talking to the politically active and uninformed (599 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.39 on 42 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by DiggityDarth <Smeagol.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2008-09-09 20:21:20 EDT
With the election cycle in full swing I find myself getting suckered into more and more political "conversations". I have yet to actually bump into an intelligent Obama supporter, just college students who it would seem have jumped on the trendy train, I have unfortunately had to speak to a variety of McCain supporters. Some of these people, the ones I knew well enough to have talked about news and current events with prior to the election, used to strongly dislike the man. Watching them turn into full blown supporters has been one of the most interesting things I've witnessed this election season, some sort of unnatural retarded metamorphosis.
I really tried to talk to these folks at first. I figured talking about Defense would be interesting, after all that is McCain's bread and butter. So I mention some smart ideas I've heard on the topic, some ideas of my own too. Nothing too absurd, raising standards to gain entrance into the military, cutting out the fat from the defense budget and raising salaries, all in order to create a more well rounded, highly educated and motivated military. If you have ever taken as ASVAB it might scare you to know that people who score a 30 can still find a job with the armed forces. That test was fucking easy, and the bar should be set way higher.
I talked about changing tactical doctrines to that of the British in Malaysia after WW2, the first and maybe only successful counter insurgency in the past 60 or 70 years. This combined with a new understanding that the most important factor when fighting a war among people is the people could actually turn things around in our current conflicts.
The responses I've gotten have been downright scary, from blank looks to down right aggressiveness. "You think cutting the budget is a good idea!!?" "Yeah so I guess everyone in the military is dumb and you know what is best." That kind of shit. The only replies offered to my mature, I'd like to think intelligent suggestions, have been childish dismissive remarks, one guy even asked me if I'd been on a tour yet, and when I said no he said "thats right". Yeah okay buddy.
I've talked a little about Palin, bad idea. This bitch just gives conservatives a raging boner over values and gun rights. There is no chance for a conversation about her, I just hear how amoral and stupid you are if you don't like what she has to say. Palin is almost a fucking idol amongst Republicans down here in Jacksonville, and untouchable because they will drown you out as soon as you speak poorly of her with their psycho babbling.
I'm not even gonna try and breach the topic of economics. Fuck it, these people are gonna lynch my ass if I don't shut my mouth soon. Anyways, thanks for reading. I know I haven't said anything profound but I definitely needed an outlet to let out some opinions without being attacked halfway through my first goddamn sentence.
Peace ubersite
User Reviews
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-12 10:28:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If you look at the numbers Russia was outspending us in many sectors. Luckily the west was intelligent enough to know that they didn't need to spend as much as Russia did in every sector, they collectively decided that the iron curtain would be a trip wire for the US's nuclear capabilities. It was a smart choice that saved us butt loads of moolah.
Submitted by Maddog (user info) at 2008-09-11 16:19:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If Palin had a penis, she wouldn't be on the ticket.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-09-11 15:48:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-11 14:55:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Separate the population, give them something that they would loose if the insurgency wins, and learn to fight without excessive force or else run the risk of turning your image to that of oppressive and occupying. "
We can't physically seperate them, and we have been trying to get them to alienate the insurgents fromthe beginnig (although doing better now).
"I ask you this, if Iraq has so many difficult complications then why did we run head first into it? You say that Iraqis don't view us as liberators like the Malaysians did to the Brits but that is not how our commander in chief portrayed it at first. Knowing about all the little technicalities that make Iraq such a hard place to run a counter insurgency, why did you support the war in the first place (I'm assuming you did, could be wrong here)."
I think poor planning for after we "won" was more of a fuck up than actually going in. I thought we would get more "liberator" reactions than "invader" ones (according to some it was pretty mixed), and that the govt would be ready to sort shit out.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-09-11 15:43:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-11 14:35:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
They lost because instead of adapting after world war two they stayed on a war footing. This is simple really, no argument. They let their people live in shanty conditions and never let up on maintaining and producing a conventional army. While defense spending always demanded a lot of the budget here in the West the people were still allowed to prosper, when Soviet people began to realize this more and more, well that was what did in their government. Suddenly they had a good idea of what they were missing out on, that is how the USSR collapsed, not our 600 ship navy.
------------------------------
Ok you are half way to an intellegent conclusion.
Do you think the Russians would have spent thatmuch on defense if the US had cut out military spending.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-11 14:55:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You can't win an insurgency without separating the population from those who do the fighting. I never actually said we need to build concentration camps for Iraqis. It is the essence of the idea, of separating them from the insurgency. We failed to do it in Vietnam and up until very recently we were failing to do it in Iraq.
When I was talking about those old British conflicts I was just using them as examples of how past insurgencies were defeated. Obviously you won't carbon copy tactics over half a century old but at the heart of it the way to win is still the same. Separate the population, give them something that they would loose if the insurgency wins, and learn to fight without excessive force or else run the risk of turning your image to that of oppressive and occupying.
I ask you this, if Iraq has so many difficult complications then why did we run head first into it? You say that Iraqis don't view us as liberators like the Malaysians did to the Brits but that is not how our commander in chief portrayed it at first. Knowing about all the little technicalities that make Iraq such a hard place to run a counter insurgency, why did you support the war in the first place (I'm assuming you did, could be wrong here).
I completely agree with you about the headlines remark. The media does make it hard to perform since any death is likely to bring negative attention regardless of the context around the death. If you are gonna start a conflict today you better get what you have to get done quick before the death toll rises and support drops.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-11 14:35:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
600 ships...400 of which were frigates, lets not try and mislead people. The truth is that in 1991 Russia and the Warsaw pact outnumbered NATO and the US in every subcategory of forces except for carriers (20 to 5), frigates (400 to 200) and naval aircraft (1200 to 600). A few areas were equal or close, like bombers, subs, amphibious assault ships, but when it came down to battle tanks they had over twice our amount, something like 21,000 to their 50 some thousand. They had more active and reserve personnel, thousands of more land based fighters and many more warheads.
They lost because instead of adapting after world war two they stayed on a war footing. This is simple really, no argument. They let their people live in shanty conditions and never let up on maintaining and producing a conventional army. While defense spending always demanded a lot of the budget here in the West the people were still allowed to prosper, when Soviet people began to realize this more and more, well that was what did in their government. Suddenly they had a good idea of what they were missing out on, that is how the USSR collapsed, not our 600 ship navy.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-09-11 12:45:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-11 11:37:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"That movement won the cold war. The soviets sunk all their money into an offensive military machine and left their people out in the cold. The west maintained what was necessary and let its people prosper. The USSR kept itself on a war footing which their people realized was wrong once they were able to compare their living standards with the West's. The Red Army going into Afghanistan was the tipping point, where their conventional army was used against non conventional forces with dismal results. "
No it didn't. We didn't follow that movement. We kept up all our branches of the military. We stayed on a war footing. In fact under Reagan we moved up to a 600 ship navy.
"In regards to the Malaysian conflict, I think anyone interested in fighting a counter insurgent or counter revolutionary war should know about it in and out. You're wrong in saying that the Brits fought with the people there and that made it easier, the people they fought with in WW2 actually turned into the people they fought in the conflict."
Am I getting Uber Punked? Are you that dumb? Some of the people they fought with in WWII fought against them, but they also had many allies that fought along side them in WWII. Except for the ethnic chinese most people didn't see them as invaders. This is 100% different than what is going on in Iraq.
"I give the conflict particular attention mainly because of the rapid, almost immediate transition of British forces from conventional to something completely new and different. Most importantly political goals were set and maintained, allowing the strategic aim to zero in on what it needed to do to achieve those goals and progress was never measured in the activity of friendly forces or numbers of firefights won, but rather the impact of the activity itself."
That was when Britian had balls. Today you can't "win" a war based on political goals because very death means a headline, you have to keep our deaths low, insurgent deaths high and accomplish the military goals. and as I said before what they did wasn't new and different it was taken from US actions in the phillipines.
"I'm done talking about that conflict though, you don't see how it is a huge milestone in counter insurgency and I'm clearly not gonna change your mind about that."
I never said it wasn't a huge milestone. I said it was stupid to use it as the model for what we are doing in Iraq. This is very obvious if you have only skimmed the both situations.
The rebels in Malaysia were almost completely concentrated in a minority population, not so in Iraq.
It was politicaly acceptable to move hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes and force them into camps, not so in Iraq.
Many of the locals thought of the British as allies and liberators, not so in Iraq.
Many of the locals had fought alongside the British in WWII, the complete opposite in Iraq.
What lessons there were to be learned from have been applied. Tossing out the British response to the Malaysian insurgency as some kind of cure all or overlooked tactic is dumb. You can't think of a single aspect of that conflict that we shoudl apply, that would help, that we aren't already trying.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-11 11:37:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"There was a movement to get rid of everything except a small navy/army and use the Airforce to protect all our interests."
That movement won the cold war. The soviets sunk all their money into an offensive military machine and left their people out in the cold. The west maintained what was necessary and let its people prosper. The USSR kept itself on a war footing which their people realized was wrong once they were able to compare their living standards with the West's. The Red Army going into Afghanistan was the tipping point, where their conventional army was used against non conventional forces with dismal results.
In regards to the Malaysian conflict, I think anyone interested in fighting a counter insurgent or counter revolutionary war should know about it in and out. You're wrong in saying that the Brits fought with the people there and that made it easier, the people they fought with in WW2 actually turned into the people they fought in the conflict. I give the conflict particular attention mainly because of the rapid, almost immediate transition of British forces from conventional to something completely new and different. Most importantly political goals were set and maintained, allowing the strategic aim to zero in on what it needed to do to achieve those goals and progress was never measured in the activity of friendly forces or numbers of firefights won, but rather the impact of the activity itself.
I'm done talking about that conflict though, you don't see how it is a huge milestone in counter insurgency and I'm clearly not gonna change your mind about that.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-09-11 10:14:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-11 09:17:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"You ignored the part about Russia not being able to compete with us using oil revenues. I guess you agree? Today we have nothing to fear in Russia's conventional arsenal, we only should be worried about crazy leadership."
I missed it. It isn't just oil revenues, it is their ability to influence Europe with their control of Europe. Don't underestimate this power.
"Cut the name calling crap, please. We obviously don't agree but I don't think I've called you stupid or ignorant once."
Maybe it was over the line, but your statements onthe Osprey are flat out wrong. Your hard on for british tactics used in malaysia, other than what we are already doing, makes no sense.
Conversations like this, revamping the military, concentrating on one type of warfare, etc were all over the place post WWII. There was a movement to get rid of everything except a small navy/army and use the Airforce to protect all our interests. Tunnel vision was bad then, and it is bad now. We may never have a war with China, Russia, Iran or anyone else for that matter, but a good way to prevent it is to be ready for it.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-11 09:17:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You ignored the part about Russia not being able to compete with us using oil revenues. I guess you agree? Today we have nothing to fear in Russia's conventional arsenal, we only should be worried about crazy leadership. And that goes for any leadership, including our own. I'm going to do some digging around today but I don't think the Russians are busy developing new nuclear weapons. Kinda moot when the ones you have already can destroy all life.
Maintaining a conventional force doesn't prevent paranoid leadership from existing in other countries and only goes to provoke the ones that do. If you are worried about future proxy wars like I think you said than also, our conventional forces won't be what we need. I'm not describing anything radical here indo, with a defense budget as large as ours it would only be responsible to cut some things from it in light of our mounting debt.
The Army already wants to greatly increase their high speed units, in recent years groups like the special forces have jumped in numbers. What I mentioned earlier is already happening on a small scale, I'd just like to see it happen faster.
Cut the name calling crap, please. We obviously don't agree but I don't think I've called you stupid or ignorant once.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-09-11 07:22:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-10 22:57:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Seeing that Russia and China already have WMDs that can reach us, I see little point in maintaining a conventional force to battle them. Maybe star wars will pay out in the end, but instead of spending money we don't have on shit that might not work we can rely on the old and proven model that the Ruskies aren't crazy enough to start a nuclear war because even if one side has an edge over the other, everyone still dies... I haven't looked at recent numbers but at the end of the cold war our navy had over double the aircraft capabilities compared to the soviet union. I doubt this ratio has changed over the past two decades, if it has I'm sure it hasn't moved to favor the Russians. "
That old and proven model is only valid if both sides stop spending money on modern missiles. They aren;t going to do that and only an idiot thinks we should. The conventional force has to be ready to face any force armed by them, and prepared for limited conflict.
"As far as the osprey goes, the thing sucks. Same range as a super stallion, maybe twice the top speed,"
Oh, here is the problem, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
"and no offensive or defensive weapons to speak of except a rear ramp door gunner. Talk about the future of troop insertion."
The point was with its range it could deploy troops behind enemy lines, with the situation in Iraq/afghanistan they are in cities ro want to be closer, hence the addition of the ramp gun, they are adding more guns.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-11 00:21:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"And BTW, what was so striking about Malaysia was the actual separation of the people from the insurgency. By digging into history, the Brits drew on what they did right in the Boer war and successfully did it again a lifetime later."
You know what I no longer think you are an idiot, just very ignorant. You probably read an article or maybe even a book on the Malayan Emergency, and thought gee, why didn't we do that? Well we did do that, in the phillipines. And we got the ideas there from somewhere else. Do you really think that generals haven't thoughrly studied this more than you could ever hope to? It is funny you can call the Boer war a success. Do you know how many men and woman starved in concentration camps? Do you think that the international community would stand for that, or that the US even has a right to do that? People may disagree on the legality of the Iraq war, but I think everyone would agree uprooting entire towns and forcing them into camps would be far worse than anything we have done so far.
"Cataloging military aged men from the get go, concentrating civilian populations into newly built towns removed and safe from fear based tactics insurgencies rely on, giving them titles to land and new privileges as they proved themselves trustworthy, these ideas were used from the beginning. As far as Iraq goes we are implementing similar strategies now. However the payoff is simply not there for our involvement. We need to wash our hands of this mess and use the slew of information that we've gained there to rethink how future conflicts will be fought. "
As I said before we have done everything we can that the brits did in malaysia. As far as the payoff not being there, I disagree. Best case without us is that Iraq falls into civil war and becomes a play grond between Iran and Saudi (or shia and sunni, however you want too look at it), nevermind that the christians will be slaughtered and whoever wins will institute a Taliban like state we would have to worry about it spilling over into neighboring states and cutting off more oil. Worst case it becomes a straight up puppet state for Iran, which would be tantamount to a country run by Hezebullah.
In short before you start making blanket statements of how we shoudl do things and call out specific models for what we should do, you should probably first understand those models and how they relate tot he current conflict.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-11 00:21:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And BTW, what was so striking about Malaysia was the actual separation of the people from the insurgency. By digging into history, the Brits drew on what they did right in the Boer war and successfully did it again a lifetime later.
Cataloging military aged men from the get go, concentrating civilian populations into newly built towns removed and safe from fear based tactics insurgencies rely on, giving them titles to land and new privileges as they proved themselves trustworthy, these ideas were used from the beginning. As far as Iraq goes we are implementing similar strategies now. However the payoff is simply not there for our involvement. We need to wash our hands of this mess and use the slew of information that we've gained there to rethink how future conflicts will be fought.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-10 22:57:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Seeing that Russia and China already have WMDs that can reach us, I see little point in maintaining a conventional force to battle them. Maybe star wars will pay out in the end, but instead of spending money we don't have on shit that might not work we can rely on the old and proven model that the Ruskies aren't crazy enough to start a nuclear war because even if one side has an edge over the other, everyone still dies... I haven't looked at recent numbers but at the end of the cold war our navy had over double the aircraft capabilities compared to the soviet union. I doubt this ratio has changed over the past two decades, if it has I'm sure it hasn't moved to favor the Russians.
More on the topic of Russians, they have seen firsthand at what putting bullets over prosperity does. Only time will tell, but I think if they are flooded with oil revenue profits then more than likely most of it will be used in subsidies for consumer products. If they decide to invest in their military with money made from oil then they will produce a threat that lasts as long as the demand for oil does. So lets nip this problem in the bud and actually put some money into energy research.
You need to acknowledge the fact that since Korea all conflicts that involved the US have been based around counter insurgency. People more qualified than you and I have stated the need to shift from equipping and training armies for industrial war to war amongst people. We are moving in that direction right now, but far too slowly. Also acknowledge that the new type of military I speak would be far better at stopping non state based groups from acquiring WMDs, and couldn't possibly do any worse of a job than our current military has been at stopping states from getting them (also a failure of politicians).
As far as the osprey goes, the thing sucks. Same range as a super stallion, maybe twice the top speed, and no offensive or defensive weapons to speak of except a rear ramp door gunner. Talk about the future of troop insertion.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-09-10 22:15:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
WTF
"Hhowever seeing as how we need to be prepared for a russia flush with oil money, a china with one of the most steadily growing economy. "
Should read
"However seeing as how we need to be prepared for a russia flush with oil money, a china with one of the most steadily growing economies in the world it is no time to let our research slide (imho this applies to the military as well as energy, medicine, etc). "
Probably more mistakes, but it is time to make the donuts.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-09-10 22:12:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-10 18:08:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Yeah you work in the pentagon my ass. And indo, we've spent millions and millions for over a decade on the Osprey, a plane/helicopter hybrid that has only killed a company of good marines in testing because the engines stall and it doesn't maintain rotation like a helicopter would in that situation. "
It hasn't crashed because the engine stalls, it crashed because it can't glide like a plane or auto rotate like a helocopter. Complaints like this were similiar to what was used agianst the first jets and helicopters. The Osprey is the future of troop insertion, it has greater range and speed then any helicopter and all the tactical applications.
"And we are still spending, spending, spending on it to this day. You two have no idea on what a good counter insurgency model should look like or you wouldn't be so concerned with keeping stupid people in our ranks. We haven't fought in an industrial war for well over half a century now boys, shits gotta change. We've been stuck in the industrial paradigm for 50 years too long all ready, and our (the west overall) inability to adapt has lead to failure in many conflicts."
I don't care what type of counter insurgency model you want to pursue, it will still require "ditch diggers". You may have a point about us going about it wrong, butslashing the amount of acceptable candidates won't work in any model.
What exactly about the Briggs Model should we do in Iraq that we haven't already. We are encouraging people to stand up to alqueda and look at them as invaders. We are providing protection and giving people the tools to invest in their own neghborhood. The "insurgency" isn't centered in one ethnic group, and even if it was we could hardly throw them in camps like the british did. The local insurgents have strong support of the local populace, unlike in Malaysia, many of them fought along side the british in WWII while many Iraqi's fought against the US in Gulf War one. The fact that you htink there is so much to learn from that conflict with respect to what is going on in Iraq makes me doubt you have a firm grasp of the situation in both or either country.
"Why should we put more money into useless equipment and outdated training. "
Equiment doesn't become battle ready overnight. What exactly do you mean by outdated? Our approach may be wrong in Iraq but exactly what type of training is "outdated"?
"And if any real war did break out winning conventionally would be a bad thing since any conventional battles fought would simply be a tripwire to use WMDs for the side which is loosing. "
Only if the enemy has WMD's that can reach us, hence we should do anything in our power to keep that from happening, and pursue missile defense systems in case it does. Your idea of a small highly intellegent armed force with stalled technology would be great if we are only concerned with peace keeping missions or pacifying camel jockeys in third world countries. Hhowever seeing as how we need to be prepared for a russia flush with oil money, a china with one of the most steadily growing economy.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2008-09-10 19:03:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Sarah_Palin
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-10 18:08:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah you work in the pentagon my ass. And indo, we've spent millions and millions for over a decade on the Osprey, a plane/helicopter hybrid that has only killed a company of good marines in testing because the engines stall and it doesn't maintain rotation like a helicopter would in that situation.
And we are still spending, spending, spending on it to this day. You two have no idea on what a good counter insurgency model should look like or you wouldn't be so concerned with keeping stupid people in our ranks. We haven't fought in an industrial war for well over half a century now boys, shits gotta change. We've been stuck in the industrial paradigm for 50 years too long all ready, and our (the west overall) inability to adapt has lead to failure in many conflicts.
I've said before I don't claim to know every little thing that needs to be cut due to lack of results or utility but I can say with confidence that many things do need to be. Tell me why I'm wrong, not that I'm stupid. Why should we put more money into useless equipment and outdated training.
Don't tell me our training is superb, because it isn't. If we were still fighting state based armies it would be fine but we all know that isn't and never will be the case again. And if any real war did break out winning conventionally would be a bad thing since any conventional battles fought would simply be a tripwire to use WMDs for the side which is loosing.
Bah.
Submitted by Snark (user info) at 2008-09-10 15:46:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-09-09 22:13:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Obama will win!!!!
==================
Not if Fox has there way.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-09-10 12:06:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Yeah tilt rotor is useless, so was the helicopter, and aircraft carriers for that matter, right?
And screw missile technology, I mean we lead now so why bother spending money to keep our edge, after all no other military is working on newer weapons.
The military, like the world, needs ditch diggers too.
Submitted by bugblender (user info) at 2008-09-10 09:16:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I cant say what my job is but it involves the very budgets your refering to.
You are still an idiot and have no idea what you are talking about.
Party on Darth.
Smoke another bowl and write some more Dude.
Ignorance is bliss...perhaps you could burn a flag or something.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2008-09-10 08:56:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-09-10 00:37:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
...
-----
McCain isn't exactly the same as Bush - remember his Moderate background and prior voting record from 2003 or so. He'll not continue the status quo, he'll just not knock everything down and try to rebuild it like pressing 'reset' on a video game.
I hear you on the hope the Obama purports to offer, but hope alone doesn't change things for the better. Realistic plans placed into action do change things for the better. McCain's energy plan is workable and it will get the public behind it. Obama's energy plan is not much of a plan at all but more a fantasy. I have said in the past that if I could cover the top of my house with solar cells and use that electricity to charge an electric car that MLW could drive for her 30 mile round trip commute all for $60K I'd write the check today. I'd keep the gas-powered truck and cars and motorcycles. On a one-household scale, that is pretty much Obama's energy "plan" for cars by 2012. But you know what? That's not possible right now - I know because I've looked into it. I can't get an electric car and a roof-full of solar cells for $60K. I can get them for $120K but that makes it financially unrealistic and so unworkable. I have good intentions, but there simply are not the resources to accomplish them.
Likewise, Obama does not have the means to carry out what he is promising because there isn't the money or resources to accomplish what he describes. Unfortunately, as wonderful as his plans sound and as hopeful as his speeched make you feel, fuzzy feelings cannot make the changes he describes actually happen. My opinion is that he does not in fact offer hope; he offers unfounded optimism. There is a very important difference between the two that scrutiny of Obama's "plans" quickly reveals.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-09-10 08:36:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm completely with you Darth. Our military seems to be stuck in the WWII era, both tactically and politically. There must be something that we could do to clean this up a bit.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-10 08:20:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't know what the average score is, but when I went through MEPS most of the scores I saw were 40s or 50s on the ASVAB. I don't think that is smarter than the average bear. I'm surprised that this isn't something everyone can agree on, a more efficient military which requires less money to do its job. Certainly raising the intelligence as a whole has to be part of any plan that wants to accomplish that.
Sorry caul, I've got enough stupidity to fight in my own country. Not enough time to think about Canada's.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-09-10 03:36:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
canadians have elections? I thought there was a three legged race around the country......
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-09-10 02:40:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
they let you vote Caul? I thought they still did that trick with the beans and the bowl
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2008-09-10 02:37:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
hey there are canadians elections coming soon too this fall.
anyone wants to talk about it?
*crickets*
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-09-10 00:37:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Skrap my biggest hangup with McCain is that he offers us ntohing but the same.
At the VERY best he'll be another forgettable president whose only claims to fame were his age and Veep pick.
Obama at least offers hope. Even if his goals are unrealistic, I beleive that he will try to obtain them.
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2008-09-10 00:26:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i'm quite certain the iq of the soldiers in the 740 bases we have is higher than the populace inhabiting the 130+ countries where they're located
remember, they enable you to keep your middle-class swerve on
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2008-09-10 00:18:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-09 23:59:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
We can cut spending and raise standards. You clearly don't know how large our defense budget is. Nor the ideas I was proposing. For example, an American General Staff is 4 to 5 times larger of a British General Staff. Why? At the operational level we are not 4 or 5 times more efficient than the British, in fact I'd say we are less so. This trend delays action down to the tactical level putting more red tape down for junior officers to go through to do anything.
Cutting down staffers is just one of hundreds of things we could do besides getting rid of useful equipment. This is the kind of stuff you just can't talk about without spelling out completely, whoda thunk a budget cut from a countries military that is trillions of dollars in debt. Is it not disturbing that we are essentially paying for our armed forces with money borrowed from those who are ideologically against us (Russia, China).
Submitted by bugblender (user info) at 2008-09-09 23:46:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Great idea...cut military spending and statistically raise the IQ level...your a genius. That's how we'll be prepared for the next time some third world nation decides to pollute our water supply with poison or spread a dirty bomb in a major city. We'll send a higher IQ soldier into battle in their country with cheaper equipment. Genius.
You, sir, are an idiot.
"The world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny."
Submitted by X54 (user info) at 2008-09-09 23:33:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What we really need to do is bring back the draft. Maybe then we wouldn't be so quick to invade shitty little foreign countries in order to "liberate" the fuckheads living there from the fuckhead who owns them all. Then we wouldn't have to worry about teaching our soldiers foreign languages. Everyone should speak English, anyway.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-09 22:19:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
My main problems with McCain, skrapmetal, aren't really at all what you're touching on, they are: McCain will continue to slowly bleed our country by deploying our military instead of EMploying them. You can send soldiers to Iraq watch them win "war", or war in the industrial sense, but the enemy there won't be beaten by numbers or our current half baked "hearts and minds" BS. We need a real shakeup starting down at tactics and working its way up to the strategic level. Most importantly we need a political objective that doesn't change every two years (hunting WMDs to nation building)so that real strategic goals can be set on the ground that mean something once they're accomplished.
And two: I don't know what McCain actually believes when it comes to personal rights and choices but I do know that his base supports movements that I disapprove of. Taking away a woman's choice to abortion, being okay with domestic spying by the gov't, and the need to include their brand of God in everything political and public for starters.
I don't want to vote for Obama, but right now I really feel like I need my vote to count towards the person who gets elected so voting third party won't help anything this term. Maybe I will be drunk enough election night to have the balls to actually vote for someone who represents me but I may end up voting for Obama out of fear of what McCain could do.
All the social programs that Obama wants couldn't be worse than opening a third front against "terror". Mark my words, you will see America's back break if we are dragged into another conflict without resolving our current two.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2008-09-09 22:14:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Mistake in my last comment. 20% of 250 million cars currently on the road to be scrapped out and replaced with electric by 2012 by Obama is not 50,000 cars. It's 50 million cars in your back yard. Mea culpa.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-09-09 22:13:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Obama will win!!!!
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-09-09 21:59:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2008-09-09 21:34:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Think the candidate's promises through before you vote. And by that I mean "Please think the cadidate's promises through before you vote" AND "Please vote".
--
And that is the crux of the problem. Once agin the Dems will need the youth vote, and once again the kids will stay home and fuck around on the net or play xbox on election day.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2008-09-09 21:34:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Honestly, the most informative political discussions I've had concerning this election and its issues and candidates have been with Sacrilicious. She's all about Obama and I'm supporting McCain. Through these discussions I have come to realize the Obama has ideas that we've all heard before and that sound really good, but he has no workable plan for actualizing them in the real post-election world.
All the money Obama is planning on spending has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is increased taxes. As an example, $150B on alternative energy instead of using the energy we have available right now! That's about $500 for every man, woman, and child in the US. Now that won't all come from the richest 5% of Americans since all Washington politicians, Dem, Rep, or other, fall in that category. No, don't fool yourself: it will come from you. Do you have an extra $500 to give away for yourself and everyone in your family? You'd better. 20% of all cars on the road to be electric by 2012! Who's going to give the average American the $40,000 it costs to buy one of these cars? You are. How will you recycle the 50,000 gas-powered cars taken off the road in that time? They'll be junked in your back yard or given to welfare recipients in your cities, therefore realizing no reduction in fuel consumption or pollution. Obama's inexperience shows in these promises. They sound good, but are unworkable in the timeframe he promises.
McCain has a far better understanding of what happens after you've said you'll do something. That alone will ensure the things he says will come to pass do in fact come to pass. Conserve and use what we have in preparation for a progressive switch to renewable energy. Make alternative fuels attractive from a price standpoint and people will switch voluntarily. In the short term: Clean coal and nuclear for electricity, new oil drilling and CNG for cars. In the long term: wind, solar, nuclear, and clean coal for electricity. Some gasoline, mostly hybrid, and some full-electric for cars.
Think the candidate's promises through before you vote. And by that I mean "Please think the cadidate's promises through before you vote" AND "Please vote".
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-09-09 21:21:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Obama preaches hope and change without a plan to put into action.
McCain tells us he plans on being the next Bush.
Personally I'd follow blind hope over well planned at worst failure and at best mediocrity.
Submitted by Linus (user info) at 2008-09-09 21:16:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
*shrugs*
*walks away*
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-09-09 20:54:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Just like talking about religion. People either shrug and walk away or jump into full-blown rage.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-09-09 20:53:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't have enough experience to really know where all the fat is that could be trimmed, but I do have enough to summarize what should be in or out of the defense budget. There are many technologies being researched that have yet to deliver any useful tools to the battlefield for years, I'm thinking of StarWars and tilt engine aircraft. Why we still spend money on them is beyond me.
I think we have a huge variety of vehicles and equipment and end up paying for it a figurative way when it breaks and soldiers have to wait days, weeks, or months before the rare parts to fix it turn up. This time spent being combat ineffective costs tax payers a lot of money in a round about way. We need to sit down and settle what is useful and what isn't, and phase out quickly what isn't working.
We need to step up on teaching our servicemen foreign languages, as the ability to have a trustworthy translator greatly multiplies the effectiveness of any formation of soldiers in a war among people. The time lost in translation costs money too, and the solution is simple though it may not be easy.
All of these ideas are so simple it hurts sometimes. Most of all, we need a scale back in the actual number of troops, not by terminating contracts with current servicemen but like I said, by raising the bar to get in, in the first place. The military can become a place where motivated and intelligent people want to see themselves, where real skills can be acquired and big things can be achieved but things have to change first.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-09-09 20:35:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I would like to hear more about your ideas for defense. The Military is orgasming money, yet can't seem to outfit the troops with body armor. I wouldn't mind trimming that budget, and forcing them to get their priorities in order.
You are correct about the ASVAB being to easy, however... most people with a plethora of opportunity don't choose to enlist, and I oppose the draft completely. Also, those people on the lower end of the ASVAB score are usually just ground pounders anyway.