Anybody watching the Civil War on PBS this week?

[WyandotteTX]

Kristy, nice post about the radicalism of youth. I too, read so much of myself in Q9s posts. I was so young, so hot, so intelligent and so ready to tell everyone else how they were all wrong and how I was right. It is very offputting to others. I still have a bit of serpent tongue to say things that bite but I try and be much more civilized in a conversation. With age I have learned the subtle complexities of situations and have much more empathy for others.

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
Ron Paul. There have been SEVERAL incidents where he was the sole "no" vote.

I think government does serve a purpose, but it's a very small one. Law enforcement, court systems, and national defense are about the only things government is competent at doing. And even in those areas they need some work.

In those services they could do with some decentralization and preferably.....competition. Monopoly is bad, even in govt. That of course is the essence of the strong state debate.
A central standing army is a bad thing. If we want defense (and who doesn't) it should be in the form of local groups paying for their own weapons, ammo and training. A network of locally run garrisons can be coordinated by state level administration and those brought together in a national pact of mutual cooperation. It would be hard for a national executive to send such a force off to create friendly govts in foriegn lands for the benefit of US fruit importers or oilmen, as it should be. Defense is not done overseas.

The rule of law should never be a monopoly or should enforcement. That is precisley why we have cops confiscating video cameras with relative impunity and a legal system that much more about generating revenue that compensating victims.

Don't see the nation being defended by an Army controlled at the state level. What I could see at that point would be the US fragmenting with states making alliances against other states. We would them become easy prey for even the most basic military forces around the world. No it wouldn't work IMO. They could never get enough money together to pay for all the high tech stuff our military has now. People won't pay 300 million to educate children. What makes you think they would pay 100 billion for advanced weapons to defend our country from foreign invasion? You would never get states to cooperate at that level. Without a central government this nation would be a complete joke.

 

[foweler]

Ask around the world......it's a joke WITH one too.
We have a navy made to battle the Japanese fleet, any multi billion dollar ship of which is vulnurable to mini subs or surface skimming missles, we have an army waiting for the German advance where that type of fight will likely never be seen again, and we have an air force waiting for Soviet Russia.

Seems maybe all of that isn't really the right prescription for honest to goodness defense. It's hugely wasteful but it is handy for presidential errands and nightmarish attempts at nation building. The defense contractors like it too.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
Actually I was typing while you were posting and I didn't see what you said. I fully agree with your statement about neo cons and far left liberals. Too far to either side blinds a person to reality. I like that chart you posted. I'm left of center in the middle section there. I could vote for a Republican except that they always vote as a block. Very rare for one to break out and vote what they actually think. Of course that makes them a much more potent force than the Democrats who tend to vote for what they feel is right. That results in a lot of legislation initiated by them failing. I like a lot of Libertarian ideas but the country could not realistically exist without a central government. So can't go there.

I agree with KristyHall. You can't be dead center, but too far in any direction accomplishes nothing. If some of my postings seem a touch radical, it is only because I am responding to a radical post.

it isn't possible to be perfectly neutral. we all have our opinions. in my teen and college years I was far more radical before I calmed my butt down.

I realized I was getting old before my time and got tired of constantly fighting. constantly at meetings, on boards in watch dog groups, and running into the same ignorance, stereotypes and racism and the same justifications for the views.

I also realized as time went on my jumping in guns a blazing approach turned more people off from what iw as trying to say then actually made people listen. My advice to Q9 is the same advice given to me. If you come off as too extreme, no one is going to listen to you. they will write you off as a fanatic, or get angry and defensive, and simply shut down.

It's why prosylitizing and threatening hellfire and brimstone towards non Christians fails to convert them to Christianity, why far left and far right people in the same room rarely ends with anything lower than a shouting match, and why protests rarely end peacefully. Someone always wants to ratchet it up a notch and people stop listening when this happens and start fighting.

it's our nature. we all d it, we all get sarcastic or pushy. we just have to recognize that behavior in ourselves when we do it and work to stop it. I'm directing this at you Q9 Because you remind me of me as a teen. You're passionate about a topic, you make an effort to research it, and you will argue about it until your face is blue. That can be good and bad.

You could try to listen to and read sources of opinions that you don't agree with as well as what you do agree with other wise you won't learn anything, you'll just keep going over the same info you already know, and that information may be flawed.

I personally seriously dislike rush limbaugh and glen beck and find stephen colbert obnoxious at times and john stewart preachy but i listen to them because there are times they have good points. You're obviously an intelligent young person Q9, I challenge you to look at all sides and put that smarts to good use. It's not an easy thing to do but I think you can do it.

I think I just went off on a tangit

I DO look at other sources. I have stated it numerous times. Tell you what, though - you recommend me a book on the subject, I'll head on over to the library, I'll check it out (if it's there - if not, I'll request they order it) and then come back with a general overview of my thoughts on it, just because it appears I need to prove that I read opposing views. Maybe then people will finally stop telling me to do something that I constantly stress that I ALREADY DO.

Honestly, I find that I learn far more about the causes of the war from books that aren't specifically on the subject and are just about individuals. Reading the letters and journal entries of individual soldiers is very enlightening.

To be quite frank, if I expressed my opinions on almost any subject, no matter how calmly I did it I would be written off as a nutjob. It's gotten to the point that I really don't care, because I've lost practically all hope of any progress made by argument. For instance, if I dare mention states' rights as a possible solution, I immediately get the zombie response. RACIST! PRO-SLAVERY! NEO-CONFEDERATE! Okay, the last charge is probably justified. The former two are utterly unfounded, however, and unrelated to states' rights. Basically, the majority of Americans have almost literally been programmed with a set of responses to fend off any ideas harmful to the power of the central government.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
In those services they could do with some decentralization and preferably.....competition. Monopoly is bad, even in govt. That of course is the essence of the strong state debate.
A central standing army is a bad thing. If we want defense (and who doesn't) it should be in the form of local groups paying for their own weapons, ammo and training. A network of locally run garrisons can be coordinated by state level administration and those brought together in a national pact of mutual cooperation. It would be hard for a national executive to send such a force off to create friendly govts in foriegn lands for the benefit of US fruit importers or oilmen, as it should be. Defense is not done overseas.

The rule of law should never be a monopoly or should enforcement. That is precisley why we have cops confiscating video cameras with relative impunity and a legal system that much more about generating revenue that compensating victims.

Don't see the nation being defended by an Army controlled at the state level. What I could see at that point would be the US fragmenting with states making alliances against other states. We would them become easy prey for even the most basic military forces around the world. No it wouldn't work IMO. They could never get enough money together to pay for all the high tech stuff our military has now. People won't pay 300 million to educate children. What makes you think they would pay 100 billion for advanced weapons to defend our country from foreign invasion? You would never get states to cooperate at that level. Without a central government this nation would be a complete joke.

Dunkopf - who says we need advanced weapons? The Vietnamese handed the US military its rear end on a platter with AK-47's, SKS's, and homemade explosives. The Afghans are doing the same thing, the only difference being our tech has advanced eons past Vietnam-era tech, and the Afghans are still mostly at the same level tech-wise as the Vietnamese.

Also, military is generally recognized as a far more legitimate government function than "education." A basic Air Force and Navy maintained by each state would be perfectly suffecient to soften up anyone stupid enough to attack, and to make matters worse, much of the US - especially the Southeast - is totally inhospitable to an invading army. Assuming a country could somehow amass a transport fleet large enough to successfully invade a state would then have to deal with the following:

Barrier islands
Intra-coastal waterways
Swamps
Rivers
Marshes

And worst of all, hostile locals. And that's before they hit the inevitable mountain range (assuming this hypothetical invasion strikes the Continental US). They would be so screwed before they came close to conquest. I don't know about wherever you live, but where I live, there's a LOT of folks with rifles that mean business. I know some folks who can land a headshot on a target with a crappy AK-47 from 100 yards while moving. I know people who can operate a bolt rifle almost as fast as a semi-auto, and do it more accurately to boot. An invader would have to deal with snipers, sneak attacks, strikes on convoys, and even worse, close-quarters combat. Then, of course, their own weapons would end up getting turned against them by the occasional successful raid, and the lack of centralization in the defense forces means that taking prisoners and interrogating them would be almost completely useless.

 

[WyandotteTX]

Q?.....do you ever read much about colonialism or imperialism? That is one of my favorite things to read about these days. I have two areas that I read about more than others and that is the colonial expansion of Spain into the New World and the stories of the Conquistadors which are really extraordinary. My other taste is for the colonial expansion of Europe into Africa, some of the stories are truly frightening in how Africans were treated. A great book for that would be "King Leopolds Ghost" about the his colony in the Congo. It was an eye opening read for me. When I did get my degree I specialized in European 20th Century History but have always been a student of military history all over the world. Basically I enjoy it all.

As for the comments about our military. Its hard to have an armed force to deal with all things around the world. We do need a large land force for the chance that China invades somewhere or we need feet on the ground so to speak. In my opinion our carrier force is our best asset we have. They are a mobile strike force to go anywhere around the world to impress our presence where needed. As for the safety of those carries, we know they are an IMMENSE investment by our country and we take extraordinary measures to ensure their safety from all threats. The carrier never goes anywhere by itself, there are always a task force of ships whose main purpose is to protect that carrier. Just my observations anyway

 

[Dunkopf]

Actually Q. If the Soviets were still around and had the technology of today the Afghanistan people would all be dead. The US played the biggest role in routing the commies from Afghanistan. Our Stinger missiles saved the day from those Hind helicopters. If we waged war the way the Soviets did we would have cleaned up in Iraq and Afghanistan. We aren't big into directly killing non combatants though. Yes it happens as is evidenced in Iraq and the millions killed there. Of course a lot of those weren't directly by us but by the militants because of us. I think most soldiers and marines that were in Nam will tell you that our failure there was strictly political in nature. We had the technology and a vastly better force.

I am amused by your belief that America could be easily defended by Patrick Swayzee and Charlie Sheen. Currently England, Germany, France and Russia could easily invade America if we didn't have the military we currently have. With 50 different states functioning willy nilly they may find a reason to do so. Heck Mexico might even take Texas back and AZ too just so they could kick the gringos out

 

[WyandotteTX]

Dunk, they will take Texas back over my cold dead body

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
Just kidding. I think it's more likely Oklahoma would invade.

 

[WyandotteTX]

Dunk, I could think of a really good come back for that one but it would probably get me banned...haha...
Most Okies wish they lived in Texas already