Eccie members that have served in the military

The spring of 2003 mistake made in Iraq shoots a mighty big hole in that theory! Originally Posted by bigtex

Actually, BT, if you follow history factually as opposed to attempting to rewrite history from Op-Ed articles in the Chronicle, you were religiously following, it supports that theory, because .... from Bush I forward we were "at war" with Iraq and only operating under a "cease fire" agreement that was orchestrated by General Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf's fine efforts at repelling a country's invasion ...

I recognize your preference for compartmentalizing events to suit your political preferences, but the invasion of 2003 emphasized our lack of readiness on short notice to address realities on the ground .... while an administration previously created a "surplus" ....

... I can create a "surplus" in my bank accounts if I don't pay this month's bills also!

The half-assed enemic response by the Clinton administration to the constant violations by Iraq of the U.N. resolutions, not to mention a plot to kill Bush I, revealed the unwillingness of the U.S. to militarily engage Iraq and effectively gave Iraq a greenlight to thumb their noses at the U.S. AND the U.N.

That same attitude was revealed prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in which a diplomat or two hinted that the U.S. would do nothing militarily in response to an invasion by Iraq or at a minimum would do nothing more than complain .... another green light.

The announced lack of stomach for the sacrifices our parents and grandparents made goes noticed by our enemies and those who would devy our interests. Our lack of preparedness invites their actions as they see us as being also unable to respond effectively even if we express a will to do so.

There is no secret why the N.V. officials visited Iraq to "inform" them of how to defeat the U.S. The Iranians, Russians, OBL, Syria, Egyptians, Libyans, Europeans, Chinese, etc., etc., so the same. We have demonstrated our weak, fast-food, feel-good mentality to the world since WWII. We are paying the price and have been.

I though Post 911 (2001) would be different. I was wrong. Libya just proved it.

If you think I am wrong then post the sign I suggested on the front of your home:

"Generally speaking" we don't fight wars "on the budget," because the beginning of a war cannot be predicted that far in advance (and should not be any way to avoid alerting the "other side" that we intend to initiate a war against them). "Generally speaking" wars or financed with supplemental approvals from Congress, which are not "budgeted" in advance. Another reason for maintaining materiel and personnel readiness IN ADVANCE to avoid deficiencies and shortfalls when needed.*

Other countries have a pretty good idea of our current status of readiness to engage in expanded confrontations and IMO when we are downsized and not ready it creates the belief in some of those who wish us harm that we cannot respond to their incursions into other countries or their direct assaults on us. That is the price we pay for an "open society." IMO Originally Posted by LexusLover

Perhaps I didn't express myself very clearly. I didn't mean to insinuate that we should "telegragh our punch" during a period of escalating rhetoric which might be seen as a drumbeat to war.

I simply meant that any president who takes us to war should be prepared for people to say, "OK, Mr. Commander-In-Chief. You led us to war; now how are we going to pay for it?"

Note what FDR said in 1942, and how that contrasts with what George W. Bush said six decades later:

http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readin...d?OpenDocument

Each President must "lead" and "suggest" based on the current events unfolding during that President's tenure, and although historically there may be useful approaches to consider, the bottom line is that a decision is made based on what is occuring or what just occured.

All I am saying is that historically from a budget point of view, WARS are not "budgeted" in the normal budetary process, but are funded from supplemental requests, approved by Congress. And since the Vietnam era Congress must give its approval for the adventure, as well as the funds, based upon the President's request .. with some exceptions, of course.

Events control whether or not "we" go to WAR and one ought not to use "budget concerns" to make that decision or as an excuse to avoid that response to a given situation.

As for "telegraphic" intent ... I don't recall more "telegrphicing" under Bush II .. both to Iraq and Afghanistan as to our intent if they did not comply with our requests (and the requests of the U.N.).

My point is not the subject of this thread, but as is often the case the conversation drifts.

I simply meant that any president who takes us to war should be prepared for people to say, "OK, Mr. Commander-In-Chief. You led us to war; now how are we going to pay for it?"

Note what FDR said in 1942, and how that contrasts with what George W. Bush said six decades later:

http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readin...d?OpenDocument Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

We would be in a lot less conflict should the CIC say that the conflict(s) were being paid for out of the SS retirement funds or a higher tax rate would be needed.

What's so special about serving in the military? It's just a job, only with more benefits than usual. You know the risks up front.

Every time I see on TV all those service men coming home, greeting their wife and then they see their child of 6 months old for the first time, I can't help but thinking:

You're not a service man, you're just a coward fleeing from your responsibilities as a husband and a father.
And divorce is not far away.

What's so special about serving in the military? It's just a job, only with more benefits than usual. You know the risks up front.

Every time I see on TV all those service men coming home, greeting their wife and then they see their child of 6 months old for the first time, I can't help but thinking:

You're not a service man, you're just a coward fleeing from your responsibilities as a husband and a father. Originally Posted by waverunner234

Poke

Poke Originally Posted by fetishfreak

Poke /poʊˈkeɪ/ is a raw salad served as an appetizer in Hawaiian cuisine. Pokē is the Hawaiian verb for "section" or "to slice or cut".

What's so special about serving in the military? It's just a job, only with more benefits than usual. You know the risks up front.

Every time I see on TV all those service men coming home, greeting their wife and then they see their child of 6 months old for the first time, I can't help but thinking:

You're not a service man, you're just a coward fleeing from your responsibilities as a husband and a father.
And divorce is not far away. Originally Posted by waverunner234

Well, that is a different take..

Well, that is a different take.. Originally Posted by Jackie S

I mean it.

Losers go in the military because they don't have to think and make decisions.
All the thinking is already done and they only have to follow orders.

Smart people stay far away from service.

I mean it.

Losers go in the military because they don't have to think and make decisions.
All the thinking is already done and they only have to follow orders.

Smart people stay far away from service. Originally Posted by waverunner234

congrats you have just been awarded the dumb ass post of the month award the check is in the mail...

I mean it.

Losers go in the military because they don't have to think and make decisions.
All the thinking is already done and they only have to follow orders.

Smart people stay far away from service. Originally Posted by waverunner234

You are clearly far too ignorant--and happy to be ignorant--to discuss this with.

For some reason you have convinced yourself you know all about a very complex corner of the world. Probably angary at something or someone in your past and you refuse to get over the anger.

Man, you have no clue. If your anger keeps you happy, good for you. But you're say people willing to risk their life to protect your right to be ignorant are themselves stupid, lazy, dumb, or a combination of the three.

I forget Waverunner, did you serve? My brother has the same opinion and that may be why we don't speak except every three or four years. Of course, it could be because he is a royal prick.

Look at the difference between a 25 year old college graduate and a 25 year old military veteran. Huge gulf in between.

There is a vast difference between 1940 and 2001. In 1940 the US military was not even close to taking on any country in a general war. FDR had to spend massive funds to grow the navy, army, and air force. 800 capital ships had to be built, 10,000,000 men had to be trained, equipped, and transferred overseas, tens of thousands of aircraft, tanks, and vehicles had to be bought and paid for.
In 2001, Bush (thanks to Eisenhower) had a standing army that was well equipped and paid for. The reserves were equipped to fight a war and this country has the most technologically advanced mititary in the world. To go forth and fight a war today is less costly than in 1940 when the fighting machine had to be built. Liberals always, ALWAYS overlook this because it show their ingrained problems with the military. Listen to Soros, Kucinich, Obama, et. al. They always want to cut the military like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter did. They save money and leave the next republican to have to rebuilld. They get to sit on the sidelines and scream about spending then.

Man, you have no clue. If your anger keeps you happy, good for you. But you're say people willing to risk their life to protect your right to be ignorant are themselves stupid, lazy, dumb, or a combination of the three. Originally Posted by Old-T

You mean that guys fighting in Afghanistan are protecting my life?
Even after 10 years of fighting, it is still the number one dope country.

Good job America!

I forget Waverunner, did you serve? My brother has the same opinion and that may be why we don't speak except every three or four years. Of course, it could be because he is a royal prick.

Look at the difference between a 25 year old college graduate and a 25 year old military veteran. Huge gulf in between.

There is a vast difference between 1940 and 2001. In 1940 the US military was not even close to taking on any country in a general war. FDR had to spend massive funds to grow the navy, army, and air force. 800 capital ships had to be built, 10,000,000 men had to be trained, equipped, and transferred overseas, tens of thousands of aircraft, tanks, and vehicles had to be bought and paid for.
In 2001, Bush (thanks to Eisenhower) had a standing army that was well equipped and paid for. The reserves were equipped to fight a war and this country has the most technologically advanced mititary in the world. To go forth and fight a war today is less costly than in 1940 when the fighting machine had to be built. Liberals always, ALWAYS overlook this because it show their ingrained problems with the military. Listen to Soros, Kucinich, Obama, et. al. They always want to cut the military like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter did. They save money and leave the next republican to have to rebuilld. They get to sit on the sidelines and scream about spending then. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Cut military spending like Carter and Clinton?
You don't let the facts stand between you and a good story.


97,241 1977
104,495 1978
116,342 1979
133,995 1980
157,513 1981

Carter didn't cut defense spending. The above are the fiscal year spending on national defense. The cuts (below) during the Clinton admin were the "peace dividend" which were mandated by Congress

291,084 1993
281,640 1994
272,063 1995
265,748 1996
270,502 1997
268,194 1998
274,769 1999
294,363 2000

congrats you have just been awarded the dumb ass post of the month award the check is in the mail... Originally Posted by ekim008

I'm thinking the dumb ass award for this post should not be for the month, but for the quarter

I think his award should be a 1 week vacation spent exclusively with the Marines @ Camp Pendleton!!!!