[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Narrew]

UGH!!! Here I am, just woke up, barely finished my first cup of coffee and I read Aloofi's comment. I had to read it 3 times to get it through the cobwebs.

Aloofi, I can't help but think your just stirring the pot. Do your truely believe what you wrote?

And Fyron, you say self-interest is greed. In that sense, wouldn't greed be a neutral term? When I think of greed, I think of it as a negative/evil term. But if a person strives to earn a living so that his family lives comfortably (subjective) and that he will be able to retire without depending on the goverment, I don't see how that would be a negative form of greed.

Ok, off to get another cup of coffee

[Krsqk]

And by the way, I see that in every country, not just in Israel and the US, but especially in 3rd world countries.

Two questions and a point. First, what percentage of "rich" people are more loyal to their money than to their country? Second, is there an immoral quality to protecting your assets from avoidable loss, such as reinvesting them elsewhere? Third, most of the "rich" in third world countries are orders of magnitude richer than their average countrymen with no intervening classes--that is, there are the rich, and there are the impoverished, with no middle class--and many of those grew rich via corruption and crime, by the help of corrupt governments, and/or at the expense of their employees. I would think that already puts them into a different class of "rich" than a decent businessman.

[ May 19, 2003, 17:27: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Yeah, I don't doubt it, but as you said, the thing is if they are represented proportionally.

In times of non-draft, they won't be because there is no need for a larger army and so the main reason for going into the armed forces is to get an income - which, pretty much by definition, the rich already have, and the poorer Groups don't. In times of draft, the rich will be under-represented at least partially because the government needs them to stay at home and help make guns, tanks, ships, uniforms, MREs, ammo, fuel, et cetera. In either case, it may be partially because the rich tend to live much softer lives and become much softer people as a result; thus becoming much less likely to make it through boot camp than one who has had a harder life.

Besides, how do you know there aren't any truly patriotic rich people? Many people cease to be patriotic when the chips are down; it's just that most can't do anything about it. However, it doesn't mean that there aren't any patriots in the ranks, it just means they are harder to come by when the chips are down.

[Ruatha]

In sweden we have a conscript army. Everyone (males so far) go through the draft procedure, to check health, physics and mental tests.
So far those who have optioned not to participate go to prision, unless they do so out of religous or moral reasons, in wich case they have to serve in hospitals or kidnergartens etc with the same economic benefits as those in the military (Pretty lousy pay) or go to prison.
For women it's volountary to draft for the military but all able persons in the age 18-65 have a total-defence duty and if called into some branch must participate (civil defence etc).

So far it has worked well, but now we don't need such a big army, it costs to much and we can't see any enemies around us. So fewer and fewer are picked for military service.
The result of this seems to be that there are more "rich" and well educated that are picked as the military is changing to a high tech operation, needing computer programmers, engineers etc.
The prince and the crown-princess has done their military service too.

There is talk of switching to a regular salary based military.

[ May 19, 2003, 17:38: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[Aloofi]

[quote]Originally posted by Krsqk:

First, what percentage of "rich" people are more loyal to their money than to their country?.

All of them?
They are loyal to their country as long as this loyalty doesn't conflict with their loyalty to their money.
Some of them even manage to make money while being patriot. Wait and see what happens when that changes.

[quote]Originally posted by Krsqk:

Second, is there an immoral quality to protecting your assets from avoidable loss, such as reinvesting them elsewhere? .

This is exactly my point. Their future is not tied to their countries. If their country goes down the drain, they will move over to somewhere else, and business will continue as usual.

So yes, there is an immoral quality to protect your assets if that protection means moving your assets to another country.

To give you an idea of how deep this is, consider the fact that most of you would think to be stupid to NOT take the money out of the country.

So the moment a person become rich, automaticly stops being inconditionally loyal to his country, and his loyalty exist as long as he doens't risk losing his wealth.

Think about it.

.

[geoschmo]

Aloofi, what you are describing isn't patritoism or non-patriotism, it's simple self-preservaation. It has nothing to do with your financial level. How many times have we seen populations of refugees fleeing across national borders during a war? You telling me all these people are rich and are just following their money they transfered to the new country before the fighting started?

Being poor doesn't mean you are patriotic. It might mean you don't have the resources to go anywhere else when the crap hits the fan. But it doesn't mean you wouldn't want to. And if things get bad enough you hoof it.

Being rich doesn't mean you care more about your money then your country. You might, but you might not. A rich person might be even more patriotic as they have more of a vested interest in maintaining the exsisting political and economic systems that enabled them to become rich.

Geoschmo

[ May 19, 2003, 18:04: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Aloofi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Loser:

That's about all I can say about that without getting unkind.

Thanks.

Rich people don't fight unless drafted, and even then, they try to serve in the National guard Air force.
Can you tell me one single case of a rich guy that didn't flee his country at the time of need?

Oh yeah, I know some, but they are few and far in between.

---

Here are a few off the top of my head (and certainly not an exhaustive list). I'm not sure of all of their financial situations at the time they entered service, but I know at least some were quite well off (apologies for any misspellings).

James Stewart
John F. Kennedy
Joe Foss
Lyndon Johnson
John McCain
Jimmy Doolittle
George Bush, Sr.
Ted Williams
Collin Powell
John Kerry
Theodore Roosevelt
Dwight D. Eisenhower
George Patton
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
Robert E. Lee
Andrew Jackson
George Washington (yes, it goes back to the beginning.)

Note that they come from both sides of the aisle politically, and most, if not all, entered service voluntarily.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Ruatha:

The result of this seems to be that there are more "rich" and well educated that are picked as the military is changing to a high tech operation, needing computer programmers, engineers etc.

No no, I'm not talking of progammers or engineers. I'm not talking of employees.
I was talking of employers, people that owns wealth, people that owns business and stocks.
I know that compared to a 3rd world country I'm rich, but I'm an employee, I depend of a paycheck, doesn't matter how big or small it is, I can't take my job with me if the country takes a dive, while rich people can sale their business, or trade their stocks, and even though they might lose some money, they will save most of their wealth.
Besides, rich people are rarely surprised by disasters. They usualy plan ahead.

Originally posted by Ruatha:

The prince and the crown-princess has done their military service too.

That's pretty good. The royalty should always be first in doing the right thing, and the first in defense of their country.
You see, the royalty have something to lose that other rich people doens't risk to lose, and that is their crown.
So you have found a kind of rich that will probably fight to the bitter end.

.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:

Note that they come from both sides of the aisle politically, and most, if not all, entered service voluntarily.

Can you also come up with the name sof the ones that didn't? Their names are not recorded, aren't they?

Some of them are loyal indeed.
But few of them fought for a losing cause.
My example is when the country seem to be lost, when there is little hope of winning, so the Founding Fathers do deserve our admiration.

Of course there are good people in the rich population group, but as I said before, they are few and far in between.

.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
How many times have we seen populations of refugees fleeing across national borders during a war? You telling me all these people are rich and are just following their money they transfered to the new country before the fighting started?

Geoschmo

Well, I'm evolving my rich people theory as you post, so thanks for your inputs.

Ok, I agree that being poor doesn't make you a patriot.

Still, that doesn't make invalid the point that rich people are unpatriotic by default, and the ones that are patriotic should be considered the exection and not the rule.
The extent of a rich people's loyalty can only be tested when and if his country's economy takes the silver bullet. A war is not test enough, especially not a war on foreign territory.

.