U.S. Military Near Breaking Point?

[IronGhost]

Broken ArrowHow the U.S. Army broke in Iraq.

By Phillip Carter

Posted Friday, March 30, 2007, at 6:59 PM ET

The U.S. Army broke in the 1970s in the wake of the Vietnam War and the end of the draft. But if you ask officers who served during that period, few will recall the sounds of creaking planks, snapping beams, or rupturing buildings as the institution disintegrated. Instead, the crumbling occurred over time, becoming apparent only decades later.

Today's Army is stretched past its breaking point by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The sounds of its collapse may be faint enough for policymakers in Washington to ignore, but they are there. An exodus of junior and midlevel personnel illustrates the crisis. Their exit has forced the Army to apply tourniquets like "stop loss" to halt the hemorrhaging, and it has also dropped its standards for recruiting and retention.

Four years into the war, the Army still has too few troops to persevere in Iraq and Afghanistan and too few deployed in each place to win. To surge its forces in Iraq, the Army has dipped deep into its well, returning units back to combat after less than a year at home, leaving many with little time to train incoming soldiers and come together as a team.

Of all the signs of breakage, perhaps the most acute is the decision to redeploy Army brigades to Iraq sooner and for longer tours in combat. The entire active-duty force is either deployed, set to deploy soon, or within one year of coming home from Iraq or Afghanistan. Short of conscripting millions of Americans to rapidly build a larger military, contracting out for a larger force, or mobilizing the entire reserves at once, military leaders say they have no other choice—to surge in Iraq, they must reduce the time soldiers spend at home between deployments and lengthen their combat tours from 12 to 16 or 18 months. But sending troops to Iraq after such a short time to reorganize, refit, and retrain is a recipe for disaster.

The combat-stress literature suggests there's a finite limit to the amount of time that men and women can withstand combat. British historian Richard Holmes pegged this figure at approximately 60 days of sustained combat. In Iraq, we often wondered what our finite limit was, given the stresses of our advisory mission and the frequent attacks on our compound in downtown Baqubah. You can drink only so much chai with Iraqi leaders, and hit so many improvised explosive devices, before you burn out and need to go home. The soldiers and Marines fighting high-intensity operations in Ramadi probably had a different limit than my team, as did the troops assigned to staff duty in the International Zone or on major forward-operating bases.

Full story: http://www.slate.com/id/2163107?nav=tap3

[AROCES]

Tell that to the MARINES!

[Aztec Warrior]

I didn't see your opinion Iron or any solution. I doubt you support a draft, but it may in fact be necessary at some future point.

If, however you idea is to bring the troops home...........that really doesn't solve the problem. A nation can't base their entire foreign policy around the premise.....the troops need to stay in their barracks, their too tired, or they don't like the assignment.

That's no way to run an army. The US would never have won WWII with that thinking.

[Pinky Floyd]

The real miltary firepower (US Navy and Air Force) has been sitting idle for years..

But the Army has been over burdoned with this futile effort to bring governmental civility to the savages. The war's over; Saddams' dead, the Kurds are safe, the WMD's are gone and democracy just ain't gonna happen amongst these nitwits. We won ('cept for the bringing democracy to them part, but that's their animalistic fault..at least we tried), so, it's mission accomplished, and time to come home..

Split Iraq up into 3 parts (Kurd, Suni, Shia) and call it a day...

Edited April 2, 2007 by Pinky Floyd

[Bob26003]

Wow Pinky. You are actually making a little sense!

But just because people are different does not make them savages. That is called cultural egocentrism. It's a big problem for Americans. We always think we are the best. When we are not.

As a matter of fact, we dont even rank in the top five Democracies. Bush's assault on Civil Liberties has done alot to decrease our standing. Not to mention we have the highest per capita rate of people in Prison.

Have a look at this:

Top 10 Democracies

http://conservationfinance.wordpress.com/2...10-democracies/

The World in 2007, a publication from The Economist, publishes the 2007 Democracy Table.

To calculate the ranking, it uses five broad categories: free elections, civil liberties, functioning government, political participation and political culture. Here are the top 10,

1. Sweden

2. Iceland

3. Netherlands

4. Norway

5. Denmark

6. Finland

7. Luxembourg

8. Australia

9. Canada

10. Switzerland

USA ranks 17th, UK 23rd, and France 24th. Italy ranks 34th, and doesn’t make it into the “full democracies” category. The weakest point for the full democracies is political participation, with UK scoring 5 out of a possible 10 points for participation. U.S. scores 7.22 on political participation, but there has been an erosion of civil liberties and problems with the functioning of government.

In Asia, only Japan is classified as a “full democracy”. In Latin America, only Costa Rica and Uruguay.

13% of the world population live in the 28 countries that are “full democracies”.

The bottom 10 countries?

Guinea-Bissau, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Libya, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, Togo, Chad, Central Africa, and, at the very bottom, North Korea.

Edited April 2, 2007 by Bob26003

[IronGhost]

I didn't see your opinion Iron or any solution. I doubt you support a draft, but it may in fact be necessary at some future point.

If, however you idea is to bring the troops home...........that really doesn't solve the problem. A nation can't base their entire foreign policy around the premise.....the troops need to stay in their barracks, their too tired, or they don't like the assignment.

That's no way to run an army. The US would never have won WWII with that thinking.

I DO support a draft. I think it's more fair -- although it makes for a less capable Army. One of the reasons we have the best military in the world is because that is IS all volunteer, and they have been keeping standards for admission fairly high.

But now with the critical need for more troops, they are lowering standards anyway -- they're letting in high school drop outs, those with past criminal records, etc. So the military is suffering anyway.

I'm not saying I have a solution, Aztec. I just think this is a problem that won't go away on it's own, and we need to start thinking about solutions.

I DO favor bringing the troops home NOW! I agree with Pinky. The military did accomplish the mission it was asked to do -- now it is being asked to perform a task with no clear mission -- they are baby sitting what even the Pentagon now calls a Civil War.

We reached the point of diminishing returns in Iraq. It no longer makes sense to have so many boots on the ground.

[Fluffybunny]

The real miltary firepower (US Navy and Air Force) has been sitting idle for years..

But the Army has been over burdoned with this futile effort to bring governmental civility to the savages. The war's over; Saddams' dead, the Kurds are safe, the WMD's are gone and democracy just ain't gonna happen amongst these nitwits. We won ('cept for the bringing democracy to them part, but that's their animalistic fault..at least we tried), so, it's mission accomplished, and time to come home..

Split Iraq up into 3 parts (Kurd, Suni, Shia) and call it a day...

That is absolutely correct. The infantry is what is stressed. The military portian that makes countries crumble is sitting around twiddling their thumbs with little to do. The ground forces will be getting out of iraq fairly soon and be able to recouperate. Had iraq been run in the fashion that the military was designed for we would have been out long ago, in the first tour. Unfortunately we have idiots for leaders that are trying to build a nation which isn't what the army does...when I joined the Army they issued me weapons, not hammers...

We have done all we can do in iraq(actually we did that years ago, the past couple of years have been futile in my opinion) We need to send the boys and girls home and give them rest and our thanks. The more important part of our military is the part that destroys the infrastructure of a country and makes room for the infantry to clean up is rested and well supplied; just waiting for the word to go break the heck out of something.

[__Kratos__]

Tell that to the MARINES!

Last week the Marines had to dip into reservers or the after enlistment deal (one of the two, I was half paying attention to the news) for 1,800 soldiers.

[Fluffybunny]

Last week the Marines had to dip into reservers or the after enlistment deal (one of the two, I was half paying attention to the news) for 1,800 soldiers.

That is the truth of the matter and I know many marines going on third tours that are hating life and wishing they had joined the Air Force...

[Birmingham]

It makes me laugh when I hear people talk about an American (and British for that matter) ground invassion and occupation of Iran. There is not the number of foot troopers out there to invade Iran. And still be able to hold the cork in, in other places around the world. Maybe enough to land on a beach, sieze a port - and hope the Iranians do not hear about it and respond.

It took 7 months to build up for the 1991 attack to liberate Kuwait. But the US Army/Marine Corp was roughly twice the size then as it is now. An invading army is not created out of dust. American soldiers started to arrive in the UK in 1942, nearly 2 years before the Normandy Landing. It took that long to train the men and assemble the number of men needed to take, hold and expand the Normandy Beachead.

Yes the Americans can do an invassion build up in less time than then. The ships and planes are bigger and faster. But you need the men/women to make up an army. A draft is the only way you could build an army in a hurry, but would be a tough sell to the American population at this time. Though there are reports of a big upswing on enlistment inquiries in Britain on joining the professional British military over the past week.

There is one group that gets a cross between my ire and my laughter - and that is all the reports coming out of Russia in inimate Allied attacks on Iran. Repuditly from former Russian military and KGB interligence (I more prefer the term "Un-inteligence") agents. I have lost count on all these dire warning coming out of Russia, but I think it is about 14 over the past 2 years. Yet nothing has come out of these Russian warnings. And the calendar keeps marching on.

[Pinky Floyd]

But just because people are different does not make them savages.

You're right.

It's the car bombs, generational blood-feuds and the bass-ackward cult mentality that does that...

[Caesar]

I think we should train Iraq's Army and police force just a bit longer. I do agree that we have been there to long and our military isn't trained to win conflicts, just wars.

[Aztec Warrior]

The real miltary firepower (US Navy and Air Force) has been sitting idle for years..

But the Army has been over burdoned with this futile effort to bring governmental civility to the savages. The war's over; Saddams' dead, the Kurds are safe, the WMD's are gone and democracy just ain't gonna happen amongst these nitwits. We won ('cept for the bringing democracy to them part, but that's their animalistic fault..at least we tried), so, it's mission accomplished, and time to come home..

Split Iraq up into 3 parts (Kurd, Suni, Shia) and call it a day...

You can't tame the savages. Eventually the troops need to come back, can't leave them there forever. But shouldn't that also hold true for troops based in S. Korea, Japan and Germany?

I DO support a draft. I think it's more fair -- although it makes for a less capable Army. One of the reasons we have the best military in the world is because that is IS all volunteer, and they have been keeping standards for admission fairly high.

But now with the critical need for more troops, they are lowering standards anyway -- they're letting in high school drop outs, those with past criminal records, etc. So the military is suffering anyway.

I'm not saying I have a solution, Aztec. I just think this is a problem that won't go away on it's own, and we need to start thinking about solutions.

I DO favor bringing the troops home NOW! I agree with Pinky. The military did accomplish the mission it was asked to do -- now it is being asked to perform a task with no clear mission -- they are baby sitting what even the Pentagon now calls a Civil War.

We reached the point of diminishing returns in Iraq. It no longer makes sense to have so many boots on the ground.

I don't support a draft unless an extreme emergency was to arrise.

I think we should train Iraq's Army and police force just a bit longer. I do agree that we have been there to long and our military isn't trained to win conflicts, just wars.

Of course, get them trained and then leave. But don't cut and run prematurely.

The list of Democracies posted by Bob refers to LIBERAL democracies. All but two are in the socialist European theatre.

[Bob26003]

You're right.

It's the car bombs, generational blood-feuds and the bass-ackward cult mentality that does that...

How is that different from people who drop bombs from Stealths and shoot Iraqis with m15s ,with their bass-ackwards cult mentality, they are savages as well.

If you want to look at it like that.

=======================

You say dont cut and run prematurely Aztek. Well, how long are we willing to stay? 10, 20, 30yrs............. Just how far are we willing to go in debt?

Also, the list of top Democratic Countries has nothing to do with social welfare programs, it has to do with Civil rights and whether or not the poeple are listened to. So I guess you could call that socialistic.

The simple fact is: The more Democratic something is, the more left it is. And when the will of the people is reflected. Social spending rises and military spending decreases.

Conservatism and Democracy just don't go together.

And BTW, that list was generated by the Economist, and we all know what flaming liberals they are

Edited April 3, 2007 by Bob26003

[Pinky Floyd]

How is that different from people who drop bombs from Stealths and shoot Iraqis with m15s ,with their bass-ackwards cult mentality, they are savages as well.

If you want to look at it like that.

There is a difference in a democracy that will help get rid of tyranny and one that wants to retreat to the year 800..(I know you have a hard time beliving in evil, unless it involves Bush, but it's out there and must be fought)

Make women slaves, execute for morality crimes, etc...

Big difference...

"An enemy of my enemy is my friend..No matter how horrible their crimes..or how much they want to kill me as well, or at least subjugate me to their primative cult"

But then again Bob, you hate America so much that fundamental islam is preferable to you beacuse it is exactly the opposite of what Bush wants. Just as I have stated in a prior post, if it were 1942, because Bush is wanting Hitler defeated, you would back the Nazi's..I really believe that.

You are as simple and one dimensional as that.

If we were like them, Bahgdad would have been bombed flat and all of it's people dead..And they wouldn't be getting dime for their oil..(repeat that to yourself over and over..maybe it will sink in..but I doubt it).

But we're nothing like them..no matter how much you want to make us out to be.

Conservatism and Democracy just don't go together.

Bullcrap...It works together juct fine..

Liberalism on the other hand, always spirals down the socialism pathway...(i.e: everybody's gotta be equal, even at the expense of the successful).

Rush's song 'The Trees' comes to mind..

Edited April 3, 2007 by Pinky Floyd

[Dr. Strangelove]

Assuming Bush had some "hidden motive" for Iraq, is giving him way too much credit. Bush is far, far too stupid to do anything "Shady"...

Then there's Cheney.

[Bob26003]

Tyrrany comes in all Forms

Calm down Pinky. You head is going to explode!

Anyway, are you going to make an educated reply?

Actually Pinky, Fundamental Islam is not far from what Bush wants.

1. Combining of Church and State (Faith Based initiatives, Creationism in Schools, Prayer in Schools)

2. Enforcement of Moral Law (No Gay Marriage , Abstinence only Education, Faith Based Initiatives)

3. Dictatorial Powers (Spying on US citizens, Repealing Habeas Corpus, Illegal Extraditions, The Patriot Act, "Free Speech zones")

Edited April 3, 2007 by Bob26003

[Aztec Warrior]

How is that different from people who drop bombs from Stealths and shoot Iraqis with m15s ,with their bass-ackwards cult mentality, they are savages as well.

If you want to look at it like that.

=======================

You say dont cut and run prematurely Aztek. Well, how long are we willing to stay? 10, 20, 30yrs............. Just how far are we willing to go in debt?

Also, the list of top Democratic Countries has nothing to do with social welfare programs, it has to do with Civil rights and whether or not the poeple are listened to. So I guess you could call that socialistic.

The simple fact is: The more Democratic something is, the more left it is. And when the will of the people is reflected. Social spending rises and military spending decreases.

Conservatism and Democracy just don't go together.

And BTW, that list was generated by the Economist, and we all know what flaming liberals they are

I agree with Pinky; train the Iraqis to a self-sufficient level and then reduce troop levels. But I would still maintain some bases in the area.

I never said anything about social welfare programs. I said socialist European theatre.

I would not equate civil rights with socialism.

I do not agree the more democratic something is, the more left it is. Is Cuba democratic? You need to think out your thoughts instead of just blurping down the first thing that enters your mind. At least for intelligent discord.

Assuming Bush had some "hidden motive" for Iraq, is giving him way too much credit. Bush is far, far too stupid to do anything "Shady"...

Then there's Cheney.

LOL. Bush is definetly not capable of anything that intelligent. And didn't Cheney shoot someone, by accident?

Regardless, Bush is gone in less than two years, but fanatical Islam and Iran will still be here.

[Pinky Floyd]

1. Combining of Church and State (Faith Based initiatives, Creationism in Schools, Prayer in Schools)

Faith based inntaitives only give a parent more rights. It's not like that choice is limited to religious schools. You like rights to do stuff Bob, as long as it meets libby approval. If it doesn't meet standard (religion, conservatism) that choice should be eliminated.

Faith based inntaitives are an increase in choice for their child. Public schools are a wreck, besides, it's equivaical. Through it, you can send your child to a strictly athiest school. Or should that choice be limited too? (Of course not...)

Those things ('cept for the intaitives) have always been there. Nobody is forcing it on anyone. Besides, you are always ranting about rights, what about the rights of students that wish to pray..(it's not an orgainzed prayer thing you know..it's the right to pray in school privately..something the libbies frown on). Again, choices are OK if they meet liberal approval.

Mentioning creationism along with evolution doesn't bother me (I am one that does not belive the Earth was created in one day or it's 8000 years old). It was mentioned when I was a student, what's wrong with all sides of an issue? (I

2. Enforcement of Moral Law (No Gay Marriage , Abstinence only Education, Faith Based Initiatives)

He is extreme about those things. One reasons that I'm not a strict conservative and more moderat and that the Repubs will probably go with a moderate (Guiliani).

3. Dictatorial Powers (Spying on US citizens,

Once again, the SCOTUS removed that.

Repealing Habeas Corpus,

Not for american citizens, and you have to be suspected of being an 'unlawful enemy combatant' as well.

Although the debate about the law focused on trials at Guantánamo Bay, it also takes away the right to go to court for immigrants and noncitizens in the United States -- including more than 12 million permanent residents -- if they are declared "unlawful enemy combatants."

No one has suggested the Bush administration plans to use its newly won power to round up large numbers of immigrants.

But before Tuesday, the principle of habeas corpus meant that anyone thrown into jail had a right to ask a judge to hear his case. He also had a right to go free if the government could not show a legal basis for holding him.

Many legal scholars predict the law's partial repeal of habeas corpus will be struck down as unconstitutional. Source

The checks and balances you don't believe in..nevermind..

Illegal Extraditions

Where and when? I have a few immigrant friends. They are legal and I don't see them sweating bullets. You have to be on very crappy list of badguys to get thrown out of the nation. But then again Bob, it's always good to have a few enemies of our way of life around, isn't it?

The Patriot Act,

I like it. Not a peep from terror since 9/11 here. They have shifted their attacks to easier targets because of it.

"Free Speech zones"

Often because liberals use the same tactics as the Nazi's did in yelling down most all speeches the disagree with. The Free Speech zones will work for the Dems as well. It just requires people to be civil during a political rally. These zones are all inclusive, protecting Hilliary and Obama as well..

Anyway, are you going to make an educated reply?

(Polishes off MBA from ODU) Oh...What we you saying Bob? I was busy shining my Master's Degree..

As soon as you make a valid, educated response not bathed in speculation, hyperbole, paranoia or out-and-out made up BS..(or insults too)

Bob, you are unduly rude, condecending and unpolished at the very least. You make comments like this above along with "Try to keep up (to Aroces)" "In over your head (to Kratos)" other unecessary things that make threading with you an unpleasant experience. You bring this entire forum down with crap like this.

I imagine they are to hide basic insecurities.

[Bob26003]

No Pinky, you cannot have different schools teaching different curriculums and one school being way ahead of another and so on. That is how you create a class caste society, like in India. We have a basic curriculum that we want our students to know. If they want to be taught creationism, go to sunday school, that is what Churches are for. If you are dissapointed in the Public school system, the solution is not to privatize it. The solution is to fix it. How about investing a little more money instead of wasting it in Iraq? We see what happened at Walter Reed and with Fema. Results of Privatization. We have heard about the Mercenaries in Iraq and some of the trouble they have caused. No, certain things should not be privatized, Because the goal then becomes profit, not whats best.

And no one said students can't pray. We are just not going to codify it. Any kid can go to the corner or pray at his desk if he or she wants as long as they are not disruptive. What you are talking about is making it standard. Making the class pray just like the pledge. That is overkill, plain and simple. And that my friend is enforcing your Religion.

If I recall Pinky, you were the one throwing insults: saying I hate America and whatnot. Typical Conservative BS.

Anyhoo, You are wrong about the Military Tribunals act and Habeas Corpus.

You should recheck that

***********************

On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Gonzales asserted in Senate testimony that while habeas corpus is "one of our most cherished rights," the United States Constitution does not expressly guarantee habeas rights to United States residents or citizens.

As such, the law could be extended to US citizens and held if left unchecked.

http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/node/392

"This law does not apply to American citizens," the Times October 19th editorial stated, "but it does apply to other legal United States residents. And it chips away at the foundations of the judicial system in ways that all Americans should find threatening." However, the Times analysis appears to be far too gentle. While it's true that some parts of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 target non-citizens, other sections clearly apply to US citizens as well, putting citizens inside the same tribunal system with resident aliens and foreigners.

"Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission," according to the law. "Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission & may direct." If the Times is correct that "this law does not apply to American citizens," why does it contain language referring to "any person" and then adding in an adjacent context a reference to people acting "in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States"?

**************************

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

Such "ghost detainees" are kept outside of judicial oversight, often without ever entering US territory, and may or may not ultimately be devolved to the custody of the United States.[5][6]

The US program has raised a series of moral, judicial, and political issues, prompting several official European Union investigations. A June 2006 report from the Council of Europe estimated one hundred persons had been kidnapped by the CIA on EU territory and rendered to other countries, often after having transited through secret detention centers ("black sites") used by the CIA in cooperation with other governments. According to the European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. A large majority of the European Union Parliament endorsed the report's conclusion that many member states tolerated illegal actions of the CIA and criticized several European governments and intelligence agencies for their unwillingness to cooperate with the investigation. [7]

=======================

Now, you say SCOTUS removed the illegal wiretapping, however, that is not the point. The point is that he did it, knowing full well it was illegal.

The Patriot act is more about a power grab than security. Sure, Law enforcement can now more easily do what is needed to catch criminals without checks and balances, but at what cost? Especially when you consider that the 911 Commission gave Bush failing grades on meeting the recommendations to secure our Country. The Democrats are fixing that. I mean the guy tried to sell Port security to the UAE.

=================

I am proud of you for earning your Master's pinky. And I harbor no ill feelings towards you. You attacked me. And then berated me for doing the same thing you did.

It's cool though. But we can debate without that nonsense.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Bob26003

[Bob26003]

No Pinky, you cannot have different schools teaching different curriculums and one school being way ahead of another and so on. That is how you create a class caste society, like in India. We have a basic curriculum that we want our students to know. If they want to be taught creationism, go to sunday school, that is what Churches are for. If you are dissapointed in the Public school system, the solution is not to privatize it. The solution is to fix it. How about investing a little more money instead of wasting it in Iraq? We see what happened at Walter Reed and with Fema. Results of Privatization. We have heard about the Mercenaries in Iraq and some of the trouble they have caused. No, certain things should not be privatized, Because the goal then becomes profit, not whats best.

If I recall Pinky, you were the one throwing insults: saying I hate America and whatnot. Typical Conservative BS.

Anyhoo, You are wrong about the Military Tribunals act and Habeas Corpus.

You should recheck that

***********************

On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Gonzales asserted in Senate testimony that while habeas corpus is "one of our most cherished rights," the United States Constitution does not expressly guarantee habeas rights to United States residents or citizens.

As such, the law could be extended to US citizens and held if left unchecked.

http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/node/392

"This law does not apply to American citizens," the Times October 19th editorial stated, "but it does apply to other legal United States residents. And it chips away at the foundations of the judicial system in ways that all Americans should find threatening." However, the Times analysis appears to be far too gentle. While it's true that some parts of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 target non-citizens, other sections clearly apply to US citizens as well, putting citizens inside the same tribunal system with resident aliens and foreigners.

"Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission," according to the law. "Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission & may direct." If the Times is correct that "this law does not apply to American citizens," why does it contain language referring to "any person" and then adding in an adjacent context a reference to people acting "in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States"?

**************************

Now, you say SCOTUS removed the illegal wiretapping, however, that is not the point. The point is that he did it, knowing full well it was illegal.

The Patriot act is more about a power grab than security. Sure, Law enforcement can now more easily do what is needed to catch criminals without checks and balances, but at what cost? Especially when you consider that the 911 Commission gave Bush failing grades on meeting the recommendations to secure our Country. The Democrats are fixing that. I mean the guy tried to sell Port security to the UAE.

=================

So whats you

[Pinky Floyd]

No Pinky, you cannot have different schools teaching different curriculums and one school being way ahead of another and so on. That is how you create a class caste society, like in India. We have a basic curriculum that we want our students to know. If they want to be taught creationism, go to sunday school, that is what Churches are for. If you are dissapointed in the Public school system, the solution is not to privatize it. The solution is to fix it. How about investing a little more money instead of wasting it in Iraq? We see what happened at Walter Reed and with Fema. Results of Privatization. We have heard about the Mercenaries in Iraq and some of the trouble they have caused. No, certain things should not be privatized, Because the goal then becomes profit, not whats best.

Businesses almost always are more efficient at doing things than the government. For a perfect microcosm of this theory; just look at a regular, private hospital and look at one of the dreaded VA hospitals. Big, huge difference between the two. Cleaner, better equipement, happier, more effiecient, better care, etc.. And the really crappy part is that the private hospital is almost always cheaper to operate as well. (Please don't tell me otherwise, I work(ed) in the health care industry). That's one reason the education system and the veterans health system needs to be privatized. The government just about sucks at everything compaired to a private company. (Mostly because a business requires performance from every employee..unlike government jobs; there's no slacking allowed).

If I recall Pinky, you were the one throwing insults: saying I hate America and whatnot. Typical Conservative BS.

Forgoing your overall condecending tone you took from the get-go, it all started with you posting pictures of Bush as Hitler and calling him a tyrant, mis-comparing him and all America has done lately to acts performed by Stalin, Mao and others..If you love America, cease the mindless exaggerations and show some support. Or at the very least, respectful dissent. You can certainly criticize the govenment besides resorting to such unfounded vitriol. Until then, my accusations stick..

Your comments, however, like the one's I mentioned (among others remaining unmentioned), are just snide personal remarks that would get you punched (at least by me) in a bar..

Give respect and you'll get it.

Anyhoo, You are wrong about the Military Tribunals act and Habeas Corpus.

As such, the law could be extended to US citizens and held if left unchecked.

"Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission," according to the law. "Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission & may direct." If the Times is correct that "this law does not apply to American citizens," why does it contain language referring to "any person" and then adding in an adjacent context a reference to people acting "in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States"?

The constitutionality of it will be brought into question, or is the SCOTUS not good enough for you? These checks and balances that allowed our country to survive 232 years, will continue to serve us. They have to be brought into review. That's the way we do things. If it were as bad as you say it is, how come Pelosi has not brought up the unconstituionality of said dastardly workings? Evidently, even the 'new congress in town' feels the same way as me. Let the SCOTUS do their jobs...Of all the branches of the Government, the SCOTUS is the one that keeps in line. To circumvent them everytime we have a displeasure, and start sceaming for vengence ala impeachment, would result in our demise as a nation.

Make no mistake, I don't want Hillary as President. But I would not try to undermine her presidency with lies and slander if she did make it. Effective persuasion uses a level head and verifiable information. Not emotion driven blather.

The Patriot act is more about a power grab than security.

Seems to be a really crappy way of grabbing power considering that Bush will be history in 21 months, the Dems won the last election and the Repubs are scrambling to keep the oval office. Meanwhile, the terrorists have moved to safer ground than the US because of it..

You talk alot about the socailism of scandanavian countries (which would have a hard time working with 300 million). Why don't you move there? (Seriously, no insult intended; why not?)

Edited April 3, 2007 by Pinky Floyd

[Bob26003]

Businesses almost always are more efficient at doing things than the government. For a perfect microcosm of this theory; just look at a regular, private hospital and look at one of the dreaded VA hospitals. Big, huge difference between the two. Cleaner, better equipement, happier, more effiecient, better care, etc.. And the really crappy part is that the private hospital is almost always cheaper to operate as well. (Please don't tell me otherwise, I work(ed) in the health care industry). That's one reason the education system and the veterans health system needs to be privatized. The government just about sucks at everything compaired to a private company. (Mostly because a business requires performance from every employee..unlike government jobs; there's no slacking allowed).

==============================

Yeah Pinky, and 40 million Americans don't have Health Care. And you honestly think it would be better to turn the Dept. of Ed. into Enron? So then only rich people will get a decent education. That is not a good idea. There is enough of a divide as it is. Your idea would just create more poor people and a more exclusive upper class. It would severely hamper social mobility. But I am not dumb, I know that IS the Republican agenda. Like Halliburton charging 60 Dollars for a case of pop, or Enron pillaging California.

=====================================

Forgoing your overall condecending tone you took from the get-go, it all started with you posting pictures of Bush as Hitler and calling him a tyrant, mis-comparing him and all America has done lately to acts performed by Stalin, Mao and others..If you love America, cease the mindless exaggerations and show some support. Or at the very least, respectful dissent. You can certainly criticize the govenment besides resorting to such unfounded vitriol. Until then, my accusations stick..

Your comments, however, like the one's I mentioned (among others remaining unmentioned), are just snide personal remarks that would get you punched (at least by me) in a bar..

======================

You would punch someone for ridiculing Bush? That is how you get yourself beat the hell up: By acting like a hard ass. Nobody likes a hard ass. But anyway, I am allowed to call Bush whatever I want, I do not have to respect him, it is my right, get over it! You dont like it? There is always Saudia Arabia or N. Korea.... I am sure they don't take lightly to dissent over there either.

=======================

Give respect and you'll get it.

The constitutionality of it will be brought into question, or is the SCOTUS not good enough for you? These checks and balances that allowed our country to survive 232 years, will continue to serve us. They have to be brought into review. That's the way we do things. If it were as bad as you say it is, how come Pelosi has not brought up the unconstituionality of said dastardly workings? Evidently, even the 'new congress in town' feels the same way as me. Let the SCOTUS do their jobs...Of all the branches of the Government, the SCOTUS is the one that keeps in line. To circumvent them everytime we have a displeasure, and start sceaming for vengence ala impeachment, would result in our demise as a nation.

===================

Allowing the Pres to get away with anything would result in our demise. It already has. Our Nation has suffered greatly from Repubs giving Bush the rubberstamp with no oversight.

======================

Make no mistake, I don't want Hillary as President. But I would not try to undermine her presidency with lies and slander if she did make it. Effective persuasion uses a level head and verifiable information. Not emotion driven blather.

Seems to be a really crappy way of grabbing power considering that Bush will be history in 21 months, the Dems won the last election and the Repubs are scrambling to keep the oval office. Meanwhile, the terrorists have moved to safer ground than the US because of it..

=======================

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

~Ben Franklin

=================================

You talk alot about the socailism of scandanavian countries (which would have a hard time working with 300 million). Why don't you move there? (Seriously, no insult intended; why not?)

Look Pinky, I love America. Hence I want to get rid of the corruption and those that are damaging: Like Bush.......................

Edited April 4, 2007 by Bob26003

[Fluffybunny]

Look Pinky, I love America. Hence I want to get rid of the corruption and those that are damaging: Like Bush.......................

That is a very fair statement that sometimes gets lost in all of the arguing back and forth. You are both on the same side, with a difference of opinion.

[Bob26003]

That is a very fair statement that sometimes gets lost in all of the arguing back and forth. You are both on the same side, with a difference of opinion.

Good Point Fluffy. I admit I said some mean things. But saying Bush is a Nazi, is not anti Patriotic. In fact, dissent is the truest form of Patriotism IMHO. It's what this Country is founded on.

I respect Pinky's right to his views, but I think he is wrong. That's all. Politics always gets heated. But I think we need to be able to have an educated discussion and hopefully gain some perspective.

Edited April 4, 2007 by Bob26003