|
spacetoaster posted:Thanks for the information, but I still don't get why people say that the military is welfare though. I said before that the "show up and collect a check" was a joke about people in the military, not intended to be a stab at actual welfare. You're not going to get any traction taking a poo poo on programs that keep kids from starving to death, in general, even if you only imply it out of the side of your mouth. The military is a welfare program because it serves many of the same purposes in our society today that work programs like those of the New Deal were supposed to serve when they were enacted: it provides work to anyone who needs it so that people who enter the program can avoid poverty, guarantees three squares a day, provides educational benefits so you can eventually leave the program without going directly into poverty, provides health benefits, and generally provides an occupational opportunity to the other-wise unoccupied male youth of the country. Compare that to welfare programs in the New Deal like FERA: quote:FERA's main goal was alleviating household unemployment by creating new unskilled jobs in local and state government. Jobs were more expensive than direct cash payments (called "the dole"), but were psychologically more beneficial to the unemployed, who wanted any sort of job, for self-esteem, to play the role of male breadwinner. Or the CWA: quote:The Civil Works Administration (CWA) was a short-lived U.S. job creation program established by the New Deal during the Great Depression to rapidly create manual labor jobs for millions of unemployed workers. The military serves much the same purpose today, it's just not as good at doing it because mostly the welfare it provides isn't to individuals but to enormous defense contractors who also need make-work jobs like the F35, Crusader artillery system, or ballistic missile defense.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:You're not going to get any traction taking a poo poo on programs that keep kids from starving to death, in general, even if you only imply it out of the side of your mouth. Right, I don't want traction on that. The Oldest Man posted:The military is a welfare program because it serves many of the same purposes in our society today that work programs like those of the New Deal were supposed to serve when they were enacted: it provides work to anyone who needs it so that people who enter the program can avoid poverty, guarantees three squares a day, provides educational benefits so you can eventually leave the program without going directly into poverty, provides health benefits, and generally provides an occupational opportunity to the other-wise unoccupied male youth of the country. That makes sense to me. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I said before that the "show up and collect a check" was a joke about people in the military, not intended to be a stab at actual welfare. I get my checks transferred to my bank account, but other than the paperwork decathlon every couple of years when someone inevitably misfiles something it's a pretty accurate description of SSI disability.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
I worry about becoming a broken record but from what I've observed from acquaintances who are career military and friends who are ex-military,the problem is largely because of the way these systems are badly run. The military seems to go through the motions of process improvement rather vigorously but doesn't ever seem to tangibly attain it, probably in part because as people have alluded to, the military these days is as much a work program as anything. There's some really smart and competent people in there but you also have people who will just do whatever it takes to keep getting paid, it really is no different from the private or civilian public sector. It's going to sound trite but like many government institutions the military needs an information technology overhaul. Many of the problems we know to exist don't have proper study and data about them to actually have an idea of what's going on, this is further complicated in the military's case because of the effect similar to police forces on the civilian side, solidarity is more important than empiricism. The main thing I'm learning, and the promise of information technology in government is it can create processes, documentation and accountability. Accountability scares the poo poo out of a lot of the creeps who are ruining the system, every time I've seen corruption stopped in my admittedly limited career in government it's because the data showed malfeasance and bad behavior. There is still a political process to be dealt with and there will always be some of that but the more we can push public institutions into transparency and collate data, the better we can spend tax money and get better outcomes. Perhaps like making sure that soldiers actually get decent compensation out of the greater spending pie. The problems in the military spending are just aping the same problems in our greater society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Bringing back the New Deal work programs and the CCC would be extremely cool considering the hosed state of our infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
Alexzandvar posted:Bringing back the New Deal work programs and the CCC would be extremely cool considering the hosed state of our infrastructure. CCC does sorta still exist in a scaled-down spiritual-successor form, Americorps NCCC
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I worry about becoming a broken record but from what I've observed from acquaintances who are career military and friends who are ex-military,the problem is largely because of the way these systems are badly run. The military seems to go through the motions of process improvement rather vigorously but doesn't ever seem to tangibly attain it, probably in part because as people have alluded to, the military these days is as much a work program as anything. There's some really smart and competent people in there but you also have people who will just do whatever it takes to keep getting paid, it really is no different from the private or civilian public sector. Throwing technology at a people problem will always fail, particularly in a culture that is fully and totally occupied by a professionalized officer corps. Why? Because the people you're relying on to implement the technology are the same people you can't rely on full stop. That's why technology mandates never reduce police violence. Police are more than willing to wear a body cam and beat people to death anyway if they know they can switch the camera off or disappear the footage regardless. Or, even better, if they've so twisted local politics that they believe they can get away with a beating on camera and no one will indict them. There has to be a basic level of trust, competence, and respect for the position's duties to society before technology will serve any useful purpose. Anyway, the real issue here isn't actually an incompetent group of generals. They're just a symptom of the root problem, which is that the US military is so good tactically, and the US's international position so unassailable, that there's no real cost to failure. The civilian leaders who should be holding all of these failures (both in generalship and in procurement) to account are ignoring the problem because of a very simple calculation: 1. What's the cost of failure to me, personally, and to the nation? Basically nothing in both cases. We're not facing any existential threats and our wars are irrelevancies in the grand scheme of things. Afghanistan doesn't matter one way or the other. It costs a ton of money, but we can always find money to set on fire. 2. What's the cost of correcting this failure, to me, personally? Potentially enormous. Opposing the MIC and uniformed officers is a political death sentence for anyone but the most bloody hawks if they persist with it too long. 3. Can I wet my beak if I stay quiet or voice support for these boondoggles? Hell yeah you can. Why do you think the JSF is assembled in pieces the size of a phone in a billion different congressional districts? So basically victory has defeated us and the only way we'll have a lean and effective military again is by losing a war or starting to lose a war. A real war with a real existential threat, not a COIN campaign in a desert nobody cares about. The Oldest Man fucked around with this message at 08:06 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:http://pando.com/2014/12/18/the-war-nerd-more-proof-the-us-defense-industry-has-nothing-to-do-with-defending-america/ I am getting either the Generals or Fiasco for New Year, which would you recomoned?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Thanks for the information, but I still don't get why people say that the military is welfare though. I said before that the "show up and collect a check" was a joke about people in the military, not intended to be a stab at actual welfare. A few decades ago, when you got out of school and were ready to start looking for employment, the answer would be to go down to the local plant and shake hands with the foreman and ask about a job. More than likely you'd get one, pay your union dues, and have the job security that afforded for the next 40 years of your life along with a pension and healthcare for your family, and a livable wage. For a lot of people, the military serves that role today. Your family can't afford to send you to college? Pop down to your local recruiter's office where he'll promise you a few thousand dollars to sign on, a guaranteed job for as long as you want it, free housing and healthcare, and a pension if you stick around long enough. You'll get your college tuition paid for whenever you leave, and there's not much you can't just lie about at MEPS that will keep you from getting into some job or another. The reason people say that the military is our country's welfare system is because it replaces the programs we might otherwise have if it wasn't so expansive. It's a jobs training program. It's a guaranteed socialized healthcare system for you and your family. It's tax-free shopping. It's subsidized housing and child care. It's a guaranteed low interest mortgage. It's free college tuition. The military is our country's welfare because it guarantees jobs for a ton of unskilled people and supports their families, and because the military industrial complex sucks up more and more money each year from our federal budget in order to keep making widgets in every district in America in order to provide jobs. Even if you aren't in the military, the costs of supporting the military making the things it uses and being the company that provides them with a million things they need on a daily basis is part of that system. Congressmen lobby for more money because those contracts are awarded in their district, which means people that vote for them go to work and have Senator Blowhard to thank for it. This is the essence of why it's so problematic; the military is not just a large part of our economy, it is such a major part of keeping our economy running that it would take such a concerted, conscious effort to change it that it could have devastating impacts. It's like we learned the lesson of a war economy bringing us back from the Great Depression and just kept on trucking with that in mind, never stopping long enough to create a non-wartime economy until we forgot how to do it anymore. You saw this when the military began to constrict for the first time following the draw down, now we have thousands of military people essentially done with their service and out there looking for jobs as a civilian, only there are not many to be had. In 2012, the unemployment rate for new vets aged 18-24 was 20.4%. The tragedy is that most of these people were told that once they left the service, employers would be falling over themselves to hire them due to their "discipline" and "reliability" as a military vet. But they're still largely unskilled, or rather they are too specifically skilled in things that don't translate in the civilian world. Before the military started cutting their numbers, these people could just stay in largely indefinitely and avoid the problem altogether, but we aren't fighting large-scale wars anymore so there's no justification for having a force that large. Which is essentially why we are perpetually involved in some conflict or another, because it ensures that the military members can stay indefinitely and the people on the outside will always have widgets to make and Lockheed will always have contracts to bid and the economy can keep humming along.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
copper rose petal posted:A few decades ago, when you got out of school and were ready to start looking for employment, the answer would be to go down to the local plant and shake hands with the foreman and ask about a job. More than likely you'd get one, pay your union dues, and have the job security that afforded for the next 40 years of your life along with a pension and healthcare for your family, and a livable wage. That is until you are literally broken and can't pass your PT test which is being used as a force slimming tool, kicking out some of the more knowledgeable employees in favor of the ones that can run faster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That is until you are literally broken and can't pass your PT test which is being used as a force slimming tool, kicking out some of the more knowledgeable employees in favor of the ones that can run faster. I didn't say it was a good way of doing welfare, just that it's how the US does it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That is until you are literally broken and can't pass your PT test which is being used as a force slimming tool, kicking out some of the more knowledgeable employees in favor of the ones that can run faster. There's a process for that. Medical review board and a permanent profile. I know several Soldiers who don't have to anything but a 2.5 mile walk, or a 6.2 mile bike, or an 800 meter swim (their choice) due to injury. And if the medical board finds you unfit for further service due to injuries sustained during service? You get paid (possibly even retired with a pension).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
And disability payments for the rest of your life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:I am getting either the Generals or Fiasco for New Year, which would you recommended? Both, although I prefer The Generals. Fiasco is very well done, but there's other books on the topic just as good or better. The Generals however is one of kind- examining American generalship from George C. Marshall to Petraeus, with a focus on the institutional culture that contextualized the military's successes and failures. Go on Amazon and take a look at the table of contents. Very entertaining- plenty of schadenfreude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Right. I'm a "piece of poo poo". Not ad hominem got it. Just to clarify because this bugged me, calling you a "piece of poo poo" or saying you sound like a "piece of poo poo" is not ad hominem. Saying you're a "piece of poo poo" and because you're a piece of poo poo, all of your arguments are automatically incorrect/invalid is ad hominem. Just calling you names isn't ad hominem, it's name-calling. Ad hominem requires the follow-up "... and therefore you're wrong/X is false." It's a fallacy and fallacies have requirements. The Oldest Man posted:Anyway, the real issue here isn't actually an incompetent group of generals. They're just a symptom of the root problem, which is that the US military is so good tactically, and the US's international position so unassailable, that there's no real cost to failure. The civilian leaders who should be holding all of these failures (both in generalship and in procurement) to account are ignoring the problem because of a very simple calculation: The Atlantic article went into that a bit and essentially said the same thing: The rates of high-ranking officers being discharged for incompetence has plummeted as everyone becomes a bureaucratic rear end-kisser and nobody wants to make the hard decisions or tell it like it is. copper rose petal posted:You saw this when the military began to constrict for the first time following the draw down, now we have thousands of military people essentially done with their service and out there looking for jobs as a civilian, only there are not many to be had. In 2012, the unemployment rate for new vets aged 18-24 was 20.4%. The tragedy is that most of these people were told that once they left the service, employers would be falling over themselves to hire them due to their "discipline" and "reliability" as a military vet. But they're still largely unskilled, or rather they are too specifically skilled in things that don't translate in the civilian world. As an anecdote going along these same lines, I read a few articles months ago about how medics were having a hard time finding jobs in civilian life due to how specific their medical training was. EMT work was often the only thing they were "qualified" for which is often volunteer/low-paying and doesn't provide many opportunities to expand their skillset so they can move on to better medical careers. Coming from an IT perspective though, I used to work at a company that had quite a few ex-military folks working in the infrastructure side of things due to their experience there, so I don't think the issue of specific training causing problems getting a job is equal across all ex-military folks. Some jobs seem to be more leverageable than others. Amergin fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Amergin posted:As an anecdote going along these same lines, I read a few articles months ago about how medics were having a hard time finding jobs in civilian life due to how specific their medical training was. EMT work was often the only thing they were "qualified" for which is often volunteer/low-paying and doesn't provide many opportunities to expand their skillset so they can move on to better medical careers. Yeah of course not everybody is going to be left without job prospects, but a lot of their training is so specific that it doesn't cross over to the civilian labor market. You only need so many helicopter mechanics in the private sector, even pilots are treated like poo poo by the airline industry and don't make very much money on the outside. The majority of the ones I come across work in DoD contracting in some capacity, which is just the military welfare system only with fewer benefits and more pay. And less job security. Edit: I believe a few states actually started changing the licensing requirements for level 1 EMTs that allowed military training as a medic to count towards the majority of their training hours or something, partly because they would get out and find they had to redo all the EMT training needed for state licensure as though they were coming in totally new.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
copper rose petal posted:*snip*, a good post and also the replies to it There's another aspect to the perpetuation of the system. Being that the fundamental idea of the process outlined here of "get a job and do it well and you're set" has really only worked or even been in existence for 2.5 or at most 3 generations of Americans. There is an ongoing loss of institutional memory of the struggle to even make that fleeting time period of relatively excellent prospects for large swathes of adults possible at all. The archetype of the Good Solid Job is a very 20th century construct, but our culture moves so fast into establishing this sort of meme that it whitewashes the heroic, unprecedented circumstances that both happened and were forced to happen to construct it. A large part of those circumstances were military actions, which as in a lot of history defined the shape of the institutions that came into being afterwards. A lot of words to say that there's a set of expectations that are canonical in this country that are currently being fostered by the military-industrial complex, largely as a substitute for an alternative, functional general welfare system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
That's very true. There's a very pervasive thought that "just join the military" is a viable option for anyone who doesn't know what to do after high school, has student loan debt and can't find a job, is unemployed and is on welfare, like it's literally just the obvious fallback for any economic or social uncertainty in your life. It's also wielded as a way of not feeling bad for people who are in economically uncertain times. I had a discussion with one active duty girl about the woman who was arrested after leaving her kids in the car to go on a job interview. She had no sympathy for her whatsoever, even though by all accounts this woman was trying to do all the right things, but without the support systems that would have helped her watch her kids for a couple hours. Apparently she should have "just joined the military, like I did, then you wouldn't have to do that". Simple as.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
whitey delenda est posted:There's another aspect to the perpetuation of the system. Being that the fundamental idea of the process outlined here of "get a job and do it well and you're set" has really only worked or even been in existence for 2.5 or at most 3 generations of Americans. There is an ongoing loss of institutional memory of the struggle to even make that fleeting time period of relatively excellent prospects for large swathes of adults possible at all. The archetype of the Good Solid Job is a very 20th century construct, but our culture moves so fast into establishing this sort of meme that it whitewashes the heroic, unprecedented circumstances that both happened and were forced to happen to construct it. A large part of those circumstances were military actions, which as in a lot of history defined the shape of the institutions that came into being afterwards. You say that as if it's a uniquely US phenomenon. It isn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
copper rose petal posted:That's very true. There's a very pervasive thought that "just join the military" is a viable option for anyone who doesn't know what to do after high school, has student loan debt and can't find a job, is unemployed and is on welfare, like it's literally just the obvious fallback for any economic or social uncertainty in your life. As long at you can meet the minimum standards to join. Right now most people (certainly not "anyone" as you say) can't even meet the minimum standards. I didn't know this until a year, or so, ago: Anyone who has at anytime in their life been diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, and taken medication, is ineligible to join. There are a lot of surprised men and women when they find out they can't even join the military. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:As long at you can meet the minimum standards to join. Right now most people (certainly not "anyone" as you say) can't even meet the minimum standards. I've been through the process. MEPS is a joke and everybody knows not to tell them about your medical history, and they certainly don't probe too hard during your exam since they're processing literally hundreds of people at the same time. Just because you might be ineligible on paper from what the Pentagon estimates doesn't mean you'll be rejected when you get there. On paper I was ineligible to join. And yet somehow... E: My original point being, of course, that this is the pervasive expectation that many people have, that if you can't pay for college or don't know what to do with your life, the military is a fallback option. This is what leads people to call it the American welfare system, because the military is seen as the social safety net option rather than a job training program or subsidized trade school tuition or university. The truth is that the military is a terrible option for many, and not even an option at all for many more (as you mention), but it's not really that hard to get past that phase. copper rose petal fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
copper rose petal posted:I've been through the process. MEPS is a joke and everybody knows not to tell them about your medical history, and they certainly don't probe too hard during your exam since they're processing literally hundreds of people at the same time. Just because you might be ineligible on paper from what the Pentagon estimates doesn't mean you'll be rejected when you get there. On paper I was ineligible to join. And yet somehow... Well, there are waivers for things, but those are rare these days. If you know that you were ineligible I suggest you keep it to yourself (seriously not a joke). I work HR and have processed many people for committing fraud and lying on their entrance forms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Well, there are waivers for things, but those are rare these days. Again, you're assuming an entirely unwarranted level of honesty at MEPS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Yeah, it is not even a controversial thing to do really. Many military recruiters themselves will tell you to straight up lie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Niedar posted:Yeah, it is not even a controversial thing to do really. Many military recruiters themselves will tell you to straight up lie. And recruiters don't care if you get caught down the road. Look, here's what I tell people that want to join the military: Don't lie, but don't volunteer information. If you aren't asked about something, don't bring it up. People sitting in a quiet room with a guy filling out forms have this insane need to blab. copper rose petal posted:Again, you're assuming an entirely unwarranted level of honesty at MEPS. I'm really bad that way. It's why I'm 42H now and no longer a 31A. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Niedar posted:Yeah, it is not even a controversial thing to do really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
What a joke. I went to basic and ait with a kid who scored low on his asvabs, had a rotted out meth mouth (like, the nastiest most rotted out teeth, with a few missing- point being incredibly nasty and OBVIOUSLY meth), and was in horrible shape (perfect flabby-pancake beer belly) and we were training to be in Human Intelligence! It was a joke and here's the punch line- the army bought him brand new teeth. 8 months into the army this kid was sporting fresh, free new teeth. Standards my rear end. 2007-2008 they were taking anyone and my guess is they still are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:What a joke. I went to basic and ait with a kid who scored low on his asvabs, had a rotted out meth mouth (like, the nastiest most rotted out teeth, with a few missing- point being incredibly nasty and OBVIOUSLY meth), and was in horrible shape (perfect flabby-pancake beer belly) and we were training to be in Human Intelligence! It was a joke and here's the punch line- the army bought him brand new teeth. 8 months into the army this kid was sporting fresh, free new teeth. Standards my rear end. 2007-2008 they were taking anyone and my guess is they still are. That is definitely not at all the case right now, lots of people get turned away and waivers are hard to come by. With OIF and OEF over and the draw downs the military isn't hurting for people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:What a joke. I went to basic and ait with a kid who scored low on his asvabs, had a rotted out meth mouth (like, the nastiest most rotted out teeth, with a few missing- point being incredibly nasty and OBVIOUSLY meth), and was in horrible shape (perfect flabby-pancake beer belly) and we were training to be in Human Intelligence! It was a joke and here's the punch line- the army bought him brand new teeth. 8 months into the army this kid was sporting fresh, free new teeth. Standards my rear end. 2007-2008 they were taking anyone and my guess is they still are. 2007 was the surge in Iraq; we've since reduced our demand, and as such can raise our standards. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:What a joke. I went to basic and ait with a kid who scored low on his asvabs, had a rotted out meth mouth (like, the nastiest most rotted out teeth, with a few missing- point being incredibly nasty and OBVIOUSLY meth), and was in horrible shape (perfect flabby-pancake beer belly) and we were training to be in Human Intelligence! It was a joke and here's the punch line- the army bought him brand new teeth. 8 months into the army this kid was sporting fresh, free new teeth. Standards my rear end. 2007-2008 they were taking anyone and my guess is they still are. What would they be taking "anyone" for in 2014? What needs doing now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
The problem of peace and superiority making a military corrupt and inefficient is a pretty common one throughout history. The highest ranks peacetime nilitaries in general are going to shift from a focus on competence to a focus on being good at impressing politicians at parties. The British Empire faced the same problems of Iraq and Afghanistan when fighting the Boers and the Zulus. Redvers "reverse" Bueller was a terribly good chap who had been to the right school and had the right ancestors but sadly didn't know not to site his artillery too close to Zulu lines for instance. The worrying thing is I'm not sure there's a good example of a dominant military reforming itself to be efficient and useful without a major existential threat. In the age of nuclear weapons that would suggest there is no plausible way to reform the US military short of a civil war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 12:08
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:The worrying thing is I'm not sure there's a good example of a dominant military reforming itself to be efficient and useful without a major existential threat. In the age of nuclear weapons that would suggest there is no plausible way to reform the US military short of a civil war. There are loads. The British army changed a lot after Crimea, to draw from your own pool of examples. You just need impetus from somewhere; existential threat is just the best impetus of all. Arguably, this last set of wars has done more damage to the US military than the peace did, so there's also that. I think the problem is a broader dysfunction in the US political system.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:The problem of peace and superiority making a military corrupt and inefficient is a pretty common one throughout history. The highest ranks peacetime nilitaries in general are going to shift from a focus on competence to a focus on being good at impressing politicians at parties. The British Empire faced the same problems of Iraq and Afghanistan when fighting the Boers and the Zulus. Redvers "reverse" Bueller was a terribly good chap who had been to the right school and had the right ancestors but sadly didn't know not to site his artillery too close to Zulu lines for instance. abolition/massive cuts in size and scope
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 13:12
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:There are loads. The British army changed a lot after Crimea, to draw from your own pool of examples. You just need impetus from somewhere; existential threat is just the best impetus of all. The peace has created a dysfunctional force and the frontier skirmishes have surfaced it. They aren't separate events. Also the Caldwell Reforms weren't implemented until Prussia/the German Empire was posing an existential threat two decades after Crimea which enabled dysfunction in the British Imperial government to be overcome. The impetus for reform will need to be something that requires the military to be functional and not just a piggy bank for various interests and in the imperial context that pretty much has to be existential threat. A benevolent military coup maybe, but even then things would have to be pretty bad for that to happen. icantfindaname posted:abolition/massive cuts in size and scope DeBaathification 2.0 would certainly get you a civil war. Not sure about the reform though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
If the United States really is a banana republic ready to coup at the first sign of meaningful cuts to the military's budget and scope we might as well go whole hog and abandon any pretensions otherwise. I'm ready for Generalissimo Clinton
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:If the United States really is a banana republic ready to coup at the first sign of meaningful cuts to the military's budget and scope we might as well go whole hog and abandon any pretensions otherwise. I'm ready for Generalissimo Clinton But Comrade Biden will get there first 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:http://pando.com/2014/12/18/the-war-nerd-more-proof-the-us-defense-industry-has-nothing-to-do-with-defending-america/ Isn't the War Nerd just satire anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 15:41
|
|
The Monkey Man posted:Isn't the War Nerd just satire anyway? No.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:abolition/massive cuts in size and scope How do you feel about Japan and South Korea acquiring nuclear weapons?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Good loving grief, I got both Fiasco and the Generals. Heck, some of the loving fuckups are so loving huge they could nearly by loving Soviet. (Disclaimer, highest scale Soviet Fuckups were still worse) Difference is that the responsible higher order fuckups didnt got shot so far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:38
|
|