the balanced voice of the world's governments. It has no checks on power. The reason injustices such as the ones you have stated are allowed to take place is due to the lack of will to intervene for human rights due to favoring national self-interest. Utmost authority is placed in the Security Council, leading injustices such as Darfur, Syria, and Serbia to be ignored until the damage is done as they are of no concern to the powerful such as the US who are granted the ability to veto helpful resolutions. It illustrates moral relativism in the face of and occasional support of genocide and terrorism. The three permanent Western members of the council make secret agreements based on their interests. The system leads resolutions to act to basically filibuster and avoid taking action. The reason such resolutions are so ineffective is due to the fact that the authority of the "Security Council" is elevated above others, resulting in five global superpowers including the US to veto at will and ignore objectives that oppose their investments and write resolutions in favor of themselves. The powers of the Security Council act unchecked.

The UN cannot function unless the great powers permit it to. Unlike the General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council does not have true democratic international representation. The UNSC's authority may cripple any possible UN armed or diplomatic response to a crisis. The UNSC too often only addresses the strategic interests and political motives of the permanent members, especially in humanitarian interventions: for example, protecting the oil-rich Kuwaitis in 1991 but poorly protecting resource-poor Rwandans in 1994. Similarly, UN was quick to take a military action through NATO against Libya in 2011 against repressive regime, but as of November 2012 it still hasn't taken any decision on whether to take any action against Syria.

The US opposes any resolution that could grant Palestinian statehood at the UN including one that would act against terrorism because it included a paragraph that authorized the right of self-determination because it would authorize Palestinian resistance. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. Russia and China oppose resolutions that could lessen the conflict in Syria as it opposes their alliance. Another prominent example is the use of sanctions being abused, as evidenced by the oil-for-food campaign scandal constructed for Iraq in 1996 which resulted in the strengthening of Hussein and the peoples dependence upon him as well as the further destruction to the Iraqi economy.

UN policy is swayed in favor of the powerful members of the Security Council, too often leading the organization to fail its stated mission. It needs reform in order to fulfill its stated mandates of “maintaining international peace and security.... (and if necessary to enforce the peace by) taking preventive or enforcement action,” based on balanced voice. Nations look out for themselves, ignoring and sometimes supporting violations of human rights and freedom. We can only hope to lessen the corruption with fair and balanced international representation, sustained in its balanced manor by the check of the voice of the people of the world's nations.

There is no way to entirely prevent conflict, only ways of limiting its effects. It is fine for you to condescend. You might live in pessimism and realism, caught in the current status of the world, whereas I live with hope and optimism, which leads me to recognize that there is opportunity and potential for change. It isn't that one outlook is right and one is wrong, each has something the other lacks. I may see a world that cannot be or is not there, you may fail to see that there is good in people and that there is potential for change and progress. If you assume that there is no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are opportunities to change things, then there is a possibility that you can contribute to making a better world. Whether or not there is progress is only a matter of taking the opportunity to spark the change.

It's hardly a fantasy when you look at the facts. Globalization itself is the result of powerful governments, especially the United States, pushing trade deals and other accords down the throats of the world’s people to make it easier for corporations and the wealthy to dominate the economies of nations around the world without having obligations to the peoples of those nations. The US is by far the most powerful component of the world system in terms of military force and among the top three in economic power, wielding an enormous amount of influence which enables the superpower to wield matters in favor of itself. It may not currently fit the word "empire" in the classic sense, but if you were to look at a record of US policy throughout history to the present you would find it full of planning about how to control and dominate in the nature that others act in accord of the interests that are represented by the planners. It is essentially a business empire, often resorting to force in order to obtain business objectives. Using its authority in the UN to watch out for nationalistic self-interest. Expanding and using force to gain resources. Staging coups across the world and sparking civil war in the process in the favor of American business. Invading foreign nations for investments. Promoting the superpower above the well-being of others.

And you're entirely correct about the Afghanistan situation dating back to the 1980s US vs. USSR superpower competition over global dominance. The civil war and terrorism however has little to do with UN humanitarian intervention in this instance but rather its inoperation, and United States and Western actions within the nation can hardly be considered acts of putting the country back together. If the "revenge" for 9/11 and the Taliban operation was placed on the shoulders of a democratic UN we wouldn't have tens of thousands of civilian casualties. Nations have little concern for human life. It's a fine example of the cost of hegemony and the search for oil; instability and chaos sparked by the entropy of violent invasion. The USSR sought to further its empire by invasion, and US seeks payoff to military contractors and valuable oil resources gained by military occupation by invasion. The act of Russian invasion lead to instant opposition, leading to the rise of raging militant groups who were later left to fight each other. The Russians were facing a major army of around 100,000 people or more, organized, trained, and heavily armed by the CIA and its associates. The U.S. is facing a force in a country of rubble that has already been virtually destroyed by 20 years of superpower interference.

With the invasion of Afghanistan power was turned back to the same barbaric opium warlords that operated the nation before the barbaric Taliban. The UN estimated that millions were barely being sustained by international food aid. On September 16, 2001 the national press reported that Washington had “demanded from Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan’s civilian population.” The threat of military strikes forced the removal of international aid workers, crippling assistance programs. A month later the UN stated that “7.5 million Afghans will need food over the winter- 2.5 million more than on September 11,” a 50 percent increase as a result of the threat of bombing. The UN FAO stated that 7 million people were facing a crisis that could lead to widespread starvation if military action were initiated. Bombing destroyed grain supplies. Hundreds of thousands were starving in forgotten camps without access to aid. The airstrikes quickly turned cities into “ghost towns,” the press reported, with electrical power and water supplies destroyed, a form of biological warfare. The UN reported that 70 percent of the population had fled Kandahar and Herat within two weeks, mostly to the countryside, where in ordinary times 10-20 people, many of them children, are killed or crippled daily by land mines. And the US government still proceeded, ignoring statement after statement and rejecting UN appeal after appeal that aimed to provide aid and restrict bombing. Innocent civilians, not the Taliban.

They did this while viable sources of anti-Taliban opposition arose to plan the overthrow of Taliban rule while the US destroyed the country, yet the US ignored their calls and continued with their reign. Abdul Haq, the most important figure in Taliban opposition said that the US, “is trying to show its muscle, score a victory and scare everyone in the world. They don’t care about the suffering of the Afghans or how many people we will lose. And we don’t like that. Because Afghans are now being made to suffer for these Arab fanatics, but we all know who brought these Arabs to Afghanistan in the 1980s, armed them and gave them a base. It was the Americans and the CIA. And the Americans who did this all got medals and good careers, while all these years Afghans suffered from these Arabs and their allies. Now, when America is attacked, instead of punishing the Americans who did this, it punishes the Afghans.” His advice was to “avoid bloodshed as much as possible”; instead of bombing, “we should undermine the central leadership, which is a very small and closed group and which is also the only thing which holds them all together. RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan), condemned the U.S./Russian-backed Northern Alliance for a “record of human rights violations as bad as that of the Taliban’s" and called for Afghan support instead of the Northern Alliance. These calls were left ignored as well. Bush said he would attack for as long as it took to destroy Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, doing just as Bin Laden wanted, luring the US in where he could kill them.

Such consequences, and the devastating legacy of 20 years of brutal war and atrocities, could be alleviated by an appropriate UN international presence and well-designed programs of aid and reconstruction; were honesty to prevail, they would be called “reparations,” at least from Russia and the U.S., which share primary responsibility for the disaster. The US avoided security council authorization which it even easily could have received, illustrating that there are greater powers than cooperation. Systems of power resist that principle if they are strong enough to do so. The UN only functions when the great powers allow it to.

This is a fine article on the topic: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20020201.htm

Over the course of half a century in the middle east before the beginning of the Afghan war the US overthrew the democratic Iranian rule and installed the Shah as a brutal dictator to favor American business in 1953, supplied billions of dollars to Saddam Hussein to kill Iranians in 1982 then weapons for Iranians to kill Iraqis in 1983, constructed hundreds of military bases in the region, some of which located on Islamic holy lands (cited by Bin Laden as a reason for 9/11), trained Bin Laden and supplied billions in aid to his cell, backed and supported the expansionist warmongering Israeli government, re-installed the Kuwaiti dictator and invaded Iraq and Kuwait in 1990 (UN estimates 500,000 Iraqi children died from bombings and sanctions), and then supplied aid of $245 million to the Taliban in the year 2000. Our action leads to inflammation. With every action taken in the name of nationalistic corporate greed and hunger for power justly provoked hatred is fueled towards the United States government. Bin Laden made it clear that he opposed the US for its policies. Our policies built Al Qaeda and inspired US hatred and terrorism throughout the middle east. We reap what we sow.

You have to investigate and dive deep to find the truth. It is hidden on the surface by government-fabricated comforting illusion. Nations may spew propaganda through the mouth of the media. It is the propaganda model. Most wars are presented as humanitarian endeavors to help people or fight for the good of the nation in order to secure the people's support and thus, the powerful's power. The power elite does not place any priority on the good of humanity or its own people it sends to battle.

"Good job there."

I've never really laughed at a Jim Carey movie.

Medicare and medicaid are programs of a completely dysfunctional healthcare system which is could be a useful place for funds if it was actually efficient unlike pointless military operations.

The reason elected Democrats fail to live up to liberal ideals is because they are of a business party and lack conviction and they continue forcing the same aggressive policies that lead so many problems to arise. There is a difference between defense and offense. Perhaps there would not be "bad people who to hurt us" if we did not engage in so many offensive acts of aggression. We created Al Qaeda through our intervention in the middle east and cause groups of opposition to form with our actions. They hate us for our policies, not who we are.

The 2011 official military budget alone, almost matching that of the rest of the world combined, is higher in real terms than at any time since World War II and is slated to go even higher. Officially, the spending on the total of military operations accounts for an excessive official amount of 1.415 trillion: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget

The total cost of the Bush-Obama wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been estimated to run as high as $4.4 trillion with budget and taxpayer funding and spending only continues to pile up with the essential need for reparations to destruction, veteran care, spending on military operation, and costs of military supplies.
"Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies found that the federal government has already spent between $2.3 and $2.6 trillion on the overseas War on Terror in the 10 years since the 9/11 terror attacks":
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Artic...-Laden-Won-4-Trillion-in-War-Costs.aspx#page1
"$1.3 trillion in Congressional War Appropriations to the Pentagon — the official budget for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
$3.7-4.4 trillion estimated total costs to American taxpayers. This includes the official Pentagon budget (above), veterans’ medical and disability costs, homeland security expenses, war-related international aid and the Pentagon’s projected expenditures to 2020.":
http://billmoyers.com/content/the-real-costs-of-war/

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/study-iraq-war-cost-190000-lives-2-2-trillion/
http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2013/03/warcosts
http://www.wanttoknow.info/corruptiongovernmentmilitary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary
http://rt.com/news/iraq-war-two-trillion-276/
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/03/15/study-iraq-war-cost-190k-lives-22-trillion.html

Don't talk to me about bodybags and not "supporting the troops." A government that supported and cared for its troops would not send them to be used as cannon fodder, causing their bodies to be mutilated and lives to be lost in worthless missions seeking power and dominance, 190,000 dead. It wouldn't use its own service members as pawns for the wealthy and corporate greed. It wouldn't throw away tens of thousands of lives, forcing soldiers to face horrific jobs. It wouldn't lie to its troops and tell them they fight for freedom and saving lives. It wouldn't send them on wars that have nothing to do with defending our nation and our national security, or weapons of mass destruction. It wouldn't foreclose on the homes of families of soldiers while servicemen serve overseas while the bankers proclaim, "I support the troops!". It wouldn't allow soldiers guilty of sexual assault to go unpunished. It wouldn't allow for between 130,000 and 200,000 veterans on any given night to sleep homeless on the streets uncared for, 12,700 being of Iraq and Afghanistan. A nation that supports its soldiers wouldn't lead more veteran deaths to be from suicide each year than combat, with an estimated 22 veteran suicides each day.

The vast majority of military action is not done in national defense or "promoting freedom". The department of defense largely does not exist for defense. There is a difference between defense and offense, what is necessary and what is unnecessary. Unnecessary action only leads troops to be used as cannon fodder and puts them in bodybags for no good reason. Unnecessary offense consists of nationalistic power gains at the expense of others, and all too often the destruction of soldier's lives. Maybe if we placed funds elsewhere then unnecessary acts of aggression we could provide for other options of employment that do not involve the risk of death for national gain. Perhaps if we cut our military spending we would be able to provide funds to support our troops as we so proudly claim to, or even better, perhaps the government can avoid engaging in these costly conflicts that destroy so many soldier's lives in the first place. A government must be able to at least provide the means of care necessary for the people it sends to do its dirty work. Waving our flag, supporting our government right or wrong, and shouting cliche slogans about supporting our troops accomplishes nothing; the real way we as a people can support our troops is by opposing violent conflict, engaging in anti-war activism, and direct support to our veterans who give their lives to our government's cause.

This is what the US government does for its soldiers:
http://www.alternet.org/dear-george-bush-and-dick-cheney-you-are-guilty-murder-letter-dying-veteran
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/veterans.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/melanie...of-veterans-who-now-commit-suicide-every-day/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-bobrow/veteran-suicide-rate_b_2936244.html
http://blog.usnavyseals.com/2013/03/disabled-navy-veteran-died-in-court-fighting-foreclosure.html
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/13/us/military-sexual-assault
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/26/health/26psych.html?pagewanted=all

 

A government that supported and cared for its troops would not send them to war encumbered by restrictive rules of engagement that the enemy can exploit.

A government that supported and cared for its troops would send them off to war with the ruthlessness of FDR or Andrew Jackson.

 

Wow, the more I read this, the more I think it belongs in the "Conspiracy Theory" section. But let me respond to some of these comments.

First of all, the US did not provide "$245 million in aid", it offered "$245 worth in aid. It is funny how often I have had to explain this over the years.

In 2000, Afghanistan was in the midst of a terrible famine. And as the US usually does, it provides something of which it is the world's leader in, food. Since trying to say something like "The US is offering 200 tons of wheat, 300 tons of rice, and 300 pallets of dried milk", they phrase it in a way that everybody can understand, the value of the food provided. Actually sending money into a drought region is pointless, there is no food there at any price. So instead we send huge amounts of food at wholesale prices.

However, it was all pointless because the food never really got there. Shortly after the shipments started, the Taliban arrested several of the aid workers and accused them of spying, and then expelled the rest because they dared to include females among the workers. Then the Taliban declared that the famine was God's punishment upon the wicked Afghan people and ordered all aid to stop.

So much for your claim of the US "providing money to the Taliban". They offered food, which was rejected.

As for OBL, the US never trained him (like so many, you can't separate the native Afghan fighters we did train, with the huge numbers of foreigners that went to the area to fight a Holy War). And to OBL, the entire Middle East is a "Holy Land", and should never have anybody who is not a Muslim inside of it. So his claims and yours are pretty much rejected.

And I always love when people talk about this "coup" and "overthrow of a democratic government" in Iran. Try getting out of the Conspiracy Theory beliefs and read some actual history.

The ruler of Iran since 1925 had been the Shah. Now Mohammad Mosaddegh was a politician, and his most powerfull "elected" office was as a member of the Parliament. And he was appointed (not elected, appointed) as Prime Minister on several occasions.

Yes, there was an election, but it is not like the Election of the President of the US, it was like the "election" of the Speaker of the House. I can not think of anybody who would try to claim the "Speaker of the House was democratically elected", because the people of the US did not elect him to that position.

And now I invite you to look at the Constitution of Iran. It stated very clearly in that document that the Prime Minister "served at the pleasure of the King", and could be "Dismissed for any reason by the King".

No coup, no overthrow, no real "democratic election". Those are facts, read the Constitution of Iran, read how the Prime Minister was chosen (it was not in a National Election, it was in an internal vote of the Majlis). Calling this a coup of a "Democratic Government" is an absolute joke. I guess we should call what happened to Newt Gingrich a "Coup" as well then.

And kindly tell us what the UNSC decisions have been made or even proposed in these instances? You talk about US Veto, so what exactly in these instances has the US done a Veto at all? Because most of what you are talking about never went before the UNSC. The General Assembly pretty much decided that each and every one of those incidents was a purely "Internal Affair", and that the UN and UNSC had no business getting involved.

However, you mention Serbia. Interesting, because this was pretty much the first instance where the US and NATO basically shoved itself down the throats of the UN, pretty much saying "If you are incapable of doing anything about this situation, we are going to".

Prior to NATO getting involved, all that the UN had done was to put in place a "No Fly Zone", and put a few Blue Helmets on the ground. That was it. And the slaughter continued. Finally NATO had enough and acted. The UN still did nothing, and mostly kicked back and forth if Kosovo should even exist or should be part of Serbia.

That is the reality. Feel free to look up everything, it is easily available information.

 

Educate the troops in the language spoken and the culture in whatever country they are about to be sent to. Forget about the idiotic pamphlets and 30 minute briefings.

 

Errr, they do (or at least they try to).

However, educating us in the "Language" is pretty much impossible. That means that I would have had to learn at least 4 other languages so far in my career, and that is just not possible. And we are well briefed on the culture, simply because they want to prevent us from doing the kind of thing I did catch while on deployment.

I walked into a men's room in a mall outside of Doha, and the sergeant I was with took a left and started to approach what looked like a giant urinal. I realized what he was thinking, and quickly grabbed his arm and took him through another doorway where the actual latrine was located. He turned bright red when I softly told him that he was about to urinate into the ablution station, something that would definitely have gotten us in a lot of trouble.

However, I only recognized it for what it was because while eating at an Arabic restaurant in LA I saw something similar. No matter how well anybody tries to prepare for going to another country, you can't possibly know everything.

 

I have a lot of sympathy for that idea but practically speaking training time is limited, and squeezing an extra week into basic training is an expensive proposition. I assume you would double the length of basic training like OSUT in order to give everyone the 11B MOS, then on to their AIT. The Marine Corps does something like that, in which every Marine is an infantryman first, but the Marines are a much smaller force. The number that the Army puts through Basic Training each year precludes doing that unless we greatly expand training facilities and personnel. Given that everyone and his uncle wants to cut the military budget, I don't see that happening.

The up or out system has bugged me, since it has pushed out what I consider a lot of good people who were technically proficient in their jobs, but had no desire to go up the NCO support chain away from the jobs that they were already good at. I would bring back the Specialist ranks. Maybe not for all Occupational Specialties, but there are some fields that are extremely technical and at one time the Army recognized that and just let those people do their technical jobs. Not all of them necessarily made good NCO's though.

 

The Specialist rank was actually a double-edged sword for the Army. And originally it was not created as a way to solve the issue of "up or out", but to find a way to keep highly trained specialists in new areas of technology (RADAR, Jet Engines, Satellite Communications, etc) from leaving the Army to go to higher paying civilian employment. Back in the 1950's and early 1960's, the military was often the only way to get such training.

Then it was also a sword because the Specialists were in the overall rank structure all placed between PFC and Sergeant. So if you had an outstanding Specialist 7, he could never become a First Sergeant. He was not an NCO, and if you ever wanted to move above Specialist 7 (to the senior ranks of Master Sergeant/First Sergeant or Sergeant Major), you had to accept being busted back down to Sergeant and working your way up all over again.

I remember seeing Specialist 5 and 6 when I was first in the military, and we were never quite sure what to do with them (the Marines had no such rank). I even did a report on this rank 2 years ago, and how and why it was eventually eliminated (along with the "Super Specialist" ranks of S-8 and S-9 which were never given). Mostly it was just because it caused to many problems with the standard rank structure.

And I am sure the Army would love to do away with the "Up or Out" policy also. However, it is a simple way to resolve the problems that arise whenever they are ordered to make huge cuts in the number of personnel. When they are tasked with cutting 50,000 people, one of the easiest ways is to just look at what rank people are and how long they have been in.

 

You're entirely correct and I am sorry, thank you for criticizing me. Having discussions such as these are a great way to refine or reform an outlook and see where a vision needs to be improved. At this point in time for me, much needs more investigation to be able to provide support for my vision which is in need of more thought, I never meant to appear self-certain. We learn about the world from others and social interaction and participation. I am not familiar or knowledgeable enough on military programs to make these judgements or criticisms on what needs to be cut and what needs to stay, but I see there is need for reform. I see that there is a need to avoid aggression and prevent conflict if we want our world to have a decent future. I may not know the details but I see the big picture. All I am trying to say is that we do not need and should not have a military of this size and force, it should be reduced in weapons and forces as it is in our best interests to avoid violent conflict and acts of imperialism or diplomacy by force.

Indeed I have. Mismanaged British imperialism is responsible for many of the world's problems. Genocide, global misrule and mismanagement, violations of human rights. Forced imperialism and forced change always inevitably leads to retaliation and conflict, and with retaliation it is always inevitable that empires will fall. Native people do not accept invasion. Foreign occupation is opposed. Imagine is a superpower, say China, invaded, occupied, and controlled the U.S. while oppressing the American people. CoForeign occupation is opposed and always falls in time. It's human nature, a chemical reaction. Self-determination must exist for a governing system to survive. Freedom must be supported if government is to be supported and survive. Favorable power cannot be permanently gained by force or oppression, only by aid and diplomacy. Imperialism is a dead end.

“Remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall." Mahatma Gandhi

British interference in cultural tradition lead to the 1857 rebellion of the British army's native Sepoy soldiers, spreading the rebellion across the region while resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands. This was the considered the first act of Indian rebellion, the beginnings of widespread various successive acts of retaliation, eventually ending with the peaceful revolution of Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi entered the scene in 1920 and started initiatives to organize people against British rule. Anti British activities like the Swadeshi movement against British Raj took place and spread all over the Indian sub-continent. Revolution was inevitable.

If the British had taken action to prevent such acts of violence due to partition it would be just cause, even if it were for gain in diplomatic interests. However, empires don't care about people's well being as a priority, especially those of weaker nations; their primary concern is milking countries of resources and profit. Oppressing people and taking over foreign nations is not a just cause. British rule had not come to India with intentions to retain good relations for the Indian people or care for the cost to the natives, and they made that clear.

The British sought to achieve a monopolistic trading position through India, and make the colony a major market for British goods in free trade. In aim of this goal, British rule brought negative effects along with the positive effects of bringing order and stability through replacing the warlord establishment. The greater efficiency of government brought a bigger share of the national product was available for landlords, capitalists and the new professional classes. The British were not opposed to Indian economic development if it increased their markets but refused to help in areas where they felt there was conflict with their own economic interests or political security. Though British rule increased social mobility and took away some of the injustice of the cultural Hindu caste system, industrialization brought about a new economic form of socially immobility. British business rule lead to industrialization and degrading, exhausting, miserable factory labor as well as unjust farm labor conditions as an entirely new Western-esque Indian working class was formed to serve their despotic colonial rule. The British took the Indian worker away from the spinning wheel and Indian hand-loom and substituted working-class labor, leading to the decline of prosperous fabric centered towns. Excerpt from Adam Smith "No other sovereigns ever were, or, from the nature of things, ever could be, so perfectly indifferent about the happiness or misery of their subjects, the improvement or waste of their dominions, the glory or disgrace of their administration, as, from irresistible moral causes, the greater part of the proprietors of such a mercantile company are, and necessarily must be."

The rule of the British that became known as British Raj exploited the economy of India massively, introducing oppressive laws that lead many people to starve to death. India became a nation of agriculture and manufacturing industry. Agriculture deteriorated not being capable of being conducted on the British principle of free competition. Agricultural villages were formed to run as businesses for profit. Harvest corresponds in relation with good and bad government. With Champaran in Bihar, farmers were forced into producing crops that were not food grains during seasons of famine. From an excerpt from "maharashtraweb", "They continued to be taxed heavily during the whole period of famine. The main aim of the British rule was to acquire cheap raw materials from India and export them to their country and simultaneously construct an internal market. The Raj effectively considered the native population second class citizens; a formula that was repeated in many other countries around the world." British rule exploited labor and costs, even in conditions of famine.

All of this forced change only leads to popular opposition. The British disrupted the natural progress and self-sustaining support of civilization through basically breaking down the entire framework of Indian civilization. A past full of invasions, famines, conquests and revolutions failed to damage agricultural prosperity and the native cultural tradition and social system. The Indians lost their old world and lived in misery in an entirely new realm. After all of this, the British would not stay to oversee the clean-up for the mess they had caused or pay reparations for the damage they had done.

Any positive effects of keeping order for the "uncivilized lesser people", as the social darwinism of the time would attempt to justify forced change upon the weaker people, do not outweigh the negative. Any positive effects of keeping order for the "uncivilized lesser people" as the social darwinism of the age would perceive it as do not justify the means. The ends don't justify the means. British occupation did not solve problems, but rather pushed them aside by enforcing a passive life upon the native population, when they are only bound to arise later. They restricted conflict with oppression and caused pressures to build, leading the existing conflict to rise up and explode once again in chaos.

For the most part, government only cares about people when people coincide with their interests. After pulling out their rule and leaving the region in massive conflict the Indian people are of no concern to the British Empire. The manor in which states are cut off of an empire leads to conflict, not cutting off states themselves. The British Partition divided people up into regions, forcing families to relocate across the region. Families were sometimes separated and Indians were forced to leave hometowns and relatives. This chaos caused emotions to run high in a time of great stress and uncertainty. As the partition was based on religion, the religious groups blamed one another and saw each other as self-centered and as wanting to break away. Hindus and Muslims lived peacefully together under the Mughal rule, but British Raj carved the path for communal disharmony. Partition forced the formation of new communities, leading communalism to rage freely, eventually morphing into the intense hatred and harmful effects that exists between the nations of Pakistan, Bangladash, and India.

As soon as partition was announced, the British withdrew in a hasty manor being unwilling to crack down effectively on communal violence, understaffing the Punjab Boundary Force and not supplying it with air cover. When the time came, there weren't enough troops to deal with rioters, one reason was that the British were paranoid that they, the rulers, would be attacked as soon as the decision to leave was made public. The entire British population shared the same fear. In the summer of 1946, a young officer wrote to his family of how he thought that when the British left, "we shall virtually have the whole country against us (for long enough at all events to wipe out our scattered European population) before the show becomes, as inevitably it will, a communal scrap between Hindus and Muslims". The policy of the Raj in its last days was to make the protection of British lives the top priority. The governor of Bengal stated that the first action taken would be for the withdrawal of British troops and "to prepare for a concentration of outlying Europeans at very short notice as soon as hostile reactions began to show themselves." The truth was that no one was really interested in killing British white men and women. Imagined insecurity meant that many army units were placed near European settlements, instead of being freed for riot control elsewhere. They withdrew in fear of this justly provoked retaliation.

Though without leaving the country in partition would have been quite unfavorable to the region's inhabitants as well. However, the catastrophe of British Partition was one that could have been avoided with reparations and aid along with the oversight of diplomats and officials to keep order, which the British neglected. The Indian partition would not have been near as bloody if the British had made up for the damage they had done, and took part in assisting to put the broken country back together. They left the natives to accept the blame and cope with the horrible fall-out of Independence and Partition.

Evidently, nations are motivated by self-interest and cannot be expected to supply aid to people in need or provide protection to the people it abuses. It isn't their priority. It is only through a truly democratic international system along with the force of international pressure and human support that this motive can be overridden and human interests can be achieved.

Thank you for the detailed explanation, it makes sense. It is obvious there is need for reform in England, and this can be achieved through lessening centralized power and promoting democracy and assuring checks of power between systems in order to prevent mismanagement in government policy that opposes the people. Government should not assume the authority to take up the responsibility of forcing change against the people's will. It is not the governments place to attempt to spark progress or control culture, free thought, and society, rather it is the people's right to and their duty to progress society at their own will.

Though it may greatly help to provide aid in the present, the United States is simply not the best we can hope for in achieving international well-being. The US provides aid to nations when it is favorable to them or they are obligated, and neglects to assist when it is not, just as all nations do. It will assist and provide aid to nations that have resources like oil and ignore those who are resource poor, just as the UN in its present form does. After all, the UN is controlled by the authority given to the great superpowers of the security council and cannot function when these powers object. Perhaps if the UN were reformed to have democratic, balanced, international, global representation and authority [/B](just as I have been speaking of throughout this entire discussion)[/B] the international United Nations system would be allowed to function. Perhaps if the UN was run by democratic voice and not the nationalistic self-interest of the powerful it would be able to function in a matter that permits it to supply aid and push for the best interests of humanity rather than a select few who are lucky enough to coincide with the interests of the superpowers.

The wars in the middle east are hardly just. What was the just cause in using methods that involve cutting off supply trucks to regions of Afghans who rely and barely survive on UN aid? What was the just cause in carpet bombing a nation? What was the just cause in leading millions of innocents, not terrorists, to the threat of starvation? What was the just cause in ignoring calls of help from anti-Taliban rebels and aid workers? What was the just cause in ignoring statement after statement and warning after warning from the UN and human rights groups around the globe? What is the just cause in killing people, occupying a country, and oppressing its people to remove people from dependence on Saudi oil? What was the just cause in thousands of civilian casualties throughout years of bombing?

I could go on, but what I am trying to ask is to what extent are the means justified in protecting world trade interests or achieving national aims such as revenge? How muh is the cause truly worth? The cause for war might often present itself as just, yet the means are often far from being just. Not only are they far from being just, they are far from achieving the supposed "cause". For example, what does leading innocent Afghans to starve do to get revenge on Al Qaeda? What did the carpet bombing and murder of so many civilians across Vietnam accomplish? Why are these actions necessary in achieving such noble goals? What would the government engage in such attacks? It isn't a coincidence that wars so often tend to "go wrong." The aims of war are reached for by unjust government plans of action. War may break soldiers and causes them to do atrocious things, such as the members of "Kill Team" in the Maywand District Murders who killed Afghan civilians for sport.

Wars always seem to be presented as just causes and noble endeavors, while in reality they consist of a government using all means necessary to achieve a government goal, no matter the cost, and no matter how unjust the methods may become. They consist of mass manipulation and propaganda through the media to inspire support in their cause with the restriction of free speech and free thought, often fabricating excuses to allow them to enter into war. They may initially appear heroic and noble, but are really all about achieving an aim with careless shows of military might; promoting nationalistic self-interest above the good of others.

You see, the US military is often unjustified in its means to achieve the ends to these so-called, "just causes" in war, as human well-being does not coincide or register as a priority with the interests of the superpower. The West has set itself up to profit off of others, not for the good of the world. The nation may use whatever force necessary to achieve whatever its aims are in promoting nationalistic self interest above the world, guided by a philosophy focused on the ends justifying the means. Whatever the motives, wars consist of the promotion of nationalistic self-interest, unnecessary promotion that can often easily be avoided with proper diplomacy or be left entirely un-pursued.

"Everyone's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's really an easy way: Stop participating in it."- Noam Chomsky

Perhaps if the US did not participate in terrorism it would not suffer from terrorism. Perhaps if it didn't use force and go on the aggressive offensive and engage in the bombing of weak nations, the occupation of foreign lands, and the protection of terroristic states such as Israel we would not not have had a catastrophe like 9/11. The game of politics is much like the warring families of Romeo and Juliet; fighting and competition between parties without reason or justification. They compete only because they are a part of another group and were born into a certain nation, promoting their own importance and significance above others. Using competition to achieve their own good when it can be more productive through cooperation. Even if the Afghan war was an act of revenge and an eye for an eye it only leads to more conflict and complications through the inflammation of violence. Brutal torture and bombing only leads to heightened opposition. An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind. Whether or not the wars in the Middle East are for oil is irrelevant in this matter; nation-centric aims were promoted in blind nationalism nonetheless. War is always presented as a seemingly just cause, but overall often fails to be handled justly, as nations don't have a need to look out for anything more than themselves, nations don't look out for the best interests of humanity. Fighting democracy and freedom, using violence and oppression to achieve power gains.

Using force to achieve ends only leads to more problems and should be avoided, when favorable, at all costs. You never need an argument against violence, you need an argument for violence. All forms of aggression inevitably lead to forms of retaliation. Fire cannot be fought with fire, darkness cannot drive out darkness. With pressures building from each act of aggression it is only a matter of time before there are serious consequences to the aggressor. It is a predictable outcome, a chemical formula for disaster. We must minimize military action to avoid disaster. Diplomacy is more productive than war. We must use diplomacy instead of war to cause long-term change. With any kind of violent force or forced change or violation of human morality we make more enemies than friends, creating more problems than solutions. When government actions go against human will and cause unnecessary human suffering human will speaks up and calls for change leading to popular opposition abroad and at home. Nations must look out for humanity in order to avoid opposition and further the good of human interests as well as to further long-term progress for nationalistic and inter-nationalistic good.

I am not familiar or knowledgeable enough to be able to express whether or not and why which programs need to be cut. I don't know of a name of a specific program, but all aims to weaponize and militarize outer space should be avoided and prevented to avert grave danger for international peace and security. Science for the sake of knowledge, peace, understanding, and human progress should be supported, not science for illegal projects that exist for war, murder, destruction, and a show of military force. The only states that abstained from voting on the 2000 UN General Assembly resolution against weaponization in space were the US and its Israeli and Micronesian allies. Force size should be reduced to a level in which they are only able to project such immense influence and authority, though I cannot name a set range of size or cuts. As for new employment, that is a very significant problem in cutting spending, and that is why if spending is ever to be cut it must be done gradually to prevent massive unemployment. For returning soldiers, there are plenty of opportunities for careers elsewhere even in economic troubles, especially when career interests are pursued. Areas of job growth in computer sciences and technology, medical technology, nursing, medical assistance, pharmacy, and therapy illustrate viable opportunity in pursuing a career. Careers can be paid for by the G.I. Bill, which I admire. Budget cuts would result in positive change as well as negative, but reform can be made to compensate for the negative and in the long term the positive effects may be allowed to prevail if favored by the government.

 

I left the army in ’99 so I didn’t participate in the latest adventures in Iraq or Afghanistan. Based on what I have heard from friends who are still in the army the training is (still) hopeless. In these types of war close interaction with the locals all the way down to squad level is of paramount importance. Can all the simplistic “those who fight against us do so because they hate freedom” propaganda crap (a friend of mine was served that line) and spend more time on explaining the local power structure, their religion, and history, and most of all explain that is incredibly important to respect the locals even if they wear funny hats. After all we are there to help them. At least that is the official line.

And yes, tell people not to pee where the locals wash

- - - Updated - - -

I left the army in ’99 so I didn’t participate in the latest adventures in Iraq or Afghanistan. Based on what I have heard from friends who are still in the army the training is (still) hopeless. In these types of war close interaction with the locals all the way down to squad level is of paramount importance. Can all the simplistic “those who fight against us do so because they hate freedom” propaganda crap (a friend of mine was served that line) and spend more time on explaining the local power structure, their religion, and history, and most of all explain that is incredibly important to respect the locals even if they wear funny hats. After all we are there to help them. At least that is the official line.

And yes, tell people not to pee where the locals wash

 

Actually, I give everybody respect, wherever I may be. I have lost track of the number of places that people I have served with have come from. France, England, Norway, Spain, Soviet Union, Qatar, Kuwait, Japan, Jordan, Germany, Panama, and that is all that I could come up with in a few seconds, I know I am missing at least some countries.

Maybe it is because I spent half of my life growing up in Los Angeles, but to me other cultures are to be accepted and respected. And in this aspect I really ignore any political lines, I simply see people as people. When people all around were (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about the mosque in NYC, I myself was disgusted. Not at the mosque, but at the ugly, intolerant, hateful things that people were saying about Islam and those that practice it.

But I still remember some of the various things I learned over the years. Like to not say "Pineapple" when I was in Panama, not refer to the people of Okinawa as "Japanese", and be careful in where and how you clean your feet. In the Middle East, we mostly simply had to show respect (as we would in any country). For the most part it was understood we were foreigners, but as long as we made the attempt it was generally accepted.

However, to some of those we are fighting, that "propaganda crap" is a fact. Several of the groups have targeted us because we allow complete freedom of religion, and they see us as week and corrupt because of that. Some of the clergy over there actually do preach that the new "Holy Land" for Islam will be in the United States. And when the US drives out the hated Jews and converts, the new Golden Age will begin.

 

Your points on the Specialist ranks are not without merit. I mean, they were eliminated after all. However they did provide some benefit. Of course, I imagine the Army wants to have as large a feeder for NCO's as possible.

And the Specialist ranks issue sort of runs to another issue I forgot to mention, the condition of the Warrant Officer Corps. When I was first in the Army, Warrants (for the technical MOS's, not the pilots) were technical gods that Officers and NCO's alike respected for their technical backgrounds. In my career field, their knowledge and experience were vital to accomplishing the unit's mission. By the time I retired, Warrants were relegated to the status of 3rd Lieutenants, doing administrative and leadership duties that are not really in their lane. They might as well bite the bullet and just convert them all to regular officers.

 

If only everybody acted like you do abroad

I can’t agree with you entirely on the ‘they hate our freedom’ thing though. You can of course always find someone somewhere who believes that sort of thing, but the story we were peddled that Bin Laden attacked because he ‘hates freedom’ is just a cheap trick to make us ignore why he really did it.

 

What he hates is our definition of freedom, specifically "Freedom of Religion". He was a fanatic that believed in a "Single World Religion", and the group he founded rejects any form of religion (even Islam) that is not like their own.

"Hating our freedom" is a simplification, but it is accurate. Those that share that belief for example turned Afghanistan into an autocratic theocracy, where any deviation generally resulted in severe punishments, like stoning.

 

What is the US going to replace the Ticonderoga's with?

 

Well, right now with nothing.

In 2010 the Obama Administration cancelled the CG(X) program, which was to be essentially an upsized Zumwalt class destroyer. The Navy has now announced that the planned retirement of the remaining Ticonderoga class cruisers is on hold, and they are increasing their orders of Arleigh Burke class Destroyers to help take up the slack of those already retired (5), and those that are going to hit the end of their service life in the next 10 or so years.

 

Moar Gun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i68cEsALWt0

 

I am now sort of starting to get worried about the lack of US future ships. They are spending far to much on the Zumwalt class, Freedom and Independence classes and $14 billion on the new carrier, and they are building them in very small numbers so the per ship cost is very high. Even the new Burkes are costing $2 billion each. The overall thinking seems to be less ships but better technology. They are doing the same with the Royal Navy, building ships in such small numbers they are costing stupid money, £1.1 billion for a destroyer with half it's armament potential fitted. I think they did the right thing cancelling the CG(X), it was way over the top. The Ticon's are good enough, so build as many of them as you can, rather than wasting billions of dollars on things like the Zumwalt class. Some sort of US and allies program, with the UK, Japan and a few other countries to build a cruiser could be possible. The America class amphibious assault ship is very good and at a fair enough price.

 

I like the concept of joint allied design and construction of naval vessels. By increasing the number of units built across several national navies, it reduces the per ship cost, and it simplifies training and interoperability. However that was the idea behind the F35 fighter, and it seems to have turned into an unkillable boondoggle. Again, I like the concept but I don't think we have figured out the practicality of pulling it off.

 

Actually, my entire issue with the Zumwalt and other classes is what is their purpose?

If I was to design a class of ships to accompany an Amphibious Assault, or operation solo or with a smaller surface fleet. The factors of stealth and greater surface firepower would be very good for this purpose. However, it achieves those tasks by reducing it's capability in it's primare role, operating as an Air Defense ship.

And all the "stealth" in the world upon a cruiser or destroyer when it is trying to guard a ship that is as stealthy as the island of Ireland. There is nothing "stealthy" about a carrier, and that is 90% of the job of a Guided Missile Cruiser.

And this is also my problem with the Zumwalt class destroyers. They are stealthy, yea. But they have around 20 less launchers and reload bunkers around half the size of the Arleigh Burkes.

I honestly think that if they want such "stealth ships", they should be in addition to more conventional ships, not in place of. Most of the benefits of these newer classes would be lost when protecting a carrier.

 

That is a very popular belief but it is wrong.

Here is what Bin Laden said in his 2004 speech:

Personally I would also prefer if he was just some raving crazy who hated freedom and mom’s apple pie, partly because then it would be easier to dismiss what he says as ramblings and partly because it would mean that everything we do if great and good. But what motivates him is also a form of freedom and that is annoying as hell for us, because it is directly linked to our support of tyrants in the Middle East. So far we have essentially ignored the main motivator of our enemy and I fear that we will see more of attacks until we dare to face reality.

 

At first I thought about a joint European program with the UK, France, Spain and Italy building 16 ships, but the Italians and Spanish have no money, the French don't have a need for more than 4 cruisers and the UK would never have enough money to build it by itself being a declining power. It would be the same design as they Type 45 but bigger, I would say 12,000 tons, 120 A-70 launchers, 4 light torpedo tubes, 2 harpoon launchers, 3 CIWS, able to house 2 medium lift helicopters or UCAV's and have the PAAMS combat system, I would also build a long range anti-air missile along with the cruisers. I would be a lot happier with a ship like that defend the Royal Navies carriers than the Type 45.

I agree it's a none starter as the UK and France would need to use AEGIS, something they wouldn't do. But building 40 ships would make the unit cost much less. The F-35 was a stupid idea, trying to get a jet capable of 3 different role and operating from 3 different platforms, it just isn't going to happen. They need to cut the air defence role out and cut the F-35B or F-35A from the program. It's single engine isn't good if you flying over Canada or Australia with nobody around of hundreds of miles.

 

I really could not care less what he said in 2004. More important, I consider what he said in 1998:

Or this one, in 1996:

Remember, his idea of "Freedom" is a strict Islamic theocracy, along the lines of the Taliban. Anything else is violated his "freedom".

Do you really not get that?

 

So if you were going to design a new cruiser for the USN what sort of a ship would you want to end up with and how much do you think it would cost?

 

Cost is something I never really get into or worry about if you notice. After all, over the lifetime of a ship more is usually spent keeping it operational and doing updates then was spent in the initial construction. I leave money for the beancounters, I worry about it being able to fulfill it's mission, and protecting the lives of it's crew and the ships it protects.

I would probably go along the lines of what we have now. The Ticonderoga has been a great platform. The newest is around 20 years old now, and if anything are a bit small for cruisers (it was designed on a Spruance class destroyer hull after all). I would basically take the old Tico and just upsize the hull by about 10-15%, and eliminate the torpedo tubes. Then I would add in the capability for launching Tomahawks, and 1 double or triple mount 6" or 8" gun turret. This would increase it's firepower against land threats (part of the reason for the Littoral ships), and also increase it's ground attack range without seriously damaging it's main roles of air defense or surface defense (the guns would have a greater range then the torpedoes, and ASW missiles can already be used in the missile launchers).

Myself, I simply see no reason for putting torpedoes on a major surface combatant. It is a waste of hull space that can be better for other systems that have greater usefulness. And the current platform is a great one already, some changes can be done which would keep the costs down and eliminates the need to get all 'fancy" with it.

Of course, if I had my way I would eliminate the entire concept of "Littoral Combat Ship" in the first place. I would instead go back to what President Reagan did, and bring back the old Iowa class Battleships. Or even better, make a new similar ship along the lines of a Deutschland class cruiser, what was commonly called the "Pocket Battleship". Simply eliminate the 8 6" guns (leaving 3-6 11" guns), and eliminate the torpedo tubes. Then in their place install the Mark 41 VLS system and as many missiles as can be loaded into it safely.

This would cover the issues of a "littoral" ship, be able to support troops on the ground, and also work for solo patrols, small fleet operations, or protecting a Carrier force.