View Full Version : When will the wars end?
Obama didn't manage to end them in his first four years. I don't see that if Romney is elected, he'll end them, or that Obama will do so if re-elected.
When does it end?
I was looking at the requirements for membership in the American Legion today, as our local post is recruiting heavily.
Eligibility Information
If you have served federal active duty in the United States Armed Forces during any of the war eras listed below, and have been honorably discharged or are still serving -- you are eligible for membership in The American Legion!
*August 2, 1990 to today (Operation Desert Shield/Storm)
December 20, 1989 to January 31, 1990 (Operation Just Cause - Panama)
August 24, 1982 to July 31, 1984 (Lebanon/Grenada)
February 28, 1961 to May 7, 1975 (Vietnam)
June 25, 1950 to January 31, 1955 (Korea)
December 7, 1941 to December 31, 1946 (World War II)
April 6, 1917 to November 11, 1918 (World War I)
*Because eligibility dates remain open, all members of the U.S. Armed Forces are eligible to join The American Legion at this time, until the date of the end of hostilities as determined by the government of the United States.
I boldened a bit of that for you all. Take a close look. The current "war era" is the longest in our nation's history. We are still waiting for "the end of hostilities as determined by the government of the United States" - when will that be? It has been 22 years, for goodness sake. We have been "at war" for the entirety of my daughter's life, and she will be going to college soon.
Are we winning yet? Will we ever decide we've "won"? Or will we always be at war with Eastasia?
Etc.
Agree - we seem to be in an endless war machine. And now that the budget ax is ready to fall to cut 10% across the board, my senator and others are upset - not for the Center for Disease Control, or Parks Service, or Weather Service, or any other program for the social good - but only that the military will have to take a 10% cut too.
And, as they emphasize over and over in our news here, including front page, that means a Loss of Jobs.
I remember when the first Pres. Bush started to freeze the military budget and there was talk of a "peace dividend" meaning, we can finally redirect monies from the war machine to domestic programs. That didn't last long.
Now it feels like the Roman Empire in its last days, when it was so over-committed militarily that literally almost all of the tax monies raised went to support their military machine while the rest started to crumble.
In our Public Policy forum we are actually just arguing over how to divide the crumbs left over. So frustrating.
Now it feels like the Roman Empire in its last days, when it was so over-committed militarily that literally almost all of the tax monies raised went to support their military machine while the rest started to crumble.
In our Public Policy forum we are actually just arguing over how to divide the crumbs left over. So frustrating.
Exactly my feelings.
And yet, whenever genocide happens somewhere in the world, and it seems it's always happening somewhere, there is a groundswell of voices crying 'why don't we do something?' People on this forum have asked the same question over the years. I"m not advocating for war, I want them to end too. I want us to just stop fiddling in world affairs, but, I also have eyes, and ears, and I see the suffering of completely helpless people, and sometimes I ask, 'why don't we do something?'
From what you have said about her, I'm sure your daughter is a compassionate person. I'm guessing she has/will ask that question too.
Blame it on the news media I guess. We see these things we would never have seen 50 years ago. How long did it take us to actually believe the Germans would gas people! Kill them in this horrible way, even after stories began to come out. We simply could not believe it, didn't want to believe it.
Either we can turn our backs and close our eyes, or we can see and try to help. And maybe it's a case by case thing, I don't know. How do you choose who you help and who you don't? President Obama has faced this with all the popular uprisings in the mid-east. Plenty of people asked, 'why don't we do something?'
I don't have the answer, I don't know what that could be, I just know we can't have it both ways.
ApatheticNoMore
8-18-12, 6:41pm
And yet, whenever genocide happens somewhere in the world, and it seems it's always happening somewhere, there is a groundswell of voices crying 'why don't we do something?' People on this forum have asked the same question over the years. I"m not advocating for war, I want them to end too. I want us to just stop fiddling in world affairs, but, I also have eyes, and ears, and I see the suffering of completely helpless people, and sometimes I ask, 'why don't we do something?'
I have ceased to believe U.S. military intervention has the capacity to make things better. Was Saddam Hussein an evil guy? Yes indeed he was. Are things really better in Iraq now though? Very doubtful. Is Libya better now after intervention? Is Syria a total bloody mess at present? Yes it is. And the U.S. is intervening with intention, it is currently arming the opposition in Syria which includes al-Queda. Yesterdays friend is today's enemy is tommorows friend (this is the exact flipping that is going on with al-Queda). What a second al-Queda, isn't the terrorism threat from al-Queda why we gutted the entire of Bill of Rights? We gave up all our rights, signed the Patriot Act, signed the NDAA, to fight those guys and the Obama administration is now indirectly arming them? It seems so. Obama has violated his own NDAA! What if the war on terror was all a great big lie? Are things getting better yet?
I have ceased believing the U.S. military intervenes out of some sense of moral good (Obama prattles about just war theory when he decides to murder someone, he hasn't a clue what such theories consist of). The U.S. intervene out of ECONOMIC interests. Might these sometimes align with moral good. Yes, sometimes. And they just as often conflict. How many bloody dictatorships has the U.S. armed in the 20th century? How many times has it supported them over the more democratic choice better aligned with the people of that country? I don't know. Far too many. You posit some moral good actor that will intervene morally. I say that if such an actor did exist then x, y, z. But none exists. And the U.S. is a really unlikely candidate. The U.S. is not that actor. A plausible case could be made for WWII, ok, sure, I agree, fascism was a pretty darn evil ideology. But SINCE then? I don't see it.
gimmethesimplelife
8-18-12, 7:18pm
Obama didn't manage to end them in his first four years. I don't see that if Romney is elected, he'll end them, or that Obama will do so if re-elected.
When does it end?
I was looking at the requirements for membership in the American Legion today, as our local post is recruiting heavily.
I boldened a bit of that for you all. Take a close look. The current "war era" is the longest in our nation's history. We are still waiting for "the end of hostilities as determined by the government of the United States" - when will that be? It has been 22 years, for goodness sake. We have been "at war" for the entirety of my daughter's life, and she will be going to college soon.
Are we winning yet? Will we ever decide we've "won"? Or will we always be at war with Eastasia?
Etc.Amazing, having it spelled out like this makes you really think. I wonder if we could just snap our fingers and be done with war for something like 20 years, would we be in better shape economically? And I also did not know that the Vietnam War went on that long.....Rob
We currently spend about as much on the US military as the entire rest of the planet spends on their militaries.
Yet I haven't seen our actions as "world policeman" producing much in the way of improvement, world-wide, in the past 50 years.
Do we intervene out of economic interests? Perhaps, but I wonder whose interest is served by having our citizenry outspend the entire rest of the planet, for no significant good observed effects, and no real economic gain on the part of those citizens. At least the Romans extracted tribute and used the funds to pay for bread and circuses for the plebes, we seem to simply ladle funds into the hands of military-related industries, using endless "war" as the justification...
It's a crock.
ApatheticNoMore
8-18-12, 7:33pm
Do we intervene out of economic interests? Perhaps, but I wonder whose interest is served by having our citizenry outspend the entire rest of the planet, for no significant good observed effects, and no real economic gain on the part of those citizens
My suspicion is it is to keep the flow of oil under (broadly) western control, to keep it flowing into the economic system exactly as it is now (this includes the precious pipelines), and to whom exactly it does now (to the First World mostly), without any pesky countries that might have their own agenda (like Iraq or Iran or Syria or ...). Who moves in to drill the oil of a conquered country? Western multinationals. No threat of any country nationalizing their own oil or anything like that, the spoils will all go to a few large existing corporations. Maybe the wars are really entirely for them in the end? Sure the defense companies also get rich, but maybe the oil companies are really the bigger players. But I still suspect it's more broad. Surely there is *SOME* economic benefit to being a country that now has permanent bases (and they were built to last from day 1) in most (soon to be all?) the oil rich nations in the middle east, that has installed puppet states that serve their interests? Surely that type of direct overseeing of the oil is worth something? At the very least it guarantees a continual reliable flow of oil to a world economy that absolutely depends on it. For all the resilience the economy is supposed to have, how badly it would react to shocks in oil supply.
flowerseverywhere
8-18-12, 8:17pm
Bae, I agree with every one of your points.
There is a big difference to todays war than the vietnam war though. In the late 60's every night on the news there was a kill count, and graphic pictures of helicopters, men being carried away on stretchers etc. And with the draft almost everyone had some skin in the game. We all had brothers, sons, fathers etc. in danger of being drafted and sent over. I vividly remember the end of the draft because my then boyfriend had a low number and was in danger of being called the next year.
Todays war is invisible. Other peoples sons, brothers and fathers fight it. We don't see what is going on over there. People today know more (and care more) about Lindsay Lohan and Angelina Jolie than what is going on in our conflicts.
All of the wars after WW11 have been a big waste. We can not and should be the policemen of the world. Look at what is happening in Iraqu and in 2 years when we get out of Afganistain the same thing will happen the taliban will take over the country in less than 6 months.
We need do like we did in Vietnam declare victory and get out.
The world is changing. On average, we have little contact with real death, just the stuff in movies, games and on TV that makes death seem less real and with no serious consequence. It is only when a family member is actually lost that the reality changes.
In earlier years, if one was injured it usually meant a lingering death but death just the same. Now we have to face longterm disability or mangled bodies with little employment.
As others have said, it all gets swept under the rug.
The decision makers do not have to stand in the front lines either as they used to in the earlier times.
On a philosophical note or two; (1)as long as there are 'us' and the 'other' we will have wars with a great deal of this triggered due (2) to the presence of testosterone and no other means of releasing this powerful hormone.
On a philosophical note or two; (1)as long as there are 'us' and the 'other' we will have wars with a great deal of this triggered due (2) to the presence of testosterone and no other means of releasing this powerful hormone.
There are plenty of ways to "release" testosterone that don't involve spending trillions to go off and kill people. Some of these ways are quite fun and productive, and helpful to long-term physical health.
Supposedly we spent about $4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan - the money did not disappear (although some billions can't be accounted for) - it moved from government hands into other people's hands.
I don't think the profit motive can be ignored. War is good for business.
Remember Eisenhowser Warning about the military industrial complex back in the 50s. He was so wright!
There are plenty of ways to "release" testosterone that don't involve spending trillions to go off and kill people. Some of these ways are quite fun and productive, and helpful to long-term physical health.
I agree that there are many positive ways of releasing testosterone but often it takes money, planning and careful thought. In earlier times, people went on the sea or out west or to the east for their adventure and release until rtional thought took over. Now the default seems to be gang warfare or the military. When a mind mind is governed by testosterone, it is harder to make rational decisions. The simplest things seem to become p*ssing matches.
Yossarian
8-19-12, 10:12am
Yet I haven't seen our actions as "world policeman" producing much in the way of improvement, world-wide, in the past 50 years.
On the other hand I find it hard to believe that the world would be a better place without that influence. Sometimes it takes a lot just to keep things from getting worse, and there have probably have been a lot of things worked out peacefully due to unemployed leverage.
ToomuchStuff
8-19-12, 11:29am
It will end with the end of us as a species.
The US as a policeman, well some would say self appointed which would make us a vigilante. There is also the point about how people seem to hate the police when they have to deal with them.
We moved into a zone, that has been warring amongst itself for quite some time before we arrived. In at least one of the cases we aren't viewed much differently from the Russians who fought there before, when we trained the ones we are now fighting. (so we are our own worst enemies)
We are hoping for a base somewhere over there, so we can occupy the place like Japan, Germany, Cuba, etc TV and the Vietnam war was mentioned, yet we don't allow pictures of the dead now, as the politicians call it privacy while knowing the less seen, the less they have to deal with with the support our troops rhetoric.
And we expect others to respect our beliefs and act as we act, even when they don't value what we value or have our beliefs, etc. I often wonder what the USA would be like, if instead of our revolution, some other country came in and forced us to change our view and fight, and the growth of this country wasn't from within. I saw a friend of mine who served and returned less then whole, and he wanted to go back. I understand our troops and some of the reasoning's behind things. I can't understand the ones they don't tell us about, nor do I find it acceptable for politics and ego's to mix, which I fear happens more to our detriment and plays a part in the decisions.
I agree that there are many positive ways of releasing testosterone but often it takes money, planning and careful thought. In earlier times, people went on the sea or out west or to the east for their adventure and release until rtional thought took over. Now the default seems to be gang warfare or the military. When a mind mind is governed by testosterone, it is harder to make rational decisions. The simplest things seem to become p*ssing matches.
Testosterone isn't a poison. It is essential to the proper functioning of the male body. It doesn't need "released".
Simply living a normal life, with a reasonable amount of physical activity of various sorts, should suffice.
My understanding is that testosterone levels in American men have been on average dropping over the past decades, so probably the whole spend-lots-on-war thing is driven by some other factor than "unreleased" testosterone.
http://www.healio.com/endocrinology/hormone-therapy/news/print/endocrine-today/%7BAC23497D-F1ED-4278-BBD2-92BB1E552E3A%7D/~/media/81145F91DA67A249C4DAEA110FB0B3BA.ashx
As much as I would like to think otherwise, I only see more of the same. The two things I see as a possibility of changing course would be a major shift in politic leadership or some sort of internal failure that would force focus on domestic problems. Say a major depression or a flu pandemic.
I read some where that our modern American wars are not really a war of a nation any more, but a war of an army. All of the soldiers are volunteer so the national pain is a step removed from a draft of reluctant citizens. At least in theory our high tech military devices grossly out class most of what other counties of the world could offer. And now with drones (piloted by people with a knack acquired in a youth of video games) war is another step removed. Toss in the fact that defense spending can be good for the economy, and it all makes war less painful than the past. No painful gas, coffee, or tire rationing.
Complicating things as a population that is outgrowing basic resources, leaving thing open for world instability. The spread between global haves and have-nots is an issue. The 9/11 could be said to be an act of religious fanatics, but also a retaliation against the American way of life and excess. How many wars or conflicts we've been in were really wars for oil? I don't know if it is an especially accurate analogy, but I think of the Roman Empire which had a declining civilization of excess and the barbarian hordes beating down the door.
Who knows what reasoning or excuse will get us into the next conflict. It just seems like there are a lot of possibilities. My take is that it's time for us quit the business of being the global peace force.
Have we actually ever done an official war declaration since WWII? Endless military actions since then, but no wars as far as I know.
flowerseverywhere
8-19-12, 11:05pm
as I think about it it brings tears to my eyes.
War (or military action) is all about money.
but a death is a death. every soldier killed is a soul on the earth, not matter which side they represent. That is the hardest thing for me to swallow. You can rally against abortion or the death penalty but put a gun in someones hand with a military uniform on and all of a sudden it is OK to kill. It doesn't make sense.
as I think about it it brings tears to my eyes.
War (or military action) is all about money.
but a death is a death. every soldier killed is a soul on the earth, not matter which side they represent. That is the hardest thing for me to swallow. You can rally against abortion or the death penalty but put a gun in someones hand with a military uniform on and all of a sudden it is OK to kill. It doesn't make sense.
I totally agree with the remarks about too many wars.
I am a proud Canadian, but feel I do have the right to state my point of view here, since our Canadian forces have troops working along with US forces.
We are removing our troops from Afghanistan now, and training Afghanistani soldiers to defend their own country. Personally, I think it's a waste of time trying to defend a country controlled by people who don't want foreigners in their country.
Personally, I'd really like to see the US stop spending money on war machinery and taking care of their own people, including reopening manufacturing their own goods instead of buying from foreign nations, which would employ people who have lost their jobs, homes, etc., to begin the rebuilding of the US to what it was once--the leading power in the world. After all, with all the war machinery stashed in various foreign countries, plus your country, who is going to attack you?
The US doesn't need to think it's the world policeman in my opinion.
I also believe that Obama needs some more time to prove he's an excellent leader--after all, he is still doing what he can to clean up the mess left behind by GWB, likely the worst President the US has ever been unfortunate enough to elect not once, but twice.
This is also affecting Canada, of course, since the US is our close friend and ally
flowerseverywhere
8-20-12, 4:45am
I wanted to add as I read history I can understand the point of some wars. obviously WW2 for instance. But since almost the beginning of time, humans have found reasons to enslave, kill, invade, pillage, rape, and bomb other humans.
If anyone wants to see an excellent documentary watch "The fog of war"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War
We visited the Imperial War Museum in London and it seemed the British were at war somewhere for something their entire history.
One significant problem is that the military/industrial businesses in the US provide a huge number of jobs both technical and manufacturing. We are way too good at building machines of destruction.
One significant problem is that the military/industrial businesses in the US provide a huge number of jobs both technical and manufacturing. We are way too good at building machines of destruction.
Lots of truth in that statement. It's difficult to come up with any logical reason for the US being at war beyond the profit motive. That seems especially true in eastasia. It's open to debate, but I do believe that, at the core, access to the region's oil is a significant reason for our continued occupation. Ike's military industrial complex has grown to include big oil.
I'm not a strict isolationist, but every year I feel more strongly that we should pull in the reigns and eliminate most activities on foreign soil. Not all, but most. The military already has access to technology that should allow it to defend our shores with far less manpower and equipment and even those reduced figures could be cut by, what...80% (?) if we simply bring the troops home.
The profit part isn't necessarily bad, but why don't we create a scenario where the defense contractors can make a profit by making things that benefit all of us. Navistar can make electric cars. ManTech can keep building the radar systems that help secure remote areas without troops. HP can go back to trying to make a decent laptop. GE can go back to making just about everything in your house. Boeing can build planes for Air China. KBR can...well, maybe we should phase out KBR (they creep me out), but some other company that does what they do could set ground support for all the infrastructure projects we should be doing. And all the others can retool to start building that new infrastructure.
The profit part isn't necessarily bad, but why don't we create a scenario where the defense contractors can make a profit by making things that benefit all of us.
+1, Gregg. Of course, Navistar, GE, and Boeing all make products the rest of us can buy. But it strikes me as sad that some of the best engineering and manufacturing done in this country is done by military contractors.
But it strikes me as sad that some of the best engineering and manufacturing done in this country is done by military contractors.
Well Steve, I would guess that is as simple as following the money. If the highest paying engineering jobs in the past 30 years were in the solar industry we'd probably all have panels on our roof by now.
Obama didn't manage to end them in his first four years. I don't see that if Romney is elected, he'll end them, or that Obama will do so if re-elected.
When does it end?
I was looking at the requirements for membership in the American Legion today, as our local post is recruiting heavily.
I boldened a bit of that for you all. Take a close look. The current "war era" is the longest in our nation's history. We are still waiting for "the end of hostilities as determined by the government of the United States" - when will that be? It has been 22 years, for goodness sake. We have been "at war" for the entirety of my daughter's life, and she will be going to college soon.
Are we winning yet? Will we ever decide we've "won"? Or will we always be at war with Eastasia?
Etc.
I'm a member of the American Legion having been involved in the Grenada "armed conflict" - or as we called it "Operation Urgent Fury". Gots me a medal :-)! as well as the very tail end of the Vietnam war (1975 when I joined the service). And I agree with pretty much everything that has been said on this thread concerning both the nature of most of our current and past wars and armed conflicts, as well as the longivity of them. For the most part I don't see most of them as humanitarian in their goal (WWII was probably the exception) or even to stop the threat of some form of "evil" governemnt like communism (Vietnam) and promote the spread of democracy - a nobel cause when NOT done at the end of a gun barrel - but as a means of gaining something for ourselfs - be that oil or control over certain regions of the world for economic purposes. Otherwise we'd see more involvement in truelly humanitarian missions such as Kosovo, most of the war torn regions of africa where genocide and civil unrest has decimated sections of the populations. But, while I feel that military spending can be greatly cut, and that we never should have been in Iraq or Afganistan in the first place, let a lone stay this long, I am a strong supporter of a well equipted, highly trained modern military. But I feel we can have that at a fraction of the current costs and would rather much of that tax money go towards providing jobs and aid to US citizens.
"More than 200 Army women participated in the invasion...but they were not considered as having been in combat. Coast Guard women served aboard ships patrolling the waters around Grenada; and Air Force women flew as pilots, engineers and loadmasters"
I totally agree with the remarks about too many wars.
I am a proud Canadian, but feel I do have the right to state my point of view here, since our Canadian forces have troops working along with US forces.
We are removing our troops from Afghanistan now, and training Afghanistani soldiers to defend their own country. Personally, I think it's a waste of time trying to defend a country controlled by people who don't want foreigners in their country.
Personally, I'd really like to see the US stop spending money on war machinery and taking care of their own people, including reopening manufacturing their own goods instead of buying from foreign nations, which would employ people who have lost their jobs, homes, etc., to begin the rebuilding of the US to what it was once--the leading power in the world. After all, with all the war machinery stashed in various foreign countries, plus your country, who is going to attack you?
The US doesn't need to think it's the world policeman in my opinion.
I also believe that Obama needs some more time to prove he's an excellent leader--after all, he is still doing what he can to clean up the mess left behind by GWB, likely the worst President the US has ever been unfortunate enough to elect not once, but twice.
This is also affecting Canada, of course, since the US is our close friend and ally
I completely agree with you 100% Liizi - couldn't have said it better myself.
One significant problem is that the military/industrial businesses in the US provide a huge number of jobs both technical and manufacturing. We are way too good at building machines of destruction.
This is so true. My sister has been working for a large defense contractor (Northrup Grumman) for over 17 years now and they survive on military contracts. But they, along with other defense contractors, do suppy a huge number of well paid jobs for a large percent of the population. With the wars now winding down and government contracts drying up (at least weapons and war related equiptment) they are starting to have large scale lay offs. So with reduction of forces from the military ranks, coupled with loss of job from defense contractors - as well as the loss of jobs at local business in the communities that both defense contractors and the miliary support (think of what happens to small communities when military bases close down and all those people move on to other places - those communities pretty much die) the unemployment numbers wil grow ever higher in coming years. As Liizi pointed out, if we don't bring back our manufacturing base in this country, our unemployment will continue to grow and our economy will continue to falter. The military-industrial complex is pretty much holding us up right now.
ETA: and of course when defense contracts dry up here, companies like Northrup Grumman will take their business elsewhere - to China? To Russia? to any other country with a large need for military goods and the money to pay for them. Countries that have no qualms about selling weapons and technolgy to places like North Korea, Cuba, Iran, etc... So the engineering and scientific brain drain will happen here, as well as the top secret high tech gadgets and knowlegde, will be in the hands of the highest paid country and not the USA.
This is so true. My sister has been working for a large defense contractor (Northrup Grumman) for over 17 years now and they survive on military contracts. But they, along with other defense contractors, do suppy a huge number of well paid jobs for a large percent of the population. With the wars now winding down and government contracts drying up (at least weapons and war related equiptment) they are starting to have large scale lay offs.
When I was growing up on Long Island in the 60s and 70s, Grumman hired and laid off techs and engineers and support staff with the regularity of the waves off Long Island Sound. And, yes, it did have an effect as those families either had to figure out if they could hang on or had to move elsewhere for different jobs. I wasn't so aware of the "trickle-down" effect of those families no longer purchasing goods and services, but that's not to say it didn't happen; I just was not aware of it.
ETA: and of course when defense contracts dry up here, companies like Northrup Grumman will take their business elsewhere - to China? To Russia? to any other country with a large need for military goods and the money to pay for them. Countries that have no qualms about selling weapons and technolgy to places like North Korea, Cuba, Iran, etc... So the engineering and scientific brain drain will happen here, as well as the top secret high tech gadgets and knowlegde, will be in the hands of the highest paid country and not the USA.
Maybe I'm just being naïve here, but I can't see how the U.S. would let that happen. There have been instances in the recent past when non-U.S. companies wanted to buy sizable (perhaps majority) stakes in U.S. military contractors and the public fooferaw that followed made the prospective buyer give up the idea. I'm also curious as to how contractors like Northrop Grumman and Raytheon would handle things like security clearances for another country (in a previous life, I worked at a company that built both military and "civilian" aircraft electronics and had to get a security clearance to work there). Again, I'm not saying it can't happen. But I think the first company that looks at those issues seriously is going to have a lot of work to do.
When will the wars end? When enough people have had enough and the cost becomes too high. When eveyone's son or daughter is at risk of going to have their arms and legs blown off. When we can't borrow any more money to fund them and have to actually pay for them with taxes. When it becomes OK to criticize the government and the military without being accused of not loving the USA and not supporting the troops. When rational discussion takes the place of patriotic fervor. In other words, not soon.
When I was growing up on Long Island in the 60s and 70s, Grumman hired and laid off techs and engineers and support staff with the regularity of the waves off Long Island Sound. And, yes, it did have an effect as those families either had to figure out if they could hang on or had to move elsewhere for different jobs. I wasn't so aware of the "trickle-down" effect of those families no longer purchasing goods and services, but that's not to say it didn't happen; I just was not aware of it.
Maybe I'm just being naïve here, but I can't see how the U.S. would let that happen. There have been instances in the recent past when non-U.S. companies wanted to buy sizable (perhaps majority) stakes in U.S. military contractors and the public fooferaw that followed made the prospective buyer give up the idea. I'm also curious as to how contractors like Northrop Grumman and Raytheon would handle things like security clearances for another country (in a previous life, I worked at a company that built both military and "civilian" aircraft electronics and had to get a security clearance to work there). Again, I'm not saying it can't happen. But I think the first company that looks at those issues seriously is going to have a lot of work to do.
Well Northrup IS a private company just like Ford or Coke or Microsoft, and when there are no more US government contracts up for bid, and therefore no "US government work" available for these private companies, there really is nothing to stop Northrup, Raytheon, Lockheed, etc... from pulling up stakes and moving their business to another country. I can't see any of those companies closing shop forever just because there are no more american government contracts. And while yes, they do build other things that are geared toward the civilian market, those things are a fairly small part of their overall products. Not enough of a money maker to develop, test and manufacter those products.
My sister works in security for Northrup and as far as security clearances goes, depending on the projects being worked on and the area they are being worked on, the level of clearances for everyone is different. Even vendors bringing Twinkies for the vending machines and entering the more secured job sites need clearances. But, again, if these jobs aren't located in the US because Northrup has moved to another country, then those security clearances wouldn't matter to anyone in the US government anyways since they would have no authority over the company, it's products or it's security measures anymore.
I also live in an area (southern Calif) that has constant downsizing -and up sizing - from aerospace and military contractors. Because for the most part, as Bae pointed out, we have been involved with some kind of war many people were able to stay put and ride out the lay offs until they were re-hired by either their former emploer or a new one. But, that hasn't always been the case in smaller towns that were completely dependant on either a military base or a large defense contractor for most of the towns revenue. So when those places closed, much like when the auto industry closed in Detroit, there were no other jobs, Local businesses - those restaurants and shops the former workers used - closed down, the housing market dried up and property values plummeted. Tax revenues for schools and public services xried up as well. etc... This even happened in SoCal back in the 1990's (when I bought my first house for a song!) when the aerospace industry tanked. I think in the current economic situation these things will be multiplied. However, I still believe in a strong military, just saying that alot of our economy is supported in some way or another by military spending. Not to mention that a large number of people have jobs (as well as job training and educational opportunities they wouldn't get elsewhere) by serving in the military.
OOPs - diodn't mean to be so long winded - just was rambling :-)!!
It wouldn't make much difference. Northrup, et al, sell to France and France will sell to anybody.
When will the wars end? When we stop being human.
When will the wars end? When we stop being human.
This is absolutely true. Saying war is just about oil or money or ethnic rivalries represents a gross oversimplification of one of the more complex human behaviors.
It wouldn't make much difference. Northrup, et al, sell to France and France will sell to anybody.
That;s true :-)! I just meant that if there are no more US military contracts going to these businesses, that they will close up shop here in the USA and move their manufacturing plants to other countries - taking their jobs and taxes and income they provide to the towns they are in with them. Whether it's to France or China or Outter Mongolia - where ever there is someone willing to pay them to produce a product, that's where they will go to - and that is who their allegience will be too. So like much of the US's former manufacturing sites - be it the north east, Motown or anywhere else - you'll see shuttered factories and businesses, weed filled lots with only a few dusty tumbleweeds rolling across what was once a thriving factory - cue the forlorn western music :-)!
ETA: My sister's Northrup facility closed down last year because of lack of governemnt contracts (was a weapons test site). Thousands lost their job or were transferred to new jobs in different locations or retired out. This happened to several other Northrup facilities locally. Job sites closed forever. I remember when Hughs Aerospace closed here - laying of about 10K workers and closing it's doors forever (I think the approx 300 acre facility is still empty) all because of having no government/military contracts. So reducing the size of the military WILL have an effect on civilian jobs and local economies and social services. Does that mean the military shouldn't be reduced? I think it shoule be - and that it can be - and still be very effective. But it'll hurt more than just the military when (if) it happens.
"The good times for Hughes workers began to sour in the 1970s. With major defense cuts in 1970, the aerospace industry experienced a dramatic downturn and the Hughes' Fullerton plant was hit as hard as anyone--3,000 of its 8,000 employees were laid off.
But by the late 1970s, the plant landed a series of international air defense contracts, which offset its dismal opportunities in the United States. Defense spending remained relatively low until the 1980s buildup begun during the Reagan Administration, and by 1986, Hughes' employee roster had swollen to a record 14,500. But shortly thereafter, the company began to cut back."
When will the wars end? Ask Obama, he is still the Commander in Chief. I don't think its been a high priority for him.
When will the wars end? Ask Obama, he is still the Commander in Chief. I don't think its been a high priority for him.
This is wa-a-a-ay to simplistic to explain the story of wars. Just bash the current leader of whatever political persuasion and wars will cease. Come on!!!!!!
Sounds to me like this type of quote explains the cause of wars more than the cure. Time to get in touch with some reality, methinks.
Otherwise, this has been an interesting discussion to read and ponder.
This is wa-a-a-ay to simplistic to explain the story of wars. Just bash the current leader of whatever political persuasion and wars will cease. Come on!!!!!!
Sounds to me like this type of quote explains the cause of wars more than the cure. Time to get in touch with some reality, methinks.
Otherwise, this has been an interesting discussion to read and ponder.
Are you saying he is powerless? Where is his priorities? Does he even talk about the wars? He has had close to 4 years now, I hear more about his golf game.
This is wa-a-a-ay to simplistic to explain the story of wars. Just bash the current leader of whatever political persuasion and wars will cease. Come on!!!!!!
Hmmmm. So you're saying its possible that it takes more than one guy just suddenly deciding to stop? Could it also be that it takes more than one guy suddenly deciding to start?
I have heard this same comment over the years with a variety of presidents, - "He(whoever he might be) could change everything as he has the power". It is so much easier to verbally bash the current president online than to campaign and publicly lobby all parties expressing your views against wars and the huge investment in the war machine.
Whether I agreed with her or not, I always admired the woman, Cindy Sheehan, who campaigned against the war and the losses when her son died. She is still doing so despite the ridicule and rage of many and also, to be fair, the support of many. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan. She showed that she had the guts for her position! That continuing effort actually means something!
Are any of you all around the US seeing a lot of vigorous anti-war lobbying to both parties and party-wide strong support for those who agree with active anti-war positions or those who continue to publicly stand for the principle of cutting out the war machine?
The "one man to start a war and one to stop a war" query? For such an effort to succeed both pro and con a war, the mental climate of the governed must be at least somewhat receptive of the position taken, I believe. Others may disagree.
ApatheticNoMore
8-28-12, 2:18pm
For such an effort to succeed both pro and con a war, the mental climate of the governed must be at least somewhat receptive of the position taken, I believe. Others may disagree.
Somewhat is the key. The people usually poll as far far more favorable to getting out of all the countries the U.S. military is involved in than the actions of our government demonstrate. So I'm not sure the people are the main problem. Are they as skeptical of wars, as against all these involvements, as perceptive of the true horrors and cost of war as I would like? No .... not anywhere close. And so the candidates will still campaign on how tough they are on forign policy and think that is a selling point. But I'm just not convinced the people are as bad as the government we are getting in this matter is what I am saying.
Hmmmm. So you're saying its possible that it takes more than one guy just suddenly deciding to stop? Could it also be that it takes more than one guy suddenly deciding to start?
It is always easier to start a war than to stop one. You know that. I do believe this is one of the great dangers of war we are warned about.
Bush started the war with Iraq and Afghanistan. And, he started it with lies he told a wounded nation, knowing exactly where to press on the wound. And it has come out that he and his neocon buddies had planned to go to war with Iraq all along, 9/11 just being the gift of a reason (although it wasn't really a reason, they just twisted it to fit) Was congress an accomplice? Sure, in that they expected their President to NOT lie to them about the 'evidence' and believed him when maybe they shouldn't have. But then, who would expect the American President to try to dupe the congress, and the nation. he got us so entangled in these countries, we can't just leave.
Either you are smart enough to know that, and are just pretending you don't in order to 'tar' the president with something, or you don't understand how it works.
President Obama is working on it, and has pulled most out of Iraq, while actually trying to fight a war on terror, with more success I might add, than Bush, the orchestrator of the wars. War is a messy, complicated business, compounded by a military industrial complex that sees it as a business, not to mention the neocons pushing from the far right to attack Iran.
Yes, one man can start a war, we saw that, but one man cannot stop it. As razz said, it's going to take the whole country, and both sides of the aisle, to stop it. How do you think that's going to work for us?
Somewhat is the key. The people usually poll as far far more favorable to getting out of all the countries the U.S. military is involved in than the actions of our government demonstrate. So I'm not sure the people are the main problem. Are they as skeptical of wars, as against all these involvements, as perceptive of the true horrors and cost of war as I would like? No .... not anywhere close. And so the candidates will still campaign on how tough they are on forign policy and think that is a selling point. But I'm just not convinced the people are as bad as the government we are getting in this matter is what I am saying.
Perhaps you are right. The whole sterilization of war, no bloody pictures, no requirement for everyone to go, has put most people out of touch with the realities of war. It's a game to them, and the real question is 'are we winning or losing?'
Require everyone to serve, even Romney's strapping 5 boys, and I think our stomach for war will quickly turn.
The "one man to start a war and one to stop a war" query? For such an effort to succeed both pro and con a war, the mental climate of the governed must be at least somewhat receptive of the position taken, I believe. Others may disagree.
Well said razz. Can't speak for others, but I do not disagree. I actually think there's merit to peggy's idea about having everyone serve and the limiting effect that might have. I don't think one man, any man, could start a war if a nation was against it. We are all to blame for letting it happen. There was certainly a climate in this country 11 years ago in which a whole lot of people wanted to exact some revenge so no one should be surprised that we ended up in a war. As far as the MI complex, well, both sides freely accept donations from defense contractors. There are 27 democrats on the House Armed Services Committee so its tough to blame everything on the republicans there. On and on. The only way wars are going to stop is if the electorate decides it is absolutely unacceptable and voices that feeling in a very loud and clear fashion.
Gregg we had the draft during Vietnam and millions of Americans had to serve including me and my brother. The death tole was over 50,000 and it went on for 7 years so universal service does not stop the politicians. I do believe it would help. Vietnam was a democratic presidents war. All the gory pictures of the war were shown on the 5 o'clock news.
Iris I actually voted for a republican because he said he would get us out of nam. That republican was Nixon. The last republican I have voted for.
http://studyourhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/buck_stops_here.jpg
One man in particular *can* stop the wars, or at least refuse to order US troops to participate in them, and redeploy the troops back home, and evacuate our foreign bases.
That man, if you look at that musty old document, the US Constitution ( (See Article II, Section 2), is the President of the United States. Congress has the power to declare war, and gets to write the regulations that determine how our military operate (Article I, Section 8), but it falls on the President to prosecute the war, using his own judgement.
He can also negotiate treaties, though those must be properly ratified.
We have a complex system of checks and balances in the design of our government for some great reasons. The President normally doesn't have much actual power due to that. But in this one thing, the stopping of a war, the direction of how our troops are to be used, he is the final authority, unless we impeach him.
All it would take would be an act of moral courage.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.