Pentagon bloat, etc. thread

[Vrede too]

Tell Congress: Don’t give Trump a blank check for war!

Petition to Congress:
Pass a strong National Defense Authorization Act that includes the language approved by the House that would end US-involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen and stop Trump from having a blank check to go to war.

[Vrede too]

World BEYOND War:

The U.S. Treasury distinguishes three types of U.S. government spending. The largest is mandatory spending. This is made up largely of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but also Veterans’ care and other items. The smallest of the three types is interest on debt. In between is the category called discretionary spending. This is the spending that the Congress decides how to spend each year.

I'm not sure how "Veterans’ care" differs from the "Veterans Affairs" that appears in the discretionary spending pie chart.

All veterans' spending, along with portions of the interest on debt and the NASA and Dept of Energy budgets can rightfully be counted as war spending.

[neoplacebo]

That should have been a rubber chicken graph or a salamander graph.

[Vrede too]

That should have been a rubber chicken graph or a salamander graph.

:?:


Progressives Rebel as House Hands Trump War Spending Package

I was going to excerpt, but there's a lot to be disgusted with the Dems over in the article.

Feed the Pentagon and the merchants of death, nothing else matters.

[billy.pilgrim]

That should have been a rubber chicken graph or a salamander graph.

:?:


Progressives Rebel as House Hands Trump War Spending Package

I was going to excerpt, but there's a lot to be disgusted with the Dems over in the article.

Feed the Pentagon and the merchants of death, nothing else matters.

"Antiwar critics said Democrats got “completely rolled” in negotiations with Republicans after the Senate stripped the legislation of its progressive measures"


Duh, but Collins promised
Duh, but mitch said
Duh, but dick said (remember the talking dick)
Duh, but the neut said
Duh, but you promised that after I do everything your way you were going to support my bill
Okay Lucy, promise you won't move the football

[neoplacebo]

That should have been a rubber chicken graph or a salamander graph.

:?:


Progressives Rebel as House Hands Trump War Spending Package

I was going to excerpt, but there's a lot to be disgusted with the Dems over in the article.

Feed the Pentagon and the merchants of death, nothing else matters.

Just a comment on the general ineptitude and lunacy that's been prevalent since January 17. I consider that it can best be illustrated in a rubber chicken graph or a salamander graph; something only the terminally stupid can understand.

[Vrede too]

West Point Professor Builds a Case Against the U.S. Army

Some elements of our budding fascism predate POSPOTUS and are far deeper and more insidious than anything he's done.

[neoplacebo]

West Point Professor Builds a Case Against the U.S. Army

Some elements of our budding fascism predate POSPOTUS and are far deeper and more insidious than anything he's done.

I think there's a lot of bullshit in that article. One thing, the generals in no way drive policy; there were many high ranking generals who warned against the Iraq fiasco but were overruled by their civilian masters. Another thing; the service academies in no way have to "look for students" but more likely turn away more than they accept. You have to be recommended to a service academy; you can't just apply. And I don't know where any US service academy has had to "pay" for high school athletes to attend another year of public (free) high school education. Some of the general statements in the story are credible but overall I think it's mostly full of shit.

[billy.pilgrim]

West Point Professor Builds a Case Against the U.S. Army

Some elements of our budding fascism predate POSPOTUS and are far deeper and more insidious than anything he's done.

I think there's a lot of bullshit in that article. One thing, the generals in no way drive policy; there were many high ranking generals who warned against the Iraq fiasco but were overruled by their civilian masters. Another thing; the service academies in no way have to "look for students" but more likely turn away more than they accept. You have to be recommended to a service academy; you can't just apply. And I don't know where any US service academy has had to "pay" for high school athletes to attend another year of public (free) high school education. Some of the general statements in the story are credible but overall I think it's mostly full of shit.

I don't have a lot of first hand knowledge about the military.

I'll vouch that recruiters lie
I know that Powell and just about everyone involved in viet nam lied about progress, body counts, torture, atrocities, rapes, ...
I know that navy doctor to presidents what's his name lied about trumps health
I know that NSA guy who looks like col klink lied when he said that there is no requirement for probable cause before a search

But mostly I know that wars are made and sold based on profitability and that lies are the foundations of big business profitability.

[Vrede too]

I think there's a lot of bullshit in that article. One thing, the generals in no way drive policy; there were many high ranking generals who warned against the Iraq fiasco but were overruled by their civilian masters. Another thing; the service academies in no way have to "look for students" but more likely turn away more than they accept. You have to be recommended to a service academy; you can't just apply. And I don't know where any US service academy has had to "pay" for high school athletes to attend another year of public (free) high school education. Some of the general statements in the story are credible but overall I think it's mostly full of shit.

The passage you're referring to is:

Yet, they are quite fallible in reality. West Point pretends to be an exclusive school with high academic standards, but in fact works hard to find students, guarantees spots for and pays for another year of high school for potential athletes, accepts students nominated by Congress Members because their parents “donated” to the Congress Members’ campaigns, and offers a community college-level education only with more hazing, violence, and tamping down of curiosity.

"works hard to find students" might mean quality students.
Not all students go to free public schools. Many of the better athletes have been recruited into private schools.

One would think that a West Point prof would know what he's talking about on factual matters like these even if one disagrees with his opinions, but without further evidence I can't say one way or the other. Also, this is a review of a book. It's possible that there are some misunderstandings by the reviewer.

The article only mentions Iraq once:

Lying moves a career upward, something Colin Powell, for example, knew and practiced for many years prior to his Destroy-Iraq Farce at the United Nations.

In that case a career military man absolutely did repeatedly lie to get us into the Iraq War 17 years ago. We did hear about a few high ranking generals who warned against the Iraq fiasco, but mostly not until years later. Others matched this description:

Within the military, virtually everyone has ceded power to those of higher rank. Disagreeing with them is likely to end your career, a fact that helps explain why so many military officials say what they really think about the current wars just after retiring.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Shinseki was one who spoke out "over how many troops the United States would need to keep in Iraq for the postwar occupation of that country." He's notable because he stands out as an lone critic and because so few in the military came to his defense when Rumsfeld diminished his authority. Only years later and in the face of the insurgency did the military admit that Shinseki was correct all along.

No doubt the Iraq War was largely driven by civilians Cheney, Shrub, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice, but I honestly don't know how much opposition there was from the active duty brass. Do you?

Whatever that answer was re Iraq, I think it's very true that the services are the tail that wags the dog in general, thus creating an extremely militarized state. That is the point of the article and presumably the book, even if there are rare exceptions. For example, a lot of the 18 years of lies described in "The Afghanistan Papers" arise from the military, not civilians.
http://www.blueridgedebate.com/forum/vi ... an#p106472

[neoplacebo]

I think there's a lot of bullshit in that article. One thing, the generals in no way drive policy; there were many high ranking generals who warned against the Iraq fiasco but were overruled by their civilian masters. Another thing; the service academies in no way have to "look for students" but more likely turn away more than they accept. You have to be recommended to a service academy; you can't just apply. And I don't know where any US service academy has had to "pay" for high school athletes to attend another year of public (free) high school education. Some of the general statements in the story are credible but overall I think it's mostly full of shit.

The passage you're referring to is:

Yet, they are quite fallible in reality. West Point pretends to be an exclusive school with high academic standards, but in fact works hard to find students, guarantees spots for and pays for another year of high school for potential athletes, accepts students nominated by Congress Members because their parents “donated” to the Congress Members’ campaigns, and offers a community college-level education only with more hazing, violence, and tamping down of curiosity.

"works hard to find students" might mean quality students.
Not all students go to free public schools. Many of the better athletes have been recruited into private schools.

One would think that a West Point prof would know what he's talking about on factual matters like these even if one disagrees with his opinions, but without further evidence I can't say one way or the other. Also, this is a review of a book. It's possible that there are some misunderstandings by the reviewer.

The article only mentions Iraq once:

Lying moves a career upward, something Colin Powell, for example, knew and practiced for many years prior to his Destroy-Iraq Farce at the United Nations.

In that case a career military man absolutely did repeatedly lie to get us into the Iraq War 17 years ago. We did hear about a few high ranking generals who warned against the Iraq fiasco, but mostly not until years later. Others matched this description:

Within the military, virtually everyone has ceded power to those of higher rank. Disagreeing with them is likely to end your career, a fact that helps explain why so many military officials say what they really think about the current wars just after retiring.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Shinseki was one who spoke out "over how many troops the United States would need to keep in Iraq for the postwar occupation of that country." He's notable because he stands out as an lone critic and because so few in the military came to his defense when Rumsfeld diminished his authority. Only years later and in the face of the insurgency did the military admit that Shinseki was correct all along.

No doubt the Iraq War was largely driven by civilians Cheney, Shrub, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice, but I honestly don't know how much opposition there was from the active duty brass. Do you?

Whatever that answer was re Iraq, I think it's very true that the services are the tail that wags the dog in general, thus creating an extremely militarized state. That is the point of the article and presumably the book, even if there are rare exceptions. For example, a lot of the 18 years of lies described in "The Afghanistan Papers" arise from the military, not civilians.
http://www.blueridgedebate.com/forum/vi ... an#p106472

Read the book "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks. He gives numerous examples of Generals on down to Majors expressing astonishment and disapproval of the Iraq war from the moment the Pentagon directed the Joint Chiefs to develop plans for that war and continuing once the war started. The neocons pushed this war; not the military. Blame Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Cheney. Powell was suckered; he only played the "good soldier" as a member of the Bush cabinet. He's expressed regret for his UN address that was prepared for him. He didn't write that shit. Powell was let go from the Bushies in the second term mainly because of his opposition to the premise and tactics of the war as well as his hatred of Rumsfeld.

[neoplacebo]

I also take issue with the assertion that appointments to the military academies are for rich donors to their local Congressional representatives. THOSE folks generally don't send their kids to military schools but instead choose Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. The vast majority of service academy students are middle class or lower that get recommendations, by their own request, from their Congressional rep.The only example of rich kids going into the military that I can think of right off is John McCain and he maybe doesn't fit that box; his father and grandfather were Navy Admirals so it was more of a tradition for him than anything else. Kennedy went to Harvard, not the Naval Academy, but he went to war. Bravo.

[neoplacebo]

West Point Professor Builds a Case Against the U.S. Army

Some elements of our budding fascism predate POSPOTUS and are far deeper and more insidious than anything he's done.

I think there's a lot of bullshit in that article. One thing, the generals in no way drive policy; there were many high ranking generals who warned against the Iraq fiasco but were overruled by their civilian masters. Another thing; the service academies in no way have to "look for students" but more likely turn away more than they accept. You have to be recommended to a service academy; you can't just apply. And I don't know where any US service academy has had to "pay" for high school athletes to attend another year of public (free) high school education. Some of the general statements in the story are credible but overall I think it's mostly full of shit.

I don't have a lot of first hand knowledge about the military.

I'll vouch that recruiters lie
I know that Powell and just about everyone involved in viet nam lied about progress, body counts, torture, atrocities, rapes, ...
I know that navy doctor to presidents what's his name lied about trumps health
I know that NSA guy who looks like col klink lied when he said that there is no requirement for probable cause before a search

But mostly I know that wars are made and sold based on profitability and that lies are the foundations of big business profitability.

I will agree that military recruiters lie; they have quotas to meet, thus they lie. Recruiters are typically E-5 (like I was in the Navy) or E-6 enlisted people. During Vietnam, Powell was a low ranking officer; he had no hand in making policy or in reporting progress or backsliding. All that was done by folks like Curtis LeMay and William Westmoreland, high ranking generals who wanted to tell their bosses what the wanted to hear. The Navy doctor is an outler in my opinion; his medical ethics should have prevented him from giving a false medical report. The NSA guy was only explaining how the Patriot Act fixed it so that no warrant is needed; that stuff all came from the Bush Justice Department, not the military. The bottom line is that military officers are required to do what their civilian bosses tell them to do or else resign. They do not make policy, only implement it. They implement it even if they detest it; the only option is follow orders or resign. And the enlisted people have only the one option of following orders; they can't resign but can engage in behavior that will get them court martialed or just kicked out with a dishonorable discharge. The president and Secretary of Defense tell the military what to do and when to do it in ALL cases. And as I say, they either do it or resign. The latest example of this is General Mattis resigning in protest of trump's Syria policy. At the time, he was of course a civilian, the Secretary of Defense but he had enough military experience and integrity to resign rather than follow a policy he strongly opposed.

[neoplacebo]

Yesterday I posited that US service academies likely turn away more applicants than they accept. Here's data from the West Point class of 2017; only about ten percent of those that were recommended were accepted.
https://www.westpoint.edu/admissions/class-profile

[Vrede too]

IMO, lots of initiating, complicity and not enough resignations, especially as a general rule which is the focus of the article, but also with Iraq, which the article was not about.




https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/acpoy19

I voted for:

Afghanistan’s first all-female demining team for this year completing landmine work in Bamyan province, the first of Afghanistan's 34 provinces to be declared free of landmines. These women were trained by the Danish Demining Group as part of a United Nations Mine Action Service pilot program working with Afghanistan’s Directorate of Mine Action Coordination (DMAC). Their tenacious efforts are significant examples of empowerment in the country and underscore the importance of humanitarian disarmament.

Hard core. There are other deserving recipients, too.

[Vrede too]

Here's a post that was made and then deleted, not important by who. Since I'd already put the effort into responding, here:

Where did these mines come from? The US military does not use land mines.

Idk.

We definitely still use them in Korea.
We have refused to sign the Ottawa Treaty.
I don't necessarily believe the Pentagon's claim to not use them outside of Korea.
We're just now learning of 18 years of Afghanistan lies.
http://www.blueridgedebate.com/forum/vi ... 72#p106472
Idk that 45SHOLE has continued Obama policy.
We've used scores of proxies in Afghanistan over 18 years.
Then, there are our enemies in this eternally US-occupied land - Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS, etc.
Then, there are the poppy growers - sometimes our enemies, sometimes our friends.

While Stockpiling Banned Land Mines, U.S. Boasts About Its Record of Clearing Them

Category: Land mines of the United States

[billy.pilgrim]

Here's a post that was made and then deleted, not important by who. Since I'd already put the effort into responding, here:

Where did these mines come from? The US military does not use land mines.

Idk.

We definitely still use them in Korea.
We have refused to sign the Ottawa Treaty.
I don't necessarily believe the Pentagon's claim to not use them outside of Korea.
We're just now learning of 18 years of Afghanistan lies.
http://www.blueridgedebate.com/forum/vi ... 72#p106472
Idk that 45SHOLE has continued Obama policy.
We've used scores of proxies in Afghanistan over 18 years.
Then, there are our enemies in this eternally US-occupied land - Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS, etc.
Then, there are the poppy growers - sometimes our enemies, sometimes our friends.

While Stockpiling Banned Land Mines, U.S. Boasts About Its Record of Clearing Them

Category: Land mines of the United States

I remember reading in 2001 that accidental death by land mines in Afghanistan was similar to the number killed at the WTC

of course some of those mines were Russian

They say the bright colorful bomblets of cluster bombs cause more accidental deaths among child6.

[Vrede too]

I remember reading in 2001 that accidental death by land mines in Afghanistan was similar to the number killed at the WTC

of course some of those mines were Russian

I forgot to mention holdovers from long ago, thanks.

They say the bright colorful bomblets of cluster bombs cause more accidental deaths among child6.

We still use them and provide them to our allies and proxies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_m ... _munitions

[neoplacebo]

Land mine policy of the United States.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/03/uni ... nd-answers#

[billy.pilgrim]

I remember reading in 2001 that accidental death by land mines in Afghanistan was similar to the number killed at the WTC

of course some of those mines were Russian

I forgot to mention holdovers from long ago, thanks.

They say the bright colorful bomblets of cluster bombs cause more accidental deaths among child6.

We still use them and provide them to our allies and proxies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_m ... _munitions

For a little while in Afghanistan we were dropping the same color food packets.

Similarly, we shot people who failed to stop at our checkpoints because our hand signal for "stop" is the sameas their hand signal for "go".

Oh well, at least bush got osama and cleared the WMDs out of Iraq and it was all paid for, as cheney said, by their oil