MY JSA SUSPENDED AGAIN

[FORTUNATA]

I wouldn't be so sure. War very nearly broke out in 61 when Krushchev ordered nuclear missiles and mobile launchers to Cuba. Krushchev, however, was a rational man whose aim was only political. Even so, as I recall, Mr K endorsed an attack on the U.S. mainland should their mobile troops or launchers suffer any attack while on Cuba. There was then the probability of troops puouring into Germany via East Berlin.

History also shows that in times of poverty, dictators emerge. It could even happen in modern Russia.

And I'll bet my bottom diollar that if huge inequality comes back to Europe, yes, there will be another European war.

Sorry to sound so gloomy but history often repeats itself.

 

 

 

The days of mass conscription to fight wars is over.

 

All future wars will be fought with professional soldiers and high technology. Conscripted grunts digging holes and shooting across no-man's land is a thing of the past.

 

It also has nothing to do with the employment situation as the war which killed the most conscripts was fought long before the welfare system was set up.

 

And I'm still waiting for the cavalry. There were a few of them in the middle pages of the thread but have left me to my fate, apart from Catweasel who seems sympathetic but still afraid to take the plunge towards my side of the debate.

 

I've noticed; you've managed to drag you solipsistic; self possessed, ill informed nonsense out for 24 pages now.

[carlt]

I wouldn't be so sure.

I didn't say there wouldn't be any more war and I'm well aware of how close we have come to being in the cross fire while superpowers throw their tech and professional soldiers at each other.

 

I said war would be fought by tech and professional soldiers, not conscripted grunts.

[FORTUNATA]

"So just to see if i'm following the logic of your arguement if the state expects its citizens to defend it then it must provide a welfare state, or employment at a minimum standard of living pay level. yes?"

 

Correct. There is no such thing as a strong state made up of people who have no stake in it. It's accepted by many that the fall of the Roman Empire came about via huge mass immigration that diluted one single culture into many but also an erosion of social connection and cohesion.

We are today the equivalent of the Roman State in around 300 A.D. and at that time it was pretty much knackered. We're governed by incompetent, self serving, corrupt and grasping hypocrites (called politicians).

[carlt]

That is a word I haven't heard in a few years

Ahh, extreme existentialism.

 

I had a friend who believed that the whole world was created for his entertainment and his was the only real conciousness.

 

Mind you he had also boiled his brains with hallucinogens, in his youth.

[FORTUNATA]

Hard to say. What would happen is another Hitler rose in Russia. Annexation of the Baltics. Parts of Europe won over. Nobody knows.

 

I didn't say there wouldn't be any more war and I'm well aware of how close we have come to being in the cross fire while superpowers throw their tech and professional soldiers at each other.

 

I said war would be fought by tech and professional soldiers, not conscripted grunts.

[Guest]

I wouldn't be so sure. War very nearly broke out in 61 when Krushchev ordered nuclear missiles and mobile launchers to Cuba. Krushchev, however, was a rational man whose aim was only political. Even so, as I recall, Mr K endorsed an attack on the U.S. mainland should their mobile troops or launchers suffer any attack while on Cuba. There was then the probability of troops puouring into Germany via East Berlin.

History also shows that in times of poverty, dictators emerge. It could even happen in modern Russia.

And I'll bet my bottom diollar that if huge inequality comes back to Europe, yes, there will be another European war.

Sorry to sound so gloomy but history often repeats itself.

 

 

 

 

 

And I'm still waiting for the cavalry. There were a few of them in the middle pages of the thread but have left me to my fate, apart from Catweasel who seems sympathetic but still afraid to take the plunge towards my side of the debate.

Never afraid Fortunata! If I agree with some of what you say I will say so. If I disagree I will also say so (read some of my posts on other threads )

If I don't comment it means I probably don't care either way, or have no opinion on that particular point.

[carlt]

I've noticed; you've managed to drag you solipsistic; self possessed, ill informed nonsense out for 24 pages now.

It's the thread that keeps on giving.

 

Hard to say. What would happen is another Hitler rose in Russia. Annexation of the Baltics. Parts of Europe won over. Nobody knows.

Anyone who shows a mere interest in world events knows.

 

A conscripted army can no longer win a war because the technology is too advanced to be placed in the hands of someone with no training.

 

Cannon fodder is of no use on the battlefield any more and the loser of a war will be the one that cannot afford to lose any more civilians, not the one that runs out of soldiers.

[Guest]

It's the thread that keeps on giving.

 

 

Anyone who shows a mere interest in world events knows.

 

A conscripted army can no longer win a war because the technology is too advanced to be placed in the hands of someone with no training.

 

Cannon fodder is of no use on the battlefield any more and the loser of a war will be the one that cannot afford to lose any more civilians, not the one that runs out of soldiers.

Point taken, but the one who cannot afford to lose any more money may also be the loser? I suspect wealth (or lack of) will dictate the outcome of any wars.

[Athy]

Is there not still a place for "grunts" to occupy a country and bop the local peasants over the head from time to time to prevent them becoming uppity, after the high-tech pro's have conquered the country?

[carlt]

Is there not still a place for "grunts" to occupy a country and bop the local peasants over the head from time to time to prevent them becoming uppity, after the high-tech pro's have conquered the country?

It's usually the professionals that hang around after the fighting's done.

 

The surviving conscripts come home and start a post-war baby boom leading to mass unemployment.

[Guest]

It's usually the professionals that hang around after the fighting's done.

 

The surviving conscripts come home and start a post-war baby boom leading to mass unemployment.

I can't argue with that.

[lexicon]

"So just to see if i'm following the logic of your arguement if the state expects its citizens to defend it then it must provide a welfare state, or employment at a minimum standard of living pay level. yes?"

 

Correct. There is no such thing as a strong state made up of people who have no stake in it. It's accepted by many that the fall of the Roman Empire came about via huge mass immigration that diluted one single culture into many but also an erosion of social connection and cohesion.

We are today the equivalent of the Roman State in around 300 A.D. and at that time it was pretty much knackered. We're governed by incompetent, self serving, corrupt and grasping hypocrites (called politicians).

 

Ok so where do u stand on the second part of my post?

[Ange]

 

This way seems a bit weird and pronbably you're using a mobile which does make it hard.

 

You did good for a little while there then lapsed - I really don't understand why top posting seems natural to you!

 

I'm not on a mobile, I'm on a laptop computer on my boat, and I'd prefer to read the post that's being referred to before I read the answer, when I quote a reply my cursor arrives after the quote, you must have to deliberately position yours before the quote.

 

Please humour us OCD peeps and save me the trouble of scrolling down to look for the post you're replying to.

[Higgs]

my cursor arrives after the quote, you must have to deliberately position yours before the quote.

 

Please humour us OCD peeps and save me the trouble of scrolling down to look for the post you're replying to.

 

Yes, it does require some small effort to set up the cursor to reply above the quote. Is it some stubborn resolve to be contrary. Are we all sheep for following a convention.

 

It may not matter a whole lot, but it is irritating. But, Fortunata, when you write, it is normally volumes. You are looking for a good hearing. Do you think you are as good at listening?

[mayalld]

Let's challenge this conception. If the "State" ever becomes involved in a world war, who will the State expect to defend it? My grandad fought in 2 world wars, being WW1 and WW2. After that he was employed all his life in a hotel

 

So, in essence, because you have an entirely unfounded view (based on what happened 70 years ago) that in the event of a war that might never happen the state would expect you to fight, you believe that as a quid pro quo the state is obliged to either find you something to do that you enjoy, or to pay you to sit on your arse, as an advance payment against that eventuality.

 

Quite breathtaking!

 

In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that your deep seated sense that the world at large owes you something goes a long way towards making you fundamentally unemployable.

[FORTUNATA]

So, in essence, because you have an entirely unfounded view (based on what happened 70 years ago) that in the event of a war that might never happen the state would expect you to fight, you believe that as a quid pro quo the state is obliged to either find you something to do that you enjoy, or to pay you to sit on your arse, as an advance payment against that eventuality.

 

Quite breathtaking!

 

In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that your deep seated sense that the world at large owes you something goes a long way towards making you fundamentally unemployable.

Someone I know said, "Read your history!"

Countries that may appear to be strong, you'd be surprised are not. The U.S. is protected by all sorts of high tech weapons but ironically this is one cause of its actual weakness. The Soviets used to say the U.S. is surrounded by weak, South American neighbours but never ever experienced a ground war in their own borders as the USSR did (when Germany attacked).

There is more to war than firing a few ICB missiles.

You can have an eggshell that appears strong till someone wacks it with a large hammer.

And the U.S. as idolised as it is in the U.K. has only been a superpower for some 50 years (a blip compared to the Romans and Egyptians).

Basically, I'm saying the U.S. model of greed and profit and selfishness as the ultimate value is flawed. If you look at history you'll see the same mistakes and patterns of mistake are repeated.

Any strong society needs give and take and it has to be bonded in mutual advantage.

 

No. People who know me say I talk more than I listen so I had to quieten down a bit.

 

Yes, it does require some small effort to set up the cursor to reply above the quote. Is it some stubborn resolve to be contrary. Are we all sheep for following a convention.

 

It may not matter a whole lot, but it is irritating. But, Fortunata, when you write, it is normally volumes. You are looking for a good hearing. Do you think you are as good at listening?

[Athy]

Someone I know said, "Read your history!"

 

U.S. is surrounded by weak, South American neighbours

SURROUNDED by them? Read your geography! No South American nation even shares a border with the USA.

[carlt]

Someone I know said, "Read your history!".....The US....never ever experienced a ground war in their own borders as the USSR did (when Germany attacked).

Perhaps you too should read your history.

 

The reason the Soviets defeated the Germans was because the battle was fought on their borders which meant the German supply lines were stretched to their limits and the troops had no relief through reinforcements.

[FORTUNATA]

That's a staggering observation. Mexico shares a border with the U.S.A. and Mexico is South America, same as Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and so on. The U.S./Mexico border is also a major issue over there as to immigration.

Anyway, my point is that the status of superpower isn't connected to owning WMD weapons since Russia also has stockpiles but is no longer considered a global world power. To be a superpower also means a strong, cohesive, technically advanced society and I don't view America these days as quite at that level. In the eighties perhaps, yes, but I think Katrina exposed a lot of internal weaknesses. In fact a few of my American friends wrote me after katrina and it came as a big shock to them to see parts of the U.S. exposed as lacking in various ways.

 

SURROUNDED by them? Read your geography! No South American nation even shares a border with the USA.

[Athy]

No, Mexico is not in South America.

[mrsmelly]

That's a staggering observation. Mexico shares a border with the U.S.A. and Mexico is South America, same as Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and so on. The U.S./Mexico border is also a major issue over there as to immigration.

Anyway, my point is that the status of superpower isn't connected to owning WMD weapons since Russia also has stockpiles but is no longer considered a global world power. To be a superpower also means a strong, cohesive, technically advanced society and I don't view America these days as quite at that level. In the eighties perhaps, yes, but I think Katrina exposed a lot of internal weaknesses. In fact a few of my American friends wrote me after katrina and it came as a big shock to them to see parts of the U.S. exposed as lacking in various ways.

 

 

Aaaagggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh where are the flippin MODS when you need them ????? They often lock very inofensive threads at a whim !! This ones doing my head in. LOCK THIS THREAD and then perhaps and I mean perhaps said OP may, though I doubt it just one day may actualy devote some time looking for a job and stop flippin whinging !!!

 

Tim

[Graham Davis]

That's a staggering observation. Mexico shares a border with the U.S.A. and Mexico is South America,

 

NO!

Mexico is Central America:

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/sa.htm

[Athy]

After the last few posts, it would thus become "My USA Suspended Again", I guess.

Fortu, are you sure that you haven't got a job at Private Eye magazine?

[valrene9600]

Aaaagggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh where are the flippin MODS when you need them ????? They often lock very inofensive threads at a whim !! This ones doing my head in. LOCK THIS THREAD and then perhaps and I mean perhaps said OP may, though I doubt it just one day may actualy devote some time looking for a job and stop flippin whinging !!!

 

Tim

Mods not needed. All that need happen is everyone stop fuelling this post.

[Athy]

Val, no one is forcing you to read it. It has provided entertainment for some of your CWF colleagues.