"Harry " wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.

Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability to
have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military.

The rhetorical you.
We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains
than a little hit team.

Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it
requires.

Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour $500
to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain.

Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real jobs
around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the same time
raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller active duty force
that would be better suited for the sort of trouble and nonsense we face
today.

The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important needs,
such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly, providing
life-long job training for working adults, et cetera.

These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing.


Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the
favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich.

On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote:


"Harry " wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.

Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability
to have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military.

The rhetorical you.
We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains
than a little hit team.

Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it
requires.

Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour
$500 to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain.

Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real
jobs around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the
same time raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller
active duty force that would be better suited for the sort of trouble
and nonsense we face today.

The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important
needs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly,
providing life-long job training for working adults, et cetera.

These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing.


Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes
the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich.


And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors.

"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote:


"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan
in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.

Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability
to have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military.

The rhetorical you.
We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains
than a little hit team.

Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it
requires.

Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour
$500 to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain.

Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real
jobs around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the
same time raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller
active duty force that would be better suited for the sort of trouble
and nonsense we face today.

The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important
needs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly,
providing life-long job training for working adults, et cetera.

These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing.


Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes
the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich.


And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors.

Where did you and your little ball licker gain your military expertise?

On 7/13/10 9:03 AM, Harold wrote:
"Harry wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote:


"Harry wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan
in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.

Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability
to have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military.

The rhetorical you.
We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains
than a little hit team.

Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it
requires.

Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour
$500 to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain.

Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real
jobs around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the
same time raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller
active duty force that would be better suited for the sort of trouble
and nonsense we face today.

The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important
needs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly,
providing life-long job training for working adults, et cetera.

These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing.


Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes
the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich.


And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors.

Where did you and your little ball licker gain your military expertise?



Some of us read, flajim, and, if you read, you learn about the
machinations of the military-industrial complex.

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
On 7/13/10 9:03 AM, Harold wrote:
"Harry wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote:


"Harry wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan
in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.

Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability
to have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military.

The rhetorical you.
We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the
mountains
than a little hit team.

Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it
requires.

Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour
$500 to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the
drain.

Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real
jobs around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the
same time raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller
active duty force that would be better suited for the sort of trouble
and nonsense we face today.

The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important
needs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly,
providing life-long job training for working adults, et cetera.

These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing.


Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and
makes
the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich.


And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors.

Where did you and your little ball licker gain your military expertise?



Some of us read, flajim, and, if you read, you learn about the
machinations of the military-industrial complex.

You are quite the reader, however, to have a balanced, objective point of
view you need to begin reading materials that are not on the approved
reading list provided by your handlers. It must be tough for you stumbling
through life wearing horse blinders. But, on the other hand, what you can't
see won't spook you.
Here's one you can start with that should help loosen the grip your handlers
have on your mind.
http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/book/

On 7/13/10 9:27 AM, Harold wrote:
"Harry wrote in message
...
On 7/13/10 9:03 AM, Harold wrote:
"Harry wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote:


"Harry wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan
in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.

Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability
to have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military.

The rhetorical you.
We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the
mountains
than a little hit team.

Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it
requires.

Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour
$500 to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the
drain.

Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real
jobs around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the
same time raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller
active duty force that would be better suited for the sort of trouble
and nonsense we face today.

The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important
needs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly,
providing life-long job training for working adults, et cetera.

These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing.


Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and
makes
the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich.


And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors.

Where did you and your little ball licker gain your military expertise?



Some of us read, flajim, and, if you read, you learn about the
machinations of the military-industrial complex.

You are quite the reader, however, to have a balanced, objective point of
view you need to begin reading materials that are not on the approved
reading list provided by your handlers. It must be tough for you stumbling
through life wearing horse blinders. But, on the other hand, what you can't
see won't spook you.
Here's one you can start with that should help loosen the grip your handlers
have on your mind.
http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/book/flajimsucks




Sorry, flajim, but I have no interest in reading tomes from right-wing
**** slingers.

Surely you are not trying to deny that the military and its contractors
wipe each others' asses during and after "service."

"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 9:27 AM, Harold wrote:
"Harry wrote in message
...
On 7/13/10 9:03 AM, Harold wrote:
"Harry wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote:


"Harry wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into
Afghanistan
in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.

Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no
ability
to have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the
military.

The rhetorical you.
We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the
mountains
than a little hit team.

Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what
it
requires.

Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you
pour
$500 to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the
drain.

Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real
jobs around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the
same time raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller
active duty force that would be better suited for the sort of
trouble
and nonsense we face today.

The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important
needs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly,
providing life-long job training for working adults, et cetera.

These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing.


Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and
makes
the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich.


And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors.

Where did you and your little ball licker gain your military expertise?



Some of us read, flajim, and, if you read, you learn about the
machinations of the military-industrial complex.

You are quite the reader, however, to have a balanced, objective point of
view you need to begin reading materials that are not on the approved
reading list provided by your handlers. It must be tough for you
stumbling
through life wearing horse blinders. But, on the other hand, what you
can't
see won't spook you.
Here's one you can start with that should help loosen the grip your
handlers
have on your mind.
http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/book/flajimsucks




Sorry, flajim, but I have no interest in reading tomes from right-wing
**** slingers.

Surely you are not trying to deny that the military and its contractors
wipe each others' asses during and after "service."

Change it to public servants, lobbyists, contractors and I will agree.
O'Bama promised he would change all that. That promise was broken within
days, maybe even hours or minutes.
Gotta watch that boy of yours. He's practicing slight of hand but he isn't
very good at it. It would help if you took your blinders off.

In article ,
says...

"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.

Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability to
have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military.

The rhetorical you.
We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains
than a little hit team.

Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it
requires.

Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour $500
to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain.

Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real jobs
around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the same time
raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller active duty force
that would be better suited for the sort of trouble and nonsense we face
today.

The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important needs,
such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly, providing
life-long job training for working adults, et cetera.

These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing.


Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the
favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich.

Little buddy, you and I are just alike! We are cowards, so we never
thought of helping to protect our country, but we act like we know about
military procedure, etc.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 23:34:55 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:56:32 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:17:44 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:17:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

With all du respect, you won't find many generals who will say "we
can't win" no matter how hopeless the mission is and they have no
authority to question the objective of the mission.

Seems to me that they would give honest opinions if asked.

Giving honest opinions is not conducive to a long career in the
military.

That really depends on the integrity of the one to whom the opinion is offerred.
If he/she is the type that can take only good news, then your opinion is
correct.

I think the problem is that politicians make up their mind about how
they want the war to go before the generals get to advise them. Then
it just becomes "can do sir" or the politician goes and finds a
general who will say "can do". The reality is, you don't get to be a
general if you say "that is too hard". The thing that the pentagon
gets to say is how much it will cost and what they need to complete
the mission.

I agree with everything you said there, especially '...the politician goes and
finds a general who will say "can do". '

Like politicians, there are degrees of integrity in generals also.
--

I hope your day is simply *SPECTACULAR* !!

John H

wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:15:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

A lot of people didn't "like" Reagan or Carter but we didn't have
outright hatred.
I am saying that Clinton was the start of the great divide we see now.
You just don't see it because you were not the "out" party at the
time. You don't impeach a president without a significant number of
the American public supporting the measure in the house.

When Chris Mathews invented the Red Blue thing the division just got a
name and the unity of the country went down hill from there.

That's quite a different statement from what you said originally. Sure,
Clinton inspired people to hate. Are you blaming him for it? Seems to me
that the people doing the hating are the ones with the problem.

If anyone is to blame it is the media that poured gasoline on a
smoldering fire. I was just putting a stick in the time line when this
started. Folks on the left don't see it because he was your guy. When
it went the other way your guys went as nuts as the worst "wingnuts"
you were criticizing.

I think you're somewhat right that the media isn't doing their job. Anyone
who takes Fox seriously probably has brain damage. MSNBC is mostly
entertainment, but at least Olbermann doesn't lie.

It has swung back the other way now and you think Obama can do no
wrong and the people who are on the other side are nuts.

Not true. He's criticized plenty by Olbermann and many others on the left.
I'm not particularly left wing, except socially.

The rhetoric didn't even change much
You have the legitimacy argument
"Bush stole the election" (electoral college deniers)

Which he did by proxy of the Supreme Court. There's little doubt that it was
a political decision and not a judicial one. Even the language of their
decision say it.

"Obama is allowed to be president" (birthers)

That's just loony tunes. The two are not comparable.


If you actually look at policy, not much changed since Bush 1.
Big business is still calling the shots.The wars go on and we are
going broke because of it.