Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Dude, we totally need a new fighter or whatever thingy that flies. Because things that fly are cool. Nifty, even.

So, you have a lot of company stock?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
So, you have a lot of company stock?

None! And I don't work there anymore. But I think planes are cool. Especially unmanned aerial vehicles.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
None! And I don't work there anymore. But I think planes are cool. Especially unmanned aerial vehicles.

Planes are cool. And UAVs are super cool. But UAVs are cheap to make, relatively cheap to develop and don't cater to the fighter jock part of the USAF (i.e., those in charge). So that's not a good replacement for the F-22 (or whatever we're up to) from a budgetary/profit/prestige perspective.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Planes are cool. And UAVs are super cool. But UAVs are cheap to make, relatively cheap to develop and don't cater to the fighter jock part of the USAF (i.e., those in charge). So that's not a good replacement for the F-22 (or whatever we're up to) from a budgetary/profit/prestige perspective.

Then my love for them must be unselfish.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Planes are cool. And UAVs are super cool. But UAVs are cheap to make, relatively cheap to develop and don't cater to the fighter jock part of the USAF (i.e., those in charge). So that's not a good replacement for the F-22 (or whatever we're up to) from a budgetary/profit/prestige perspective.

my largest client is somewhere on that food chain of the newest F whatever, so STFU.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Grover Norquist shows that he can learn from the mistakes of other nefarious super-villains:

• I am intrigued by your assertion that "like a James Bond villain" I have an irrepressible penchant for spelling out [my] master plans in their full, nefarious detail." The challenge for Blofeld, Dr. No, Goldfinger and company is that they explain things in the penultimate scene to the disarmed Bond, who, when freed, is able to use that information to interrupt those plans.
  
  This has tended to be unwise.

link

It's scary because it's true.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
The whole M-I complex is the business lobby to kill all others. What's irrational even within the corrupt system is the steady allocation among the Army, Navy, Air Force, regardless of the actual and genuine potential threats (35 percent to the Air Force, 35 percent to the Navy, and 30 percent to the Army, per Fred Kaplan (e.g. http://www.slate.com/id/2133059 ), going back at least 25 years). While I wouldn't advocate allowing our air and naval superiority to erode significantly, there isn't any foreseeable need for a brand new fighter/interceptor as we already have total, global air superiority.

I think the message of Why We Fight has a much broader reach than the military/industrial complex. There's a real problem with the government - state and federal - becoming the biggest client of a lot of businesses. I see a lot of atrocious spending going on because business has been in a cost cutting mode for the better part of the last six years and in the place of private sector revenues, companies are eager to grab Uncle Sam or their state's business.

This creates the worst of all worlds by encouraging profligate govt spending. I think business has unfortunately learned that its much easier to service the govt than compete with it, which was the original aim of the push toward privatization. I still beleive in privatization, now more than ever, but I'm not sure business does anymore. I think its a lot happier to just be a subcontractor where we all pay for the redundancies.

I have a state contract right now and I hate it. Its wasteful. The service provided to the govt is a service necessitated because its own workers are too lazy to perform their job properly. The redundancy is awful. If the state fired the dept we provide the service for and inserted us in its place we could do it for 1/5 the cost to taxpayers.

But that will never happen because its politically unpalatable. It's fine for me. I get paid either way, but it really does fuck taxpayers and people who might benefit from the wages paid to those state workers.

Fuck it, right... That's the human condition. The useless have to do something. We can't just let them starve.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes, I do. Because the principle of civilian control of the military is important,

You reading comprehension is diminishing again. Civilian control of the military has nothing to do with Congress

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop and if the military gets sucked into fighting George Bush's fights because he is too weak to fight them himself, we'll all lose.

Depends on the fight. If they are fighting the good fight (a fight for a policy that is the best interest of US security), and Bush can't carry the water anymore but the military picks it up then that is good for all of us.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop the ridiculousness of your position is illustrated by the fact that the Senator in question is John Warner, a Republican who is about the most respected Senator on military issues. People generally assume that he speaks for the services.

The ridiculousness of your position is that people may assume Warner speaks for the military, but in this case they are clearly wrong because the military disagreed with him. So in this case he clearly is not speaking for the military.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop And we all know that Bush selects which generals speak for him.

If memory serves, Patreus was voted in unanimously and congress asked for a report from him in September. So Congress chose this general, now that are just upset because he is not telling them what they want to hear.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop When the joint chiefs disagreed with his plans for Iraq, he went and found Petraeus.

Cite (and please make it a primary source; otherwise it is not really a cite.

[The generals who advocate for his policies are those who agree with him. The others don't give press conferences.

Again, the Senate unanimously endorsed Patreus and asked for a report in September. They chose the man in this case.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
Cite (and please make it a primary source; otherwise it is not really a cite.

This ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/wa...1173d7&ei=5070 ) only covers part of Ty's point--that Bush relieved Gen. Casey of the Iraq command b/c Casey supported withdrawal of troops--and it isn't a primary source, but I will assert that it is, indeed, a cite.

If you insist on citation to actual, primary sources for defense-related decisions of the current administration, you've made your positions unchallangeable without the existence of leaked documents.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Spanky,

Two questions:

(1) How are those benchmarks going?
(2) Can you identify a past prediction on Iraq by any of this administration's talking heads that panned out?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You reading comprehension is diminishing again. Civilian control of the military has nothing to do with Congress.

Our government has three branches, not one.

Depends on the fight. If they are fighting the good fight (a fight for a policy that is the best interest of US security), and Bush can't carry the water anymore but the military picks it up then that is good for all of us.

We'll just have to disagree there, because my view is that our government gets to decide what the country's foreign policy is, not our military, and it's not the military's place to argue with the government about what's in the best interests of the country.

The ridiculousness of your position is that people may assume Warner speaks for the military, but in this case they are clearly wrong because the military disagreed with him. So in this case he clearly is not speaking for the military.

You don't seem to have understood what I said there.

If memory serves, Patreus was voted in unanimously and congress asked for a report from him in September. So Congress chose this general, now that are just upset because he is not telling them what they want to hear.

They're not happy that he's allowing himself to be the tool of the White House press office.

Cite (and please make it a primary source; otherwise it is not really a cite.

It's no secret that much of the military disagreed with the surge. See the article Cletus cited. Here's an article from two days ago (titled "Among Top Officials, 'Surge' Has Sparked Dissent, Infighting"):

• The polite discussion in the White House Situation Room a week ago masked a sharper clash over the U.S. venture in Iraq, one that has been building since Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations, sent a rear admiral to Baghdad this summer to gather information. Soon afterward, officials said, Fallon began developing plans to redefine the U.S. mission and radically draw down troops.
  
  One of those plans, according to a Centcom officer, involved slashing U.S. combat forces in Iraq by three-quarters by 2010. In an interview, Fallon disputed that description but declined to offer details. Nonetheless, his efforts offended Petraeus's team, which saw them as unwelcome intrusion on their own long-term planning. The profoundly different views of the U.S. role in Iraq only exacerbated the schism between the two men.
  
  "Bad relations?" said a senior civilian official with a laugh. "That's the understatement of the century. . . . If you think Armageddon was a riot, that's one way of looking at it."

Nominally Petreaus reports to Fallon, but we know that Bush is the decider here.

On the specific assertion that I made re the Joint Chiefs, how's this for support:

• The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

WaPo, 12/19/06.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Spanky,

Two questions:

(1) How are those benchmarks going?
(2) Can you identify a past prediction on Iraq by any of this administration's talking heads that panned out?

Question:

Do the Democrats actually want to force troop withdrawals? Or do they simply want to keep the issue alive through Nov. 2008?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Question:

Do the Democrats actually want to force troop withdrawals?

Some do.

Or do they simply want to keep the issue alive through Nov. 2008?

Some do.

Some don't really want this, but absent the votes to force troop withdrawals, are content for this to be the result.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Question:

Do the Democrats actually want to force troop withdrawals? Or do they simply want to keep the issue alive through Nov. 2008?

Were those questions that hard to answer?

Yes, I think it's clear that most Democrats want troop withdrawls, though the extent of them would be debated.

Do you really think Dems would look to keep the war going through 2008 in hopes that they will inherit an even bigger mess than we have now? Remember, the longer this drags on, the more Congress' ratings decline as well as the President - there was a clear mandate to the new Congress to force a change of course on Iraq.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Hey Spanky, read George Will.