"GOP" needs to be changed to "OP": Obstructionist Party

[Zeitgeist]

Let's bear in mind it is that same military that is able to reach out to victims of tsunamis, earthquakes, local conflicts and what not. Yes, the military is also used in ways some of us disagree with. You cut it's budget significantly and who will suffer as a result of our decreased capacity? Who else can reach out with actual aid around the world, 24 hours and within a relative short span of time?

Again, I do understand some disagree wholly with how our military has been used, but can you deny its usefulness in time of emergency? Perhaps we can maintain a level of twenty-four hour global readiness and reach while paring down some of the unnecessary leviathan functionality.

[Vekseid]

Any major job creation program would probably involve a new Works Progress Administration. At least we'd get something for it, even if it was notorious for taking on slackers. But that's not happening with the current political climate.

[Callie Del Noire]

Any major job creation program would probably involve a new Works Progress Administration. At least we'd get something for it, even if it was notorious for taking on slackers. But that's not happening with the current political climate.

It will never happen again. The current environment politically is too divided and resistant to cooperation. A lot of that I blame on the change in the way the media works.

[RubySlippers]

Let's bear in mind it is that same military that is able to reach out to victims of tsunamis, earthquakes, local conflicts and what not. Yes, the military is also used in ways some of us disagree with. You cut it's budget significantly and who will suffer as a result of our decreased capacity? Who else can reach out with actual aid around the world, 24 hours and within a relative short span of time?

Again, I do understand some disagree wholly with how our military has been used, but can you deny its usefulness in time of emergency? Perhaps we can maintain a level of twenty-four hour global readiness and reach while paring down some of the unnecessary leviathan functionality.

Why is this all on the United States China, the EU, India and Russia all have military forces for humanitarian missions and security on regions we should use our forces to secure the nation from invasions that would truly destroy our nation. I mean another nation or nations with large armies invading North America first and foremost, everything else second.

[Callie Del Noire]

Why is this all on the United States China, the EU, India and Russia all have military forces for humanitarian missions and security on regions we should use our forces to secure the nation from invasions that would truly destroy our nation. I mean another nation or nations with large armies invading North America first and foremost, everything else second.

We tried that a couple times. The second time it happened the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Pulling in completely won't be useful, smart or easy.

We have the navy out on the ocean to maintain the rightful flow of American shipping. If you don't have the folks in uniforms outside our borders things happen to American's outside them.

Look over the history. We pull in and folks think they can do what they want to American citizens. The english impressing American's into service, the assault on Tripoli was to stop piracy against American Flagged ships at the time.

And it continues to this day. Somali pirates have a fairly open hand because they know they can act unimpeded since the American Navy is constantly shrinking. I'm sure there are some areas where the lawlessness will get just as bad.

[RubySlippers]

This is the modern age we have a huge nuclear arsenal I have to ask who do you think would dare risk attacking our nation, any such threat would demand they either nuke us making invading useless and likely ending in the annihilation of the world OR if a conventional attack us attacking with nuclear tactical weapons as they come in. We are far more secure than we ever have been in history.

Somolian pirates (I would be simple buy them off say so much per ship paid by the shippers and use them to maintain a counter to the real terrorist Islamic forces there) and terrorism threaten many nations I have no issue being a fair partner but proportional if we put out one unit, I expect China to have one, Russia one, the EU one etc. As for terrorism keep them from getting nukes nothing else is a mortal threat and anyway our CIA should handle that with special forces not our armies. That is why we are in this mess we placed our men and women right where the enemy wants us in their front yard, they are making us burn trillions on security measures and war far over the threat and are winning. We are losing. And no major power wants to see terrorists use a nuke we have ample allies among the world powers that matter.

[Callie Del Noire]

This is the modern age we have a huge nuclear arsenal I have to ask who do you think would dare risk attacking our nation, any such threat would demand they either nuke us making invading useless and likely ending in the annihilation of the world OR if a conventional attack us attacking with nuclear tactical weapons as they come in. We are far more secure than we ever have been in history.

Somolian pirates (I would be simple buy them off say so much per ship paid by the shippers and use them to maintain a counter to the real terrorist Islamic forces there) and terrorism threaten many nations I have no issue being a fair partner but proportional if we put out one unit, I expect China to have one, Russia one, the EU one etc. As for terrorism keep them from getting nukes nothing else is a mortal threat and anyway our CIA should handle that with special forces not our armies. That is why we are in this mess we placed our men and women right where the enemy wants us in their front yard, they are making us burn trillions on security measures and war far over the threat and are winning. We are losing. And no major power wants to see terrorists use a nuke we have ample allies among the world powers that matter.

I disagree for:
1. Weapons of Mass Destruction (Nukes) aren't a good deterrent for small actions. Tell me how that discourages folks from aggression on our citizens. Kidnapping is getting to be the crime of choice in a lot of regions. Lack of control of the sea lanes is making piracy a viable choice of business again. Paying them off will only encourage them, and bring more, like sharks to chummed whater.

2. What special forces? The CIA? Oh, you mean the folks that have been constantly and steadily curtailed by a growing policy of regulating what they can and can't do by the folks in the White House and Congress? Special Warfare action is limited to the movies and video games largely do the the constricting rules of engagement we've steadily put on them over the years. Bad Press upsets politicians. I sincerely doubt anyone in office, or likely to be in office will have the intestinal fortitude to change the rules of engagement to the point where we could deploy the special warfare groups like they do in movie, books and video games. And the CIA is predominantly set up to gather, collate and supply intelligence to the government not kill folks in other countries. (They likewise are curtailed by rules of engagement and anxious politicians.)

3. And if you think a major power would be smart enough to not give the 'bad guys' nukes. Sorry, their politicians are as short sighted as ours. Not to mention with the collapse of the Soviet Union there is tech, and the men who made them, out there for sale. Don't assume your (or our) outlook is the same as those elsewhere. That is a common fallacy of counter intelligence.

4. Just because we crawl back home with our tails between our legs does not mean they'll leave us be. We're open, free and tolerant. That means that we are a threat to the radical elements out there because we're successful, rich and growing while the people they oppress aren't.  To the men in control of such places, distance matters little in our rapidly shrinking global community. You, and most of the folk here, are 21st century thinkers. The folks who do acts of terrorism in the Gulf are not. They are bandits and brigands with 21st century gear and an much more primitive and intolerant view of things. To them, we'll always be a threat.

[Oniya]

Lack of control of the sea lanes is making piracy a viable choice of business again. Paying them off will only encourage them, and bring more, like sharks to chummed water.

Seriously.  Paying off a criminal for safe passage would be like handing money to a local gang leader so that you didn't get beaten up when you left your house.  You might - might get that gang's protection against rival gangs, but any time they wanted to, they could jack up your 'protection fee', or threaten to withdraw that protection and start beating you up again.

[Callie Del Noire]

Seriously.  Paying off a criminal for safe passage would be like handing money to a local gang leader so that you didn't get beaten up when you left your house.  You might - might get that gang's protection against rival gangs, but any time they wanted to, they could jack up your 'protection fee', or threaten to withdraw that protection and start beating you up again.

Not to mention any such payments are reflected in the cost of the goods when you pay them off. Take a look at the amount the ships that ransomed ships cost. Consider this, that is money insurance companies paid these thugs. Where do they recover their costs. That's right.

Us.. the average joes that 'aren't involved' with the stuff overseas. The world is shrinking as transportation speeds up, as well as communication, and we are effected greatly by things elsewhere that wouldn't have done us so badly in the past.

[Zeitgeist]

Well in an attempt to bring this back around to the subject at hand, yes I think we can cut the military budget some and I agree with Trieste that there should be better controls over how much we pay contractors (though I suspect she would go further with that than I). That should help in finding some wiggle room the budget.

Military readiness though isn't something you can let slide, it's like technology, you'll be left in the dust if you don't stay on top of it. What happens in say 10 or 15 years of putting off military expenditures only to find Russia, Venezuela and company have passed us up?

[Callie Del Noire]

Well in an attempt to bring this back around to the subject at hand, yes I think we can cut the military budget some and I agree with Trieste that there should be better controls over how much we pay contractors (though I suspect she would go further with that than I). That should help in finding some wiggle room the budget.

Military readiness though isn't something you can let slide, it's like technology, you'll be left in the dust if you don't stay on top of it. What happens in say 10 or 15 years of putting off military expenditures only to find Russia, Venezuela and company have passed us up?

I think a lot of our readiness issues are tied to the 'tech-sizing' the military under Donald Rumsfeld. He did a lot to screw up things. He torpedoed a lot of careers of officers who disagreed with him. Their job is to advise, he wanted 'yes men'.

Now we got a lot of neat 'tech gear' but he forgot the first rule of holding a piece of ground.

It's not this months widget that hold the ground.. but men.

Had he not downsized us, we wouldn't be seriously undermanned. I mean the Air Force and Navy have to supply manpower to aid the Marines and Army in their operations. Not whole units but singlular service members. I know something like two dozen guys I worked with that did their sea tours, came back to shore duty and spent a year or so standing guard in Iraq or working with some guys in Afghanistan.

[Vekseid]

Well in an attempt to bring this back around to the subject at hand, yes I think we can cut the military budget some and I agree with Trieste that there should be better controls over how much we pay contractors (though I suspect she would go further with that than I). That should help in finding some wiggle room the budget.

Military readiness though isn't something you can let slide, it's like technology, you'll be left in the dust if you don't stay on top of it. What happens in say 10 or 15 years of putting off military expenditures only to find Russia, Venezuela and company have passed us up?

Ideally we'd help pay for our military by selling hardware to the likes of Vietnam, India, Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Korea (or South Korea if the Norks don't collapse before something like this takes place). We're already doing this to some extent, but it's not bringing in enough to cover the costs of our overseas presence - and it certainly ought to.

A lot of money for contractors goes to
1) Things that have no business being contracted out, such as mercenary units.
2) Union-protected jobs. The unions are on a bit of thin ice here, but you ever wonder why missiles cost $100k each? Automation and a bit of cleaning house would cut that cost in half, easily.
3) Outright fraud or graft. Sometimes it's typical fraud, sometimes it's about being good friends with a senator. This is honestly a tiny portion compared to the above two, but still.

[Callie Del Noire]

A lot of money for contractors goes to
1) Things that have no business being contracted out, such as mercenary units.
2) Union-protected jobs. The unions are on a bit of thin ice here, but you ever wonder why missiles cost $100k each? Automation and a bit of cleaning house would cut that cost in half, easily.
3) Outright fraud or graft. Sometimes it's typical fraud, sometimes it's about being good friends with a senator. This is honestly a tiny portion compared to the above two, but still.

I cannot begin to say what sort of chills that 1st one gives me Veks.. Honest to go chills.

And there are some sheer BS on the 3rd one. I've heard of contractors hired to build something (and not the small groups like I worked for) that would hire 20% more manning get way ahead of goals and at the 75% mark can like 60% of the staff and say they needed more money to keep up the work routine.. and then a year later rehire the same folks at starting salary and no seniority.

That is why I don't think Unions are bad.

[RubySlippers]

Seriously.  Paying off a criminal for safe passage would be like handing money to a local gang leader so that you didn't get beaten up when you left your house.  You might - might get that gang's protection against rival gangs, but any time they wanted to, they could jack up your 'protection fee', or threaten to withdraw that protection and start beating you up again.

Not really the pirates are not generally successful decent security on the ships and alternate sea routes would suffice, so just pay them off enough not to go after ships. And Somolia has a radical Muslim element big time in the south and other locations where the pirates are moderates. They will see reason if we supported them with money, economic aid and maybe better weapons than the wackjobs have. Its not the first time we supported unsavory elements for our greater good that is stopping a more serious threat. We can keep them fighting it out for decades for a modest fee to shipping. If they refuse we can always bomb the crap out of their towns and kill their families if they piss us off they are no match for a carrier battlegroup and attack subs.

As for military readiness I'm all for being able to arm up to a war footing within six months, and feel a large army reserve and adequete forces are needed but its hard to get people to sign up for reserve or national guard duty when they are going to go overseas every time we decide we have to fight someone. Our war upon war is not allowing us to build up the forces we need for a direct immediate threat. And beyond that we need to be able to mobilize via the draft, train and arm forces with the ability to arm up using domestic industries.

I for one still consider a strong missle defense and a strong nuclear arsenal offering us options as the best defense with the willingness to treat low level devices just like we do any weapon as one we might use first, say up to 5kt to take out a military target.

[Oniya]

Not really the pirates are not generally successful decent security on the ships and alternate sea routes would suffice, so just pay them off enough not to go after ships. And Somolia has a radical Muslim element big time in the south and other locations where the pirates are moderates. They will see reason if we supported them with money, economic aid and maybe better weapons than the wackjobs have. Its not the first time we supported unsavory elements for our greater good that is stopping a more serious threat. We can keep them fighting it out for decades for a modest fee to shipping. If they refuse we can always bomb the crap out of their towns and kill their families if they piss us off they are no match for a carrier battlegroup and attack subs.

Suuuuurre.  If we hand money to them, they'll leave us alone.  They'll be reasonable, and won't ever say 'Hey, we're able to get 10 million dollars out of the US - why not up our demands to 100 million?  We can use the money they gave us, buy some better weapons, and be even more dangerous to shipping.'  Look up 'Mafia protection racket' and you'll see just how successful 'paying them off' is going to be.

And as soon as you try to implement that 'bomb the crap out of their towns and kill their families if they piss us off,' you'll have every humanitarian group in the world pointing out how we bomb defenseless women and children.

[Callie Del Noire]

Not really the pirates are not generally successful decent security on the ships and alternate sea routes would suffice, so just pay them off enough not to go after ships. And Somolia has a radical Muslim element big time in the south and other locations where the pirates are moderates. They will see reason if we supported them with money, economic aid and maybe better weapons than the wackjobs have. Its not the first time we supported unsavory elements for our greater good that is stopping a more serious threat. We can keep them fighting it out for decades for a modest fee to shipping. If they refuse we can always bomb the crap out of their towns and kill their families if they piss us off they are no match for a carrier battlegroup and attack subs.

You know..this 'buy them off and sic them on the folks that don't like us' idea didn't work too well in Afganistan and Iraq in the 70s and 80s.. Gee.. the folks we paid to give the Russians/Iranians crap and trouble were the ones we had to deal with in this century. You know we're responsible for the ONLY proven WMD use by Saddam (He gassed Kurds with tech WE gave him because he was a force we can use against the Iranians.. and the Taliban? Some of them used to be mujahideen. The guys WE helped arm, train and finance)

The lesson. You feed the wolf to sic on someone else, remember he's got an appettite so when you stop feeding him, you better hope there are more sheep around. (A lesson some of the more moderate Islamic governments who discretely finance terrorist would do well to learn when they stop paying them).

[itsbeenfun2000]

getting back on the subject, if the GOP continues to block all legislation because they want to see Obama fail what then?

[Noelle]

Then come 2012 they'll spin it and go SEE LOOK THE DEMOCRATS DON'T DO ANYTHING and probably take office because of the extremely narrow and short attention span of the American people.

This post brought to you by: Optimism!

[Trieste]

*just sighs and nods*

And people are screaming about UI expiring. Ahem. *pulls out soapbox and stands on* This is what happens, America, when you elect the fucking "small-government" Tea Party. You get smaller government, all right.

[Trieste]

So angry with Obama right now.

[mystictiger]

On the Piracy question - there is a signficant flow of ransom received to terrorists. In the area. Paying them off will just create problems down the line. Kind of like arming Bin Ladin via the Pakistanis back when he was a good anti-Soviet terrorist.

On the question of what Obama has done - shock horror - a president takes measures to keep himself in power and prep things for a second term bid.

[Trieste]

On the question of what Obama has done - shock horror - a president takes measures to keep himself in power and prep things for a second term bid.

Please don't be dismissive. I don't want two years of this, and I'm frustrated with the President for bowing to it. I hope that the Dems in the Senate don't pass it. He claims he made the deal because it will stimulate the economy, but I don't really see how maintaining the status quo will do that. I'm glad the made the extension of UI part of the deal - it's hurtful to think of millions getting cut off on top of months of joblessness - but the tax cuts extended to the top percentages of the country do nothing for us. Nothing. It goes into a bank account somewhere to rot.

[Callie Del Noire]

On the Piracy question - there is a signficant flow of ransom received to terrorists. In the area. Paying them off will just create problems down the line. Kind of like arming Bin Ladin via the Pakistanis back when he was a good anti-Soviet terrorist.

Not commenting on the President's action.. I'm split on the move.

As for the Piracy issue.. someone a while back asked why they (the ships) go elsewhere instead of the waters.. well.. Somalia sits on the entrance to the Red Sea.. if you want to use the Suez, you have to all but go through their waters (save a very small segment of ocean by the other side.) Sort of like transiting into the gulf, you have to pass within missle range of the Iranians. (not a fun transit in a carieer let me tell you, sitting in a plane on deck with the systems up, watching the missile radar pop up and down along the west side of the group)

[Serephino]

Obama is between a rock and hard place right now.  He really wanted UI to continue, but the Republicans refused to let him unless he extended ALL the tax cuts.  That's how the Republicans play ball.  They make demands and dig in their heals until they get their way.  I can only pray the American people see that these stupid Republicans are the problem....

Even Bush did this.  I still remember when he asked for more money for Iraq and Congress tried to give to him with the condition that he pull out by a certain time.  He refused to accept that.  He kept turning the money down, and called Congress Un American because they weren't giving him the money to fund our troops.  Eventually Congress had to cave and give him the money without strings so the troops wouldn't suffer.

They don't care what damage they cause, as long as they get their way.  I swear, had Obama not extended tax cuts for the wealthiest, they would have kept blocking Unemployment out of spite and things would have gotten worse.  They wouldn't have cared.  Like I said, they're a bunch of two year olds that need a time out and good spanking.