Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I love the bawling about what's fair in a ****ING WAR.

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

When that criminally weak sister* Jimmy Carter was president, we were in decline. Then we elected a "grade B actor who starred in a movie with an ape and was too stupid to be president" and suddenly we weren't in decline anymore.

*from "7 Days in May"

Jimmy was not an optimist. Reagan was. There lies the story of the massacre of 1980.

What is the title of Thread 16?? And, will there be 44 threads by the time BHO leaves office?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Jimmy was not an optimist. Reagan was. There lies the story of the massacre of 1980.

What is the title of Thread 16?? And, will there be 44 threads by the time BHO leaves office?

I'd like to think that perhaps we could shoot for an additional amount of rage next time. 20% just didn't do it for me.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

If it's worth fighting, if the cause is just, conscription wouldn't have any bearing on the war effort.

our military is the most expensive in the history of the world... so I really hope it's also the best.

Gotcha. war on MCD ... hmm that could also work for war on obesity.

You doubt our military is the best? What would it take to convince you?

And those costs you find so troubling? Pay and allowances. Living conditions. Base housing. Medical and dental care. Pensions. Which of these would you cut or eliminate to bring our spending into line with your concerns? Oh, we could make cuts in replacing ageing weapons systems. We don't need that modern stuff anyway, do we?

That moronic nonsense about the "cause being just" is just new left b.s. dressed up as an argument. War fighting these days requires lots of training, which is very expensive. DOD isn't going to waste that training on a population with extremely low retention rates. So these draftees you're so hot to have in uniform, are not going to be found in the units that actually do the fighting.

You're also living in the past with your reference to "war effort." At its height we had 600K people in Vietnam, a number unlikely to be reached by any conflict current or potential.

The truth of the matter is you don't like one or both of our current engagements and you hope a return to conscription would get more people to agree with you. To me that's not a sufficiently good reason to bring back the draft.

We're not going back to conscription because we don't need it. It wouldn't help the readiness of our forces. And it would be unnecessarily expensive. Let me give you just one example. In the old days, there were two pay scales, one for "under two," one for "over two." In terms of percentage, the largest pay hike you ever got in the military was when you went "over two," regardless of what rank you were. This was a recognition that draftees were different, were to be paid less for their first two years, because for the most part they did their time and were gone.

I can't imagine any latter day supporters of conscription, including you, agreeing that this two tiered system would be appropriate today. Also, since we've gone to a volunteer military, the pay rates have increased dramatically, to compete with civilian employment.

That would make compensating these draftees hugely expensive. And and in the unlikely event these people wind up in highly trained and motivated professional fighting units it wouldn't exactly be a prescription for esprit de corps.

There would be many other expenses associated with expanding our military to accomodate draftees and equally significant costs in terms of degrading readiness and fighting efficiency. And for what? Because you don't like our involvements currently, or you're concerned about us throwing our weight around sometime in the future? Bad idea. Even worse justification. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

That moronic nonsense about the "cause being just" is just new left b.s. dressed up as an argument.

They get to decide when the cause is just, natch.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

What is the title of Thread 16?? And, will there be 44 threads by the time BHO leaves office?

6+ more years. Yep, right on track.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Gotcha. war on MCD ... hmm that could also work for war on obesity.

Huge waste. Starting WWII with vitually no military...the US did just fine. I would much rather see this money spent winning in the global marketplace...but that's me.

6+ more years. Yep, right on track.

He could well leave as a top quartile president if/when he pulls us out of the recession.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Huge waste. Starting WWII with vitually no military...the US did just fine. I would much rather see this money spent winning in the global marketplace...but that's me.

In fairness to the hawks (not that they deserve it), we didn't start from zero (we had 2 years of build up), and the window is now a lot smaller.

He could well leave as a top quartile president if/when he pulls us out of the recession.

I think he will, but even if he leaves office in the midst of a continuing recession, it's going to be remembered that it's Dubya's disaster, and his landmark achievement (other than the obvious) will be the first president to get health care through after 50 years of trying.

But it's way early, yet. If the GOP is so unlucky as to win both chambers, Obama's going to be as popular as Clinton going into re-election mode, and will win in a walk. The right's main chance is to stay out of office. They can't run agin' gubmint if they are the gubmint.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

You doubt our military is the best? What would it take to convince you?

DOD isn't going to waste that training on a population with extremely low retention rates. So these draftees you're so hot to have in uniform, are not going to be found in the units that actually do the fighting.

You're also living in the past with your reference to "war effort." At its height we had 600K people in Vietnam, a number unlikely to be reached by any conflict current or potential.

Read it again. It's the most expensive so it's the best. (I hope) seems to throw you off on the sentence.

No there is always "Call of Duty" : modern warfare ... and Medal of honor.

Problem with mercenary or volunteer professional army is that it's mostly based on pay without much of any honor or duty.

Call of duty: war on MCD.

In 2006 we had over 135k troops in Iraq and another 100k PMC (private military contractors). Unlike Vietnam we outnumber the insurgents and terrorist and Taliban by 10 to 1 or even more.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/readiness_report.html

Four years ago this month, President Bush led our country into a war of choice against Iraq. Today, there are 135,000 American troops in Iraq and the president is now escalating this war, proposing to send an additional 30,000 combat and support troops

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-06-12/...s-private-contractors-face-danger?_s=PM:WORLD

But Clark believes the death rate among the 25,000 or so contractors is higher than among U.S. military forces.

The danger does not bring glamour. Clark's outfit shepherds convoys along supply lines strewn with roadside bombs targeting U.S. and Iraqi forces and those who support them. Missions have included guarding trucks carrying gravel for military bases.

"Military doesn't even like to go where we are going, and most of the companies that do this don't want to go where we are going ... and that's why we're going," explained one of Clark's men, nicknamed "Mr. GQ."