U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-10 15:09:11

Since we bring up Marcus Aurelius, let's skip ahead a bit through that long list of Roman rulers...

I have often heard it said that America is going the way of Rome, increasing decadence in the culture leading to collapse. If one accepts this premise (I'm not entirely convinced) then it seems reasonable to look at the other parallels that led to the fall of Rome and correct our equivalents.

Of course in my analysis one of the biggest factors in the eventual collpase was Hadrian's defining of the borders, thus cementing the already stalled expansionist drive, but let's stay away from that argument for the moment.

Earlier Cindy mentioned gladiatorial games. I'd put this in the same category as some modern American entertainment, violence without meaning that serves no purpose but to desensitize citizens to... violence without meaning.

The parallels between America and Rome as a wealthy, dominant world power are clear.

Discord within the government, currency debasement (inflation), a government dole (in the form of grain, corn or bread distributions to citizens in Rome, Welfare in America), increasingly high and punitive taxation and the resultant economic taxation are all familiar to us here in the US.

So maybe, just maybe, the cultural decline is merely a symptom of a deeper problem. One that manifests when governments exceed their bounds.

Mundaka · 2004-05-11 20:30:25

Mundaka · 2004-05-12 10:42:58

dicktice · 2004-05-14 08:50:39

Mundaka: Thanks for your (probably wasted) efforts to be understanding. I'm an impatient space advocate, undoubtedly because of age and frustated therefore. I had no intent, other to laugh at anyone mistaking me as officer material. [I've deleted my diatribe, which is so out of date with what's happening in the world as to be meaningless.] Whenever I see a closeup of the infantrymen, in Irak especially, I just want to sit down and bawl. I blame the leadership (you fill in at what level) that keeps missing the point regarding global cooperation regardless of idiology, in the face of this "third force" that threatens progress towards, on the one hand, space travel. I write that, because it's not mentioned as one of the objectives being fought for. I acknowledge all the other humanitarian reasons, of course, but to ignore access to space at this juncture in human history, could mean that our civilization will have "missed the boat," this time around. On the other hand, I'm so proud to see that Burt Rutan's flyback scheme is working out so well. He comes from my alma mater, Cal Poly, so what else can I say, except: Flyback's, the commercial way to go--all the way to LEO!

Josh Cryer · 2004-05-14 08:57:30

dicktice, I feel exactly the way you do, Burt has pulled off an amazing feat. It just leaves me without words. I am so torn about private enterprise in space, beause I believe that there is a technical solution that isn't costly, but I think that since space has been historically so costly, private enterprise is equally futile. But Burt's achievements (he will win the X-Prize, I just know it) are absolutely awe striking. This isn't a game, he's doing it.

Mundaka · 2004-05-16 20:07:09

dicktice · 2004-05-18 07:52:55

Mundaka: Let well enough alone. Just for fun, how about going to the "Terraforming" thread, to see what I posted regarding atmospheric microbe life on Venus. Especially, the sample-return probe approach. Just to keep you occupied while you're waiting for the Mars rover drivers to decide how to enter that deep crater. It's hard to concentrate on future plans, while real discoveries are still possible any day, right?

Josh Cryer · 2004-05-18 09:52:31

I want everyone to look at how Mundaka and dicktice handled their disagreement. That's the kind of civility which brightens my day. Maybe that's the type of interaction the U.S. Culture could use.

Palomar · 2004-06-02 10:46:45

Stop-Loss]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=2&u=/ap/20040602/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_military_2]"Stop-Loss"

*Have been away from discussing related issues for nearly 5 days. This article caught my attention.

There seems to be so much *unquestioning* favor FOR the Iraqi war. Are all these people really on the right track with this? Or the result of "manipulation of the masses"? Or just "going with the flow"? Or in DENIAL? Or all hyped up on "American Whoop-Ass" mentality?

I think this is a nightmare. I know most everyone's political positions here (I think so, anyway) and I'm pretty sure I've made mine known. No matter how objectively I try to see the Iraq war from all angles and consider everyone's point of view, I keep returning to the gut-instinct certainty that this war was completely unnecessary and was waged on very uncertain "factors" at best, if not outright lies and manipulation at worst. Sorry if that sounds "credulous" or whatever...

Now our war-bitten GI's are going to be STUCK in Iraq.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-02 11:09:13

There's plenty of manipulation and unquestioning loyalty to a position to go around. Many who support the war refuse to see that the most optimistic (and by no means universal) projections were off the mark while many who oppose it cling to any reason to trash the effort. If we'd walked in without firing a shot and the entire population dropped to theirs knees in humble gratitude they'd say we were terrifying them into submission to steal the oil. As is often the case, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Not dead on in the middle of course, but somewhere in there.

Certain neo-con elements severely miscalculated. They thought Iraq would react to liberation like France did, only to follow the WWII analogy Iraq isn't France. It's Germany. They weren't all that happy to see us. Even those that wanted regime change had reservations as well as a severely bruised sense of national pride.

Rumsfeld's "lighter, faster" model for the military... Not such a good idea. It has it's place, but not at the expense of the old "slow and heavy" force. It's still sufficient to defeat most enemies, but why intentionally close that gap for them? We should have focused more on building bigger transports and less on building lighter vehicles. Lesson learned.

That said, the war went incredibly well. It was an astounding success, none of the nightmare scenarios materialized and we rolled through within a month.

The occupation, on the other hand, is proving more troublesome. The army is exceptionally good at killing people and blowing stuff up. They aren't so good at nation-building. It's not their function.

All said, it's going remarkably well. We've taken a hostile, terrorism-sponsoring state and in just over a year put it on course to becoming a representative republic and a responsible member of the world community. The Iraq campaign will be studied in military texts not as a "quagmire" but as a successful early model for a new era in warfare. With some distance of time it will look very different.

DonPanic · 2004-06-02 11:23:23

LO

Certain neo-con elements severely miscalculated. They thought Iraq would react to liberation like France did, only to follow the WWII analogy Iraq isn't France. It's Germany. They weren't all that happy to see us. Even those that wanted regime change had reservations as well as a severely bruised sense of national pride

Neither ! in 1945, Germany was about to be "liberated" by soviet troops eager to retaliate,
therefore Germans saw surrendering to US troops as a relief.
Remember ? Soviets, not US, took Berlin.

Palomar · 2004-06-02 11:38:20

That said, the war went incredibly well. It was an astounding success, none of the nightmare scenarios materialized and we rolled through within a month.
All said, it's going remarkably well. We've taken a hostile, terrorism-sponsoring state and in just over a year put it on course to becoming a representative republic and a responsible member of the world community. The Iraq campaign will be studied in military texts not as a "quagmire" but as a successful early model for a new era in warfare. With some distance of time it will look very different.

*The war -went- incredibly well? Past tense? That must be a typo, because the war's still raging.

I sure hope you are right. Maybe you are; I've not studied war tactics, etc. Have read some WWII stuff, but probably nothing comparable to you. However, as much as I do know, what you're saying sounds utterly preposterous to me. I hope to god "it's just me."

Define your use of "neo-con", please?

I think (yeah, dream on, I know...) wars shouldn't be allowed to be declared unless the President and his staff/cabinet are required to send some of THEIR family members into war as well. And I don't mean sitting on airplanes in TX munching doughnuts and drinking Sprite -- I mean *over there*, seeing combat, in the thick of things. At least one child, grandchild, or 1st-degree relative should have to participate or no war.

This situation has brought out such feelings of class hatred in me, like I've never experienced before. Let the f*cking rich a-holes PAY WITH BLOOD for a change as well, instead of just the middle- and lower classes.

They who benefit the most pay the least. F*ck that.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-02 12:28:58

Neither ! in 1945, Germany was about to be "liberated" by soviet troops eager to retaliate,
therefore Germans saw surrendering to US troops as a relief.
Remember ? Soviets, not US, took Berlin.

The Soviets took Berlin (and I could rage for hours about how we became an accomplice in a horrendous crime by allowing it) but US and British forces took most of Western Germany. The German people weren't exactly overcome with joyful rapture at our arrival, except for those fleeing from the East to escape the aptly propagandized Soviet 'barbarian horde.'

*The war -went- incredibly well? Past tense? That must be a typo, because the war's still raging.

The war, in the sense of open and organized combat against the forces of the Hussein regime, is over. We now face guerrilla and terrorist acts (there is a difference) from many different factions. The war is over, but there is resistance to the occupation. A fine distinction perhaps, but not an arbitrary one. The occupation is so troublesome in part because the war went so smoothly, too many potential opposition fighters slipped away as their units dissolved under the threat of approaching Coalition forces.

However, as much as I do know, what you're saying sounds utterly preposterous to me. I hope to god "it's just me."

Well it certainly isn't just you, I hear it all the time. It's possible that I'm completely off my nut on this one, but in a historical sense the effort is proceeding better than could be expected. It's showing us a number of weaknesses in our approach, but overall not too bad considering we're trying to remake a nation the size of California in the middle of a cesspool of terrorist states and dictatorships.

Define your use of "neo-con", please?

There's a few interpretations floating around, my 'boiled down' definition is someone with a traditional conservative set of values except for a belief that sometimes government is the answer and discarding the traditional isolationism for a propensity to interfere in the affairs of other nations through economic, political or military means. The Bush Administration has more than its share of them.

This situation has brought out such feelings of class hatred in me, like I've never experienced before. Let the f*cking rich a-holes PAY WITH BLOOD for a change as well, instead of just the middle- and lower classes.

I know what you're saying, it's the children of lower and middle-class families on the ground over there. I know a few of them myself, periodically hear from them either directly or through third parties. Whatever else they say, these two points are usually in there in some form. They volunteered and knew what they were getting into. Some volunteered because they knew what they were getting into. And at least those I've heard from say that we've done a good thing there and the Iraqis in general are glad we did it. They'd like us to go home, but by and large they'd rather have us there than Saddam or any of the other thugs running around. Are they trying to rely a positive message for us back home? Probably. I've never been told stories about roadside bombs or friends being killed, I know they just don't want to talk about it. But they volunteered and they stand by that decision.

And they've got some choice words for those deserters hiding out in Canada, I can tell you that. :;):

Class envy won't help us. It does bother me that some rich son of an ex-President is making the decision that sends friends of mine, and possibly family one of these days, to some foreign hellhole. But they volunteered. They knew. They believe it was the right thing to do. I have enormous respect for that and turning it into an issue of class, while an understandable reaction, I think does a disservice to those on the front. Whatever went on behind closed doors to bring on the war, once our troops are on the ground I have to give them and the effort my full support. In a sense, those are my people out there. I can't reconcile that with hating those who sent them. Not when they volunteered and believe they're doing the right thing.

Palomar · 2004-06-02 12:49:06

The war, in the sense of open and organized combat against the forces of the Hussein regime, is over. We now face guerrilla and terrorist acts (there is a difference) from many different factions. The war is over

*It's still war.

Class envy won't help us.

*Oh, this -isn't- envy. At least not as I define it. I expect *everyone* to contribute regardless-- and in times of war with THEIR flesh and blood as well. Evenly, equally. Contribute or don't declare war.

It does bother me that some rich son of an ex-President is making the decision that sends friends of mine, and possibly family one of these days, to some foreign hellhole. But they volunteered. They knew. They believe it was the right thing to do. I have enormous respect for that and turning it into an issue of class, while an understandable reaction, I think does a disservice to those on the front.

*I'm the last person wishing to deny the "little people" on the front lines the respect they deserve.

Tragic thing is, the wealthy elite can always *count on* people having these sentiments. And there's the rub (exploitation).

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-02 13:20:15

*It's still war.

It all depends on your place in the pecking order I suppose. One guy with a rifle shooting at you is 'war' if you're the one getting shot at. In a broad strategic sense what's happening in Iraq probably falls under the heading of "Operations Other Than War," a catch-all term for, well, operations other than war. Resistance isn't "war" in a strict sense, otherwise WWII didn't end in 1945.

Semantics, I know, but necessary for a proper perspective on these matters.

Quote
Class envy won't help us.

*Oh, this -isn't- envy. At least not as I define it. I expect *everyone* to contribute regardless-- and in times of war with THEIR flesh and blood as well. Evenly, equally. Contribute or don't declare war.

My error. I don't like to bandy about "hate" and "envy" was what popped into my head. Perhaps "class conflict" would have been a better choice of words.

I understand the sentiment. Unworkable, but I understand perfectly.

Tragic thing is, the wealthy elite can always *count on* people having these sentiments. And there's the rub (exploitation).

Which is why we all have to make our own judgments. If the nation stands to benefit from a war I'll generally support it. Even if some benefit more than others. A just war fought for corrupt motives is still a just war. It may well have been unecessary and many question whether it was just, but I for one am confident that posterity will be kinder than the opposition would like.

Gennaro · 2004-06-02 14:26:05

I think (yeah, dream on, I know...) wars shouldn't be allowed to be declared unless the President and his staff/cabinet are required to send some of THEIR family members into war as well.

Absolutely agree with this sentiment.

In a draft system you actually have this situation more or less already, at least as far is possible with equal obligations for all as determined by equal citizenship.
Problem is infuential people still might have the opportunity to tuck away their relatives in safe positions. Such has to be combatted.

Alt2War · 2004-06-02 15:02:17

*It's still war.
It all depends on your place in the pecking order I suppose. One guy with a rifle shooting at you is 'war' if you're the one getting shot at. In a broad strategic sense what's happening in Iraq probably falls under the heading of "Operations Other Than War," a catch-all term for, well, operations other than war. Resistance isn't "war" in a strict sense, otherwise WWII didn't end in 1945.
Semantics, I know, but necessary for a proper perspective on these matters.
Quote
Class envy won't help us.

*Oh, this -isn't- envy. At least not as I define it. I expect *everyone* to contribute regardless-- and in times of war with THEIR flesh and blood as well. Evenly, equally. Contribute or don't declare war.
My error. I don't like to bandy about "hate" and "envy" was what popped into my head. Perhaps "class conflict" would have been a better choice of words.
I understand the sentiment. Unworkable, but I understand perfectly.
Tragic thing is, the wealthy elite can always *count on* people having these sentiments. And there's the rub (exploitation).
Which is why we all have to make our own judgments. If the nation stands to benefit from a war I'll generally support it. Even if some benefit more than others. A just war fought for corrupt motives is still a just war. It may well have been unecessary and many question whether it was just, but I for one am confident that posterity will be kinder than the opposition would like.

As I understand you and your previous posts, the Iraq War is justified because a Democratic Iraq will both encourage and scare other middle eastern nations into becoming western styled democracies, making the world a safer place for us to consume oil.

I believe you also still believe that WMD did or still exists.

Correct me if I am wrong.

I will not touch WMD, but this 'new' rationale for the war intrigues me.

What you and now the Bush administration are now touting is some sort of Domino Theory. Is there any sort of precidence for the belief that implanting a democracy forcefully in a hostile area of theocracies and monarchies has changed a region for the better?

Do you think it is a solid assumption that a Democratic, Capitalistic Iraq will somehow change the politics and attitude of the reason?

Do you think the architects of this plan have shown a good track record in understanding and manipulating the 'hearts and minds' of Iraq. Do you think that the architects of this plan have peace and stability in the middle east as their primary objective, or are their motivations split?

The pentagon, had it's plan been realized unobstructed, would have made Akmhed Chalibi the President of Iraq. Given the latest information about Chalibi, what kind of disaster do you think we luckily escaped? Do you think this is an example of the wisdom the architects of the Democracy Domino theory hold?

I think, and I think you know as well, that the beneficial and benign platitudes those pro-war place on this conflict are just thin veils for the actual motivation.

clark · 2004-06-02 15:14:38

See though, the thing about a functional democracy is that it can resolve itself beyond the limitations of its own short-sighted and bigoted progenitors. :laugh:

In a word, it is self-correcting.

America ain't what our fore-fathers envisoned, it's what all our fathers (and rather recently, for better or ill, our mothers now too!) envison, and continue to envison.

The key though is to get near "functional". We will have to wait and see what happens on that front, but if it succeeds, it will have an effect on that region. Afterall, people do like to keep up with the "Jones's". :;):

Alt2War · 2004-06-02 15:48:03

See though, the thing about a functional democracy is that it can resolve itself beyond the limitations of its own short-sighted and bigoted progenitors. :laugh:
In a word, it is self-correcting.
America ain't what our fore-fathers envisoned, it's what all our fathers (and rather recently, for better or ill, our mothers now too!) envison, and continue to envison.
The key though is to get near "functional". We will have to wait and see what happens on that front, but if it succeeds, it will have an effect on that region. Afterall, people do like to keep up with the "Jones's". :;):

Iraq for the last 2 decades had:
Free quality public education, through to the collage level.
Free health care.
Freedom of religion.
Extremely low unemployment for the middle east.
Free market economy.
Equality for Women.

Yet these values never spread to it's neighbors.

Now we will see a new Iraq with most of the government services privitized, there is a real threat of a permament slip in the freedoms of religion and womens rights, the economy will be struggling for quite some time while infastructure is being rebuilt.

Will the ideals of self rule, in the absence of the benefits it bestows , be enough to force the dominos to fall in our favor?

This seems more like either an experiment in untested ideology, or a thinly veiled cover for other motives. Perhaps it is both.

clark · 2004-06-02 15:54:05

Iraq for the last 2 decades had:
Free quality public education, through to the collage level.
Free health care.
Freedom of religion.
Extremely low unemployment for the middle east.
Free market economy.
Equality for Women.

Yeah, if you belonged to the right tribe. I really don't know what Iraq you are talking about, and I like to consider myself at least some what put together, but that dosen't sound like the place where they had gang rapes of girls for the amusement of the dictators sons. But hey, maybe I'm wrong, and we invaded a progressive middle east state and now it's truly backwards.

Iraq has been at war, prior to US involvement, for decades. Lots of dead Iranian's and Iraqi's litter between their borders- which is why Saddam attacked Kuwait (needed to pay for the war). The country was run by the state, for the state, for the benefit of Saddam's tribe.

You're being silly now.

DonPanic · 2004-06-02 16:18:12

LO

That said, the war went incredibly well. It was an astounding success, none of the nightmare scenarios materialized and we rolled through within a month.

One of the nightmare scenario was that Iraq had kept these famous invisible WMD ???

The Iraq campaign will be studied in military texts not as a "quagmire" but as a successful early model for a new era in warfare.

WMD advocacing of Iraq War II will not remain in diplomatic study books. Maybe in disinformation texts ?
Bah ! I never had the least doubt about a lightning speed coalition victory. We had a "kit model" of such a disbalanced force report conflict when froggies fought Khadafi's annexion attempt on Chad, where his columns of armoured trucks have been guinea pigs for our clusters of >95% hit-the-target smart bombs. (about 10000 casualties in Lybian forces and auxiliaries, zero loss among french troops, much secrecy kept on this war to avoid any arab wrath) Not the kind of performance I'm proud of.

The Soviets took Berlin (and I could rage for hours about how we became an accomplice in a horrendous crime by allowing it)

Your rage about war crimes would be very selective if you don't include rage for years for Kholn, Braemen, Hamburg heavy phosphorus bombing by US and Royal Air Forces. 300000 dead civilians.

Alt2War · 2004-06-02 16:27:41

Iraq for the last 2 decades had:
Free quality public education, through to the collage level.
Free health care.
Freedom of religion.
Extremely low unemployment for the middle east.
Free market economy.
Equality for Women.
Yeah, if you belonged to the right tribe. I really don't know what Iraq you are talking about, and I like to consider myself at least some what put together, but that dosen't sound like the place where they had gang rapes of girls for the amusement of the dictators sons. But hey, maybe I'm wrong, and we invaded a progressive middle east state and now it's truly backwards.
Iraq has been at war, prior to US involvement, for decades. Lots of dead Iranian's and Iraqi's litter between their borders- which is why Saddam attacked Kuwait (needed to pay for the war). The country was run by the state, for the state, for the benefit of Saddam's tribe.
You're being silly now.

Iraq was, hands down, without a doubt, the most economicly progressive state in the Arab middle east. Look it up if you like.

Saddam had a chritian and a woman on his cabinet.

Public displays of religion were suppressed, but no religions were favored by the state.

Women as of today have a much more deminished role in society than they had just 3 years ago.

Iraq has free public health care, and has had it for decades.

In bagdhad you can recieve education all they way to college.

even during the Sanctions, all the way up to GW2, baghdhad had lower unemployment than NYC currently has.

Now is that an apperent contrast with the heavy handed dictatorship of Saddam? Yes. But then Saddam never saw himself as an Evil Overlord, but rather a man who did what was nessicary to keep in power. He thought he was a fair man. It would not be the first tyrant with apperantly conflicting motivations.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-02 16:32:05

Alt, what is more important, free education and healthcare or freedom in general. Free speech, free assembly, freedom to not be grabbed from your home in the middle of the night and hauled away never to be seen again and freedom to walk down the street with you wife or girlfriend without fearing that some government thug is going to decide he wants to have her and there's not a damn thing you can do about it?

Nazi Germany had a wonderful state welfare apparatus too. Is it really worth it?

DonPanic · 2004-06-02 16:52:34

LO

...what is more important, free education and healthcare or freedom in general. Free speech, free assembly, freedom to not be grabbed from your home in the middle of the night and hauled away never to be seen again and freedom to walk down the street with you wife or girlfriend without fearing that some government thug is going to decide he wants to have her

Right now, where is freedom to walk down the street with you wife or girlfriend when mad kamikazees can blast at any time ?

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-02 17:00:50

Alt, Don; I know you opposed the war. You've made your case. There are valid arguments. But when you carry on like those last two posts you sound like loons. I'm trying to help you here, seriously. Think about what you're saying. Think about the implications.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-05-10 15:09:11

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#27 2004-05-11 20:30:25

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#28 2004-05-12 10:42:58

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#29 2004-05-14 08:50:39

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#30 2004-05-14 08:57:30

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#31 2004-05-16 20:07:09

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#32 2004-05-18 07:52:55

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#33 2004-05-18 09:52:31

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#34 2004-06-02 10:46:45

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#35 2004-06-02 11:09:13

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#36 2004-06-02 11:23:23

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#37 2004-06-02 11:38:20

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#38 2004-06-02 12:28:58

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#39 2004-06-02 12:49:06

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#40 2004-06-02 13:20:15

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#41 2004-06-02 14:26:05

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#42 2004-06-02 15:02:17

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#43 2004-06-02 15:14:38

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#44 2004-06-02 15:48:03

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#45 2004-06-02 15:54:05

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#46 2004-06-02 16:18:12

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#47 2004-06-02 16:27:41

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#48 2004-06-02 16:32:05

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#49 2004-06-02 16:52:34

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#50 2004-06-02 17:00:50

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

Board footer