|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 3, 2010 17:44:02 GMT -8
I'm sorry, but I am totally fed up with the career military types on here whining about this that and the other thing while they are part of the greatest welfare system this planet has ever seen.
If they were in combat, that's something and I would never disagree with giving them benefits, even though VA still often refuses to recognize PTSD.
But I mean really; they join up at 18, spend 20 years when they may or may not see combat, but even if they don't see combat, they assume some sort of mortal high ground simply because they spent 20 years floating on boats.
Let's face it - last time the Nav, outside of Nav pilots, was in any sort of significant engagement was WW II.
The simple fact is this - if we want to balance our budget, we need to totally cut back on DOD funding. There is no reason in Hell that we should have 12 or however many carrier groups we have.
And, quite frankly, I'll join with the libertarians in questioning why we still have bases in Europe and Japan. I'm willing to accept Ramstein but aside from that, we should get the F@#$ out of Germany, Europe and Asia. Of course, that will never happen because DOD has become, as Ike warned, nothing more than a whore to the defense industry.
The military/industrial complex took control of this country back in the '50s and our economy has declined because those pieces of crap corporations did so.
But, of course, those on here who benefit from he military welfare system will undoubtedly disagree with me because they enjoy he benefits offered them because they spent 20 years floating on boats.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 3, 2010 19:59:03 GMT -8
Bob, some of those guys who were floating on boats were on the River Boats in Viet Nam. If I remember right, they had the highest injury rate and death rate of any group over there. I volunteered for that duty. They refused to accept me because they though I had to be crazy, so they made me an officer instead.
This much I know, Those guys were the Best of the Best.
When I went to Nuclear Power School, the first six months were in Vallejo, Calif. Every morning at six o'clock in the morning those guys would come running by in squad formation chanting, "Nukie, Nukie, don't feel blue, Tinker Bell was a Fairy, too.
Am I right or wrong?
You're Right
Are we weak or strong?
We're strong!
Count off!
One, Two
Sound off
Three, Four
Head it on up!
One, Two, Three, Four
One, Two
Three, Four!"
I really liked those guys.
When I served in Charleston SC with MineSquadron Ten, almost all of the men on the MSB's were ex River Boat men. They could tell stories that would raise the hair on your arms and on the back of your neck. It was there that I heard about a Navy Lieutenant who charged from his River Boat and single handedly took out a machine gun and gunner. Back then they had the story straight. It was then that I volunteered to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecTom on Sept 3, 2010 22:46:00 GMT -8
Bob, you seriously need to shut the f#ck up! I wish someone in the military would seek you out and knock you on your short hippie ass. Your an ungrateful bastard. You and your canuck wife need to move your sorry asses to Canada. You don't deserve to live here. You really are a douche bag! It's because of our military that we enjoy our freedom and live in the best and most blessed country in the world. If you don't like, don't let the door hit your sorry ass on the way out. Believe me, you won't be missed. Sounds to me like you are a dumb standard liberal dem who doesn't know his ass from his elbow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 4, 2010 6:35:02 GMT -8
I'm sorry, but I am totally fed up with the career military types on here whining about this that and the other thing while they are part of the greatest welfare system this planet has ever seen. You want to increase the ranks of the unemployed apparently. That's one of the main problems. A huge military keeps unemployment down. But really, do we need to have all those bases in Germany and Japan? South Korea I can see, but we've got so many bases all over the world that the DOD budget is just way too huge. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 4, 2010 7:18:20 GMT -8
You want to increase the ranks of the unemployed apparently. That's one of the main problems. A huge military keeps unemployment down. But really, do we need to have all those bases in Germany and Japan? South Korea I can see, but we've got so many bases all over the world that the DOD budget is just way too huge. =Bob Minor trivia point. The men and women in the armed forces are not in the labor pool. They are not counted along with kids in college and people in medical institutions as well as prisoners in jail and larger lockups. Has anybody ever wondered why our labor pool is so small? Ironically, I worked all four years I was in high school and all four years that I was in College. Technically I was not in the labor pool, but I was full time employed. You can try to figure out how that skewed the Unemployment numbers in the 1970's. All I know is that the government data are all screwed up and totally unreliable. Supposedly they do a survey to determine the percentage of unemployment, but in my talks around the United States I have never run across one person who remembers ever being contacted for that survey. Do you guys know of any?  ?? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 4, 2010 11:20:01 GMT -8
Bob, some of those guys who were floating on boats were on the River Boats in Viet Nam. If I remember right, they had the highest injury rate and death rate of any group over there. I volunteered for that duty. They refused to accept me because they though I had to be crazy, so they made me an officer instead. This much I know, Those guys were the Best of the Best. I'm well aware of that; we have one of them on here, in fact. The floating on boats stuff was a troll aimed at Pooh and others, but I think it is an important question. How much military do we need? It's bloody difficult to make any cuts at all, given that every state and a serious boatload of congressional districts get bucks from the military, the defense industry or both. No elected official wants to make cuts that will cost his constituents jobs. And do we really need so many overseas bases? I was watching the start of a football game this morning and they stated the game was being shown on Armed Forces Network to our troops in 177 countries. Now, I'm sure that in the large percentage of those countries there's nothing more than Embassy Marines, assuming that duty hasn't been completely handed over to contractors, but we have bases and troops all over the world and it costs us one Hell of a lot of money to keep them there. Tom argues that the military keeps us free and yeah, that's true, but would cutting the military by a certain percentage make us less free or put us in more danger when our defense budget is larger than damn near the rest of the world put together? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 4, 2010 11:22:18 GMT -8
That's one of the main problems. A huge military keeps unemployment down. But really, do we need to have all those bases in Germany and Japan? South Korea I can see, but we've got so many bases all over the world that the DOD budget is just way too huge. =Bob Minor trivia point. The men and women in the armed forces are not in the labor pool. They are not counted along with kids in college and people in medical institutions as well as prisoners in jail and larger lockups. That was sort of my point. If they are in the military, they aren't in the labor pool and cuts would put some of them back into that pool where they might or might not find jobs. So there again, we are reliant on the military for things that directly effect our economy and I'm just not sure we can sustain that level forever. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecTom on Sept 4, 2010 11:28:03 GMT -8
Minor trivia point. The men and women in the armed forces are not in the labor pool. They are not counted along with kids in college and people in medical institutions as well as prisoners in jail and larger lockups. That was sort of my point. If they are in the military, they aren't in the labor pool and cuts would put some of them back into that pool where they might or might not find jobs. So there again, we are reliant on the military for things that directly effect our economy and I'm just not sure we can sustain that level forever. =Bob You really need to get a clue! Yes, it would put us in more danger if we cut the military. Do you realize that we are in a war right now? Do you realize a lot of countries don't like us? Do you realize that if we don't keep the terrorism over there, that it would come to our door step? Get a clue hippie! And I do realize that a lot of drugs did damage to your small brain. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 4, 2010 13:14:06 GMT -8
Go easy on the =Perfesser. He's a career county petty bureaucrat, feeding off the public teat, and probably upset that he didn't get a retirement package as nice as he could have with, oh say the city of Bell, or even Vallejo. He's in the minority, though, when it comes to opinions on the military, and his libs in Congress aren't all that popular according to Gallup: www.gallup.com/poll/141512/congress-ranks-last-confidence-institutions.aspx |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 4, 2010 19:28:55 GMT -8
Go easy on the =Perfesser. He's a career county petty bureaucrat, feeding off the public teat, and probably upset that he didn't get a retirement package as nice as he could have with, oh say the city of Bell, or even Vallejo. Well, that's cute, but not exactly accurate. I worked for Pac Bell for a short period of time, private companies for 4 years doing archaeology projects and I carried mail, with one Hell of a lot of retired military, for 6 years. Fact is, I spent only 16 years working at the County, starting when I was 39, so this attack doesn't get it done. But then again, it doesn't answer the question which doesn't surprise me. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 4, 2010 19:40:17 GMT -8
You really need to get a clue! Yes, it would put us in more danger if we cut the military. Do you realize that we are in a war right now? Do you realize a lot of countries don't like us? Do you realize that if we don't keep the terrorism over there, that it would come to our door step? Get a clue hippie! And I do realize that a lot of drugs did damage to your small brain. Well, those are nice platitudes, but if you really want to get into this, offer me more than "fight them over there instead of here" reasons. For instance, if the book by the AF light Colonel who oversaw at least part of the testing program for the Bradley is to be believed, development cost of the vehicle was upwards of 17 billion bucks. Stu has stated that it's a great vehicle and I would be a fool to disagree with him, but should the development costs have been anywhere approaching what they were? How much was spent on the F-22 before Clark killed it? Hell, Duncan Hunter dumped a fair amount into some gludge of a transport plane built in North County before it was finally killed. My point isn't that we shouldn't give the military what it needs; my point is that the military/industrial complex is so embedded in our economy that it has become almost impossible to kill any project, even if it doesn't make sense, because doing so might cost some jobs in some Congressional district. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 5, 2010 6:33:34 GMT -8
My point isn't that we shouldn't give the military what it needs; my point is that the military/industrial complex is so embedded in our economy that it has become almost impossible to kill any project, even if it doesn't make sense, because doing so might cost some jobs in some Congressional district. =Bob It is becoming more and more obvious to the most casual observer that we do NEED TO KILL IT. "Death to the Military Industrial Complex and the Military" shall be the rallying cry for all Free Thinking People. Do you realize how much better off we would have been if we had done away with the military and all military spending after World War Two? Our budgets would have all been balanced, and we could have been a utopia. Instead we have had thousands of young Americans killed in foreign wars that have served absolutely no purpose. It is time to call a spade a spade and kick the military out of our government. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 5, 2010 7:19:03 GMT -8
I'm sorry, but I am totally fed up with the career military types on here whining about this that and the other thing while they are part of the greatest welfare system this planet has ever seen. If they were in combat, that's something and I would never disagree with giving them benefits, even though VA still often refuses to recognize PTSD. But I mean really; they join up at 18, spend 20 years when they may or may not see combat, but even if they don't see combat, they assume some sort of mortal high ground simply because they spent 20 years floating on boats. Let's face it - last time the Nav, outside of Nav pilots, was in any sort of significant engagement was WW II. The simple fact is this - if we want to balance our budget, we need to totally cut back on DOD funding. There is no reason in Hell that we should have 12 or however many carrier groups we have. And, quite frankly, I'll join with the libertarians in questioning why we still have bases in Europe and Japan. I'm willing to accept Ramstein but aside from that, we should get the F@#$ out of Germany, Europe and Asia. Of course, that will never happen because DOD has become, as Ike warned, nothing more than a whore to the defense industry. The military/industrial complex took control of this country back in the '50s and our economy has declined because those pieces of crap corporations did so. But, of course, those on here who benefit from he military welfare system will undoubtedly disagree with me because they enjoy he benefits offered them because they spent 20 years floating on boats. =Bob You have no idea of what you are talking about. No surprise here. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 5, 2010 7:24:04 GMT -8
I'm sorry, but I am totally fed up with the career military types on here whining about this that and the other thing while they are part of the greatest welfare system this planet has ever seen. You want to increase the ranks of the unemployed apparently. John, you have to consider the source. What other folks earn, is welfare while what ever programs he finds to subsist upon are all legitimate. People who live hand to mouth and then want to also take from those who understand deferred gratification and investment are pitiful. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 5, 2010 7:28:27 GMT -8
You want to increase the ranks of the unemployed apparently. That's one of the main problems. A huge military keeps unemployment down. But really, do we need to have all those bases in Germany and Japan? South Korea I can see, but we've got so many bases all over the world that the DOD budget is just way too huge. =Bob Do you know who pays for those bases? Do you know what is in our "Status of Forces" agreements? Until you do, you would be well advised to keep your miserable little thoughts to yourself and/or take ActecTom's advice to heart. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 5, 2010 7:34:26 GMT -8
You want to increase the ranks of the unemployed apparently. John, you have to consider the source. What other folks earn, is welfare while what ever programs he finds to subsist upon are all legitimate. People who live hand to mouth and then want to also take from those who understand deferred gratification and investment are pitiful. Under Sharia Law, Natural Resources including agricultural land are held in the public trust for the benefit of all who live upon the land of the country. That law also mandates that the country's government has to provide for the common good of all citizens. Food is to be kept to feed the poor. All profit from use of natural resources has to be distributed equally between rich and poor. In essence there are no poor under Sharia as all share from the bounty of the land. Sharia Law also mandates swift "punishment" for people who are stewards of the public good who use that position for large personal gain. Off with their heads! Thus all of our modern bankers and investment gurus are at risk of going headless if we have Sharia Law. I am beginning to like the concept. All of the officers of Goldman Sachs would be walking around headless in short order. We need Sharia Law for all. We need it now. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 5, 2010 7:37:06 GMT -8
John, you have to consider the source. What other folks earn, is welfare while what ever programs he finds to subsist upon are all legitimate. People who live hand to mouth and then want to also take from those who understand deferred gratification and investment are pitiful. Under Sharia Law, Natural Resources including agricultural land are held in the public trust for the benefit of all who live upon the land of the country. That law also mandates that the country's government has to provide for the common good of all citizens. Food is to be kept to feed the poor. All profit from use of natural resources has to be distributed equally between rich and poor. In essence there are no poor under Sharia as all share from the bounty of the land. Sharia Law also mandates swift "punishment" for people who are stewards of the public good who use that position for large personal gain. Off with their heads! Thus all of our modern bankers and investment gurus are at risk of going headless if we have Sharia Law. I am beginning to like the concept. All of the officers of Goldman Sachs would be walking around headless in short order. We need Sharia Law for all. We need it now. Would =Bob have to wear a Burka? |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 5, 2010 13:07:15 GMT -8
>>>But, of course, those on here who benefit from he military welfare system will undoubtedly disagree with me because they enjoy he benefits offered them because they spent 20 years floating on boats.<<<
Of course the =Perfesser knows very well that in terms actual time on the job, i.e. at WORK, it would take a municipal county parasite at least 40 years of sitting on his fat ass in an air conditioned office, dreaming up ways to harrass the people and eat out their substance to even come close to matching 20 years in the military.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 5, 2010 15:17:48 GMT -8
Under Sharia Law, Natural Resources including agricultural land are held in the public trust for the benefit of all who live upon the land of the country. That law also mandates that the country's government has to provide for the common good of all citizens. Food is to be kept to feed the poor. All profit from use of natural resources has to be distributed equally between rich and poor. In essence there are no poor under Sharia as all share from the bounty of the land. Sharia Law also mandates swift "punishment" for people who are stewards of the public good who use that position for large personal gain. Off with their heads! Thus all of our modern bankers and investment gurus are at risk of going headless if we have Sharia Law. I am beginning to like the concept. All of the officers of Goldman Sachs would be walking around headless in short order. We need Sharia Law for all. We need it now. Would =Bob have to wear a Burka? Only if he is a woman guilty of original sin - the sin of tempting her husband Adam. For that sin, women must always remain covered outside the home. Punishment for noncompliance can include death. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 5, 2010 15:26:13 GMT -8
The =Perfesser likes to repeat over and over again a cherry-picked phrase from Ike's farewell address about the "military-industrial complex", and like all good libs, he tries to spin it into something Ike didn't quite really mean. Here's another passage from Ike's address that the libs would prefer to ignore: Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. Sound familiar to what's going on with this turd administration? Anyhow, here is the entire Ike address. You decide whether the liberal turds want you to know the context: www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html |
|
??
