You’re correct about the current world we live in. I went to war to help our economic trading partners whose economies affected our own. Kuwait’s occupation did not directly affect us and despite the peaceful embargo threats, Saddam continued to assert his claim of rightful conquest. It was also our military stance after the ceasefire that prevented Saddam’s expansion and the embargoes embittered the Iraqis against us when we finally decided to dethrone him. History does not only consist of WW2 as an example. the same thing has been happening for millenia. Tibet and Kosovo are polar opposites of bellicose decisions. Rome fell from internal dissension and civil war when those energies could have been better spent keeping the borders secure in offensive actions. The problems we face now have always plagued empires. We just happen to be lucky enough to be somewhat isolated an our economic empire is falling apart due to our society’s inability to adapt to the fact that the world is changing.
We have to protect that empire and a soft and weak military will cause that economic empire to be taken advantage of. You can use post war Germany and Japan as examples of weak military and economic growth but remember that their economies were heavily subsidized by our military might protecting their trade from others who would take it from them. I’ll just mention the Ukraine for a contemporary example and you can research the history, both economically and politically and come to your own conclusion.
W offers Military as new FEMA….any problems?
-
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050926-122858-7624r.htm
My first problem is the same one Willaim Clinton ran into as president. When he put US troops into the fractured Yugoslavia and Kosovo they were trained in peacekeeping. After they returned home they had to be retrained as soldiers.
Next, where are the liberals and Democrats who have been anti military since the Vietnam Patsy Action? Allow the military to control civilian situations? Bush is Hitler! The Fourth Reich has arisen.
-
Is it just me or is that unconstitutional?
-
Is it just me or is that unconstitutional?
And on top of being unconstitutional (but who’s looking anyway?), isn’t it just a tad dumb?
Bush’s proposal is to have the military act as lead agency in “extreme” cases. Anyone care to define extreme? Take Katrina for example. Was it extreme BEFORE the levees broke or after (and if it after, aren’t you turning the whole shebang over to an agency whose works had caused the failure to begin with, i.e. the Army Corps of Engineers)??
The military does its job well for two reasons:
- It has a relatively clear mandate to protect us from foreign enemies.
- It has more money than it knows what to do with.
Why break something that at least seems to be working by saddling it with a very fuzzy mandate?
BW
-
Same reason the Legions built the roads. The military is organized, they know what to do and how to do it.
-
And the Legions also tossed out the Republic.
-
I think that the system should stay the way it is. The states should ask for assistance. If they don’t it’s their fault, not the federal government. We do not need to have more bureacracy. Personally, I believe it was the Louisiana’s fault the situation wasn’t handled properly along with FEMA. It would be a violation of states’ rights to use Bush’s plan imo.