We can't win

[Big RR]

I imagine the terms weren't used, but states' rights was pretty much the status quo of the time, where an elected central government usurping them was a radical idea. And the Bill of Rights was instituted to prevent that centralized government from affecting the status quo to much, and to limit the power of the federal government. I have always thought of maintain the status quo as a hallmark of real conservatism. Additionally, until after the civil war, most provisions of the bill of rights were not applied to the states, further keeping the status quo of local vs federal control. Times and labels change, but I do think the Bill of rights was more a part of a "keeping the status quo" than any revolutionary change.

[Scooter]

Except that only the 10th Amendment speaks to states' rights, the remainder addressing individual rights, and it's rather a stretch to view a free press, freedom of religion, and rights accorded to the criminally accused as hallmarks of conservatism, in that or any other era.

[Big RR]

Except that all were previously part of the state of the law when they were British colonies--these were not new ideas. Those proposing the bill of rights wanted to make certain that the federal government didn't encroach on these rights that the states and people always had (and look at the catch all provisions of the 9th amendment for rights retained even though not enumerated)--again they were not looking for anything radical, only maintaining the status quo. And arguably the second amendment speaks to the right of states to form militias to protect against federal encroachment of these rights. These were people who looked at themselves as individuals first, Virginians (or whatever) second, and Americans third, a hallmark of conservatism of the day.

As for individual rights, protection of these, even today, is not a conservative or liberal position; there are plenty in both camps who are more than willing to eschew some individual rights to achieve their ends, and some on both sides who see protection of individual rights as paramount.

[Scooter]

Except that all were previously part of the state of the law when they were British colonies--these were not new ideas.

So then they fit into the category of:

Many of these innovations were eventually embraced by conservatives only after it became clear that they had overwhelming public approval for the simple reason that almost every American benefited from them.

Again, one would have to twist conservatism into a pretzel in order to claim that it was an early champion of free press, freedom of religion, and protecting the rights of the criminally accused, when such ideas were not already part of the fabric of society.

[Big RR]

Again, one would have to twist conservatism into a pretzel in order to claim that it was an early champion of free press, freedom of religion, and protecting the rights of the criminally accused, when such ideas were not already part of the fabric of society.

Perhaps, but that is not what the Bill of rights did; it merely protected encroachment of those rights by the federal government. For example states could have an official religion, and some did, but such was beyond the power of the federal government. The conservatives did not necessarily embrace all personal rights, but they did fear a big centralized government and what it could do to those rights unless constrained, hence the Bill of Rights was proposed to constrain the power of the national government. The proponents of the big, centralized government, on the other hand, resisted this restraint and tried to sink the Bill of Rights--it is interesting that it was not contained in the original constitution but had to be added by amendment.

I do think both sides embraced some sort of regard for natural rights (be they given by the creator or naturally obtained), but only those fearing large centralized government believed that a specific recognition of these rights, and making the federal government subordinate to them, must be part of the governing document by which that government functioned. Indeed, it can also be said that the "liberals", those seeking to uproot the status quo and seeking a strong central government and far less power to the states, ultimatelyrecognized this limitation on the government as desirable, eventually extending it to the state governments as well after the civil war.

Again, I think we can get bogged down with labels, but I do think that the bill of rights was enacted for one reason only, to preserve the status quo against the potential tyranny of this new central government being formed, something I would call generally conservative rather than liberal.

[liberty]

Except that all were previously part of the state of the law when they were British colonies--these were not new ideas. Those proposing the bill of rights wanted to make certain that the federal government didn't encroach on these rights that the states and people always had (and look at the catch all provisions of the 9th amendment for rights retained even though not enumerated)--again they were not looking for anything radical, only maintaining the status quo. And arguably the second amendment speaks to the right of states to form militias to protect against federal encroachment of these rights. These were people who looked at themselves as individuals first, Virginians (or whatever) second, and Americans third, a hallmark of conservatism of the day.

As for individual rights, protection of these, even today, is not a conservative or liberal position; there are plenty in both camps who are more than willing to eschew some individual rights to achieve their ends, and some on both sides who see protection of individual rights as paramount.

Better watch that kind of talk Big or you could lose your liberal credentials and be blocked from the party. You are starting to sound more like a moderate and a pragmatist.

What liberals can’t comprehend is that all power is dangerous not just conservatives. Liberals like Jim Jones can be just as bad.

[Scooter]

What liberty can’t comprehend would fill the Library of Congress

FTFY

[rubato]

There is no such thing as a liberal like Jim Jones.



yrs,
rubato

[liberty]

We won’t do this because it is immoral to use robots to kill humans. So the Russians will have this advantage along their other advantages. Unless we change we can’t win. We better wake up before it is too late.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... -16787165/
A new video shows a Russian military robot doing something no American machine in service can match: firing a machine gun. It's hardly a technological triumph—the U.S. has been testing armed robots for decades. But while political and ethical caution has prevented the West from advancing with the concept, Russia seems determined to field a wide variety of combat robots

[Joe Guy]

The US has been using drones for air strikes for years. That’s how we’ll win the Russian/Alaska war. We’re going to blow their robots to smithereens.

[rubato]

Ahh yes. This is the Russia who has the economic capacity of a fraction of California. A "mini-me" of a country. And you are really really scared of them.
...
...
...
...
Moron.

yrs,
rubato

[liberty]

Ahh yes. This is the Russia who has the economic capacity of a fraction of California. A "mini-me" of a country. And you are really really scared of them.
...
...
...
...
Moron.

yrs,
rubato

Rub, Your thinking is a little moronic and sophomoric; fear is not a bad thing unless you let it control you. Fear is good a thing it leads to caution which in turn contributes to survival for both individuals and nations. Only a fool ignores a dangerous situation and makes unwarranted assumptions.

And what is this fixation you have on wealth. Don’t get me wrong I have nothing against money, but it does not guarantee victory in war. The ancient Persians were much wealthier that than the ancient Greeks but Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire with only seventy thousand Greeks.
True we are wealthier country than Russia, but what in the way of war material do we make. Our hamburger maybe deadly, but only if you eat them. They are not an effective weapon they take years to kill. We could not even clothe a large arctic army. We can’t manufacture enough clothes or shoes.
We do manufacture some aircraft, missiles and heavy equipment, but I wouldn’t be surprised if their weapon making capacity is as good as ours.
What they have this country doesn’t have is grit, they won’t give up. We lack patriotism too.

[liberty]

What a fool what a load of crap:

http://freebeacon.com/politics/carter-u ... -on-earth/

June 30, 2015 9:23 am
Former President Jimmy Carter referred to the United States as the most "warlike country on Earth" last week during an interview with the nonprofit Aspen Institute.

"I think the American superpower goal should be to the champion of peace, and to be the champion of human rights, and to be the champion of the environment and to be the most generous nation on Earth," he said. "Those are the elements that I hope eventually the United States will set as goals. We are the most warlike country on Earth. We are laggard in addressing the problem of global warming, for instance, and we are now violating about ten of the 30 paragraphs in the universal declaration of human rights, so I think this is something we should look upon as our duties for the future."

[Big RR]

Liberty--while I disagree the "we are the most warlike nation on earth", we have been trying to live up to that moniker, addressing many problems militarily without any idea of what the ultimate resolution should be. This has been a policy of both parties, and both sides of the aisle, and it is not likely to change. This is just an old man spouting the same sort of hyperbole our grandfathers did to make their point.

That being said, I fully agree with the other statements--we can and should stand for human rights and devote ourselves to their protection, especially where that protection is within our control. And, like it or not, even if it is too late (and IMHO it my well be), we have to address global warming. When we look at what our failed foreign policy adventures have cost us, imagine if we could have devoted even a small fraction of those dollars to those ends; but we always seems to have the money and support to pursue military ventures (however misguided) and but throw up our hands at the hard problems.

[Burning Petard]

It is pretty easy to trace our current problems in Iran to the 1953 coupe instigated by the US and the UK against the popular and democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh,--he had nationalized their oil and BP/American oil could not tolerate that. Shah Pahlavi became a totalitarian autocrat ruling by the force of his secret police--but he kept the oil money flowing in the right direction, by USA standards. Not problem until there was a problem and the US Embassy became a museum of horror for the people of Iran. The greatest military power on earth demonstrated it could not figure out how to build a helicopter that worked in the real world of Iran.

Today the guys sitting around the big tables in the Pentagon and in the White House still have not figured out that 'air power' is nicely insulated from from the reception committees at Dover AFB, but it also just motivates the locals to greater anger and to build better IUDs. Not even the A-Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki really defeated the enemy in Japan. (Japan was suing for peace long before 'fat boy' was dropped.) Read 'Slaughter House Five' What was the strategic result of the bombing of England? It took boots on the ground in Berlin and Munich. We had air superiority in Viet Nam and now in Afghanistan. But the drone attacks have increased local resistance to our foreign occupation.

Let me swing back to the constitutional rights of the People and the government in the USA We have a government of limited powers. The government has only powers granted to it by the people. Those powers are carefully spelled out in the constitution. But it IS a government that has only those powers granted to it by the people. The people have granted it almost unlimited powers. Right to a speedy triad by a jury of your peers? Forget it. Costs too much (who wants to pay more taxes?) Forget trials. Negotiate plea bargains. Only Congress has the right to declare war? Tell that to all the military casualties who have been buried since 1948. Nobody tells Trump he cannot push that button that is bigger than any other. We, The People, have given our government a blank check.

I agree that 'we can't win' as long as winning is defined as nation-states and dwellers there in, who do whatever the government of the USA tells them to do.

snailgate

[Big RR]

I agree, but I think the real reason we cannot "win", is because we do not know what winning is. What we confuse with 'winning" is merely postponing having to decide what we want by having a series or armed conflicts with no real resolution in mind. Agree or disagree with it, Carter at least presents his view of what a "win" would result in--a world in which the rights of all peoples are recognized. but we don't want to have that sort of discussion, we'd prefer to continue the brush wars which are undertaken to prompt the public to make sacrifices (especially of rights) in the name of patriotism--short term gains for the powers that be rather than real change. so we have always been at war with Oceania, and keep on talking about how we can prevail in that/those wars. The thing that amazes is me is that "they" don't even try to disguise their goals anymore--Orwell was right about doublethink.

[rubato]

Ahh yes. This is the Russia who has the economic capacity of a fraction of California. A "mini-me" of a country. And you are really really scared of them.
...
...
...
...
Moron.

yrs,
rubato

Rub, Your thinking is a little moronic and sophomoric; fear is not a bad thing unless you let it control you. Fear is good a thing it leads to caution which in turn contributes to survival for both individuals and nations. Only a fool ignores a dangerous situation and makes unwarranted assumptions.

And what is this fixation you have on wealth. Don’t get me wrong I have nothing against money, but it does not guarantee victory in war. The ancient Persians were much wealthier that than the ancient Greeks but Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire with only seventy thousand Greeks.
True we are wealthier country than Russia, but what in the way of war material do we make. Our hamburger maybe deadly, but only if you eat them. They are not an effective weapon they take years to kill. We could not even clothe a large arctic army. We can’t manufacture enough clothes or shoes.
We do manufacture some aircraft, missiles and heavy equipment, but I wouldn’t be surprised if their weapon making capacity is as good as ours.
What they have this country doesn’t have is grit, they won’t give up. We lack patriotism too.

It is not about wealth it is about size and economic capacity. The economic capacity of a nation is a good measure of their military capacity. Of their capacity to wage war over time and at scale. If the United States were Canada or Australia in WWII we could not have been the arsenal of democracy which saved Russia along with western Europe. In order to build ships, planes and tanks you have to have the ability to pay for them. Our military personell are far better trained healthier and and more experienced. Our tanks, submarines, aircraft carriers and aircraft are more numerous and technically superior to all of theirs.

If irrational and hysterical fear leads us to waste time and resources we are bleeding ourselves. Stupidly.

Stop whinging like a girly-man.

yrs,
rubato

[liberty]

Liberals lack analytical ability and objectivity. They swing from being scared shitless over nuclear war to macho men that beat any nation in world anytime and anyplace. And they are also good at wishful thinking, but wishful thinking is worth exactly one pile of horse shit.

The thing is the military insurance we need wouldn’t cost that much; it might even cost less than what we are doing now. The kids have to be educated anyway, so what would be wrong with a military education along with a strong dose of patriotic and military indoctrination? And don’t worry your kids wouldn’t required to do anything; volunteer families would be recruited. The problem is it couldn’t be done by the government. It would require non-profit organizations supported by the US government; because a belief in God would have to be a part of the mix.




https://tipolitics.com/russia-could-bea ... 8869d1b4eb


Today in Politics

HomeBlogToday in PoliticsTIP Weekend ReadsDonate to TIP

Go to the profile of Austin Frank
Austin Frank
I publish “Today in Politics.” Fmr. Hill staffer.
Apr 13, 2017
Russia Could Beat us in World War III

Recent comments by Russia over America’s missile strike against Syria’s Assad regime indicate that, at the very least, the Kremlin is not afraid of threatening us with force. World War III is not so unthinkable anymore as the US and Russia edge closer to confrontation over Syria.

At the very least, the contours of a future World War III are starting to take form. For instance, there is little doubt the US and Russia will be adversaries, and the central players in the conflict. From there, it would be a matter of the nations further down the global pecking order choosing sides. Western Europe would ultimately side with the US, and Russia would appeal to former Soviet Bloc states.

So all this begs the question: who would win?

I must stress that I’m not saying World War III is imminent. Though America and Russia are in an alarming game of brinkmanship over Syria and are as close to war as we’ve ever been since the Cold War, our two nations still maintain diplomatic relations. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited Moscow just yesterday, and though he and his Russian counterpart Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov didn’t agree on much, the fact that the visit happened in the first place shows that as bad as relations are, they’re not nearly as bad as they could be. If and when the US and Russia break off diplomatic relations, then war becomes not only possible but probable.

What I’m saying is that in a future World War III, whenever it happens, the Russians have a far greater shot at beating us than most people think.

[Burning Petard]

OK, Mr. Liberty. Just what is YOUR definition of 'winning' in a war between USA and Russia? You and others in this thread have spent bandwidth stating what winning is not. You prefer to announce, in various ways that Russia would win. What would winning look like for you?

Russia has a long history of wars. For the last 300 years, I agree that Russia has not been defeated militarily. But Russia's major support has been from General Winter. It's record for invasions of other nation/states is not so clear. Just how good is the Russian military machine when it does not have interior lines of supply? Arm chair amateurs like to endlessly discuss tactics and strategy and compare 'throw weight'. Wars are won by logistics. The core skill of the military is to kill people and blow up things. War is a continuation of diplomacy by other means.

[By the way, could you refer me to fundamental military doctrine sources by 'your people' comparable to Carl von Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, or Niccolò Machiavelli?]

snailgate

[MajGenl.Meade]