Did Bubba Blow It?

[lets-retire]

Max--Your country doesn't feel threatened for two reasons. 1) Your not the big dog. The lead dog is the one who has to fight. Nobody cares who's second only the top person/country receives the goods. Everyone wants to be the the dominant entity. 2) USA covers a lot of your defense for your country. Just like Canada and I think Germany had AWACS flying over our country so we could deploy the ones we had to Afganistan/Kuwait. USA also covers a lot of defense for Germany, Japan, Korea, and Tiawan. These countries are vital to the stability of our economy. They are hugh trading partners. Re-read the whole economy section in my previous post.

youbet--I can't argue with that logic. You're right on the money. If the Dems figure this out and quit pandering to the far left they stand a very good chance of winning all three houses. That would require the Dems to come back towrd the center, but then they have the whole "you were for this now you say your not" dilema. Kind of like Hillary, when she..uh...Bill was president she was all for a lot of far left causes and against many things that are considered right wing causes. Now she is attempting to make herself over and support more center and right wing things and distance herself from the left. I don't buy it.

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximillion LT, "provide for the common defence", right, you are surrounded on two sides, so you need a Navy, but what the hell Common defence are you providing outside your own Borders?? We don't spend massive amounts of money,we don't feel threatened, the era of big armies is gone, so has Cavalry charges, today's warfare is not fought by grand land battles with Armies lined up on either side A few maniacs on a mission got by your common defence. Imagine, a foreign entity jams all your computer systems, a laptop can bring the US to its' knees. Remember the movie War Games, that is close to reality.

An Englishman, a Canadian and an American were captured by terrorists.

The terrorist leader said: "Before we shoot you, you will be allowed last words. Please let me know what you wish to talk about."

The Englishman replied: "I wish to speak of loyalty and service to the crown."

The Canadian replied: "Since you are involved in a question of national purpose, national identity, and secession, I wish to talk about the history of constitutional process in Canada, special status, distinct society and uniqueness within diversity."

The American replied: "Just shoot me before the Canadian starts talking."

[lets-retire]

at Martha


Max--something I forgot. Your right large armies rarely stand toe-to-toe, but you must have ground troops to take territory. Large armies are still required to control large areas.

[Maximillion]

Martha, I like that, gotta remember that one for my buddies

Land mass is taken by Armed forces, missiles, population submits, small forces come in to clean up.

A couple of hundred years ago this really big army invaded this country that had no real army, just a bunch of volunteers who knew the land and could shoot.

The rest is history.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire at Martha Max--something I forgot.* Your right large armies rarely stand toe-to-toe, but you must have ground troops to take territory.* Large armies are still required to control large areas.

You are, of course, making an implicit assumption that armies will be doing invading. I am pretty sure that doing so has not proved to be a good idea militarily or politically, at least since 1945 or so.

I'd feel a lot safer of our military were half its current size.

[lets-retire]

And as soon as the small force leaves the locals go back to doing what they did before the small force arrived.

The story you're relating is a little different. *That was back in the day when large armies faced each other in the field. *Miltiary tactics have chaged and improved greatly over the last 200 years. *The fact still remains ground troops are required to hold land. *They need a base of operations, which require troops to protect and defend it. Troops are also needed to go out in the population to support and defend supporters of the army as well as fight any remaining opposition. *Or we could just bomb the crap out of everyone and secure a barren landscape. :

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 You are, of course, making an implicit assumption that armies will be doing invading.* I am pretty sure that doing so has not proved to be a good idea militarily or politically, at least since 1945 or so.

Just going with Max's point. There is a critical mass involved. If not enough troops are used they are nothing more than an irritant. While they can cause great harm to a nation's economy the threat of being invaded and taken over is essentially nonexistant.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire And as soon as the small force leaves the locals go back to doing what they did before the small force arrived. The story you're relating is a little different. *That was back in the day when large armies faced each other in the field. *Miltiary tactics have chaged and improved greatly over the last 200 years. *The fact still remains ground troops are required to hold land. *They need a base of operations, which require troops to protect and defend it. Troops are also needed to go out in the population to support and defend supporters of the army as well as fight any remaining opposition. *Or we could just bomb the crap out of everyone and secure a barren landscape. :

I guess I am struggling to come up with any lengthy occupation by ground troops that didn't end in tears. *Viet Nam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan (US or Soviet occupation, take your pick)...?

Carpet bombing seems to be a popular option these days, but I seem to recall reading that it is pretty tough to permanently impair a ground-based enemy's ability to fight using air attacks only. *Which brings us back to the futility of a large scale ground invasion.

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 I guess I am struggling to come up with any lengthy occupation by ground troops that didn't end in tears. *Viet Nam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan (US or Soviet occupation, take your pick)...? Carpet bombing seems to be a popular option these days, but I seem to recall reading that it is pretty tough to permanently impair a ground-based enemy's ability to fight using air attacks only. *Which brings us back to the futility of a large scale ground invasion.

I'm thinking Germany, Japan, Itlay. Iraq and Afganistan are still too early to tell. Most reports coming from member on the ground over there are promising

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire eridanus--After 8 years of low spending on items the Constitution requires (a military and law enforcement), it is no wonder Bush had to increase spending substantially. Many of the other high dollar items were either written by or with the assistance of the Dems, i.e. no child left behind, the medicine improvment for the elderly.

Karl Rove, is that you?

Bush takes credit for "No Child Left Behind":
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/repor...ft-behind.html

Medicare is the Democrat's fault?!?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/medicare/

Also, did you read what I wrote about the military spending? Even WITHOUT counting the spending increases in defense and Homeland Security, he's spending much more then Clinton.

"Bush will have overseen a 21 percent increase for national defense -- pretty much equal to Reagan. However, the major difference between the two men is discretionary spending not related to national defense. Whereas Reagan was able to reduce non-defense discretionary outlays by 14 percent, Bush will have overseen a rise of 18 percent -- a whopping 32 percent difference between the two men."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2686

Are you going to now claim that Cato has been taken over by Clinton staffers? C'mon, have some personal responsibility and admit it. He, and the Republican controlled Congress, are spending "like a drunken Democrat" (McCain, also a Republican, said that).

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire I'm thinking Germany, Japan, Itlay.* Iraq and Afganistan are still too early to tell.* Most reports coming from member on the ground over there are promising

Note that I was working from a line of argument that specifically excluded pre 1945 arguments. I'd agree that Japan and Germany worked out in the end.

Hahahahah! You think Iraq is going well?! I guess difference of opinion makes a market, but its really hard to imagine an emerging civil war we can't hold back being a desired outcome. Afghanistan, well, I suppose that is an example of low expectations being the key to happiness.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire Nords--I filled out the means test and was told unless my treatment was for an injury incurred while in the military I had to pay. Of course that was three years ago so it could have changed, but I haven't received anything from them saying it had.

Same here. They swore they'd call me when they turned on the free dental exams, too, but I'm not sitting by the phone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximillion LT, "provide for the common defence", right, you are surrounded on two sides, so you need a Navy, but what the hell Common defence are you providing outside your own Borders??

I'm sorry, that feature of our policy is only available to members of the United States. "Common" refers to "among the states", not amongst the continent. Please consult our territorial membership application for further details.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 You are, of course, making an implicit assumption that armies will be doing invading. I am pretty sure that doing so has not proved to be a good idea militarily or politically, at least since 1945 or so.

Well, shooting a bunch of TOMAHAWKs and then going home isn't very effective either, if 1991-2003 was any indication. One building was "destroyed" three times during DESERT STORM but the satellite imagery kept insisting it survived. When the boots on the ground arrived they found that the first missile had entered a window, destroyed the interior, and left only a hollow shell. Subsequent missiles had actually used the same entry point because no one saw the need to program a new flight profile.

Mission accomplished, but BDA is a whole 'nother problem. You'll always need a grunt.

The problem between the political & military "solutions" is the broad fuzzy line separating them. Foreign policy is always going great until the troops start dropping in. But according to the military pundits, it's amazing that the soldiers don't all die on the beach. I just finished "Masters of Chaos", one of the early military histories of the Iraq & Afghanistan invasions. It'll be another couple decades before the classified stuff gets out, but a big difference in the Iraq war began when the military turned over control to the politicians. The Army's Special Forces had already started reconsitituting local governments & civil affairs with the cooperation of the locals until they were ordered to "fire" the incumbents and start over. Bad idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 I'd feel a lot safer of our military were half its current size.

Bite your tongue! I went through the post-Cold-War drawdown and once is more than enough. Aren't you the guy who worries that we'll cut too far and have to institute a draft? That same fear keeps waking up the entire JCS at night, too.

Actually the biggest part of the military budget is personnel. So the military would feel a lot safer if it was half its current size, too, and it's heading that way yet again. Pretty soon the submarine force will actually have as many berths as crewmembers...

Quote:

Bite your tongue! I went through the post-Cold-War drawdown and once is more than enough. Aren't you the guy who worries that we'll cut too far and have to institute a draft? That same fear keeps waking up the entire JCS at night, too.

I used to be against a draft, but instead we currently have a draft that is the most unfair of all. It selects the poor and disadvantaged.

So, I am in favor of a draft with no derferments at all. It might put a faster end to the nonsense of the last 5 years of unessessary wars.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat I used to be against a draft, but instead we currently have a draft that is the most unfair of all. It selects the poor and disadvantaged. So, I am in favor of a draft with no derferments at all. It might put a faster end to the nonsense of the last 5 years of unessessary wars.

Spoken like a man with no sons. Count me out on this idea. I prefer the current system, just like I prefer funding state programs with a lottery to funding them with an income tax.

The common element is choice.

Ha

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaHa Spoken like a man with no sons.

... but I'm sure his daughter would be happy to deliver a good swift kick!

[MJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaHa Spoken like a man with no sons. Count me out on this idea. I prefer the current system, just like I prefer funding state programs with a lottery to funding them with an income tax. The common element is choice. Ha

Hey, in a world of equality, the draft would include the daughters too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaHa Spoken like a man with no sons. The common element is choice. Ha

And since I am in favor of Women's lib, I also believe in drafting women!

Right now the only choice is for the poor. -"If I want to go to college, I have to go to Iraq first"

Not much of choice - IMHO!

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat Right now the only choice is for the poor. -"If I want to go to college, I have to go to Iraq first" Not much of choice - IMHO!

What, compared to studying their asse(t)s off?

The April edition of Wealth Management magazine has an article on scholarship strategies. The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators claims that between 1995-2004 merit scholarships rose from $1.2B to $7.3B-- up 508%. Needs-based scholarships rose "only" 110% from $18.6B to $39.1B, but are still almost six times as much as the merit scholarship funds.

You and I both know that there are many ways to serve in Iraq... Navy or Coast Guard is quite a different experience from USMC or USA infantry, but the MGIB pays the same amount of money to all of the veterans.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 I guess I am struggling to come up with any lengthy occupation by ground troops that didn't end in tears. Viet Nam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan (US or Soviet occupation, take your pick)...?

Just to police up another loose end--while the Korean War has not officially ended, I'd urge anyone to look at which side has had more "tears"--the "occupied" South or the North? I can hardly think of a better example for staying the course when the course is a good one (as is the present US course in Iraq and Afghanistan)

[lets-retire]

eridanus-- My mistake on the Medicare thing, I thought it was bi-partisan. With that said the Dems could have easily filibustered it if they were really against it. They do it for minor appointments why not a major bill they oppose.

As far as the No Child Left Behind, I seem to remember Senator Kennedy having a major role in writing that bill. The link you provided was a framwork and seems to have been produced prior to the actual writing and subsequent passing of the bill.

The spending issue is a very simple argument. There are some things I don't agree with that were implemented, but Clinton under funded major agencies in the government. Let's take the military as one person stated the personnel is the big ticket item. I was in for 10 years. The last year of the Clinton budget I had served my 10th pay year and had earned a promotion above the first few given to enlistees. I surpassed that pay in my second year as a civilian in a small town. It has took me almost another three years to surpass the pay raises I received my last year in the military. The point is Bush had to reconstitute many programs requiring a large cash infusion to bring the budgets of various agencies, not just the military, up to par. In addition to those expenditures he still has to fund the on-going maintenance of those agencies. So essentially he is paying twice to keep the government going.

This situation is similar to defering maintenance on your house for years. Eventually you either have to repair it or replace it. In this situation Bush has chosen to repair. So all of the defered maintenance is coming due plus keeping current with the on-going maintence. In addition to all of this he has had to fund increased Homeland Security and Defense budgets. Homeland Secuity is not just carried out by the Dep't of Homeland Security either.

You are stating that Bush is spending more than Clinton, but your support compares Bush's spending to Reagan's. I don't see the point in the website to support your argument. But I do agree they are spending way too much on non-essential things.

Ha--sorry for hijacking your thread