Dismantling an empire

[Bob Riebe]

Ah, so you are a racist. Nice to have it out in the open. In fact, that is surely the most open statement of racism anyone has dared post on here. Well done.

Such as?

[Jag_Warrior]

No it is the entitlements and asinine laws or edicts that come with them that are destroying this country.
Military spending is always flatulated forth by liberals, as evil, (they want to flush more of that money down the entitlement toilet) but is responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The only radical thing coming from the TEA party concern, is bogus claims put forth by the liberal press.

You obviously believe in sacred cows. I'll eat a steak, no matter what cow it comes from.

The data provided is fact, not opinion. The assessment that followed was my opinion... just as yours was your opinion. I do not share your opinion. I do not believe it is the responsibility of the American taxpayer to fund and support the safety of every other nation in the world, with us contributing MORE than all of the other (major) nation COMBINED. I see any nation that continues to do that, especially one with major fiscal issues, as a sucker.

To address our fiscal concerns, every cow, including those held as sacred by this group or that group, is going to have to be looked at. Otherwise, we will not get out of this. The path we are on now is not sustainable. To deny that, by glossing over it with speeches about mom & apple pie and "let freedom ring", will not solve the problem.

What I see are two sides, each with a plan that's going to spend us into oblivion.

[BDunnell]

Such as?

You seem to me to suggest that the treatment suffered by what you call 'negroes' (a term that must now be considered far out of date — I can't think when I last heard it used in the modern era) can somehow be explained away as a result of some period fashion, rather than being the result of deep-seated prejudice.

[Bob Riebe]

Listen, I think Vietnam was disgusting, but do you really think that THOSE (why the capitals in your post, by the way? They run the risk of making your posts inarticulately aggressive) of us on the left who disagree with such things go around causing a disturbance at war memorials?

Yes I do.
(And that within the brackets, is only your opinion as I have noticed in forums that failure to emphasize a point, that is not important to, will cause it to be ignored by, (then corrected by "oh I missed that part") liberals.

[BDunnell]

Yes I do.
(And that within the brackets, is only your opinion as I have noticed in forums that failure to emphasize a point, that is not important to, will cause it to be ignored by, (then corrected by "oh I missed that part") liberals.

Again, as you get angrier, your sentences (i.e. the second one here) become increasingly devoid of punctuation, and therefore sense.

Your first statement here, by the way, is beneath contempt. Are you saying that I have ever, or would ever, do so? I would happily argue a point with anyone, but to do so at a war memorial would be deeply inappropriate. I trust you will apologise.

[Bob Riebe]

You seem to me to suggest that the treatment suffered by what you call 'negroes' (a term that must now be considered far out of date — I can't think when I last heard it used in the modern era) can somehow be explained away as a result of some period fashion, rather than being the result of deep-seated prejudice.

I have six half-black, nephews and nieces, so do not tell anything about race relations.
Until some liberal twits in later years decided that they did not like the correct word for their race, and substituted "black" they were called Negroes by everyone, including themselves, and I have spoken with Negroes, in the "modern" day who will never accept that there was any reason to be called a color rather than a race.
The term white is far more racially prejudiced as Negroe as there is NO white race; therefore it is strictly a racist term; although it does help polically to separate Latinos, East Indians, Persians etc. as they are all Caucasians.

[BDunnell]

I have six half-black, nephews and nieces, so do not tell anything about race relations.
Until some liberal twits in later years decided that they did not like the correct word for their race, and substituted "black" they were called Negroes by everyone, including themselves, and I have spoken with Negroes, in the "modern" day who will never accept that there was any reason to be called a color rather than a race.
The term white is far more racially prejudiced as Negroe as there is NO white race; therefore it is strictly a racist term; although it does help polically to separate Latinos, East Indians, Persians etc. as they are all Caucasians.

OK, I apologise for having jumped to any conclusions without knowing anything of your background. However, you do nothing to disabuse me of your notion that the abuse such individuals suffered was something other than deep-seated. What exactly was the rabid ethnic hatred you experienced in your community, of which you wrote before?

[Rollo]

I do not share your opinion. I do not believe it is the responsibility of the American taxpayer to fund and support the safety of every other nation in the world,

Legally Okinawa is a very different place though; nobody has ever addressed where the responsibility lies.

Famously under Section 9 of the US imposed constitution of Japan it says:
2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
The Constitution of Japan was ordered by MacArthur to be re-written after he outright rejected Joji Matsumoto's Commissions draft and had it mostly written by two of his own staff Milo Rowell and Courtney Whitney.

The question is, does the United States therefore have the responsibility to provide military security, when they're responsible for denying Japan the right to maintain their own military?

Is the Japanese Self-Defence Force even legal in the first place? Or is it an extension of the Police Force as they suuggest that they are?

And if the USA are not responsible for providing military security, then why have they not removed their forces under Section 12 of the Potsdam Agreement:The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.
Ie, if the US Force in Okinawa is not an "occupying force", then what the hell is it doing there?

None of these questions have ever been answered properly by anyone, and as such, the bases at Okinawa are still maintained, and with plans to move to bigger facilities.

[Jag_Warrior]

Do the message boards of the day contain evidence of same?

Kind of off topic, but there actually is a Latin message board where this has been a long running topic of discussion. I've looked at it before, but most of the participants seem to be PhD's or PhD candidates, so they're waaaay out of my league.

I just find it funny (in a sad sort of way) that we have this weird parallel. And I'm sure that the lesson has been repeated many more times than just this one example. But when the Empire was "working" (with money coming in), Rome grew stronger. When the Empire began to bleed aureus and ignore infrastructure, the sun began to set. It's unfortunate that the teaching of the Latin classics ended in the U.S. with my mother's generation, approximately 70 years ago. But we can't even learn from our own (more recent) history, so I guess it would be too much to expect for us to learn from guys who wore skirts and talked funny.

41% of the total, global military spending... Well, as long as the Chinese will keep letting us borrow money (and allow us to buy some of the rare earth minerals they're stocking up on, that are required to build our high tech firecrackers), we'll be OK. Yeah. Sure, we will. I wonder if there'll be some guy on a message board 2,000 years from now, who will think that we were too cool for school. More than likely he'll be talking about the Romans too... and we'll just be a sad, silly footnote.

[Jag_Warrior]

The question is, does the United States therefore have the responsibility to provide military security, when they're responsible for denying Japan the right to maintain their own military?

Is the Japanese Self-Defence Force even legal in the first place? Or is it an extension of the Police Force as they suuggest that they are?

None of these questions have ever been answered properly by anyone, and as such, the bases at Okinawa are still maintained, and with plans to move to bigger facilities.

Sorry, I can't answer any of those questions. But if I was Japanese, I'd keep quiet and keep a low profile on this one. Japan has the second largest economy in the world (in terms of GDP), and some of their infrastructure projects are absolutely mind-boggling. They tend to invest in themselves and their own nation first - we don't do that. Their kids are FAR more advanced in math and science than our kids. While they do have their own economic and fiscal concerns, our overall situation is worse than theirs.

IMO, we're moving toward the point where the only time you'd call on an American is if you need someone with a strong back and a weak mind. Maybe we'll get it together before it's too late. But the average American spends more time watching American Idol and the Real Housewives of Orange County than in digging for information and data (not opinions presented by network talking heads in echo chambers). As long as you spend that borrowed money on their sacred cow, you'll keep the average American voter fat, dumb and happy.