Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

[Dr_Grip]

Apart from bombing muslims, imagine already having NATO in place in 1919. Who knows what will happen to Russia in 20 years, the Cold War might be back on. It's also a good counterweight against emerging powers. Balance of power is handy.

To have a "balance of power" a emerging power or two would be needed. Right now we have one single superpower, the USA. That's not a balance of power but a classic empire.

Regarding 1919 and the horrors of Nazism that followed: If the Legue of Nations, not unlike todays UN, would not have been intentionally weak because people who believed in Realism constructed it that way, it would have helped more than the NATO.

 

[remizak]

Here is a fantastic video made by a Chicago filmmaker from may 18-21 protests




"I'm really not on either side of this battle, but I wanted to capture the imagery of the event," Eisenberg said. He added that he wasn't around when anyone was seriously injured, but "I can say that it felt a lot more dangerous than it seems even in this video." - Mike Eisenberg Filmmaker

 

[jetsetter]

all NATO member's defense budgets, the question whether NATO should not be disbanded because it is a costly relict that is not needed any more should be asked.

Costly? To whom? The European members are spending a pittance on defense with the U.K. leading the pack at a staggering (lol) 2.7% of GDP. That is nothing. The U.S. spending approximately 5% of GDP on defense which while higher than the European members is still quite low. I would prefer a raise to approximately 6.5-7%.

http://img207.imageshack.**/img207/6638/heritagedefensespending.jpg

 

[argatoga]

Why do we need to raise the U.S. defense budget? I bet if we audited the DoD we could free up a lot of wasted cash.

 

[jetsetter]

Why do we need to raise the U.S. defense budget? I bet if we audited the DoD we could free up a lot of wasted cash.

Alright. After we get rid of the "waste" I would still raise it. I want a greatly expanded and modernized Army, Navy, and Air Force. Most do not seem to understand the military is not there to just defend us. It is a tool, an instrument of policy. I believe in a Machtpolitik and Realpolitik world. Power is key to success.

 

[Dr_Grip]

Costly? To whom? The European members are spending a pittance on defense with the U.K. leading the pack at a staggering (lol) 2.7% of GDP. That is nothing. The U.S. spending approximately 5% of GDP on defense which while higher than the European members is still quite low. I would prefer a raise to approximately 6.5-7%.

Which does not mean that parts of these two to seven percent of the GDP could not be better invested than into running NATO (for example into a fighter jet that does not suffocate it's pilots). In fact, the low amount of money spent on defense these days was exactly the point I was making in my post.

I want a greatly expanded and modernized Army, Navy, and Air Force. Most do not seem to understand the military is not there to just defend us. It is a tool, an instrument of policy. I believe in a Machtpolitik and Realpolitik world. Power is key to success.

You obviously did not click the "realism" link above, otherwise you would not have made the embarrassing mistake of claiming to believe into two related, but partly contradictionary concepts: While both believe that International Relations are and have to be a amoral, lawless Hobbesian state of nature in which morals are but an illusion, "Machtpolitik" is about dominance and gaining power, doing whatever it takes to protect or further one's interests, while "Realpolitik" is about keeping a balance of power.

I, by the way, would argue that countries (or societies with a common political agenda, to expand it further) are not some weird amoral entities, but are run by human beings who of course have the capacities to moral judgement. Thus, International Relations can be run in a moral way. Maybe realism provides the most accurate description about how International Relations work today, but I don't buy the normative component that it has to be this way.

 

[nomix]

I have an awesome pet rock I will rent to you for $1,000 a day. You never know when it might come in handy!

Listen, it's the nature of defense. Almost every nation in the world has an army. Most nations don't use them for much. So it makes sense having a small army as it never gets used. But then again, the purpose of an army is to defend the realm. And once you actually need it, it won't work properly if it's too weak.

So on one hand, you want it to be cheap because you don't use it. On the other hand, you want it to be strong for when you need it. No matter how strong a peacetime army is, you'll always want it stronger if war breaks out.

My parents have insured their house in case it burns down. It hasn't so far, and chances are, it won't. Why bother with insurance, then?

As for the pet, I'd prefer a cat. Mooaaau.

To have a "balance of power" a emerging power or two would be needed. Right now we have one single superpower, the USA. That's not a balance of power but a classic empire.

Better be prepared for it. The US doesn't have an empire right now, but the US is involved in places. That's different.

Right now, China is becoming a strong counterweight to the US. Economically for now, but in years to come, China might have a blue ocean navy and "interests" in Africa to manifest. That's when we WANT a US carrier group in the Indian Ocean.

Regarding 1919 and the horrors of Nazism that followed: If the Legue of Nations, not unlike todays UN, would not have been intentionally weak because people who believed in Realism constructed it that way, it would have helped more than the NATO.

NATO were able to act in Kosovo, the UN would never have. Hitler was mad, but he wasn't that mad.

Costly? To whom? The European members are spending a pittance on defense with the U.K. leading the pack at a staggering (lol) 2.7% of GDP. That is nothing. The U.S. spending approximately 5% of GDP on defense which while higher than the European members is still quite low. I would prefer a raise to approximately 6.5-7%.

http://img207.imageshack.**/img207/6638/heritagedefensespending.jpg

The US has a lot to spend its budget on. You really need proper health care before you need to spend more on defence. I too want a strong US military (not because I share every US cause, some of them are damnright idiotic), but because China would be worse as a world master than the US.

 

[Dr_Grip]

Better be prepared for it. The US doesn't have an empire right now, but the US is involved in places. That's different.

Right now, China is becoming a strong counterweight to the US. Economically for now, but in years to come, China might have a blue ocean navy and "interests" in Africa to manifest. That's when we WANT a US carrier group in the Indian Ocean.

The U.S. are de facto in control of NATO and via their pets in the British government of European military policy. They are an empire, but one that is slowly losing it's grasp. I think you are spot on about China and, to be honest, I think the world would be a safer place with some kind of new cold war keeping the ambitions of both the US, China and maybe a re-born Russian at bay.

NATO were able to act in Kosovo, the UN would never have. Hitler was mad, but he wasn't that mad.

The UN suffer from the same realist weaknesses as the League of Nations, by the way. Not as badly, but it still does.

If you are interested in a quite brilliant look at the Kosovo campaign, read this essay. The author is a pacifist (which I am not) but he makes some pretty strong points about Kosovo.
Regarding NATO being imperative in resolving the conflict, I think Libya shows that there are indications that an informal coalition can do peacekeeping (or whatever it was they did in Libya) as good as NATO can.

 

[Cobol74]

One thought here has been amoungst the ruling elites (I am sorry to say) of the Falklands, and a few other tiny dependencies: "Oh sod it, let them go it is costing way too much to keep them defended." How do we signal we do not care for them any more?

I know defense cuts, cut the Navy and it's air arm - what have we just done?

 

[Spectre]

One thought here has been amoungst the ruling elites (I am sorry to say) of the Falklands, and a few other tiny dependencies: "Oh sod it, let them go it is costing way too much to keep them defended." How do we signal we do not care for them any more?

I know defense cuts, cut the Navy and it's air arm - what have we just done?

Given away your next resource field to Argentina. Check out the massive oil and gas finds they're having in the Falklands area. Then check out the increasing pressure and agitation coming from Argentina to get the Falklands 'back.'

North Sea resources won't last forever - in fact, the field is slowly playing out now - where will Ukania go for oil and gas then and who will you have to bow to if you want some?

The US is not in the same position - we have unexploited oil sources seemingly everywhere we look and the Gulf of Mexico shows no signs of quitting any time soon. California could be an oil power on the world stage all by themselves if they would actually start exploiting what they have. As it is, the California offshore area is so laden with oil, it seeps to the surface and will coat parts of local beaches. And we've discovered exploitable resources all over the West, possibly enough to dwarf the Middle East. Not to mention all the finds in the drilling reserve in ANWR. We don't have the political will at present to exploit much of these, but that's purely artificial and will be blown away if/when times get much harder. But all of these are within our territory or at least within our EEZ.

Where will Britain go? And don't say 'We'll get it from the US," because that is very dependent on presidential administrations and our current one really does not like you very much; future ones may not either. And, for that matter, the infrastructure for convenient oil transfers from North America to Britain doesn't exist.

 

[Cobol74]

Given away your next resource field to Argentina. Check out the massive oil and gas finds they're having in the Falklands area. Then check out the increasing pressure and agitation coming from Argentina to get the Falklands 'back.'

North Sea resources won't last forever - in fact, the field is slowly playing out now - where will Ukania go for oil then and who will you have to bow to if you want some?

The US is not in the same position - we have unexploited oil sources seemingly everywhere we look and the Gulf of Mexico shows no signs of quitting any time soon. California could be an oil power on the world stage all by themselves if they would actually start exploiting what they have. As it is, the California offshore area is so laden with oil, it seeps to the surface and will coat parts of local beaches. And we've discovered exploitable resources all over the West, possibly enough to dwarf the Middle East. Not to mention all the finds in the drilling reserve in ANWR. We don't have the political will at present to exploit much of these, but that's purely artificial and will be blown away if/when times get much harder. But all of these are within our territory or at least within our EEZ.

Where will Britain go? And don't say 'We'll get it from the US," because that is very dependent on presidential administrations and our current one really does not like you very much; future ones may not either. And, for that matter, the infrastructure for convenient oil transfers from North America to Britain doesn't exist.

Yep I agree, result of alot of rubbish government and strange thinking by some people who it appears are in power. In some ways the North Sea Oil was detrimental to the country, it made the GBP way too expensive for a long period of time, and we 'gave' away too much of the oil and did not control its exploitation within a national plan. (How Labour of me - but I go with what I think works not with some stupid Right/Left sticker).

Our Politics is dominated (and yours too actually) by stuff that does not matter that much (Classic here - Gay Marriage.)

Governments are not good at 'complicated' (well ours are not), and the world is now complicated. As I said elsewhere the really good Politicians seem to be German - annoying but true. They have made one big mistake though with dropping the EURO rules to let countries in who had no right to enter. Possibly done to please their new best mates the French.

 

[Dr_Grip]

I'd like to disagree. What Merkel and Sch?uble are doing is short-sighted, self-centered and irresponsible. The austerity measures imposed on Greece, Spain and Portugal drive these countries into a 1930s-style recession. We already got commies and nazis fighting on the streets of Athens. It's the Weimar Republic all over again, as if no one has learnt a lesson from the 1930s.

Austerity is important as is responsible spending. But with the economy going down the drain and "youth" (as in "under 30") unemployment knocking at 50%, the austerity measures will do nothing to save Greece (or Spain, or Portugal). They will amass more debt. And someday either the commies or the nazis or the military will have no more of it and take matters into their own hands. A left-wing fascist, right-wing fascist or military dictatorship right in the middle of the Schengen area. Sounds promising, right?

On the other hand, loaning money at 0% interest is a great short-term benefit. And seeing that Merkel is running for re-election in 2013, short-term benefit is all she cares about. She has another four years to clean up the mess then.

 

[Spectre]

Yep I agree, result of alot of rubbish government and strange thinking by some people who it appears are in power.

Our Politics is dominated (and yours too actually) by stuff that does not matter that much. Governments are not good complicated, and the world is now complicated. As I said elsewhere the really good Politicians seem to be German - annoying but true. They have made one big mistake though with dropping the EURO rules to let countries in who had no right to enter.

We have our own set of problems - but I suspect (from both my own thought and reading some very well reasoned analyses) you're about to find out sometime in the next 5-15 years that your country was faced with the choice on whether to keep funding programs to make unemployed yobs feel good and appease the nannyists or keep the lights on - and you chose... poorly. And shortly after that will have the ability to do neither.

As for the EuroZone, I give it five years before it's gone or a shadow of its former self. The only remotely solvent major member appears to be Germany - there is word that the French banking system may actually be in worse shape than Spain, but is hiding it. Some of the analyses I've seen on France are really frightening - potentially far worse than the US 1929 crashes. Personally, I don't see Germany bailing out the rest of the EU, I don't see China doing it any more (they're starting to have their own problems) and while our current administration may want to I suspect that this close to the election they don't have the political capital to spend on it.

I figure Greece will be leaving/get kicked out soon, and probably will shortly be followed by most of the rest of the PIIGS. Not sure about Italy, though.

 

[Dr_Grip]

I don't really think not letting the poor starve ("make unemployed yobs feel good" in Spectre-speak) is too much to ask from a society as rich as Britain. Given that Canon is planning to have all their camera factories completely robotized within five years and letting go all of their assembly staff, an example that will have other tech companies and other branches of production follow suit, we should not worry about getting back mass employment any more but better figure out how to distribute productivity gains to those left without a job/find something to do for these people. And forcing them to work in patient/elderly care without any pay like the Brits do shows nothing but a blatant disrespect for those people that can't fight the brilliant level of "care" these forced workers will provide. I don't want to lie defenseless in a hospital bed for some uneducated sixteen-year-old to beat his frustrations into me.

Best-case scenario is a "Star Trek" world where people work for the advancement of humanity as a whole, not for money (and, I presume, those too lazy to care about that simple get fed and entertained cause society can afford it), worst-case scenario are few heavily-guarded outposts of civilization as we know it, populated by the filthy rich and lawless wastelands where the rest of humanity is left on its own. This is a staple of sci-fi literature since the 1950s, as well.

 

[Spectre]

Ahem: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/345164-single-mum-gets-1-2m-council-house

Sounds like someone needs a 1.2 million pound budget cut.

Also - basic living and existence isn't what I was talking about, and you know it. There are currently programs in the UK (I forget the name) which are run by the government with the express goal of raising the youth's (18-25) self-esteem with the object that the subject will go forth and sin no more as he now has high self-esteem. You can probably guess how well that works - something about minor unrest in the UK last year? Anyway, much like similar programs in the US (specifically California) it does not work and it makes the problems worse. So why continue to dump money into something that doesn't work?

 

[Dr_Grip]

The problem there is the same as with healthcare: By now there's a large sector of "welfare industry" that lives off useless programs like the ones you mentioned and employ lobbyists to ensure that cuts will be made to the basic allowance of the unemployed to force them into these programs, instead of keeping intact or even raising basic allowance and cut these programs.

And by the way, "unemployment allowance royalty" like the person in the linked article are a problem. Just as tax dogers, construction companies presenting bogus bills, defense contractors spending government money for non-government research and all the other persons and companies who make a living by cheating the government are.

 

[GRtak]

Cato To Track Bad Cops

 

[argatoga]

Listen, it's the nature of defense. Almost every nation in the world has an army. Most nations don't use them for much. So it makes sense having a small army as it never gets used. But then again, the purpose of an army is to defend the realm. And once you actually need it, it won't work properly if it's too weak.

So on one hand, you want it to be cheap because you don't use it. On the other hand, you want it to be strong for when you need it. No matter how strong a peacetime army is, you'll always want it stronger if war breaks out.

My parents have insured their house in case it burns down. It hasn't so far, and chances are, it won't. Why bother with insurance, then?

As for the pet, I'd prefer a cat. Mooaaau.

I have no problem with national defense. I do have a problem with an International military with a nebulous objective. NATO no longer has a reason to exist, no nation is going to roll a wave of tanks into Europe, so now NATO is looking for a reason to exist. That is not a comforting thought, I don't want them looking for a reason to kill people.

 

[jmsprovan]

Greece has no option but Austerity, if they default then it will have an even worse effect than the currently imposed Austerity because a new Greek drachma will be worthless, which will lead to hyperinflation and even greater civil disobedience as people aren't being paid. No foreign investor will touch it with a ten foot pole and Greece has very few exports from which to drive a recovery, unless the world starts consuming Yoghurt in much larger quantities.

Their entire economy from the ground up relies on easy credit like a house of cards, they are fucked any which way. The current Greek youth has been raped by the greed of their parent's generation, and there is nothing that can be done about it unless that generation spontaneously dropped dead and freed up all the jobs.

 

[Cobol74]

I have a problem with binning Harriers and aircraft carriers (we only had two I think - may be 3 perhaps) waiting until 2015 for the French Carriers that someone forgot to design and install catapults and arrestor kit so they can not launch the aero planes that the government ordered. This now means that only choppers and V/STOL aircraft can use them. But the V/STOL FSF fighter is not ready and is a less capable aircraft than the proper carrier version so we could have used our Harriers/AV8Bs as a stop gap - except we flogged them to the US Marines at a knockdown price.

Thak heavens that there is no argy bargy over the Falklands at the moment. ... Oh! er, um.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2012/May/10/120509-F35B

Told you governments could not do complicated - and this was not that complicated.