Dissension among the ranks?

[Prognastic]

I believe Bobby Knight was the General and David Robinson was one of the admirals. Captain Morgan also voiced his disapproval.

Both Captain Crunch and Colonel Sanders give it the thumbs up however.

[Chilly]

I believe Bobby Knight was the General and David Robinson was one of the admirals. Captain Morgan also voiced his disapproval.

 

I don't know, if its the same Captain Morgan I'm familiarizing myself with at the current moment, he's pretty damn agreeable.

[TPS]

That is so stupid. Unbelievably stupid. This is why I hate the fukking media and refer to most people as lemmings.

 

Here's the deal:

 

The Air Force isn't more "willing" to attack Iraq, they simply have fewer things to worry about. Iraq has virtually NO capability to stop the United States Air Force, as Tom pretty much already stated. The "article" is simply sh(i)tty journalism. As if the Air Force is somehow consulted on their "willingness" to engage targets. It doesn't work that way and it NEVER has.

 

Would the Army have more to worry about? Duh. See Iraq. And any other conflict where the objective is to simply hold ground while minimizing collateral damage. The Army knows they've been screwing up for the last 3 decades in how they prepare. What they don't know is how to fix it in any sort of short order.

 

I guess it's a semantic issue. I interpret the quote as essentially what you said. "The air force is regarded as being more willing" isn't much different than saying "they simply have fewer things to worry about." That's how I read it. They are regarded to be more willing because they CAN bomb the sh-- out of Iran without much damage to themselves. On the other hand, the Army doesn't have the capability to engage Iran, and more than likely Iran will respond by going after our troops in Iraq.

 

I interpret this as one of many attempts by the lifers in the military to put the brakes on the insane policies that Cheney and the neocons are pursuing. There are top brass who disagree with what these idiots want to do, and they are using the media to try and prevent them from from doing it. Which, for military people, is unprecedented. But, hey, I'm only an economist...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I believe Bobby Knight was the General and David Robinson was one of the admirals. Captain Morgan also voiced his disapproval.

[OCinBuffalo]

I guess it's a semantic issue. I interpret the quote as essentially what you said. "The air force is regarded as being more willing" isn't much different than saying "they simply have fewer things to worry about." That's how I read it. They are regarded to be more willing because they CAN bomb the sh-- out of Iran without much damage to themselves. On the other hand, the Army doesn't have the capability to engage Iran, and more than likely Iran will respond by going after our troops in Iraq.

 

I interpret this as one of many attempts by the lifers in the military to put the brakes on the insane policies that Cheney and the neocons are pursuing. There are top brass who disagree with what these idiots want to do, and they are using the media to try and prevent them from from doing it. Which, for military people, is unprecedented. But, hey, I'm only an economist...

It's simple: the Air Force can only be put in danger by someone with comparable technology, the Army can be put in danger by a 12 year old, who was handed a rifle 5 minutes ago. This has nothing to do with Iran, Iraq, neocons, Cheney, or anything like that. Here's the thing: if there was a modern day Luftwaffe like Hitler had in 1939, I guarantee that the Air Force wouldn't be as "willing" to get it on and fight them.

 

As far as an Army general disagreeing with policy makers being unprecedented goes: are you kidding me? How about this:

 

Bradley said in Congressional testimony, "Red China is not the powerful nation seeking to dominate the world. Frankly, in the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this strategy would involve us in the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy." - General Omar Bradley, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1951

 

Although this quote is frequently used by retards to prove that "all wars are bad", this is not what he was saying. In fact, he was talking about the need for us to focus our energy on the Soviet Union, since they were the "powerful nation seeking to dominate the world". He was also responding to those in power, and in congress, who wanted us to attack China.

 

So apparently he was "using the media to try and prevent them from from doing it" too. (ridiculous - as if any real officer thought about it this way)

 

This is not "unprecedented", and in fact, it's not even "uncommon". Read on if you want to know why.

 

There is not one general in the Army who EVER wants to go to war!(With the only exception being Patton) In fact, it's quite the opposite. Most generals, and most officers for that matter, take the view that the Army should serve as a deterrent to war. The thinking is right out of Sun Tzu's Art of War: if your army is so powerful that other nations know that any war fought against it will end in defeat, you will have peace. Sun Tzu principles form the basis of the Peace Through Strength philosophy. The Romans figured out the same thing, hence the Pax Romana period = 400 YEARS without one single war in the "known" world. Those seem to be pretty good results for the anti-war crowd.

 

In essence a powerful military PREVENTS war. I find it odd that anit-war activists aren't the most ardent supporters of military spending. It has been demonstrated over and over and over again throughout history that the antecedents of war ALWAYS include the aggressor nation(s) firm belief that the other side cannot defend itself. Quick example: Stalin kills off 70% of his own officer corps due to the inevitable paranoia of Communism, Hitler sees that and then attacks. The Germans inflicted horrendous casualties on the Soviets and by any responsible military/political logic(sorry, I forgot we were talking about socialists here) the Soviets should have surrendered - instead they traded hundreds of thousands of their peoples' lives for time to rebuild their army(another shining example of socialism "Saving the Human Race"). But what is the root cause of this? Weakening of the Soviet military. At the very least this was Hitler's perception, and that was all it took to cause 20 million people to die. Those seem to be pretty bad results for the anti-war crowd.

 

I can give you 5 more examples of similar declarations by American Generals, from the Revolutionary War on, off the top of my head; but I think I've proved my point. Again, this is not "unprecedented", and in fact, it's not even "uncommon". In no way does it point to the condemnation of neocons, democrats, or any other political group by the U.S. Military. The U.S. military is not in the policy business/condemnation of policy business while they are in uniform. They are in the business of defining STRATEGY, which is what Bradley was doing. Policy is not Strategy. Any Admiral, General, or any officer will tell you that. Just the same, Wesley Clark taking pot shots at the military policy is political speech, which he is entitled to, since he doesn't wear a uniform any more.

 

As far as the article goes, BIG BS Flag. No Flag officer would say this stuff because, by definition, every Flag officer wants to be able to put congress on the spot when it's "show me the money" time. This article's "sources" probably come from some pissed-off, passed-over, Lt. Col in the JAG corps who "heard" some generals talking and decided what they "meant".

[chicot]

It's simple: the Air Force can only be put in danger by someone with comparable technology, the Army can be put in danger by a 12 year old, who was handed a rifle 5 minutes ago. This has nothing to do with Iran, Iraq, neocons, Cheney, or anything like that. Here's the thing: if there was a modern day Luftwaffe like Hitler had in 1939, I guarantee that the Air Force wouldn't be as "willing" to get it on and fight them.

 

As far as an Army general disagreeing with policy makers being unprecedented goes: are you kidding me? How about this:

 

Bradley said in Congressional testimony, "Red China is not the powerful nation seeking to dominate the world. Frankly, in the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this strategy would involve us in the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy." - General Omar Bradley, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1951

 

Although this quote is frequently used by retards to prove that "all wars are bad", this is not what he was saying. In fact, he was talking about the need for us to focus our energy on the Soviet Union, since they were the "powerful nation seeking to dominate the world". He was also responding to those in power, and in congress, who wanted us to attack China.

 

So apparently he was "using the media to try and prevent them from from doing it" too. (ridiculous - as if any real officer thought about it this way)

 

This is not "unprecedented", and in fact, it's not even "uncommon". Read on if you want to know why.

 

There is not one general in the Army who EVER wants to go to war!(With the only exception being Patton) In fact, it's quite the opposite. Most generals, and most officers for that matter, take the view that the Army should serve as a deterrent to war. The thinking is right out of Sun Tzu's Art of War: if your army is so powerful that other nations know that any war fought against it will end in defeat, you will have peace. Sun Tzu principles form the basis of the Peace Through Strength philosophy. The Romans figured out the same thing, hence the Pax Romana period = 400 YEARS without one single war in the "known" world. Those seem to be pretty good results for the anti-war crowd.

 

In essence a powerful military PREVENTS war. I find it odd that anit-war activists aren't the most ardent supporters of military spending. It has been demonstrated over and over and over again throughout history that the antecedents of war ALWAYS include the aggressor nation(s) firm belief that the other side cannot defend itself. Quick example: Stalin kills off 70% of his own officer corps due to the inevitable paranoia of Communism, Hitler sees that and then attacks. The Germans inflicted horrendous casualties on the Soviets and by any responsible military/political logic(sorry, I forgot we were talking about socialists here) the Soviets should have surrendered - instead they traded hundreds of thousands of their peoples' lives for time to rebuild their army(another shining example of socialism "Saving the Human Race"). But what is the root cause of this? Weakening of the Soviet military. At the very least this was Hitler's perception, and that was all it took to cause 20 million people to die. Those seem to be pretty bad results for the anti-war crowd.

 

I can give you 5 more examples of similar declarations by American Generals, from the Revolutionary War on, off the top of my head; but I think I've proved my point. Again, this is not "unprecedented", and in fact, it's not even "uncommon". In no way does it point to the condemnation of neocons, democrats, or any other political group by the U.S. Military. The U.S. military is not in the policy business/condemnation of policy business while they are in uniform. They are in the business of defining STRATEGY, which is what Bradley was doing. Policy is not Strategy. Any Admiral, General, or any officer will tell you that. Just the same, Wesley Clark taking pot shots at the military policy is political speech, which he is entitled to, since he doesn't wear a uniform any more.

 

As far as the article goes, BIG BS Flag. No Flag officer would say this stuff because, by definition, every Flag officer wants to be able to put congress on the spot when it's "show me the money" time. This article's "sources" probably come from some pissed-off, passed-over, Lt. Col in the JAG corps who "heard" some generals talking and decided what they "meant".

 

The Pax Romana period was generally considered to be from 27 BC to 180 AD, which makes it a little over 2 centuries long, not 4 centuries. As for it being "without one single war in the known world", I suggest you go away and read up on Trajan's campaigns against the Parthians and Dacians, the Boudicea rebellion in Britain, or the campaigns of Marcus Aurelius. To suggest that this period was "without one single war" is absurd.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The Pax Romana period was generally considered to be from 27 BC to 180 AD, which makes it a little over 2 centuries long, not 4 centuries. As for it being "without one single war in the known world", I suggest you go away and read up on Trajan's campaigns against the Parthians and Dacians, the Boudicea rebellion in Britain, or the campaigns of Marcus Aurelius. To suggest that this period was "without one single war" is absurd.

 

Good point. But given the context of when the Pax Romana occurred, and the five previous centuries-worth of what can only be considered all-out global conflict, the term was indeed justified. Prior to the Pax, you had Caesar's war against the Gauls, the Punic Wars, the Conquest of Britain, campaigns in Asia Minor, Greece, Egypt, Spain and the Levant. Going back even further, you have an era of Greek conquest of Persia, Persia's conquest of well, just about everybody.

 

You get the point.

[DC Tom]

The Pax Romana period was generally considered to be from 27 BC to 180 AD, which makes it a little over 2 centuries long, not 4 centuries. As for it being "without one single war in the known world", I suggest you go away and read up on Trajan's campaigns against the Parthians and Dacians, the Boudicea rebellion in Britain, or the campaigns of Marcus Aurelius. To suggest that this period was "without one single war" is absurd.

 

And Pax Victoria was "without one single war" as well...even though the British Empire fought at least one war in every single year of Queen Victoria's reign.

 

"Pax" anything doesn't actually mean world peace, it means major world powers are only fighting minor powers. Always has. Pax Americana fits that definition perfectly.

[chicot]

Good point. But given the context of when the Pax Romana occurred, and the five previous centuries-worth of what can only be considered all-out global conflict, the term was indeed justified. Prior to the Pax, you had Caesar's war against the Gauls, the Punic Wars, the Conquest of Britain, campaigns in Asia Minor, Greece, Egypt, Spain and the Levant. Going back even further, you have an era of Greek conquest of Persia, Persia's conquest of well, just about everybody.

 

You get the point.

 

If he'd said no major wars occurred during that period then I'd have had no problem with the statement, but saying that it was without one single war is pretty inaccurate. Also, I'm pretty certain the conquest of Britain occurred during Claudius's reign (Caesar led an expedition to Britain but didn't actually conquer the territory), which was during the Pax Romana.

[OCinBuffalo]

If he'd said no major wars occurred during that period then I'd have had no problem with the statement, but saying that it was without one single war is pretty inaccurate. Also, I'm pretty certain the conquest of Britain occurred during Claudius's reign (Caesar led an expedition to Britain but didn't actually conquer the territory), which was during the Pax Romana.

I'm sure you would agree that there is a huge difference between Nation-States going at it and border squabbles or the putting down of minor rebellions/going after brigands. And going after the Britons is nowhere close to dealing with the Carthaginians and/or Parthians. And come on, in context of the whole of the Roman Empire, you are gonna tell me that f-ing about with the Parthians and Dacians on the farthest border from Rome = all out WAR on the scale of the Punic Wars? I know that there were some large battles but those were more preemptive strikes than MAJOR WARS. In fact each battle pretty much settled things down for years after. It certainly doesn't come close to, later on, dealing with the Gauls, or worse, the Huns. When I said WAR I meant WAR, not squabble.

 

While we're on that topic - what in your estimation - was the reason that the barbarians tribes were able to rise and even sack Rome? It wouldn't be the weakening of Rome's Legions or anything, would it? Nah, I'm sure it was the fact that Rome didn't do a good enough job NEGOTIATING with them. :w00t:

 

Sure after the weakening of the army as a whole, the Romans did an even worse number on themselves with bad negotiating. However, without the root cause, the weakening of the military, there would have been no negotiating to begin with!

 

Rather than playing games with details how's about you respond to the substance of my post?

[chicot]

I'm sure you would agree that there is a huge difference between Nation-States going at it and border squabbles or the putting down of minor rebellions/going after brigands. And going after the Britons is nowhere close to dealing with the Carthaginians and/or Parthians. And come on, in context of the whole of the Roman Empire, you are gonna tell me that f-ing about with the Parthians and Dacians on the farthest border from Rome = all out WAR on the scale of the Punic Wars? I know that there were some large battles but those were more preemptive strikes than MAJOR WARS. In fact each battle pretty much settled things down for years after. It certainly doesn't come close to, later on, dealing with the Gauls, or worse, the Huns. When I said WAR I meant WAR, not squabble.

 

While we're on that topic - what in your estimation - was the reason that the barbarians tribes were able to rise and even sack Rome? It wouldn't be the weakening of Rome's Legions or anything, would it? Nah, I'm sure it was the fact that Rome didn't do a good enough job NEGOTIATING with them.

 

Sure after the weakening of the army as a whole, the Romans did an even worse number on themselves with bad negotiating. However, without the root cause, the weakening of the military, there would have been no negotiating to begin with!

 

Rather than playing games with details how's about you respond to the substance of my post?

 

I'm not sure that the weakening of the army was so much the root cause as a symptom of the general socio-economic decline of Rome. A declining population meant that they simply could not field the numbers that they once could and came to rely on barbarian mercenaries.

 

As for the cause of the general decline of Rome, you can take your pick from any number of reasons. Historians have been arguing over this for centuries. The rise of Christianity, declining moral standards, the plague, climate change, etc... have all been mentioned as possible causes.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I'm not sure that the weakening of the army was so much the root cause as a symptom of the general socio-economic decline of Rome. A declining population meant that they simply could not field the numbers that they once could and came to rely on barbarian mercenaries.

 

As for the cause of the general decline of Rome, you can take your pick from any number of reasons. Historians have been arguing over this for centuries. The rise of Christianity, declining moral standards, the plague, climate change, etc... have all been mentioned as possible causes.

 

I think, and this is just my opinion, that the salient reason that Rome collapsed was INERTIA of two varieties:

 

1) Military inertia. Rome became successful because of its conquests. When there was nothing worthwhile (to them) to conquer, they lost direction.

 

2) Economic inertia. This one holds a valuable lesson to us today. Rome's tax system became so oppressive that it became impossible to collect enough in taxes from the provinces. They spent more than they could tax and the economic bankruptcy of the Empire in the west all but assured its annihilation.

 

The East, however, was more densely populated and wealthy. Taxation wasn't nearly as difficult. The net result? The Byzantines hung on for nearly a millennium longer.

 

Not too shabby.

[X. Benedict]

The East, however, was more densely populated and wealthy. Taxation wasn't nearly as difficult. The net result? The Byzantines hung on for nearly a millennium longer.

 

Not too shabby.

 

Both sides still have one thing in common today, they both complain about German tourists.

[/dev/null]

As for the cause of the general decline of Rome, you can take your pick from any number of reasons. Historians have been arguing over this for centuries. The rise of Christianity, declining moral standards, the plague, climate change, etc... have all been mentioned as possible causes.

 

They didn't listen to Albertium Goreus