Finally You (Yes, You) Can Solve the U.S.A.'s Debt Problem!

[Lemur]

I haven't had time to play with it yet, but this looks interesting (http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/#).

Okay, wait a minute, I tried it out. Man, cutting services sucks. Not easy and not fun.

Give it a try and tell me what you think ...

[Tellos Athenaios]

It's trivial if you are willing to accept defeat in Afghanistan. Cut, cut, cut, the military (toys & troop numbers) hard and you only have a few more options to go through before you reduce the deficit to 58%. It's almost cheating really: this game sorely needs a competent AI. :shrugs:

[Vladimir]

Entertaining. I cut taxes for the rich and eliminated all aid to the old and young.

But, no, seriously...Very informative but I don't take it too seriously. :shrug:

[Subotan]

I did it. Got it down to 58% by 2018, mainly through ripping into Baby Boomers like a chainsaw.

[Beskar]

Wow, Lemur, I found that really easy. According to my finanical cuts and increases, the United States would be around ~40% of the debt by 2018, opposed to the target of 60%.

I went backwards and increased some of the funding for projects, since I had lots spare.

You reduced the debt to 48% of GDP in 2018, and kept it at a sustainable level through 2030.

Now R&D, Transport, Education and Healthcare all got significant increases, (Foster/Adoption care, and disabilities too), including assisting people in getting jobs, and providing benefit incentive for getting jobs too.

All this funded by taxing the super-rich, stopping off-shore banking, etc.

I love Socialism.

https://img99.imageshack.us/img99/6935/savingschart.png

[Louis VI the Fat]

You reduced the debt to 50% of GDP in 2018, and kept it at a sustainable level through 2030. :balloon:


I increased just about all social programs and fun stuff, and still ended up reducing the debt to fifty percent! When the big government types like Beskar and me instantaneously manage to drastically reduce the debt something is wrong - and it is not the simulation!

Is 'small government' Conservative doublespeak for tax evasion by the rich? Redressing this was apparantly all it took.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yeah. I mean a 5% VAT cuts off a 3rd of the required savings.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I found it hard because I have no idea what most of that stuff is. And it seems the biggest money is tied to afghanistan and tax cuts, which are both difficult issues, requiring expertise in foreign affairs and economics.

[rotorgun]

I achieved 57% by 2018 with a more balanced approach. Every department participated in the cuts, so I figure there won't be any violent protests. There will be some whining and grumbling among the electorate, but no guillotines or cries of "Liberty, Egality! Indeed, no "Let them eat cake" either, ha ha.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I found it hard because I have no idea what most of that stuff is. And it seems the biggest money is tied to afghanistan and tax cuts, which are both difficult issues, requiring expertise in foreign affairs and economics.

"You reduced the debt to 59% of GDP in 2018, and kept it at a sustainable level through 2030."

I raised taxes and trimmed the budget, but basically I hit high-earners by reducing their tax credits, instituting Federal VAT, etc. I still had enough money to extend healthcare and not butcher social security. I probably could have cut NASA missions instead of such high tax rises, actually.

[Centurion1]

Incorrect analysis. You have to factor in certain things that would occur after certain actions are taken.

[Beskar]

I raised taxes and trimmed the budget, but basically I hit high-earners by reducing their tax credits, instituting Federal VAT, etc. I still had enough money to extend healthcare and not butcher social security. I probably could have cut NASA missions instead of such high tax rises, actually.

The NASA stuff is basically a drop in the ocean, and the R&D effects of having them make them very cost-effective.

It is funny when you get rid of the "Riches" privileges, etc, you suddenly got money to fund lots of benefit programmes, etc, or even as I did, expanded on Mass Transit, R&D, and other things.

There were cuts I did in the benefits department, but the cuts I did ended up only balancing out the funding of Work Programmes, etc I put in its place.

It seems like the +5% VAT is definitely the biggest earner.

[Ice]

I got to 55%. I cut a lot of military expenditures, but left the missile defense system. Social Security and Health care saw a large boost. I added a 5% VAT and a +mil extra tax on the wealthy (I'm usually against this kind of thing, but 1 million is a reasonable amount of dough). I also improved tax collection.

[Ice]

It is funny when you get rid of the "Riches" priviledges like evading State Tax, Exemption from Social Security, etc, you suddenly got money to fund lots of benefit programmes, etc, or even as I did, expanded on Mass

Uh, I'm I don't think you understand what you are talking about. Rich people aren't evading state or local taxes. The opposite actually. They are recieving a deduction on their on the tax return for taxes paid to those enities. It eliminates double taxation... well sort of. The alt min taxes forces them to compute their tax w/o the deduction. It only helps a little.

Rich people also aren't "exempt" from social security. The first (cant remember the exact number) 110k is "taxable" by social security. I put that in quotes because social security is supposed to be a public pension system in which you contribute money and recieve it back when you retire. However, do to benefit caps and other fun things, high income earners already pay much more in than they recieve. Theses benefits are also taxable to many people. Talk about a crappy retirement system for them. Why would you want to tax even more of this income?

[rotorgun]

The NASA stuff is basically a drop in the ocean, and the R&D effects of having them make them very cost-effective.

It is funny when you get rid of the "Riches" privileges, etc, you suddenly got money to fund lots of benefit programmes, etc, or even as I did, expanded on Mass Transit, R&D, and other things.

There were cuts I did in the benefits department, but the cuts I did ended up only balancing out the funding of Work Programmes, etc I put in its place.

It seems like the +5% VAT is definitely the biggest earner.

True, but a little give and take is always a political winner. One must remember that the wealthy do pay the majority of the taxes. There must be the appearance of fairness, else one may be assassinated like Caesar was....e Tu Bruti?

PS: You left so little for defense that the Duchy of Lichtenstein could overrun you. :laugh4:

[Xiahou]

Interesting exercise, but it's a bit simplistic. Tax hikes are the easiest way to "victory" in the simulation, but in reality tax hikes constrain economic growth. You can raise the top rates by 50%, but that doesn't mean you'll bring in 50% more money from them as a result. (See Hauser's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausers_Law))

[Strike For The South]

I got rid of the government

Do I winz?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I killed everything for defense except research and development which I increased, I stopped sending people to the moon and mars but increased research and development again. I killed the Bush tax cuts for only the wealthy, and I didn't choose the VAT (sales tax is a terrible regressive tax on the poor), I also killed all tax benefits for the rich as well as canceling all the unaccountable stimulus packages present and future. I increased benefits for all social programs but increased the limit on which they can receive them and did the special reduced benefits to the rich old people. My result?: 58% With the lower and middle class getting an influx of money from the expanded jobs program.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I killed everything for defense except research and development which I increased, I stopped sending people to the moon and mars but increased research and development again. I killed the Bush tax cuts for only the wealthy, and I didn't choose the VAT (sales tax is a terrible regressive tax on the poor), I also killed all tax benefits for the rich as well as canceling all the unaccountable stimulus packages present and future. I increased benefits for all social programs but increased the limit on which they can receive them and did the special reduced benefits to the rich old people. My result?: 58% With the lower and middle class getting an influx of money from the expanded jobs program.

See, I barely touched defence, apart from removing "grow the army".

The lesson here is that America lives beyond the means it is willing to collect, not beyond its means.

[CountArach]

Interesting. I decided to have a play around with it and decided that I would try to raise discretionary spending to the maximum possible level and see if I could do it. It turns out I can just manage it. Mostly by increasing revenues and cutting down on the various tax issues. I couldn't afford to raise all the others though (though I did spend a bit of money on specific programs, such as foreign aid), and did a few things that I would personally be uncomfortable with.

[KukriKhan]

The lesson here is that America lives beyond the means it is willing to collect, not beyond its means.

True fact, Jack.

That's why "cuts", when made, have to be seen as equally-shared, lest the cut-ees and remaining payers get grumpy - and armed.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Interesting exercise, but it's a bit simplistic. Tax hikes are the easiest way to "victory" in the simulation, but in reality tax hikes constrain economic growth. You can raise the top rates by 50%, but that doesn't mean you'll bring in 50% more money from them as a result. (See Hauser's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausers_Law))

That's why there's an estimate next to the issue; these costs have been factored into the result I imagine. For instance there is no way that 5% VAT on an economy worth a couple of trillion on a yearly basis brings in $600Bn over the next 20 years; unless of course you have a model which factors in the lessened purchasing power on the economy and hence tax revenue.

[Kadagar_AV]

That test was only based on already existing political questions, what if you have other solutions?

I didn't see the option for "hey, we really put ourself in the brown coloured bodily substance in Afghanistan, let's get the warm place out of here - option.


I didn't even find the option to make cheerleaders playthings for the viking skier overlord.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

That test was only based on already existing political questions, what if you have other solutions?

I didn't see the option for "hey, we really put ourself in the brown coloured bodily substance in Afghanistan, let's get the warm place out of here - option.


I didn't even find the option to make cheerleaders playthings for the viking skier overlord.


I didn't see the option "We in Afghanistian because of 9/11" one, do you? :juggle2:

My results :clown:

https://i442.photobucket.com/albums/qq147/Warman8/Budget.jpg

[Beskar]

PS: You left so little for defense that the Duchy of Lichtenstein could overrun you. :laugh4:

Not true. I expanded the Veteran's benefits, cut the army growing, pulled out of afganistan, and these minor things. I kept the R&D stuff.

So in otherwords, the army would roughly be the same size as now, but with veterans getting better treatment after service, etc.

[Centurion1]

Lol do you guys understand what the army growth program is?

Its like rotc academies and a minor expansion for enlisted troops. Our army is not really that large about 737000 which may sound like a lot but in reality may not

[Subotan]

I didn't understand what it was so I didn't touch it.

And that makes sense. America is not going to be fighting a "People's War" anytime soon.

[PanzerJaeger]

I got rid of the government

Do I winz?

In my book, yes...

[Strike For The South]

In my book, yes...

Im in your book?

So should I expect a 2 am booty call?

or the classic "what are you doing" text

I can be your fraulien

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Lol do you guys understand what the army growth program is?

Its like rotc academies and a minor expansion for enlisted troops. Our army is not really that large about 737000 which may sound like a lot but in reality may not

It's a waste of money, a relic from the Bush era when the Administration wanted to act unilaterally.

So it can be cut.

[Centurion1]

my college education cares to differ lol.

think of the militaty like this. to remain competetive among other organizations it must follow the standard trend of "interest". this interest is additional men especially career officers.

severe military cuts have caused ridiculous impacts on the economy of certain areas in the US (the cuts during clinton and carter come to mind) Large areas of the US (like my entire area) depend on th emilitary for income in all sectors. as well many officers and enlisted are cut druing military spending cuts and as a result a flooding of the market occurs. which is unfortunate because military officers are excellent addtions to the workplace.

[A Nerd]

I long for another general to be president. I like Ike! Petraus anyone? Conservative, efficient, patriotic! Anyone who wishes to shoot holes in my political understanding feel free to do so. The beauty and addictive quality of the backroom and this forum in general!!! :)

[Tellos Athenaios]

severe military cuts have caused ridiculous impacts on the economy of certain areas in the US (the cuts during clinton and carter come to mind) Large areas of the US (like my entire area) depend on th emilitary for income in all sectors. as well many officers and enlisted are cut druing military spending cuts and as a result a flooding of the market occurs. which is unfortunate because military officers are excellent addtions to the workplace.

And therein lies your budget problems does it not? Precisely why more expenditure on troops/gear, ever greater reliance on the military as subsidy slush fund/jobs programme to prop up disfunctional state economies is not such a good idea.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

my college education cares to differ lol.

That's not an impressive statement from the perspective of someone taking up his PhD, it's also a somewhat immature claim in this context; unless your degree is in Politics and Economics.


think of the militaty like this. to remain competetive among other organizations it must follow the standard trend of "interest". this interest is additional men especially career officers.

The "Grow the Army" program is just that, reversing the trend simply restores previous force-levels. This can be done easily by not replacing short-term commissioned and enlisted personnel when they leave. In reality, only a relatively small percentage of military personnel are "lifers", especially when the army is fighting two brutal wars. Hell, the US has the same retention problems as Britain, only worse, recruiting fewer men will reduce stress on the system and allow for selection of the best candidates.


severe military cuts have caused ridiculous impacts on the economy of certain areas in the US (the cuts during clinton and carter come to mind) Large areas of the US (like my entire area) depend on th emilitary for income in all sectors. as well many officers and enlisted are cut druing military spending cuts and as a result a flooding of the market occurs. which is unfortunate because military officers are excellent addtions to the workplace.

There will be no flood, officers will leave when they naturally would and won't be replaced. As to the rest; that's a problem your country has with an overblown MIC.

[Centurion1]

Phillips I'm only 18 I'm not talking about an actual education I'm talking about the fact thst I am both a west point acceptee and a rotc scholarship meaning that if I attend either (rotc probably) the military will pay my education in return for a minimum of 8 years service I plan on extending anyway.

Don't worry though I forgive you for jumping to conclusions lol :clown:

When clinton and carter madee cuts my father was a usn commander he had co officers being cut pay and given a month termination notice these were senior officers it was even worse in the army

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Phillips I'm only 18 I'm not talking about an actual education I'm talking about the fact thst I am both a west point acceptee and a rotc scholarship meaning that if I attend either (rotc probably) the military will pay my education in return for a minimum of 8 years service I plan on extending anyway.

Don't worry though I forgive you for jumping to conclusions lol :clown:

When clinton and carter madee cuts my father was a usn commander he had co officers being cut pay and given a month termination notice these were senior officers it was even worse in the army

Centurion:

The point PVC (and I think Beskar) are making is that maintaining the US armed forces at their current levels are the MOST we should do. Their preference would be to move the military budget closer to 2% of GDP (similar to France) from its existing 4%. As, in their model, we would never be acting militarily without direct coordination and support from NATO and or the UN (save in our own direct defense) those force levels would be more than sufficient.

I'm more of a USA exceptionalist/nationalist, so I don't see it that way, but I'm also a relic of the Cold War.

[Centurion1]

I just didn't want him thinking I was bragging about a college education really, I mean talk about tasteless

[Subotan]

severe military cuts have caused ridiculous impacts on the economy of certain areas in the US (the cuts during clinton and carter come to mind) Large areas of the US (like my entire area) depend on th emilitary for income in all sectors. as well many officers and enlisted are cut druing military spending cuts and as a result a flooding of the market occurs. which is unfortunate because military officers are excellent addtions to the workplace.
The government would do better to cut spending on the millitary, and then introduce programs to help create an economic diversification in areas which would be worst affected.


That's not an impressive statement from the perspective of someone taking up his PhD, it's also a somewhat immature claim in this context; unless your degree is in Politics and Economics.
When I start my degree, it will be in those two areas, so does that count? :beam:


Centurion:

The point PVC (and I think Beskar) are making is that maintaining the US armed forces at their current levels are the MOST we should do. Their preference would be to move the military budget closer to 2% of GDP (similar to France) from its existing 4%. As, in their model, we would never be acting militarily without direct coordination and support from NATO and or the UN (save in our own direct defense) those force levels would be more than sufficient.
A NATO wide level of 3% would be a good compromise.

[Lemur]

When clinton and carter madee cuts my father was a usn commander he had co officers being cut pay and given a month termination notice these were senior officers it was even worse in the army
Clinton was in office twelve years after Carter, so I'm kinda dubious about this anecdote; big time gap to be describing identical phenomena. (Needs citation, as the Wikipedia folks say.) 'Cause honestly, it sounds to this lemur as though you're simply repeating the ranting points of a Republican officer you know, who may or may not have been drunk when he said it.

Moreover, a township or county dependent on the U.S. government to provide jobs is going to have to live with the results of not having a real economy. What Uncle Sam giveth, Uncle Sam can taketh away. Forget military downsizing; what if the base is moved? What if the dollars that used to go into that local naval project get diverted to VA care? Lots of things can go wrong when you depend on the government.

Much better to diversify and encourage real businesses and a real economy. Otherwise you takes what you gets.

[Centurion1]

My father.......... and he voted for after the first time.

My father only really experienced the Clinton cuts as he was mostly a Reagan era officer joining near around the Carter administration. This isn't just my fathers story about the nightmares of the Clinton cuts a lot of officers from that time will tell you the same. You will meet a lot of retired o-5 from that period.

From what I know morale was terrible during the Carter administration in part because of cuts and certain events

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's pointless to keep up the size of the US armed forces in proportion to others or just increasing the size period. Or enemies are going to be small bands of terrorists where large armies are ineffective in subduing or we going to be going up against that big behemoth China (which I doubt, but a new book I'm reading is giving me a new perspective) where any increase in our armed forces is pointless to the massive real life zergling rush China will throw at us anyway.

The way for victory in this modern age is no longer numbers but technology. Cut the size of the army drastically and pour as much money as possible on our scientists and research and development, only technological superiority will have the US win against China in a full on conventional war. Or against the taliban for that matter.

[Centurion1]

Numbers still matter a million men with second tier technology will still crush 200000 and war with China is highly unlikely as is an confrontation between two nuclear nation. China is not looking for global dominance rhythm now they want east Asian dominance

[a completely inoffensive name]

Numbers still matter a million men with second tier technology will still crush 200000 and war with China is highly unlikely as is an confrontation between two nuclear nation. China is not looking for global dominance rhythm now they want east Asian dominance

The first part of your statement is false, 1.1 million Viet Cong were killed during the Vietnam War compared to the 58,000ish US troops that were killed. As for China, I agree still for the most part that war is unlikely, however the book I am reading currently "The End of the Free Market: Who will win the war between states and corporations?" is a book based around 21st century state capitalism developed in Russia, China and the Arab kingdoms rich with oil. Their manipulation of state corporations for political power instead of wealth for the sake of wealth like a private corporation will jeopardize the long term stability of the free market system we subscribe to. This cannot be allowed and it will come to a head between China and US eventually, no matter the economic dependence, imo.

[rory_20_uk]

Too simplistic - of course. I got to 49% of budget, although if I went back I'd spend more on R&D (although I don't think NASA is a good vehicle for that - far too bureaucratic now) and infrastructure.
Some were difficult. I think subsidies for Biofuels is can be a good idea - but not if all their doing is making the use of corn cost effective. I'm meaning helping with startup costs to use other forms of organic waste where initial equipment is a barrier to market.

Was there an option to cut foreign aid? I'd scrap that completely. Go to the World Bank you scroungers!

~:smoking:

[Centurion1]

Your Vietnam example is not fair. Look at how many dead south Vietnamese there were. As well the Viet Cong were not an organized military force.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/css/images/congrats_text.png You reduced the debt to 33% of GDP in 2018, and kept it at a sustainable level through 2030.


Can I become the President of United States? :clown:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Your Vietnam example is not fair. Look at how many dead south Vietnamese there were. As well the Viet Cong were not an organized military force.

Yes, simply opposing the dead from the USA discounts the many dead fighting for South Vietnam and the deaths of those in SEATO who fought with us. This would distort things. Roughly 58k USA, 2850 Allied, and 224k South Vietnamese military combatants died as opposed to roughly 1.1M for the North Vietnamese (though it should be noted that NVA figures include those killed fighting the French as well). Approximately 2M civilians died on each side during the conflict bringing the total deaths to roughly 5.4M.

U.S. casualties (http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html), thorough breakdown; South Vietnamese and Allied Casualties (http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html); North Vietnamese casualties and Civilians can be referenced from the smith link and from this link (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/casualty.html).


I disagree completely that the VC were "not an organized military force." They were well organized, surprisingly well equipped, and worked at cohesive strategic objectives according to the dictates of planned goals from Giap and other Northern leaders. They were never organized as a formal military force in the manner of the US army or the NVA, but to downplay them as you do is simply innacurate. Tet 1968 alone (despite their defeat in combat) is sufficient to point out the degree of integration and organization possessed by this "informal" group of soldiers.

[Centurion1]

I agree seamus they were well led and fought well they are still not conventional soldiers and that has to be acknowledged they had no airpower or armor or artillery beyond mortars

[Beskar]

I agree seamus they were well led and fought well they are still not conventional soldiers and that has to be acknowledged they had no airpower or armor or artillery beyond mortars

Well, it is better than admitting you got beaten by a bunch of ragtag men with ak-47's.

Also, they did have armour and support, I believe. They were heavily funded by both China and the USSR, who wanted influence over them.

[Centurion1]

Viet Cong and invasion are two different things

[TinCow]

I agree seamus they were well led and fought well they are still not conventional soldiers and that has to be acknowledged they had no airpower or armor or artillery beyond mortars

You seem to be assuming that the only fighting force in the war was the Vietcong; you're forgetting the North Vietnamese Army. The US/ARVN fought both during the Vietnam War. The Vietcong were the guerrilla warfare guys who infiltrated South Vietnam and attacked anywhere and everywhere they could. The NVA were the regular army of North Vietnam and they engaged in a great deal of fighting along the border with South Vietnam. The Vietcong did indeed rely mainly on light infantry, but the NVA had a very sizable number of aircraft, armor, and artillery.

[Centurion1]

Did you read any of my other posts? I talk about the difference between the invasion and Viet Cong and how they are not to be lumped together.

Geez man

[spmetla]

The Viet Cong were somewhat ragtag but the NVA were well trained well equipped troops with armor, artillery, and all the other aspects of an army. As for comparing whether we were more effective, well if simply killing more of the enemy means that you win then yes, invest all your money into super weapons that can cause mass destruction across the globe. In the real world though you need troops on the ground to take actual possession of the enemy held territory, something we never did to North Vietnam (Just saying we invading the north instead of just defending the south would've been a better strategy). Gulf War 1 was another example, Saddam's army was obliterated from the air but it still took a massive ground assault to kick them out of Kuwait.

As for the budget, well the army is too small, while it would seem to be nice to just have a larger reserve force or something to supplement a much smaller professional army it just wouldn't have the same capability and it takes a long time to rebuild military capability. It'd be good if the military acquisitions program was overhauled and made more efficient and other such things so that we keep the same military but at a cheaper cost but of course that would be like getting rid of earmarks-not likely to happen anytime soon.

[a completely inoffensive name]

My point is nevertheless valid. Technological superiority makes up for raw numbers, especially if that technological difference becomes exponential. Why bother increasing troop levels and having more deaths when we can easily push for additional technological advances and get more out of each soldier causing less total deaths?

21st century warfare is increasingly becoming less reliant on having troops on the ground to hold actual territory because such warfare as I said is going to be against bands of terrorists such as the Taliban who dont care about how much territory they give up or how much they roam as long as they have won at the end of the day (or decade), OR it will be up against behemoths such as China where it will be futile to even attempt to occupy it. You don't need to occupy a country to achieve victory and get its surrender and terrorists dont adhere to war as suitable to a large military.

Stop pushing for size, no mater how much we increase our military size, we will not ever compare to the tidal wave of Chinese soldiers if the country decided to fully mobilize all available citizens into the military. One of our biggest assets right now is our increasingly important fleet of UAVs, a direct result of technological innovation that can allow for the removal of many troops while at the same time devastating any enemy who lacks the ability to target and fire down the quiet and small drones that could easily be mass produced and re purposed as mini bombers.

The US has not signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions) so I expect in a full scale war with China that we mass produce hundreds of thousands of these UAV drones with one or two cluster bombs and send waves of hell upon a city without having to lose a single soldier.

[Beskar]

What gets me about the Veitnam war is that the North Veitnamese were the "good guys".

A brief summary of Events followed along this route:
French tried to reclaim its colony in the Indochinese rule after Japan was kicked out. This ended with Vietnam split into two factions, the North communist elected government and the South ruled by Emperor Bao Dai.
In the south, a tinpot dictator (Ngo Dinh Diem) in fradulant elections overthrew the emperor.
In breach of the accords set by Guenvera, nationwide talks were not held by the souths refusal, even though the North tried numerous attempts. This resulted in uprisings in the south to try to overthrow the corrupt government.
Mr. Tinpot also disliked budism, and there were numerous incidents and discrimination of the religious kind. This caused all sorts of issues which caused multiple coups and junta over a brief number of years.
Due to this, the communists gained support in the south, then the USA comes in with "EVILPINKOCOMMUNISTS!" trying to prop up another totalitarian regime, characteristic of their efforts during that time. (so much for beacon of democracy)

Another kicker, was the Norths inspiration from the American declaration of independence and declaration of Human Rights of Man from the French Revolution.

I also believe that America sunk one of its own ships, attempting to blame it on the North Vietnamese as a pretext of war.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I also believe that America sunk one of its own ships, attempting to blame it on the North Vietnamese as a pretext of war.

They didn't sink one of their own ships, they just faked a battle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident) The US sinking its own ship to get into a war relates to the controversy over the USS Maine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_%28ACR-1%29) being sunk sparking the Spanish-American War.

[spmetla]

My point is nevertheless valid. Technological superiority makes up for raw numbers, especially if that technological difference becomes exponential. Why bother increasing troop levels and having more deaths when we can easily push for additional technological advances and get more out of each soldier causing less total deaths?

21st century warfare is increasingly becoming less reliant on having troops on the ground to hold actual territory because such warfare as I said is going to be against bands of terrorists such as the Taliban who dont care about how much territory they give up or how much they roam as long as they have won at the end of the day (or decade), OR it will be up against behemoths such as China where it will be futile to even attempt to occupy it. You don't need to occupy a country to achieve victory and get its surrender and terrorists dont adhere to war as suitable to a large military.

Stop pushing for size, no mater how much we increase our military size, we will not ever compare to the tidal wave of Chinese soldiers if the country decided to fully mobilize all available citizens into the military. One of our biggest assets right now is our increasingly important fleet of UAVs, a direct result of technological innovation that can allow for the removal of many troops while at the same time devastating any enemy who lacks the ability to target and fire down the quiet and small drones that could easily be mass produced and re purposed as mini bombers.

The US has not signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions) so I expect in a full scale war with China that we mass produce hundreds of thousands of these UAV drones with one or two cluster bombs and send waves of hell upon a city without having to lose a single soldier.

Technological superiority does not make up for numbers, it merely makes numbers more effective. Using the gulf war example, we put hundreds of thousands of troops over there, with the support of an armada of ships and hundreds of aircraft, all top notch equipment to fight a third rate army. Had we not had the numbers paired with the technology then it would not have been possible to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Instead we would have been limited to bombing his forces and blockading his country which might have eventually brought about negotiations but would not likely have returned sovereignty to Kuwait.

UAVs are an excellent bit of technology but they too have limits as you can see to their use in Pakistan, it allows us to have cheap air power to strike at targets with less political consequences. At the same time though, the inability to send troops to those areas to secure what was blown up means potential intelligence data is lost, enemy Taliban can be stripped of weapons to make it look like more civilians were hit instead of a legitimate enemy.

Look again at your argument for Afghanistan, the Taliban don't mind giving up territory but the basis of our strategy is retaining territory. Without more grunts patrolling the hills and streets of Afghanistan security can only be established temporarily before those same grunts are sent elsewhere thereby leaving the secured area open to be re infiltrated by the Taliban. The Taliban don't have good technology but they have sufficient numbers to keep us tied up all over the place.

Of course the need for a conventional warfare army is there as well, Iraq II required defeating Saddam's army which was still numerically impressive, though qualitatively not. We still beat the Iraqi army with an even smaller army than the first time round but the lack of numbers meant that when it came to securing the country everyone was overstretched which allowed Iraq to descend into chaos as former Iraqi army bases left unguarded were raided of munitions and ordnance which is still used against the US in ambushes and IEDs.
Saying that such fights are not gonna happen again is honestly a bit daft, even with a less belligerent foreign policy there is a potential for conflict around the world. Just look at the current events happening in North Korea, while it is probably just the same cycle of escalation/de-escalation that has been happening there for the past half century it is still a powderkeg that could go off anytime. Thankfully the ROK Army is large and mostly well equipped but despite that it is the backing of US military power in primarily massive air and naval support that has prevented China from letting Jr. invade the South again. I would say that North Korea is not a China like behemoth and it is certainly not the only example of such.

As for China, relations have been improving between Taiwan and the PRC but there is still the possibility that China would retake the island by force. So far the prevention of that has been largely due to the guarantee of support to the ROC. While invading and occupying China would not be possible a local victory over a Chinese invasion force would require a large naval and air effort both of which would need to be technologically advanced to offset numbers but numerically large enough to sustain an effort after combat attrition as well as be able to be tasked out without overburdening the aircraft and ships. If needed the US might need to land troops if PRC soldiers actually managed a foothold as well (thinking of a US/China analogy to UK/Argentina in regards to the Falklands).

Despite the unlikelihood of any of these events unfolding we all know that the world is a turbulent place. Bear in mind though this isn't the first time in history when a major war seemed unthinkable, there are plenty of countries which could unhinge our current stability and there have been enough coups throughout the world in the last century that I really don't think we should just assume that all will go well and that we don't need a large military anymore. We need a good mix of quality and quantity right now and in the future. We have quality but quantity has greatly diminished.

[Centurion1]

I'm just going to let spmetla argue for me from now on

[Louis VI the Fat]

SHEESH YOU GUYS DON'T KNOW ANYTHING THE VIETCONG WAS A REGULAR ARMY THEY NEARLY TOOK SEOUL WATCH MASH DAMMIT

[Centurion1]

I think I just pissed myself laughing

[LittleGrizzly]

One thing you missed Beskar, during the original cease fire and split it was agreed the country would be reunited and have democratic elections to decide its future, when it was realised people weren't going to vote as they should it was decided that a war was needed rather than elections (well if people don;t know whats good for them what are you to do ?)

[Beskar]

One thing you missed Beskar, during the original cease fire and split it was agreed the country would be reunited and have democratic elections to decide its future, when it was realised people weren't going to vote as they should it was decided that a war was needed rather than elections (well if people don;t know whats good for them what are you to do ?)

Yes, the South refused this, which I mentioned:

In breach of the accords set by Guenvera, nationwide talks were not held by the souths refusal, even though the North tried numerous attempts. This resulted in uprisings in the south to try to overthrow the corrupt government.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Technological superiority does not make up for numbers, it merely makes numbers more effective. Using the gulf war example, we put hundreds of thousands of troops over there, with the support of an armada of ships and hundreds of aircraft, all top notch equipment to fight a third rate army. Had we not had the numbers paired with the technology then it would not have been possible to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Instead we would have been limited to bombing his forces and blockading his country which might have eventually brought about negotiations but would not likely have returned sovereignty to Kuwait.

UAVs are an excellent bit of technology but they too have limits as you can see to their use in Pakistan, it allows us to have cheap air power to strike at targets with less political consequences. At the same time though, the inability to send troops to those areas to secure what was blown up means potential intelligence data is lost, enemy Taliban can be stripped of weapons to make it look like more civilians were hit instead of a legitimate enemy.

Look again at your argument for Afghanistan, the Taliban don't mind giving up territory but the basis of our strategy is retaining territory. Without more grunts patrolling the hills and streets of Afghanistan security can only be established temporarily before those same grunts are sent elsewhere thereby leaving the secured area open to be re infiltrated by the Taliban. The Taliban don't have good technology but they have sufficient numbers to keep us tied up all over the place.

Of course the need for a conventional warfare army is there as well, Iraq II required defeating Saddam's army which was still numerically impressive, though qualitatively not. We still beat the Iraqi army with an even smaller army than the first time round but the lack of numbers meant that when it came to securing the country everyone was overstretched which allowed Iraq to descend into chaos as former Iraqi army bases left unguarded were raided of munitions and ordnance which is still used against the US in ambushes and IEDs.
Saying that such fights are not gonna happen again is honestly a bit daft, even with a less belligerent foreign policy there is a potential for conflict around the world. Just look at the current events happening in North Korea, while it is probably just the same cycle of escalation/de-escalation that has been happening there for the past half century it is still a powderkeg that could go off anytime. Thankfully the ROK Army is large and mostly well equipped but despite that it is the backing of US military power in primarily massive air and naval support that has prevented China from letting Jr. invade the South again. I would say that North Korea is not a China like behemoth and it is certainly not the only example of such.

As for China, relations have been improving between Taiwan and the PRC but there is still the possibility that China would retake the island by force. So far the prevention of that has been largely due to the guarantee of support to the ROC. While invading and occupying China would not be possible a local victory over a Chinese invasion force would require a large naval and air effort both of which would need to be technologically advanced to offset numbers but numerically large enough to sustain an effort after combat attrition as well as be able to be tasked out without overburdening the aircraft and ships. If needed the US might need to land troops if PRC soldiers actually managed a foothold as well (thinking of a US/China analogy to UK/Argentina in regards to the Falklands).

Despite the unlikelihood of any of these events unfolding we all know that the world is a turbulent place. Bear in mind though this isn't the first time in history when a major war seemed unthinkable, there are plenty of countries which could unhinge our current stability and there have been enough coups throughout the world in the last century that I really don't think we should just assume that all will go well and that we don't need a large military anymore. We need a good mix of quality and quantity right now and in the future. We have quality but quantity has greatly diminished.

You very first sentence proves what I am trying to say. If we can do the same with 5 troops with given technological improvements then 10 troops today, then go with the technological improvement and reduce the number from 10 to 5 to minimize casualties and save money.

Your first paragraph is speculative. Who knows how many troops would have been sufficient to take control and push Saddam out? It could have been 60,000 after a week of bombing or 6,000 after a month of bombing, you can say for sure that if we didnt spam as many numbers as we did that Saddams troops would have beat down the US military. I'm not saying get rid of all the troops, I'm just saying cut the size down to an acceptable financial and fiscal level while increasing funding toward research and development.

Your second paragraph makes it seem as if I want the military to be a night watchmen force with just enough to defend the homeland. It is futile btw to be securing every place we blow up and the Taliban is not going to be believed by the western world when they strip bodies and claim they are innocents, indigenous people will believe them but that is a failure on the policies of the military to counteract that and promote good feelings about the US in Pakistan and not its size.

"the Taliban don't mind giving up territory but the basis of our strategy is retaining territory." Why have we been there for 9 years now with little progress? Because the tactics we have been using have been wrong. Stop thinking WW2, this is why we have not stabilized the region. Our tactics revolve a large army and it is killing American war resolve and our treasury.
"Without more grunts patrolling the hills and streets of Afghanistan security can only be established temporarily before those same grunts are sent elsewhere thereby leaving the secured area open to be re infiltrated by the Taliban. The Taliban don't have good technology but they have sufficient numbers to keep us tied up all over the place." Do you propose putting a grunt at every street intersection and at the top of every hill and mountain? Because that is what it will take to make sure that land if secured properly for a while, and that is just ludicrous.

"Saying that such fights are not gonna happen again is honestly a bit daft," According to you. I and others happen to believe that the globalization of the former Soviet states and China since the early 1990s has created a large enough free market interconnection to halt any conflicts from occurring. Our enemies that Fox news talks about is rogue, weak states such as Iran, HA what a threat in a conventional war (rolls eyes).
"it is the backing of US military power in primarily massive air and naval support that has prevented China from letting Jr. invade the South again."
Absolutely false. China is abandoning North Korea because it has more of a future by cooperating with the United States and promoting the free trade that has caused China to receive 226,826.1 million dollars last year (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html). North Korea knows they have little backing from China now then they ever have and Kim Jong Ills state of health is what is causing North Korea to act out badly this time, because they simply dont to appear weak at a time where civil war could be unfolding once Kim dies (for various reasons I could elaborate if someone asks).

Your 5th paragraph again states "there is still the possibility" which is again speculation and in all honestly, there is still a chance Fidel Castro could declare on us American Imperialistic Pigs, so we better make sure our navy is large enough to form a complete ring around the island. Better make another 400 ships.

"Despite the unlikelihood of any of these events unfolding we all know that the world is a turbulent place." As it always has been. What difference does it make? I didnt realize that being in a dangerous world meant that military spending must always increase and military size can never go down. If that is the case why are we bothering to talking about fiscal responsibility?

"Bear in mind though this isn't the first time in history when a major war seemed unthinkable, there are plenty of countries which could unhinge our current stability and there have been enough coups throughout the world in the last century that I really don't think we should just assume that all will go well and that we don't need a large military anymore." That's extremely vague. What countries could unhinge our current stability? Why does a coup in Africa or South America threaten the safety of America if we dont have a large military? Is Brazil going to have a coup and suddenly invade us?

"We need a good mix of quality and quantity right now and in the future. We have quality but quantity has greatly diminished." I disagree and instead think the exact opposite. Our quantity is too large and our quality needs to be improved. I do not believe our troops have the most advanced technology in front of them right now on their bodies or in their hands. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/19/hoon-difficult-position-goldsmith-iraq) That I feel will be much better in the long run and fiscally then simply adding more grunts to the line.

[Centurion1]

that body armor thing is so overdone. the US military is the best equipped in the world has been for a long time, even when soviet union was around we were better equipped as infantrymen.

[spmetla]

My post was speculative because of course I can't see into the future. In short I think our military should be bigger than it is now but not so big as it was during the cold war, a happy medium. Not a multimillion man army of "nightwatchman" or a handful of nuclear powered country crushing mechwarriors but a military that is large enough to conduct our current strategy more effectively and technologically advanced so that it can be superior to any potential threats.

As for countries that can unhinge our stability, I should have explained that I mean our economic stability, a shattered economy means internal instability, not preparing for Red Dawn. Threats to our allies and sources of energy supplies are threats to our stability, something I hope you and I can agree on. Examples: Iran could close the Straits of Hormuz for a short time period if they went to war with us or Saudi Arabia, don't think I need to describe the other effects of such a war. If Egypt or Turkey have another coup of some sort they would certainly be in a position to change the region's balance of power and affect the economy in a negative way, not likely but both countries have a history of getting a new and very different government every few decades. These are of course more speculation so feel free to ignore away.

[a completely inoffensive name]

My post was speculative because of course I can't see into the future. In short I think our military should be bigger than it is now but not so big as it was during the cold war, a happy medium. Not a multimillion man army of "nightwatchman" or a handful of nuclear powered country crushing mechwarriors but a military that is large enough to conduct our current strategy more effectively and technologically advanced so that it can be superior to any potential threats.

As for countries that can unhinge our stability, I should have explained that I mean our economic stability, a shattered economy means internal instability, not preparing for Red Dawn. Threats to our allies and sources of energy supplies are threats to our stability, something I hope you and I can agree on. Examples: Iran could close the Straits of Hormuz for a short time period if they went to war with us or Saudi Arabia, don't think I need to describe the other effects of such a war. If Egypt or Turkey have another coup of some sort they would certainly be in a position to change the region's balance of power and affect the economy in a negative way, not likely but both countries have a history of getting a new and very different government every few decades. These are of course more speculation so feel free to ignore away.

Well, I just have to say our current strategy has been a massive failure for 9 years in Afghanistan and 6 years in Iraq, I want a new army adapted to a new strategy that is tailored for 21st century anti guerrilla fighting. If a WW2 style war breaks out, it wont be extremely difficult to revert back to mobilizing the young men and start placing lines down on maps to hold.

I absolutely agree on the danger of threats to our allies and sources of energy supplies. Which is why I would like increased rebates for individuals to install solar panels, buy electric cars and funding to create a new generation of nuclear reactor plants across the country to rival France.

The Egypt and Turkey situation can be a possible threat, but I have trust in the ability of the US's wielding of "soft power" to manipulate behind the scenes to make sure that kind of thing doesnt happen. The CIA and all the other three letter acronym defense and security agencies have decades of experience from the Cold War and if not, the best way to keep a government we like in power is to give them what they need to fight outright, it's worked with Israel. If it came down to it I'm sure someone will make the call to broker a new "trade agreement" with Egypt or Turkey involving massive amounts of weapons and money to make sure radical Islamic extremists don't take control.

I'm all for giving the CIA, NSA, FBI etc... all the money they need.

[spmetla]

Fair enough.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

ACIN:

The problem isn't with the basic principle to which you subscribe -- the U.S. military is avidly in favor of technology etc. as a means of "force multiplication." The results of Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 are indicative of the benefits of that approach.

The problem arises when "major combat operations" cease. There are far fewer relevant "force multipliers" for garrison work -- and garrison work while the just-clobbered nation recovers is the longer and more arduous task. This task requires boots or imperialism. Bit of a catch 22 in our modern media context.

[Centurion1]

it is not easy to go from a small fighting force to a large one. the military always trains for the last war they fought

[a completely inoffensive name]

ACIN:

The problem isn't with the basic principle to which you subscribe -- the U.S. military is avidly in favor of technology etc. as a means of "force multiplication." The results of Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 are indicative of the benefits of that approach.

The problem arises when "major combat operations" cease. There are far fewer relevant "force multipliers" for garrison work -- and garrison work while the just-clobbered nation recovers is the longer and more arduous task. This task requires boots or imperialism. Bit of a catch 22 in our modern media context.

Don't attempt to nation build if there are insurgents or any sort of lingering resistance. There, problem solved. Also, technological innovation for the military can greatly benefit garrison work as much as it does with the killing aspect, more so then simply putting more troops on the ground.

[rotorgun]

I don't quite know how this has turned into a debate on our military strategy in Afghanistan or Iraq, but it has been a fascinating debate. I tend to agree with
a completely inoffensive name; to continue fighting in a traditional, less asymmetric way, is the height of folly. Much ink has been used by the US Army to address this. To say that the brass isn't trying to come to grips with our enemy is disingenuous-the military is a very conservative group unfortunately and it takes time for change. I believe we will prevail if the political will is there, and there is the rub. Maybe we should take a page from the Romans of antiquity, and utilize such troops as Auxiliaries, which were recruited from among the native populations to provide the necessary skill sets that the legions lacked. They also would assign their legions to different regions, often recruiting soldiers from among the local populations to fill the ranks. The twelfth legion, for example, was made up of many soldiers recruited in Syria. This was a highly effective legion which participated in the siege of Jerusalem, and the siege of Masada. Why not create US Divisions primarily made up of Iraqi or Afghan troops, but make them take an oath of loyalty to the US Army. They could be trained and equipped to US standards, but only be required to serve in their home regions, under US led commanders. These could then be transferred to the regional governments once they are stable. As more units are stood up, then gradually less American citizens will have to be retained in these countries.

This would certainly be more effective than the units we are currently standing up; such a ragtag, disloyal, corrupt, and ineffective fighting units we haven't seen since the militia units of our American War of "Tax dodging" Independence.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't quite know how this has turned into a debate on our military strategy in Afghanistan or Iraq, but it has been a fascinating debate. I tend to agree with a completely inoffensive name; to continue fighting in a traditional, less asymmetric way, is the height of folly. Much ink has been used by the US Army to address this. To say that the brass isn't trying to come to grips with our enemy is disingenuous-the military is a very conservative group unfortunately and it takes time for change. I believe we will prevail if the political will is there, and there is the rub. Maybe we should take a page from the Romans of antiquity, and utilize such troops as Auxiliaries, which were recruited from among the native populations to provide the necessary skill sets that the legions lacked. They also would assign their legions to different regions, often recruiting soldiers from among the local populations to fill the ranks. The twelfth legion, for example, was made up of many soldiers recruited in Syria. This was a highly effective legion which participated in the siege of Jerusalem, and the siege of Masada. Why not create US Divisions primarily made up of Iraqi or Afghan troops, but make them take an oath of loyalty to the US Army. They could be trained and equipped to US standards, but only be required to serve in their home regions, under US led commanders. These could then be transferred to the regional governments once they are stable. As more units are stood up, then gradually less American citizens will have to be retained in these countries.

This would certainly be more effective than the units we are currently standing up; such a ragtag, disloyal, corrupt, and ineffective fighting units we haven't seen since the militia units of our American War of "Tax dodging" Independence.

Read Max Boot's book on Small Wars. What you're describing is a "constabulary" much as the Marines ran them in Haiti, Nicaragua, the Phillipines and Cuba. They work as well or better than anything else in these situations. We will never be allowed to do that again because it smacks of "imperialism." Never mind that it worked and in the most possible cost effective fashion.

[Beskar]

British Empire had lots of them. How do you think it conquered the majority of the world? Recruited sololy from the British populace?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Read Max Boot's book on Small Wars. What you're describing is a "constabulary" much as the Marines ran them in Haiti, Nicaragua, the Phillipines and Cuba. They work as well or better than anything else in these situations. We will never be allowed to do that again because it smacks of "imperialism." Never mind that it worked and in the most possible cost effective fashion.

You know what also smacks of imperialism *drum roll*.....

Invading a country under pretenses that turned out to be false and staying there for 6+ years attempting to fix things under the guise of promoting what we think they should adhere to!

....Well I thought it was a hilarious joke....

[rotorgun]

British Empire had lots of them. How do you think it conquered the majority of the world? Recruited sololy from the British populace?

Very true Beskar. Many of the military units made up of soldiers from among the commonwealth provided excellent service during both world wars too.


You know what also smacks of imperialism *drum roll*.....-a completely inoffensive name

Maybe it's high time that we call a liberation a shovel, and admit to the sin of imperialism. Than we can move on to really doing a proper job based on clear cut objectives.

It was a witty observation. I'm glad you smoked it mate! he he

[a completely inoffensive name]

-a completely inoffensive name

Maybe it's high time that we call a liberation a shovel, and admit to the sin of imperialism. Than we can move on to really doing a proper job based on clear cut objectives.

It was a witty observation. I'm glad you smoked it mate! he he

I agree completely. And thanks! :D

[ICantSpellDawg]

I cut the budget to 60% of GDP by 2020. As it stands, it will be 62% in 2018. I cut lots of stuff, like certain weapons systems, DHS spending, a number of education programs, etc. I kept a decent balance of extreme poverty welfare along with quite a few tax cuts and credits - even though I increased the income tax rate to 40% for the top 1% of income earners. I think it's a pretty decent start, as people begin to get used to the reforms, we can take another stab at it in a year later, cutting it further. Most of the cuts need to come from personel. We simply need to pay people less and make sure that they work longer and harder to keep their jobs. We need to increase retirement age and convert most of the guaranteed benefits into market-value benefits.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You know what also smacks of imperialism *drum roll*.....

Invading a country under pretenses that turned out to be false and staying there for 6+ years attempting to fix things under the guise of promoting what we think they should adhere to!...

No, that's why I call lousy, half-assed planning. We've netted the label of imperialist from any potential opposition without netting a proper satrapy -- the worst of both worlds. Our troops are up to the task -- it might've helped if the Bush admin had known the real task prior to pulling the trigger and been ready for the far more difficult part B.

[gaelic cowboy]

No, that's why I call lousy, half-assed planning. We've netted the label of imperialist from any potential opposition without netting a proper satrapy -- the worst of both worlds. Our troops are up to the task -- it might've helped if the Bush admin had known the real task prior to pulling the trigger and been ready for the far more difficult part B.

It also might have been a good idea to actually capture Bin Laden at the time by actually having enough troops instead of running off too Iraq for a sexier war.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, that's why I call lousy, half-assed planning. We've netted the label of imperialist from any potential opposition without netting a proper satrapy -- the worst of both worlds. Our troops are up to the task -- it might've helped if the Bush admin had known the real task prior to pulling the trigger and been ready for the far more difficult part B.

Imperialism doesn't require that invaded lands be absorbed into the empire, it just means that invaded lands are taken for their resources to fuel the empire. Whether it be diamonds, gold, slaves or oil.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Imperialism doesn't require that invaded lands be absorbed into the empire, it just means that invaded lands are taken for their resources to fuel the empire. Whether it be diamonds, gold, slaves or oil.

And my gasoline prices have gone up 40% since 2003. So clearly we aren't properly fueling our empire now, are we? It wasn't imperialism -- it was naive power politics to isolate Iran.

Besides, we are not cut out to be imperialists, we lack the necessary resolve to keep our boot on the other person's neck properly.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And my gasoline prices have gone up 40% since 2003. So clearly we aren't properly fueling our empire now, are we? It wasn't imperialism -- it was naive power politics to isolate Iran.

Besides, we are not cut out to be imperialists, we lack the necessary resolve to keep our boot on the other person's neck properly.

Response to first two sentences: That was due to speculators and dwindling worldwide oil supplies, take a good hard look at what Europe pays per gallon before you start complaining our imperialism in Iraq has done nothing to stem the price of gas.

Response to last sentence: Guam, the Philippines, Cuba, and every single Native American tribe that ever lived in the United States including Hawaii and Alaska would very much disagree with you.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Response to last sentence: Guam, the Philippines, Cuba, and every single Native American tribe that ever lived in the United States including Hawaii and Alaska would very much disagree with you.

Actually, I would argue that Guam, Phillipines and Cuba were, on the whole, examples of us being lousy at Imperialism. The Spanish kept them under the thumb for centuries, we gave Cuba back to the Cubans more or less immediately and had started the Phillipines on that route after 30 years or so. You might make a better case for "economic imperialism" but I'd argue that we try to do that to everyone equally worldwide.

Our treatment of the Amerinds, at least prior to 1876, was very mixed. We signed treaties, broke treaties, kept treaties, expelled whole tribes, assimilated tribes, even let some alone or retain power in places. All very mixed up and inconsistent. The technical and cultural disparities put the Amerinds at a disadvantage throughout. Only after the Little Big Horn did we more or less programmatically pen them up or shoot them (though there was always an element of US society advocating that from our founding onwards). If we'd really taken it on as an imperial project, we'd have had them booted from East of the Mississippi by 1820 and from most of the rest of the continent not long after. Manifest destiny wasn't put into practice in anything like a crusade.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Actually, I would argue that Guam, Phillipines and Cuba were, on the whole, examples of us being lousy at Imperialism. The Spanish kept them under the thumb for centuries, we gave Cuba back to the Cubans more or less immediately and had started the Phillipines on that route after 30 years or so. You might make a better case for "economic imperialism" but I'd argue that we try to do that to everyone equally worldwide.

Our treatment of the Amerinds, at least prior to 1876, was very mixed. We signed treaties, broke treaties, kept treaties, expelled whole tribes, assimilated tribes, even let some alone or retain power in places. All very mixed up and inconsistent. The technical and cultural disparities put the Amerinds at a disadvantage throughout. Only after the Little Big Horn did we more or less programmatically pen them up or shoot them (though there was always an element of US society advocating that from our founding onwards). If we'd really taken it on as an imperial project, we'd have had them booted from East of the Mississippi by 1820 and from most of the rest of the continent not long after. Manifest destiny wasn't put into practice in anything like a crusade.

The strength of your imperialism has nothing to do with how long you held a territory. The true measure of imperialism is how that region was shaped by the imperialist country in the years before it was abandoned or won its independence. Lines on a map isn't how imperialists judge their success, its the spheres of influence that you don't see on a map yet are there that they judge by. "Economic imperialism" is imperialism through financial ways and is just as imperialistic as troops stomping on the ground, its how America has kept its large sphere of influence over the majority of the world without having to occupy all that land such as England did in the 1800s and 1900s. In that case, America has been the most successful imperialistic country in history, since how much better can you do then having the majority of the world willingly follow you without even needing troops to keep control?

I completely disagree with your last paragraph. What you call mixed treatment, I call deception on the Americans part. We always promised something in terms of compensation in a treaty and we either knew it was a sham or we didn't pay. The Native Americans either complied under threats of violence or they fought back resulting in us massacring them. After Little Big Horn we simply stopped trying to trick them with sham treaties and just sent in the troops for every scenario.

If we'd really taken it on as an imperial project, we'd have had them booted from East of the Mississippi by 1820 and from most of the rest of the continent not long after.
False, we kicked out the Native Americans at the rate at which we were expanding into new lands. We would not have been able to kick out all the Native Americans by 1820, however by 1831 when there were enough people were eager to move into new lands, boom, Trail of Tears. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears)

Manifest destiny wasn't put into practice in anything like a crusade.
Oh really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War)

"The untransacted destiny of the American people is to subdue the continent — to rush over this vast field to the Pacific Ocean — to animate the many hundred millions of its people, and to cheer them upward — to set the principle of self-government at work — to agitate these herculean masses — to establish a new order in human affairs — to set free the enslaved — to regenerate superannuated nations — to change darkness into light — to stir up the sleep of a hundred centuries — to teach old nations a new civilization — to confirm the destiny of the human race — to carry the career of mankind to its culminating point — to cause stagnant people to be re-born — to perfect science — to emblazon history with the conquest of peace — to shed a new and resplendent glory upon mankind — to unite the world in one social family — to dissolve the spell of tyranny and exalt charity — to absolve the curse that weighs down humanity, and to shed blessings round the world!
Divine task! immortal mission! Let us tread fast and joyfully the open trail before us! Let every American heart open wide for patriotism to glow undimmed, and confide with religious faith in the sublime and prodigious destiny of his well-loved country."
-William Gilpin: address to the U.S. Senate (2 March 1846) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oh there was always an element in our culture that wanted the manifest destiny and didn't care how many tribes of Amerinds died to realize it. I wouldn't even begin to suggest that it was a small element either -- quite a few folks felt that way.

What I said about it being a mixed effort doesn't entirely contradict your point ACIN, it only argues that it was not a coherent and programmatic effort. A lot of those treaties were negotiated in good faith by people who thought -- foolishly as it turns out -- that we would honor the treaty we'd made. Our conquest was halting and haphazard and never really whole-hearted until the Little Big Horn. As many of the crucial components were happenstance -- disease, killing the buffalo in job lots, altering the habitat -- as there were elements of specific conquest/subjugation. If we'd simply founded the USA and established our foreign policy as isolationism from Europe and the subjugation of the Amerinds, we'd have militarized the effort, purposefully put settlements into the territories we sought to conquer (as opposed to opportunistically as it actually happened). Such a cohesive effort, given our resource and tech edge, would have taken control of the continent quite a bit faster. I have no illusions that what we did was, in the long run, anything but conquest. In many ways I wish we'd been more open about it and just simply taken them out whenever and wherever encountered. I've only been arguing that it was not the monolithic goal/ambition you imply.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh there was always an element in our culture that wanted the manifest destiny and didn't care how many tribes of Amerinds died to realize it. I wouldn't even begin to suggest that it was a small element either -- quite a few folks felt that way.

What I said about it being a mixed effort doesn't entirely contradict your point ACIN, it only argues that it was not a coherent and programmatic effort. A lot of those treaties were negotiated in good faith by people who thought -- foolishly as it turns out -- that we would honor the treaty we'd made. Our conquest was halting and haphazard and never really whole-hearted until the Little Big Horn. As many of the crucial components were happenstance -- disease, killing the buffalo in job lots, altering the habitat -- as there were elements of specific conquest/subjugation. If we'd simply founded the USA and established our foreign policy as isolationism from Europe and the subjugation of the Amerinds, we'd have militarized the effort, purposefully put settlements into the territories we sought to conquer (as opposed to opportunistically as it actually happened). Such a cohesive effort, given our resource and tech edge, would have taken control of the continent quite a bit faster. I have no illusions that what we did was, in the long run, anything but conquest. In many ways I wish we'd been more open about it and just simply taken them out whenever and wherever encountered. I've only been arguing that it was not the monolithic goal/ambition you imply.

Well see, i fully see your point and it has its validity but I just have to disagree with you in your main paragraph. Since Columbus first came upon Native Americans in the Caribbean Sea, the settlers always looked down upon the natives as savages, not saved by Christianity and not attuned to civilization like proper Europeans. Not to say everyone was hostile, but any European settler from the 1400s to to the beginning of the 1900s believed that Native Americans were lesser people and when given the opportunity, they removed them through force or "treaty". Perhaps they thought this treaty and themselves were good hearted since it didn't cause any bloodshed and genuinely wanted no bloodshed, but nevertheless it was done out of a view that they should have the land instead of the natives in the first place. That was the reasoning behind every treaty, and every conflict.

Like everything else in America, Manifest Destiny was individualized. The Crusades had a Pope asking all Christian nations and Christians to flock across the Holy Land and take it back, America had outspoken individuals and the country asking all Americans to fulfill Manifest Destiny by taking as much land as they wanted from Natives and Spaniards (and later Mexicans), under the full backing of the US Gov, just as the Christians had the backing of the Catholic Church (and God) behind taking back Jerusalem.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well see, i fully see your point and it has its validity but I just have to disagree with you in your main paragraph. Since Columbus first came upon Native Americans in the Caribbean Sea, the settlers always looked down upon the natives as savages, not saved by Christianity and not attuned to civilization like proper Europeans. Not to say everyone was hostile, but any European settler from the 1400s to to the beginning of the 1900s believed that Native Americans were lesser people and when given the opportunity, they removed them through force or "treaty". Perhaps they thought this treaty and themselves were good hearted since it didn't cause any bloodshed and genuinely wanted no bloodshed, but nevertheless it was done out of a view that they should have the land instead of the natives in the first place. That was the reasoning behind every treaty, and every conflict.

Like everything else in America, Manifest Destiny was individualized. The Crusades had a Pope asking all Christian nations and Christians to flock across the Holy Land and take it back, America had outspoken individuals and the country asking all Americans to fulfill Manifest Destiny by taking as much land as they wanted from Natives and Spaniards (and later Mexicans), under the full backing of the US Gov, just as the Christians had the backing of the Catholic Church (and God) behind taking back Jerusalem.

As you have restated it here, I am in agreement with you. Though it was haphazard and unprogrammatic, there were indeed powerful voices calling for manifest destiny and a large majority of the population deemed themselves superior -- innately or culturally or both depending on who you're referring to -- to the Amerinds. This attitude almost certainly did lead to those efforts that were done in good faith to be undermined later.

The biggest crippler of them all was virgin-field epidemics imported by the Europeans. I suspect these did more to end the Amerinds than anything else.

[a completely inoffensive name]

As you have restated it here, I am in agreement with you. Though it was haphazard and unprogrammatic, there were indeed powerful voices calling for manifest destiny and a large majority of the population deemed themselves superior -- innately or culturally or both depending on who you're referring to -- to the Amerinds. This attitude almost certainly did lead to those efforts that were done in good faith to be undermined later.

The biggest crippler of them all was virgin-field epidemics imported by the Europeans. I suspect these did more to end the Amerinds than anything else.

Ahh. Ok then. Well then I see we agree about Manifest Destiny itself and what it entailed and it's motivations and the interactions it created with the native americans. I would just have to say that I am just trying to contend your statement that it was haphazard and unprogramatic. My paragraph wasn't supposed to be a restatement so to speak, I was probably unclear in what I was trying to say, the reply was me just saying that it was systematic...but just on a much slower progression and the method at which it progressed switched at times from flocks of settlers taking land to the US army invading, back to more settlers etc...

Am I making myself clear? Because I'm glad we have agreement on some common ground, I'm just under the impression the underlying disagreement was whether Manifest Destiny was implemented as an imperialistic policy to which I was under the impression you felt it wasn't since it was haphazard and not enforced like a standard imperialistic policy and that the US was more of an economic imperialist to which I am trying to say that Manifest Destiny was systematic (see the my last response) and thus was an imperialistic policy, just implemented mainly through the actual public through mass settlements over centuries and not the military arm of the US government...most of the time. Although I do agree that the US is more of an economic imperialistic country.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Westward Expansion and its motivations were complex. However, any reasonable evaluation of it must acknowledge that it was functionally an imperialistic effort (de facto) regardless of whether or not it was a decided policy (de jure).

[a completely inoffensive name]

The Westward Expansion and its motivations were complex. However, any reasonable evaluation of it must acknowledge that it was functionally an imperialistic effort (de facto) regardless of whether or not it was a decided policy (de jure).

Perfect. We are in complete agreement then.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Perfect. We are in complete agreement then.

You'll need to post something viscious or insulting sometime soon, or your reasonable discussion style will force you to alter your self-applied title. ;-).

[rotorgun]

Well...and so ends a fascinating debate on the debt problem of the United States. It all started with Manifest Destiny I see. Perhaps we can borrow some of the money that our native Americans are making, hand over fist I might add, with their casinos to pay off our debts.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well...and so ends a fascinating debate on the debt problem of the United States. It all started with Manifest Destiny I see. Perhaps we can borrow some of the money that our native Americans are making, hand over fist I might add, with their casinos to pay off our debts.

I said it was de facto imperialism....not that we would be the ultimate winners! Thanks for the laugh Rotor. Where's your bit o' film?

[rotorgun]

Your welcome. As to the film, I have it on a DVD. I can't figure out how to properly copy it for the image shack to play it properly. I'll keep working on it though.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You'll need to post something viscious or insulting sometime soon, or your reasonable discussion style will force you to alter your self-applied title. ;-).

:) What can I say? I've matured somewhat over the past two years. You are more intellectual then the vast majority of classmates I deal with, so I have no reason to treat you without respect.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

:) What can I say? I've matured somewhat over the past two years. You are more intellectual then the vast majority of classmates I deal with, so I have no reason to treat you without respect.

It's okay, you can call me a geek -- though intellectual sounds so much nicer. I'm afraid that after 23 years of education the geek thing is sort of inevitable. :-)