If this guy gets in

I'm not going to read that article, it's from the Army...





















hehe...just kidding of course.

Good article I guess, but I don't agree with his pessimistic assumptions about Iraq and/or future battles we may face or his thoughts on the necessity of Congressional oversight in the ranking process.

I will admit I don't know much about the inner workings and the political situation in the armed forces, but I find it hard to believe that the solution is to allow a bunch of pompous, pandering fools(Congress) to have a strong hand in the direct organization of our military.

In a perfect world what he desires might just work, but step back and look at the legislators we have elected and allowed to hold office seemingly indefinitely. The leaders of the left are anti military and are convinced that the US is the largest obstacle in the path to "World peace".

The accessibility of information today is a large thorn in the side of our military. Actually it is the ability of our liberal media and representatives to politicize the information that is truly the thorn.

Ultimately I think a number of bureaucracies in this country need a complete overhaul.

WWII would have surely gone a different route if the American people had seen what happened on the Normandy coast that June day.

Like Jay said, that article was written a year ago, and there have been major advances made in our tactics and the stability of Iraq.

So anyway....the $3T and 3000+ lives....

$3T....has gotten you an Iraq without Saddam Hussein and his henchmen, An Iraq that we are pretty positive doesn't have WMD's, and Iraq where there is hope to the future, and an Iraq that will be a longtime ally in a region where we desperately need more than just Israel.

The loss of life in Iraq is tragic. Unfortunately lives are lost in wars, and thankfully our losses in Iraq haven't been higher.

-D
 
Last edited:
That's a great article...thanks for posting it. I guess I'm not surprised by any of it other than I was under the impression that we had started to prepare certain forces for insurgent warfare prior to this war and continue to ramp up that style of training now. Note, it appears to have been written in '07. The war we are engaged in now is definately different and as any good military would, we are adapting quickly. I don't see anything in that article that would raise the hackles on my neck about George Bush. If anything...he was too trusting of his military? And, it's not what "they" say, it's what "he" said. One general and it was a good read. What's your point then Bret?

War is Chaos
Click to expand...


Thanks for your appreciation of something that is definitely not biased towards supporting Bush or our situation in Iraq.

But how can you say we are "adapting quickly"? This article discusses the history that led us to the war with Iraq, and our gov't has made A LOT of mistakes. Hindsight is 20/20, but why does foresight have to be practically nonexistent? All the conservatives like to blather about "those who forget history are condemned to repeat it...". That gripes me when the current admin has repeated a lot of mistakes that we should have learned a mere 10-20 years ago. Such as planning on fighting terrorism with a conventional fighting force. Duh-I'm not military trained and even I know better. In fact maybe that's the problem- the U.S. military is too institutionalized and regimented. They need a fresh perspective and they're getting it now. But I don't think I'd go so far as to say they're "adapting quickly".

You guys like to try to make me out as the lone voice calling out against Bush and the war in Iraq. Maybe I'm one of the few on this site with enough balls to do it here, but there are a lot of people with a lot more to lose doing it every day, even guys like many U.S. Generals.

I've been against the war in Iraq since before it even started. I'm not some Johnny-come-lately just because the war hasn't gone "well". The truth is that we aren't achieving anything in Iraq except to have taken out the Husseins. Big whoop. We should've assasinated him and his sons and saved $2.99999999Trillion.

We need a grass-roots effort to "nudge" the U.S. gov't to accepting their failures in the mideast and start doing a much more precise job of the war on terrorism. As long as guys like many of you on this site continue to defend the current policies and administration, it ain't gonna change. Certainly not by "adapting quickly".
 
BDaves,

I resent the comment about "enough balls"...

Frankly, continuing this discussion isn't worth the effort. As a result, I've decided to bow out of the thread and the discussion.

I'm not going to convince Jay, Hitch or Dave (or others) of my position, and neither are you. No more than they are going to convince you of the their position. Everyone made good points, and everyone sees things from their own perspective and through the lenses of their experience.

We are obviously passionate about our beliefs and it doesn't serve any constructive purpose to continue this conversation on this thread or on the board. All it does is alienate people that are otherwise united by an interest in duck boats and duck hunting.

I can understand it may feel better to have a dialog with people about it, but clearly doing it on the DBHP is not an effective way to convince anyone or solve anything. Especially when it degrades into name calling and derisive comments.

I don't really feel like bantering about it on the board. I'd like to keep this a friendly place to hang out when I have a free moment, rather than create a tense and divisive environment that draws lines between people for no good reason.

Charlie
 


Man, talk about dense. The impotent dictator I was referring to was Saddam Hussein. I guess I can't just insinuate anything, I'll be exact from now on, now that I know the level of intelligence I'm playing with.

You say Pakistan is a "hornet's net of jihadists" but then assume the only terrorist worthy of hunting there is Osama? You're also an extreme fool if you think Pakistans leaders are "with us". I trust them about as far as I can p!ss on them from here.

You also use the word "pontificate" incorrectly. Unless you're giving us the point of view of the leader of the Catholic church. I didn't think so.

If you think I'm full of chit, please read the following:

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198

I think you'll find a lot of eye-opening information that didn't even come from me. It came from the U.S. military. See what they think. And I hold Bush as ultimately responsible for the same mistakes because he is, after all (unfortunately) Commander in Chief.
Click to expand...


I would agree that Pakistan is one root of the problem in the muslim world-it's just not feasible to attack them-which is what you suggested and said it was a better idea to spend money doing that than attack Iraq. And to say that Saddam was impotent at the time of attack is idiotic. Hind site is 20/20. When I went back and reread what you said I realized my mistake...though it was an easy mistake to make based on the topic. And by the way if you're going to start bashing me for silly details I should remind you that you referred to "Osama" as "Obama"...what a dumbass thing to say huh! That's racist...you must be a bigot! And "pontificate" was the exact fkn word I was looking for. Look up the definition smart guy...not the one about the "pontif". And by the way I never mentioned you saying we should pull the troops out of Iraq...I was making a point of analysis and using Obama's comments. I'll be more exact from now on, now that I know the level of intelligence I'm playing with. Touche!

"I'll be exact from now on, now that I know the level of intelligence I'm playing with." Now that's not a very nice thing to say is it? You aren't playing with me anyway Bret...you are making a fool of yourself(again). I take back what I said...above(way above)cause it's mean spirited.

"You say Pakistan is a "hornet's net of jihadists" but then assume the only terrorist worthy of hunting there is Osama? You're also an extreme fool if you think Pakistans leaders are "with us". I trust them about as far as I can p!ss on them from here."

I never said the only terrorist worthy of our attention in Pakistan was Osama...you said you would attack Pakistan and get Osama. I would go into Pakistan and whip that shithole into shape with some serious anhilation...do you have the stomach for that? I highly doubt it. It ain't feasible and if it did happen you could smell the rotting corpses from here. Except they wouldn't be rotting in the NW because I'd use a few tactical nukes to tidy that joint up...maybe start things over up there...like before the dinosaurs time line. You are the "extreme fool", Pakistan's leaders are with us...the president has a giant bullseye on his head because of it. You ever heard the term "strange bedfellows". And no, I don't trust them either. So here is your idea the way I understand it...Because Iraq is a huge waste of time and money(to get the impotent thug and his WMD)lets go attack a country because they are harboring terrorists(potentially tens of millions of them)and we piss on the leadership(from here)that has been termed "ally" in the war on terror. Now that is some seriously great planning. I'm sure that when the US personel death toll reaches into the 20 or 30 thousand range you'd probably figure out a way to blame W eh. And just think of how many other "strange bedfellows" would disappear in the future because we can't be trusted. Just think of the field day Amnesty International, The French, and CNN would have showing the bloated Paki kids laying around the playground while the women do that "loo loo loo loo loo" mourn thing. You have the stomach for that? You think our president's job approval rating is bad now! Yep, you should run for office buddy!
Click to expand...


I've never stated that I favor a direct invasion of Pakistan like was perpetrated on Iraq. But I sure think we could step up our current efforts. Akmadinijad (however you spell it) is thumbing his nose at us. As are most other mideast countries, whether officially "friend" or "foe". About the only country I can say for certain is a true ally is Israel. The rest are just posers. And we should stop being "friends" with posers. Turkey is another good example, as is my aforementioned Saudi Arabia. If they don't assist us when we ask for it, then they are off the Christmas Card list. Make an offical "shit-list". And put some teeth to it. Take all the oil from Iraq and cut off countries that are on the "shit-list". I think they'd step-to pretty quickly under a reverse oil embargo. And then I wouldn't feel so bad paying $5 a gallon if I new it was doing something other than support the oil companies.

If Pakistan is a true ally, why don't they let us come in and remove a few "hornets nests"?
 
BDaves,

I resent the comment about "enough balls"...

Frankly, continuing this discussion isn't worth the effort. As a result, I've decided to bow out of the thread and the discussion.

I'm not going to convince Jay, Hitch or Dave (or others) of my position, and neither are you. No more than they are going to convince you of the their position. Everyone made good points, and everyone sees things from their own perspective and through the lenses of their experience.

We are obviously passionate about our beliefs and it doesn't serve any constructive purpose to continue this conversation on this thread or on the board. All it does is alienate people that are otherwise united by an interest in duck boats and duck hunting.

I can understand it may feel better to have a dialog with people about it, but clearly doing it on the DBHP is not an effective way to convince anyone or solve anything. Especially when it degrades into name calling and derisive comments.

I don't really feel like bantering about it on the board. I'd like to keep this a friendly place to hang out when I have a free moment, rather than create a tense and divisive environment that draws lines between people for no good reason.

Charlie
Click to expand...


Ironic since you were about the only other person with "enough balls". I certainly respect your position and I thank you for your earlier comments. It's nice to see some reasonable thinking on occasion.

But I don't think it's all in vain. In fact the initial post from Patterson about the clip of Obama was very important. Prior to seeing that I was favorable towards Obama. That single clip changed my mind. But not because Eric might lose his job, that's petty since a lot of other people HAVE lost their jobs due to the current administration. We need a strong leader, but we also need a smart leader. Right now we have half of the equation. Obama is the other half. Looks like McCain is the lesser of all evils right now in order to have a little of each.

I don't disagree with you that it's probably a waste of time for me to try to help other's change their minds about the current administration, but I find it cathartic anyway. I don't care about a popularity contest. I for one actually care about what's best for my family and our country. And despite the conservatives banter about them being the only group that truly loves their country, I say they have a funny way of showing it.

It's too bad you're afraid of hard feelings, but I understand. Personally I can respect someone for making a good argument and a well-constructed debate, even if I don't agree with them. If they have real reasons for thinking and feeling the way they do, I can respect that. I may not like it, but I can respect it. What I can't respect is when someone supports something because they spend too much listening to Rush or watching FOX news (or even worse and yet much more common-because their job is dependent upon us continuing to spend $0.42/$1.00 to continue to support the current military in the same archaic fashion, or they work for one of the few companies that have had a huge windfall due to the policies of the Bush gang-that's the same as welfare). Think independently.
 
Last edited:
Eric might lose his job, that's petty ......... What I can't respect is when someone supports something because they spend too much listening to Rush or watching FOX news (or even worse and yet much more common-because their job is dependent upon us continuing to spend $0.42/$1.00 to continue to support the current military in the same archaic fashion, or they work for one of the few companies that have had a huge windfall due to the policies of the Bush gang-that's the same as welfare). Think independently.
Click to expand...


[size 2]
Brett

Years ago I decided I'd not engage in any discussion with you because frankly I find you insulting, don't care for your constant combative attitude, or egotistical laden opinions. I can't remember the last time you engaged in a post to help someone or answer a question just to be nice. But if there is a debate to be had and a chance to voice your opinion, because after all it is your opinion and oh so important, you are all over it. The random jabs you've thrown my way over the years and this latest certainly proves your actions towards me are born out of lack or respect and dislike. I don't care one way or another what you think of me. However, I'm going to address this latest characterization of me being "petty" and a recipient of some sort of white collar welfare because there are many here I consider friends and I want them to know my feelings about my chosen career, defense contractor supporting missile defense and other military programs.

Missile Defense is no pork barrel or boondoggle program. Every day I come to work and give a sincere and honest effort, as do the talented and bright folks around me, towards fielding a system that PROTECTS our troops and citizens from attack by any one of the tens of thousands of ballistic missiles in the inventory of our adversaries who feel like lobbing one at us. Hardly welfare. Hussein threw his scuds at us over a decade ago and we had limited success against them with a system, Patriot, designed for taking out air breathers, not ballistic missiles. Congress saw the vulnerability of our troops and citizens to such weapons and appropriated many dollars for us to build a defense. Why did they do this? Because we need it. Because the lives of soldiers and citizens are at risk. Because without it we are more vulnerable and may have to accept conditions imposed that we otherwise wouldn't. Because it lessens our need for nuclear deterence. And on and on and on. At one time we actually had a system to defeat these types of threats (mostly soviet then) but treaties were signed taking the nuclear equipped defense systems out of our defense capabilities so we've had to go back to the drawing board to build treaty compliant systems that also meet today's threats and emerging ones. Meeting that threat is what we are doing. In the original clip Obama said he would end these programs which to me is insanely naive given the rush by countries such as North Korea and Iran to develop long range capabilities in addition to the long list of those that already have them, including beloved Pakistan who preaches anti US propaganda and annihilation of us to it's school children.

So to anyone that reads Brett's post and feels Obama's comments address a defense that's "archaic", as Brett put it, defense I hope you will do your own research as to the threat that exists today, where it is heading, and what the US needs to do to protect us. In doing so I think you will clearly see that this issue goes way deeper and is far more important than me losing my "welfare" check.

I can't believe I just wasted my lunch hour because of Brett. Foolish me.
 
Like a moth drawn to the flame, I find an irresistible need to make a couple observations on this interesting discussion.

As an independent, I find the past few congresses to be the worst in my life time, and would be happy if every member running for re-election would be voted out of office. I don't care how nice they are, in their playing middle school "gotcha" they have failed to take care of the people's business. Nothing has been done for a number of years. We have issues facing this nation, besides terrorism, that need to be addressed. Three that really come to mind are social security, a national energy plan, and health care. Like, what he put forward or not, the President made proposals and I really don't remember any "political debate" on the issues that amounted to a hill of beans. This is the United States and we do have the talent and resources to work on more than one issue at a time.

I read an editorial piece today that made me laugh. It suggested that President Bush should just say, I'm out of here." Like Daniel Boone did when people complained about his time in the House .... "I'm going to Texas, the rest of you can go to hell." The Constitution is intact, and complaints will be handled by the Supreme Court. WMD's bother you, it would have been easy to plant devices all over Iraq, but we didn't. It was for oil, who was going to stop us if we wanted to take the oil regions, the United Nations. Give me a break. In my lifetime the economy has had its ups and downs, and a lot of those downs make this one look like a a small blip on the graph. Unemployment is really quite low, I seem to remember 12% during President Carter's tenure. but I live in a state with unemployment below the National average. Even with the sub-prime mess, home ownership is at a high, as is minority home ownership. More people own stocks or instruments that are comprised of stocks. Minority business creation is at a high. But President Bush is a (please add your own descriptive words here). The last comment I have is that It would be nice if people would think deeply about issues.

I read read Lt.Col. Yingling's article last year in the May issue of "Armed Forces Journal." Reread it yesterday, took out Harry Summers book and gave it another "once over," but did not take out von Clausewitz's "On War." It was a bear to read once. An ardent young man's book. It was an interesting piece but I was disappointed that Yingling did not note the similarity between Lincoln trying to find Generals who could fight and President Bush's need to find fighting generals. In the 30 years I served, my impression was, that picking generals was, at best, a goat roping. Von Clausewitz said things can go badly, quickly in war. It is not a static event that every detail can be planned for. Oh, yes, "The Armed Forces Journal," is not an official publication. It is owned by the Gannett Company, Inc.

The fact that as many members are willing to have a say in this discussion says a lot about the positives of their character. It takes a great deal of courage to contribute to a discussion of a complex and controversial issue. It is too easy to say, "No, I don't want to be laughed at." This is a site of individuals who have a common interest. I do not believe anyone here wishes harm to our Nation, but we need to resist name calling and ...... enough said.

Hope all of you and your kin are doing well, looking for more rain here, Richard Bell

Oh, yes, I find Vermont to the point and very conservative, it's the Constitution.
 
Lmao! This has been the most entertaining thread I have ever read. One post says this another says that it's like the opinion of duck hunting stuff, Rnt is the.... no Sean mann is the ... winchester this and remngton that. Ok if you want to hear what I think or maybe you dont, Shut up and VOTE. Vote the way you feel and for who you thinks is the best for our country. Then and only then when the electorals are counted will you figure out how many people agreed with what you thought. Religion and politics causes war. Let's shoot ducks and not comments about each other. As Joe says "Ciao"-Les
 
Leslie, I respectfully disagree. As a 26 year old American, that is surrounded by people(especially peers)who would rather just talk about something else, I'm sick of that attitude.

I don't expect people to agree with what I say, but I do hope to learn from what others say, and hopefully have my thoughts influence their opinions too.

No one may listen, but I'm gonna talk. If you notice, I won't attack on a personal level either, that's a waste of time. As a Conservative I fight with ideas instead of emotions.


Great points Richard. I for one have never said my opinion of President Bush. It's only been assumed by Brett. You know I don't think independently b/c I'm watching FOX news and b/c I listened to Rush today.....side note: He had some interesting insight on oil prices today...If you really think about it I am an Independent, just not one in the middle. I'm too disgusted by the lack of action by Republicans in the last decade. I would love to see them all dropped on their asses and asking if I wanted fries or onion rings. Heck, I could complain about Bush for hours, but not about the war in Iraq, and not about many of the "ills" of the administration that the left has continually squawked about from their soapbox. All the left wants is power, and they'll stop at nothing to get it. Fortunately for them, most of the US populace they are selling ideas to are pretty darn stupid. A product of our liberal colleges, and pitiful school systems.

-D
 
Eric might lose his job, that's petty ......... What I can't respect is when someone supports something because they spend too much listening to Rush or watching FOX news (or even worse and yet much more common-because their job is dependent upon us continuing to spend $0.42/$1.00 to continue to support the current military in the same archaic fashion, or they work for one of the few companies that have had a huge windfall due to the policies of the Bush gang-that's the same as welfare). Think independently.
Click to expand...



Brett

Years ago I decided I'd not engage in any discussion with you because frankly I find you insulting, don't care for your constant combative attitude, or egotistical laden opinions. I can't remember the last time you engaged in a post to help someone or answer a question just to be nice. But if there is a debate to be had and a chance to voice your opinion, because after all it is your opinion and oh so important, you are all over it. The random jabs you've thrown my way over the years and this latest certainly proves your actions towards me are born out of lack or respect and dislike. I don't care one way or another what you think of me. However, I'm going to address this latest characterization of me being "petty" and a recipient of some sort of white collar welfare because there are many here I consider friends and I want them to know my feelings about my chosen career, defense contractor supporting missile defense and other military programs.

Missile Defense is no pork barrel or boondoggle program. Every day I come to work and give a sincere and honest effort, as do the talented and bright folks around me, towards fielding a system that PROTECTS our troops and citizens from attack by any one of the tens of thousands of ballistic missiles in the inventory of our adversaries who feel like lobbing one at us. Hardly welfare. Hussein threw his scuds at us over a decade ago and we had limited success against them with a system, Patriot, designed for taking out air breathers, not ballistic missiles. Congress saw the vulnerability of our troops and citizens to such weapons and appropriated many dollars for us to build a defense. Why did they do this? Because we need it. Because the lives of soldiers and citizens are at risk. Because without it we are more vulnerable and may have to accept conditions imposed that we otherwise wouldn't. Because it lessens our need for nuclear deterence. And on and on and on. At one time we actually had a system to defeat these types of threats (mostly soviet then) but treaties were signed taking the nuclear equipped defense systems out of our defense capabilities so we've had to go back to the drawing board to build treaty compliant systems that also meet today's threats and emerging ones. Meeting that threat is what we are doing. In the original clip Obama said he would end these programs which to me is insanely naive given the rush by countries such as North Korea and Iran to develop long range capabilities in addition to the long list of those that already have them, including beloved Pakistan who preaches anti US propaganda and annihilation of us to it's school children.

So to anyone that reads Brett's post and feels Obama's comments address a defense that's "archaic", as Brett put it, defense I hope you will do your own research as to the threat that exists today, where it is heading, and what the US needs to do to protect us. In doing so I think you will clearly see that this issue goes way deeper and is far more important than me losing my "welfare" check.

I can't believe I just wasted my lunch hour because of Brett. Foolish me.
Click to expand...



Eric,

My biggest point of contention with your initial post was due to the fact that you merely objected to Obama's statements in order to protect your own job. I don't like it when anyone chooses politicians based on self-serving platforms, although I realize thats what almost everyone does. Not too many people think of the big-picture, especially if it's gonna potentially take anything away from them on an individual basis. I'd have been a lot more supportive of your position if you'd stated the obvious- that restricting NUCS and missile defense systems is a BAD IDEA for everyone, especially for the safety of us Americans. Not because doing so might cause you to lose your job. That's not MY problem or the potential problem for our country. Not that I WANT you to lose your job, but THAT'S NOT THE REASON we should not limit further missile programs.

As I've already stated, I appreciated your posting it, but not because of what he might do to harm your career, because of what he might do to harm our country. That single clip changed my mind about Obama. But not much here has changed my mind about Bush and Iraq, both of which I think have been huge mistakes. You're free to love Bush because his policies have created a good life for you and your family, just like I'm free to despise Bush because overall he has created too many problems for our country. Different strokes.

BTW- I beleive the first time you and I interacted several years ago you were the one who fired the first shot over the bow. I replied to a question about outboards and you shot me down as some armchair boater that merely memorizes the motor catalogs. How silly of you. I don't even need to defend my experience with boats and waterfowling. If you don't like my advice and think you know more, don't read my posts. If you want a non-combative atmosphere, I'd suggest you listen to your own rhetoric.
 
Well said Eric,

Most people have no clue what this country has in its arsenal. The stuff makes most movie toys look like just that...toys. Yet fools chose to repeat the rhetoric they see and hear, and show their own utter ignorance.

Let me just say...next time you see a UFO; it's likely part of our arsenal, no matter how unexplainable it is. And the next time you hear about how we bombed one house and killed a top terrorist leader, it's probably because we knew which nostril he had his finger in.

And the amount of stuff you think you know is nothing compared to what you'll never learn about; what goes on to protect your right to run your mouth and be as ignorant as you wish to reveal.

It's some of what keeps this place the best place on earth...still to this day.

Hitch
 
Last edited:
When I was in the marines in 1993 I was doing bua-(build up area) patrol and had a little visit. The seargent at arms was doing his checks and I reported to him like normal. While we were conversating he told me to not be caught smoking again while on guard duty. I was shocked as how in the heck he knew I was smoking. He informed me the intel guys which was temporarily set up in our armory had checked all of his guards for him between rounds. I was smoking- guilty. He then said the satellite was so good he couldn't read but could make out the brand of the pack I had. Marlboro reds. If you think for one minute our country is ignorant and blind to technology, you are sadly mistaken. I went to the intel afterwards and watched the following patrol with him. I could not believe what you could see on that satellite. That was 15 yrs ago.

Dave, I wasn't standing up to any one thought, just putting the pen to the paper. YOUR VOTE COUNTS USE IT! We do make a difference.
 
Hey Brett -

Defense spending in FY 2007 was 20.1% of the Federal Budget. You can read it here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/...fy2008/pdf/08msr.pdf

I'll even help you a little more. On the left side of this page, scroll over to the summary section and then go to page 4. You will find a real big pretty picture that is easy to read. Oh yeah, this information comes from the US Governments Office of Budget and Management in case you think I am using some funny report published by some right wing conspiracy organization or something along these lines.

Now, where do you get your 42% of the Federal Budget is spent on the military "facts". Did you mena to say that approximately 42% is spent on Medicare, Mediacaid and Social Security instead of the military. This fact is also in this report.

Mark W
 
Last edited:
I think I found the 42%..I googled defense spending after Brett's challenge and there was a left wing wacko site that said the US spends 40 some percent of the worldwide defense dollars. Compares to Canada's 1%, China's 2%, Russia's2% etc, etc. To which I say...no shit. Why should our "allies" spend any money since we are protecting them?
 
Lee & Mark

The % of the Fed budget used for Defense is no where near 42%. When Kennedy was Pres and we were at the height of the Cold War and the Space Race it did go over the 50% mark but hasn't been anywhere near that or 42% in many administrations. The 2008 budget shows Defense to be about 20%.
 
Hey Brett -

Defense spending in FY 2007 was 20.1% of the Federal Budget. You can read it here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/...fy2008/pdf/08msr.pdf

I'll even help you a little more. On the left side of this page, scroll over to the summary section and then go to page 4. You will find a real big pretty picture that is easy to read. Oh yeah, this information comes from the US Governments Office of Budget and Management in case you think I am using some funny report published by some right wing conspiracy organization or something along these lines.

Now, where do you get your 42% of the Federal Budget is spent on the military "facts". Did you mena to say that approximately 42% is spent on Medicare, Mediacaid and Social Security instead of the military. This fact is also in this report.

Mark W
Click to expand...


When I first looked at your link, I had egg on my face. I thought my previous source must've been blowing smoke. The reference to 42% came from a headline on AOL a month or so ago wherein the link provided a break-down of the federal budget. I'm quite certain that military spending was listed as 42% of the federal budget. However, the Whitehouse obviously shows it differently. Who's right, I don't have a clue. My guess is the real figure is somewhere between 20% and 42%, as discussed by the following quote from wikipedia:

"The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the military budget figures listed above.[13] In addition, the United States has black budget military spending which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures. Other military-related items, like maintenance of the nuclear arsenal and the money spent by the Veterans Affairs Department, are not included in the official budget. Thus, the total amount spent by the United States on military spending is higher."

I think it's entirely reasonable to conclude that if you add even a portion of what we really spent in Iraq this year, the total defense spending is much higher than 20% of the budget. Some sources (that I admit may not be entirely credible) have the U.S. defense spending at over 50% of the budget when you include Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination, however I certainly don't always believe what the Whitehouse is telling us, especially considering what is mentioned on wikipedia.

Another link I found interesting was the following:
http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/upload/bythenumbers.pdf

page 12 is especially interesting as well as disturbing.

Some of you may consider me a total A-hole and a beligerent dick, but I would hope you at least consider that this discussion has been good for bringing up valid points from both sides of the issue. I have learned a few things and although I don't agree with much of what has been written, I think it's been worthwhile and we should all be glad we have the chance to engage in such discussions.
 
You are going to believe something written in a "Wiki" over an officially published report required by law. I think you are are asking for quite a bit of trouble in doing this. Do yo know what a "Wiki" is? This is somethig where anyone can contribute anything they want to any subject. Doesn't have to be true. You can write whatever you want and until someone corrects it, it stays as it is. For instance, I could write that JFK was born of illegal immigrants and it would get published until someone else corrected it. Now we all know this isn't true but if it is in a Wiki, it has to be real.

Compare this to an officially published document required by law. I can't see the Rupublicans, or George Bush, publishing something this comprehensive and make it all lies. Can you imagine the fallout from publishing a bunch of lies in a public document such as this? I can't. On the other hand, is the real figure 20.1% - I don't know for certain but I am fairly certain that the real spending number is way closer to 20% than 42%.

Oh, and another thing. Maybe you need to go back and read the Constitution and what it cover. The Feds are responsible for the defense of this country and the other 79.9% that they spend is not in the Constitution. I think this is the spending that we need to cut. 42% for Medicare, Medicaide and Social Security. Where is this in the Constitution as being the responsibility of the Federal governement?

For what it is worth.

Mark W
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top