Quote:
Originally Posted by t vago
It does not really matter. In the grand scheme of things, the military is under the control of the President, whether or not the President happens to be conservative, liberal, socialist, whatever. Regardless of what party the President happens to be a member of, the military still has to follow the President's orders. It says so right in the Constitution.
It's one thing to note that the military drew up a response based on observed facts, and inferences based on those facts. This is one facet of what the military does. With regard to the observed fact that the average global temperature appears to have gone up about 0.6 C, it is prudent that courses of action be taken should the inferences also be proven correct. To do so otherwise would just be foolish.
It is quite another thing the state that the military is apolitical, which it definitely is not. This is my point. Presidents select senior officers for promotions, for top military posts, and for positions within the Executive Department that require military postings. It is unavoidable that this will become political, and so it is unavoidable that the military will be influenced by politics.
And it is still another thing altogether to point to the fact that the military drew up plans with regard to the observed rise in temperature of 0.6 C, and somehow state it is further proof that AGW is proven. AGW is far from being proven, and is not the same at all as proof of a 0.6 C rise in average global temperature.
|
Saying military appointments are influenced by politics doesn't lead to the conclusion that what the military does is political. The Secretary of Transportation is appointed by the president, but that doesn't mean we have "Republican" or "Democratic" pot holes.
Some parts of government are very political, and others are mundane, even if the people running them are appointed through politics. If you want to show that this report is political as opposed to mundane then show how the military is flip-flopping on the issue depending on who the president is. If they aren't then odds are it's just threat assessment, eg the same thing the DoD does w/ energy, political instability, separatist groups, and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thymeclock
Bush was hardly a conservative. But compared to what? Or to what degree? This is like Aragonis' comparison of Stalin and Wilson, both socialists. However, compared to Obama, virtually anyone (except maybe Saul Alinsky?) would be considered more conservative...
|
Damn, I forgot he was a tree-hugging liberal.
Generally speaking someone who is a Republican is considered conservative and a Democrat is considered liberal. In practice most people who get elected tend to be centrists, eg no "tree-hugging" Gore and no "Invade the world" McCain, but that doesn't mean a Republican isn't conservative.
