Starve The Beast Is the Most Ill Concived Peice of Political Theory

We pay taxes because the government needs our money, simple as that. I am a big fan of the libertarian viewpoint (I know that's not what tea party is) not as an absolutism but as a direction, the less is handled by the government the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Well, here we finally come to the meat of the operation.

You're right, there were many instances of PRIVATE Military Contractors (as in: Not DoD, and not in a support capacity, ala KBR's toilet-cleaning/chow-serving ops) accepting jobs in Iraq. These jobs were almost exclusively security for VIPs. Almost. Exclusively. By 2010, they were banned from Iraq entirely because they kept getting themselves killed.

Never in the history of the war was such a group put in charge of a regular Army unit. The very idea makes me laugh.

---

Sorry, only have my iphone and limited time.... My google fu fails me, does anyone remember/ have links?

IIRC it hapened 4/4/04... easy to remember... US marines took and followed orders by Blackwater operatives.

From a tactical standpoint it made perfect sense.

From a political standpoint... May I throw the first stone?

Mercenaries were so common that in Europe Switzerland was banned by treaty from utilising the Swiss Guards.

There are the black and white: civillians and soldiers. Then the grey.

The grey can be private contractors, bodyguards, CIA agents, foreign persons (Foreign Legion, Ghurkas), those who are indirectly paid (be that from the central government to the country's central government or the CIA to private contractors), partisans supported by weapon drops to local armed guides, security support and I'm sure I'm missing loads of other variants.

Of course, the numbers isn't relevant. A small team could be engaged in, ah, sweep and clear missions several times a week and having more impact than a force orders of magnitude greater who are passively sitting in barracks.

I think that government should be mainly there to undertake legislation and oversight, rather than directly running services, if for no other reason that as soon as sometihing is a government enterprise Unions think that any lay offs are out of the

~:smoking:

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2..._of_the_worlds

Quote:

---

JEREMY SCAHILL: One of the most disturbing incidents that happened in Iraq with mercenaries was on April 4, 2004. 4/4/04. Muqtada al-Sadr’s forces from the Mahdi Army were in an uprising, because Paul Bremer had ordered the arrest of one of his top deputies, and there was a massive protest that hit the city of Najaf. Blackwater was guarding the occupation office there. They also had some Salvadoran troops, part of the Coalition of the Willing, as well as some active-duty US Marines.

And one of those Marines, Corporal Lonnie Young — I got the official Marine account of that day. As the protest was happening, Lonnie Young, this active-duty Marine, has his weapon aimed into the crowd at a guy he says was carrying an AK-47. And he’s thinking to himself, you know, "I need to ask for orders to open fire," but there were no commanding officers on scene. So he asked permission from Blackwater to open fire. And he said, "Sir, I’ve acquired a target with your permission." And he says Blackwater gave the order.

---

You may not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2..._of_the_worlds

You may not.

---

How so?

If you want to cut spending, cut spending. Reducing revenues does nothing to a government that derives its power from the ABILITY to tax it's population, they spend based on credit rather than revenue.

I could see how the theory might be appealing to small-government advocates if it weren't such an obviously flawed idea. If the beast can borrow money then it will do just that, and you'll end up paying for those expenses sooner or later with interest to boot.

I recall that in the 2011 debt ceiling standoff Obama said to the public that if the ceiling wasn't raised in time, social security payments + medicare + whatnot would all have to be suspended. This is exactly what "starving the beast" ultimately means in practice, but of course the republicans accused him of fear mongering. Did republican congressmen ever threaten Reagan or Bush junior* with the debt ceiling? I'm guessing not.

(*Bush sr. actually raised taxes to increase revenue, so he does not belong here with those other two)

Every time any cutback is mentioned, it is always the police / nurses / handouts that are immediately mentioned.

Even tying to cut back NHS spending to levels from 2008 is next to impossible; money for disabled even trying to limit the rate of increase is impossible.

What is "poverty" in the UK is probably luxuaries that are not available to most persons on the planet: obviously internet, probably Sky, money for alcohol and cigarettes - in Wales they are trying to limit bedrooms so that children - horror of horror - migh have to share! What type of concentration-camp is being run here where children have to share a bedroom until the age of 16??!?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

If the beast can borrow money then it will do just that, and you'll end up paying for those expenses sooner or later with interest to boot.

---

Mmm, but if you read the high priests of "starve the beast," such as Grover Norquist, you will see that their idea is that our government will borrow and borrow until there is a Greek-style debt crisis, at which point we will face massive cuts and social unrest, and in the heat of the revolution everyone will turn to Good Conservative Values.

It's all quite apocalyptic.

As Lemur notes, the whole point of "Starving the Beast" is to precipitate a crisis, severe enough that the wet dreams of conservatives are the only option. At its most extreme it is the destruction of government that is the point.

On the way to the apocalypse, privatization is simply a good way to loot the treasury from a government that really "ought not" to exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Because that was a one-off, freak incident. The Mercs were not in charge of the marines, but the marine's didn't have a clear chain of command in this incident.

Besides, Marines don't count.

---

Ok... Now, bear in mind that what gets to the press is the top of the iceberg.

Don't get me wrong, mercs were actually the weakest point in my argument. Yes I find it worrying that half the BOOTS on the ground are non-army. Mainly because these guys falls under the same loopholes as "terrorists". Or to make it more clear, laws of war don't apply.

I very much DO have a hard time understanding why USA [female dog] and moan about 9/11 "because it was directed at civilians", when not only the civilians are running the international politics (democracy you know), but also are SENT TO WAR. Do you now get where this is starting to get problematic?

Anyway, my main point was: What I have yet to understand, is why people from the US think the police and military should be state funded, but not the well being of the citizens (healthcare, social security a.s.o).

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwa...hdad_shootings

Side point: Surely, if the USA can send civilians on a killing spree to foreign countries, why should other nations not?

Quote:

---

why should other nations not?

---

Al Qaeda is not a nation. Would you agree that the Sicilian Mafia has ultimate authority over the Swedish people, and can do as it pleases on Swedish territory?

Quote:

---

Surely, if the USA can send civilians on a killing spree to foreign countries, why should other nations not?

---

As in, merely a conventional war? Any nation can of course try to circumvent international law, international attitudes, and reason itself and directly attack the American mainland - they wouldn't last long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

No, no you're not getting off that easy.



Sure. There are many documented incidents of Private Military Contractors getting into bad situations. That is why they were banned from Iraq. I can assure you, though, that never was such a group given command of a US Military Element in the furtherance of combat operations. It just didn't happen.



Look, I think we need to go over the definitions here. Private Military Contractors = Companies like Blackwater. They are rare, and account for almost none of the troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan. For these guys, you are correct. Everyone else is a DoD Civilian, which means they are employees of the Department of Defense, and carry Geneva Conventions ID Cards. On the rare occasion such a person would leave the FOB, they would almost certainly be in a uniform for their own safety. Nearly everyone conducting combat operations is a uniformed member of the Army, Navy, Marines, or Air Force. Nearly. Everyone. I can't stress that enough.

---

You don't get off that easy either mate.

That nearly every assault rifle carrying foreign occupant shooting up civilians is a actual US army trooper just isn't good enough from a political standpoint.

Quote:

---

Nearly everyone conducting combat operations is a uniformed member of the Army, Navy, Marines, or Air Force. Nearly. Everyone. I can't stress that enough.

---

I can't stress enough how "nearly" just isn't good enough to explain to a non-western world why civilian casualties are a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I agree wholeheartedly! I really do! I just wanted to make sure you weren't under the horribly false impression that half our combat troops are mercs.

---

Ah, no... As mentioned, that was a brain fart. I wrote guns instead of boots... I blame it on thinking in Swedish military historical terms, where you count "spears" regardless of how many people actually have a spear in their hands while invading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I blame it on thinking in Swedish military historical terms, where you count "spears" regardless of how many people actually have a spear in their hands while invading.

---

Bummer. Is that why you guys thought you could invade Russia back then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Bummer. Is that why you guys thought you could invade Russia back then?

---

Nah, the Vikings did quite good in the USSR. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (USSR eastern borders towards sea) are all 3 former viking colonies, who have got sovereign status.

Vikings went as far in as St. Petersburg/Leningrad/Stalingrad... Or whatever it is called these days. Anyway the Soviet landmark of stopping the Nazis is a former Swedish colony.

So if my memory is right, Vikings went further in Russia than Hitler or anyone else.

It was only in the gunpowder age that Russia started fighting back. Swedish historical sources has it that Russia (USSR, Soviet, CCCP or whatever) started with the scorched earth tactics when we invaded, a tactic that has served Russia well all throughout history up to and including modern times and tactics.

I thought it was more like Charles saying: Okay, we have 1000 troops, 2000 cooks, 3000 toilet cleaners etc etc... altogether 15000 troops. They have 7000 generals. We outnumber them 2 to 1! CHAAAARGE!!!! "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

As in, merely a conventional war? Any nation can of course try to circumvent international law, international attitudes, and reason itself and directly attack the American mainland - they wouldn't last long.

---

Exactly, at some point it boils down to the US can do it because they're the strongest and can do what they want.
And they also declare themselves the good guys while doing so so it's all fine. If someone does not agree that they are the good guys working for the greater good, then that person is per definition evil and not worth listening to.
It's not how every American thinks about it but it's how it plays out in the end anyway, how else can a nation that claims freedom as it's highest ideal justify that it's government installs dictators in other nations for it's own benefit? That does not mean however, that other nations are much better, or would be if they were at the top. Today we look at the romans and call them civilized and advanced even though they killed and enslaved hundreds and thousands of tribes and people around them for whatever reasons they had.

The only answer is to acknowledge that the world is a cruel place and nothing can be done about it, the strong just take what they want as it has always been. Subdue them or suffer. :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Exactly, at some point it boils down to the US can do it because they're the strongest and can do what they want.
And they also declare themselves the good guys while doing so so it's all fine. If someone does not agree that they are the good guys working for the greater good, then that person is per definition evil and not worth listening to.
It's not how every American thinks about it but it's how it plays out in the end anyway, how else can a nation that claims freedom as it's highest ideal justify that it's government installs dictators in other nations for it's own benefit? That does not mean however, that other nations are much better, or would be if they were at the top. Today we look at the romans and call them civilized and advanced even though they killed and enslaved hundreds and thousands of tribes and people around them for whatever reasons they had.

The only answer is to acknowledge that the world is a cruel place and nothing can be done about it, the strong just take what they want as it has always been. Subdue them or suffer. :whip:

---

:bow:

Not worth it