War made easy

[maple_leafs182]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa_YeVEU1u0

This video shows how governments use propaganda to gain public support to go to war. Edited December 21, 2009 by maple_leafs182

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa_YeVEU1u0

This video shows how governments use propaganda to gain public support to go to war.

More argument by Youtube. 2 1/2 minutes of instruction - stock war footage - followed by a sentence spoken by the narrator (that the US has dramatically escalated military action since WW2) with no supporting evidence.

Why do you continue to base your decisions on propaganda that has no supporting evidence ? It's quite concerning, especially since your film clips are always decrying this very behavior of yours.

[Shwa]

This video shows how governments use propaganda to gain public support to go to war.

This Sumerian clay tablet shows how governments use propaganda to gain public support to go to war:

http://mechanicrobotic.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/sumerian-clay-tablet.jpeg

[bloodyminded]

More argument by Youtube. 2 1/2 minutes of instruction - stock war footage - followed by a sentence spoken by the narrator (that the US has dramatically escalated military action since WW2) with no supporting evidence.

Why do you continue to base your decisions on propaganda that has no supporting evidence ? It's quite concerning, especially since your film clips are always decrying this very behavior of yours.

I agree with you, but with one exception: are you really asking for evidence--ie. expressing doubt--that "the US has dramatically escalated military action since WW2"?

Look at American military adventures before the War, and since. The claim is not an opinion, much less propaganda. It's common knowledge.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree with you, but with one exception: are you really asking for evidence--ie. expressing doubt--that "the US has dramatically escalated military action since WW2"?

Look at American military adventures before the War, and since. The claim is not an opinion, much less propaganda. It's common knowledge.

How is it common knowledge ? What does "dramatically escalated" mean ? Korea was a dramatic escalation, if compared to peacetime.

[Shwa]

I agree with you, but with one exception: are you really asking for evidence--ie. expressing doubt--that "the US has dramatically escalated military action since WW2"?

Look at American military adventures before the War, and since. The claim is not an opinion, much less propaganda. It's common knowledge.

yeah but... how do you measure that? In terms of overall expenditures adjusted to modern day values between the periods of pre & post 1945? Or do you consider the number of days of conflict overall during those periods? And would you include covert action such as the training of paramilitaries or the subsidizing of client states?

Is there some form of measure that makes this common knowledge?

[bloodyminded]

How is it common knowledge ? What does "dramatically escalated" mean ? Korea was a dramatic escalation, if compared to peacetime.

Korea is a small part of a large whole. All we have to do is look at the expenditures; and at the bases all over the world with their "leap-frogging" utility. The number of conflicts the US has been involved in since the War, as compared to before the war.

I think the point here IS to look at "peacetime" (although since 9/11 there has been an explicitly-stated perpetual state of war, which makes the idea problematic, I admit).

Are you seriously opining that the US has not increased its militarism since becoming a Superpower? That's not even possible, I don't think.

Although regardless of possibility, it's simply not the case at any rate. Of course they have.

This is not a judgement, by the way. It's reportage.

[Guest TrueMetis]

So if the U.S. has "dramatically escalated military action since WW2" when was the last time they were in a total war?

[bloodyminded]

So if the U.S. has "dramatically escalated military action since WW2" when was the last time they were in a total war?

What do we mean by "total war"?

[bush_cheney2004]

What do we mean by "total war"?

Perhaps we mean the two world wars initiated by your former Empire and Commonwealth.

[Guest TrueMetis]

What do we mean by "total war"?

Total War: Total war is a conflict of unlimited scope in which a belligerent engages in a mobilization of all available resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise, in order to entirely destroy or render beyond use their rival's capacity to continue resistance. In a total war, there is less and sometimes no differentiation between combatants and non-combatants (civilians) than in other conflicts, as nearly every human resource, civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent effort.

[bloodyminded]

Perhaps we mean the two world wars initiated by your former Empire and Commonwealth.

I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at.

[Shwa]

Maybe this might help:

https://www.adbusters.org/files/media/flash/hope_and_memory/timeline.swf

It's from AdBusters, but it is pretty cool. And it can be used a rough guide to conflicts.

While I doubt that there can be any measure to show that the US has 'escalated military action since WWII' I would agree that the reporting on US military action since WWII has increased greatly over the past 50 years and that multiple reports of the same conflict could give one the impression of escalation.

[bloodyminded]

Total War: Total war is a conflict of unlimited scope in which a belligerent engages in a mobilization of all available resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise, in order to entirely destroy or render beyond use their rival's capacity to continue resistance. In a total war, there is less and sometimes no differentiation between combatants and non-combatants (civilians) than in other conflicts, as nearly every human resource, civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent effort.

Ah. Then, as you know, this hasn't been the case. (And since you know, I can't imagine the purpose of your pretending to ask me about it.)

Most oddly, this is all a response to your own question:

"So if the U.S. has "dramatically escalated military action since WW2" when was the last time they were in a total war?"

Which is highly confusing. Are you claiming that we can't assert a country has "dramatically escalated military action" unless they're involved in a "total war"?

Why?

[Michael Hardner]

Are you seriously opining that the US has not increased its militarism since becoming a Superpower? That's not even possible, I don't think.

Although regardless of possibility, it's simply not the case at any rate. Of course they have.

This is not a judgement, by the way. It's reportage.

I just want a definition of what we're talking about, that's all. "Escalation" "Militarism" ... what are we talking about ? That would be a starting point.

The emotionalist laments against the U.S. are usually directionless and without any focus. At best, they're an educational illustration of the power of the US and at worst they're mini sketches of paranoia that lead to stupid 9/11 conspiracy theories and foment distrust in our institutions.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at.

Of course, as it is very common for some members to magically create a demarcation at WW2, less they have to accept a historical role in "total war". This clears the way for condemnation of American policies without regard to the actions of Empire 1.0.

[bloodyminded]

Maybe this might help:

https://www.adbusters.org/files/media/flash/hope_and_memory/timeline.swf

It's from AdBusters, but it is pretty cool. And it can be used a rough guide to conflicts.

While I doubt that there can be any measure to show that the US has 'escalated military action since WWII' I would agree that the reporting on US military action since WWII has increased greatly over the past 50 years and that multiple reports of the same conflict could give one the impression of escalation.

No measure? The number of conflicts, including the global reach of such conflicts, including military expenditures, including "basing" the globe on an unprecedented level.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Why?

Because unless it is a Total War no other even comes close. It doesn't matter how many of them there were 1 Total War would still put them all to shame.

[bloodyminded]

Of course, as it is very common for some members to magically create a demarcation at WW2, less they have to accept a historical role in "total war". This clears the way for condemnation of American policies without regard to the actions of Empire 1.0.

Ah. Well, I for one have no compunction about spreading the guilt around as applicable. For example, ignoring the examples of European empires in favour of glaring at the United States is a strange thing to do; or condemning the United States for policies to which Canada is a direct partner. So you're barking up the wrong tree.

[bloodyminded]

Because unless it is a Total War no other even comes close. It doesn't matter how many of them there were 1 Total War would still put them all to shame.

Yes. I still don't understand your point. I made the bland assertion that the US has become more of a military power since WW2. I had no idea it was a controversial notion.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yes. I still don't understand your point. I made the bland assertion that the US has become more of a military power since WW2. I had no idea it was a controversial notion.

Oh that was your point, my apologies I misunderstood you.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes. I still don't understand your point. I made the bland assertion that the US has become more of a military power since WW2. I had no idea it was a controversial notion.

It's not controversial, as the US became "more of a military power" far earlier than that....about 1861 (Civil War). Spain was the first large "victim" of such power, but many others felt the sting as well.

[bloodyminded]

It's not controversial, as the US became "more of a military power" far earlier than that....about 1861 (Civil War). Spain was the first large "victim" of such power, but many others felt the sting as well.

Sure, the United States has had a lot of power for a long time. But it was after World War 2, with American economic prosperity, European focus on decolonization, and the Soviets providing a situation in which The US became the superpower of the type we know today.

[bloodyminded]

Oh that was your point, my apologies I misunderstood you.

No worries, we were just talking past each other, I think.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure, the United States has had a lot of power for a long time. But it was after World War 2, with American economic prosperity, European focus on decolonization, and the Soviets providing a situation in which The US became the superpower of the type we know today.

Just more of the same....the USA put a stop to "colonization" in the Americas very early (Monroe Doctrine - 1823) and proceeded to dominate the western hemisphere and parts of the south Pacific. Post WW2 superpower status only has meaning in the failings of previous empire builders, burned out and broke. America tossed them a bone in the way of the Marshall Plan for service as a buffer to the Soviet Union.

Edited December 21, 2009 by bush_cheney2004