goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Rage Against the McKee on July 19, 2010, 07:40:56 PM
-
Do you guys think that we spend too much on national defense? Not enough? Currently we spend nearly as much as the rest of the world combined. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with cutting the defense budget by about $100 billion.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending (http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending)
-
too much.
-
The current administration, elected on an entire series of lies . . . will spend more on wars, military, and intelligence than any other administration in US History, and as stated, more than the rest of the world combined in FY 2011.
Ask yourself why a trillion dollar war machine can't deal with a bunch of guys in caves in Afghanistan?? The answer . . . they don't want to finish this thing off. Plus, there's now a trillion dollars worth of minerals and other goodies in Afghanistan. Perpetual War . . . currently brought to you by the Barrack Obama administration.
-
Yea we could definitely afford to take an axe to that monster. Ending our two wars might be a good start.
-
Also remember that the current democratically controlled congress was swept into control of that branch of government in 2006 with the mandate of fiscal responsibility and extracting the U.S. from Middle East wars.
Fail . . . and . . . Fail.
-
The views of both parties regarding military spending are complete bullsh*t. Both should believe in cutting back defense, but neither party is serious about it.
-
The views of both parties regarding military spending are complete bullsh*t. Both should believe in cutting back defense, but neither party is serious about it.
Exactly. Pretty sad that no matter who you vote for (except Ron Paul, who would never win), we can just expect the defense budget to grow.
-
The military spending is the only thing the current admin spends money on that has any positive affect on the economy. Be careful what you wish for.
Sort of like all the moron libs demanding illegal alien amnesty. Wait til the Union imbeciles figures out that the illegals aren't go to keep pushing drugs, picking oranges, and shingling roofs, when they can work for GM and Alcoa and instantly increase their quality of life 5 fold. Then we'll see who the real racists are, just like we did back in the day when the freed slaves moved North and went to work in the factories for $2 a day less. Meanwhile yours truly will all of the sudden be able to purchase a bitchin' Chevy Malibu for $15,500 brand spankin new.
The easiest way to defeat a lib argument is to ask why, wait for an answer, then ask why again. They never think that far ahead, which is why they're slightly dumber than independent voters, who are slightly dumber than conservatives, who are all significantly dumber than me, who is still kind of dumb.
-
I hope the Mexicans make Toyota's, too. Toyota's are the best.
-
The views of both parties regarding military spending are complete bullsh*t. Both should believe in cutting back defense, but neither party is serious about it.
there is maybe a thin sliver of light between the 'pubs and dems, compared to the spectrum of possible policies. they're essentially identical.
-
The current administration, elected on an entire series of lies . . . will spend more on wars, military, and intelligence than any other administration in US History, and as stated, more than the rest of the world combined in FY 2011.
Ask yourself why a trillion dollar war machine can't deal with a bunch of guys in caves in Afghanistan?? The answer . . . they don't want to finish this thing off. Plus, there's now a trillion dollars worth of minerals and other goodies in Afghanistan. Perpetual War . . . currently brought to you by the Barrack Obama administration.
LOLERSKATE
I didn't know Dax was Michael Steele.
-
The military spending is the only thing the current admin spends money on that has any positive affect on the economy. Be careful what you wish for.
Sort of like all the moron libs demanding illegal alien amnesty. Wait til the Union imbeciles figures out that the illegals aren't go to keep pushing drugs, picking oranges, and shingling roofs, when they can work for GM and Alcoa and instantly increase their quality of life 5 fold. Then we'll see who the real racists are, just like we did back in the day when the freed slaves moved North and went to work in the factories for $2 a day less. Meanwhile yours truly will all of the sudden be able to purchase a bitchin' Chevy Malibu for $15,500 brand spankin new.
The easiest way to defeat a lib argument is to ask why, wait for an answer, then ask why again. They never think that far ahead, which is why they're slightly dumber than independent voters, who are slightly dumber than conservatives, who are all significantly dumber than me, who is still kind of dumb.
How do you figure that the military spending has a positive effect on the economy? Is it because part of the spending is outsourced to the private sector? Any positive effect on the economy is offset in the long term by the deaths of thousands of 18-22 year olds fighting a war that the United States will see no real benefit from winning. The money would be better spent domestically or better yet, not at all.
-
The current administration, elected on an entire series of lies . . . will spend more on wars, military, and intelligence than any other administration in US History, and as stated, more than the rest of the world combined in FY 2011.
Ask yourself why a trillion dollar war machine can't deal with a bunch of guys in caves in Afghanistan?? The answer . . . they don't want to finish this thing off. Plus, there's now a trillion dollars worth of minerals and other goodies in Afghanistan. Perpetual War . . . currently brought to you by the Barrack Obama administration.
LOLERSKATE
I didn't know Dax was Michael Steele.
If you had half a freaking brain you would know that Michael Steele wouldn't make a comment like what I said in 1000 years. Michael Steele would say they aren't spending enough and are going easy on the terra-ists.
The biggest point is . . . the Obamabots were duped by this guy. Maybe next time they'll understand maybe they should ask and demand a few more answers from the least experienced and least vetted presidential candidate in modern U.S. history.
-
I hope the Mexicans make Toyota's, too. Toyota's are the best.
The racism and bigotry embedded in this comment is embarrassing to goEMAW.com.
Mods please draft a referendum condemning everyone Michi Cat affiliates with. TIA
-
Do you guys think that we spend too much on national defense? Not enough? Currently we spend nearly as much as the rest of the world combined. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with cutting the defense budget by about $100 billion.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending (http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending)
Yeah but we're defending ourselves against the rest of the world. :runaway:
JK, miltary spending is just as bloated as anything else.
-
The current administration, elected on an entire series of lies . . . will spend more on wars, military, and intelligence than any other administration in US History, and as stated, more than the rest of the world combined in FY 2011.
Ask yourself why a trillion dollar war machine can't deal with a bunch of guys in caves in Afghanistan?? The answer . . . they don't want to finish this thing off. Plus, there's now a trillion dollars worth of minerals and other goodies in Afghanistan. Perpetual War . . . currently brought to you by the Barrack Obama administration.
LOLERSKATE
I didn't know Dax was Michael Steele.
If you had half a freaking brain you would know that Michael Steele wouldn't make a comment like what I said in 1000 years. Michael Steele would say they aren't spending enough and are going easy on the terra-ists.
The biggest point is . . . the Obamabots were duped by this guy. Maybe next time they'll understand maybe they should ask and demand a few more answers from the least experienced and least vetted presidential candidate in modern U.S. history.
I was referring to the fact that you and Michael Steele appear to be functionally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) when talking about politics. Stick to athletic department stuff dax. I love those posts. Bitter partisan dax that only reads World Net Daily and Free Republic is just sad.
-
The current administration, elected on an entire series of lies . . . will spend more on wars, military, and intelligence than any other administration in US History, and as stated, more than the rest of the world combined in FY 2011.
Ask yourself why a trillion dollar war machine can't deal with a bunch of guys in caves in Afghanistan?? The answer . . . they don't want to finish this thing off. Plus, there's now a trillion dollars worth of minerals and other goodies in Afghanistan. Perpetual War . . . currently brought to you by the Barrack Obama administration.
LOLERSKATE
I didn't know Dax was Michael Steele.
If you had half a freaking brain you would know that Michael Steele wouldn't make a comment like what I said in 1000 years. Michael Steele would say they aren't spending enough and are going easy on the terra-ists.
The biggest point is . . . the Obamabots were duped by this guy. Maybe next time they'll understand maybe they should ask and demand a few more answers from the least experienced and least vetted presidential candidate in modern U.S. history.
I was referring to the fact that you and Michael Steele appear to be functionally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) when talking about politics. Stick to athletic department stuff dax. I love those posts. Bitter partisan dax that only reads World Net Daily and Free Republic is just sad.
Um, I am actually lampooning Steele . . . thus that is not partisan in any way. In addition there is nothing about the actions of the current administration that says that they are nothing but war mongers. You focus way to much on what they say, and clearly have no clue as to what they're doing. In terms of Worldnet . . . they'd be calling for more military spending as well. Stating facts . . . over $1 trillion in defense, war and intelligence spending in FY 2011, expansion of troop prescence in Afghanistan, drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen and on and on and on. Apparently this is a reality your typical Obamabot can't deal with.
-
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/
Here's a nice juicy steak to dig into. Yes, this massive expansion started under Bush/Cheney . . . but here's the catch, none of it as been curtailed in any way by the current administration. In fact, in most cases it has been expanded. But hey I guess I am being "partisan and bitter".
-
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/
Here's a nice juicy steak to dig into. Yes, this massive expansion started under Bush/Cheney . . . but here's the catch, none of it as been curtailed in any way by the current administration. In fact, in most cases it has been expanded. But hey I guess I am being "partisan and bitter".
At least give Felix credit for the link man. I understand defense spending. It should be greatly reduced. Hell, military service is currently better (pay wise) than the majority of private sector jobs by about 17 percent because all politicians don't want to be portrayed as being weak on defense come election time.
The fact that Republicans are just beginning to awaken to the fact that defense spending is massively bloated is amusing to me. It's been that way for decades.
As for lampooning Steele, generally works best if you don't double down on Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking points.
And I'll give you $100 if you can guess who I voted for in 2008.
-
Um, I am actually lampooning Steele . . . thus that is not partisan in any way. In addition there is nothing about the actions of the current administration that says that they are nothing but war mongers. You focus way to much on what they say, and clearly have no clue as to what they're doing. In terms of Worldnet . . . they'd be calling for more military spending as well. Stating facts . . . over $1 trillion in defense, war and intelligence spending in FY 2011, expansion of troop prescence in Afghanistan, drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen and on and on and on. Apparently this is a reality your typical Obamabot can't deal with.
President Obama did win the Nobel Peace Prize . . . while his country was at war and he had done nothing to promote peace. Must have been a bad year for world peace activists.
-
First off, who said I was a republican . . . I have no idea WTH your talking about in terms of doubling down on talking points.
The bottom line is, the left/right paradigm is a lie . . . and speaking of laughing, I laugh at the Obamabots who actually bought into the propaganda of "Hope and Change", by and large it is business as usual at War Inc. It just has a new CEO.
Oh and thanks to Felix for posting the same article in another forum in a thread about tensions at work.
Nuts kicked . . . I wonder if Obama ordered more Drone Strikes while on the way to to the Nobel reception?? At this juncture we now understand what a complete fraud the Nobel Peace Prize is.
-
First off, who said I was a republican . . . I have no idea WTH your talking about in terms of doubling down on talking points.
The bottom line is, the left/right paradigm is a lie . . . and speaking of laughing, I laugh at the Obamabots who actually bought into the propaganda of "Hope and Change", by and large it is business as usual at War Inc. It just has a new CEO.
Oh and thanks to Felix for posting the same article in another forum in a thread about tensions at work.
Nuts kicked . . . I wonder if Obama ordered more Drone Strikes while on the way to to the Nobel reception?? At this juncture we now understand what a complete fraud the Nobel Peace Prize is.
The doubling down of Obama's defense spending being the greatest travesty in history. Because it's slightly more than Bush's but will be less than what the next president will spend. It's a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking point.
And I never called you a Republican specifically, though your political logic aligns greatly with some tea party tards. I surely hope you're not calling me an Obamabot. You might be losing out on $100. Because, you know, it's like possible to call a talking point against one person Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) but still not agree with that person and stuff.
-
If the baseline is, "Gosh, it's not that much more than Bush" . . . then it's a perfect talking point and frankly only lends more credence as to how a significant portion of the population drank from the vat of Kool-Aid Obama was selling.
Which in essence is yet another perfect example of the left/right paradigm fraud.
-
Oh, and the whole "transparency" fraud.
What hasn't Obama done to date?? There hasn't been an Inspector General at the CIA. So in essence, the least transparent administration in modern US History, has had no on in charge of being the "good cop" over at the CIA for over a year. Given the type of operations that the CIA is undertaking, some of which is by every definition state sanctioned assassination . . . this is not a good thing.
-
If the baseline is, "Gosh, it's not that much more than Bush" . . . then it's a perfect talking point and frankly only lends more credence as to how a significant portion of the population drank from the vat of Kool-Aid Obama was selling.
Which in essence is yet another perfect example of the left/right paradigm fraud.
Yeah, it's like no one ever warned the American public that presidential precedents would be abused by later presidents. I think in regards to military spending a certain president might have even warned of the current situation. Could just be that ultra-liberal public education I received though. Please provide the link where I've stated I thought Obama was going to reign in defense/war/intelligence spending.
So we've got this problem. Let's call it the military industrial complex to dress it up a little bit. How do you propose we fix this? What reforms do you want to see? Where are the actual cuts going to come from?
-
So we've got this problem. Let's call it the military industrial complex to dress it up a little bit. How do you propose we fix this? What reforms do you want to see? Where are the actual cuts going to come from?
Well, we could start by not providing a defense for Japan. We could end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well.
-
So we've got this problem. Let's call it the military industrial complex to dress it up a little bit. How do you propose we fix this? What reforms do you want to see? Where are the actual cuts going to come from?
Well, we could start by not providing a defense for Japan. We could end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well.
And you're out of office in a heart beat because you've just given in to China and the terrorists. No soccer mom in the world is going to vote for you.
Japan might be politically possible. And ending the war in Afghanistan would take about a year if we just brought back the troops and left all the equipment. The war in Iraq is currently winding down. It's taking time because we're pulling billions of dollars of equipment out in addition to the troop drawdown.
And of those three, Japan is really only a small sliver of the $600 billion-plus in defense spending that doesn't include the wars. That total doesn't include things like the CIA, Homeland Security or the FBI either. So you've managed to kick a few grains of sand off the mountain, which is a start.
-
If the baseline is, "Gosh, it's not that much more than Bush" . . . then it's a perfect talking point and frankly only lends more credence as to how a significant portion of the population drank from the vat of Kool-Aid Obama was selling.
Which in essence is yet another perfect example of the left/right paradigm fraud.
Yeah, it's like no one ever warned the American public that presidential precedents would be abused by later presidents. I think in regards to military spending a certain president might have even warned of the current situation. Could just be that ultra-liberal public education I received though. Please provide the link where I've stated I thought Obama was going to reign in defense/war/intelligence spending.
So we've got this problem. Let's call it the military industrial complex to dress it up a little bit. How do you propose we fix this? What reforms do you want to see? Where are the actual cuts going to come from?
This isn't about you . . . you're trying to defend the indefensible.
In addition such a weak argument reduces war to nothing more than just another policy issue . . . war is now akin to promising not to raise taxes or promising to be transparent?? Come on, that's pathetic. The last time war on this scope was reduced to just another policy issue, they built a monument and engraved 52,000 names into it.
Also lets come back to that, "not that much more than Bush" . . . well, if somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 to $200 BILLION more than any of Bush's total annual expenditures on defense and all related sub components is "Not that much more" . . . than I suppose you have a point.
If we all go to the Paul Krugman school of economics, all that means is, we just buy another printing press.
-
If the baseline is, "Gosh, it's not that much more than Bush" . . . then it's a perfect talking point and frankly only lends more credence as to how a significant portion of the population drank from the vat of Kool-Aid Obama was selling.
Which in essence is yet another perfect example of the left/right paradigm fraud.
Yeah, it's like no one ever warned the American public that presidential precedents would be abused by later presidents. I think in regards to military spending a certain president might have even warned of the current situation. Could just be that ultra-liberal public education I received though. Please provide the link where I've stated I thought Obama was going to reign in defense/war/intelligence spending.
So we've got this problem. Let's call it the military industrial complex to dress it up a little bit. How do you propose we fix this? What reforms do you want to see? Where are the actual cuts going to come from?
This isn't about you . . . you're trying to defend the indefensible.
In addition such a weak argument reduces war to nothing more than just another policy issue . . . war is now akin to promising not to raise taxes or promising to be transparent?? Come on, that's pathetic. The last time war on this scope was reduced to just another policy issue, they built a monument and engraved 52,000 names into it.
Also lets come back to that, "not that much more than Bush" . . . well, if somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 to $200 BILLION more than any of Bush's total annual expenditures on defense and all related sub components is "Not that much more" . . . than I suppose you have a point.
If we all go to the Paul Krugman school of economics, all that means is, we just buy another printing press.
So no proposals other than to complain about the spending. I may have to double down on you being a tea tard.
-
How do you figure that the military spending has a positive effect on the economy? Is it because part of the spending is outsourced to the private sector? Any positive effect on the economy is offset in the long term by the deaths of thousands of 18-22 year olds fighting a war that the United States will see no real benefit from winning. The money would be better spent domestically or better yet, not at all.
To answer your second question: Yes. I believe this takes care of the first question as well.
To respond to your poorly thought out retort: pffffft. Let's see, we've got the value of 18-22 year old lives (apparently their efforts save none, and the cost of protecting those fighting is too much), a war "with no real benefit" (please inform our leaders, this is breaking news), a claim that domestic spending would do better (enormous LOL considering the current administration's efforts). Stop driveling, TIA.
I think the government should spend less money across the board, but skimping on Military spending during a war is a bad idea. If we're going to send a bunch of "18-22 year olds" into battle by executive order, it would be extremely unfair to not give them the full resources of our nation. Not to mention, full support gives them a better chance at success (the end game of war).
If you want to end the war, I'm probably cool with that. However, I'm a little surprised by some of the comments from the left leaning members of this board. Don't you fools know Democrats love war (see WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Croatia, Middle East(Dax covered this above))? They also love nuclear weapons (see FDR, Truman, Kennedy, etc.).
You guys need to get your rhetoric straight, you can't just be the party of NO. Also, please check with your union homeboys on the whole amnesty thing, I'm pretty sure you're against that as well.
TIA,
Sugar Dick
-
To answer your second question: Yes. I believe this takes care of the first question as well.
How much positive impact do you think this spending has? Do you think we get a good return on our $500 billion+ investment?
To respond to your poorly thought out retort: pffffft. Let's see, we've got the value of 18-22 year old lives (apparently their efforts save none, and the cost of protecting those fighting is too much), a war "with no real benefit" (please inform our leaders, this is breaking news), a claim that domestic spending would do better (enormous LOL considering the current administration's efforts). Stop driveling, TIA.
I truly believe that not one American life has been saved by the war in Iraq. Honestly, taking $100 billion from the defense budget annually to upgrade affordable mass transit would save more American lives due to reduced traffic accidents than what would be lost if terrorist attacks in America were to increase ten fold. This money would also create private sector jobs.
There also is an economic loss associated with every soldier who dies and especially those who get wounded.
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2007/03/iraq-war-wounded-bilmes-cost (http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2007/03/iraq-war-wounded-bilmes-cost)
Why is ending war a partisan issue? If you look at the policies of both parties, both should be in favor of cutting the defense budget. If our defense budget continues to grow, and it will, we will outspend every nation in the world combined. It just seems like overkill to me.
-
I truly believe that not one American life has been saved by the war in Iraq. Honestly, taking $100 billion from the defense budget annually to upgrade affordable mass transit would save more American lives due to reduced traffic accidents than what would be lost if terrorist attacks in America were to increase ten fold. This money would also create private sector jobs.
Cooky. Also not sure why you've separated Iraq, UNLESS your politicizing the war effort (see below) :runaway:
There also is an economic loss associated with every soldier who dies and especially those who get wounded.
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2007/03/iraq-war-wounded-bilmes-cost (http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2007/03/iraq-war-wounded-bilmes-cost)
Why can't you think of all government policies this way? I'm normally like contrarian thinking, but this line of thinking is absurd and you know it.
Why is ending war a partisan issue? If you look at the policies of both parties, both should be in favor of cutting the defense budget. If our defense budget continues to grow, and it will, we will outspend every nation in the world combined. It just seems like overkill to me.
Because our leaders, particularly democrats, have made it one.
The defense budget is "a sparrows belch" in the world of government spending as compared to entitlement spending like SS and Medicare, and soon Obamacare. Entitlement spending is enemy number one re: government spending. Everything else is chump change.
Other than that, I think we're probably in agreement.
-
I truly believe that not one American life has been saved by the war in Iraq. Honestly, taking $100 billion from the defense budget annually to upgrade affordable mass transit would save more American lives due to reduced traffic accidents than what would be lost if terrorist attacks in America were to increase ten fold. This money would also create private sector jobs.
Cooky. Also not sure why you've separated Iraq, UNLESS your politicizing the war effort (see below) :runaway:
I separated Iraq because I think the war in Afghanistan actually has merit, or at least it used to.
There also is an economic loss associated with every soldier who dies and especially those who get wounded.
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2007/03/iraq-war-wounded-bilmes-cost (http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2007/03/iraq-war-wounded-bilmes-cost)
Why can't you think of all government policies this way? I'm normally like contrarian thinking, but this line of thinking is absurd and you know it.
I actually do think of all government policies this way. I don't typically read the New Statesman, but it was the first source I could find that mentions the cost of taking care of all the injured veterans for the next 60-70 years.
Why is ending war a partisan issue? If you look at the policies of both parties, both should be in favor of cutting the defense budget. If our defense budget continues to grow, and it will, we will outspend every nation in the world combined. It just seems like overkill to me.
Because our leaders, particularly democrats, have made it one.
The defense budget is "a sparrows belch" in the world of government spending as compared to entitlement spending like SS and Medicare, and soon Obamacare. Entitlement spending is enemy number one re: government spending. Everything else is chump change.
Entitlement spending sucks, but there is no fair way to eliminate it. I think that spending as much as we do on the elderly is especially terrible when compared to how little we spend on education.
Other than that, I think we're probably in agreement.
-
If the baseline is, "Gosh, it's not that much more than Bush" . . . then it's a perfect talking point and frankly only lends more credence as to how a significant portion of the population drank from the vat of Kool-Aid Obama was selling.
Which in essence is yet another perfect example of the left/right paradigm fraud.
Yeah, it's like no one ever warned the American public that presidential precedents would be abused by later presidents. I think in regards to military spending a certain president might have even warned of the current situation. Could just be that ultra-liberal public education I received though. Please provide the link where I've stated I thought Obama was going to reign in defense/war/intelligence spending.
So we've got this problem. Let's call it the military industrial complex to dress it up a little bit. How do you propose we fix this? What reforms do you want to see? Where are the actual cuts going to come from?
This isn't about you . . . you're trying to defend the indefensible.
In addition such a weak argument reduces war to nothing more than just another policy issue . . . war is now akin to promising not to raise taxes or promising to be transparent?? Come on, that's pathetic. The last time war on this scope was reduced to just another policy issue, they built a monument and engraved 52,000 names into it.
Also lets come back to that, "not that much more than Bush" . . . well, if somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 to $200 BILLION more than any of Bush's total annual expenditures on defense and all related sub components is "Not that much more" . . . than I suppose you have a point.
If we all go to the Paul Krugman school of economics, all that means is, we just buy another printing press.
So no proposals other than to complain about the spending. I may have to double down on you being a tea tard.
Your father isn't by chance on the faculty at K-State is he??
The latest ploy of the defenders of the current policy, now that they realize it's exactly the same as the old policies is to tap out with the "what are your solutions" tactic.
1. Closure of hundreds of un-needed military bases world wide. (Will never happen, the U.S. is an empire, Obama is the latest CEO of the empire).
2. Massive review of current weapons systems and weapons systems development. There is massive redundancy which cost billions. (Will never happen until the day the line item veto is made available to the executive branch).
3. Consolidation and reduction of force within the intelligence community. (will never happen until the perpetual pissing contest ends, like most countries with large intelligence operations, they spend more time fighting with each other than they do the bad guys).
4. A multi-year probation period for military officers and DOD civilian personnel that prevents them from leaving the DOD and going to work directly with military contractors. (a pipe dream I know, but millions are wasted because somebody with to much information is able to work the system from the private sector using knowledge ganered while on active military/DOD duty).
Don't say extraction from the wars . . . because that ain't happening anytime soon.
-
Nope, I'm by far the most liberal member of my family and I'm not all that liberal.
Since you admit all of your plans are politically untenable, any idea of what might be feasible?
Things like building more on-post housing/taking a percentage of any BHAs that soldiers use to buy housing. I'm not talking about housing everyone on post, just raising what the standard 1/3 on 2/3 off to an even 50-50. Also with newer post housing, all utilities should be metered at the residence and give those living there a basic utility allowance. More than that comes out of regular pay.
Reduce the reliance on contractors. A janitor at Fort Riley starts at $15/hour, about double what PFCs make disregarding the housing allowance. This is also true to a greater extent of private contractors in war zones. Everything from truck drivers to the people training Iraqi police. Often times being paid up to 10 times more money than an Army truck driver or MP would be paid. If you think these contracting costs are going away when the wars are done, they're not.
There are hundreds of other similar things that can be done, including the difficult but not impossible feat of halting pay raises for the military until parity with the private sector is achieved.
-
Nope, I'm by far the most liberal member of my family and I'm not all that liberal.
Since you admit all of your plans are politically untenable, any idea of what might be feasible?
Things like building more on-post housing/taking a percentage of any BHAs that soldiers use to buy housing. I'm not talking about housing everyone on post, just raising what the standard 1/3 on 2/3 off to an even 50-50. Also with newer post housing, all utilities should be metered at the residence and give those living there a basic utility allowance. More than that comes out of regular pay.
Reduce the reliance on contractors. A janitor at Fort Riley starts at $15/hour, about double what PFCs make disregarding the housing allowance. This is also true to a greater extent of private contractors in war zones. Everything from truck drivers to the people training Iraqi police. Often times being paid up to 10 times more money than an Army truck driver or MP would be paid. If you think these contracting costs are going away when the wars are done, they're not.
There are hundreds of other similar things that can be done, including the difficult but not impossible feat of halting pay raises for the military until parity with the private sector is achieved.
The market dictates military pay. They don't exactly turn people away. If you wanted to get that military pay, I'm sure they'd more than happy to have you enlist. The military sets a quota on the number of recruits they want and sets wages to meet that quota. The problem is that the quota is too high. Lowering the quota would reduce the pay.
-
Yeah, why save Billions on true military reform, when you can get those janitors.
-
Nope, I'm by far the most liberal member of my family and I'm not all that liberal.
Since you admit all of your plans are politically untenable, any idea of what might be feasible?
Things like building more on-post housing/taking a percentage of any BHAs that soldiers use to buy housing. I'm not talking about housing everyone on post, just raising what the standard 1/3 on 2/3 off to an even 50-50. Also with newer post housing, all utilities should be metered at the residence and give those living there a basic utility allowance. More than that comes out of regular pay.
Reduce the reliance on contractors. A janitor at Fort Riley starts at $15/hour, about double what PFCs make disregarding the housing allowance. This is also true to a greater extent of private contractors in war zones. Everything from truck drivers to the people training Iraqi police. Often times being paid up to 10 times more money than an Army truck driver or MP would be paid. If you think these contracting costs are going away when the wars are done, they're not.
There are hundreds of other similar things that can be done, including the difficult but not impossible feat of halting pay raises for the military until parity with the private sector is achieved.
The market dictates military pay. They don't exactly turn people away. If you wanted to get that military pay, I'm sure they'd more than happy to have you enlist. The military sets a quota on the number of recruits they want and sets wages to meet that quota. The problem is that the quota is too high. Lowering the quota would reduce the pay.
Don't talk about things you know nothing about. Regular military pay has no relation to quotas. The military did use incentives (bonuses) during the height of both wars to retain and attract new enlistments, but those have been greatly reduced because of the current economy. All branches of the military met or exceeded their quotas last year but amazingly base pay didn't go down.
Military pay and BHAs are based on rank and years of service. Again, base pay has zero to do with recruitment of new enlistments. About 20 years ago military pay was 23 percent below private sector wages, which prompted what is now an almost annual outsized pay raise that has shot well past the original goal of parity to the current 17 percent surplus. Essentially a high-school graduate entering the Army can expect to earn 17-percent more than his peers entering the civilian labor force. Same goes for college graduates entering officer school etc.
Dax,
You said all of your ideas were politically impossible. Good job there of identifying those true reforms that can't be done. So sorry for focusing on things that can be done and still save a good deal of money. More money than you were complaining about Obama's "slight increase" earlier. So you know, not much at all.
-
Nope, I'm by far the most liberal member of my family and I'm not all that liberal.
Since you admit all of your plans are politically untenable, any idea of what might be feasible?
Things like building more on-post housing/taking a percentage of any BHAs that soldiers use to buy housing. I'm not talking about housing everyone on post, just raising what the standard 1/3 on 2/3 off to an even 50-50. Also with newer post housing, all utilities should be metered at the residence and give those living there a basic utility allowance. More than that comes out of regular pay.
Reduce the reliance on contractors. A janitor at Fort Riley starts at $15/hour, about double what PFCs make disregarding the housing allowance. This is also true to a greater extent of private contractors in war zones. Everything from truck drivers to the people training Iraqi police. Often times being paid up to 10 times more money than an Army truck driver or MP would be paid. If you think these contracting costs are going away when the wars are done, they're not.
There are hundreds of other similar things that can be done, including the difficult but not impossible feat of halting pay raises for the military until parity with the private sector is achieved.
The market dictates military pay. They don't exactly turn people away. If you wanted to get that military pay, I'm sure they'd more than happy to have you enlist. The military sets a quota on the number of recruits they want and sets wages to meet that quota. The problem is that the quota is too high. Lowering the quota would reduce the pay.
Don't talk about things you know nothing about. Regular military pay has no relation to quotas. The military did use incentives (bonuses) during the height of both wars to retain and attract new enlistments, but those have been greatly reduced because of the current economy. All branches of the military met or exceeded their quotas last year but amazingly base pay didn't go down.
Military pay and BHAs are based on rank and years of service. Again, base pay has zero to do with recruitment of new enlistments. About 20 years ago military pay was 23 percent below private sector wages, which prompted what is now an almost annual outsized pay raise that has shot well past the original goal of parity to the current 17 percent surplus. Essentially a high-school graduate entering the Army can expect to earn 17-percent more than his peers entering the civilian labor force. Same goes for college graduates entering officer school etc.
Dax,
You said all of your ideas were politically impossible. Good job there of identifying those true reforms that can't be done. So sorry for focusing on things that can be done and still save a good deal of money. More money than you were complaining about Obama's "slight increase" earlier. So you know, not much at all.
Simply reducing pay without reducing military operations will leave our troops undermanned, as less people will enlist. I don't know about you, but base pay has a hell of a lot to do with whether or not I apply for a job. We can reduce pay, but we must also reduce the total number of personnel to accomplish this without a draft.
I'm also not sure where the comparison to the private sector pay is coming from. What private sector jobs are similar to military service?
-
You do realize military personnel don't just carry 80-pound packs and shoot guns all day right? They do spend some time training for things like that, but they also have mechanics, truck drivers, journalists, support staff (office staff), pilots, engineers etc. Think of each individual Army installation as it's own country. Each one has virtually all the parts it would need to function as a country. Until recently when a good portion of the service side of things were privatized to "save money".
So someone entering the Army with only a high school as a mechanic starts at an E1 while in training. That's about $17,000/year after boot camp plus housing and other smaller allowances for uniforms etc. Well the Army is going to pay that E1 his base pay, put a roof over his head, provide full benefits etc. while training him to be a mechanic. His friend that didn't join up but still wants to be a mechanic might make a little more as an apprentice but won't get tax free housing, will probably have to pay some part of the benefits premiums if they're even offered and will also have to pay for school.
Also, that E1 will get to retire with his full benefits and 80 percent of his ending base pay when he's 38. Coincidentally, that's a much, much bigger attraction than base pay is the early retirement offered through the Army. At 38 he's free to either stay in or "retire" go find another job in the private sector or, what usually happens, be hired by a military contractor to do the same job at the same post for more money.
This isn't even taking into account the fact that at some point this soldier might get married and qualify for off-post housing, receiving a nice monthly check that can easily pay a mortgage and all utilities and then keep everything when his time is up. FWIW, a E1-E4 soldiers at Fort Riley receive between $950-$1400/ month for housing allowances if they live off post. That's tax free and in addition to their base pay. Fort Riley is also on the bottom rung of installations for allowances. On the coasts, those allowances can start at $2,000-plus. And that's the lowest level enlisted soldiers. No sergeants, SFCs or officers.
-
You do realize military personnel don't just carry 80-pound packs and shoot guns all day right? They do spend some time training for things like that, but they also have mechanics, truck drivers, journalists, support staff (office staff), pilots, engineers etc. Think of each individual Army installation as it's own country. Each one has virtually all the parts it would need to function as a country. Until recently when a good portion of the service side of things were privatized to "save money".
So someone entering the Army with only a high school as a mechanic starts at an E1 while in training. That's about $17,000/year after boot camp plus housing and other smaller allowances for uniforms etc. Well the Army is going to pay that E1 his base pay, put a roof over his head, provide full benefits etc. while training him to be a mechanic. His friend that didn't join up but still wants to be a mechanic might make a little more as an apprentice but won't get tax free housing, will probably have to pay some part of the benefits premiums if they're even offered and will also have to pay for school.
Also, that E1 will get to retire with his full benefits and 80 percent of his ending base pay when he's 38. Coincidentally, that's a much, much bigger attraction than base pay is the early retirement offered through the Army. At 38 he's free to either stay in or "retire" go find another job in the private sector or, what usually happens, be hired by a military contractor to do the same job at the same post for more money.
This isn't even taking into account the fact that at some point this soldier might get married and qualify for off-post housing, receiving a nice monthly check that can easily pay a mortgage and all utilities and then keep everything when his time is up. FWIW, a E1-E4 soldiers at Fort Riley receive between $950-$1400/ month for housing allowances if they live off post. That's tax free and in addition to their base pay. Fort Riley is also on the bottom rung of installations for allowances. On the coasts, those allowances can start at $2,000-plus. And that's the lowest level enlisted soldiers. No sergeants, SFCs or officers.
They also do not get to pick where they have to work, are at risk of being bombed or shot at, and are not allowed to quit. Why would anyone in their right mind want to be an Army mechanic if the pay and benefits were not better than what they could get in the private sector?
-
You do realize military personnel don't just carry 80-pound packs and shoot guns all day right? They do spend some time training for things like that, but they also have mechanics, truck drivers, journalists, support staff (office staff), pilots, engineers etc. Think of each individual Army installation as it's own country. Each one has virtually all the parts it would need to function as a country. Until recently when a good portion of the service side of things were privatized to "save money".
So someone entering the Army with only a high school as a mechanic starts at an E1 while in training. That's about $17,000/year after boot camp plus housing and other smaller allowances for uniforms etc. Well the Army is going to pay that E1 his base pay, put a roof over his head, provide full benefits etc. while training him to be a mechanic. His friend that didn't join up but still wants to be a mechanic might make a little more as an apprentice but won't get tax free housing, will probably have to pay some part of the benefits premiums if they're even offered and will also have to pay for school.
Also, that E1 will get to retire with his full benefits and 80 percent of his ending base pay when he's 38. Coincidentally, that's a much, much bigger attraction than base pay is the early retirement offered through the Army. At 38 he's free to either stay in or "retire" go find another job in the private sector or, what usually happens, be hired by a military contractor to do the same job at the same post for more money.
This isn't even taking into account the fact that at some point this soldier might get married and qualify for off-post housing, receiving a nice monthly check that can easily pay a mortgage and all utilities and then keep everything when his time is up. FWIW, a E1-E4 soldiers at Fort Riley receive between $950-$1400/ month for housing allowances if they live off post. That's tax free and in addition to their base pay. Fort Riley is also on the bottom rung of installations for allowances. On the coasts, those allowances can start at $2,000-plus. And that's the lowest level enlisted soldiers. No sergeants, SFCs or officers.
They also do not get to pick where they have to work, are at risk of being bombed or shot at, and are not allowed to quit. Why would anyone in their right mind want to be an Army mechanic if the pay and benefits were not better than what they could get in the private sector?
I see you've never been around a bunch of E1-E4s before.
All kidding aside, military service isn't for everyone. It has been and still is a way out for a lot of people. Up until 9/11 there had been several million people serve the full 20 years having spent a week or less in actual field TRAINING.
Don't forget, people entering as E1s generally only have a high school education. They usually never held a full-time job before and their recruiter is making all sorts of promises about what they'll be doing. Factor in the early retirement, GI Bill and a few other things it's not that difficult of a choice, especially for someone that knows college isn't an option either through grades or finances or whatever.
-
The reforms I spoke of can be done with the right political will to do them . . . quit being so literal.
-
The reforms I spoke of can be done with the right political will to do them . . . quit being so literal.
The the Pentagon has asked for no pay increase for troops this year. How long til that political will is there?
-
This is a fantastic (and brief) paper on the relationship between military spending and economic growth.
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/4/7/9/pages84798/p84798-1.php (http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/4/7/9/pages84798/p84798-1.php)
-
This is an issue tied into broader issues that are so far above most people's heads and knowledge scope it's amazing. (Not referring to people in this thread just people in general.)
By the way, there is nothing wrong with Dax's post listing the things he'd like to see happen while admitting that they won't, and/or can't, happen. That's actually a useful and fairly advanced form of observation.
There's some very interesting reading out there on things like the Military/Industrial Complex and the basic strategies and reasonings behind the way the United States has positioned itself militarily over the years.
Where would America be today without it's military spending?
The US has spent trillions of dollars to insure it's place as the military superpower of the world. Is it in America's interest to give up this advantage? What are the implications of doing so? How big of an advantage is does this really provide us?
And as far as the current war (occupation); Why are we really over there? What American interests may this serve? What could be the implications of losing our presence there?
And if you really want to dig deep; Why did the US establish an Israeli puppet government in the most unstable environment possible and one that will surely lead to more conflict? How could this of been seen to be in America's benefit? How did this effect American's military strategy and options in the middle east going forward from that point?
-
The military spending is the only thing the current admin spends money on that has any positive affect on the economy. Be careful what you wish for.
Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics and former adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign, and Alan Blinder, a Princeton University economist and former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton, modeled the past and what might have happened without the much-derided government responses.
Their findings: “Effects on real Gross Domestic Product, jobs and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government’s response, GDP in 2010 would be about 6.5 percent lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8.5 million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.”
The report notes that the bailout and federal loans had a deeper effect than stimulus spending, but that the stimulus added 2.7 million jobs to a limping economy and raised GDP by a full 2 percent.
They stated, “Maybe the country and the world were just lucky. But we take another view: The Great Recession gave way to recovery as quickly as it did largely because of the unprecedented responses by monetary and fiscal policymakers.”
Also:
Results show that military spending has an indirect effect on economic growth through investment. The effect of military spending on investment is found to be nonlinear: while for low levels of military spending there is a positive re- lationship, for moderate levels of spending a further increase in military spending has a negative impact on investment. Due to the positive effect of investment on economic growth, this nonlinearity is transferred to the relationship between military spending and economic growth. Apart from this indirect effect, defense spending was found to have no signi?cant direct effect on economic performance.
-
The current administration, elected on an entire series of lies . . . will spend more on wars, military, and intelligence than any other administration in US History, and as stated, more than the rest of the world combined in FY 2011.
Ask yourself why a trillion dollar war machine can't deal with a bunch of guys in caves in Afghanistan?? The answer . . . they don't want to finish this thing off. Plus, there's now a trillion dollars worth of minerals and other goodies in Afghanistan. Perpetual War . . . currently brought to you by the Barrack Obama administration.
LOLERSKATE
I didn't know Dax was Michael Steele.
If you had half a freaking brain you would know that Michael Steele wouldn't make a comment like what I said in 1000 years. Michael Steele would say they aren't spending enough and are going easy on the terra-ists.
The biggest point is . . . the Obamabots were duped by this guy. Maybe next time they'll understand maybe they should ask and demand a few more answers from the least experienced and least vetted presidential candidate in modern U.S. history.
Steele said this though:
Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele suggested at a Connecticut fundraiser that Afghanistan is "a war of Obama's choosing" despite the fact that it began years before the president took office.
As criticism of his comments grew Friday, Steele issued a statement saying that he supported the U.S. troops, but did not address his factual mistake.
Steele also said of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan: "This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."
The United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, less than a month after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Steele's comments were caught on amateur video and posted to YouTube. (See the video below. Reporters were not allowed at the fund-raising event.) In the video, he can be heard suggesting that President Obama failed to understand that waging war in Afghanistan has been shown throughout history to be a losing proposition. Steele also suggests America should have a "background" role in the country, "sort of shaping the changes that were necessary in Afghanistan as opposed to directly engaging troops."
"Well if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that's the one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan," Steele says of the president. "Alright? Because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan without committing more troops."
Funny, that sounded like the opposite of "they aren't spending enough."
-
FWIW, I love contractors. :dunno: Should be paid more IMO.
-
The current administration, elected on an entire series of lies . . . will spend more on wars, military, and intelligence than any other administration in US History, and as stated, more than the rest of the world combined in FY 2011.
Ask yourself why a trillion dollar war machine can't deal with a bunch of guys in caves in Afghanistan?? The answer . . . they don't want to finish this thing off. Plus, there's now a trillion dollars worth of minerals and other goodies in Afghanistan. Perpetual War . . . currently brought to you by the Barrack Obama administration.
LOLERSKATE
I didn't know Dax was Michael Steele.
If you had half a freaking brain you would know that Michael Steele wouldn't make a comment like what I said in 1000 years. Michael Steele would say they aren't spending enough and are going easy on the terra-ists.
The biggest point is . . . the Obamabots were duped by this guy. Maybe next time they'll understand maybe they should ask and demand a few more answers from the least experienced and least vetted presidential candidate in modern U.S. history.
Steele said this though:
Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele suggested at a Connecticut fundraiser that Afghanistan is "a war of Obama's choosing" despite the fact that it began years before the president took office.
As criticism of his comments grew Friday, Steele issued a statement saying that he supported the U.S. troops, but did not address his factual mistake.
Steele also said of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan: "This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."
The United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, less than a month after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Steele's comments were caught on amateur video and posted to YouTube. (See the video below. Reporters were not allowed at the fund-raising event.) In the video, he can be heard suggesting that President Obama failed to understand that waging war in Afghanistan has been shown throughout history to be a losing proposition. Steele also suggests America should have a "background" role in the country, "sort of shaping the changes that were necessary in Afghanistan as opposed to directly engaging troops."
"Well if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that's the one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan," Steele says of the president. "Alright? Because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan without committing more troops."
Funny, that sounded like the opposite of "they aren't spending enough."
When I said that Steele would say we weren't spending enough, I wasn't talking specifically about Afghanistan, I was talking about the entirety of the "war on terror". Plus in general, most staunch Republican's are all for the perpetual war, and continually say that Obama isn't being "tough enough" . . . which is why I say they clearly aren't paying any attention to what's going on.
-
And I might have been referring to the fact that America has a very long history of spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined, especially since the end of the Cold War. Also adding in the war spending, since Obama so obviously chose to start two wars before he even became a senator. Two things that are just as tone deaf as Steele's comments about Afghanistan being a war of Obama's choosing.
If anything you should be ecstatic that Obama is in office an not McCain, since we'd probably already be at war with Iran by now if he had won the election.
-
There is also a level of plausibility in that the Neo-Liberal Bush Administration didn't see the need to try and "nation build" in Afghanistan.
But make no mistake about it, Obama is the one responsible for widening the war in Af-PAK.
In terms of McCain, I doubt we'd have already done anything with Iran. There's still too many pieces of the puzzle that have to go into place for that to happen.
-
There is also a level of plausibility in that the Neo-Liberal Bush Administration didn't see the need to try and "nation build" in Afghanistan.
But make no mistake about it, Obama is the one responsible for widening the war in Af-PAK.
In terms of McCain, I doubt we'd have already done anything with Iran. There's still too many pieces of the puzzle that have to go into place for that to happen.
To "win" the war in Afghanistan, nation building needs to occur. Bombing a stone-age country into a pebble-age country and installing a puppet government just means that you can prevent terrorist from branching out to attack outside the country for as long as you're there. We leave today, the Taliban would have control over Afghanistan within weeks and begin plotting all over again.
Instead, we need to be providing real infrastructure, which includes a real education system. There's a reason successful occupations generally last 10-14 years, or about the amount of time it takes to educate a generation and give them options to improve their lives.
I don't think there's any argument that Obama is widening the war in Af-Pak. The place needs a little cleaning up after the previous administration got bored and decided to do the nation building in Iraq.
If McCain's recent statements and writings are to be believed, we'd already be at war with Iran. Of course, he's long since lost any integrity he may have once had so that's a tossup.
-
This is an issue tied into broader issues that are so far above most people's heads and knowledge scope it's amazing. (Not referring to people in this thread just people in general.)
By the way, there is nothing wrong with Dax's post listing the things he'd like to see happen while admitting that they won't, and/or can't, happen. That's actually a useful and fairly advanced form of observation.
There's some very interesting reading out there on things like the Military/Industrial Complex and the basic strategies and reasonings behind the way the United States has positioned itself militarily over the years.
Where would America be today without it's military spending?
The US has spent trillions of dollars to insure it's place as the military superpower of the world. Is it in America's interest to give up this advantage? What are the implications of doing so? How big of an advantage is does this really provide us?
And as far as the current war (occupation); Why are we really over there? What American interests may this serve? What could be the implications of losing our presence there?
And if you really want to dig deep; Why did the US establish an Israeli puppet government in the most unstable environment possible and one that will surely lead to more conflict? How could this of been seen to be in America's benefit? How did this effect American's military strategy and options in the middle east going forward from that point?
1. The us did not establish Israel
2. The Israelis are hardly puppets
-
There is also a level of plausibility in that the Neo-Liberal Bush Administration didn't see the need to try and "nation build" in Afghanistan.
But make no mistake about it, Obama is the one responsible for widening the war in Af-PAK.
In terms of McCain, I doubt we'd have already done anything with Iran. There's still too many pieces of the puzzle that have to go into place for that to happen.
To "win" the war in Afghanistan, nation building needs to occur. Bombing a stone-age country into a pebble-age country and installing a puppet government just means that you can prevent terrorist from branching out to attack outside the country for as long as you're there. We leave today, the Taliban would have control over Afghanistan within weeks and begin plotting all over again.
Instead, we need to be providing real infrastructure, which includes a real education system. There's a reason successful occupations generally last 10-14 years, or about the amount of time it takes to educate a generation and give them options to improve their lives.
I don't think there's any argument that Obama is widening the war in Af-Pak. The place needs a little cleaning up after the previous administration got bored and decided to do the nation building in Iraq.
If McCain's recent statements and writings are to be believed, we'd already be at war with Iran. Of course, he's long since lost any integrity he may have once had so that's a tossup.
You don't need to build an entire nation in Afghanistan. The Bush administration approach was far more feasible, and Afghanistan was relatively calm compared to what it is today. Again, ask yourself, why can't a Trillion dollar plus war, and intelligence machine keep a bunch of cave dwellers bottled up in the hills?? Simple answer, they can . . . but War Inc. doesn't want to keep them "just" bottled up . . . War Inc. wants a troop surge, and drone strikes, and 1000's more contractors. Plus, there's a trillion dollars in natural resources to conquer and pipelines to build and U.S. intelligence wants control of the drugs.
Just reconcile yourself to the reality that the current regime in Washington makes PNAC look like a bunch of flower children. If all goes as planned we'll Balkanize AF-Pak and expand our sphere of influence and thwart Chinese influence.
But hey, if you want to live the puppy dog fantasy of nation building, super highways, power plants and democracy as the ultimate endgame, where a benevolent United States packs up and goes home when the "last" terra-ist is dead . . . don't let me stop you.
-
Dax killing it in this thread. It's easy, War Inc doesn't want to end the war because they can make billions more profit off of it. Think about Vietnam, same fing thing
-
This is an issue tied into broader issues that are so far above most people's heads and knowledge scope it's amazing. (Not referring to people in this thread just people in general.)
By the way, there is nothing wrong with Dax's post listing the things he'd like to see happen while admitting that they won't, and/or can't, happen. That's actually a useful and fairly advanced form of observation.
There's some very interesting reading out there on things like the Military/Industrial Complex and the basic strategies and reasonings behind the way the United States has positioned itself militarily over the years.
Where would America be today without it's military spending?
The US has spent trillions of dollars to insure it's place as the military superpower of the world. Is it in America's interest to give up this advantage? What are the implications of doing so? How big of an advantage is does this really provide us?
And as far as the current war (occupation); Why are we really over there? What American interests may this serve? What could be the implications of losing our presence there?
And if you really want to dig deep; Why did the US establish an Israeli puppet government in the most unstable environment possible and one that will surely lead to more conflict? How could this of been seen to be in America's benefit? How did this effect American's military strategy and options in the middle east going forward from that point?
1. The us did not establish Israel
2. The Israelis are hardly puppets
Not literally but it's a good description I think of how the US views the advantages of it's support of Israel.
I'd suggest reading most work by Noam Chomsky but especially one of his earlies the classic "fateful triangle" about the US-Israeli-Palestine relationship and the US unconditional support to help farther it's basic goal of control in the middle east.
-
Israel is actually our biggest counterintelligence threat. So incredibly far from a puppet and definitely not viewed that way by anybody that has to deal with them (in politics or defense). If the US and Israel appear in lockstep at times, it's just because we happen to be going the same way. Not because we're leading them anywhere.
-
Israel is actually our biggest counterintelligence threat. So incredibly far from a puppet and definitely not viewed that way by anybody that has to deal with them (in politics or defense). If the US and Israel appear in lockstep at times, it's just because we happen to be going the same way. Not because we're leading them anywhere.
Damn, thought I was going to be able to bust your balls with China but I read counterintelligence. Carry on.
-
This is an issue tied into broader issues that are so far above most people's heads and knowledge scope it's amazing. (Not referring to people in this thread just people in general.)
By the way, there is nothing wrong with Dax's post listing the things he'd like to see happen while admitting that they won't, and/or can't, happen. That's actually a useful and fairly advanced form of observation.
There's some very interesting reading out there on things like the Military/Industrial Complex and the basic strategies and reasonings behind the way the United States has positioned itself militarily over the years.
Where would America be today without it's military spending?
The US has spent trillions of dollars to insure it's place as the military superpower of the world. Is it in America's interest to give up this advantage? What are the implications of doing so? How big of an advantage is does this really provide us?
And as far as the current war (occupation); Why are we really over there? What American interests may this serve? What could be the implications of losing our presence there?
And if you really want to dig deep; Why did the US establish an Israeli puppet government in the most unstable environment possible and one that will surely lead to more conflict? How could this of been seen to be in America's benefit? How did this effect American's military strategy and options in the middle east going forward from that point?
1. The us did not establish Israel
2. The Israelis are hardly puppets
Not literally but it's a good description I think of how the US views the advantages of it's support of Israel.
I'd suggest reading most work by Noam Chomsky but especially one of his earlies the classic "fateful triangle" about the US-Israeli-Palestine relationship and the US unconditional support to help farther it's basic goal of control in the middle east.
I'm pretty familiar with Chomsky. I think felix reads better right now.
-
This is an issue tied into broader issues that are so far above most people's heads and knowledge scope it's amazing. (Not referring to people in this thread just people in general.)
By the way, there is nothing wrong with Dax's post listing the things he'd like to see happen while admitting that they won't, and/or can't, happen. That's actually a useful and fairly advanced form of observation.
There's some very interesting reading out there on things like the Military/Industrial Complex and the basic strategies and reasonings behind the way the United States has positioned itself militarily over the years.
Where would America be today without it's military spending?
The US has spent trillions of dollars to insure it's place as the military superpower of the world. Is it in America's interest to give up this advantage? What are the implications of doing so? How big of an advantage is does this really provide us?
And as far as the current war (occupation); Why are we really over there? What American interests may this serve? What could be the implications of losing our presence there?
And if you really want to dig deep; Why did the US establish an Israeli puppet government in the most unstable environment possible and one that will surely lead to more conflict? How could this of been seen to be in America's benefit? How did this effect American's military strategy and options in the middle east going forward from that point?
1. The us did not establish Israel
2. The Israelis are hardly puppets
Not literally but it's a good description I think of how the US views the advantages of it's support of Israel.
I'd suggest reading most work by Noam Chomsky but especially one of his earlies the classic "fateful triangle" about the US-Israeli-Palestine relationship and the US unconditional support to help farther it's basic goal of control in the middle east.
I'm pretty familiar with Chomsky. I think felix reads better right now.
Noam is always entertaining but certainly not always right. He can get carried away but at least he gets people thinking and talking about the stuff that matters.
'Course, for every one Noam Chomsky, there are a thousand fellow american's talking about "winning this war" and waiting for democracy to kick in or whatever.
-
Israel is actually our biggest counterintelligence threat. So incredibly far from a puppet and definitely not viewed that way by anybody that has to deal with them (in politics or defense). If the US and Israel appear in lockstep at times, it's just because we happen to be going the same way. Not because we're leading them anywhere.
It's true that Israeli-US relations have, no too surprisingly, gotten worse under the Obama administration. But Israel and the US have walked step for step with eachother for the last 60+ years and will continue to do so. Relations may not be what they were a couple decades ago, (maybe Israel is starting to figure out they are just viewed as a pawn in the middle east chess game by the US), but it's not important or necessary that we contol their every move, just that we have them there when we need them.
Puppet-government was the wrong choice of words. But they're fighting the same guys we are, and we know what side they'll be on when the crap hits the fan, so that's good enough.
Israel relied heavily on US backing to establish their own country, and continues to rely heavily on US support, trade, and military backing. In return for this the US gets an essential ally right where they need one.
Putting up with a little of their BS is well-worth the advantages that they provide us.
-
There is also a level of plausibility in that the Neo-Liberal Bush Administration didn't see the need to try and "nation build" in Afghanistan.
But make no mistake about it, Obama is the one responsible for widening the war in Af-PAK.
In terms of McCain, I doubt we'd have already done anything with Iran. There's still too many pieces of the puzzle that have to go into place for that to happen.
To "win" the war in Afghanistan, nation building needs to occur. Bombing a stone-age country into a pebble-age country and installing a puppet government just means that you can prevent terrorist from branching out to attack outside the country for as long as you're there. We leave today, the Taliban would have control over Afghanistan within weeks and begin plotting all over again.
Instead, we need to be providing real infrastructure, which includes a real education system. There's a reason successful occupations generally last 10-14 years, or about the amount of time it takes to educate a generation and give them options to improve their lives.
I don't think there's any argument that Obama is widening the war in Af-Pak. The place needs a little cleaning up after the previous administration got bored and decided to do the nation building in Iraq.
If McCain's recent statements and writings are to be believed, we'd already be at war with Iran. Of course, he's long since lost any integrity he may have once had so that's a tossup.
You don't need to build an entire nation in Afghanistan. The Bush administration approach was far more feasible, and Afghanistan was relatively calm compared to what it is today. Again, ask yourself, why can't a Trillion dollar plus war, and intelligence machine keep a bunch of cave dwellers bottled up in the hills?? Simple answer, they can . . . but War Inc. doesn't want to keep them "just" bottled up . . . War Inc. wants a troop surge, and drone strikes, and 1000's more contractors. Plus, there's a trillion dollars in natural resources to conquer and pipelines to build and U.S. intelligence wants control of the drugs.
Just reconcile yourself to the reality that the current regime in Washington makes PNAC look like a bunch of flower children. If all goes as planned we'll Balkanize AF-Pak and expand our sphere of influence and thwart Chinese influence.
But hey, if you want to live the puppy dog fantasy of nation building, super highways, power plants and democracy as the ultimate endgame, where a benevolent United States packs up and goes home when the "last" terra-ist is dead . . . don't let me stop you.
Yes, the Bush administration policy of leaving for Iraq was so feasible that both the Taliban and al-queda surged in Afghanistan along with drug cartels. Obviously it was well managed.
Yes the current administration is so dead set on perpetual war that at the end of the month we'll have the lowest troop level in Iraq since the invasion and be a little less than 18 months away from pulling the bulk of our troops out of Afghanistan.
And that's a super straw man of what nation building is. Congrats Dax, you successfully trolled me.
-
By the way, I'm not sure who's arguing for what in this thread, but if you want to "win" this war, get the troops out, and have any shot at all at establishing some sort of stable government, you do what Obama has done and send more resources and troops.
I(f you want this perpetual war/occupation that everyone is talking about, you do what Bush did and send just enough to hold our footing their until we figure out a better plan for this middle east mess, or the crap hits the fan.
Which one is more realistic? Which one is more advantageous for the US?
-
By the way, I'm not sure who's arguing for what in this thread, but if you want to "win" this war, get the troops out, and have any shot at all at establishing some sort of stable government, you do what Obama has done and send more resources and troops.
I(f you want this perpetual war/occupation that everyone is talking about, you do what Bush did and send just enough to hold our footing their until we figure out a better plan for this middle east mess, or the crap hits the fan.
Which one is more realistic? Which one is more advantageous for the US?
Or you could go home for supper?
-
By the way, I'm not sure who's arguing for what in this thread, but if you want to "win" this war, get the troops out, and have any shot at all at establishing some sort of stable government, you do what Obama has done and send more resources and troops.
I(f you want this perpetual war/occupation that everyone is talking about, you do what Bush did and send just enough to hold our footing their until we figure out a better plan for this middle east mess, or the crap hits the fan.
Which one is more realistic? Which one is more advantageous for the US?
Or you could go home for supper?
Email Obama