Way to win votes Mr Obama!

[bigbadmax]

Thousands of jobs to be axed....whoo hoo you go Obama, Yep YOU GO!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16433511

[lizard-lix]

Thousands of jobs to be axed....whoo hoo you go Obama, Yep YOU GO!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16433511

So now that we have finally pulled out of two wars we should never have started, we should keep spending all the money that crippled our economy on a huge army we didn't need in the first place?

Hopefully there will be a plan to use government monies for useful things like fixing the old and crumbling US infrastructure (from roads to fiber communications and alternative energy), which will employ ex-soldiers in civilian life.

Why should the US maintain hundreds of thousands of military jobs when there is nothing for them to do under their charter? We only need to keep enough to defend ourselves, not the entire world.

Sorry, if you want to beat up Obama, pick something bad, not something good. We can't afford to be the world's police force out of our own pocket anymore. Maybe some of you fine folks in other countries would pick up the slack while we fix our own problems.

[jamieknyc]

It wasn't the wars that created the present economic difficulties, but the entirely civilian housing bubble.

[niftyshellshock]

Thousands of jobs to be axed....whoo hoo you go Obama, Yep YOU GO!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16433511

That's President Obama to you.

And I thought we told the English what they could do to their political opinion back in 1783.

[bigbadmax]

The President of the USA is referreed to as "MR president", before throwing stones, one should check for glass windows.

So Nifty, you all for people loosing their jobs after defending their country? you may be a tool but your not the sharpest in the tool box.

[slipnslide]

Yeah, this is a pretty poorly thought out criticism of Obama. Your argument would follow that the government should ramp up spending and hire everyone to work for the military.

[keefer201]

So now that we have finally pulled out of two wars we should never have started, we should keep spending all the money that crippled our economy on a huge army we didn't need in the first place?

Hopefully there will be a plan to use government monies for useful things like fixing the old and crumbling US infrastructure (from roads to fiber communications and alternative energy), which will employ ex-soldiers in civilian life.

Why should the US maintain hundreds of thousands of military jobs when there is nothing for them to do under their charter? We only need to keep enough to defend ourselves, not the entire world.

Sorry, if you want to beat up Obama, pick something bad, not something good. We can't afford to be the world's police force out of our own pocket anymore. Maybe some of you fine folks in other countries would pick up the slack while we fix our own problems.

I personally sat on my front steps and watched the Towers burn. I also personally know six men who died in the Towers. In case you just crawled out from under a rock, we didn't start any wars.

[keefer201]

It wasn't the wars that created the present economic difficulties, but the entirely civilian housing bubble.

You are entirely correct, Jamie. But watch out, the GSE, via Fannie and Freddie are coming at us again.

[bigbadmax]

As far as Im aware....no EXTRA milltary jobs were created for afghanistan or IRAQ, if so please enlighten with sources.

You werent complaining about millitary numbers prior to 9/11 or just after.
EITHER support your troops or have the guts to say you dont and be thankfull of THEIR SACRIFICE for YOU!

[slipnslide]

EITHER support your troops or have the guts to say you dont and be thankfull of THEIR SACRIFICE for YOU!

Ugh, this tired old fallacious argument.

[slipnslide]

5'10 male with a small beer belly trying to loose it!, looking to meet couples and males for mutual stimulation and general friendship.

Did you loosen that beer belly yet?

[bigbadmax]

slip you obviously dont support the forces..... have the guts to own up and not be hiding behind yer mammis skirt.

[slipnslide]

slip you obviously dont support the forces..... have the guts to own up and not be hiding behind yer mammis skirt.

Or I've obviously taken a few philosophy courses and know fallacies when I see them.

[darkeyes]

slip you obviously dont support the forces..... have the guts to own up and not be hiding behind yer mammis skirt.

If u care to check back I have never supported British forces in any conflict or those of any nation or organisation in any conflict... I have said it more than once in these forums... they do not go forth to protect us or our way of life but to further the interests and way of life of those who rule us and have the real power in our societies... war is a cruel unnecessary evil and patriotism is the fuel by which the elite power ordinary men and women's belief in the rightness of their cause.. not justice... not right... just suspicion, fear, hate, racism and xenophobia instilled in the masses through propaganda and lies allied to and in the interests of the greed of those who rule us...

[bigbadmax]

Fran,

No matter the occupation, can you really support thousands of job losses? si this political suicide in an election year?

[darkeyes]

Fran,

No matter the occupation, can you really support thousands of job losses? si this political suicide in an election year?

Yes I can.. not job losses per se.. but the loss of jobs intended for the furtherance of warfare being converted into more socially useful and economically productive employment.. God it will be difficult I dont deny that, but it isnt impossible... we have already converted a number of naval and air bases for instance into civilian ports. Glasgow Airport for instance before I was born was once a naval air base and now employs far more people and contributes far more to the economy than ever it did as a navy base...When I was little, Rosyth Dockyard employed 4000 people and now I believe it is less than 1500 as a civilian base.. the trick is always in maintaining the job numbers and that is where wit and imagination has been lacking. Some places will do better than others and some sadly may even wither and disappear... nothing lasts forever but overall it would be a huge boon to our economy.. but I firmly believe it is not impossible for the plus to the economy will make it more than self financing and in time if done right will create even more employment opportunities......

It is something the UK has always been bad at changing from one kind of industry and developing another more modern to replace it.. yet we should be very good at it and have been on occasion when the will and vision are there... whatever we do and however we change there will be problems and even hardship for some people.. but done right this can be minimised.. no easy task but again not an impossible one...

I'm not sure if I have answered your question entirely Max but it is how I see it.. not just for now in a time of economic and military retraction and entrenchment but when times are good.. although I must admit when times are good is the better time to do it and grab the opportunity cos there are more opportunities to be had and more resources to fund change... but when times are good we then seem to lack the political will to make necessary change very often...

It will all need thought, planning and investment but it can and should be attempted to show the world just what can be done as nations move from a war to a more peace orientated economy... if any country can do it.. it is the US...

[bigbadmax]

The only issue I have is the last statement, "If any country can do it. its the U.S" (paraphrased).

The U.S is not united but its in a state.....It could not help the victims of Katrina as they were too poor to matter. The U.S is in so much debt irs not even funny anymore....it was in debt before any banking crisis or whatever you wish to call it.

I cant wait for China to assert its dominance as world richest and THE superpower,bully boy tactics wont work then and the U.S are quickly trying to counter its own demise...

if the Euro fails, a possibility but only a very small one, we in the uk have troubles.
If the U.S fails then more trouble will ensue hence the high regard of the states economy...take the economy away and who knows....take jobs away and the economy WILL suffer.

On a different note...If scotland gets independence, and I am all in favour of it, then what about the loss of its economy as the BRITISH forces will withdraw and possibly exclude Scots as members of the forces? not just a few :2cents: in the ole coffers

[DuckiesDarling]

It used to be there were two jobs for sure that were lifelong and guaranteed. Postal Service and Military. That's changing, but the world moves on. What does amuse me are posters from across the sea thinking that because Obama has to tighten the belt that people are gonna swing to the Republican party... you know the one that has this Marraige Pact where they swear to try and pass Constitutional Amendment saying marriage is between a man and a woman. I think most of the ones on this site would think a 1000 times before voting for someone who wants to deny a right they have sought for themselves and others for years.

[darkeyes]

The only issue I have is the last statement, "If any country can do it. its the U.S" (paraphrased).

The U.S is not united but its in a state.....It could not help the victims of Katrina as they were too poor to matter. The U.S is in so much debt irs not even funny anymore....it was in debt before any banking crisis or whatever you wish to call it.

I cant wait for China to assert its dominance as world richest and THE superpower,bully boy tactics wont work then and the U.S are quickly trying to counter its own demise...

if the Euro fails, a possibility but only a very small one, we in the uk have troubles.
If the U.S fails then more trouble will ensue hence the high regard of the states economy...take the economy away and who knows....take jobs away and the economy WILL suffer.

On a different note...If scotland gets independence, and I am all in favour of it, then what about the loss of its economy as the BRITISH forces will withdraw and possibly exclude Scots as members of the forces? not just a few :2cents: in the ole coffers

U do have a point Max... the US is a bit more tired than it was half a century ago and over stretched.. maybe ur right I dont know... but it can shift when it really wants to even now... as to the other questions I make no comment except to say I agree... especially about China... I dread the day they really are no 1.. if they arent already.. western culture will have to look to its laurels and maybe even the very survival of that culture will be endangered... where the likes of us in the lgbt will be in the great scheme of things should that come to pass for now I make no comment.. but it is a concern.. and one we should never ignore..

As to my own little part of the world.. I am not a nationalist.. British or Scottish.. I am first and foremost a human being.. I have fought nationalism all my life and shall do so for as long as I draw breath.. but in the end should the Scottish people decide to go their own way that is democracy isnt it? As a country we would survive and probably even thrive in time and find our own way.. regarding the military I doubt they would be debarred from the armed forces of the rest of the UK nor would people from the other countries of the UK be kept out of any Scottish military organisation.. people from the south of Ireland werent with the creation of the Irish Free State and I dont think they are even now.. if British bases are removed from Scotland it would have an economic effect.. but it is one I would prepared to bear should it come to pass because of my pacifism... in time the country would adjust and would find ways of compensating.

But a prediction forya babes.. it wont happen... if I'm wrong I will eat Katie Melua's pussy... If I'm right she can eat mine...:tong: Both sound pretty gud to me... tee hee:bigrin: I know.. flippant.. but I am tired.. and do have dreams...;) Night Max..

[bigbadmax]

Fran,

keep katie....fraid shes one of the only artistes i cant stand...her and bellinda carlisle....just cant tollerate their singing...looks well thats anotha thing:tongue:

[niftyshellshock]

Disagree about the war = you are treasonous and hate American servicemen


I see how it is.

Btw, ever wonder which candidate gets the most support from the armed forces?

Here's a hint: It's the one who's against the two wars and favors a complete pull back of all troops from bases around the world.

[æonpax]

Disagree about the war = you are treasonous and hate American servicemen
I see how it is.
Btw, ever wonder which candidate gets the most support from the armed forces?
Here's a hint: It's the one who's against the two wars and favors a complete pull back of all troops from bases around the world.


It's called a false dichotomy. See pictorial example below.




http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9587/billoriley.gif

[slipnslide]

It's called a false dichotomy. See pictorial example below.


Ha! Thanks. I didn't want to get all preachy and academic - but you accomplished what I was trying to say in a much more clever way!

[niftyshellshock]

It's called a false dichotomy. See pictorial example below.




http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9587/billoriley.gif

I'm...uh...on your side, yo.

[Long Duck Dong]

based around what I am reading, obama is talking about cutting 1/2 a trillion over the next decade ( about 10 - 15% of ground based troops )

generally the first place that happens is in a reduced military troop intake... the retaining of active service technicians over riflemen etc..... so it is very possible to achieve most of the cost cutting and job losses by reducing the number of jobs that are open in the first place.....

they did the same thing in NZ.... and yes we have the same screaming about massive job losses..... that never happened.... cos it was phased in over a few years with reduced job losses........

beginning to wonder if this site is becoming Bashamerica/americans/military/religion/anybodythatsaysanythingthatwedonotlike.com

[æonpax]

Ha! Thanks. I didn't want to get all preachy and academic - but you accomplished what I was trying to say in a much more clever way!

The false dichotomy or false dilemma always assumes two choices (either/or) when in fact, there are many choices and outcomes beyond what was stated. For example, I was opposed to the immoral US invasion of Iraq, from the start. Nonetheless, I supported our troops. There were, and perhaps still are, a surprising amount of people who see that as illogical.

A person who enlists in the service, is honor and duty bound to go where he/she is told. They are not asked if they support or believe in any given conflict, they made a vow to serve. The men and women in the US Military went to Iraq did not ask for this war, the politicians and corporations wanted it. Even if the war they are in is illegal or immoral, they fulfilled their vow and need to be supported. It's not a hard concept to figure out; to be against a war but to support the troops.

In this case, I was confronted with the same false dichotomy; If I don't support the war, I'm a traitor which also means my support for the troops is a put on. In this case, those who make this claim erroneously see being against a war but supporting the troops as being "mutually exclusive", which of course, it isn't.

In another forum I'm in, I'm tackling hard core democrats who say I can't be a liberal because I don't support Obama. Again, the same false dichotomy.

[darkeyes]

It is a difficult thing for me to say as I have done to the face of a soldier sailor or airman that I can offer him no support for his efforts, or as I have done to a friend that I wish her a safe return from her trip to Basra but not support her mission or purpose. As a pacifist and as a humanist I could do no other... and as a pacifist I believe offering support to the combatants of either side betrays the principles of non violence, peace and love I espouse, but as a pacifist I wish no harm to be inflicted on any.

In war of course no harm being inflicted is impossible... they are fought not for our way of life but for the good and well being of other more powerful and selfish interests. To me it is a dichotomy I can only resolve by condemning the conflict and refusing to offer support and succour to those who who fight that conflict. I bear no ill will to any other human being or group of human beings for what they believe or because of the land of their birth. Any shooting war is not my war but that of others who have a quite different agenda.. it is not the war of those who are sent off to die or kill either... I am a pacifist or I am not. We condemn a war or we dont. No shade of grey to me is possible. And offering support to our troops or anyone elses is to me a shade of grey I am simply incapable of understanding. It does not matter whether I sympathise with a cause.. warring to win that cause is immoral and offering to support those who violently fight and kill for that cause is no less immoral in my opinion.

I will however say this and please do not take what I am about to say as support for any military venture or for my country's or anyone elses troops or fighters.. it is incumbent on those who send people out to fight die and be maimed for THEIR cause to ensure that they live up to their responsibilities to do all they can for their combatants upon their return from active duty or upon conflict's end.. too often governments (and other warring organisations) have ignored the plight of the people they sent out to be put in harm's way and kill and be killed on their behalf and have inadequately done what they can to help them through often serious physical and psychological injuries, providing employment opportunities, education and helping them return to a more normal civilian life. This is an abrogation of responsibility for which many governments have fallen down on. I may not be able to offer support for troops who are in conflict but I can offer support in only one way... that governments honour their obligations to the men and women who they sent out to do their dirty work when their part in any conflict is done either through serious injury or simply end of enlistment and my personal obligation to those people is to try and ensure that governments are shamed into doing just that.. not out of support for them as soldiers.. but out of support for them as human beings who were duped into much sacrifice and trauma for a cause which was not theirs..

... none of it is ever done in my name... non violence is an absolute with me no matter the cost to me personally.. wars can be avoided if only we have the proper will.. but I am human and can bear no suffering or misery in another human being.. and so any support I offer soldiers, sailors and airmen is not support for them as military men and women, but as a human being who cares for other human beings...

[Chromehorn]

Much to the disappointment of our European allies the US military is not occupying their nations to provide employment for it's citizens. The US has stayed in Europe much longer than need be now that the Cold War is over. Repositioning our forces and trimming down some of the excess is a wise move. I doubt that in any foreseeable conflict we'll need four tank divisions, and our current piloted aircraft will be the last piloted aircraft as we are committing ourselves to the use of drones. (all of the drones used in Afganistan are "piloted" from an air base in New Mexico.)

It wasn't a division of troops that took out Osama Bin Laden, but a well trained group of SEALS with state of the art technology, intelligence, and logistics that did the job.

I applaud the president for making this decision as it will save billions of dollars and does not affect the security of our nation nor our ability to respond to the needs of our allies, as unappreciated as that often is.

[lizard-lix]

I personally sat on my front steps and watched the Towers burn. I also personally know six men who died in the Towers. In case you just crawled out from under a rock, we didn't start any wars.

I was in the Plaza the week before the strike, after attending the funeral of a friend, and I watched the Towers fall wondering how many more I was losing.

I spent a week luckily finding out that all my buds who were supposed to be in the Towers that morning (4 of them), all, for some reason missed their appointments or had them cancelled that day.

But, we DID start both wars, there were no WMD in Iraq and it was Al Queda, not the Afghan Government who did the strike on the Towers. We should have gone after Al Queda covertly, HARD and finished them before they grew to what they are now in too many countries to manage.

Thousands of US lives were needlessly wasted along with 100's of thousands of truly innocent civilian lives in Afghanistan and Iraq...

And yes jamieknyc the housing bubble had a LOT to do with it, as did Wall Street, but the money we spent on the wars was just as big a contribution.

[jamieknyc]

I was actually there on September 11th, so let's call it quits to the 'can you top this' game.

The original poster isn't wrong that people who are let go from the military and from defense industries won't be put into what Fran called 'socially productive' employment, but instead will simply end up on what Fran would call the 'dole.' However, no one wants to pay more taxes to keep the military as an employment club. I doubt Obama will suffer for it on election day. Higher taxes are more politically toxic than unemployed defense industry workers.

[bigbadmax]

LDD i quite agree but offer this in reposte,

I recently visited an RAF base here in the uk, upon talking to the o.c or boss if you will, he stated that he has a colleague serving the army.

This colleague was told he would have to return to afghanistan.....again.... for the 5th time in two years, where he faced 3 to 1 odds of being killed or seriously injured as he was a bomb disposal expert....or loose his job in job cuts......The reasoning was that if he were deployed....they could not fire him.

mmmm the sword of damocles or what ?

Slip...well i would suggest that you learn to respect someone who is prepared to sacrifice comfort and their personage for the life you lead.

Wars are not nice pink fluffy places but grotesque and the ones who deploy to these areas are there purely because they serve their country...not because they are heroes but because its their job. I am not sure as to your occupation but I do not decry your job or you as a person, ergo neither should you to others.

[BiCplAz]

It used to be there were two jobs for sure that were lifelong and guaranteed. Postal Service and Military. That's changing, but the world moves on. What does amuse me are posters from across the sea thinking that because Obama has to tighten the belt that people are gonna swing to the Republican party... you know the one that has this Marraige Pact where they swear to try and pass Constitutional Amendment saying marriage is between a man and a woman. I think most of the ones on this site would think a 1000 times before voting for someone who wants to deny a right they have sought for themselves and others for years.

I am on this site and 100% bisexual and I know MARRIAGE SHOULD BE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN ONLY AND BOTH HAVING THE SEX ORGANS THEY WERE BORN WITH.:tongue:

[Not2str8]

I personally sat on my front steps and watched the Towers burn. I also personally know six men who died in the Towers. In case you just crawled out from under a rock, we didn't start any wars.

We didn't start any wars ? Really ? We just spent 9 years in Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the events of 9/11. What they did have is oil.

[Not2str8]

Thousands of jobs to be axed....whoo hoo you go Obama, Yep YOU GO!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16433511

In 1998, the United States spent more on it's military than all other countries combined. Since 1998, that spending has tripled. Recognizing that military spending has gotten out of hand and doing something to trim it is not a job-cutting program. We simply cannot sustain that level of spending. As it is, that money is being borrowed, since we apparently no longer believe in taxing anyone.

[slipnslide]

The false dichotomy or false dilemma always assumes two choices (either/or) when in fact, there are many choices and outcomes beyond what was stated.

Politics nowadays is rife with false dichotomies.

[æonpax]

In 1998, the United States spent more on it's military than all other countries combined. Since 1998, that spending has tripled. Recognizing that military spending has gotten out of hand and doing something to trim it is not a job-cutting program. We simply cannot sustain that level of spending. As it is, that money is being borrowed, since we apparently no longer believe in taxing anyone.





Obama Puts His Stamp on Strategy for a Leaner Military

President Obama has for the first time put his own stamp on an all-encompassing American military policy by turning from the grinding ground wars that he inherited from the Bush administration and refocusing on what he described as a smaller, more agile force across Asia, the Pacific and the Middle East.

In an unusual appearance at the Pentagon briefing room on Thursday, Mr. Obama outlined a new national defense strategy driven by three realities: the winding down of a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a fiscal crisis demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in Pentagon budget cuts and a rising threat from China and Iran.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/us/obama-at-pentagon-to-outline-cuts-and-strategic-shifts.html

As far as I’m concerned, this is long overdue.

[pepperjack]

In 1998, the United States spent more on it's military than all other countries combined. Since 1998, that spending has tripled. Recognizing that military spending has gotten out of hand and doing something to trim it is not a job-cutting program. We simply cannot sustain that level of spending. As it is, that money is being borrowed, since we apparently no longer believe in taxing anyone.

I grew up in a military family & have memories of Dad wisely capitalizing on military waste to provide for the family. As an adult, I worked for a major food manufacturer for a number of years and once again witnessed the same exorbitant waste. I think that exposure has contributed to molding me into a frugal survivor, even when I'm in a prosperous mode.:2cents:

[12voltman59]

Actually---the Obama administration is picking up something actually started in the early days of the George W. Bush administration---with his then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld looking to do the same sort of major realignment of US military forces---had 9/11 not happened and they didn't find some other reason for going into Iraq----we might have seen an even larger "cut" to the military than what is now being proposed back in the early 2000s.

In defense circles since the end of the Cold War, there has been a great deal of consideration of doing away with the large forces and going more to the model of relying upon smaller, "rapid deployment forces" like the Green Berets, Seals, etc with the proposed elimination of entire Army divisions, cutting the number of fleets for both the Navy and Air Force, things of that nature.

It can be argued that beyond the initial "shock and awe" of Iraq---some of the most effective work done by the American military in the past decade and our two side-by-side wars was done by small scale forces like those we deployed in Afghanistan where our people worked in tandem with local forces to do much of the "heavy lifting."

Force reductions like this one being proposed by Obama is really nothing new and something of this nature has been considered since at least the administration of Geo HW Bush--so its a bipartisan thing.

For those whose job it is to deal wit things of this nature--they would say that this sort of thing is really about looking at what is necessary when it comes to the nature of our military forces and about directing our limited financial resources into a military that more reflects the realities of today---with the nature of terrorism being done by mostly stateless entities----with big armies, navies and air forces really not being able to deal with such groups all that well----depending instead upon smaller more mobile fast reacting strike teams like the Seals that did Bin Laden in are more cost effective.

Don't worry that we aren't spending enough money or marshaling forces to counter the terror threat----by the best information now available--since 9/11--we in the US alone moved rapidly to beef up our intelligence capabilities to fight the terror threat to the tune that they are building several big complexes that dwarf the Pentagon in square footage out in the burbs of DC to house these new intelligence units--with an estimated one million personnel now working in this area which is roughly the same number that we have in the uniform services.

If you have followed the various public affairs/military/intelligence journals that exist like Foreign Policy and World Affairs for the past decade or so where defense/intelligence/international relations "experts" post up their articles on topics of this sort---the cuts of this sort have long been a subject that has been considered by those whose work it is to deal with such things---in fact---within the defense community types---one of the criticisms they make about the proposals being floated by the Obama administration is that the cuts and changes don't go far enough.

The only ones who don't really want this sort of thing taking place are the neo-con types who want America to continue to have a military force that many in the defense strategy world say is economically unfeasible to continue and also doesn't really model the military to current world realities----there is not too much for us to get stoked up about this matter since the levels at which such things get considered and where the decisions like this are made----we have not one whit of input or control over and it probably doesn't even matter who the president is since things like this really come from the bureaucracy of the "defense establishment" and from other elements we little inconsequential peons have no knowledge of and it doesn't matter what we think about it anyway because they do whatever they do no matter whether we like it or not.

I wouldn't lose any sleep or allow yourself to get indigestion over this issue because if it happens---there is nothing we can do about it anyway.

[pepperjack]

I personally sat on my front steps and watched the Towers burn. I also personally know six men who died in the Towers. In case you just crawled out from under a rock, we didn't start any wars.

My son lives in the Boston area; he called me after the attack. Shortly before, he had ventured into NYC and ascended to the observation deck of one of the towers; afterwards, he visited ground zero; so, he witnessed a very graphic before & after scene! On the phone, he was stammering, at a complete loss of words, trying to convey what he saw. I'll never forget that conversation.

[æonpax]

Actually---the Obama administration is picking up something actually started in the early days of the George W. Bush administration---with his then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld looking to do the same sort of major realignment of US military forces---had 9/11 not happened and they didn't find some other reason for going into Iraq----we might have seen an even larger "cut" to the military than what is now being proposed back in the early 2000s.

As far as Bush is concerned, such claims you made do not hold up when compared with other facts. For example;


As early as 2000, he set about undoing the savings that were done under the Clinton administration, by increasing the military budget prior to 9/11 - Council on Foreign Relations - http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/55859/lawrence-korb-et-al/money-for-nothing-a-penny-saved-not-a-penny-earned-in-the-us-mil


George W Bush campaigned on a pledge to "rebuild" our military through increased spending. I will add I found nothing about some greater plan of his to realign our military. - The Washington Post (Fact Checker) - http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush_Defense.htm


Today's Republicans want to INCREASE spending, not reduce it. I see no such bipartisan cooperation. - Political USA - http://www.politicususa.com/en/defense-spending-republicans

[falcondfw]

Disagree about the war = you are treasonous and hate American servicemen


I see how it is.

Btw, ever wonder which candidate gets the most support from the armed forces?

Here's a hint: It's the one who's against the two wars and favors a complete pull back of all troops from bases around the world.

Nifty,
That is the biggest load of bull I have heard in a long time. VERY few of the troops support Ron Paul and you Paulites would do well to stick to the issues and try to win on merit, instead of by destroying others. It sickens me the ads that Paul is running. And now he gets his son into the Mix to attack Rick Santorum.
Paul talks a good game before things get serious "oh we need to not do the negative campaining.". The second things get serious "DAMN THE TORPEDOS!"

[falcondfw]

The false dichotomy or false dilemma always assumes two choices (either/or) when in fact, there are many choices and outcomes beyond what was stated. For example, I was opposed to the immoral US invasion of Iraq, from the start. Nonetheless, I supported our troops. There were, and perhaps still are, a surprising amount of people who see that as illogical.

A person who enlists in the service, is honor and duty bound to go where he/she is told. They are not asked if they support or believe in any given conflict, they made a vow to serve. The men and women in the US Military went to Iraq did not ask for this war, the politicians and corporations wanted it. Even if the war they are in is illegal or immoral, they fulfilled their vow and need to be supported. It's not a hard concept to figure out; to be against a war but to support the troops.

In this case, I was confronted with the same false dichotomy; If I don't support the war, I'm a traitor which also means my support for the troops is a put on. In this case, those who make this claim erroneously see being against a war but supporting the troops as being "mutually exclusive", which of course, it isn't.

In another forum I'm in, I'm tackling hard core democrats who say I can't be a liberal because I don't support Obama. Again, the same false dichotomy.

Actually aeon, there are many things you and I disagree on, but that was an extremely thoughtful and honest reply. Seems like maybe you served.

[æonpax]

Actually aeon, there are many things you and I disagree on, but that was an extremely thoughtful and honest reply. Seems like maybe you served.

My brother was in both Iraq and Afghanistan but even before that, as a CNA (part-time) I had the privilege of serving many of our disabled Vets.

[darkeyes]

Slip...well i would suggest that you learn to respect someone who is prepared to sacrifice comfort and their personage for the life you lead.




Whether they sacrifice comfort and safety for the life Slip and the vast majority of us leads is highly debatable which is why I argue as I do, Max.. for I simply do not accept it.. it is not for us that they place themselves in danger.. that is what those who rule over us may like us to think but it is not something I accept..

..and every bit as equally, those organisations such as Al Quaeda who send young men and women to die, and are resposible for all kinds of mayhem and devastation are equally culpable, the Taleban, Farq in Columbia, and certain Irish republican factions here which still do their bit to cause slaughter, are no less culpable in this regard...

..like anyone else I can respect people as I find them, and respect the bravery of all who place themselves in danger and make sacrifice, even the ultimate sacrifice for causes in which they believe.. but when it comes to warfare I find myself unable to respect those who sent those men and women into danger, thus endangering other more innocent people, nor those institutions or organisations no matter the cause or sense of grievance they claim to represent... warfare taints cause.. the waste of life and the destruction to everything it brings to everything it touches is in my view evidence enough of that..

No Max..it is not for us they lay down their lives whether soldier or freedom fighter, but for one power group or other...either for retention and extension of influence, wealth and power, or for its acquisition..

[void()]

Been peeking in on this thread a bit. Do not wish to concern myself directly with the politics involved. It is there sure. One does not need it however to hold an opinion on some of the other issues here.

Upon reading Fran's last post. I have to say I agree with her. I grew up and served because 1. "it's a family tradition" 2. "there's nothing else for a person like you to do in life" 3. "we can give you an education and a job in the civilian world after" 4. 'live the definitions of honour, duty, service be a man, do what's right".

Those reasons seemed to make sense, until a commanding officer told me I could disappear. A story would have been arranged. I would have gone to a unit given more lateral freedom on how to 'get the job done'. The unit would have also likely reported to C.I.A, been known as a spook squad.

In disappearing, I would not have been allowed to say goodbyes to family. At that point all reasons stopped being reasons. Yes, they were all good and valid still. But without family, not mere camaraderie with other dogs of war, life holds no meaning. All family ties needed severed cleaned, forever.

Causes are a dime a dozen, very few need to require such sacrifice. Before reading Fran's last post, I like bigmax thought she was being disparaging of the soldiers. I see that she is not and agree with her on this. My big question over it all is really simple. What are going to do now with people like me, whom allegedly 'have nothing else in life to do', or just plain out need employed?

I mean seriously, the official unemployment rate is 9 some percent. There is more left uncounted, that fall off the 'dole', disgruntles whom have given up looking. So where are you putting former and prospective soldiers to work? You can use prisoners to help rebuild infrastructure. I have in fact seen this already being done in some cases.

So if prisoners do that, what is there for soldier types? Going to put them on greeter patrol at Wal-mart? Sure, let Daddy Morgan feed us all, he is responsible for most of the war industry anyway. Most of those jobs are locked up, though.

I still have a plan and a hope. Just curious where everyone is going to work, when there is no work. It has all either been shipped out, automated, or flat out eliminated. Unless of course the soldiers get deployed for more aggressive martial law. Oh well ...

[bigbadmax]

Fran, I totally respect your ideals and agree with the futility of war,however those entering ANY service to to their country whether it be armed forces or police,fire or health service, realise that they may face one form of danger or another throughout their career.

Now I for one feel that you could also include teachers in this as well following mass injuries in schools following gun/bomb attacks...ALL jobs face risk of some form or another but without these jobs then neighbourhoods can and do suffer.

I remember when coppers only walked around with a whistle and a truncheon, nil stab vests etc...their PPE has increased but their numbers havn't...I also remember serving in Iraq where we had no water, no body armour nor enough bullets, not enough people well the list could go on.

I re-iterate that war is grotesque, its decided by the few who control the many but the many serve with pride and dont consider it a sacrifice when problems occur. To be honest they do what they are told when they are told...whether you agree or disagree with their orders and who compell them to follow said orders is neither here nor there.

People tend to forget the humanitarian efforts of the forces as well. Ive helped out in monserrat.I would have loved to have served in Africa but did not have the opportunity to do so. The Navy also helps against drugs traficking etc and fishery patrols. Hearts and minds was the key phrase in Iraq,something people aslo forget.