Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP.

1. Defense spending ramped up in the 80's under Reagan, which is why it was relatively level during the post-Reagan era. If it was enough to defeat the Russians while holding back the Chinese and North Koreans, why isn't it good enough today?

2. Are you telling me that after WWII, Korea, and Vietnam we spent so much on modernizing that we were not prepared for IED's - essentially landmines? - and guerilla warfare? If there is anything we learned from Iraq, it is that we lost the basic competencies we had in generations before. Money doesn't solve that problem.

It's not that simple.
1. It didn't level out post Reagan. It plummeted. During the Clinton years, the size of the military went from over2.1 million on active duty to less than 1.4 million. During this time, the military did more operations than during Reagan. Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, Somali, no fly zone over Iraq, plus conducted air strikes in sudan and afghanistam. We had embassies attacked and dont forget the uss cole. All of that takes money.
2. Ieds are not like land mines. Typically, a land mine is detonated in front of vehicle or underneath. Ieds were placed along roadsides and detonated remotely, hitting the most unprotected part of the vehicle - the sides.

You are making excuses. We did not prepare for urban combat. That's why IED's were so dangerous to us. We all talked about this back in 2003. Remember all of the talk about asymmetric war? The issue was not money. Armor is low tech. We did not plan to fight this kind of war, which is bad assumptions, not budget. Same with the embassies. And if you are telling me that you think the USS Cole was underfunded and that led to its destruction, you are crazy. The Cole is a Destroyer. It was taken out by a small boat. While in port! In Yemen! Do you honestlyt think that lack of guns, radar, or personnel caused this to happen, or lack of preparedness?

As for total budget, this is hardly plummeting. I suppose the cold war ended, the soviet union fell, and the right thing to do was to keep growing at the Reagan pace.

Anonymous wrote:

NP.

1. Defense spending ramped up in the 80's under Reagan, which is why it was relatively level during the post-Reagan era. If it was enough to defeat the Russians while holding back the Chinese and North Koreans, why isn't it good enough today?

2. Are you telling me that after WWII, Korea, and Vietnam we spent so much on modernizing that we were not prepared for IED's - essentially landmines? - and guerilla warfare? If there is anything we learned from Iraq, it is that we lost the basic competencies we had in generations before. Money doesn't solve that problem.

It's not that simple.
1. It didn't level out post Reagan. It plummeted. During the Clinton years, the size of the military went from over2.1 million on active duty to less than 1.4 million. During this time, the military did more operations than during Reagan. Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, Somali, no fly zone over Iraq, plus conducted air strikes in sudan and afghanistam. We had embassies attacked and dont forget the uss cole. All of that takes money.
2. Ieds are not like land mines. Typically, a land mine is detonated in front of vehicle or underneath. Ieds were placed along roadsides and detonated remotely, hitting the most unprotected part of the vehicle - the sides.

Anonymous wrote:Were is a link to a video that shows all of this booing that was going on?

I just love to watch videos where the evil racist hate filled republican wreckers and saboteurs show their true colors. Surely someone reported it on Attack Watch . com.

http:\\attackwatch.com

I looked on YouTube and all I found was a bunch a videos of doctors supposedly handing out fake sick notes at some protest in Wisconsin and some of videos of union and MSNBC talk show hosts saying perhaps overly mean but in any case certainly true things about republicans and the tea party.

You can see the video in the link that was contained in the first post:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/23/140732553/boos-heard-at-gop-debate-after-gay-soldier-asks-about-dont-ask

As far as I know, Obama is not a gay soldier. So, this was unlikely to have been an attack on him.

Anonymous wrote:Were is a link to a video that shows all of this booing that was going on?

I just love to watch videos where the evil racist hate filled republican wreckers and saboteurs show their true colors. Surely someone reported it on Attack Watch . com.

http:\\attackwatch.com

I looked on YouTube and all I found was a bunch a videos of doctors supposedly handing out fake sick notes at some protest in Wisconsin and some of videos of union and MSNBC talk show hosts saying perhaps overly mean but in any case certainly true things about republicans and the tea party.

Uh, the debate was broadcast by Fox. You know where that is, right?

Were is a link to a video that shows all of this booing that was going on?

I just love to watch videos where the evil racist hate filled republican wreckers and saboteurs show their true colors. Surely someone reported it on Attack Watch . com.

http:\\attackwatch.com

I looked on YouTube and all I found was a bunch a videos of doctors supposedly handing out fake sick notes at some protest in Wisconsin and some of videos of union and MSNBC talk show hosts saying perhaps overly mean but in any case certainly true things about republicans and the tea party.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, no! They weren't *booing*. They were yelling, "Support the trooooooops!"

Anyway, the GOP has shat on the military for decades. I mean, aside from placing little magnetic flags on their bumpers. But they've been effective at playing "culture war" so the subset of the military that is very young, very southern, and very rural tends to just not think about it very much and pull the lever for the "Dixie/Country Music" party.

The support within the military for Bush over Kerry was just amazing. We need a book, "What's the Matter with the Military?" Of course, somehow the incompetent Kerry campaign failed effectively to educate everyone that his "flip-flopping" was actually his true support for military members and families, as opposed to empty platitudes.

Kerry is hated by the military for the way he turned on the troops.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What we really need is a credible 3rd party to represent people like me and conservative Democrats, which is probably 60% of the population. You know reasonable people, not the wacky fringes on either side.

Isn't it amazing that "reasonable" people always think exactly the way you do?

Leave it to you to cause trouble Jeff. You don't think the fringes are populated with people outside the norm? Maybe that is because you are on the progressive fringe yourself.

NP it is pretty presumptuous of you to declare yourself the archetype of the reasonable people. Makes you look wacky.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What we really need is a credible 3rd party to represent people like me and conservative Democrats, which is probably 60% of the population. You know reasonable people, not the wacky fringes on either side.

Isn't it amazing that "reasonable" people always think exactly the way you do?

Leave it to you to cause trouble Jeff. You don't think the fringes are populated with people outside the norm? Maybe that is because you are on the progressive fringe yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not parroting. I've been in the military for 19 years, so I think I have a better grip on the facts than you do, and it is supported by all evidence.

I didn't serve in the military, but I pay attention to the news. I remember that in the early years of the Iraq war soldiers were buying their own body armor and using "hillbilly armor" on humvees.

Jeff, I thought you'd have thought this through!

If you look at the graphs, it shows clearly the lack of defense spending in the 1990s. Defense spending did not shoot up until after 9/11. Acquisitions of military technology take time. First, there's following the very lengthy Federal Acquisition Regulations (the FAR). Then there's the time spent on R&D. After R&D, things usually have to go through yet another bidding process. Then there's more blocks to be checked and safety requirements and interoperability requirements that must be tested and met through milestone reviews. That's keeping it very high level. It is a complete PITA. The only things the government can procure quickly are things already on the GSA, which is commercial of the shelf, so things like passenger vans and playgrounds and computers and pens. If something is an urgent operational need, there are ways to short cut it. But it has to be signed off at very high levels, so to get the requirement from the tactical guys that need the gear to the combatant commander for signature to the people that buy the stuff still takes a lot of time.

Also, at the start of OIF, they approached it like Desert Storm II. The military was unprepared for IEDs and essentially guerilla warfare. That is why troops were willing to shell out money out of pocket to buy any gear they could. The military did not have things developed to counter this, and the acquisition process is slow. We did ot have a lot of armored vehicles, and the ones that we did have were designed to be hit from the front, not the side. Most vehicles had no armor - they were designed to go over rough terrain and not flip over.

Don't get me wrong - the acquisition process is slow for a reason. It's to protect the taxpayer from buying $400 wrenches and toilet seats. And supposedly to get the right equipment to the troops, although this rarely happens, no matter who is in power.

NP.

1. Defense spending ramped up in the 80's under Reagan, which is why it was relatively level during the post-Reagan era. If it was enough to defeat the Russians while holding back the Chinese and North Koreans, why isn't it good enough today?

2. Are you telling me that after WWII, Korea, and Vietnam we spent so much on modernizing that we were not prepared for IED's - essentially landmines? - and guerilla warfare? If there is anything we learned from Iraq, it is that we lost the basic competencies we had in generations before. Money doesn't solve that problem.

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, back to the main point. The Republicans are alienating a large group they could once count on.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, &tc... Anyway, the GOP got a lot of mileage out of the hippies, Jane Fonda, and the 60s. Time to move on. It's especially grating given that 99% of the hippie-assholes from the 60s are now 70 years old, dressing up like pirates, and waving teabags around demanding their country back.

Anyway, back to the main point. The Republicans are alienating a large group they could once count on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, no! They weren't *booing*. They were yelling, "Support the trooooooops!"

Anyway, the GOP has shat on the military for decades. I mean, aside from placing little magnetic flags on their bumpers. But they've been effective at playing "culture war" so the subset of the military that is very young, very southern, and very rural tends to just not think about it very much and pull the lever for the "Dixie/Country Music" party.

Listen to the video. They are clearly booing. It's only a handful. And then when Santorum esentially states he will reinstate DADT, there is huge applause.

The GOP, however, has given the military the best pay raises. Also, the GOP tends to fund the most number of defense projects. This means better equipment to the troops.http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/b2418_chart1_1.ashx?w=600&h=478&as=1 " border="0" class="embeddedImage" />

Horseshit. "Most number of defense projects" has no bearing whatsoever to "better equipment for the troops." This is the sort of thing that only someone who knows *nothing* about the military would believe. As far as "the gop...has given the military the best pay raises", that also smells like horseshit. The fact that you've merely parroted it rather than providing any evidence leads to the conclusion it's a partisan article of faith rather than a rationally held belief.

Under the GOP, defense contractors do very well. As do very rich people in general. Generally speaking poor and lower middle class people get the shaft. Most of the troops in the field are lower middle class. You do the math.

Actually, I did post evidence, however the link is broken - but you could have copied and pasted it into your browser to see it instead of just blasting of nonsense.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/b2418_chart1_1.ashx?w=600&h=478&as=1

Second, although defense contracts do line the pockets of defense contractors, they also provide the troops with better technology. MRAP comes to mind immediately. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP
Also the helmet. From the 1980s to 2005, it was Kevlar. Kevlar was mostly effective but heavy and ackward to wear. The USMC now uses the lightweight helmet thanks to defense initiatives and procurements. It is much lighter and more effective than the Kevlar helmet. I know, I've worn them in combat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevlar#Armor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Helmet

Look at the pdf files for the payraises by year. The biggest payraises were during Republican years. You do the math.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militarypay/a/historicalpay.htm
http://www.military.com/benefits/content/military-pay/charts/historical-military-pay-rates.html

I'm not parroting. I've been in the military for 19 years, so I think I have a better grip on the facts than you do, and it is supported by all evidence.

Your link showed that overall defense spending has skyrocketed under various GOP administrations. It shouldn't be necessary to hold your hand and explain to you that a rise in overall defense spending has nothing to do with payraises. Also, it's funny that you don't define "Republican years". My guess is that your definition would be extremely, ahem, "flexible."

Also the helmet. From the 1980s to 2005, it was Kevlar. Kevlar was mostly effective but heavy and ackward to wear. The USMC now uses the lightweight helmet thanks to defense initiatives and procurements. It is much lighter and more effective than the Kevlar helmet.

This may be the dumbest argument I've heard so far. Your incredibly hacky Heritage Foundation graph shows something on the order of a $300bn /year increase in the overall defense budget. And you're trying to make the argument that this was largely a function of adapting Kevlar to protective uses. As opposed to massive numbers of bloated, unnecessary weapons systems (like nuclear attack subs, and cripplingly expensive and redundant aircraft) and private defense contractor waste, fraud, and abuse.

It's funny, because this is exactly how the racket works: spend billions and billions on exotic weapons systems, and sprawling mcmansions in NoVa for modern day robber barons who run the major defense contracting companies--while shortchanging the actual troops in the field--and when anyone bats an eye, you point to kevlar helmets.

BTW, I used two examples - the MRAP and the helmet. MRAP costs a lot of $. Helmet, not so much. I could give you a lot more examples, but you'd still hold onto your beliefs that increased defense spending only lines rich peoples pockets.

I've already stated it does line their pockets - but it also does so much more, from helmets to MRAPs to better living units downrange to better housing at home. Yes, there's huge overruns in hige programs that I frankly wish would go away. But those are not the only projects. There's multiple programs working on various weapons systems to increase accuracy and decrease instances of friendly fire. There's increasing the information security, so our sensitive or classified documents are better protected.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not parroting. I've been in the military for 19 years, so I think I have a better grip on the facts than you do, and it is supported by all evidence.

I didn't serve in the military, but I pay attention to the news. I remember that in the early years of the Iraq war soldiers were buying their own body armor and using "hillbilly armor" on humvees.

Jeff, I thought you'd have thought this through!

If you look at the graphs, it shows clearly the lack of defense spending in the 1990s. Defense spending did not shoot up until after 9/11. Acquisitions of military technology take time. First, there's following the very lengthy Federal Acquisition Regulations (the FAR). Then there's the time spent on R&D. After R&D, things usually have to go through yet another bidding process. Then there's more blocks to be checked and safety requirements and interoperability requirements that must be tested and met through milestone reviews. That's keeping it very high level. It is a complete PITA. The only things the government can procure quickly are things already on the GSA, which is commercial of the shelf, so things like passenger vans and playgrounds and computers and pens. If something is an urgent operational need, there are ways to short cut it. But it has to be signed off at very high levels, so to get the requirement from the tactical guys that need the gear to the combatant commander for signature to the people that buy the stuff still takes a lot of time.

Also, at the start of OIF, they approached it like Desert Storm II. The military was unprepared for IEDs and essentially guerilla warfare. That is why troops were willing to shell out money out of pocket to buy any gear they could. The military did not have things developed to counter this, and the acquisition process is slow. We did ot have a lot of armored vehicles, and the ones that we did have were designed to be hit from the front, not the side. Most vehicles had no armor - they were designed to go over rough terrain and not flip over.

Don't get me wrong - the acquisition process is slow for a reason. It's to protect the taxpayer from buying $400 wrenches and toilet seats. And supposedly to get the right equipment to the troops, although this rarely happens, no matter who is in power.

Horseshit. "Most number of defense projects" has no bearing whatsoever to "better equipment for the troops." This is the sort of thing that only someone who knows *nothing* about the military would believe. As far as "the gop...has given the military the best pay raises", that also smells like horseshit. The fact that you've merely parroted it rather than providing any evidence leads to the conclusion it's a partisan article of faith rather than a rationally held belief.

Under the GOP, defense contractors do very well. As do very rich people in general. Generally speaking poor and lower middle class people get the shaft. Most of the troops in the field are lower middle class. You do the math.

Actually, I did post evidence, however the link is broken - but you could have copied and pasted it into your browser to see it instead of just blasting of nonsense.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/b2418_chart1_1.ashx?w=600&h=478&as=1

Second, although defense contracts do line the pockets of defense contractors, they also provide the troops with better technology. MRAP comes to mind immediately. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP
Also the helmet. From the 1980s to 2005, it was Kevlar. Kevlar was mostly effective but heavy and ackward to wear. The USMC now uses the lightweight helmet thanks to defense initiatives and procurements. It is much lighter and more effective than the Kevlar helmet. I know, I've worn them in combat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevlar#Armor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Helmet

Look at the pdf files for the payraises by year. The biggest payraises were during Republican years. You do the math.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militarypay/a/historicalpay.htm
http://www.military.com/benefits/content/military-pay/charts/historical-military-pay-rates.html

I'm not parroting. I've been in the military for 19 years, so I think I have a better grip on the facts than you do, and it is supported by all evidence.

Your link showed that overall defense spending has skyrocketed under various GOP administrations. It shouldn't be necessary to hold your hand and explain to you that a rise in overall defense spending has nothing to do with payraises. Also, it's funny that you don't define "Republican years". My guess is that your definition would be extremely, ahem, "flexible."

Also the helmet. From the 1980s to 2005, it was Kevlar. Kevlar was mostly effective but heavy and ackward to wear. The USMC now uses the lightweight helmet thanks to defense initiatives and procurements. It is much lighter and more effective than the Kevlar helmet.

This may be the dumbest argument I've heard so far. Your incredibly hacky Heritage Foundation graph shows something on the order of a $300bn /year increase in the overall defense budget. And you're trying to make the argument that this was largely a function of adapting Kevlar to protective uses. As opposed to massive numbers of bloated, unnecessary weapons systems (like nuclear attack subs, and cripplingly expensive and redundant aircraft) and private defense contractor waste, fraud, and abuse.

It's funny, because this is exactly how the racket works: spend billions and billions on exotic weapons systems, and sprawling mcmansions in NoVa for modern day robber barons who run the major defense contracting companies--while shortchanging the actual troops in the field--and when anyone bats an eye, you point to kevlar helmets.

Apparently, you can't read. I attached two links with historical pay raise data. Let's examine it.
Democrats controlled BOTH house from 1955 until 1980 (26 years).
From 1981 until 1987 the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats the House.
Democrats recaptured both in 87 and held them until 95 when the Republicans took both and held them until 2005.


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_years_did_democrats_control_both_house_and_senate#ixzz1Yn3maDyC
Reagan/Bush
*1981 11.7% military pay 9.1% average civilian pay (Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats the House)
*1982 14.3% military pay 9.1% average civilian pay (Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats the House)
-1983 4.0% military pay 8.1% average civilian pay (Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats the House)
-1984 4.0% military pay 5.6% average civilian pay (Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats the House)
-1985 4.0% military pay 5.1% average civilian pay (Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats the House)
-1986 3.0% military pay 4.4% average civilian pay (Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats the House)
-1987 3.0% military pay 4.2% average civilian pay (Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats the House)
-1988 2.0% military pay 3.5% average civilian pay (both Democrat)
*1989 4.1% military pay 3.5% average civilian pay (both Democrat)
-1990 3.6% military pay 4.4% average civilian pay (both Democrat)
1991 4.1% military pay 4.4% average civilian pay (both Democrat)
1992 4.2% military pay 4.2% average civilian pay (both Democrat)
Clinton years
-1993 3.7% military pay raise 3.7% average civilian pay raise (both Democrat)
-1994 2.2% military pay raise 2.7% average civilian pay raise (both Democrat)
-1995 2.6% military pay raise 3.1% average civilian pay raise (both Democrat)
-1996 2.4% military pay raise 2.9% average civilian pay raise (both Republican)
1997 3.0% military pay raise 2.8% average civilian pay raise (both Republican)
-1998 2.8% military pay raise 3.3% average civilian pay raise (both Republican)
1999 3.6% military pay raise 3.6% average civilian pay raise (both Republican)
*2000 6.2% military pay raise 4.3% average civilian pay raise (both Republican)
GW Bush years
*2001 4.1% military pay raise 3.2% average civilian pay raise (Senate split, Republican House)
*2002 6.9% military pay raise 4.1% average civilian pay raise (both Republican)
*2003 4.7% military pay raise 3.6% average civilian pay raise (both Republican)
*2004 4.2% military pay raise 3.1% average civilian pay raise (both Republican)
*2005 3.5% military pay raise 3.0% average civilian pay raise (both Republican)
*2006 3.1% military pay raise 2.6% average civilian pay raise (both Republican)
*2007 2.7% military pay raise 2.2% average civilian pay raise (both Republican)
*2008 3.5% military pay raise 3.0% average civilian pay raise (both Democrat)

I put an asterick by the years with the best payraises when compared to the civilian sector. * Note that these are almost exclusively when Republicans controlled Congress with a Republican President.
The worst raises, marked with - are mostly when the President, House, and Senate are not of the same parties, or when they are all Democrat.

It is pretty funny. The quadrennial primary debates are becoming the only time that the few decent folks left who self-identify as "Republicans" are forced to confront exactly what their party has become.