New Mars Forums

And now that the cup that runneth over hath spilled upon the table. . .

Have you heard what happens at the polls every time they come right out and say it straight up? 

Okay, utilizing it less is a valid position. It has problems of course, among them being that a military that is unused for too long turns into something else, but that's a topic all its own.

Surely we could use it less for killing people and more for helping people, but again, that misses two important points. The military doesn't exist to help foreigners, it just sometimes does so as a side benefit. And sometimes military action is necessary to help people. Bosnia and Kosovo come to mind, American military forces being used solely to help foreigners that we really don't give a damn about. Often citied as a great success.

We're still in Bosnia by the way. Where's the exit strategy?

We're still in Germany too, but I digress.

Sure, you can read all kinds of stuff into what I'm saying but the bones of it is this: The American military does more good than ill in the world, much of that good would not be possible if the military was not the monstrous fighting force that it is, and in order to continue doing good and retain the ability to perform its prime function it needs to be deployed around the world and it needs to fight from time to time.

Fortunately from that purely theoretical perspective, there are plenty of threatened American interests in the world for which their services are required.

So in a roundabout way, American military activities around the world help far more people than any foreign aid program or gaggle of Euro-rockers could ever hope to do.

Only if given that choice, people aren't going to vote to put the resources that go into the military to instead build giant humanitarian happy ships to help the world. The military can be justified as being necessary to protect American interests abroad and offer humanitarian uses as a side benefit. Going straight to the electorate and saying "we need to keep the tax burden up to so we can put a third of the federal budget into helping foreigners that don't like us" will result in a less-than-supportive response, followed shortly by massive tax cuts. Woohoo!

As long as we're so tied to the rest of the world we need that military. Free us from those bonds and we can cut it to a shadow, but it won't mean we can be Santa Claus to the world.

Again, much of our humanitarian work is a result of our military capacity and dependent on that for its existence.

Whether the military is being misused is certainly open for debate, but it's not an either/or question between military or humanitarian capacity.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1120240796

To do it in a capacity that amounts to anything more than a token effort we need the resources that also allow us to invade and bomb.

Example, the tsunami relief efforts. Without the US Navy it wouldn't have amounted to a whole lot in the immediate aftermath. And without the need to project American military power around the world the Navy wouldn't have those carrier groups to throw around to filter water for the poor unfortunate people of the world.

If we stay at home and mind our own business, we really have to mind our own business. Our military and humanitarian efforts are so bound together as to be almost inseparable.

Besides, the "surrounding hostile world" that most Americans are now feeling the sting from has nothing to do with defense spending. The places where the hostile sentiment emanates from are not the places defense spending is directed at. No one expects a war with France or Canada for example.

There is some sleight of hand by the defense establishment, but this theory doesn't explain it.

But then that's beside the point anyway, if we decided to mind our own business it wouldn't be long before we'd be inundated with condemnation for all the things we aren't doing in the world. Hostility from others goes with being top dog.

The Cast Iron Chef has spoken. 

If I can keep my hands clean, what's the point of utensils?

Which leads to the odd habits of pulling hamburgers directly off the grill with a bare hand but eating ribs with a fork.  ???

Filing that away for later reference.

Is 5-6 hours really "instant"? 

In this case I agree with most of your points, but I'm also forced to take an almost. . . Joshian view of the technological factors. We're at the point where the means required for self-contained support for very small groups has moved away from if and is now in the territory of when.

In that case the only reason for a violent revolt would be if one side or the other were complete nutjobs. If I were on the revolutionary side I'd rather just move than fight it out and if I were the authority being revolted against I'm not going to be too concerned about a disgruntled faction leaving. Makes everything so much easier.

Of course when the population gets to the point that vast expanses of empty land are no longer available the issue becomes more troublesome, but if we plan it right we'll have partial terraforming done by then and can fight our wars the old fashioned way, outside in crappy weather. 

What if we get there first?

Though I must admit to a great deal of skepticism to religions from one species being easily adopted by others, though alot of diffusion and mutual appropriating of ideas seems likely if the two cultures share enough points to begin with.

Somehow I suspect that extraterrestrials will either be so different that we can't effectively communicate or so similar that it's unnerving.

However I also have this nagging suspicion that the monotheistic concept of a creator/shepherd God is not a common idea. Even among humans, looking at our entire history, it's a bit odd.

But who can say, we're probably all missing the point entirely.

And I'm going to bunt it.

Yep, most likely a racial bias was the prime motivator but it seems that the facts are three black men entered the area to steal a car, three white men responded with excessive force. I'm gonna go with aggravated assault on this one, but only because they weren't caught in the act of actually stealing a car.

"Hate crime" laws are kind of like the sex offender registry, it seems like a good idea on the surface, until a guy who took a piss in an alley makes the list and everyone thinks he's a pedophile.

From the article quoted by Bill:

Nonsense. We most certainly can win it and by many criteria we are.

And given the mission at the time, defeating the Iraqi army and taking possession of the country, they were more than sufficient and performed brilliantly. A textbook operation in almost every respect.

Oh, but the occupation! There was no plan! We needed more troops!

What for exactly, what precisely do you suggest these additional troops do? Soldiers don't usually make good cops, it isn't what they're trained or equipped for. If we're going to go after the insurgents and kick some ass great, but in that case we don't really need more troops, just better intel.

"More troops" is not a policy, it's panic. More checkpoints and more patrols won't really change things unless it's done by local "street cops" rather than US soldiers. We need more Iraqi police and guardsmen, not more American troops.

Only in Iraq, the economy is slowly improving. The insurgency is not gaining popular support and the reason for that is simple. Many of them are not even Iraqi but rather foreign fighters, just as much invaders as the Americans. They target Iraqi police and civilians and they are fighting not only an "occupier" but an elected Iraqi government. More people are against the insurgency than support it.

Further, for being a complete failure it's striking how nearly every timetable has been met whether it be for the handoff of sovereignty, the elections, many of the reconstruction projects. Everything is on course to have a constitution right on schedule and another round of elections. Sure, the training of Iraqis is behind schedule but that in and of itself is hardly a harbinger of doom.

A bunch of terrorists blow up a few cars and we've lost? Christ people, can we get some perspective here? Iraq is well on its way to becoming a nominally democratic state in the heart of the MidEast, the US military can hit any target with impunity but simply chooses not to for political and public relations reasons. The terrorists are reduced to car bombings and intercepted communications show them to be straining far more than we are. You don't blow yourself up in a car on a street corner if your side is winning.

Right. So why the hell do we need more troops now? Are we going to start killing people and blowing stuff up again on a big scale? Pretend we're still fighting a real military when it's really a few screwballs with an RPG? Great plan.  :up: 

They don't, they simply remove some of the obstacles. That's why we're working with Iraqi officials trying to prepare them for self-rule. That's why we're training the Iraqi military to defend their own country. That's why we're helping them write a constitution that allows Sunni, Kurd and Shia to co-exist peacefully.

Oh, but I forgot, we need more troops. 

Only those elected Republicans, slow as they are to adapt, are learning that it never helps them. They always get burned on it with no return.

Okay.

Except when they are. 

This is really screwy. No precedent, Constitutionally questionable and what does Bush get out of it? Some half-lib moderate Justice? He's gonna pass, it's a no-win.

That, and are we really supposed to believe that the same deal will apply when the situation is reversed? I highly doubt it. And who elected Reid co-President exactly?

Sure, we could do this joint-rule thing, but Bush and Reid? You give them both too much credit.  :;):

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1120230858

Intermittently. I only renew when I attend the conferences, otherwise I let it lapse.

Why? Well, I'll put it this way. How many analog research stations do we need, really?

Crass, yet I laugh. :laugh:

But seriously, in my experience Mars Society Conventions have been equal parts Mars talk, socializing and drinking. Having it on a major university campus in the middle of summer didn't do anything to help with the Mars stuff. 

But then they also tend to be kind of cliquish, so I'm sure the experience isn't universal.

But alas I won't be attending this year either. Probably just as well.

2001, Palo Alto.

Best. Conference. Ever.