>>44603404 Depends on what exactly you mean by "lower."
On the one hand, armies no longer campaign on months-long forced marches in absolutely shitty conditions that kill more people through disease and poor hygiene than the enemy does.
On the other, you gotta move fast or you're dead, and volunteer armies and the sheer destructive nature and complexity of modern combat means that nations can afford to have much higher standards than "call up the poor people."
>>44603462 >On the other, you gotta move fast or you're dead, and volunteer armies and the sheer destructive nature and complexity of modern combat means that nations can afford to have much higher standards than "call up the poor people." Also, combat load for the common infantryman is heavier than it's ever been because of the sheer volume of shit they have to carry.
You do realize that in many cases it was land owners and shit who got to serve in the military, not the poor slaves tied to the land they farmed. That's your working class feeding your kingdom. But the landowners with money and power, they pay for those liberties with military service. Hell, not so long ago the voting right meant you could be drafted. It was the price you paid.
>>44603510 Technically in the US all males still register in the Selective Service System. The Draft hasn't been called up in fucking forever, but the means are in place. Though now that women are in Combat Arms it seems only fair that they register for Selective Service too. Fuck, make 'em get the same shitty ten dollar haircut we do. I think it'd be hot.
Even the common archers at say Crecy were a step above a good half of the population simply because they were not serfs and had to give military service in return.
Reminds me of the one cheeky bastard whose call up papers said he had to fight the Scots with 'bow and arrow'. So he marched North with a single arrow, fired it the first time he saw a Scottish soldier then went home.
>>44603618 Well those people are not innocent ever, only crazy people put their political beliefs before the combat effectiveness of their own military. Same with the nutcases who want the physical standards to be a firefighter lowered for 'equality'.
We've previously established that /tg/ is /k/'s bastard offspring, so this is on topic. Plus it's an important question for historical gaming and world-building.
(Synopsis: /lit/ gets drunk and goes home with /k/. She wakes the next morning and slinks home in shame, never to speak to him again. Nine months later, /tg/ is born. /lit/ resents having to be the mom, especially since /tg/ is more talented than her, so she looks the other way when /d/ and her live-in boyfriend /x/ start molesting /tg/.)
Hence why all /lit/, /k/, /d/, and /x/ topics are potentially /tg/ topics, to be handled better and more maturely than those boards can handle them. And in case you're wondering, /pol/ is the herpes each of them has.
>>44603532 >The Draft hasn't been called up in fucking forever, but the means are in place.
The call up system is in place, but the draft was repealed under Nixon at the urging of libertarian economist Milton Friedman.
There have been various attempts to restore it. AmeriCorps and other youth programs have been advanced as potentially something you should draft kids into, or pseudo-draft them by saddling them with college debt that can't be paid except by being forgiven via national service. Congressman Charlie Rangel has been proposing to restore the military draft for years now.
The idea is that the military can be used as a national education program to instill proper political and cultural values.
Most countries have more than enough people to fill the ranks with high-quality volunteers without resorting to slave armies via conscription. Conscripts tend to be lazy, low-morale, undisciplined, and low-skilled. And who can blame them? Modern armies are capital-intensive, not labor-intensive. So except in a few cases, conscription doesn't make a lot of sense in pure military terms.
>>44604931 Pretty sure he means that the MEDIA will lose their shit. I mean they freak out enough when a male soldier gets wounded. Now imagine it's a woman, and remember that there DOES exist a cultural double standard about women getting hurt (thus why women in action movies basically never get John-McClane-in-the-original-Die-Hard levels of fucked up).
People forget that the Roman legion was not the brunt of the roman army, they always ran auxiliaries and shock troops.
A professional standing army like that of Israel or North Korea or NATO or USA would completely demolish any other army in the field from any point in history even if forced to use swords, shields, cavalry.
The modern infantry man is about 5 inches bigger and over 50lbs heavier than his ancient counterpart. He is better trained, better fed, better motivated, and more willing to kill.
It would be a complete massacre if any historical army tried to fight a modern day one, especially given how modern generals and field commanders understand how to exploit the various historical weaknesses of the theater of operations. Consider how guerrilla tactics and skirmishing would completely rout an opposing force before even the first night of encampment.
There are a few, but not many. Most feminists oppose the draft for women.
It depends on your definition of "feminist" right? If you believe in equality between the sexes, then of course conscription should apply to both equally. If you believe it means advocating for women and against men, then it certainly shouldn't.
Let's avoid the motte and bailey argument, and instead just look at people who describe themselves and are described by others as feminists. The vast majority of feminists are opposed to having women register for selective service and be subjected to the draft. They want the opportunity to serve in the military, and serve in combat, but not the obligation to do so.
>>44604982 You don't even really need any of that. Wait 'til the Romans make camp, then an FO calls in a fire mission. Couple rounds of 155 turn the camp into so many craters at a cost of less than $200 per round. GG no re, Rome.
Id say people in general where stronger in the olden days, not just the soldiers. You had a much more harsh environment as many anons above have mentioned.
A few weeks back I saw a documentary of some traveling dude visiting a Icelandic fishing family. A 12 year old boy of the family did a "test of strength" with the reporter, and nearly broke his fingers! Now, imagine that, on you're every day family, you worked hard from the day you could, you had to if you wanted to survive!
Still wouldn't call it healthy though, most people died in shitty ways back then.
Post-WW2, there was a large body of thought, mostly but not exclusively on the political Left, that a permanent draft could be a powerful social institution for good.
The idea is that people (especially the poor) get drafted into the military at 18, then spend 2-4 years serving. Perhaps building public works, or participating in aid and relief efforts overseas. They are forced by military discipline to conform to political standards on racial and sexual equality, and by being separated from their families and communities at this very formative age, can be guided to have superior values not tainted by atavistic religion or culture they get at home.
Meanwhile, they get specialized training and learn values like hard work, cleanliness, obedience, and teamwork. When they complete their service, they come out as better people.
Now, this doesn't apply to everyone. Highly specialized fields like science and engineering inculcate these values already, are nationally critical, and take so long to train people for that you can't afford to take 2 years off to do your service. So naturally you give exemptions to people like that.
A whole generation, drafted for WW2, could see the logic of this and agree with it. A whole new generation, drafted for Vietnam, saw all the problems.
But this is a VERY popular system, still used in Europe and the communist world. A good GM running a game in that kind of setting needs to be able to understand those arguments in favor, even if he personally doesn't agree with them, because it's the logic of the setting and his NPCs will believe that.
The only NATO country to have female conscription is Norway. In Norway, the main feminist group, NKF, strongly supports women in all areas of combat but opposes having the draft apply to them. Here's a link to an article from a past president of the NKR laying out the arguments http://kvinnesak.no/female-conscription-is-not-a-feminist-issue
In other countries, the matter remains academic, with most feminist groups not bothering to take a formal position.
To my knowledge, there are no opinion surveys on the question.
In the USA, there's a lawsuit working its way up to the Supreme Court that argues that the selective service system is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. It's at the 9th circuit court of appeals right now; oral arguments were heard last month but there's no decision yet. If it gets to the Supreme Court we'll be able to count the amicus briefs from activist groups.
Modern soldiers are without a doubt more physically fit, skilled, smarter, and overall more capable than soldiers of the past thanks to higher standards of fitness, discipline, education, medicine, nutrition, etc.
If you were to remove all modern firearms from a modern military and retrain them in antiquated tactics, weapons, etc., they would almost certainly crush any other military of the past.
Interestingly German conscripts of the Bundeswehr didn't exactly fit your description back in the day when the draft was still a thing. The conscripts and draftees were a moderating and bettering influence on the volunteer soldiers and our army was in a way better state back then, because a lot of the conscripts had already done an apprenticeship and could do maintenance work or help out.
Nowadays we have an volunteer "army" (lel 5 of our planes work) and its state is abysmal.
So you're right in your assessment of the European stance to the draft. But then again we didn't have war-clusterfucks half a world over like the US did, just the big Russian Bear looming over our plains with a shitload of tanks.
It's worse than just babysitting. The idea of drafting large numbers of the population means the military will A) swell far beyond its current size, which means more of the budget will go to the military rather than more important issues, B) put more power in the hands of the military and make it easier for any interest group to indoctrinate these people with the values they want, and C) generally quite possibly lead to a military uprising and coup that could destroy democracy.
Yes, the idea makes sense for turning unproductive members of society into productive ones. But the devil is in the details, and the political and moral values you choose to instill in them could destroy the entire nation if you aren't careful about what these people are taught.
Modern militaries are capital rather than labor intensive. So the military ends up with a big pool of untrained civilians every year that they don't know what to do with. So they skim off the most talented group of them to stick into combat units, then the next batch to work as unskilled labor in support services.
But even then, your troops are going to be of a lower quality. They're less motivated, less disciplined, and won't be there for very long. And on top of that, they crowd out the professional soldiers.
After all that you still have a huge number of kids to babysit. So you come up with bullshit make-work assignments to keep them out of trouble. Or you hand them off to do "national service" as unskilled labor for construction or in some countries agriculture. You lose valuable officers and non-coms on these babysitting assignments, and the military is distracted from its core mission of killing people and breaking things.
A second problem are those pesky exemptions for people in "critical industries" like science and engineering. As time goes on, it's all too easy for politicians to start exempting critical disciplines like law, political science, and art history. Plus more deferments for the children of the politically-connected. That undermines the argument that conscription brings all social classes together as equals, because the upper and eventually upper and middle classes are exempted from the systems.
And even the ones who do get "drafted" in official terms often end up doing "service" that amounts to cushy vacations, or general staff positions that make them even more politically connected. Or they're shunted into service academies where their workload and expectations are much lower, but their prospects much higher. This especially applied in the Soviet Union.
My description applies to the old Soviet system as well. I don't have personal knowledge of Germany, but it's worth mentioning that I've spoken to other Germans who have exactly the opposite view from yours. Germany did start with a very martial culture, so I can see the logic of what you're saying about the moderating influence.
Yes, in some countries this is an issue. But keep in mind, putting the military in charge of non-military things doesn't just militarize society. It also civilianizes the military, dilutes its martial character.
For all our talk of China, only a very small fraction of the country operates under free markets. That pays for everything else. Another major segment of their economy are these vast military-industrial empires that are under the fiefs of senior chinese military officials. They're horrifically inefficient, but who cares? Their purpose isn't to be productive, it's to line the pockets of the Old Comrades.
In the Soviet system, this wasn't as much of a concern because it was a dictatorship already, and the Party and KGB both had considerable power over the army. Much of industry was quasi-militarized, though, which proves your point exactly. This is a challenge for groups trying to figure out %GDP spent on the military, because what a military actually does varies wildly from country to country.
>>44605577 It pretty much depends on their age, I guess. Younger Germans are generally more pacifistic and anti-military. There's no workplace less accepted than the Bundeswehr, I guess. Nearly all the people I know who actually served and didn't dodge the draft or went into civil service share my opinion. Depends on your social circle, I guess.
Yes, the German army has always been a bit of a cesspit of right-wing ideologies - naturally - no self-respecting leftist would ever join. So it needed the "common man" for regulation of these elements. But that's just my opinion
>>44605589 Isn't your evidence also indicative of people simply opposed to the draft? I mean obviously a feminist group would focus on female representation in such discussions, but would it be right to assume that the group would probably just be against the entire thing anyway?
Oh, and while Milton Friedman was too old to be drafted for WW2, he served in the Roosevelt administration and then after we entered the war served the military in a civilian capacity as a statistician for weapons development.
Robert Heinlein, who famously said that a country that needed conscription to survive didn't deserve to survive, was an officer in the US Navy. He left on disability due to tuberculosis caught while on duty, but also supported the war effort.
Yes, some opposition to the draft comes from potential conscripts, but much of it comes from principled veterans and also professional soldiers. Conscription doesn't just hurt the conscript, it reduces the effectiveness and professionalism of the whole military. There are only a very few countries who genuinely need it to survive, and even that's debatable.
And, strictly speaking, it IS a form of slavery: compulsory labor with legally sanctioned violations of civil rights. Slavery has taken many forms over human history. You may decide that slavery is good or morally legitimate in the case of conscription, but don't fool yourself about what it is. (Fun fact: it was first instituted in the United States by the Confederacy in an attempt to make up for their lack of numbers.)
I think much of the support for it in the USA came from WW2 veterans who recognized the value of their wartime experiences. What they missed was that the conscription has a corrosive effect on the military as an institution over time, and that WW2 was a very particular kind of war that required vast numbers of troops.
Temporarily opening up the draft for a national emergency is one thing. The draft as a permanent social institution is another.
Oh, and I should stress another benefit that conscription advocates push: that it gives you a potential pool of vast numbers of trained reservists. In the case of Russia, they could in theory mobilize tens of millions of troops if national survival was on the line.
At least in the case of Norway (the only country where it's actually come up for a vote), the feminist groups used the argument I linked to. That is, they limited themselves purely to A) ensuring women are permitted to serve in the military, including combat roles, and B) opposing that the draft be applied to them.
Neither the article I linked, nor the actual positions taken by feminists in that case, support your idea that they opposed the conscription in general. It probably would have made for a stronger argument if they had.
>>44605830 Sure, no problem. I don't support the draft or conscription in its entirety, though. The concerns >>44605790 mentioned are very valid. It's just that I am very disgruntled how German leadership handled the exit from the draft. We didn't even phase it out, there was a simple cut and suddenly everything had to work on a volunteer basis. Surprise! It didn't. Civil and health institutions who depended on those choosing social service over the army were left without their helping hands, our equipment deteriorated, the prestige of the army suffered and there are naturally zero people who choose to become professional soldiers after their time as conscripts. If anybody should decide to actually attack Germany our only choice is waiting for you guys. That isn't just incredibly sad, it also makes us susceptible to foreign interests.
I never fully understood American-style conservatism and how it changed in recent years. What happened to personal freedom and accountability, small state and financial caution? I really liked that - it was the mindset which drew me to the United States and set my image of it.
>>44605589 >But by all means, if you have evidence to the contrary, go ahead and present it. I'm open to being refuted if I'm wrong.
That's not how it works. You stated that "The vast majority of feminists are opposed to having women register for selective service and be subjected to the draft." Now you're being asked to back that up with hard numbers. A single Norwegian group does not encompass "the vast majority" of feminists.
Don't forget to dodge your obligation by telling me to get back to [OTHER WEBSITE]!
>>44606026 "Most people see the sky as blue." >NUMBERS OR IT DOESN'T COUNT "No one has done a study on this, but it is definitely the general consensus based on all the information I've taken in from relevant people." >I SAID NUMBERS, FAGGIT Other anon, just ignore him. Either feminists are against women in the selective services program, or they aren't fighting for it and thus not actually fighting for equality and thus hypocrites anyway.
Not the anon you're responding to, but this sort of debating seems childish. The concept of asking someone to clarify or back up their position is fine, but you're basically just saying "nuh-uh" to his "is so!"
Do you have something to add and participate with, aside from that moment where you were assuming that the one example he gave was actually misinterpreted by him and actually supported your position? You obviously didn't even read it.
TLDR- Try being an active member of a discussion rather than sitting on your hands atop your self-perceived 'logical' high ground.
>>44605971 >I never fully understood American-style conservatism and how it changed in recent years. >What happened to personal freedom and accountability, small state and financial caution? >I really liked that - it was the mindset which drew me to the United States and set my image of it.
It never went away. Conservatism in America is defined by ideological schools that vary in their views.
The version of conservatism most familiar to europeans would be what's currently called the "establishment" wing. Previously called liberal or moderate republicans, Rockefeller republicans, "national greatness conservatives", etc. Best exemplified by George Bush senior, they support a large, activist, but pro-business government. They hold most of the senior party positions, political consultancies, and lobbying jobs-- so they hold immense power despite having low poll numbers.
Although they've campaigned on opposing Obama on budget, foreign policy, and regulatory issues, the Establishment used a long list of parliamentary tricks to basically give Obama everything he's asked for. While attacking other conservative factions to keep them out of power. There's immense resentment towards the establishment now. Trump, who until about a year ago was a moderate himself, has a commanding lead because he was the first candidate to openly attack them.
Libertarian conservatives are lead by Rand Paul right now. They're anti-interventionist, and oppose the religious right, but otherwise are pretty much the mainstream now. With all the bad news from Russia and ISIS, many have jumped over into the tea party faction.
The Tea Party used to be purely about taxes, reducing the debt, and opposing national healthcare. They've become the standard under which mainstream conservatism now moves, having borrowed many ideas from the libertarians but still supporting a strong foreign policy. Ted Cruz is a great example, but so was Rick Perry, Scott Walker, and Bobby Jindal.
>>44606365 Because you ain't first, oh grandest o' bitchniggas.
Source. Your. Shit.
Or suck your verbal diarrhea back down and sit in the corner.
Until you actually back up your statements, we have nowhere to argue, because the words 'majority' really, really need to be backed right the fuck up. 'cause right now? This is an SJW tier argument. Your FEELZ. Your precious little fee-fees.
Social conservatives ("religious right") aren't nearly as strong as they used to be. Abortion remains their #1 issue, but forty years later, they've still made no progress repealing it. Opposing gay rights was another big deal for them, but that utterly failed even in their own party-- Libertarians fought them on that, and tea partiers mostly either don't care or support the libertarians. Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee are social conservatives, and it's telling that they even together they can't break past 2%.
Right now what you're seeing is the same fight that's been going on since the days of Barry Goldwater: a republican leadership that's moderately liberal but mostly worried about their own careers and their considerable power within the republican party, opposed by a larger number of conservative true believers who don't have much institutional power but produce most of the ideas and ideology.
In terms of issues, the only really major changes were when the northeastern protestant christian faction was replaced by the southeastern evangelical protestant christian faction on one hand, and the influx of formerly independent Libertarians into the GOP after 9/11 on the other. The interventionism vs anti-interventionism debate has always raged, you've always had concerns over illegal immigration, and there's always been activism on guns, the national budget, and reducing the size and scope of government. Most of the changes we've seen are changes in emphasis.
>>44606160 >No one has done a study on this There have been many, many studies on the varying numbers of rods and cones in human eyes and how this affects an individual's perception of color, their mood, etc.
>>44606525 No worries. Pointing out a way for a self-improvement to your fellow man is a service to humanity in general. Any reduction in pseudo-intellectual posturing by the kind of person who once took a community college philosophy class and then think they can frame how a discussion works through finger wagging and name calling is an end of its own. Pointing it out might at least lampshade what a hand-wringing ninny it makes those people come off like and deter others.
Whether he chooses to take my advice on how to actually advance a conversation actively is on him. I'm not hopeful...
>>44603510 Depends on the time and place. While serfs proper didn't fight much unless their dad decided there were too many sons and not enough farm land, a lot of poor people provided mass to armies whenever it wasn't a fully professional thing. Slingers and light troops most often. Not to mention the baggage train; you needed smiths to keep weapons and armor in good condition and provide emergency replacements, you needed surgeons in case anyone important got hurt, you needed scouts and cartographers, and if you were outside your homeland you needed locals willing to show you what's safe to eat or not. Not to mention all the various servants; your land owners wanted people to carry their shit, and the professional non-noble troops often had a few servants of their own, though far less. All of this needed protection, but you're not gonna tell a knight to stand guard around a bunch of whores and cooks, and the men at arms generally would cost too much to keep on duty at all times.
Admittedly, as polities became larger they did have more and more of a rich mans army. Probably has more to do with the fact that there were less logistics in managing 1000 men then there were in 10000, rather than a 'keep the serfs home' mentality.
Still, city state warfare and raiding conflicts were usually led by a core of landowners and professional warriors with non-landowners forming the meat of the army. Often they took care of ranged combat, since it was generally seen as manlier to stab someone than it was to fling a stone at them. And if in feudal or pseudo-feudal areas there was conflict at the low level, then serfs or free farmers might get called on since the army would otherwise consist of the landowner, his immediate family, and the thirty people responsible for keeping assassins away at night.
>>44603532 >ten dollar haircut Who the fuck pays money for a high and tight? That's not a complicated haircut; grab a pair of clippers and do it yourself, ya lazy fuck.
>>44603618 >Yeah, and now in the present, there are groups that are fighting for the right for women to be included into the draft/military service to die alongside the men. In my experience, those who say that usually describe themselves as egalitarians.
Nope. I limit my incisive commentary to anonymous posts on uzbek macrame forums. :)
And at that I mostly spend my time on /tg/ talking about pretend make-believe worlds. So I've plenty to say about the strategic mistakes made by Robb Stark, what the appropriate foreign policy the Imperium can adopt given the existential threat from heretics and xenos, and the economic impact of info-socialism on the future of the red and green Duncanites.
But there are plenty of people who have more than enough to say about real-world politics. I'll never write more clearly than friedman, hayek, sowell, or hannan, so why bother trying?
>>44606935 >Getting to the rank of general was an accomplishment you worked for and not a political appointment like it is today.
Tell that to the Teutoburg Forest. The rank of general has always been extremely political. For countries who went from a long period of peace and into a very high-stakes war, there's usually a transition period when the old political generals are kicked out and the guys who can win the war jump into their place.
McClellan in the American Civil War is the perfect example, but there are many, many others. Marius Caesar's reforms were only possible due to the punic wars... and had vast political implications that undermined and eventually tore down the Republic.
>>44606963 I'm thinking on the idea that if you moved rank, it was cause the guy above you died or you proved yourself. General was probably a bad choice of rank to use. And I understand wartime does change this.
>>44605291 IIRC, the only country in which women are technically integrated in all roles is Israel, but even there the practice is very different e.g. women in infantry are almost exclusively scouts, snipers and border guards, there are 15 male pilots for every female one and while they're technically allowed to only one female serves on a navy destroyer and none serve on submarines.
First, usually we look at physical conditioning and training comparatively. In other words, someone's awesome if they're way better than the others around them.
So Sparta kicked a lot of ass, and they credited their martial culture and political system and lots of other things. But when Athens and other citystates adopted Sparta's training regimen-- and pretty much ONLY that-- their advantage evaporated.
So in ancient times, when communications were poor and there were major variations between cultures and national systems between empires, a country that hit on a winning formula could kick massive amounts of ass and look very competent compared to soldiers of today, an era when best practices have emerged.
Second, until recently, armies accepted much higher levels of death and disability as a matter of course. So they could push soldiers harder, not caring about the permanent disabilities and deaths that resulted. And with no media to marshal public outrage, you could impose a lot of hardship on your troops that you can't do now.
Finally, and I'm just guessing here, but with the very high death rates and brutally physical nature of combat, I'd imagine that an army of seasoned troops would be composed of the top physical specimens. The weaker ones having long since died.
Neocons were a group of communists from the 30's. They were nearly all Jews, immigrants or sons of immigrants, and the key members mostly went to CCNY (then a very, very high quality college, and now a crap tier university). They were followers of Trotsky, originally, which they romanticized as the road not taken of how socialism could have worked in Russia.
They became moderate liberals after WW2 in response to the excesses of Stalin. Having been trotskyites, they were quick to accept the realities of the Great Purge and the murders of the kulaks. Over time, though, they started to accept that communism, not just Stalinism, was behind those horrors.
The catalyst was the 1970's. The USSR was pretty openly antisemitic by that point, but refused to allow Jews to emigrate out of the Soviet Union. Nixon began to use that issue as a lever against the Soviets in arms talks. It wasn't a huge issue even for the neocons, but it was the straw the broke the camel's back, because their fellow liberals were denouncing Nixon's activism on the issue. They went full-on anticommunist, and became eloquent and fervent opponents of communism for the rest of the Cold War.
After the Cold War, they remained republicans, but moderately liberal on most issues except foreign policy, on which they were hawks. Their last hurrah was the run-up to the Iraq War, which they supported. By that point, they were dying of old age.
The people who followed them and were inspired by them are mostly establishment conservatives (Irving Kristol's son Bill is a good example), though a few are Tea Party members.
Depending on who you talk to, neo-con is usually a euphemism for one of two things. Either it means an interventionist conservative, or more often it's a euphemism for Jewish conservative. There are very few people who actually use the label to describe themselves, and even harder to nail down what they believe in except insofar as it fits some larger conservative faction.
>>44606935 >Getting to the rank of general was an accomplishment you worked for and not a political appointment like it is today. .... because generals were never just the king or prince or a powerful nobleman.
It was all about starting at the bottom and proving you were the best.
>>44607135 >an army of seasoned troops would be composed of the top physical specimens
Not particularly, no. What really matters is how long a unit has been in combat/on campaign. Combat, despite what you may think, does not build physicality; it degrades it. No unit is ever as well-honed as when it first sets off to war, and thus an "army of seasoned troops" may well be less physically fit than a unit freshly raised and deployed. The true value of veteran troops comes from the weight of their experience and skill, not their physical prowess. It's not a Darwinian affair; combat grinds everyone down equally through exertion, disease, and nutritional deficit. The best troops know this and prepare accordingly.
Heh, go back through 4plebs. I've already done it in a few threads where I've hit in-universe questions like this using traditional political philosophy theories.
Once I suggested that the Federation is better understood as a bilateral Vulcan-Human alliance. The federation's military wing is composed mostly of humans, who go to Starfleet Academy on Earth. The federation's scientific wing is composed mostly of Vulcans, who go to the Vulcan Science Academy. Both institutions have a sprinkling of other races represented, but are dominated by humans and vulcans, respectively. Then there's the diplomatic corps, about which little is known, but seems to be an amalgam of all other races. The ruling class is a troika of human admirals, vulcan scientists, and multiracial alien diplomats.
With cold-blooded european-style balance of power calculations, the arrangement makes perfect sense. Then paste over the whole thing with a thin veneer of socialist utopian propaganda, and you have Star Trek.
I argued that Robb Stark's key mistake was in both declaring himself King in the North and marching south. Either one could have worked in isolation, but he had to pick one or the other.
My only real success that people liked was when I came up with the idea that the Emperor is really a genetically engineered warlord from the Age of Strife, probably created by Malcador. Malcador is the real shadowy figure who's guided humanity throughout its history. That caught on and I think it's starting to be the mainstream opinion around here.
Mostly, I like the anonymity. If I make a good point, then great. If my point sucks, then let people shoot it down. Doing a podcast or starting a blog would stroke my ego, but it starts being more about the writer and less about the ideas.
The Heinlein approach: where men and women are equal before the law, but recognized as being different in abilities and talents. In other words, a policy where people don't blind themselves to actual real differences in the name of being able to tell ourselves how not-sexist we are.
>>44607074 I'm fairly sure more women serve on IDF destroyers, assuming we're talking about the same one than she only got famous because she made it to a really high rank (was it like the captain of the destroyer or something?) not because she got in.
Submarines got no women though. They can take the right exams etc. but none of them do because
>spend three weeks at a time in an itsy-bitsy tincan underwater with sixty sexually frustrated male sailors
Same reason there are virtually no female tank crewmen, though I'm fairly certain there is a small number of those.
I have a friend who used to serve in the IDF, shared a lot of interesting stories.
I prefer GURPS these days, though I've run and played in almost everything.
OK, so by popular demand....
The Republicans are split by ideology. Democrats tend to be divided into factions based on demographic groups. That's partly a matter of taste, partly a matter of philosophy, but mostly I think it's about tactics. A party of large government can offer patronage, but a party of small government can't really do that without abandoning its principles.
Democrats mostly agree with one another on ideological questions. Their last major ideological split was over anticommunism in the 70's, the so-called Scoop Jackson wing. Which over the years has either switched parties or faded away. On most issues where the democrats are divided, it's the tactical question of whether moderating their demands for practicality (Clinton) will be more effective than pushing for more radical demands driven by principle (Obama). It's telling that Clinton pushed for national healthcare when he was first elected President, and Obama campaigned as a centrist in 2008-- it's a debate about means rather than ends.
Where they do divide is in terms of interest groups: religious, cultural, ethnic, and racial interest groups. Jews, latinos, women, gays, and african americans are all examples. Less organized but still important are groups like wealthy urbanites and the rural poor. Then you have interest groups which focus on one or two issues but who self-identify and behave as if they were a traditional demographic group: environmentalists, labor union members, and public employees are great examples.
What's important to understand is that most of these groups agree on most policy questions. Where they disagree are in terms of priorities, and in terms of what they can bring to the table in terms of electability. Some can provide donations, some have media influence, some have legions of voters, and some have organized activism machines.
So the game in democrat party politics is to assemble a coalition that can win and govern, offering each group its policy priorities* in exchange. Where a person falls into multiple categories, like black lesbian jews (yes I know one), they have to decide for themselves what their "main" identity is.
Watch a democrat politician talk, and you'll see him or her mostly signalling which groups they're trying to attract. They mostly agree on the general outline of policy, so it's about signalling that they're really on YOUR group's team, even when it comes into conflict with another faction's priorities.
* Now, that's oversimplified, I know. Labor unions oppose latinos, for example, on the subject of immigration. Blacks as a group overwhelmingly vote against gay rights (and are very ambivalent about latinos). Jewish issues, particularly support for Israel, are becoming increasingly controversial. This has happened before. Southern evangelicals' agendas became different enough from other more important democrat party constituencies that they were forced out altogether and became Republicans. No democrat could include them without alienating some other faction which was more important. Their parents had refused to ever vote for a republican for any reason, due to the Civil War and the New Deal. Their kids are just normal conservatives, which is why the religious right's influence is waning.
Hence why Jim Webb's campaign went nowhere. He tried to run on ideology and that simply doesn't compute in a democrat primary.
In 2008, Clinton and Obama had virtually identical policies. Obama's line about people bitterly clinging to guns, religion, and racism due to poverty is often used by Republicans as an attack. But it's important to take that in context. The bitter clingers he was talking about were democrat party primary voters who'd supported Hillary Clinton.
Hillary had women and gays locked up. Obama had firm alliances with black and latino groups. The unions were divided. Wealthy urbanites eventually went over to Obama. Jews did, too, after Obama "mistakenly" said that Jerusalem should be the eternal, undivided capital of Israel and fired an aide (Samantha Power) who was perceived as anti-Israel. If you go back and watch their ads and speeches, they were explicitly making plays for demographic blocs.
In the end, Obama was able to convince most groups that he was REALLY for them, even when they conflicted with another bloc that was also for Obama. With Hillary, every group assumed that she would sell them out to every other group.
And hence why Bernie Sanders is doing so well this time. It's not his socialism, it's that he's appealing to factions that don't believe they'll get a better deal from Hillary even though she's fervently assuring everyone that they will. She can't hold together a coalition as broad as Obama. She's just not persuasive enough. If she wins, they'll unite behind her, but not enthusiastically like they did with Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.
This is why Republicans and Democrats have so much trouble predicting what will happen in each other's primaries. They simply don't understand each other. Democrats keep looking for the demographic coalition that a Republican is trying to assemble, and Republicans keep parsing through democrat speeches trying to split hairs in political theory.
>>44608020 I find that hard to believe, just getting tools is a shitshow on how much they cost and its things I could just go to Home Depot and get. I'm not saying it doesn't cost that much to the company that builds it but that's not the purchase price.
>>44608447 Shells are actually pretty cheap. Production lines are quite cheap to keep in running in long run. More specialized shells like DU rounds for tanks cost few grands a piece.
>>44608189 Also I was stupid and did not see mongol remark.
But back to point, conscription is viable way of building deterrent against foreign military aggression if defending country's budget is small and professional army would either be super expensive or you could acquire same amount of effectiveness with conscript/draft type force.
Regarding women in military my opinion is simple. Equal standards for men and female, but standards should be high enough to allow force to be effective. Gladly I did not have no women in my unit as my experience on them is overall negative. I can just imagine women lugging mortar parts on long march if some of my toughest jaeger were exhausted and rest of them completely destroyed. I worry that women become the weak link in units, leading to deterioration fighting effectiveness.
>>44606925 >Religion has no place holding back society.
Even though it was and in many ways still is one of the most powerful social engineering forces in human history, and was an absolutely essential factor in the uplifting of humanity into agrarian societies?
>>44603404 >Why is always said the physical conditions for modern soldiers are lower? If anything they are higher than pre modern. Bit hard to say really, depends on the country, service branch and what they actually do. Being more familiar with the Australian army where I spent 8 1/2 years full time and 2 1/2 part time, the average infantry soldier is very fit, once you get into some of the special forces they're extremely fit. Lot of that has to do with medicine, physical training, nutrition and conditioning to just keep on going without food, rest or the conditions for many days and still being combat capable.
In addition to that, when I was doing long range patrols we'd be carrying about 45kg of generic gear, plus about 10-15kg of weapons/ammo as well as stuff like radios, ammo for the SAW and maybe a bit of specialist kit- then we'd cover around 20-25km per day through mountainous terrain and usually at altitude, temperatures ranging from snowing to desert. We'd do that for up to 8-12 days, every day and probably burn off about 10kg of body mass by the end of it. If it was on open ground, generally we'd be mechanised and cover around 2-300km a day, depending on the terrain and other factors, while you might consider that an 'easy ride', it isn't. Its hot, 4wds aren't comfortable and you're exposed to the elements- plus you're expected at any split second to be fully combat capable for the next 100-150hrs at a time. Its physically and mentally one of the hardest occupations out there.
I don't doubt that old timey, ancient armies had their share of hard bastards, but they probably more the exception to the average- whereas now we know enough on aforementioned techniques to 'make' even average soldiers hard bastards.
>>44603404 Well I was always kinda skinny and wimpy growing up. At 21 I joined the Army and spent 5 years in the Infantry, split between two Airborne units.
I can say from personal experience that unless you have really bad genes, being an Airborne Infantryman will push you close to your peak physical condition, or damn close.
I dont think marching all over a continent like ancient armies - necessarily makes you stronger. It will def make you lean and mean. But if youre marching for days on end and carrying 50+ lbs of equipment, you need to be eating ~3000 calories a day, possibly more.
>>44608421 The only thing I'd seriously take issue with in your analysis is in your description of the libertarian wing of the Republican party as having become the mainstream. To be fair, it's a mistake an awful lot of people made- witness the barren hellscape of all the people who said Rand Paul was totally going to catch on in the primary- but it makes a critical error.
As Rand's himself's voting record demonstrates, these are people whose ideological commitment to libertarianism has a neat pre-carved exception for any government handouts they, personally, receive. See, for example, the guy caught on facebook talking about how if it weren't for the fact his federal disability check hasn't come in yet he'd be up in Oregon to fight the tyranny of the federal government.
A large faction of the Republican base is only anti-patronage that does not go to them, personally. Start talking about Affirmative Action and they'll be howling about government handouts, but so much as breathe in the direction of cutting Medicare and they will Dawn of the Dead your ass.
Most soldiers/sailors/etc don't actually directly participate in combat operations; they serve in a logistics or support role well away from any real fighting, so their fitness level is comparatively low (you only need to be in good enough shape to perform your duties adequately.)
Conversely, the elite of the elite special forces types are literally paid to work out 24/7, eat sheet metal, and rip terrorists apart with their bare hands. They would out-perform any ancient or medieval warrior in a general fitness test.
>>44605971 >What happened to personal freedom and accountability, small state and financial caution? Politicians may be elected by voters, but voters are presented with politicians to vote for by Political Action Committees, which consist of banks, corporations, special interest groups, and unions. Without PAC/SuperPAC (which is a committee formed from several PACs) support and funding, it's pretty much impossible for a politician to get into public view. If they fail to garner enough support in the preliminary polls, they don't even get on the ballot come election day. And I wonder, what sort of candidates are a cabal of businessmen and lobbyists going to support? The kind that builds their campaign around their funding, of course.
Personal freedom? How quaint. You lost that the moment you clicked "I agree" to a ToS you didn't read. Accountability? Oh, that's very important, at a personal level. We want to hold citizens accountable. Fortunately corporations and governments aren't individuals, so you can't charge anybody for the net results of their actions. Small state? Only when it comes to regulating our field. Everywhere else, the more red tape the better. We can afford lawyers for every little thing; anyone who can't will just have to accept the regulations. Financial caution? >[laughinggirls.jpg] We're too big to fail.
>>44608447 Anon, I do field artillery for a living. M107DC (they're being phased out for the roughly five times more expensive M795, but we still use M107DC for training purposes because it's cheap, and it still has a guaranteed lethal radius of 50 meters, and inflicts wounds sufficient to take a soldier out of the fight out to 100 meters, so if push came to shove you could absolutely shoot them in anger) has a cost of approximately one hundred dollars per round. It's literally just a fuckton of tnt inside a steel case, the design is around a century old, and they crank the things out in vast quantities.
>>44603560 Eh, it happened at a time when women were expected to have kids and take care of them 24/7. No way were we going to draft them for the military when society had already assigned them a fixed role.
>>44606690 >Who the fuck pays money for a high and tight? That's not a complicated haircut; grab a pair of clippers and do it yourself, ya lazy fuck.
So, there was this motherfucker, Runnoe, that we got. Cherry as fuck, and made the best fucking impression.
In a week, and I shit you not, he achieved the following:
1. Went to the local "Screw soldiers out of their money" tech store and signed a 2000 contract for a 700 dollar laptop
2. Bought a shitty ass car from a shady owner off craigslist without getting it checked and had it break down.
3. Managed to end up dating a stripper. In the first week of being at the unit.
So needless to say, this motherfucker was out of god damn money. The fucker was having to roll his own cigs with the worst tobacco I've ever smelled just so he could smoke. He doesn't even afford haircuts.
So, on that last one, come one Monday morning, in comes Runnoe. He walks into the bay, and from the front, he looks alright. Kind of a shitty haircut, sure, but there's only so much you can fuck up with a number 2.
But see, his team leader is standing on the other side of him, and we get to see his face just contort into disbelief, followed by pure rage. And when he starts screaming at him, Runnoe turns around, and we discover what the problem is.
See, Runnoe had never cut hair before, and for whatever reason, he didn't ask anyone else in the platoon to help him. If you've never dealt with a military haircut before, one of the things you're supposed to do is fade the hair on the side and back of your head, so that the cut looks better.
Well, doing a fade on the back of your head is kind of rough, but that's sort of an understatement here. The motherfucker had cut what looked exactly like a fucking fishtail into the back of his head. I swear to god, if I hadn't known the dude I'd have sworn it was on purpose.
We got yelled at and smoked for laughing so fucking hard. But god, the memory of his haircut is something I will treasure forever.
>>44604982 This anon has the right of it, people in general are simply healthier, better fed and more hygenic. Having varied and plentiful amounts of food growing up inevitably means that people will grow taller and stronger than those that suffered from malnutrition or diets based on very limited sources of food. M
HOWEVER, it also should be pointed out that modern day 1st-world armies have nowhere NEAR the level of tolerance for casualties that the more heavy-hitting armies of antiquity have. What kind of punishment would a squad, platoon or even company of most modern militaries receive for falling back after suffering severe casualties? I'm not talking about calling it quits and deserting altogether, I'm talking retreating to a position where their men aren't being killed in droves. For a Roman Cohort, every man knew that decimation awaited those that retreated. There's also the matter of troops not being well-adapted to close-quarters combat, which is infinitely more dangerous and terrifying than firefights.
>tldr Modern soldiers will be healthier and stronger than the Ancient soldier, but will also be more mentally fragile and inclined to break or retreat in a prolonged conflict.
>>44607753 Which, to an extent, is kind of weird. If I remember correctly, and feel free to call me on it, studies have actually shown that women handle tight quarters for extended periods better than men do. Which would seem to lean towards at least experimenting with an all-female sub crew.
Biology also makes women much more resistant to high-G than men. The layout of blood vessels and muscles associated with being able to bear children, as well as being generally smaller and more compact mean females can -in general- tolerate high g-forces than men can.
Another thing thats interesting is how adrenaline effects the sexes. While as a baseline it effects men and women the same, women's pituitary glands also secrete a natural sedative, cutting off the adrenal surge before it can do catastrophic damage. What this results in is that women don't adrenally "spike" as high as men do, but actually maintain a heightened state for longer periods.
Human beings, male and female. are interesting animals with a complex array of systems for survival, all of which lend themselves quite well to combat. A functional military however, must be built on maximizing a high(er) average in it's soldiers, rather than basing itself around the exceptions. Those exceptions that show up should certainly have a chance, but they are exceptions. They can't be the rule.
Socially, for centuries, the qualities that make for a good soldier were not seen as acceptable or attractive for women, and were effectively bred out. Thats where the main physical hurdles for women in combat arms stem from. It's not saying that there aren't women that can hack it, as we all know there sure as hell are. It's that those women are the outliers.
>>44605125 >Perhaps building public works Honestly, this would be incredibly useful, if not for the fact that most public works are privatized now. I'm pretty sure Hoover dam is even owned by a corp these days.
>>44619894 The thing about it is that sometimes breaking is the better choice. Modern US infantry tactics are based on 3:1 odds, if you don't have those kind of odds, you simply don't fight, because the results aren't really worth it.
There's also the fact that combat isn't the real danger of war, it's hygiene and disease. If you look at wartime deaths until about a century ago or so, a huge portion of those deaths are from disease and preventable infection.
>>44620073 There is a lot of issues that would need to be overcome when dealing with women in combat arms positions, especially in regards to things like the infantry.
The most irksome thing is mentality though. I'm out and in college now, and the concept of how the military, and combat arms functions, especially socially, is just something that's incredibly hard to explain.
>>44603648 >only crazy people put their political beliefs before the combat effectiveness of their own military Only retards think this will lower the effectiveness of the military (in fact the Joint Chiefs supports the measure).
>>44614136 >Only when it comes to regulating our field. Everywhere else, the more red tape the better.
Actually, most lobbyists will support red tape specifically pertaining to their field, otherwise the SuperPAC would have a cohesive deregulatory message. They want MORE legislation in their field because their lawyers can handle it- thus creating barriers to entry that permit monopolistic conditions. It's called regulatory capture.
>>44604967 >(thus why women in action movies basically never get John-McClane-in-the-original-Die-Hard levels of fucked up). Their suffering is also rarely depicted as funny. But we're totally living in a misogynist patriarchy, everyone!
>>44621381 More like >This is what happens when you listen to women
I know you're trying to point out irony, but there is none. Men have been aware of woman's destructive nature for centuries and saught to accomodate for it, yet the moment we deny their destructive nature we are subjected to it.
>>44621398 >Or for the gender-neutral term And this is where you go wrong, implicitly assuming men and women are no different.
>>44621409 Reread my post, I'm just saying that the idea that our society is misogynist is blatantly false and not supported by the facts. Because I'm one of those retards who cares about facts over feelings.
>With cold-blooded european-style balance of power calculations, the arrangement makes perfect sense. Then paste over the whole thing with a thin veneer of socialist utopian propaganda, and you have Star Trek.
I find it funny that this shows up a LOT in it's anime spiritual successor, the TSAB.
The TSAB is basically a military dictatorship run from Mid-Childa. Most of the main officers are Mid-Childen and so are the leadership of most groups (Or connected to the previous superpower, Belka). You are either part of the Military or the Saint Church (The stronghold of Belkan power, now a religion) if you want to be important.
Oddly enough, I think the writers realized exactly that. As the second Nanoha movie is blatantly whitewashing the TSAB of all wrong doing in the entire situation, making them seem much more competent and it's supposed to be an in-universe movie.
In the actual situation the government had no knowledge of the situation save the one guy who was driving the situation and was blindsided the entire way. They relied on outside people to save the day.
>>44603404 Modern soldiers are better conditioned and trained then anything but the most determined elite soldiers in history. Hard marching armies could get close to the endurance, but for Western armies even basic infantrymen are expected to have initiative, tactical awareness and judgement greater then any common solider in the Roman Legions or Golden Horde.
Better early nutrition, inoculation and treatment for disease means they are also considerably larger. To see what stunting dose, check that.
>>44605486 Not quite. You don't use -any- conscripts for real combat roles in a modern army. You have special conscript units that receive minimal training and get ranks like "conscript riflemen" and get less pay.
This still gives you a burden of a huge number of effectively useless people, but your real contract soldiers that volunteer aren't contaminated by conscripts.
Granted, this system is pretty fucking terrible. The Russian system is the worst, with conscripts receiving effectively no training and being routinely physically, emotionally and sexually abused. Russian conscripts are more likely to be raped then American maximum security prisoners.
>>44622328 I've heard of it working during the Vietnam war, Australia would mix in about 50-50 national service with regular army troopers. That way the more professional culture, advanced training and actual combat experience would be passed onto the comparatively 'green' units. To some extent there's also a passing on of the military culture as well- though from all accounts while the conscription wasn't popular, they where trained relatively well for the time and did perform fairly well under actual combat.
Pure conscript units are universally terrible things though. Most of them don't want to be there, they'll do the bare minimum to avoid being harshed out and unless their backs are right up against the wall, will probably not fight effectively.
Sure. But the concept of "poor did all the fighting" is flawed.
I'm sure at times they could be conscripted, but why would they fight? To a peon it doesn't matter one bit who's the king. It doesn't affect their lives. All they know is their homes and the countryside around it. The king is just the dude somewhere, no matter who they are. Concepts of nationality and shit didn't come around until way later. And even if you force peons to fight, there's little guarantee they'll keep fighting and won't just bail out when trouble comes about.
>too many sons
Wasn't there some concept of what son does what. I mean, in collectivist cultures like in Asia, there's some importance on if you're the first son, the second, etc. There's stuff that's expected of you and provided to you. Like how in medieval times it was often the eldest son who could inherit the crown or the land. Surely similar appointment by order of birth would extend to lower classes as well. So the eldest son of the land owner would inherit the land, etc.
Wasn't this one reason priests couldn't get married, so that there wouldn't be religious dynasties built around lineages?
>the baggage train
That's not really the fighting portion of the army.
>>44622407 From what I understand of Vietnam-era conscription in Australia, while it wasn't politically popular with a lot of the population quite a lot of the conscripts themselves didn't have a huge issue with the process, seeing it as their duty and all that. Combined with the decent training and other factors you mentioned and it worked out pretty well for us. While Australia's contribution to Vietnam was small, we punched well above our weight in the areas we could.
>>44622841 Hitler lived as a homeless man in Vienna, surrounded by anti-semitic political views that told him jews and other immigrants were the cause of all woes. His hate was a long time in the making.
>>44622841 >>44622967 Not to mention until he got a bit crazy on extermination and camps, making whole classes of people second-class citizens was a standard back then. If he was born now, he'd probably end up putting white men in camps, kek.
>>44606160 That's not how it works because something like this is perception based. If there is a number of people, say half, saying the sky isn't blue then we might as well back data on it with numbers and studies instead of "I say so". Sky is blue isn't a conflicted information, that is. Just like you being a faggot.
So yeah stop doing that shit tier argument and learn how to act like an adult instead of defending your beliefs with " b-but how I see it feminists are x and y" Anakin
>>44622868 Amongst my father's generation there was a fair bit of resentment for disrupting their lives for 3 years so it wasn't inordinately popular along with a good chance of being sent to some green hell. From those that did their national service in peacetime it wasn't seen as being an entirely terrible thing.
The main factor in regards to success in our regions of control was that people forget that we came out of the Malayan Emergency and had been there since 1955-63, so there was a lot of well honed, anti-guerrilla experience still active in the service and in military memory. Plus a metric shitload of jungle and asymmetric warfare techniques designed simply around removing highly mobile, mostly irregular troops which never hurts either! So Mr VC wasn't all that different to the communists in Malaya really and just like there, they had their local support services kicked out from under them and a guerrilla without any local support is pretty much fucked.
>>44605125 >Post-WW2, there was a large body of thought, mostly but not exclusively on the political Left, that a permanent draft could be a powerful social institution for good. >The idea is that people (especially the poor) get drafted into the military at 18, then spend 2-4 years serving. Perhaps building public works, or participating in aid and relief efforts overseas. They are forced by military discipline to conform to political standards on racial and sexual equality, and by being separated from their families and communities at this very formative age, can be guided to have superior values not tainted by atavistic religion or culture they get at home. And now they're trying to achieve the same thing with free college...
>>44605037 >people in general were stronger back then No, the majority of people were underfed and liable to be crippled by disease.
I can't emphasis enough how much larger and stronger people are in the West now that we have better farming techniques and more productive crops. You won't see this in the US, but I have stood at the front door of a mediveal home and had the top of the door frame come up to my chin. I am not a tall person.
Even today this comparison can be seen between groups. The Taliban don't just autofire everything because Allah Akbar, a large proportion of them have serious eye problems due to poor nutrition and childhood disease.
As fat and lazy as modern man may appear, he has benefitted immensely from technology. And from thousands of years of natural selection more than ancient man.
>>44606935 >becoming a general was a real accomplishment unlike today where it is just an appointment >implying Rome, China, Egypt etc >implying King John was best suited to lead the campaign against France and reclaim Norman territory
>>44625452 Oh look, a reaction image. Cute. But seriously, you can use "But it's 2016!" for anything. It's a phrase that has no inherent meaning or bearing on any argument other than an argument over the date, simply relying on trying to make the other side of a discussion look backwards and out of touch.
Your point is that libertarian Republicans don't uphold their own principles when it's strongly against their interests.
I agree, but I'd take that a step further than say that that's true for everyone of every political ideology. The old political science saying is "where you stand depends on where you sit".
And whatever you think about libertarianism in general, certainly these people behave and vote as if their beliefs were sincere. So when it comes to understanding them and predicting them, assuming sincerity is helpful even if you don't really believe it.
As for Rand Paul's performance in the primaries is a consequence of his foreign policy. He has scared off a lot of libertarian-wing conservatives, who've moved over to the Tea Party faction. He rode the anti-war sentiment much as President Obama did, but ISIS, the attacks in Europe and the United States, and Putin's confrontational foreign policy have changed the mood among conservatives considerably.
Hawkish foreign policy conservatives warned Obama that if he withdrew prematurely from Iraq, that we'd leave a vacuum that al Qaeda or some other group would fill. That if we put political correctness over law enforcement and intelligence gathering, that terrorism in the West would increase. And that if we tried to appease Putin with a "reset button" after his invasion of Georgia, he'd be encouraged to attack more neighbors. Y
ou can argue about why those things really happened and who is really to blame, but conservatives perceive things as having happened more or less as they predicted. The loser in this isn't Obama, whose supporters blame George W. Bush for ISIS, racism and economic inequality for terrorism, and say Putin's actions are ultimately self-destructive anyway. The loser is Rand Paul and his libertarian wing; conservative voters don't want what they see as a continuation of Obama's foreign policy, even if Rand is otherwise attractive to them.
Absolutely right. Emmanuel also served in the IDF.
After the election, Obama immediately re-hired Samantha Power and began a policy of confrontation with Israel. But even then most Jews still support him. That's partly because they support him on everything else, and partly because they've rationalized that he's not anti-Israel, just anti-Netanyahu. That carried him through 2012, and you'll notice that he didn't push the Iran deal until AFTER he was safely elected.
>>44619742 >I find it kinda funny how anti semitic alot of the new right wing crowd is now.
Historically, conservatives were much more anti-semitic. That only ended in the 1950's, and there was a strain of it that lasted until the late 1980's. Pat Buchanan's last hurrah as a player in the party was his presidential run in 1992, which was more or less openly antisemitic. That faction, called "paleocons" hasn't been a significant group since.
The antisemitic neonazi groups you see on 4chan are not representative. I can't think of a single GOP politician who falls into or makes appeals to that group.
A big part of the credit for killing antisemitism in the American conservative movement once and for all goes to the Religious Right, which in the 90s and 2000s had a serious strain of philosemitism (pro-Jewish) thought. It's less intense now than it was, but lasting bonds between Orthodox jews and evangelicals were formed. Orthodox jews tend to be among the most Republican-voting of jewish groups.
Tennessee Valley Authority. It's a "government-sponsored private entity". Like Sallie Mae (student loans) and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (housing loans), they're for-profit corporations owned and operated by political appointees under federal control. They have some legal powers, enough that they wield considerable power, but are private so not subject to oversight or disclosure rules.
And, yes, that's every bit as bad as it sounds. In theory, it's the best of both worlds: the good intentions of government married to the efficiency of a corporation. In fact, it's both a conservative's and a liberal's worst nightmare: the efficiency of a government agency married to the good intentions of a corporation.
Meanwhile, antisemitism has been on the rise on the Left. The BDS movement (anti-Israel) and "college fascist" movements are the most visible example. But much more importantly, african americans tend to be very antisemitic, as are muslim immigrants, and both are critical factions in most democrat coalitions. And in those cases, there's little or no bother with mixing it with anti-zionism: it's just straight-up anti-jew. Many anti-war liberals blamed Jews for the war in Iraq. Adbusters went so far as to post a list of Bush foreign policy officials (mislabelling them "neocons"), putting jewish stars next to the names of the jewish ones.
Last year, a democrat candidate for US Senate (michelle nunn), daughter of a powerful senator herself, accidentally posted her political strategy plan online. Ooops. She goes through these coalitions and pretty explicitly and cold-bloodedly analyzes which demographic groups she needs and which she can safely dump to win the favor of the ones she needs. Her plan for Jews was to be supportive right up until october, and then try to appeal to anti-Israel groups obliquely in the last month before election day. Amazingly, most jews still voted for her anyway (she lost).
Although Jews still vote overwhelmingly for democrats, like most immigrant groups the younger ones trend more conservative. Jews can now be found among each of the major republican factions. House Republican leader Eric Cantor was elected as a Tea Partier; he was voted out for switching factions to the Establishment, but if anything, his religion was a mild plus. Tea Party legend Andrew Breitbart was jewish, as are the "nefarious" libertarian Koch brothers. Many of the big voices in conservative talk radio are jewish. Donald Trump's daughter and grandchildren are Jewish.
If you're an antisemite, neither Right nor Left will make you very comfortable, but you have a much better chance of finding a political home on the fringes of the Democrats these days.
>>44605007 Most feminists being very progressive tend to be against a draft at all. To say that they oppose women being involved in the draft and using that as a tool to point a failure of their logic or failure to pursue equality is a logical fallacy.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.