A Political Question

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[TodlichPanther]

Oh yes sorry, i type too fast for my own good, i'll run my next large comments through spell check (.)

Fixed. I think.

Ok ill stop now I'm not much better normally.

[Thtb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PzH_2000
PzH 2000 has also been selected by the armies of Italy, Netherlands and Greece, and more orders are probable as many NATO forces replace their M109 howitzers.

The M109 is an American-made self-propelled 155 mm howitzer.

Owned.

[Skunker]

Dude, your howitzer is a beast - I don't know why any nation wouldn't want some of those.

[asmithally]

No. The American economy is going down the shithole, and making millions of Americans not only not bring in any income, but cost dozen of thousands of dollar per head is another surefire way to make the US government pack that debt even higher. Right now, out of a budget of 2 trillion dollars (2000 billions), the US spends a quarter of it, 500 billion, the military, with a further 150 going to the DoD, and that's just the planned budget; it always goes way over. and now you are looking at AT LEAST doubling the size of that. The US, at this time, cannot sustain an army this large... Especially considering the fact that this year's planned deficit (and, again, it always goes higher) is 300 billions.

Another thing: the public will not stand for it. While it is not a draft, it is still forced enrollment, which amounts to the same thing for many people; regardless, those millions of young Americans would be forced to join the army against their will, and this while in the middle of the most unpopular war since Vietnam. Look at what happened then... It woulb happen all over again.

Besides, you need two-thirds of the Senators and two-thirds of the representatives to amend the constitution, right? The democrats would never go for that.

Skunker: To be fair, the M-109 howitzer looks pretty impressive too.

[Flack]

Do want a PzH 2000!

[jjwa]

As far as I know The Netherlands is at the moment the only country who have used them in combat. And they use them regularly, in Afghanistan.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ct1uOjhuUuE

From the Wiki:

The PzH 2000 was used for the first time in combat by the Dutch Army in August of 2006 against Taliban targets in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, in support of Operation Medusa. [2] Since then it has been used regularly in support of coalition troops in Uruzgan province, also in Afghanistan. The PzH 2000 was also used extensively during the Battle of Chora. It is known as "the long arm of ISAF". The guns have been nicknamed the 'beasts of Tarin Kowt' by the Taliban. The guns have been modified with additional armor being fitted to the roof to protect against mortar rounds.

Skunker: To be fair, the M-109 howitzer looks pretty impressive too.

"The M109 is an American-made self-propelled 155 mm howitzer, first introduced in the early 1960s."

M109:
Rate of fire: 4 round/min maximum, 1 round/min sustained
Effective range: 18,000 m - 30,000 m (with rocket-assisted projectile)
Pzh 2000:
Rate of fire: 3 rounds per 10 seconds, 8 rounds per minute, 20 rounds per 3 minutes
Range (of the artillery fire): 30 km (19 miles), 56 km (34 miles) with rocket-assisted projectile

I think it's now time to get back on-topic tho, I doubt Crone was hoping to discuss self-propelled howitzers with us.

[Thtb]

Hey the PzH is the modern Hummel ;P

[scrapking]

Besides, you need two-thirds of the Senators and two-thirds of the representatives to amend the constitution, right? The democrats would never go for that.

There is no constitutional amendment against a draft.  There doesn't need to be a war for there to be a draft, although historical precedent usually required one.  Although I think there might have been active conscription between WW2 and the end of Vietnam in the US.

A simple majority of both House & Senate would do it, with a President's signature, same as any law.

Still doesn't make it likely though.

[Nevyen]

America,

It was once described as a nation full of opportuity that any court in europe would desire to have access to.   

These days as an outsider we see america in a place it does not wholly want to be in, yet forced through circumstance to be placed in.   America as a nation has historically been an isolationist nation, not overly interested in events of world and only forced to act in the event of a direct attack on its citerzens or nation. Lusitania ww1 (might be the wrong ship) pearl harbour ww2, 9/11 current quagmire.  Lately due to the fall of soviet hemogoney, the world looked to the US for support and protection in one light and the scorned it and derieded it in another.   This has all the hallmarks of empire in one form or another.   

What i would suggest you see now is Empire in a decline cycle as all empires before.   America and the ideology of cold war and military its construct that supported it is no longer valid.  Once allies now either politically attack it or openly assault it, Iraq, Alqida and so on.  If you look at history its pretty consistant with decline cycles of other states, that those who where once allies of rome became thier enemies much the same as the rajh in india, palestine and iraq for the british empire. 

The failing economy and seemingly battered political structre that has been dominated by dynastic politics for the last 2 decades has done allot to erode the credability of what at the core is still great force for good.   That in itself is driven by a culture much like the one exhibited post world war 1 pre great depression, where social extremes where explored and hyper capatilism was allowed to flourish.  Such decadance was in exhibition in late rome as well as extreme arrogance in empire periods. 

In both cases the assumption that a conflict would re-focus the populace and re-invgorate the failing structure was proven wrong and retraction from thier status of influence was inevitable.  This current epoch though is also graced with extreme a politixization of the populas with its higher education status and which has a greater access to information and media sources.  This though does not bread enlightenment which some would suggest, but develops a cynical society driven by base desires and selfish interets.  IN essence nothing has changed they now know more about what is going on quicker.

Conscription which is what it is, you can label it anyhting you want, call it a national training scheme, it is still the mobilization of ones population in a militarisitc force. It will neither fix the problems that amreica faces nor provide opportunities for it to amend its mistakes in foriegn policy.  It would heighten poltical stress in baltic, sub continent and asian states which (states) could read such a mobilization as the continuation of what they guess at expansion of the current gulf war into iran, or a finalisation of the North Korean issue or the tiawan straits stand off. 

If there was anything to suggest, it was that maybe polciy makers, mainly the hawks in washington start to re-read the history books and stop making the same consistant mistakes that empires preceeding thiers have made.  I.E underestimation of the islamic state,  failure to allocate correct resouces to thier expiditions, and a refocus on thier own populace and less attention at other peoples backyards. While oil i agree is a major concern with a country that consumes so much if it, health and education will become a greater issue if the current trends in the USA are not averted. 

It might even be said that another great depression might be good for the world in one way, realigning societys priorities and shifting focus away from ideological and relgious wars trumped up as wars of liberation and freedom.

Cheers Nev

[asmithally]

Besides, you need two-thirds of the Senators and two-thirds of the representatives to amend the constitution, right? The democrats would never go for that.

There is no constitutional amendment against a draft.  There doesn't need to be a war for there to be a draft, although historical precedent usually required one.  Although I think there might have been active conscription between WW2 and the end of Vietnam in the US.

A simple majority of both House & Senate would do it, with a President's signature, same as any law.

Still doesn't make it likely though.

I am not talking a draft, I am talking an amendment to the constitution that would require 2 years of mandatory services for all young men between the ages of 18-26, requirement being that if they went to college after high school they would do service after college as an officer.  This would take the strain of over deployed troops off the army.

I'm not the one who started to talk about a constitutional amendment.

[They Call Me SpitFire]

Crono I believe our country,America, is one of the less disciplined countries in the world. I believe our country needs discipline. And i Believe we shouldn't have gone to Iraq in the first place, but now that we are there lets finish it. Support your troops,no matter what.

[asmithally]

Discipline? So you think wiretapping people to make sure they aren't too unruly is good?

[scrapking]

Besides, you need two-thirds of the Senators and two-thirds of the representatives to amend the constitution, right? The democrats would never go for that.

There is no constitutional amendment against a draft.  There doesn't need to be a war for there to be a draft, although historical precedent usually required one.  Although I think there might have been active conscription between WW2 and the end of Vietnam in the US.

A simple majority of both House & Senate would do it, with a President's signature, same as any law.

Still doesn't make it likely though.

I am not talking a draft, I am talking an amendment to the constitution that would require 2 years of mandatory services for all young men between the ages of 18-26, requirement being that if they went to college after high school they would do service after college as an officer.  This would take the strain of over deployed troops off the army.

I'm not the one who started to talk about a constitutional amendment.

Well then you're both wrong. 

[Lionel-Richie]

America,

It was once described as a nation full of opportuity that any court in europe would desire to have access to.   

These days as an outsider we see america in a place it does not wholly want to be in, yet forced through circumstance to be placed in.   America as a nation has historically been an isolationist nation, not overly interested in events of world and only forced to act in the event of a direct attack on its citerzens or nation. Lusitania ww1 (might be the wrong ship) pearl harbour ww2, 9/11 current quagmire.  Lately due to the fall of soviet hemogoney, the world looked to the US for support and protection in one light and the scorned it and derieded it in another.   This has all the hallmarks of empire in one form or another.   

What i would suggest you see now is Empire in a decline cycle as all empires before.   America and the ideology of cold war and military its construct that supported it is no longer valid.  Once allies now either politically attack it or openly assault it, Iraq, Alqida and so on.  If you look at history its pretty consistant with decline cycles of other states, that those who where once allies of rome became thier enemies much the same as the rajh in india, palestine and iraq for the british empire. 

Ehhhh, I've never been able to swallow the "Empire in Decline"/Rome comparisons that people seem to love to make about the US. It just doesn't fit right. To me, it just seems like it is more something that people who think this WANT to happen, rather than something that WILL happen (though I have no idea why anyone would wish something akin to the fall of the Roman Empire on anyone else).

First off, I wouldn't refer to Iraq or Al-queada as ALLIES to the United States. They were tools we used. If they had been Allies we wouldn't have, say, abandoned the groups in Afghanistan post-Soviet War and allowed the Taliban to take root. We used them as means to an end (just a s we used Saddam as a moderate political in a hypertheocratic region).

Second, the scale is entirely different. Both the British and Roman empires had much more land and populace to control. Rome had...what...all of Europe, parts of Africa AND a chunk of the Middle East? How about Britain? "The Sun never sets on the British Empire."

What does the U.S. have? Afghanistan and Iraq (though we DO have military bases in a lot of countries, though I do not see that as the same thing at all compared to hostile occupation). Two countries. Not only that, two countries that we DON'T want to occupy anymore, but have to because we screwed up and would rather these states not turn into hostile regimes in a bloody coupe.

That's the difference. The British Empire and Roman Empire WANTED all this extra land. People were excited about the territorial gains in the colonies.

Times are also different. In the 21st century where imperialism and conquest is an out of date notion considered to be the actions of "bad men" it is not acceptable by most cultures to do this sort of thing. The U.S. populace went along with this on the concept of it being a humanitarian thing "for the greater good" (in a sense). The current gov't in the US, however, did it for the sake of policy control (having a gov't in the Middle East that would be theoretically allied with the US and Israel).

But yeah, I totally don't buy the whole "America is an Empire in Decline" theory and I'm a history major. I pretty much scoff at the notion of that happening. Pride? Not really, in my opinion it is the pride of "outsiders" who claim that this is some inevitable event.

America is different, the times are different and this situation is different.

Edit: Oh, and no thanks on the forced service. Perhaps if another super clear cut need for the American War Machine to roll into action (a la WW2) then it'd be ok, but NOTHING LESS than a clear cut Good vs. Evil.

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

National service worked in Britain, My grandad served for 2 years in the somerset light infantry, but that was just after the ww2 in the "Malaysian crisis" and the heavies weapon they had was the Bren gun...

But the thing is there was no "big" war going on and he just spent most of him time playing rugby hockey and cricket - and no one from his regiment died, back then it was a good life experience and people gained from it, but if America have on so they can get more soldiers in Iraq it will do the exact opposite, people who don't want to be there will be subject to the horrors of battle and death and there is no clear cut reason why they are there.

In WWII the soldiers knew the evil of the Nazi's and were motivated to fight but no one really feels the hate or the will to kill Iraqis as they have not killed 6 million Jews or invaded France, WWII was literally "to save the free world" what is Iraq for but to keep up political appearances?         

[scrapkingss]

One of the earlier Islamic Religious leaders in post-invasion Iraq, whom the U.S. had reached out to in order to motivate a Democratic coalition and hurry the election process there, had after discussions were over, made clear his desire to "become the 51st state".

True story.

[Lionel-Richie]

I bet if that happened Puerto Rico wouldn't be very happy.

[newblette67]

first i would like to go over the different points.

A required military service would probably be bad for how Americans think of war.

Economic decifit-

Economic decifits, although they look like a bad thing bascially they force other countries to trade with us. with a decifit countries want there money back so will be more viable trrade partners because of this.

[Sach]

Some interesting points

more interesting points

Although I don't agree with you entirely Nevyen (Russia never had a global hegemony and the US loss of political power its more likely caused by the end of the soviet war rather than the other way around) I think it is true that the US position is considerabely weaker than it has been since the end of world war two.

Richie I think you are mistaking the empire comparisons somewhat. It was never meant to be about direct sovereignty over large portions of the global. The US has exercised hard military power, often unilaterally, throughout the world in the last half century, vietnam, iraq etc. It has also used hard economic power through tied aid, support of regimes, boycotting of goods to impose its will. Finally it has exercised soft power though institutions that the US set up and effecrtively controlled, the UN, the IMF, the world bank. This is its empire and it put the US in control not just in the Western Hemisphere but all over the world from Europe to Japan.


However what we are seeing recently is a shift away from the US. It is losing control of many of the institutions that it created, the UN voted against the US over Iraq for example. Its military strength is known to be stretched. Its economic strength its questioned (European Courts blocking mergers between US companies, African nations spurning US {and EU} aid in favour of Chinese and Indian Investment). And yes, this does mirror the fall of other empires such as the British. The British Empire was in decline long before it gave up territorial control over much of the world and Suez was the real nail in the coffin that showed it was no longer a world power than could act unilaterally against the majority of world opinion.

Having said that, there is a big difference between a declining empire and a weak power. The US is still by far the most powerful military power in the world and its economic strength is on par with the EU in most areas and supercedes them in many others. The mistake I think people often make when they talk about the 'declining US empire' is that it suggests a weakness which simply does not exists, its just a decline in relative strength from the previous 6 decades.

[Lionel-Richie]

Oh I am not at all against the notion that the US can and may lose its international weight that it throws around (as with Britain).

What I disagree with is the oftentimes notion that the US will collapse under its own weight as the Roman Empire did. The government isn't going to spiral into chaos and turmoil. The U.S. moving back towards an isolationist like policy (though not as much as pre-WW1/2, since that's not really possible today) in the matter of int. politics would be something likely greeted by most of its inhabitants.

In fact, it fits with Americanism really. People came to the US to escape issues with their old world, be they political, economic or religious. Bringing the US back into those problems to try and fix them is an idealist's dream, not an American's.

Edit: Sach, if I've mistaken the comparison in the manner that I did, it's because of the countless times I've argued with bitter people about it on other forums in such a manner, most of which are "Haha you guys are going to collapse into ruin soon" in nature.