Russia vs Ukraine Cagematch

[the_spaniard]

The military is quite possibly the most wasteful organization in the history of this country.

 

 

You describe this as a broad-stroke generalization, and I can see how it might be viewed that way. But if I said it was the most wasteful organization, you would be right. The simple fact is I don't have the numbers to prove it, so I didn't lay it out that way.

 

If you wan't to talk about billions of tax dollars wasted let us first look at the billions we waste on welfare and food stamps as we pay able bodied people who don't have a job BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT A JOB.

 

 

That's my argument. You have blanket-labeled people because you have associated a cost of billions in fraud. How do you know there are billions? If you have a study that compares social program waste/fraud to military waste/fraud then please share and I'll look it over.

 

Your whole argument is based on what numbers? I said "quite possibly"...you didn't. You know it is. Where are your numbers?

 

How are you not seeing this?

Edited March 5, 2014 by the_spaniard

[BlackHorse]

I'm sorry Spaniard, all I heard was blah blah blah, rationalize, bullshit, blah blah blah

 

Look I get it man. You're a typical liberal and you don't like the military and therefore feel justified in making all sorts of negative accusations, conjecture and out right lies about the military. This is nothing new. Liberals have been doing this since the sixties. Just don't expect me to subscribe to your warped liberal point of view because I know it's all nonsense. You're no different than the extremist right wingers, just at the other end of the spectrum. Both are clueless and out of touch.

[the_spaniard]

I'm sorry Spaniard, all I heard was blah blah blah, rationalize, bullshit, blah blah blah

 

Look I get it man. You're a typical liberal and you don't like the military and therefore feel justified in making all sorts of negative accusations, conjecture and out right lies about the military. This is nothing new. Liberals have been doing this since the sixties. Just don't expect me to subscribe to your warped liberal point of view because I know it's all nonsense. You're no different than the extremist right wingers, just at the other end of the spectrum. Both are clueless and out of touch.

 

Once again BH you really showed me.

 

Say it with me again folks....ad hominem.

[BlackHorse]

 

Once again BH you really showed me.

 

Say it with me again folks....ad hominem.

 

 

I know, there is no reason to thank me spaniard. I am only helping you. You did the typical liberal thing. You made a blanket statement, got called out on it, and then tried to claim that you never said that. This is liberalism 101. Every liberal knows that if you get caught in a lie or making a false statement you do one of three things.

 

1. Claim that everyone just misunderstood you and make another statement that is 180 degrees out from your original statement.

2. Blame a conservative / Republican for it.

3. Claim that you never said that and it's all a vast right wing conspiracy.

[the_spaniard]

 

I know, there is no reason to thank me spaniard. I am only helping you. You did the typical liberal thing. You made a blanket statement, got called out on it, and then tried to claim that you never said that. This is liberalism 101. Every liberal knows that if you get caught in a lie or making a false statement you do one of three things.

 

1. Claim that everyone just misunderstood you and make another statement that is 180 degrees out from your original statement.

2. Blame a conservative / Republican for it.

3. Claim that you never said that and it's all a vast right wing conspiracy.

 

 

Yep, as you and everyone else can clearly see that is exactly what I did all there.

 

As I said, you have really shown me.

 

I think I will quit since I am so far behind. Well played, Sir. I leave the field to you.

Edited March 5, 2014 by the_spaniard

[BlackHorse]

 

Yep, as you and everyone else can clearly see that is exactly what I did all there.

 

As I said, you have really shown me.

 

I think I will quit since I am so far behind. Well played, Sir. I leave the field to you.

 

 

Okay, seeya.

[Imawhosure]

Actually Ima you bring up a good point, and one I possibly overlooked due to my own support of the draft. I think a smart downsizing is what we need, closely monitoring reserves and maintaining an acceptable level of readiness. Bear in mind too, that when I say military I wasn't thinking of just troops, but the numbers of vehicles, aircraft, bases, etc as well.

 

Again, I am no fan of all of Coburns ideas - particularly when he talks about cutting veterans financial support, but check out some of his ideas that even the hard-left leaning Mother Jones have called "Draconian" in comparison to Obamas proposed cuts:

 

- Shrinking the US nuclear arsenal "to levels within the START treaty limits" to save $79 billion over the next decade.

- Cutting overall intelligence spending by 3 percent, then freezing it for the next decade, to save $26 billion.

- Eliminating 10 percent of the Pentagon's R&D budget, a savings of $79 billion.

- Taking the Army back down to pre-Iraq surge levels, a force reduction of 65,000 soldiers, or 12 percent. This would save $92 billion.

 

If we actually had some people in office that could compromise, maybe we could get some of this done. I have to reiterate I don't like Coburn (particularly his stance on social issues, etc) but just because you don't like someone on principle doesn't mean they don't have some good ideas that you can work with. Not everyone there is what the media portrays, as not every republican is a "wing nut" nor every democrat a "tree-hugger", not TP'er an "extremist", nor independent a "fence-rider", etc. I would hope someday we could all get over the rhetoric of trying to use political affiliation as an insult. Sorry, my train of thought jumped-tracks.

 

 

 

I would say that starvation isn't the same as malnutrition, which causes more serious medical issues in this country. And yes, I do bear in mind malnutrition can not only denote a lack of food, but plenty of food of poor quality. Doing my own quick research I couldn't find any cases where someone had actually starved to death (here in the US) that wasn't connected to secondary factors (mental illness,etc.) So yeah, you got me on that one.

Spaniard, for me, you seem like reasonable person, and oh yeah, I DIDN'T GET YOU on that one. I don't see things to often that way. We can all learn a thing or 2 from one another in my book, since nobody is always 100% correct, and neither is either political party.

 

OK, so now I ask people what they think of these two problems that have appeared. Our media is not really covering it, but somebody is probably going to open their mouths soon, so be prepared.

 

1... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html

 

 

2... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573557/Flashback-Senator-Obama-pushed-destruction-15-000-TONS-ammunition-400-000-small-arms-1-000-anti-aircraft-missiles-Ukraine.html

 

Now it appears to me all, that while I don't want another war, Putin just embarrassed Obama again directly. He didn't do a whole lot for Clinton either with this move, but then Mr Clinton is not the present President.

 

It was quite easy for us to not get concerned, until we realize that we kinda cut a deal with the Ukraine to offload their nukes and basically most of their conventional weapons, and we would secure their borders. (along with Britain, Russia, and another country or 2)

 

Point is------> I am in no way advocating some sort of attack, I am just showing how we aren't looking so hot on this, and are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

I am also sure our allies, who we also have treaties with; aren't to happy either as they are probably thinking------>except for the grace of God go I. We aren't looking to good at all, morally we are on the hook, and no......you can't blame GW!

[Langston Hughes]

Really? You don't think that lack of action by our past president during Putins attack on Georgia's South Ossetia region is slightly more important than Lugers desire to eliminate unused stockpiles which hasn't limited the Ukrainian military from training one bit?

 

That second link is a particular waste of time as the current Ukrainian military had little hope of stopping the Russians WWII era ammo or no.

[Edstock]

What's really going on in Ukraine.

[cal50]

A much simpler explanation.....

 

 

 

[Langston Hughes]

An interesting article in which Robert Gates suggest that republicans should stand with the president, something that conservatives would never think of doing, even as their chatter makes America look weaker.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-the-cool-it-response-to-foreign-policy-rhetoric/2014/03/04/38cefa34-a3e6-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html?hpid=z2

 

I asked Gates what he thought about the criticism of Obama by McCain and Graham. “They’re egging him on” to take actions that may not be effective, Gates warned. He said he “discounted” their deeper argument that Obama had invited the Ukraine crisis by not taking a firmer stand on Syria or other foreign policy issues. Even if Obama had bombed Syria or kept troops in Iraq or otherwise shown a tougher face, “he still would have the same options in Ukraine. Putin would have the same high cards.”

Gates, a Republican himself, urged the GOP senators to “tone down” their criticism and “try to be supportive of the president rather than natter at the president.”

Gates can be an emotional person when he talks about national-security issues, as any reader of his recent memoir, “Duty,” can see. And he showed some of that emotion when he said, near the end of our conversation: “It seems to me that trying to speak with one voice — one American voice — seems to have become a quaint thing of the past. I regret that enormously.”

 

 

Despite my dislike of policy and leadership position choices by Bush, his choice of Gates to replace the bumbling Rumsfeld was clearly the right one and he deserves credit for getting that right.

[BlackHorse]

An interesting article in which Robert Gates suggest that republicans should stand with the president, something that conservatives would never think of doing, even as their chatter makes America look weaker.

 

 

 

 

Ah yes because the Democrats are known for standing with Republican Presidents in time of crisis. Oh wait, no they don't. In fact they do everything they can to undermine Republican Presidents during a time of crisis. Hell they do everything they can to undermine Republican Presidents when everything is going fine. This is the problem with political parties or political factions. The business of leading the country gets tossed by the way side as these petty fucktards get so involved in their petty political games.

[Imawhosure]

OK, look here------------> If that doesn't sound EXACTLY like what Putin is doing, tweaking Obama, then you are blind in one eye, and can't see out the other. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hitler-announces-an-anschluss-with-Austria

 

And just in case a CERTAIN person doesn't get the correlation because he was studying Keynes economic models to hard while in some libby college, let someone else point it for you.

 

--------------> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-02/in-ukraine-echoes-of-the-Anschluss

 

Nobody that I know of, is even remotely suggesting we send troops over to Ukraine. (and if they are, that person needs to be watched closely) I certainly am not, nor would I under these circumstances. As I have said before---------> Europe needs to pull its own weight since they like to give money away, even if it is to their own people. We would have more of that sort of luxury, if everyone didn't think we were the worlds police force.

 

The point of this exercise is a simple question-----------> We defeated the Soviet Union about 30yrs ago, and now Putin is now on the move through Georgia, the Ukraine, and he is a nuclear power. You have China playing games by Japan, claiming places in international waters, and they are a nuclear power. You also have Iran, again playing games, and they are really crazy, and will soon be a nuclear power; and all they want to do is kill Israel 1st, then us. You also have North Korea, being absolutely obstinate, trying to create missiles.......or buy them, to be able to hit anything they want.

 

So, is Obama doing the correct thing by cutting military spending? Maybe he should wring the waste out as best he can, then funnel it part of it inward, and the rest towards more military spending?

 

You don't have to agree, nor disagree. But certainly, at least explain a palatable idea that will help us defend ourselves/allies if need be.

 

I still contend that nobody is going to fire off a nuclear weapon except for possibly Iran. Nobody wants total destruction, and the world can certainly do that to itself if it so chooses. (sad, but true)

 

Proper military spending is a certain quagmire. Many say we spend to much, and they may very well be correct. But, if our spending on the military is to high, and we spend more than the next 16 countries after us put together, then it is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS LARGESSE.

 

See, we can all agree on something.........no matter what Washington spends money on, they spend far to much, don't get the bang for our buck, and instead of robbing bloated Peter to pay bloated Paul, we should demand that Peter along with Paul fix their broken money pit, then we could have the same things we do now, AND pay towards the national debt!

[WaterDR]

In some ways the military is a social program. That's not an inditment, just what it is.

[Langston Hughes]

Imma,

Really? It took you this long to find some sort of connection to Hitler's actions? Your only what, a week behind every pundit's Sudetenland comparison? I still have family in Europe who lived through it so I don't need you to explain it.

 

As for the point of your exercise is with all it's circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back is to ask if military spending is being cut too much then what's with all the extra shit?

[BlackHorse]

Yeah Imma, clearly we need to spend more money on able bodied Americans who are too lazy to get a job and just want to live off of everyone else who does.

[Langston Hughes]

And my response is that the ability to project force is not what it used to be after all those years trapped in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maintaining an army solely for staying the worlds policeman is stupid. I think by now that America has had enough of that given the attitudes towards Syria, South Ossetia and Crimea. It's apparent that we've lost our hawkish nature among the general public.

[Imawhosure]

Imma,

Really? It took you this long to find some sort of connection to Hitler's actions? Your only what, a week behind every pundit's Sudetenland comparison? I still have family in Europe who lived through it so I don't need you to explain it.

 

As for the point of your exercise is with all it's circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back is to ask if military spending is being cut too much then what's with all the extra shit?

 

 

Hmmmmmmmm, since it is the federal governments main job to protect the United States above all other "supposed ideas," it is a valid point.

 

All I am really asking is------->is Obama doing the correct thing; and-------->is there correlation between his handling of things, his announcements of cutting back the military, and all of these tin horns getting a little aggressive?

 

We have seen how Obama talks to our allies, and then we see how naïve his foreign policy is............ http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/israel-naval-raid-seizes-gaza-bound-iranian-arms-22779803

 

Who knows, maybe it will all be proven a hoax, or downright lie. But if it isn't, Obama just got slapped around again, and anybody/everybody can make excuses, but not being hawkish has no relevance to being made to look incompetent, in over your head, or worrying about Shang-Ri-La instead of the world we actually live in.

[BlackHorse]

And my response is that the ability to project force is not what it used to be after all those years trapped in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maintaining an army solely for staying the worlds policeman is stupid. I think by now that America has had enough of that given the attitudes towards Syria, South Ossetia and Crimea. It's apparent that we've lost our hawkish nature among the general public.

 

 

Your understanding of force projection could fit comfortably into a thimble. We do not maintain an army "solely for staying the worlds policeman". That is liberal talking point, a lie, and just a detail but the word you are looking for is policemen, not policeman. We have a military for a very good reason and its the same reason that all other nations have a military, to protect this nation. Americans didn't want to go into Syria for a good reason, it has nothing do to with us. Americans don't want to go into Crimea for good reason, it has nothing to do with us. Kosovo had nothing to do with us either but that didn't stop Clinton did it? Ossetia? Has nothing to do with us.

[TomServo92]

Crimea was part of Russia from the late 1700's up until Kruschev decided to make it part of the Ukraine province in 1951. As far as I'm concerned, the citizens of Crimea should be able to rejoin Russia if they vote to do so. We should just stay out of it.

[J-150]

Let's pose the question this way.

 

Would it be okay for the US to invade Quebec?

 

It used to be one of the 16 colonies.

[TomServo92]

Let's pose the question this way.

 

Would it be okay for the US to invade Quebec?

 

It used to be one of the 16 colonies.

 

Bad analogy. It may have been one of England's colonies but it was never a part of the United States.

[BlackHorse]

Let's pose the question this way.

 

Would it be okay for the US to invade Quebec?

 

It used to be one of the 16 colonies.

 

Depends on how you look at it. If the Prime Minister of Quebec or Canada who has been legally elected to office was overthrown in a violent uprising and that Prime Minister asked the United States to invade or act into Canada at his request then yes by all means the United States would go in. Is that so very different than what Putin has done? Make no mistake, I am no fan of the communist lying dirt bag that is Valdimir Putin but I am also capable of understanding the situation from his own point of view. He couldn't care less about the rest of the Ukraine. He wants Crimea because he needs a warm water port.

[Langston Hughes]

Your understanding of force projection could fit comfortably into a thimble. We do not maintain an army "solely for staying the worlds policeman". That is liberal talking point, a lie, and just a detail but the word you are looking for is policemen, not policeman. We have a military for a very good reason and its the same reason that all other nations have a military, to protect this nation. Americans didn't want to go into Syria for a good reason, it has nothing do to with us. Americans don't want to go into Crimea for good reason, it has nothing to do with us. Kosovo had nothing to do with us either but that didn't stop Clinton did it? Ossetia? Has nothing to do with us.

There you go again, acting like you're the expert and resorting to personal attacks.

 

For all your talk, you have failed to correctly account for why the public is now taking that stance so aggressively, the Iraq war. It is the single greatest influence on the American public's stance on future involvement.

 

You could throw all sorts of engagements in the mix, Beirut, Somalia, and others come to mind but the #1 reason how Americans feel is Iraq, the debacle that it was/is. That's why it's none of our business, because the iraq war and it's consequences weigh heavily on our future engagements.

 

Perhaps, in the future it will fade from our collective consciousness and we'll become more hawkish as a nation again just as we did after Viet Nam.

[BlackHorse]

There you go again, acting like you're the expert and resorting to personal attacks.

 

For all your talk, you have failed to correctly account for why the public is now taking that stance so aggressively, the Iraq war. It is the single greatest influence on the American public's stance on future involvement.

 

You could throw all sorts of engagements in the mix, Beirut, Somalia, and others come to mind but the #1 reason how Americans feel is Iraq, the debacle that it was/is. That's why it's none of our business, because the iraq war and it's consequences weigh heavily on our future engagements.

 

Perhaps, in the future it will fade from our collective consciousness and we'll become more hawkish as a nation again just as we did after Viet Nam.

 

 

I understand that it is difficult for you to grasp this topic because you are a left wing extremist and like all left wing extremists you blame America for everything that is wrong in the world and you hate the American military so any opportunity to be critical of both is like candy for you. Do you think that I don't understand that Americans are war weary after years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Most Americans understand this but most Americans are not lead around by their warped political point of view as you are. Americans do not want us to get involved in the Ukraine because it has nothing to do with our national interests. This is the reason nations go to war no matter what you might want to claim here.