kallend 2,150 #51 June 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteYou forgot to add "... and saddled them with record debts" And what was the last year we weren't "saddled with record debts"? Here's a hint - it was before you moved to this country. There's a good rationale for running up the debt faster than ever before.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #52 June 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou forgot to add "... and saddled them with record debts" And what was the last year we weren't "saddled with record debts"? Here's a hint - it was before you moved to this country. There's a good rationale for running up the debt faster than ever before. What rationale? Just pointing out that your claim of "... and saddled them with record debts" is really nothing more than an emotional handgrenade. Every year of the last six administrations the debt has risen to new all-time highs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #53 June 12, 2007 QuoteEvery year of the last six administrations the debt has risen to new all-time highs. so the best you can do is jump on the fact that Kallend said debt rather than deficit? It must be hard knowing that Clinton actually generated a surplus for a short period, while Reagan, Bush, and Bush ravaged the debt. Carter also ran a pretty tight ship on the deficit, but it was probably the wrong time for the government to be tight. Kallend points out you need to adjust tax receipts for inflation. You also have to correct for population growth. Looking at the simple number isn't even high school economics, it's just stupid. You can also examine debt relative to GDP, or the cost of servicing the debt each year, or (I suspect you won't want to), the ratio of spending to income. I'm happy to see some of the tax cuts that came about - it's just the fact that Bush likes pork just as much as the Democrats. Different kinds of pork, sure, but still spending. If you want to cut taxes, you don't jack up spending too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #54 June 12, 2007 Quote Quote Every year of the last six administrations the debt has risen to new all-time highs. so the best you can do is jump on the fact that Kallend said debt rather than deficit? Not at all. I just get tired of dishonest representations... especially when the honest ones are so damning. Quote It must be hard knowing that Clinton actually generated a surplus for a short period, How was that "surplus" used? Funny how the debt rose every one of those years of "surplus". BTW I thought the fiscal responsibility exercised in Clinton's last term was impressive. Quote Kallend points out you need to adjust tax receipts for inflation. You also have to correct for population growth. Looking at the simple number isn't even high school economics, it's just stupid. I agree. Doing so would put a dent in his claim that we are "running up the debt faster than ever before." Quote You can also examine debt relative to GDP, or the cost of servicing the debt each year, or (I suspect you won't want to), Why? I've never defended the current administrations spending. Quote I'm happy to see some of the tax cuts that came about - it's just the fact that Bush likes pork just as much as the Democrats. Different kinds of pork, sure, but still spending. If you want to cut taxes, you don't jack up spending too. Actually the Republicans trounce the Dems when it comes to bringing home the bacon. Neither party has any claims to fiscal conservatism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #55 June 12, 2007 QuoteIn 2006 the USA spent $528.7 Billion on the military (I won't say "defense" because our military actions are primarily offensive). This is 46% of the entire world's military spending. If we cut back to just equal the next 4 countries COMBINED, we wouldn't have a federal deficit at all. Nice to know you're no longer worried about your son having all the equipment that he needs. I'll just remind you back to your outraged posts on the subject, though.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #56 June 12, 2007 Quote Quote In 2006 the USA spent $528.7 Billion on the military (I won't say "defense" because our military actions are primarily offensive). This is 46% of the entire world's military spending. If we cut back to just equal the next 4 countries COMBINED, we wouldn't have a federal deficit at all. Nice to know you're no longer worried about your son having all the equipment that he needs. I'll just remind you back to your outraged posts on the subject, though. And now we can start on the topic of the WISDOM of the choices made in the lavish spending. Saving on Humvee armor for troops in a war zone while spending billions on a missile defense system that is unlikely to be of any use, and even if it works will be stregically destablizing. Rather like treating yourself to a new Ferrari while your kids have no shoes to wear. Thanks for bringing it up, Mike... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #57 June 12, 2007 Quote Quote Nice to know you're no longer worried about your son having all the equipment that he needs. I'll just remind you back to your outraged posts on the subject, though. And now we can start on the topic of the WISDOM of the choices made in the lavish spending. Saving on Humvee armor for troops in a war zone while spending billions on a missile defense system that is unlikely to be of any use, and even if it works will be stregically destablizing. Rather like treating yourself to a new Ferrari while your kids have no shoes to wear. Thanks for bringing it up, Mike You're quite welcome - your next assignment is to show where HMMWVs were designed as line of battle vehicles. Supplementary assignment is to find the STANDARD configuration of the vehicle and annotate the amount of armor that it carries. You'll be graded on completeness, so don't skimp! Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #58 June 12, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Nice to know you're no longer worried about your son having all the equipment that he needs. I'll just remind you back to your outraged posts on the subject, though. And now we can start on the topic of the WISDOM of the choices made in the lavish spending. Saving on Humvee armor for troops in a war zone while spending billions on a missile defense system that is unlikely to be of any use, and even if it works will be stregically destablizing. Rather like treating yourself to a new Ferrari while your kids have no shoes to wear. Thanks for bringing it up, Mike You're quite welcome - your next assignment is to show where HMMWVs were designed as line of battle vehicles. Supplementary assignment is to find the STANDARD configuration of the vehicle and annotate the amount of armor that it carries. You'll be graded on completeness, so don't skimp! You mean, despite ALL that spending on gee-whiz weaponry, our boys were sent into battle with the WRONG equipment? How could that happen? The CinC that sent them should be impeached!!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #59 June 12, 2007 QuoteYou mean, despite ALL that spending on gee-whiz weaponry, our boys were sent into battle with the WRONG equipment? How could that happen? The CinC that sent them should be impeached!! Maybe you should take that up with the GENERALS that are using support vehicles in the battle-line. I suppose you also think that Roosevelt and Churchill should have been impeached (and the UK equivalent) for sending Bradley and Montgomery into Normandy with weapons that weren't superior to the Wehrmacht in every way.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #60 June 12, 2007 >Maybe you should take that up with the GENERALS that are using >support vehicles in the battle-line. Generals didn't plan this war. ----------------------------------- Retired Marine Lieut. Gen. Bernard E. Trainor, who has coauthored a book on the planning for the Iraq war, Cobra II, with Michael R. Gordon, says that departing Secretary of Defense Donald M. Rumsfeld will probably leave a “negative legacy” as a result of his insistence on refusing military requests to plan adequately for the chaos that arose in Iraq. From an interview: . . .General Shinseki [former Army Chief of Staff] had told Congress when he was asked that it would take about 350,000 troops, right? "Correct." And that was based on what, on studies done by the army? "The origins of that number go back to a study called Desert Crossing. It was put together by [retired] General Anthony Zinni, who headed the Central Command in 2000, whose concern wasn’t that Iraq was going to be an aggressor, but that Iraq is likely to implode in some sort of a coup or an uprising against Saddam Hussein. So, Zinni said, “Okay, if that happens, people are going to turn to me and say, ‘We’ve got to do something about it.’” So he put together a study as to what it would take if the Iraqis imploded and the United States had to react, and he thought it wasn’t only in terms of having to fight a residual enemy in Iraq, but to be able to occupy and provide stability and security and services for the eighteen provinces of Iraq. Now, there were also separate studies by the RAND Corporation, by various other think tanks, as to what was necessary for the war. Not so much focused on the actual fighting portion of it, but the administration of Iraq after the war. But this was rejected by Rumsfeld and company, because they were not interested in the business of restoration and nation building." And Rumsfeld and his civilian advisors really believed, I guess because they said it publicly at the time, that once we knocked off Hussein’s combat units, the population would rise up and support us and that would be it, right? "That’s right, you’re absolutely correct." . . . What would have been the level of troops the military feels they could have gotten by with? "They certainly wanted at least one more division. The First Cavalry was part of the “off ramp” units. The Fourth Division did come in, which was the most advanced of the army divisions, but they came in and exacerbated the problem because they felt that the war was still on." http://www.cfr.org/publication/11979/trainor.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #61 June 12, 2007 QuoteGenerals didn't plan this war. CINCs don't dictate vehicle deployments.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #62 June 12, 2007 >CINCs don't dictate vehicle deployments. Right - but SecDefs do dictate the level of preparedness before an attack. In this case, the SecDef made a conscious decision to "go light." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #63 June 12, 2007 Quote>CINCs don't dictate vehicle deployments. Right - but SecDefs do dictate the level of preparedness before an attack. In this case, the SecDef made a conscious decision to "go light." Sending 'lighter', infantry based units versus 'heavy' armor based units is a reasonable function of the SecDef. The decision as to WHAT vehicle to deploy on a mission is still local.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #64 June 12, 2007 Quote Nice to know you're no longer worried about your son having all the equipment that he needs. I'll just remind you back to your outraged posts on the subject, though. Money for the troops?!? Yea, right. Here's a short list dealing with our favorite contractor courtesy of the "Iraq for Sale" folks. Halliburton's Logistics Failures Halliburton $8.3 billion LOGCAP contract, was supposed to supply American troops and support personnel with food, fuel, housing and logistical support. Yet performance has been plagued by cost overruns and shoddy results. • Inserting Halliburton as middleman for the operation of dining halls increased costs by more than 40%.25 • With the motivation of a cost-plus contract, Halliburton kept its own personnel at the deluxe Kuwait Hilton Hotel, where the excess costs ran in the range of $300,000 per month.26 • Examination of seven LOGCAP task orders with a combined value of $4.33 billion identified unsupported costs totaling $1.82 billion. Nearly half of every dollar spent (42 cents) could not be justified.27 And yet the Pentagon paid the costs anyway. But the trouble goes beyond mere money. Some of Halliburton's practices smack more of bad faith than poor performance. • Halliburton billed the government for 42,000 meals a day for our troops, but only served 14,000 meals a day.28 • Halliburton drove convoys of empty trucks through the desert, putting drivers and security personnel at risk. It was paid to run trips and it didn't matter if trucks ran empty.29 Some patriotic Americans who went to Iraq to earn a living and rebuild a country died in those convoys. • Halliburton charged the government $45 for cases of locally produced soda and $100 to wash bags of laundry.30 Halliburton paid local citizens 50 cents an hour for laundry work. • Rather than caring for its equipment, Halliburton bought new equipment and was reimbursed for the full cost, plus its additional 'cost-plus' percentage. With this incentive, Halliburton abandoned or destroyed $85,000 trucks if they got a flat tire or experienced mechanical problems, and never changed the oil.31 • Halliburton exposed troops and civilians to contaminated water from Iraq’s Euphrates River that they were contracted to purify before use.32 • Halliburton was contracted to feed 600 Turkish and Filipino workers meals according to their customs. Halliburton charged the government for the service but didn’t prepare the 8 meals. Instead, the Turkish and Filipino workers were given leftover food in boxes and garbage bags after the troops ate. Sometimes there were no leftovers to give them.33 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #65 June 12, 2007 Y'know...if there was actually PROOF of all that, KBR would be out of a contract... in point of FACT (not hyperbole), KBR has had to pay back unauthorized overruns. How about something from official sources and not an editorial page?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #66 June 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteYou mean, despite ALL that spending on gee-whiz weaponry, our boys were sent into battle with the WRONG equipment? How could that happen? The CinC that sent them should be impeached!! Maybe you should take that up with the GENERALS that are using support vehicles in the battle-line. I suppose you also think that Roosevelt and Churchill should have been impeached (and the UK equivalent) for sending Bradley and Montgomery into Normandy with weapons that weren't superior to the Wehrmacht in every way. The invasion of Iraq was an optional war, with the decision coming from and the timing dictated by the CinC.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #67 June 12, 2007 QuoteThe invasion of Iraq was an optional war, with the decision coming from and the timing dictated by the CinC. By your standards, so was D-dayMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #68 June 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe invasion of Iraq was an optional war, with the decision coming from and the timing dictated by the CinC. By your standards, so was D-day Since you seem to have forgotten, on 6th June 1944 a war was already in full swing and had been for some time.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #69 June 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe invasion of Iraq was an optional war, with the decision coming from and the timing dictated by the CinC. By your standards, so was D-day Since you seem to have forgotten, on 6th June 1944 a war was already in full swing and had been for some time. (Reversing Iraq argument) Germany never invaded us and they had no connection to the Japanese or Pearl Harbor.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #70 June 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe invasion of Iraq was an optional war, with the decision coming from and the timing dictated by the CinC. By your standards, so was D-day Since you seem to have forgotten, on 6th June 1944 a war was already in full swing and had been for some time. (Reversing Iraq argument) Germany never invaded us and they had no connection to the Japanese or Pearl Harbor. Forgetful today? Germany declared war on the USA in December 1941.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #71 June 12, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote The invasion of Iraq was an optional war, with the decision coming from and the timing dictated by the CinC. By your standards, so was D-day Since you seem to have forgotten, on 6th June 1944 a war was already in full swing and had been for some time. (Reversing Iraq argument) Germany never invaded us and they had no connection to the Japanese or Pearl Harbor. And they could have solved all of these Israel/Palestine/Iran issues for us! -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #72 June 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe invasion of Iraq was an optional war, with the decision coming from and the timing dictated by the CinC. By your standards, so was D-day Since you seem to have forgotten, on 6th June 1944 a war was already in full swing and had been for some time. (Reversing Iraq argument) Germany never invaded us and they had no connection to the Japanese or Pearl Harbor. Forgetful today? Germany declared war on the USA in December 1941. OBL and AQ declared war on us in 1998.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #73 June 12, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote The invasion of Iraq was an optional war, with the decision coming from and the timing dictated by the CinC. By your standards, so was D-day Since you seem to have forgotten, on 6th June 1944 a war was already in full swing and had been for some time. (Reversing Iraq argument) Germany never invaded us and they had no connection to the Japanese or Pearl Harbor. Forgetful today? Germany declared war on the USA in December 1941. And so we attacked them 3 1/2 years later??? Saddam tried to assassinate the POTUS. Declaration of War .... assassination attempt on the Pres Six... a half dozen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #74 June 12, 2007 >OBL and AQ declared war on us in 1998. OBL and AQ != Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #75 June 12, 2007 Quote>OBL and AQ declared war on us in 1998. OBL and AQ != Iraq. Now you are getting it!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
