ELECTION 2008 | The Pub | The Field Mess | The Staff College | Bookmark WAB



Go Back   World Affairs Board > General Forums > Political Discussions
Register FAQ WAB RSS Feed Forum GuidelinesMembers List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!

The World Affairs Board is one of the premier forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include foreign & defense policy, international security, military developments, weapons proliferation, terrorism, international strategic affairs, and politics. Our membership includes many from military, defense industry, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
View Poll Results: Has Sarkozy improved your perception of France
Yes 38 73.08%
No 14 26.92%
Voters: 52. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-12-2007, 00:50 AM   #46 (permalink)
JAD_333
Defense Professional
 
JAD_333's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-15-07
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,691
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by uzitgc View Post
Ok, but do you think France would have the same political power it has now if De Gaule didn't do those things?
An argument can be made that France under de Gaulle was not so much interested in political power as in national security. He didn't want France to be comitted to act militarily by joint agreement with an ally, such as what happened at the outset of WWII. France and Britain were committed to go to war together against Germany if Germany rearmed and threatened its neighbors in violation of the Versailles Treaty ending WWI.

Prior to the time they finally declared war on Germany, both nations were unprepared, though for her part France thought its Maginot line was impregnable, and left to her own devices she might have hunkered down to fend off a German attack rather than venture forth as part of an expeditionary force. Who knows? For her part, Britain had neglected her military for so long, she was, in a way, an unreliable ally.

de Gaulle didn't want France to ever be in that position again. In the late 1950s when he came into power, the USSR was the biggest threat to Europe. But he didn't think that France's security ought to depend on the US and NATO. He initiated France's force de frappe , nuke force, for that reason. Did his policies give France more political power? I think it did in the ME with his policy favoring the Arabs over Israel, but in the west it probably gave him less.
__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)
JAD_333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 03:01 AM   #47 (permalink)
Pablo Cortez
Banished
 
Join Date: 09-03-07
Location: Ruritania
Posts: 36
Country:
If you believe that the the only opposition to the worldview you hold is liberalism or socialism, you have a very limited knowledge of politics, economics, and international relations. An honest search for truth is neither liberal nor conservative; it seeks data to shape policy, not shape the data to fit a predetrmined policy. If the past century has any lesson to teach, it is that every extreme ideology is ultimately self-destructive---communism, nazism, fascism, zionism, jihadism, individualism, militarism, are just a few examples of failed ideologies that have destroyed their own ideals while attacking the real or imagined foes.

Dwight Eisenhower (hardly a communist) in his farewell address warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex to traditional American values. Nobody listened, and what he feared has not only replaced those values but has wrapped itself in the flag and defined itself as the only true patriotism.

If adjudging the foreign policy of the presidents from Washington to McKinley to have been more constructive for the nation and the world than the policies espoused from McKinley to the present makes me a liberal or a socialist, then I am proudly guilty as charged.

If holding that the interventionism of Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and the Bushes, has been disastrous for America, Europe, Indo-China, and the Middle East, makes me a liberal or a socialist, then again, I am guilty as charged.

If we had remained true to Washington's advice, a negotiated peace would have been the most likely outcome of WWI, and thus little likelihood of a WWII, a Zionist colony in Palestine engendering jihad in response; or the Cold War with all its little hot wars. Even the Depression could have been avoided by not extending all that credit to both Allies during the war and the Germans after it. It's no coincidence that the Wall Street crash came the same year that the ten year war bonds matured. There would doubtless have been other wars and crises (probably even a war with Japan), but the tens of millions killed in those wars, the Russian Civil War, the Holocaust, the Great Leap Forward, and the ethnic cleansings of so many places would have had a chance to live more or less normal lives. If believing that that would have been a good thing makes me a liberal or a socialist, then I am certainly guilty.

Liberal presidents and conservative ones are equally guilty of subverting the Constitution. With no declarations of war since 1941, that must be the effective date for the transformation of America from a constitutional republic to an elective empire. I've always considered myself a strict-constructualist conservative, and if that is to your left, I make no apologies.
Pablo Cortez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 11:13 AM   #48 (permalink)
Pablo Cortez
Banished
 
Join Date: 09-03-07
Location: Ruritania
Posts: 36
Country:
A pre-emptive correction before any pedants try to turn a wee-hour slip of the mouse into a demonstration of my total ignorance on every conceivable subject. "Strict constructuralist" should read "strict constructionist".
Pablo Cortez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 14:21 PM   #49 (permalink)
Parihaka
Moderator
 
Parihaka's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-10-04
Location: Te Ika a Maui
Posts: 9,465
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pablo Cortez View Post
If you believe that the the only opposition to the worldview you hold is liberalism or socialism, you have a very limited knowledge of politics, economics, and international relations. An honest search for truth is neither liberal nor conservative; it seeks data to shape policy, not shape the data to fit a predetrmined policy. If the past century has any lesson to teach, it is that every extreme ideology is ultimately self-destructive---communism, nazism, fascism, zionism, jihadism, individualism, militarism, are just a few examples of failed ideologies that have destroyed their own ideals while attacking the real or imagined foes.

Dwight Eisenhower (hardly a communist) in his farewell address warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex to traditional American values. Nobody listened, and what he feared has not only replaced those values but has wrapped itself in the flag and defined itself as the only true patriotism.

If adjudging the foreign policy of the presidents from Washington to McKinley to have been more constructive for the nation and the world than the policies espoused from McKinley to the present makes me a liberal or a socialist, then I am proudly guilty as charged.

If holding that the interventionism of Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and the Bushes, has been disastrous for America, Europe, Indo-China, and the Middle East, makes me a liberal or a socialist, then again, I am guilty as charged.

If we had remained true to Washington's advice, a negotiated peace would have been the most likely outcome of WWI, and thus little likelihood of a WWII, a Zionist colony in Palestine engendering jihad in response; or the Cold War with all its little hot wars. Even the Depression could have been avoided by not extending all that credit to both Allies during the war and the Germans after it. It's no coincidence that the Wall Street crash came the same year that the ten year war bonds matured. There would doubtless have been other wars and crises (probably even a war with Japan), but the tens of millions killed in those wars, the Russian Civil War, the Holocaust, the Great Leap Forward, and the ethnic cleansings of so many places would have had a chance to live more or less normal lives. If believing that that would have been a good thing makes me a liberal or a socialist, then I am certainly guilty.

Liberal presidents and conservative ones are equally guilty of subverting the Constitution. With no declarations of war since 1941, that must be the effective date for the transformation of America from a constitutional republic to an elective empire. I've always considered myself a strict-constructualist conservative, and if that is to your left, I make no apologies.
Who are you talking to?
__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Parihaka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 20:28 PM   #50 (permalink)
Bluesman
WAB Bartender
Defense Professional
Military Professional
 
Bluesman's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-24-04
Location: Vacaville, CA.
Posts: 7,387
Country:
Well, whoever it is, hopefully, they're not snowed by his erroneous mis-interpretation of Ike's words about the military-industrial complex.
__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Bluesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2007, 20:33 PM   #51 (permalink)
Bluesman
WAB Bartender
Defense Professional
Military Professional
 
Bluesman's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-24-04
Location: Vacaville, CA.
Posts: 7,387
Country:
A short article to explain what your poli-sci prof never told you:
Quote:
October 2004 Vol. 86, No. 10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




The “Military-Industrial Complex” Myth
“Global War on Terrorism”
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Address to the nation
Washington, D.C.
Jan. 17, 1961

President Dwight D. Eisenhower would be amazed at the way in which his term “military-industrial complex” has been abused. For example, Bill Moyers recently contended on his PBS show that the military-industrial complex was made up of those who “call for war ... and then turn around and feed on the corpse of war.”

Ike coined the term in his 1961 farewell address to the nation, but with a very different purpose. He warned about the potential influence of a large complex, but his larger point—elaborated below—was that America was “compelled” to maintain an extensive, effective standing armaments industry. Critics forget that part.

The address was short—only 1,900 words—but Eisenhower made two explicit points: The Cold War was caused by communist aggression, not the greed of US defense contractors, and the existence of the military-industrial complex was vital, not insidious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eisenhower
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three-and-a-half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for, the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of the federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present—and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system—ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright Air Force Association. All rightsreserved.
Bluesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2007, 01:52 AM   #52 (permalink)
JohnFlint1985
Patron
 
JohnFlint1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-18-07
Location: New York
Posts: 242
Country:
Send a message via ICQ to JohnFlint1985 Send a message via AIM to JohnFlint1985 Send a message via MSN to JohnFlint1985 Send a message via Skype™ to JohnFlint1985
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
An argument can be made that France under de Gaulle was not so much interested in political power as in national security. He didn't want France to be comitted to act militarily by joint agreement with an ally, such as what happened at the outset of WWII. France and Britain were committed to go to war together against Germany if Germany rearmed and threatened its neighbors in violation of the Versailles Treaty ending WWI.

Prior to the time they finally declared war on Germany, both nations were unprepared, though for her part France thought its Maginot line was impregnable, and left to her own devices she might have hunkered down to fend off a German attack rather than venture forth as part of an expeditionary force. Who knows? For her part, Britain had neglected her military for so long, she was, in a way, an unreliable ally.

de Gaulle didn't want France to ever be in that position again. In the late 1950s when he came into power, the USSR was the biggest threat to Europe. But he didn't think that France's security ought to depend on the US and NATO. He initiated France's force de frappe , nuke force, for that reason. Did his policies give France more political power? I think it did in the ME with his policy favoring the Arabs over Israel, but in the west it probably gave him less.
De Gaulle is long dead, but his policy puts deep roots and not just in France but all over Europe. It is in the brains of people after 40 years of day by day brainwashing. So I am not so sure if Sarkozy with all his good intentions and talent will be able to change that. Judging from a couple of other forums I am a member of - Europeans are dangerously weak. I don't really blame them - such is life, but it is very unsettling thought for me anyways.
__________________
"We Shall Never Surrender" Winston Churchill
JohnFlint1985 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2007, 18:40 PM   #53 (permalink)
JAD_333
Defense Professional
 
JAD_333's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-15-07
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,691
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnFlint1985 View Post
De Gaulle is long dead, but his policy puts deep roots and not just in France but all over Europe. It is in the brains of people after 40 years of day by day brainwashing. So I am not so sure if Sarkozy with all his good intentions and talent will be able to change that.
It's a start.


Quote:
Judging from a couple of other forums I am a member of - Europeans are dangerously weak. I don't really blame them - such is life, but it is very unsettling thought for me anyways.
I've been catching glimmers of that here and around. It would make a good subject for a thread of you could find something in print that typifies the attitude of which you speak.
JAD_333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2007, 19:22 PM   #54 (permalink)
dalem
Lord High Hullabalooster
Senior Contributor
 
dalem's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-23-04
Location: Columbia Heights, MN
Posts: 8,323
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
An argument can be made that France under de Gaulle was not so much interested in political power as in national security. He didn't want France to be comitted to act militarily by joint agreement with an ally, such as what happened at the outset of WWII. France and Britain were committed to go to war together against Germany if Germany rearmed and threatened its neighbors in violation of the Versailles Treaty ending WWI.

Prior to the time they finally declared war on Germany, both nations were unprepared, though for her part France thought its Maginot line was impregnable, and left to her own devices she might have hunkered down to fend off a German attack rather than venture forth as part of an expeditionary force. Who knows? For her part, Britain had neglected her military for so long, she was, in a way, an unreliable ally.

de Gaulle didn't want France to ever be in that position again. In the late 1950s when he came into power, the USSR was the biggest threat to Europe. But he didn't think that France's security ought to depend on the US and NATO. He initiated France's force de frappe , nuke force, for that reason. Did his policies give France more political power? I think it did in the ME with his policy favoring the Arabs over Israel, but in the west it probably gave him less.
de Gaulle was a f*ckface even while "allied" with the good guys in WWII. Ignored agreed-upon strategic objectives, encouraged larceny, and threatened to fire upon his fellow "allies". Somebody should have beat him with a bag of oranges until he was pissing blood.

-dale
dalem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2007, 20:14 PM   #55 (permalink)
JohnFlint1985
Patron
 
JohnFlint1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-18-07
Location: New York
Posts: 242
Country:
Send a message via ICQ to JohnFlint1985 Send a message via AIM to JohnFlint1985 Send a message via MSN to JohnFlint1985 Send a message via Skype™ to JohnFlint1985
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalem View Post
de Gaulle was a f*ckface even while "allied" with the good guys in WWII. Ignored agreed-upon strategic objectives, encouraged larceny, and threatened to fire upon his fellow "allies". Somebody should have beat him with a bag of oranges until he was pissing blood.

-dale
Let's speak the truth -De Gaulle was a very cunning politician who created a "third pole" in Europe and also made sure his ideology of France being the leader of EU and French ideology spread all over Europe. It is a fact of todays date. WE have to think and think seriously how to counter it. It is clearly Anti American. Ands I hear it from people from Germany, Holland, Belgium - and even Hungary today. BTW - De Gaulle didn't create this ideology - it was created well before him by Louis XIV and supported by Napoleon as well. History just repeat itself.
Have plenty of evidence. People are cheering at the new that dollar is falling and others are very festive as they put it the "end of dollar domination and beginning of Euro". I read it yesterday, today and for the three last months. Just PM and I will give you all the links.
JohnFlint1985 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2007, 20:28 PM   #56 (permalink)
gunnut
Senior Contributor
 
gunnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-27-06
Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 9,365
Country:
Do they not know that a strong euro is bad for export business?
__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
gunnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2007, 20:36 PM   #57 (permalink)
JohnFlint1985
Patron
 
JohnFlint1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-18-07
Location: New York
Posts: 242
Country:
Send a message via ICQ to JohnFlint1985 Send a message via AIM to JohnFlint1985 Send a message via MSN to JohnFlint1985 Send a message via Skype™ to JohnFlint1985
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
Do they not know that a strong euro is bad for export business?
I know it and you know it - that for now it is a good thing for us, but in the long run I am not so sure....

SkyscraperCity

Just read this thread. I am not sure But you may probably need to register (it is another forum) - this whole cheering about our downs and their upps.

One of typical posts over there:

Why don't we pay a couple of euros each and buy a small State?

I vote for Rhode Island. I have always wanted to live in Quahog.
JohnFlint1985 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2007, 23:34 PM   #58 (permalink)
dalem
Lord High Hullabalooster
Senior Contributor
 
dalem's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-23-04
Location: Columbia Heights, MN
Posts: 8,323
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnFlint1985 View Post
Let's speak the truth -De Gaulle was a very cunning politician who created a "third pole" in Europe and also made sure his ideology of France being the leader of EU and French ideology spread all over Europe. It is a fact of todays date. WE have to think and think seriously how to counter it. It is clearly Anti American. Ands I hear it from people from Germany, Holland, Belgium - and even Hungary today. BTW - De Gaulle didn't create this ideology - it was created well before him by Louis XIV and supported by Napoleon as well. History just repeat itself.
Have plenty of evidence. People are cheering at the new that dollar is falling and others are very festive as they put it the "end of dollar domination and beginning of Euro". I read it yesterday, today and for the three last months. Just PM and I will give you all the links.
I wasn't discussing the economics part of the issue, I was illustrating the kind of knob de Gaulle was.

-dale
dalem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2007, 23:36 PM   #59 (permalink)
gunnut
Senior Contributor
 
gunnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-27-06
Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 9,365
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnFlint1985 View Post
I know it and you know it - that for now it is a good thing for us, but in the long run I am not so sure....

SkyscraperCity

Just read this thread. I am not sure But you may probably need to register (it is another forum) - this whole cheering about our downs and their upps.

One of typical posts over there:

Why don't we pay a couple of euros each and buy a small State?

I vote for Rhode Island. I have always wanted to live in Quahog.
Hey, by all means. Come here and spend their money. Spend enough and the value of the dollar will go up.
gunnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2007, 02:22 AM   #60 (permalink)
ExNavyAmerican
Military Professional
 
ExNavyAmerican's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-02-07
Location: Ningbo, China
Posts: 827
Country:
Quote:
Why don't we pay a couple of euros each and buy a small State?

I vote for Rhode Island. I have always wanted to live in Quahog.
I vote for Vermont -why not all of Northern New England? There's very little difference between New England and Europe: Liberals, Socialists, internationalists, terrorist sympathizers -they're practically kindred spirits
__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson
ExNavyAmerican is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nicolas Sarkozy returns to his hallmark style Parihaka Political Discussions 1 03-20-2007 07:57 AM
Sarkozy signals break with Chirac Ironduke Political Discussions 0 03-12-2007 19:01 PM
French perfidy: The Chirac Doctrine Bluesman Political Discussions 66 11-11-2005 01:02 AM
Poll: Presidential race still tight Ironduke Political Discussions 0 10-18-2004 05:47 AM
The fall of France tarek Political Discussions 0 09-27-2004 18:26 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:47 AM.