Adam Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 In January when we transition from the Bush Regime to the Obama/McCain Administration there are a number of things I would like to see: 1. A lot of input from whoever loses. They president and runner up won't agree often, but that is a good thing. Both have some good ideas and both are good people with a strong love of country. 2. Put an end to the special interests that are currently the real KING of the country. Things have to be done for the countries sake, not to help out a lobbyist 3. Make it clear that any digging we do for oil is merely a band aid. We not only have to end our dependency on foreign oil, we HAVE to end our dependency on oil PERIOD. At no time in the history of our country has our economy been exceedingly strong when we depended on a lot of oil. Windmills, watermills, solar, hamsters running on a wheel....whatever. 4. End most tax cuts to the wealthy and middle class. Evaluate what we can afford to do- the deficit doesn't need to be completely eliminated, but a lot of it needs to be gone 5. On Iran. Tty intervening and assisting with setting up with a nuclear power program geered away from weaponry. We may have to rely on nuclear power at some point, same with the rest of the world. If we can make them economically dependent on us for help, then we gain a leg up. 6. People have to be sold on not panicking on the economy. The fact is that it will get worse before it gets better. We need to stop borrowing and then using it to pay off other countries for precious oil 7. Fix the military that Bush broke. our soldiers cannot be gone that long or come back then leave again. Many were mentally broken because of this regime's sheer stupidity 8. Health care- while I am against totally socialized healthcare (the govt would screw it up), something needs to be made available to those who have no access. Particularly with NECESSARY medications and procedures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 1. A lot of input from whoever loses. Pass the pipe 2. Put an end to the special interests that are currently the real KING of the country. Things have to be done for the countries sake, not to help out a lobbyist The only special interests you'll see a decline in are the ones who donated to the loser. But they'll just shift their donations to the winner 3. Make it clear that any digging we do for oil is merely a band aid. McCain's already there and Obama has quietly begun moving towards that: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080801/D929PVL00.html 4. End most tax cuts to the wealthy and middle class. Evaluate what we can afford to do- the deficit doesn't need to be completely eliminated, but a lot of it needs to be gone Yeah those people who inject money into the economy are evil anyways so there are better ways to spend their money 5. On Iran. Tty intervening and assisting with setting up with a nuclear power program geered away from weaponry. We may have to rely on nuclear power at some point, same with the rest of the world. If we can make them economically dependent on us for help, then we gain a leg up. Might want to rethink that after Israel bombs Iran sometime between November and January 6. People have to be sold on not panicking on the economy. The fact is that it will get worse before it gets better. We need to stop borrowing and then using it to pay off other countries for precious oil wtf do you mean stop borrowing? How are we going to pay for all of our Wal-Mart crap! 7. Fix the military that Bush broke. our soldiers cannot be gone that long or come back then leave again. Many were mentally broken because of this regime's sheer stupidity Who broke the military is debatalble. Who abused them, well that was Bush 8. Health care- while I am against totally socialized healthcare (the govt would screw it up), something needs to be made available to those who have no access. Particularly with NECESSARY medications and procedures If the access is granted, who will provide the health care service? There are only so many qualified doctors I remember when I was a freshman in college and all the bio/chem/premed majors with high hopes. Of the ones who didn't end up dropping out or switching majors to sociology/poly sci/history/etc, not that many of those were actually accepted to med school. Do you want to trust your life/health to a qualified professional or somebody who was just accepted because they needed more to meet demand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 7. Fix the military that Bush broke. our soldiers cannot be gone that long or come back then leave again. Many were mentally broken because of this regime's sheer stupidity I love that stupid-ass argument. If the military can't be deployed without "breaking", it was broken LONG before the war was started. I mean, really...whether you agree with the Iraq war or not, the US military is doing what a military is supposed to do - fight a war. If that "breaks" it, it's not the dumbasses that started the war that are at fault, it's the dumbasses that put together a military that couldn't fight it to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 I love that stupid-ass argument. If the military can't be deployed without "breaking", it was broken LONG before the war was started. I mean, really...whether you agree with the Iraq war or not, the US military is doing what a military is supposed to do - fight a war. If that "breaks" it, it's not the dumbasses that started the war that are at fault, it's the dumbasses that put together a military that couldn't fight it to begin with. WashingtonBad! ColonialUniform! Slaveholder! MountVernon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 I love that stupid-ass argument. If the military can't be deployed without "breaking", it was broken LONG before the war was started. I mean, really...whether you agree with the Iraq war or not, the US military is doing what a military is supposed to do - fight a war. If that "breaks" it, it's not the dumbasses that started the war that are at fault, it's the dumbasses that put together a military that couldn't fight it to begin with. My favorite canard is that the military is supposed to be able to sustain two major land wars simultaneously. IIR during the Clinton Administration they (I don't remember if it was the JCS or the Admin) got a lot of heat when they tried to update the doctrine to a more realistic one-and-a-half (half being a sustained insurgency/peace keeping scenario) and had to back off. Anyway, by today's criteria the military was broken all through WWII. That is, if by breaking you mean soldiers unhappy because they are not rotated home for 50% of the time, or that the swimming pools where they are being deployed are not being built fast enough. Or even if they aren't getting equipment fast enough - if the trucks are being repaired and the ammunition is being delivered on time, it's not a war. It's an exercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 2, 2008 Author Share Posted August 2, 2008 I love that stupid-ass argument. If the military can't be deployed without "breaking", it was broken LONG before the war was started. I mean, really...whether you agree with the Iraq war or not, the US military is doing what a military is supposed to do - fight a war. If that "breaks" it, it's not the dumbasses that started the war that are at fault, it's the dumbasses that put together a military that couldn't fight it to begin with. I don't agree with the Iraq war, but at this point it doesn't matter. We are there and can't deal with what if's. By breaks, what I meant is that the same people have been there too long or did not get enough of a break between deployments. Abu Graib WAS NOT THE FAULT of the soldiers that perpetrated the atrocities, but of the corrupt regime that put them in that situation. Good people CAN AND WILL be overcome by extenuating circumstances, and that has been proven time and time again- and KNOWINGLY taken advantage of by our regime Yeah those people who inject money into the economy are evil anyways so there are better ways to spend their money Hey, I never said cutting into the deficit would be easy or painless. Somebody has to pay Bush's bills since he isn't accountable for anything If the access is granted, who will provide the health care service? There are only so many qualified doctorsI remember when I was a freshman in college and all the bio/chem/premed majors with high hopes. Of the ones who didn't end up dropping out or switching majors to sociology/poly sci/history/etc, not that many of those were actually accepted to med school. Do you want to trust your life/health to a qualified professional or somebody who was just accepted because they needed more to meet demand? Ok, I am not a genius when it comes to this. But there are medications that are necessary to some conditions that cost in excess of $900 without coverage, and procedures can cost more. We have to find a way to help those who can't survive without this type of medical help. Am I advocating paying for someone with a cold to go see a doctor? No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 In January when we transition from the Bush Regime to the Obama/McCain Administration there are a number of things I would like to see: 1. A lot of input from whoever loses. They president and runner up won't agree often, but that is a good thing. Both have some good ideas and both are good people with a strong love of country. 2. Put an end to the special interests that are currently the real KING of the country. Things have to be done for the countries sake, not to help out a lobbyist 3. Make it clear that any digging we do for oil is merely a band aid. We not only have to end our dependency on foreign oil, we HAVE to end our dependency on oil PERIOD. At no time in the history of our country has our economy been exceedingly strong when we depended on a lot of oil. Windmills, watermills, solar, hamsters running on a wheel....whatever. 4. End most tax cuts to the wealthy and middle class. Evaluate what we can afford to do- the deficit doesn't need to be completely eliminated, but a lot of it needs to be gone 5. On Iran. Tty intervening and assisting with setting up with a nuclear power program geered away from weaponry. We may have to rely on nuclear power at some point, same with the rest of the world. If we can make them economically dependent on us for help, then we gain a leg up. 6. People have to be sold on not panicking on the economy. The fact is that it will get worse before it gets better. We need to stop borrowing and then using it to pay off other countries for precious oil 7. Fix the military that Bush broke. our soldiers cannot be gone that long or come back then leave again. Many were mentally broken because of this regime's sheer stupidity 8. Health care- while I am against totally socialized healthcare (the govt would screw it up), something needs to be made available to those who have no access. Particularly with NECESSARY medications and procedures Solid post Adam, I can't say that I disagree with any point on there. Cue the republicans to flog me in 3...2...1... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 3, 2008 Author Share Posted August 3, 2008 Solid post Adam, I can't say that I disagree with any point on there. Cue the republicans to flog me in 3...2...1... Funny thing is, that the republicans I talk to want a lot of the same things as the democrats- the two sides just differ on how to get there. And both sides are counting the days till Braniac is out of office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 Cue the republicans to flog me in 3...2...1... Love the "us vs them" mentality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 Love the "us vs them" mentality I am speaking the truth that even the most conservative positions of mine usually get ripped apart by Philly. Kinda like you tearing apart Adam's post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 My favorite canard is that the military is supposed to be able to sustain two major land wars simultaneously. IIR during the Clinton Administration they (I don't remember if it was the JCS or the Admin) got a lot of heat when they tried to update the doctrine to a more realistic one-and-a-half (half being a sustained insurgency/peace keeping scenario) and had to back off. The Clinton Administration was flogged because they CUT the operational military by a significant percentage. They kept the Chiefs and let go of the Indians, to put it in simple terms. Anyway, by today's criteria the military was broken all through WWII. That is, if by breaking you mean soldiers unhappy because they are not rotated home for 50% of the time, or that the swimming pools where they are being deployed are not being built fast enough. Or even if they aren't getting equipment fast enough - if the trucks are being repaired and the ammunition is being delivered on time, it's not a war. It's an exercise. Swimming pools being built fast enough? As far as the rest of your comparision: Wars are generally won by logistics and intelligence so those things are far more than "an exercise". How about decreasing the number of suits and increasing the number of boots? Based on my experience, I'd venture to guess than less than 33% of people on Active Duty are combat operators (It's probably between 15-20%, really). Does that seem smart to you given what a military is supposedly for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 The Clinton Administration was flogged because they CUT the operational military by a significant percentage. They kept the Chiefs and let go of the Indians, to put it in simple terms. Swimming pools being built fast enough? As far as the rest of your comparision: Wars are generally won by logistics and intelligence so those things are far more than "an exercise". How about decreasing the number of suits and increasing the number of boots? Based on my experience, I'd venture to guess than less than 33% of people on Active Duty are combat operators (It's probably between 15-20%, really). Does that seem smart to you given what a military is supposedly for? Agreed with your implied point. If (your best case scenario, I have no idea if it is right) it takes 670 guys to deploy 330 US Army soldiers, that is messed up. In my extremely arm chair view it should at least be 50/50. Now if we are talking about how many guys it takes to deploy a squadron of Navy/Air Force fighters then that is a different equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts