Quadrennial Defense Review

[Craig234]

A lot of that road had been traversed by the 1780s.

Not as much as you seem to think. There had been some limited inroads by democracy to that point, most notably the regicide of Charles I - and the reversion against a republic making Charles II the king.

King George III was happily kinging away along with his peer Charles XVI at the time.

Parliaments had secured some small rights, but was a far cry from the US model.

The US had the advantage of no royal linage to claim power, thus the need to elect an executive.

That didn't begin to stop them. European monarch had long had panels select new monarchs at times.

The rest of the system is similar in many respects, particularly the bill of rights which lifted heavily from the Magna Carta.

Not as much as you might think. Have you read the Magna Carta? It was little more than the result of the second-tier nobles increasng in power relative to the absolute monarch since the ablsolute monarchy of William the Conquerer in 1066. After the nobles ambushed him and forced his signature, he promptly withdrew his recognitiion of the document and it went back and forth, just a power play between the king and the nobles. It was very limited in any real protections for the people and far from the constitution.

Franklin also had little to do with the actual writing of the Constitution although he was a delegate.

While Madison is the primary author, it was based on collaboration and was hashed out in committee - on what do you base Franklin having little to say?

Do not attempt to chastise me for using the correct terminology after you claimed "democracy had a very ignoble history of failure in human history to that point" which clearly would not include republics (representative or otherwise).

I will, because I don't view it as either 'correct terminology' or anything but the red herring I said. It clearl *would* include republics - almost the only form of democracy ever attempted.

THe Democracy you claim had made such progress already in England was all of the 'republic' type, for example, strengthening the role of the parliament, not any 'direct democracy'.

This point just should be dropped, two exhanges is two too many.

 

[K1052]

Not as much as you seem to think. There had been some limited inroads by democracy to that point, most notably the regicide of Charles I - and the reversion against a republic making Charles II the king.

King George III was happily kinging away along with his peer Charles XVI at the time.

Parliaments had secured some small rights, but was a far cry from the US model.



That didn't begin to stop them. European monarch had long had panels select new monarchs at times.


Not as much as you might think. Have you read the Magna Carta? It was little more than the result of the second-tier nobles increasng in power relative to the absolute monarch since the ablsolute monarchy of William the Conquerer in 1066. After the nobles ambushed him and forced his signature, he promptly withdrew his recognitiion of the document and it went back and forth, just a power play between the king and the nobles. It was very limited in any real protections for the people and far from the constitution.



While Madison is the primary author, it was based on collaboration and was hashed out in committee - on what do you base Franklin having little to say?



I will, because I don't view it as either 'correct terminology' or anything but the red herring I said. It clearl *would* include republics - almost the only form of democracy ever attempted.

THe Democracy you claim had made such progress already in England was all of the 'republic' type, for example, strengthening the role of the parliament, not any 'direct democracy'.

This point just should be dropped, two exhanges is two too many.

King George III still required parliament, he was by no means anything close to an absolute monarch.

I said they lifted heavily from the Magna Carta, I didn't say they implemented it's principles identically to England. I view the US constitution as more of an evolutionary document and a product of it's unique time.

Franklin did have some input but nobody considers him a driving force in the Convention, certainly there is nothing to support your assertion that is study of the Iroquois significantly impacted the drafting. If you can cite something to support this I'd be interested.

As far as the language you originally used I really don't care. You used "Democacy" in the classical not modern context which is what prompted my comment then attacked me when I pointed it out.

 

[cwjerome]

Seems to me the QDR lacks much insight into an important area that I see being an important issue in the next 3 years: Nuclear weapons.

I know the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review will be published soon and I'm pretty positive it won't align well with Obama's apparent stance on the situation. Whereas Obama has indicated he thinks nuclear abolition is a worthy goal, the Gates has said opposite statements. I am wondering what this potential showdown might look like... the future course of American nuclear strategy is about to be determined.

EDIT: Doing some searches it seems release of the NPR has been delayed twice over problems of forging an administration consensus.

 

[Wreckem]

Seems to me the QDR lacks much insight into an important area that I see being an important issue in the next 3 years: Nuclear weapons.

I know the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review will be published soon and I'm pretty positive it won't align well with Obama's apparent stance on the situation. Whereas Obama has indicated he thinks nuclear abolition is a worthy goal, the Gates has said opposite statements. I am wondering what this potential showdown might look like... the future course of American nuclear strategy is about to be determined.

EDIT: Doing some searches it seems release of the NPR has been delayed twice over problems of forging an administration consensus.

What will end up happening is, Gates will probably step down mid-term like most cabinet members do, especially those that were retained from a previous admin. Gates and the Pentagon won't win vs the Obama admin. They are holdovers and their desires wont be followed.

 

[cwjerome]

What will end up happening is, Gates will probably step down mid-term like most cabinet members do, especially those that were retained from a previous admin. Gates and the Pentagon won't win vs the Obama admin. They are holdovers and their desires wont be followed.

It will be interesting to see how things play out. Personally I don't see Gates quitting.

Obama said the US has a moral responsibility to seek elimination nuclear weapons and the US must lead by example by significantly reducing our nuclear stockpile. I tend to agree with Gates in that we need a robust nuclear modernization program. Lotta bang for the buck.

In the end, we might see a compromise of cuts in nukes that are very old and/or of questionable relevance, AND, some effort at modernization.

 

[piasabird]

So are these anti-military people the same people that were crying that all of the military jeeps needed to be armored? It is easy to complain, but solutions cost money. It might be cheaper just to increase the number of ground troops.

 

[StageLeft]

We continue to have a view that 'anything other than dominating the world and preventing the rise of any rival military power is 'defense''.

Who knows how things would be otherwise but the US is pretty darn secure, so that approach may be working.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Or, we could buy a defense budget and slash the money, instead of an empire budget.

We have a corrupt military industry that is a very high-cost pet to keep. But the point isn't the expsense, so much as the fact what's called 'defense' matches what we can 'afford' more than what's 'defense'.

We continue to have a view that 'anything other than dominating the world and preventing the rise of any rival military power is 'defense''.

The best defense is a good offense.

Everybody knows this.