The Glade 4.0

There is no "military-industrial complex" nor any "stranglehold". There are certainly problems with the way we run our military establishment (that, largely, you can thank Robert McNamara for) but there is no deth grip that any "complex" has on us.



No, I don't have to believe in it, and I've been around long enough to see the "jaded enlisted guy who understands what's really going on" for the sham it is.

Furthermore, the reason you can't convince me its necessary is that all the arguments that it isn't invariably start from the position that they're unnecessary (which is circular) or proceed on the assumption that all our problems are a result of our various involvements, and getting rid of them will make them magically disappear (which is laughable). The world is not going to magically return to the pre-industrial era when isolationism was practical.

If you want to argue the merits of specific actions, garrisons, or whatever, fine, argue them. This crap of just "whaa, any military presence outside the U.S. is automatically all bad with no benefit!" is horseshit.

The same goes for this "well gee, if we didn't pay people and give them benefits, we'd have a smaller, cheaper military and do less with it!" Yes, we would. It'd also be ineffective and incompetant. Thinking that people should go into a highly dangerous occupation for little compensation for no benefit just because it would force the government into a policy you'd prefer is really pretty absurd.

Somehow you've bought into the idea that we're just out "spreading freedom and democracy" on some ideological crusade because we invaded two countries 7 and 9 years ago respectively. One of those countries was, for all intents and purposes responsible for a major attack on us, and the other not only wouldn't give a clear answer on his weapons of mass destruction after 10 years, he did, in fact, have them - even if not in the type or quantity originally thought, he did posess ballistic missiles in excess of the allowed range which made them WMD under the U.N. definition, and in any case, no chances could be taken that he still had any botullinum toxin, or other such substances. A substance that is so toxic that one gram can kill 10,000 people isn't to be trifled with.

It's not like there have been any more wars since, so despite the constant vague complaints about our supposed crusade to spread freedom and democracy, the fact is that our deployments haven't really changed a whole lot in the last 7 years, other than the number in any given place. Despite your complainst and those at the beginning of this thread in the OP, there are not new U.S. interventions popping up all over the damn place.

What we're really doing around the world is making sure the resoures and trade a modern large country needs are kept flowing. If you think that a sudden disappearance of the U.S. fromt he world stage wouldn't result in a masive influx of a lot of very unfriendly power into that vaccuum (which they could also then do a lot cheaper, then you're living in a fantasy land.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I just want to clarify that I am not talking about any specific administration, court, or congress. I'm talking about the way our government has functioned since the time of Lincoln. Just because most of our dictatorships have been reasonably benevolent does not mean they haven't been dictatorships just the same. Each one reaching just a little bit further than the one before, all building on powers already usurped, with none being relinquished, if relinquesing power is even possible.



Hegemonic empire is certianly not a vague term when applied to a specific example. We absolutely conrtol our vassel states by use of indirect and implied force. Certainly economic force. Sometimes even direct force: regardless of personal politics and opinions about the merits of such things, our government has engaged in assasinations, holds unnationalized territories as protectorates, those citizens having no say in the laws which govern them, and engages in "nation building".

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

None of that makes it a "dictatorship". You're defining "dictatorship" so broadly that any government could easily be in the definition, rendering it useless.



You're:

A) Just making vague allusions to "vassal states" and "indirect and implied force". Every nation exerts indirect and implied force of some kind. What exactly is a "vassal state"?
B) Talking about things "our government" has done when in fact "our government" changes regularly, at least every 2 years. You're also alluding to these things vaguely
C) Despite excusing the issue of opinions on merits, attempting to imply that there's some specific negative about our control of certain territories (and citizens there DO in fact have say in a great deal) and the various other things you cite.

How are any of these criteria towards us being an empire, and who cares if we are or not? Why does it matter?

Like I said before we're a geographically and demogrphically large country - very large. We live in the 21st century. We need to ensure that our interests are protected in the international community. Otherwise, we will find ourselves at a serious economic disadvantage against countries that place no limitations on themselves other than what is to their own benefit.

The only reason it looks like we're an "empire" is because we're larger and get more international attention; much of that attention is directed at us by other nations in order to divert attention from what they are doing, or in order to create "soft power" by which they can gain political and economic advantage.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Neither did Rome or Greece, but they had Empires.

_________________

Hopwin, I think you're confusing the Roman Republic with the Roman Empire.
There are such things as "empires" as far as territory is concerned, but not as far as government is concerned. The Greeks had a variety of governmental forms and periods. During some of those periods, they were empires in territory and government, in others, they were empires in the territorial sense, but not governmentally, and in still others - they were neither.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I disagree. It is widely historically accepted that Abraham Lincoln was a dictator. Acknowledging that fact, and the fact that their is no way to close the door behind you in the use of government power, every President since Lincoln has been a dictator. The fact that each administration, congress, and court since the Lincoln administration has built on the powers he assumed favors me in the discussion. We can use other terms to modify it, such as benevolant, communist, constitutional, ect., but the lable is aptly applied. There is no other term to descibe it, and infer the same meaning.



A vassal state is a state that is subordinate to another in an international system. These states are usually defined by the provision of military assistance to the dominate state. Most members of the Coalition of the Willing are vassals to the United States.



Our government is the laws and structure we live under, not the men and women who make it up. Most changes to the laws and structure have been to grow the scope and size of the beast since the 1850's, which is the time in which we established a Presidential Dictatorship.



I am not implying anything, negative or positive. I am simply stating fact. They have no representation in their ruling government, limiting any say they have.




It matters because we are discussing two things, the second hinging on the first.

1) Those several points matter because they define what a hegemonic empire is, qualifying us as one.

2) As we are qualified as an empire, it also qualifies us as a warfare state, as the two are nearly synonymous.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I think you confuse "asserted" with "accepted", and I think you take great liberties with the word "widely".

Google "Abraham Lincoln was a dictator" and you get 208,000 returns, not all of which actually accept the assertion.

Google "Abraham Lincoln dictator" and you get 691,000 returns

Google "Abraham Lincoln" and you get 10 million returns.

That's a fraction of a single percent, either way.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

The way you have applied your logic to your search is flawed. It assumes that the only noteable fact, or possible discussion point about Lincoln is that he was a dictator. As evidence "Abraham Lincoln log cabin" gets you 236,000 returns, "Abraham Lincoln John Wilkes Booth" gets you 590,000 returns, and "Abraham Lincoln slavery" gets you 1,740,000.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Then I await your clarification of the matter ... with authoritative source.

Please cite the assertion - "It is widely historically accepted that Abraham Lincoln was a dictator", with specific respect to the wide historical acceptance.

My search identified articles that made and denied the claim, I'm pretty comfortable with the results as it applies to how "wide" the acceptance is of Lincoln being a dictator compared to other aspects of Lincoln that have gained historical acceptance.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

No. I don't think I will, because you have created an unreasonable standard, within which you have absurdly included a necessity to cite my own original words. Instead I will point out the definition for widely, which is applicable:

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I am sorry, an empire isn't an empire unless it is a monarchy? I have never heard this, what is the source of the definition?

_________________

It's an unreasonable standard to expect citation for assertions?

Ah, I understand - this is Hellfire.

Carry on.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

My point is, that the applicable definition of the term widely is source material enough when paired with the number of google hits as a percentage of total lincoln references. We are not writing a doctoral thesis here.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

That's fine. But search tools are lousy benchmarks. As Rynar pointed out, according to Google, we can be as certain that Lincoln was a dictator as we can be that he grew up in a log cabin. One of those is widely accepted, so if Google is an accurate tool, then it follows that the other should be, as well.

That's not to say that I support Google as an arbiter of truthiness, but...


What, the Roman Republic that appointed a Caesar, whose rough translation is "emperor"? I think having an emperor is the most fundamentally literal definition of an empire.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

When the assertion is that something is widely accepted, a casual investigation is all that I feel is needed to inspire a challenge, and in fact isn't required at all. Then, when someone refuses to cite an assertion, that's pretty much all that's needed to deem the assertion baseless.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Hey, you established the benchmarks, not me. Other than your absurd demand that I be able to cite my own origional prose, they have been met. If that's not good enough for you, then perhaps you should rethink your participation in this thread.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

On the subject of google as a metric by which the certainty or general veracity of such assertions can be determined. Google image, for "baghdad blood" turns up the following:





Henceforth, I will wait for your apologies.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Rynar, I understand. It's easier to try to shift the burden of proof to the challenger instead of backing up such a ridiculous assertion.

It's OK.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Appeal to popularity. Aside from the fact that it is not widely accepted, Abraham Lincoln was not a dictator.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictator

Neither Abraham Lincoln nor any President since has had anything like dictatorial power. The expansion of government has nothing to do with form of government. Saying our government is a dictatorship because it has expanded in size is like saying that a Great White Shark is a form of whale because it is larger than most other fish and some dolphins.



It is not a fact, and your assertion that "there is no way to close the door behind you in the use of government power" is simply bare assertion. Government power is not what makes a dictatorship. You don't need another term to infer the same meaning becuase there is no good reason that meaning should be inferred at all other than your own distaste for the situation.



The fact that government has grown in size and scope does not make it a dictatorship. Moreover, our government is both the structure and the people.



You have repeatedly used predjudicial language to do exactly that, especially since this is not accurate. They do have delegates to express their opinions, and those delegates are permitted to vote in comitee votes, just not the full House. They also have Electoral votes for PResident, and in any case, there is nothing stopping them from becoming states if they want to.

In fact, places such as Guam and Puerto Rico have held referendums regarding statehood and really could hold more any time they choose. It's absurd to claim that we "hold territories where people have no say in the laws that govern them" as a criteria for "hegemonic empire" or "warfare state" when not only do they in fact have some form of say, but have chosen that status themselves in the first place.



1) You have not established that anything makes us a hegemonic empire. The anser to "how do these things makes us an empire?" is not "these things define a hegemonic empire". That's simply begging the question.

2) It is not synonymous with a "warfare state" which is a made-up term in the first palce, and even if it weren't, would be applicable to a place like North Korea where the Army is the acknowledged, central facet of society, or to some society which requires outside conflict in order to maintain domestic stability.

Ours does not. The things that have caused us to enter variosu conflicts since World War I have been events driven elsewhere in the world, not because of any social issue here which is somehow staved off by fighting wars.. especially since the wars we have fought really have not required any alteration of the daily life of the average citizen.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empire

As he pointed out, empire of territory does not mean empire of government.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The questionable merit of google search hit as a measure of the acceptance of an idea aside, the fact is that your ideas about Lincoln being a dictator being "widely accepted" are inaccurate. "Widely" in this case refers to across the population. It is not "widely" accepted across the population unless you're going to point out that because some absolute number of people accept that idea and arbitrarily proclaim that number sufficient to be "wide". Compared to the total population, the idea is not widely accepted.

In any case, the idea is nonsense, and its degree of acceptance or not is of no merit as Appeal to Popularity.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and temporarily disbanded Congress for part of his presidency. He committed an unprovoked act of war against South Carolina, and, ultimately, forced the secessionist states to accept the 14th, 15th, and 16th Amendments without proper ratification procedures. I think it's safe to say he behaved, at times, in a dictatorial manner.

_________________

With secession haven taken place, I'm not sure how it can be said that the states were forced. It was more an assimilation of a breakaway republic, in my opinion.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Suspension of Habeus Corpus is part of the Constitution.

Disbanding Congress fair enough.

He did not commit and unprovoked act of war against South Carolina; South Carolina was in a state of rebellion. I'm not going to waste time on another absurd secession debate. The fact of the matter is that regardless of the nature of the Constitution or the merits of any issue on which some states may have wished to secede, there is no established procedure for that and the mere desire by a state to do so is not sufficient to justify abandoning its obligations to the others. Even if we accept that the South was an independant nation, breaking away in the first place was a provocation. That's especially highlighted by the fact that the South felt its institution of slavery was exempted from normal Constitutional regulation or even debate, or even public cricticism such as sermons.

I think you mean the 13th-15th ammendments, and they certainly were ratified properly. They were already part of the Constitution by the time that the secessionist states were asked to ratify them having been ratified by those states that retained statehood. In any case Lincoln was long dead by this time so attributing any of this to him is shaky.

Lincoln had his dictatorial moments. So did most every president before and after. Claiming that he established a Presidential Dictatorship (yes I realize Rynar claimed that, not you) or that the U.S. is a dictatorship is simply abusing the word.

This highlights the absurdity of the debate. It's become yet another debate over labelling because people don't want to debate the merits of specific aspects of current policy; they just want to complain that they don't like them.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye, if you maintain that SC was in a state of rebellion, and thus Fort Sumpter was not an attack on an unprovoked soveriegn nation, then how can you suggest that only the proscribed portion of the "remaining" states were required to ratify the Amendment?

Either the Civil War was an unprovoked attack to annex a sovereign nation, or the Amendments were never properly ratified because the secessionist States were still a part of the disagreeing United States of America.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades