PDA

View Full Version : The Ukraine situation



garhkal
02-22-2014, 06:27 PM
So what's everyone take on what is happening in the Ukraine? Are the 'peaceful protestors' doing right? or do you call it what it is, a violent riot?

BENDER56
02-22-2014, 10:28 PM
Option "C". It's violent and it's also "doing right."

Putin wants to bring Ukraine into his proposed Eurasian Union. He essentially bribed Ukraine's leader, Yanukovych, not to join the European Union, which he had said he was going to do.

People in the eastern part of Ukraine identify as ethnic Russians, speak Russian and generally agree with Ukraine and Russia becoming cozier. They're in the minority.

People in the west of Ukraine speak Ukrainian and identify as ethnic Ukrainians. They're in the majority. They wanted the deal with the European Union and are pissed that Putin and Yanukovych torpedoed it. Yanukovych, by the way, threw out the old Ukrainian constitution after he came to power and crafted a new constitution that basically legitimizes what in essence is a near-dictatorship.

So I can understand the actions of the protestors who feel they have no other recourse to save their vision of what Ukraine is and should be -- and what it should not be.

Don't forget, the USA was born out of violent protest, so from our point of view it's kind of hypocritical to denounce violent protest as being something wrong.

Hey, maybe if Ukraine turns into another Syria, it'll reignite the Cold War and we'll see Reagan-era defense spending again. More money! More manning! Bigger, better, faster, more lethal, and more expensive weapons!!!!! Won't that be great?!

Gonzo432
02-22-2014, 11:35 PM
Option "C". It's violent and it's also "doing right."

Putin wants to bring Ukraine into his proposed Eurasian Union. He essentially bribed Ukraine's leader, Yanukovych, not to join the European Union, which he had said he was going to do.

People in the eastern part of Ukraine identify as ethnic Russians, speak Russian and generally agree with Ukraine and Russia becoming cozier. They're in the minority.

People in the west of Ukraine speak Ukrainian and identify as ethnic Ukrainians. They're in the majority. They wanted the deal with the European Union and are pissed that Putin and Yanukovych torpedoed it. Yanukovych, by the way, threw out the old Ukrainian constitution after he came to power and crafted a new constitution that basically legitimizes what in essence is a near-dictatorship.

So I can understand the actions of the protestors who feel they have no other recourse to save their vision of what Ukraine is and should be -- and what it should not be.

Don't forget, the USA was born out of violent protest, so from our point of view it's kind of hypocritical to denounce violent protest as being something wrong.

Hey, maybe if Ukraine turns into another Syria, it'll reignite the Cold War and we'll see Reagan-era defense spending again. More money! More manning! Bigger, better, faster, more lethal, and more expensive weapons!!!!! Won't that be great?!
You make some good points, Bender. Another thing to keep in mind is that these people have only known freedom for 1 generation. It seems they're not so willing to give it up, and are willing to give their lives to keep it.

garhkal
02-23-2014, 03:59 AM
Don't forget, the USA was born out of violent protest, so from our point of view it's kind of hypocritical to denounce violent protest as being something wrong.



While it may seem hypocritical, what gets me is how most all the news channels seem to only go on about the depredations of the govt forces/police, in how many 'protestors' get hurt/killed, but not so much on the rioters and how many police/troops are injured/killed in their molotov cocktail burning..
I also can't understand how they can STILL call it a protest. Call it what it is, a RIOT.

sandsjames
02-23-2014, 12:44 PM
Option "C". It's violent and it's also "doing right."

Putin wants to bring Ukraine into his proposed Eurasian Union. He essentially bribed Ukraine's leader, Yanukovych, not to join the European Union, which he had said he was going to do.

People in the eastern part of Ukraine identify as ethnic Russians, speak Russian and generally agree with Ukraine and Russia becoming cozier. They're in the minority.

People in the west of Ukraine speak Ukrainian and identify as ethnic Ukrainians. They're in the majority. They wanted the deal with the European Union and are pissed that Putin and Yanukovych torpedoed it. Yanukovych, by the way, threw out the old Ukrainian constitution after he came to power and crafted a new constitution that basically legitimizes what in essence is a near-dictatorship.

So I can understand the actions of the protestors who feel they have no other recourse to save their vision of what Ukraine is and should be -- and what it should not be.

Don't forget, the USA was born out of violent protest, so from our point of view it's kind of hypocritical to denounce violent protest as being something wrong.

Hey, maybe if Ukraine turns into another Syria, it'll reignite the Cold War and we'll see Reagan-era defense spending again. More money! More manning! Bigger, better, faster, more lethal, and more expensive weapons!!!!! Won't that be great?!

We could really use another Cold War. It was definitely the most peaceful time of my existence.

Rusty Jones
02-23-2014, 01:10 PM
We could really use another Cold War. It was definitely the most peaceful time of my existence.

I'm sure that those who fought in Korea and Vietnam would disagree with you.

sandsjames
02-23-2014, 01:17 PM
I'm sure that those who fought in Korea and Vietnam would disagree with you.

I'm not talking about Korea and Vietnam. I would never want those to happen. I'm talking about the Reagan era Cold War, where the military wasn't largely deployed around the world.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-23-2014, 01:19 PM
I'm not talking about Korea and Vietnam. I would never want those to happen. I'm talking about the Reagan era Cold War, where the military wasn't largely deployed around the world.

We had a lot more bases world-wide back then.

sandsjames
02-23-2014, 01:25 PM
We had a lot more bases world-wide back then.

Do you argue just for the sake of it?

I didn't talk about how many bases we had. I said "deployed". Hell, you even quoted my post with the word "deployed". Unless you consider being stationed overseas as being deployed. And every cake TDY you've been on as being "deployed".

Rusty Jones
02-23-2014, 01:41 PM
Do you argue just for the sake of it?

I didn't talk about how many bases we had. I said "deployed". Hell, you even quoted my post with the word "deployed". Unless you consider being stationed overseas as being deployed. And every cake TDY you've been on as being "deployed".

Well, you might want to retract that request for another Cold War because it was more "peaceful."

sandsjames
02-23-2014, 01:49 PM
Well, you might want to retract that request for another Cold War because it was more "peaceful."

Reagan Era Cold War...Jesus Christ I'm getting a headache.

From 1980-1991 there were 360 combat related deaths, with 279 of those happening in Beirut and Panama. Compare those numbers to the past 10 years and tell me which one is better?

Rusty Jones
02-23-2014, 02:00 PM
Reagan Era Cold War...Jesus Christ I'm getting a headache.

You do realize that the reason for the Reagan Era Cold War was not on our end, right? After Vietnam, Leonids Brezhnev's economic policies forced the Soviet Union into a stagflation... and they couldn't afford another war or proxy war. So many internal issues were caused by Brezhnev, that a big mess was left for Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbechev to clean up... and they had no choice but to ease up off of the other Warsaw Pact countries. This, of course led to the fall of the Warsaw Pact and ultimately the Soviet Union itself. The US didn't lift a finger the whole time... but was, indeed, ready to go to war throughout the whole ordeal.

sandsjames
02-23-2014, 02:10 PM
You do realize that the reason for the Reagan Era Cold War was not on our end, right? After Vietnam, Leonids Brezhnev's economic policies forced the Soviet Union into a stagflation... and they couldn't afford another war or proxy war. So many internal issues were caused by Brezhnev, that a big mess was left for Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbechev to clean up... and they had no choice but to ease up off of the other Warsaw Pact countries. This, of course led to the fall of the Warsaw Pact and ultimately the Soviet Union itself. The US didn't lift a finger the whole time... but was, indeed, ready to go to war throughout the whole ordeal.


Yes, but deaths were way down, people were home with their families, etc. I'd take that any day over having people roaming around Afghanistan.

Rusty Jones
02-23-2014, 02:16 PM
Yes, but deaths were way down, people were home with their families, etc. I'd take that any day over having people roaming around Afghanistan.

The point is, the US was ready and willing to have another Vietnam or Korea during the Reagan Administration if one could be justified.

There's a reason why Gorbechev got the Nobel Peace Prize, and Reagan didn't.

sandsjames
02-23-2014, 02:18 PM
The point is, the US was ready and willing to have another Vietnam or Korea during the Reagan Administration if one could be justified.

There's a reason why Gorbechev got the Nobel Peace Prize, and Reagan didn't.

But we didn't. I don't care which side is responsible for the button not being pushed. The fact is that it wasn't, and I'll take the threat of war, with no action, over what we're going through right now any day of the week.

BENDER56
02-23-2014, 03:10 PM
While it may seem hypocritical, what gets me is how most all the news channels seem to only go on about the depredations of the govt forces/police, in how many 'protestors' get hurt/killed, but not so much on the rioters and how many police/troops are injured/killed in their molotov cocktail burning..
I also can't understand how they can STILL call it a protest. Call it what it is, a RIOT.

Okay. It's a riot. But it still could seem justified from the point of view of the protestors.

Look, if in the future some US president concocts some secret deal to allow China to take over the US in return for his own personal gain, do you think the 'Murcan people will stand for that? You don't think, if it comes down to it, we won't riot and/or engage in outright civil warfare to take back our country? Would you say it's wrong to do that and we should simply welcome our new Chinese overlords?

Well, that's pretty much what's happening in Ukraine. One man's lawless riot is another man's just cause.

BENDER56
02-23-2014, 03:18 PM
We could really use another Cold War. It was definitely the most peaceful time of my existence.

I know, right? As soon as the Cold War ended, all the long-simmering feuds in the world suddenly erupted. Without the "stability" of the overarching influence of either the US or the USSR it became a free-for-all.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
02-23-2014, 03:18 PM
I think that our anti-war Pres Obama should address the nation with another 'convincing' argument for why we need to launch 'limited' air strikes in support of the opposition.

BENDER56
02-23-2014, 03:26 PM
I think that our anti-war Pres Obama should address the nation with another 'convincing' argument for why we need to launch 'limited' air strikes in support of the opposition.

Part of me thinks the people in sovereign nations need to be left alone to fight their own battles and we have no business intervening.

The other part of me realizes the world is nothing more than a big Monopoly™ board with only a few countries rolling the dice. As soon as we disengage, the other players move in and they almost always don't have the US's interests in mind.

Rusty Jones
02-23-2014, 03:56 PM
I know, right? As soon as the Cold War ended, all the long-simmering feuds in the world suddenly erupted. Without the "stability" of the overarching influence of either the US or the USSR it became a free-for-all.

Regardless, throughout the history of the US, we average a major war every 20 years anyway. The longest period of time was War of 1812 to the Civil War, which were 40 years apart... but we've got enough wars that were ten years apart to bring the average to 20. Seeing as how the Cold War accounts for less than a fifth the the US's existence, I think that one can safely say that a new Cold War won't change a thing.

Edit: War of 1812 and Civil War were 50 years apart, but I forgot the Mexican American War which happened in the 1840's.

sandsjames
02-23-2014, 04:30 PM
Regardless, throughout the history of the US, we average a major war every 20 years anyway. The longest period of time was War of 1812 to the Civil War, which were 40 years apart... but we've got enough wars that were ten years apart to bring the average to 20. Seeing as how the Cold War accounts for less than a fifth the the US's existence, I think that one can safely say that a new Cold War won't change a thing.

Edit: War of 1812 and Civil War were 50 years apart, but I forgot the Mexican American War which happened in the 1840's.

The best move is to just mind our own fucking business as it's been proven time and time again that when we get involved to fix something, then leave, it is probably going to revert back to how it was (or worse) than when we got there.

BENDER56
02-23-2014, 08:53 PM
Regardless, throughout the history of the US, we average a major war every 20 years anyway. The longest period of time was War of 1812 to the Civil War, which were 40 years apart... but we've got enough wars that were ten years apart to bring the average to 20. Seeing as how the Cold War accounts for less than a fifth the the US's existence, I think that one can safely say that a new Cold War won't change a thing.

Edit: War of 1812 and Civil War were 50 years apart, but I forgot the Mexican American War which happened in the 1840's.

I'll trust you're right about all that, but those are only America's wars. Do you have any data regarding the number of conflicts worldwide before, during and after the Cold War?

waveshaper2
02-24-2014, 12:03 AM
Everyone needs to relax, the Ukraine has a conscript military and they know how to take care of business. Here is how the transfer of power process normally starts in this particular region.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7QkJjWIHFSA

AJBIGJ
02-24-2014, 01:44 PM
Aside from the side discussions, I hope we stay well and clear from this quagmire in waiting. It'd be better for their sakes and ours to not get involved in the long run.

As for Cold War Reagan foreign policy, a lot of the violence we see today is blowback from precisely that. Neither he nor Clinton are exactly "saints" simply because the actual American troop footprints were limited, there's a whole lot of moving parts involved that were not front page headlines but where the CIA interference has created a whole slew of "hating us for our freedoms".

Rusty Jones
02-24-2014, 03:34 PM
I'll trust you're right about all that, but those are only America's wars. Do you have any data regarding the number of conflicts worldwide before, during and after the Cold War?

The US's wars were the only ones I was talking about, as they are the only ones relevant to SJ's suggestions. But it's still about the same. Spanish War to WWI, and WWI to WWII were each 20 years apart. WWII to Korea was little more than ten; Korea to Vietnam was about ten, and Vietnam to Desert Storm was 20. Desert Storm to Afghanistan (and Iraq), ten years.

Do YOU believe that another Cold War will change this trend?

sandsjames
02-24-2014, 04:12 PM
The US's wars were the only ones I was talking about, as they are the only ones relevant to SJ's suggestions. But it's still about the same. Spanish War to WWI, and WWI to WWII were each 20 years apart. WWII to Korea was little more than ten; Korea to Vietnam was about ten, and Vietnam to Desert Storm was 20. Desert Storm to Afghanistan (and Iraq), ten years.

Do YOU believe that another Cold War will change this trend?

The trend won't change, but the 10-20 year break would be nice.

CYBERFX1024
02-24-2014, 04:41 PM
Okay. It's a riot. But it still could seem justified from the point of view of the protestors.
Look, if in the future some US president concocts some secret deal to allow China to take over the US in return for his own personal gain, do you think the 'Murcan people will stand for that? You don't think, if it comes down to it, we won't riot and/or engage in outright civil warfare to take back our country? Would you say it's wrong to do that and we should simply welcome our new Chinese overlords?
Well, that's pretty much what's happening in Ukraine. One man's lawless riot is another man's just cause.

Honestly, I do believe that a large minority will be happy that China took over America and made it a "Socialist Utopia" and ended the "income inequality". The reason I say this is because almost everywhere you turn now there is a story about how bad the USA is because of income inequality. But that is my take on it.

BENDER56
02-24-2014, 05:23 PM
Do YOU believe that another Cold War will change this trend?

What I believe, devoutly, is that nobody is capable of predicting anything that will happen in the future.

But it did seem to me that their were fewer regional conflicts in the world during the previous Cold War. I haven't done any research to back that up. That's why I asked you -- hoping you'd do the legwork for me.

AJBIGJ
02-24-2014, 06:15 PM
What I believe, devoutly, is that nobody is capable of predicting anything that will happen in the future.

But it did seem to me that their were fewer regional conflicts in the world during the previous Cold War. I haven't done any research to back that up. That's why I asked you -- hoping you'd do the legwork for me.

Nothing as long-lasting happened back then. Afghanistan and Iraq were ridiculously prolonged for the "nation building" efforts. They were usually more limited in scope and heavily invested in non-troops assets. What has happened since the Cold War is our seeing ourselves as the "World Police" has been essentially uncontested and we have felt bold enough to drop entire coalitions on those who, well basically we felt like attacking. What is different now than say prior to WWII is we've been consistently the aggressor, it's never retaliation (for those who spout 9/11 or USS Cole those were not nation-sponsored attacks). During the Cold War almost everything was done behind closed doors with Intelligence Agencies and secretive transitions of government assets, a lot of this was from the quasi-rational fear that open conflict would eventually devolve into ICBMs on major population centers. Notice the trend here, we are more than happy to invest our assets into countries that "misbehave" and simultaneously lack that particular capability, whereas we tiptoe a bit more carefully around those that do.

garhkal
02-24-2014, 07:15 PM
Honestly, I do believe that a large minority will be happy that China took over America and made it a "Socialist Utopia" and ended the "income inequality". The reason I say this is because almost everywhere you turn now there is a story about how bad the USA is because of income inequality. But that is my take on it.

I'd doubt they would like it as much if china also implemented all their other policies (such as one child only) as well.

CYBERFX1024
02-24-2014, 08:39 PM
I'd doubt they would like it as much if china also implemented all their other policies (such as one child only) as well.

I understand that, but right now China is starting to do away with that policy as well. This is due to the havoc it has created in the rural communities.

But I am taking a look at the big picture as a whole. It disturbs me how a number of influential people are spouting off the Anti-American rhetoric and how everything here is bad and it needs to be changed.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-24-2014, 08:49 PM
Honestly, I do believe that a large minority will be happy that China took over America and made it a "Socialist Utopia" and ended the "income inequality". The reason I say this is because almost everywhere you turn now there is a story about how bad the USA is because of income inequality. But that is my take on it.

For a person to have that view of China, they'd have to have been living in a cave under Kentucky for the past 25 years, or just flat out refusing to read any news stories about China.

China is far from a socialist utopia and has a ultra rich upper class, a burgeoning middle class, and a large lower class that is increasingly being left behind.

China is becoming more like the US with the passage of every year; they put their own spin on things, but they are far less socialist than they used to be.

Income inequality is unavoidable. The people who shout about that are usually using it a a ploy to obtain political power. The battle to control the hearts and minds of the poor is centuries old.

Although there are some people who are sincere in there calls to help the poor, it is wise to be suspicious of any movement that that touts that message.

CYBERFX1024
02-24-2014, 09:41 PM
For a person to have that view of China, they'd have to have been living in a cave under Kentucky for the past 25 years, or just flat out refusing to read any news stories about China.
China is far from a socialist utopia and has a ultra rich upper class, a burgeoning middle class, and a large lower class that is increasingly being left behind.
China is becoming more like the US with the passage of every year; they put their own spin on things, but they are far less socialist than they used to be.
Income inequality is unavoidable. The people who shout about that are usually using it a a ploy to obtain political power. The battle to control the hearts and minds of the poor is centuries old.
Although there are some people who are sincere in there calls to help the poor, it is wise to be suspicious of any movement that that touts that message.


I am in full agreement with you on this one. But the majority of Americans don't look outside the country or read any other news but what is reported by the MSM (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS, and ABC). But you have to look at the whole OWS crowd to see that the majority of them are unhappy with American society as a whole and want it changed.

The Chinese have been becoming more like us but the leadership is trying to scale back a number of reforms from the last couple of years. They just got a new premier months back who by all accounts is not reform minded at all.

Income inequality is very much so unavoidable. But as you can see from across the country there is a large push to pay workers more for doing the most mundane and menial tasks. There was a measure here in Los Angeles that wanted to give just hotel workers around LAX a raise to $15 an hour. It was shot down for "more consideration" and never went to vote. But for that to even be considered is crazy. What I have always been taught to believe and what I tell my kids is that "if you want something bad enough, then you work hard and get a education and you can succeed".
My kids know that doing good in school and not dropping out is a must to do what they want, and my daughter knows that if she wants to become a doctor then she has to go through alot of schooling. But she wants to do it and I am encouraging her.

Rusty Jones
02-25-2014, 12:12 PM
Income inequality is very much so unavoidable. But as you can see from across the country there is a large push to pay workers more for doing the most mundane and menial tasks. There was a measure here in Los Angeles that wanted to give just hotel workers around LAX a raise to $15 an hour. It was shot down for "more consideration" and never went to vote. But for that to even be considered is crazy.

Minimum wage in Australia is currently about $16 an hour when coverted to USD. And... prices on everything there - whether it's fast food, items on the department store shelves, or otherwise - are the same as they are here in the US.

I really don't like to describe other people's jobs as being "mundane" or "menial" because - regardless of what you, I, or others may think of their jobs - they still have to wake up in the morning and go, deal with bosses, and some actually take pride in what they do. But regardless, no one who works 40 hours a week should ever have to go without.


What I have always been taught to believe and what I tell my kids is that "if you want something bad enough, then you work hard and get a education and you can succeed".

I've always thought that "work hard, and you can be like me" was a BS line used by the powerful in order to keep the powerless from rising up against them. It's something that will prevent another French Revolution from happening.

John Steinbeck once said, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves, not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarassed millionaires."

Not only do I believe this to be a very true statement, but I also believe that this occurance is not an accident. Not by a long shot.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-25-2014, 01:17 PM
Minimum wage in Australia is currently about $16 an hour when coverted to USD. And... prices on everything there - whether it's fast food, items on the department store shelves, or otherwise - are the same as they are here in the US.

I really don't like to describe other people's jobs as being "mundane" or "menial" because - regardless of what you, I, or others may think of their jobs - they still have to wake up in the morning and go, deal with bosses, and some actually take pride in what they do. But regardless, no one who works 40 hours a week should ever have to go without.



I've always thought that "work hard, and you can be like me" was a BS line used by the powerful in order to keep the powerless from rising up against them. It's something that will prevent another French Revolution from happening.

John Steinbeck once said, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves, not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarassed millionaires."

Not only do I believe this to be a very true statement, but I also believe that this occurance is not an accident. Not by a long shot.

Interesting, please explain this a little more.

Are you saying that this mindset of the poor, that Steinbeck spoke of was instilled in a calculated manner?

If so, by who and how?

sandsjames
02-25-2014, 01:41 PM
Interesting, please explain this a little more.

Are you saying that this mindset of the poor, that Steinbeck spoke of was instilled in a calculated manner?

If so, by who and how?

I believe he's saying that the poor have been tricked by the rich into thinking they have a chance to also become rich which, in turn, is done to ensure they stay poor.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-25-2014, 01:51 PM
I believe he's saying that the poor have been tricked by the rich into thinking they have a chance to also become rich which, in turn, is done to ensure they stay poor.

I get that part of his statement, but if it is "no accident" then the implication is that it was calculated. I want to know who he thinks orchestrated this trickery.

America is full of rags-to-riches stories and I'm doubtful that any secret society of tricksters exists. I want to know who he thinks they are.

Rusty Jones
02-25-2014, 03:28 PM
I believe he's saying that the poor have been tricked by the rich into thinking they have a chance to also become rich which, in turn, is done to ensure they stay poor.

Not to ensure that they stay poor, but to ensure that they don't rise up against the system that's rigged against them.


I get that part of his statement, but if it is "no accident" then the implication is that it was calculated. I want to know who he thinks orchestrated this trickery.

I can't say that there are any specific "whos," but here are my thoughts on it: First, why did we declare independance from Britain in the first place? At the time of the American Revolution, Britain was the free-est country in the world. In fact, they still rank higher than we do on the world freedom index. Freedom of religion, for example? There was no requirement that one be Anglican/Episcopalian. Most of Scotland was Prebyterian. There was already religious freedom, in fact, they enjoyed much of the same freedoms that Americans enjoyed after the Revolution.

Most Americans believe that Puritans came here as pilgrims for religious freedom, but what they don't know is that they were causing ruckus in the Anglican Church and trying to make it align with more with Protestan Churches after the Reformation, and less like the Catholic Church. And Britain responded accordingly - in other words, Britain and the Anglican Church finished what the Puritans tried to start.

So... with that being said... why I do think this all happened?

Most of Europe still had the concept of peerage - royalty and nobility. People were legally considered to be superior to other people on paper. No matter where you live in society, everyone has their place. The difference is that in a society with peerage, or at least a history of it... people KNOW their place. Here in America, you DON'T.

And I really believe that the poor not knowing their place can be used by the rich and powerful to their advantage.

In a society with peerage, the system that results in you being where you are is clear. It's present, and it's in your face. Making it easier to rebel against. I believe that this is likely why most of Europe is socialist - because they had that history. Not the case in the US.


America is full of rags-to-riches stories and I'm doubtful that any secret society of tricksters exists. I want to know who he thinks they are.

Yet, among first world countries... our poor are among the poorest.

Rusty Jones
02-25-2014, 04:17 PM
An interesting thing that comes to mind that I can think about: when new Sailors report onboard their first ship, what's the one thing that they notice that they feel is troublesome because it's new to them? The berthing and dining facilities onboard the ship... compared to what officers and Chief Petty Officers get. It bothers them, because... as an American... it's in stark contrast to the concept of "equality" that he's been brought up and raised to believe existed, as an American.

You know in most European navies, it's not a shocker to their newbies at all? It's a way that they're accustomed to.

I could actually take inequality better if it was on paper - IF that inequality is not oppressive proprotions.

I'm reminded of a time when I was a PO2 on shore duty. We all "all hands" PT on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday mornings. Unfortunately, E6 and above never showed up. If we asked "why," we were told that it was because they had stuff they had to do. Well, no shit - so does everyone else. But... we all knew that if anyone E5 and below simply decided not to show up, that "because I had stuff to do" was NOT going to fly.

We were all pissed about it. "All hands" PT, but the rules only apply to certain people.

Now... what if it was simply called "E5 and below" PT... and the command had actually stated that only E5 and below were required to attend?

Not a single one of us would be upset. It's a rule, and we follow it. But why don't they just do that? I don't know, but there's probably a reason for it. I believe that an "illusion" of equality is a tool of manipulation.

garhkal
02-25-2014, 04:54 PM
I'm reminded of a time when I was a PO2 on shore duty. We all "all hands" PT on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday mornings. Unfortunately, E6 and above never showed up. If we asked "why," we were told that it was because they had stuff they had to do. Well, no shit - so does everyone else. But... we all knew that if anyone E5 and below simply decided not to show up, that "because I had stuff to do" was NOT going to fly.

We were all pissed about it. "All hands" PT, but the rules only apply to certain people.

Now... what if it was simply called "E5 and below" PT... and the command had actually stated that only E5 and below were required to attend?

Not a single one of us would be upset. It's a rule, and we follow it. But why don't they just do that? I don't know, but there's probably a reason for it. I believe that an "illusion" of equality is a tool of manipulation.

Its the same with "All hands Field days". You rarely if ever saw any E6 or Khaki's doing any sort of cleaning other than maybe their desk.

sandsjames
02-25-2014, 05:00 PM
An interesting thing that comes to mind that I can think about: when new Sailors report onboard their first ship, what's the one thing that they notice that they feel is troublesome because it's new to them? The berthing and dining facilities onboard the ship... compared to what officers and Chief Petty Officers get. It bothers them, because... as an American... it's in stark contrast to the concept of "equality" that he's been brought up and raised to believe existed, as an American.

You know in most European navies, it's not a shocker to their newbies at all? It's a way that they're accustomed to.

I could actually take inequality better if it was on paper - IF that inequality is not oppressive proprotions.

I'm reminded of a time when I was a PO2 on shore duty. We all "all hands" PT on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday mornings. Unfortunately, E6 and above never showed up. If we asked "why," we were told that it was because they had stuff they had to do. Well, no shit - so does everyone else. But... we all knew that if anyone E5 and below simply decided not to show up, that "because I had stuff to do" was NOT going to fly.

We were all pissed about it. "All hands" PT, but the rules only apply to certain people.

Now... what if it was simply called "E5 and below" PT... and the command had actually stated that only E5 and below were required to attend?

Not a single one of us would be upset. It's a rule, and we follow it. But why don't they just do that? I don't know, but there's probably a reason for it. I believe that an "illusion" of equality is a tool of manipulation.

The flaw in your statement is that in some places there is no opportunity for equality. If people don't like the inequality in the military, they have the opportunity to become the E6 and above, or the officer. If people in society have an issue with it, they have the opportunity to better themselves. Is it easier for some then others? Of course it is. Are there people who don't want you to succeed? Of course they do.

Throughout history (I'll use Britain since you did) the problem was that if you weren't born into the bloodline you had no opportunity. Hell, even if you did have "royal blood" but were born out of wedlock you didn't have the opportunity.

Everybody in the U.S. has the opportunity. Some may be born with the advantage due to things like family success, region, ethnicity, education opportunities, etc, but anyone can overcome the disadvantage. It's a struggle, but those who want it, and chase it, can earn it.

It seems like the problem isn't that some can't succeed, it's that some have an easier path to success and many find that unfair. That will never change. There is no scenario, no type of government, no economic policy that is going to change that.

It would be great if the playing field was equal from the start. If anyone has a way to create THAT equality then please, run for office. You've got my vote.

Rusty Jones
02-25-2014, 05:23 PM
The flaw in your statement is that in some places there is no opportunity for equality. If people don't like the inequality in the military, they have the opportunity to become the E6 and above, or the officer. If people in society have an issue with it, they have the opportunity to better themselves. Is it easier for some then others? Of course it is. Are there people who don't want you to succeed? Of course they do.

I made it after I transferred, but that's beside the point - just because you're on the benefitting end of an inequality doesn't mean that you're going to the find the inequality justifiable. In this particular case, the inequality itself wasn't the problem. It was the ILLUSION of equality that was. If something isn't going to be equal... then just say it. But they won't.


Throughout history (I'll use Britain since you did) the problem was that if you weren't born into the bloodline you had no opportunity. Hell, even if you did have "royal blood" but were born out of wedlock you didn't have the opportunity.

Completely false. Not all nobility was rich. In fact, there WERE dirt poor noblemen and even dirt poor royalty (remember, "royalty" means anyone recognized as being related to the king or queen - not just the king or queen's siblings and children) - and they weren't all necessarily illegitimate, either. On the flipside, there were also rich common men and women. This existed in ALL European countries with peerage.

Granted, the scenarios I gave you about royalty and nobility weren't the norm. But they existed. In fact, if you've read War and Peace (or have at least attempted to), the story deals with many poor noblemen and royalty, as well as rich common men in tsarist Russia.


Everybody in the U.S. has the opportunity. Some may be born with the advantage due to things like family success, region, ethnicity, education opportunities, etc, but anyone can overcome the disadvantage. It's a struggle, but those who want it, and chase it, can earn it.

It seems like the problem isn't that some can't succeed, it's that some have an easier path to success and many find that unfair. That will never change. There is no scenario, no type of government, no economic policy that is going to change that.

You proved my point with this statement. If, for the sake of argument, we say that all noblemen and royalty are rich... we're basically a society of peerage, but without the official labels.

Americans aren't rising up against the system now, but I guarantee you - if you were to assign noble rank to people based on household income (for example, one-percenters are dukes, second percentile get the title of marquis, and so forth) - and you don't even have to give them legal privileges according to their rank. All you have to do is simply give them titles. Just based on those titles alone, American culture would be thrown into a major upheaval.


It would be great if the playing field was equal from the start. If anyone has a way to create THAT equality then please, run for office. You've got my vote.

Stop lying. You're a conservative. You would NEVER vote for someone like that.

After all is said and done, I really think that the easiest way to oppress a people is to convince them that you consider them to be your equals, and that they can be like you if they work hard. That way, they don't know they're being oppressed. They can't rise up against you if they don't know that they're being oppressed.

sandsjames
02-25-2014, 05:31 PM
I made it after I transferred, but that's beside the point - just because you're on the benefitting end of an inequality doesn't mean that you're going to the find the inequality justifiable. In this particular case, the inequality itself wasn't the problem. It was the ILLUSION of inequality that was. If something isn't going to be equal... then just say it. But they won't.



Completely false. Not all nobility was rich. In fact, there WERE dirt poor noblemen and even dirt poor royalty (remember, "royalty" means anyone recognized as being related to the king or queen - not just the king or queen's siblings and children) - and they weren't all necessarily illegitimate, either. On the flipside, there were also rich common men and women. This existed in ALL European countries with peerage.

Granted, the scenarios I gave you about royalty and nobility weren't the norm. But they existed. In fact, if you've read War and Peace (or have at least attempted to), the story deals with many poor noblemen and royalty, as well as rich common men in tsarist Russia.



You proved my point with this statement. If, for the sake of argument, we say that all noblemen and royalty are rich... we're basically a society of peerage, but without the official labels.

Americans aren't rising up against the system now, but I guarantee you - if you were to assign noble rank to people based on household income (for example, one-percenters are dukes, second percentile get the title of marquis, and so forth) - and you don't even have to give them legal privileges according to their rank. All you have to do is simply give them titles. Just based on those titles alone, American culture would be thrown into a major upheaval.



Stop lying. You're a conservative. You would NEVER vote for someone like that.

After all is said and done, I really think that the easiest way to oppress a people is to convince them that you consider them to be your equals, and that they can be like you if they work hard. That way, they don't know they're being oppressed. They can't rise up against you if they don't know that they're being oppressed.


Don't tell me what I would vote for.

There is no need for anyone to "rise up". There is a need for better education, to make everyone aware of their options. There is a need for more mentors, for all backgrounds, to make help guide those who don't have solid families. There is a need for people to feel safe going to school. There is a need to protect those who want to avoid getting sucked into gangs because they feel they have no other options. There is a need to remove those who hire, or don't hire, someone based on anything other than experience/potential, to be removed from the position of hiring. There is a need to do everything we can to remove stereotypes. And there is a need for individuals to make every attempt to overcome all the issues I just listed.

If someone can figure that out, I'll vote for them over and over. Hell, I'd run their campaign.

Rusty Jones
02-25-2014, 05:49 PM
Don't tell me what I would vote for.

You mean I don't to get throw in the bullshit flag when I see bullshit?


There is no need for anyone to "rise up".

If believed as you did - that if I "work hard," I could join the ranks of the 1% - I'd be saying the same thing too. But there's a reason why this elite group is referred to by their percentile, and not a straight number. The very nature of the percentage means that only 1% will ever be among the 1%.


There is a need for better education, to make everyone aware of their options. There is a need for more mentors, for all backgrounds, to make help guide those who don't have solid families. There is a need for people to feel safe going to school. There is a need to protect those who want to avoid getting sucked into gangs because they feel they have no other options. There is a need to remove those who hire, or don't hire, someone based on anything other than experience/potential, to be removed from the position of hiring. There is a need to do everything we can to remove stereotypes. And there is a need for individuals to make every attempt to overcome all the issues I just listed.

If someone can figure that out, I'll vote for them over and over. Hell, I'd run their campaign.

You're talking, more or less, about fixing social problems that are more on the "micro" level. I'm speaking more on the "macro" level.

If the government made changes at the macro level that we were discussing, you'd be screaming "socialism."

BENDER56
02-25-2014, 06:36 PM
Nothing as long-lasting happened back then. Afghanistan and Iraq were ridiculously prolonged for the "nation building" efforts. They were usually more limited in scope and heavily invested in non-troops assets. What has happened since the Cold War is our seeing ourselves as the "World Police" has been essentially uncontested and we have felt bold enough to drop entire coalitions on those who, well basically we felt like attacking. What is different now than say prior to WWII is we've been consistently the aggressor, it's never retaliation (for those who spout 9/11 or USS Cole those were not nation-sponsored attacks). During the Cold War almost everything was done behind closed doors with Intelligence Agencies and secretive transitions of government assets, a lot of this was from the quasi-rational fear that open conflict would eventually devolve into ICBMs on major population centers. Notice the trend here, we are more than happy to invest our assets into countries that "misbehave" and simultaneously lack that particular capability, whereas we tiptoe a bit more carefully around those that do.

Nobody seems to be interpreting this correctly. I'm not talking about any conflicts the US was involved in.

I'm talking about all the regional conflicts that erupted around the world after the cold war ended -- The Balkans, Rwanda, Darfur, the Tuareg rebellion and I'm sure there are many others I've forgotten.

Wasn't there a damper on all these regional feuds during the Cold War?

Edit: Okay, the US was involved in the Balkans, but you get the idea.

BENDER56
02-25-2014, 06:47 PM
Meanwhile, while y'all are squaring off in your individual partisan political camps for the no-doubt pending pages and pages of multi-quoted, figurative fist-shaking rebuttals to rebuttals of rebuttals that won't change any of y'all's views one iota, Yanukovych was ousted by Ukraine's parliament and has disappeared into the Crimea.

Putin and Medvedev disapprove.

Ukrainians in the west are celebrating. Those in the east are now the ones doing the protesting.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-25-2014, 07:06 PM
Honestly, I do believe that a large minority will be happy that China took over America and made it a "Socialist Utopia" and ended the "income inequality". The reason I say this is because almost everywhere you turn now there is a story about how bad the USA is because of income inequality. But that is my take on it.

Income inequality is worse in China, and sadly people think the opposite is true.

AJBIGJ
02-25-2014, 07:10 PM
Nobody seems to be interpreting this correctly. I'm not talking about any conflicts the US was involved in.

I'm talking about all the regional conflicts that erupted around the world after the cold war ended -- The Balkans, Rwanda, Darfur, the Tuareg rebellion and I'm sure there are many others I've forgotten.

Wasn't there a damper on all these regional feuds during the Cold War?

Back then it was essentially a pissing contest between the CIA and KGB for who could play the chess game mechanics better. Rather than swoop into these conflicts with boots on the ground we'd play politics internally, and yes these things happened. Angola was in a civil war for a sizable part of it, but our level of involvements with these conflicts were quite different then. If anything Obama's shifting foreign policy seems to be headed back towards that direction, but we are better informed about it now than we were back then. Thank you internet.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-25-2014, 07:24 PM
Minimum wage in Australia is currently about $16 an hour when coverted to USD. And... prices on everything there - whether it's fast food, items on the department store shelves, or otherwise - are the same as they are here in the US.

I really don't like to describe other people's jobs as being "mundane" or "menial" because - regardless of what you, I, or others may think of their jobs - they still have to wake up in the morning and go, deal with bosses, and some actually take pride in what they do. But regardless, no one who works 40 hours a week should ever have to go without.Go without "what" exactly? What do our poor go without? Food? Nope. Cell phones? Nope. Internet? Nope. TV? Nope. Cars? Nope. Housing? Nope. Or do you mean they go "without" the same thing as those people with a higher paying job that usually requires education and propper work ethic or a unique skill set? Should the E-1 get the same pay as the E-9 or O-1? I mean, its only fair right, they are having the do the exact same thing as those higher ranking people are in what you just said. Why shouldnt the E-1 be rolling around in a Lincoln Town car or the Monster Ford F350 while spitting out 2-5 kids with a wife that doesnt work?


I've always thought that "work hard, and you can be like me" was a BS line used by the powerful in order to keep the powerless from rising up against them. It's something that will prevent another French Revolution from happening.Yeah, better to have the slogan of "Vote for me and you will succeed" as a better tag line.


John Steinbeck once said, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves, not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarassed millionaires."

Not only do I believe this to be a very true statement, but I also believe that this occurance is not an accident. Not by a long shot.
It never took root because people were able to make their own businesses and become millionaires if they had the right idea. It wasnt about who you knew, but timing and inovation that anyone had a chance of striking it rich. From the gold rush to the technological rushes, if you had a good idea, and gave the people what they wanted, you could become rich(er). The guy that made the app flappy bird didnt want the fame and money that his SIMPLE game was generating, so he gave it up. Instagram guys got Billions from Facebook. So did the people that made the app I think called AppMe. Not made because the government told them to make those app, but because they had the idea the resonated with the consumers. You dont have as many consumers in places like China, our "poor" are far better off than anywhere else in the world because of the rich.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-25-2014, 07:35 PM
Yet, among first world countries... our poor are among the poorest.
In what sense of the word are you saying they are the "poorest"? Are you saying because without government assistance, they cant afford the same thing as the middle class do, sometimes more, they are poorer than EU countries? I lived in Germany as an E-3 and E-4. None of my counterparts over there were making the same as I nor could they live in their own places. E-3 and E-4 are considered "poor" in American standards. Even the people a few years older than me didnt make as much or were taxed more heavily than I was, so they couldnt afford what I could. Our poor with a job making $22k a year with government assistance would need to make $77k/year before taxes to equal what they were given. Our problem in the US isnt an income problem, its a money problem. Our currency isnt worth as much as it should be because of the fed printing money using Kensyian economics.

CYBERFX1024
02-25-2014, 07:45 PM
Income inequality is worse in China, and sadly people think the opposite is true.

Moderators.... Could you fix this please and delete the disliked button.

Mjölnir
02-25-2014, 07:56 PM
Moderators.... Could you fix this please and delete the disliked button.

I can't delete a 'like', 'dislike' or 'thank' without deleting the post.

AJBIGJ
02-25-2014, 07:56 PM
First off, where income inequality is concerned, it is highly misunderstood as a concept. It's not an inherently positive or inherently negative thing, it just is inevitable wherever money is utilized as a means of exchange and property belongs to an individual. To abolish it you'd have to go full Marx and abolish all concept of individualized property as well as using any currency of any variety. What is a negative thing in our society, and every other society in existence (because that level of socialism doesn't exist and never has) is a lack of economic mobility, which has gotten worse over the last decade or so after the dot com explosion.

This is a complex problem and can't be resolved through more government, it can be exacerbated quite a bit from it though. Minimum wage exacerbates it substantially, raising the price floor on a valuable commodity, lowering demand for that commodity, and eliminating jobs, and destroying economic mobility by forcing overqualified individuals to remain in the jobs they do have. If we want to examine the example of Australia as a "for instance" we also have to examine the unemployment rate for the unskilled workers as a result of their higher minimum wage, which happens to be quite comfortably into the double digits. This is Economics 101, if you raise the price of a good or service the demand for it will go down, there's nothing magical about it. It won't matter that the buying power of some people who do hold jobs will be higher because those who lack the skills to attain the price floor won't be contributing anything whatsoever. Simple rule of hiring is that a business sets its wages at a rate that is comparable to the value of the goods and services provided by the individual, we're not buying the individual themselves, we did away with that with the passage of the 13th Amendment, so a goal of a company setting wages is not to pay a person their personal worth, they could never afford it.

When wages are forced high, businesses have several options to become compliant, if they have the cash assets available they can raise their human resource budget to accomodate the additional costs, but when that buffer goes away that leaves the business with a ceiling amount they can pay their workforce, if the price is higher they are forced to cut staff, cut hours, or eliminate incentives such as bonuses, raises, and promotions. Those same cash assets we did away with may also be what delays or eliminates a business's opportunities for expansion, sorry did we need more jobs?

Unfortunately, our society has experienced a demographical shift from less educated individuals putting more physical effort into the work they do to often over-educated people, with a whole slew of accumulated debt at the outset and an experience deficit, being forced into fewer job opportunities that they are very often overqualified for. We even have an employment gap exceeding 3 million positions that are well-compensated, with low skill requirements and often OJT options, that go unfilled throughout all 50 states, that just happen to be a little less glamorous than one might have expected. If you haven't followed Mike Rowe of "Dirty Jobs" fame before, and this interests you, I highly suggest people look into it.

That's my two cents on this whole conversation on economics.

CYBERFX1024
02-25-2014, 08:06 PM
I can't delete a 'like', 'dislike' or 'thank' without deleting the post.

Ok thank you.

sandsjames
02-25-2014, 08:39 PM
You mean I don't to get throw in the bullshit flag when I see bullshit? Ok




If believed as you did - that if I "work hard," I could join the ranks of the 1% - I'd be saying the same thing too. But there's a reason why this elite group is referred to by their percentile, and not a straight number. The very nature of the percentage means that only 1% will ever be among the 1%.



You're talking, more or less, about fixing social problems that are more on the "micro" level. I'm speaking more on the "macro" level.

If the government made changes at the macro level that we were discussing, you'd be screaming "socialism."

This is the problem...obviously everybody cannot become the 1%. If being in the 1% is the hopes of everyone then they are sure to be disappointed. I'm talking about nothing more than moving up to a comfortable income (whatever that may be).

There is a difference between socialism (redistribution of wealth) and a reduction of poor people. There is no need for the rich to give up their money for those who are without to improve their situation.

Though, as you say, I'm a conservative and couldn't possible think that we should help people, I'm all for jobs programs, training, and money going to the poorest, lower achieving schools instead of going to the ones that are already doing well. Elementary and high school shouldn't be a place to ensure the high performing students have a chance to excel. That's what college is for, if one so chooses. Funding should be equal, standards should be equal, and the expectations put on teachers should be equal.

All that said, if all of that was done, there will still be people who don't put in the effort. That's just the way society is.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2014, 02:09 PM
If believed as you did - that if I "work hard," I could join the ranks of the 1% - I'd be saying the same thing too. But there's a reason why this elite group is referred to by their percentile, and not a straight number. The very nature of the percentage means that only 1% will ever be among the 1%.The "1%" is always changing from year to year. Its not based on how much you have in the bank but how much you made that year. Not all 1% stay making the same amount each every year, usually those people fluxuate heavily in pay because they are the ones taking the risks each year to make that much. Only maybe 1% of the 1% consistantly make gobs of money hand over fist each year. The 1% make a yearly salary of $343,927 in 2009. This is atainable to those that work for it. Not everyone can just by working for it. The Janitor at Dallas stadium shouldnt be paid the same as Dex Bryant just because one works the same amount of hours as the other. The customer isnt coming to see the janitor, but that janitor helps the experience, so they should be paid more than the school janitor. But if the janitor quit, there are many, MANY more in line to take their place and do what they do for even less pay just to have a job for the same quality. Not the case with Dez Bryant. You get paid your worth based on the talents and skills you have that make you unique, just like and other commodity.

And honestly, some people are just not that into making it into the 1%. A lot of people want to do the minimum to get by. Some want to do enough to be comfortable. Some want to do a civic service. Some people just want to do what they love. This wont always get you into being the 1% income bracket.

AJBIGJ
02-26-2014, 02:15 PM
The "1%" is always changing from year to year. Its not based on how much you have in the bank but how much you made that year. Not all 1% stay making the same amount each every year, usually those people fluxuate heavily in pay because they are the ones taking the risks each year to make that much. Only maybe 1% of the 1% consistantly make gobs of money hand over fist each year. The 1% make a yearly salary of $343,927 in 2009. This is atainable to those that work for it. Not everyone can just by working for it. The Janitor at Dallas stadium shouldnt be paid the same as Dex Bryant just because one works the same amount of hours as the other. The customer isnt coming to see the janitor, but that janitor helps the experience, so they should be paid more than the school janitor. But if the janitor quit, there are many, MANY more in line to take their place and do what they do for even less pay just to have a job for the same quality. Not the case with Dez Bryant. You get paid your worth based on the talents and skills you have that make you unique, just like and other commodity.

And honestly, some people are just not that into making it into the 1%. A lot of people want to do the minimum to get by. Some want to do enough to be comfortable. Some want to do a civic service. Some people just want to do what they love. This wont always get you into being the 1% income bracket.

Some also have an inside deal (*cough *cough Warren Buffett) on purchasing cheap assets that were confiscated by the government at the taxpayer's expense and love to suggest that the taxes need to get raised on "people like me" when they know themselves all the loopholes to ensure it only affects their competition.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2014, 02:16 PM
The reason socialism didnt work here is because more or less, people started off in the same place from the beginning here. There was no king or nobles that could sleep with the brushing young bride. In the EU, the surfs hear that there is a government promise that would make everyone "equally poor", bring the noblility down to their level, and they are all for it. They never had the ability to move up the ranks as people do here in America. So of course the embrace socialism more that we do, they were fed the lie that socialism would bring everyone to an equal level. Since they were always on the bottom and forced to work, socialism sounded like a great idea. Its probably why former slave blacks feel the same way, except that they now do have freedom to rise in stature. Just remember, Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2014, 02:17 PM
Some also have an inside deal (*cough *cough Warren Buffett) on purchasing cheap assets that were confiscated by the government at the taxpayer's expense and love to suggest that the taxes need to get raised on "people like me" when they know themselves all the loopholes to ensure it only affects their competition.

Yes, there is a very small minority like that, and sadly, a lot of them keep calling for more regulations that typically only stifle the up and comers to keep out competition.

AJBIGJ
02-26-2014, 02:20 PM
Yes, there is a very small minority like that, and sadly, a lot of them keep calling for more regulations that typically only stifle the up and comers to keep out competition.

It is an irony that many of the same individuals who vilify such entities are also the same people promoting policies that give the corporations the opportunities to develop monopolies and oligopolies in their niche of the market.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2014, 02:28 PM
It is an irony that many of the same individuals who vilify such entities are also the same people promoting policies that give the corporations the opportunities to develop monopolies and oligopolies in their niche of the market.

Yep. People scream about more regulations on oil companies and drilling practices and inspections. Sadly, it really only hurts the small oil producing companies that only work inside the US who dont make huge profits. The big companies are spared the brunt of the regulations, and slide by as the small companies go out of business.

waveshaper2
03-01-2014, 06:33 PM
Has the US every been in a similar situation as Russia currently is? My answer is yes.



Has the US ever had strategic military bases/terrain/infrastructure that were located in a foreign country and our utilization/control of these military bases/terrain/infrastructure where covered by legal conventions/treaties. My answer is yes.



What independent country closely fits this description? My answer is Panama.



The relevant Treaties; On February 26, 1904, the Isthmian Canal Convention, was proclaimed. In it, the Republic of Panama granted to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation, and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection of the canal.
From 1903 to 1979 the territory was controlled by the United States, which had built the canal and financed its construction. From 1979 to 1999 the canal itself was under joint U.S.–Panamanian control. In 1977 the Torrijos-Carter Treaties established the neutrality of the canal.


Now, how did we react in Panama when our strategic interest where threatened?

There are many examples of how the US responded to treats posed to its interest in Panama by the Panamanian Government/population. I wont go over the most recent invasion of Panama, Operation Just Cause, because I am sure its still fresh in most folks minds.

Another little known crisis that threatened US vital interest in Panama was the 1964 Panamanian riots (Panamanian Martyrs' Day). During this event I was a dependent kid and we lived on Fort Amador in base housing. Our house was right on the bluff overlooking Panama Bay and we had a great view of Panama City. The US responded to this crisis by sending military reinforcements to the canal zone and US forces were involved in fighting/suffered casualties. Some things I remember, our US schools where occupied by Panamanian thugs, we had an occupied (US soldiers) sandbagged machinegun nest in our back yard, and we had a great view of Panama City burning