Questions you want answered (P&C Edition)

Tanglebones wrote:

I dunno about the last one, but Rome tended to make off pretty well when it invaded places. They were masters of the manufactured casus belli, though.

If I've learned anything from the History of Rome podcast it's that quite often Rome would get its ass handed to it in a war but a few years later they would come back and kick the teeth out of the guy that beat them just because they were too stubborn to stop and they had a massive reserve of bodies to throw at the enemy. I mean, yeah, ultimately they would make out pretty well in the end, if you're looking purely at the amount of ground won to lost, but it wasn't always a parade procession to victory.

Thanks guys, good answers. My mate neatly punctured my half-baked theory about economic MAD making future wars unlikely by pointing out how little that had restrained people recently, but we realized neither of us were really sure about when they'd stopped being economically viable.

Invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan may pay off in the long run as well.

Not for us. The amount we sunk into the military costs to take them far exceed the total proven resources in those countries -- and consider that the US government would get only a tiny fraction of those resources anyway.

For a war of that expense to really be worthwhile, it would have needed to be something like taking total ownership of Saudi Arabia.

Maq wrote:

Invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan may pay off in the long run as well.

To expand on what Malor said, even the most conservative estimates of the Iraq war is in the trillions by this point (I remember reading a couple of articles citing a study tagging the total costs as over three trillion.) By comparison, the U.S. Gross Domestic Product is something like 15 trillion. Unless Iraq is going to start giving us all their oil for free, I'm not sure how that's going to "pay off" at any point in time.

Even if they did, it still wouldn't pay off, because most of that money would end up in the hands of Shell and Exxon Mobil and British Petroleum, not the US government, sitting there with its three trillion dollar liability.

It doesn't matter how big you are or what financial strength you have, you can write checks you can't cash. More accurately, you can make promises you can't keep. We can absolutely pay back those three trillion dollars, but we will never be able to repay actual wealth equal to what we borrowed to fight that war, when you consider our $60+ trillion of unfunded liabilities.

If the US loses some of it's moral obligation then their war would be less expensive. What worked after WWII (Marshall plan) Might not be applicable to backwards countries like Iraq and Afghanistan . It's generally better to let the locals settle their differences in their traditional way rather than the US stepping in and participating in a war of attrition.

Israel might have experienced more wars than most countries but our wars are generally short. We go in Blow up everything and let the rest of the world figure out what to do with the new reality we created in some backwards aggressive country. I'm not saying our system is full proof but it's generally less expensive than hanging out in a hostile country.

I think the US in Iraq and Afghanistan suffered from the same problem as Lebanon war . Israel had a plan to go in but didn't really have a plan how to get out . The agreement we got in the UN was generally beneficial for both sides (even if we got nothing). The IDF was in the process of conquering a big chunk of Lebanon after getting most of the population to move north( the Lebanese would have faced a new reality if they let it continue) . This "overreaction" kind of scared Hezbollah from getting brave . The IDF is still stating in the media that they already have a plan to go in again . Israel's objective is not to fight another war but to prevent it by setting a very high price for provoking us.

US wars are different because the US won't be affected by much by backwards countries on the other side of the globe. The US still has financial interests everywhere so I'm guessing that's its only reason to go to war. I don't think the moral obligation comes before the war starts. I haven't seen the US work too hard to prevent our modern day genocides.

Military training is also a motive for the US to be in war. War provide great training to soldiers and build experience to the military. Wars also give ideas to movie makers which drives another industry. War also create jobs for construction contractors. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan also opened those countries market to US products and services. The cost vs return of war is a complicated issue but generally all side lose in a war and it's better to avoid it.

Maybe the 9/11 bombing killed 3000+ people but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the population of the US. Terrorists can't actively destroy the US . Terrorists can kill a bunch of people and cause fear but that's about it. Terrorism can hurt a country's economic conditions but the US and Europe managed to shoot themselves in the leg better than any terrorist could hurt them. The US could have turn Afghanistan to a bigger parking lot than it was at the time and got out. They could have dumped tons of guns on the country and let the people there fight each-other. If I remember correctly their GDP at the time was mainly reliant on Opium production .

edosan wrote:
Maq wrote:

Invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan may pay off in the long run as well.

To expand on what Malor said, even the most conservative estimates of the Iraq war is in the trillions by this point (I remember reading a couple of articles citing a study tagging the total costs as over three trillion.) By comparison, the U.S. Gross Domestic Product is something like 15 trillion. Unless Iraq is going to start giving us all their oil for free, I'm not sure how that's going to "pay off" at any point in time.

It's more a case of being poised for when the Saudi royal family finally gets strung up by an angry mob. A disruption in the supply of oil has far greater economic ramifications for the US and other countries than the simple dollar value per barrel. Just look at the 1973 oil crisis for examples.

Israel's objective is not to fight another war but to prevent it by setting a very high price for provoking us.

So, you start wars so that you don't have to fight wars?

What?

edosan wrote:

To expand on what Malor said, even the most conservative estimates of the Iraq war is in the trillions by this point (I remember reading a couple of articles citing a study tagging the total costs as over three trillion.) By comparison, the U.S. Gross Domestic Product is something like 15 trillion. Unless Iraq is going to start giving us all their oil for free, I'm not sure how that's going to "pay off" at any point in time.

The payoff was the continued hegemony of the US petrodollar. Our insane trade imbalance is 'paid' for by that. It was never about getting the oil in the ground, but ensuring that the world would still use the US dollar as the reserve currency.

ZaneRockfist wrote:

It was never about getting the oil in the ground, but ensuring that the world would still use the US dollar as the reserve currency.

The U.S. is the reserve currency because there is no alternative. The Euro is new and still an experiment. What else would anyone use?

Microsoft Points?

Malor wrote:
Israel's objective is not to fight another war but to prevent it by setting a very high price for provoking us.

So, you start wars so that you don't have to fight wars?

What?

There was once a lecture on the radio ("broadcasted university") about force building in the IDF. They claim the main objective of the IDF which fight superior foes (outnumbered in every way) is to cause enough pain to the enemy it wouldn't want to continue fighting.

The man strategy is to build up a deterrence level which would discourage our other countries or non-country entities from attacking us. The level of success of a military operation isn't only measured by it's operational success but it also by the number of peaceful days that follow. One of the way to build up deterrence is a war . Lebanon war 1 started with an assassination attempt and Lebanon 2 started with a kidnapping and killing of soldiers (mostly reservists) .

An exaggerated response can prevent the enemy from considering a future attack. The missile defense systems are also a deterrent. if the enemy knows most of his well aimed rockets would be intercepted they would prefer not to waste them and lose well trained forces. The Iron dome system caused a lot of problems to rocket launchers in gaza because the radar system identify both the launch site and landing site. Rocket that pose no risk are not intercepted while the launchers are tracked down and attacked.

Israel's war are much different than the US's war. The US haven't been fighting with its neighbors for a century or two. We have a major war every less than 10 years. In the Gaza area there are constant border clashes and we recently started having terrorists infiltrate the Egyptian border (the last time that happened the Egyptians got very angry and started doing something about it).

It's not that we want wars but overreaction is a part of the strategy so the other side doesn't mess with us.

Niseg wrote:
Malor wrote:
Israel's objective is not to fight another war but to prevent it by setting a very high price for provoking us.

So, you start wars so that you don't have to fight wars?

What?

There was once a lecture on the radio ("broadcasted university") about force building in the IDF. They claim the main objective of the IDF which fight superior foes (outnumbered in every way) is to cause enough pain to the enemy it wouldn't want to continue fighting.

Fatah, Hamas, and the PLO are superior foes?

It's not that we want wars but overreaction is a part of the strategy so the other side doesn't mess with us.

So, ultimately, so that you don't have to fight wars, you start wars.

That's what you're really saying.

Malor wrote:
Israel's objective is not to fight another war but to prevent it by setting a very high price for provoking us.

So, you start wars so that you don't have to fight wars?

What?

I related his statement to something I saw for a while in the insurance industry. Without going into too much detail, for a few years there State Farm would take almost everything to court. Subrogating another company and their minimal coverage wasn't enough to cover what you paid? File suit. Attorney tells you he'll file suit if you don't offer him more than you think the claim is worth, tell him to bring it and let it go to court. For those years their legal costs were astronomical and they'd spend $35,000 to argue they shouldn't pay $2,000 more on a claim. Their overall strategy though was to let everyone know that it was going to cost them time and money to argue against State Farm. Certain attorneys and medical providers just decided to move on and focus on going after other insurers and they stopped pushing some issues with State Farm. Basically they paid a huge up front cost to build a reputation as the company that will nuke you from orbit with legal fees.

It's all about reputation building and Israel has worked very hard to create the reputation as the craziest guy in the bar who'll knife you if you look at him wrong so that all of the other tough guys in the bar leave him alone. It actually makes sense given the neighborhood they live in.

Kehama wrote:

It's all about reputation building and Israel has worked very hard to create the reputation as the craziest guy in the bar who'll knife you if you look at him wrong so that all of the other tough guys in the bar leave him alone. It actually makes sense given the neighborhood they live in.

And we're their 280-pound linebacker/MMA friend whose enabled our tiny crazy friend by buying him a shiny new knife every year. He feels completely OK with acting like an ass because he knows that we'll bail him out when he inevitable gets into a situation over his head.

So something I notice, more than not. The ugly brother of the devil's advocate often pops up in political or social contexts. This is of course, the self righteous.

This comes in many areas. The toyota prius, organic food pushers for example.

For a quick reference, Hipster Barista meme is a good place to go.

http://memegenerator.net/Hipster-Bar...

Going full circle to my question. Why is it in this arena not only are there people who look to and want to be offended to pick a fight? Why is it so prevalent, even rewarded?

Rush Limbaugh is great at this. The War on X-mas is a lot like this. You look on Bill Maher and see the america hating liberal who will take any negative statement about another country and point out how America is worse; newswoman is raped in Egypt but he turns the conversation to how horrible America is on women.

Couple thoughts

1) You're kind of asking why does a fictional meme character exist...
2) Political or social context = basically everything. Not sure what specific arena you're referring to.

/looks at his Toyota Prius

Tanglebones wrote:

/looks at his Toyota Prius

You sicken me.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

/looks at his Toyota Prius

You sicken me.

Me too. And I eat organic food.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

/looks at his Toyota Prius

You sicken me.

Whatever, cupcake sympathizer.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/coHxdl.jpg)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/5an8Al.jpg)

Well, I tried, Tanglebones.

Malor wrote:

Bush had a lot of power because he took a lot of power. He simply ignored Congress when it told him to do things he didn't like. The theory was, absolutely literally, that the Executive Branch of the government is not bound by laws. Laws are only for the little people.

Obama doesn't believe that. He follows the law, even when Republicans write it, and even when they explicitly write it to mess him up.

Bush's approach was, basically, "I'm doing it anyway, and you can't stop me."

Sorry, but I have to call shenanigans on this one. You're talking about the man who started a war in Libya without even consulting Congress, let alone following the Constitution; the man who who has perfected the art form of issuing executive orders to implement legislation that is stalled or won't pass; the man who has prosecuted more whistleblowers than any President before him; the man whose Justice Department was instructed to lie about the existence of records when presented with FOIA requests; and the man who has simply assumed the power to personally and unilaterally order the assassination of American citizens or anyone else.

Obama doesn't follow the law any more than Bush did, and arguably less. And his approach is, basically, "I'm doing it anyway, and not only will you not stop me, you'll either never find out about it, be stonewalled by the government behind a curtain of "national security", or I'll put you in indefinite detainment for revealing it."

Someone pass the popcorn, willya?

Aetius wrote:

Sorry, but I have to call shenanigans on this one. You're talking about the man who started a war in Libya without even consulting Congress, let alone following the Constitution; the man who who has perfected the art form of issuing executive orders to implement legislation that is stalled or won't pass; the man who has prosecuted more whistleblowers than any President before him; the man whose Justice Department was instructed to lie about the existence of records when presented with FOIA requests; and the man who has simply assumed the power to personally and unilaterally order the assassination of American citizens or anyone else.

Obama doesn't follow the law any more than Bush did, and arguably less. And his approach is, basically, "I'm doing it anyway, and not only will you not stop me, you'll either never find out about it, be stonewalled by the government behind a curtain of "national security", or I'll put you in indefinite detainment for revealing it."

Yeah, you're probably right. Bush was loud about saying 'f*ck you, Congress and the law', where Obama does it quietly, but he still does it.

Anyone else get the feeling the whole idea of needing to declare war pretty much disappeared when nuclear weapons showed up?

No, not really.

bnpederson wrote:

Anyone else get the feeling the whole idea of needing to declare war pretty much disappeared when nuclear weapons showed up?

That has its roots in civil war reconstruction, and post WWII under the UN. Post Civil War the president as commander and chief was given broader powers to respond to threats to the US, even abroad. Under the treaty signed upon the creation of the UN and NATO, the US with other coalition forces could enter combat without formal declaration (like Bosnia, the 1990 Persian Gulf).

Post Civil War, and further opened after WWII, the president was given broader powers to act in his capacity as commander and chief. In essence, the president could and has sent troops in the US, its neighbors, and to foreign soils when threats to the US are shown. Congress has to power to challenge this presidential action, to withdraw support for the troops-resupply, reinforcements, etc. Congress confronted the President in this manner for Vietnam forcing the Military to plan a withdrawal.

So far as any scholar would say, largely these laws are clarifications and strengthening to what is already spelled out in the constitution. The president commands the armed forces, but congress supplies, recruits, and funds them. And they allowed the president to act expediently absent some of the furor seen in the 19th century-Jefferson's "war" on pirates for example.