From the Examiner: “Obama policy will cut US troops’ force protection”:
Back during the Democratic presidential primaries Senator Barack Obama alleged that US troops in Afghanistan were forced to use captured weapons because of a shortage of military equipment. He has spoken occasionally to reinforce this notion that he will fix military shortcomings and better protect our troops. Missed by the media is Obama’s promise to cut systems designed to save the lives of soldiers on the battlefield.
In a campaign video, Senator Barack Obama outlines a policy statement on the military by promising to cut back on the development of Future Combat Systems (FCS). So what is FCS? FCS is a massive program designed to replace the US Army’s now decades old equipment with new technologically advanced systems. Tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery systems, even the HUMVEE will be replaced.
Integral to the suite of systems is the Active Protection System (APS). APS includes radar and launched projectile modules that detect and intercept incoming rockets and missiles. The system will be incorporated to the vehicle platforms and if a projectile like an RPG is detected it will knock it down. This will decrease the number of successful RPG hits which while not a big deal to a tank are devastating to lighter vehicles like the HUMVEE.
Today, the RPG launcher remains one of the greatest threats to our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. As asymmetrical warfare becomes the norm for the projected future, militias and terrorist organizations will continue to use them.
This system will literally save American lives on the battlefield, not to mention the multi-million dollar military vehicle platform itself.
Did Senator Obama even know that his pledge specifically threatened the force protection capability of our soldiers?
Likely. But even so, I’m sure he looks at this as a feature, not a bug. Afterall, like the idea of a draft, cutting back on military expenditures designed to save lives and reduce American casualties in war, the argument goes, will make the decision to go to war more difficult.
Which sounds well and good if you accept the underlying premise that the US is too quick to use military force — that under Republican administrations in particular (because let’s face it: that’s the both the text and subtext here: Obama is running against what he believes is a GOP legacy of unnecessary elective war), advanced military capabilities combined with the prospect of fewer battlefield casualties for “peace protesters” and folk singers to use as props in their ubiquitous anti-war propaganda, means the imperialist bloodlust at the heart of Republican foreign policy is easier to carry off.
If, however, you believe that US Presidents and the Congress nearly always proceed reluctantly to war — and that peace through strength (rather than through wishful thinking and Joan Baez dirges) is the most effective stance to adopt toward a world of would-be aggressors — then Obama’s desired cuts are shown up for what they are: ways to weaken national security, and so weaken the US position as a hyperpower.
This, you see, will teach us humility, and show us well in the eyes of the world. And like Jimmy Carter before him, Obama appears to be all about teaching Americans about their sins and their arrogance — even if to do so he must assume the role of emperor / Messiah to do so. For our own good, naturally.
Nuance.
191 Replies to “Change you believe in!”
That was a video that he made for an anti-war group in Iowa before the caucus. I’ve been waiting for this thing to appear somewhere and it looks as though it might, finally,. get some play.
Jeff, you’ve had one of the best weeks of output I can remember. Bravo!
Thank you Jeff for posting this.
A detail lost on many of his supporters is that O! has said many times he would cancel many of the advanced weapons systems that are in the pipeline; for exactly the ideological underpinnings outlined in the posted text. But in his “rush” to validate the meme that we wouldn’t be so quick to fight, blah, blah, we wouldn’t be so militaristic, blah, blah, it would keep us out of conflicts, blah, blah; WHAT O! AND THE PEACE AT ANY PRICE DOVES DON’T REALIZE IS THAT MANY OF THESE SYSTEMS ARE DEFENSIVE IN NATURE AND IN BATTELFIELD OPERATION!!!
What country would our missile defense shield weapons ravage??? What “innocent” civilians would die as a result of the APS system described above??? How do precision guided munitions do anything BUT limit collateral damage and almost guarantee that only the bad guys take the hit?
The only result of O!’s policy would be that our forces and our nation would be more vulnerable to outside military threats, and their concomitant geo-political intimidation.
And, for a man who has declared that “Science will again become a priority in his administration” he is, once again, either mendacious or grossly naive to the amount of spin off technology historically acquired through the development of new military hardware and systems.
For many years I worked in the eeeeeeeeevil military-industrial complex, and can attest to the trickle-down nature of defense department research.
But, I guess my outlook is invalid since I’m a member of the VRWC and an evil RAAACIST for questioning a policy of the Wizard of Uhhs…
Baracky’s foreign policy a lot depends on our soldiers dying if they try to defend American interests. This is how he makes the case for having lunch with leftist dictators to see how we can get along more better. He also likes it when our soldiers are “pinned down” and “stretched too thin” cause that way he can have more lunches. This is why he wants to make sure we take troops coming out of Iraq and send them straight to Afghanistan. For real, Baracky doesn’t give two shits about the Afghan people, he just wants to park our military there while he’s in office so he can justify the monies to build all of his Social Justice Mandatory Volunteer Squads.
I think there may very well be good arguments for not proceeding with FCS. I say that as an employee of one of the many defense contractors that are attempting to produce it.
FCS isn’t some soldier-saving pot of gold, and it’s a mistake to say that opposing it is going to get some soldiers killed. FCS is still in the requirements-evolution phase, which is just fancyspeak for that no one really knows what it is, yet.
I’m far more concerned with Obama’s comments regarding halting the production of fissile materials, because you can’t run a nuclear power plant without ’em.
yeah, I was gonna ask if we’re sure this is still his position on this subject.
August Obama has totally different positions than September Obama.
Yea, maggie, it sure would be nice if someone would ask him that question.
“And like Jimmy Carter before him…”
Oh, c’mon… are you saying “Malaise Forever!” isn’t a slogan we can all believe in?
Percy Dovetonsils: “Oh, c’mon… are you saying “Malaise Forever!†isn’t a slogan we can all believe in?”
But Oceania was *ALWAYS* at war with Eurasia…
Ha. Ha. Ha. Oh, wow.
Your premise here seems to be that those who oppose FCS simply don’t care about troop safety. You appear to be unaware that many within the Pentagon are opposed to FCS as well, seeing it as a boondoggle that is pulling resources from more viable options.
Google is your friend. Or, rather, your enemy.
I look forward to our debate. I suggest you do your homework this time; the audience will be larger and somewhat less sympathetic.
Speaking of Carter and a legacy of inhibiting the development of military technology – as I understand it, Carter dismantled the development of enhanced radiation devices (neutron bombs).
Is that still the case, or did some sane, subsequent administration recommence work on them?
Well, except that it doesnt’ threaten the force protection capability of Soliders. Not when the unstated goal is to lock the military in museum quality lucite blocks and never allow us beyond the US’ borders again. That’s, like, the ULTIMATE in force protection planning.
I like the part where we free people from tyranny and help them become democratic and respectful of human rights. That’s the part Baracky hates. He lets his own brother live in a fetid shack in Nether Mumzibwabe is how little he gives a shit. More and more I think the whole idea of President Baracky is just kind of silly. The idea of asking him a question about “combat systems” is just kind of ridiculous I think.
Slart —
Mr Robison disagrees. It would be interesting if you emailed him with your reservations about his argument and posted his reply here. Me, I confess to not knowing enough about the inside stuff to comment. But I don’t think I’m wrong about Senator Obama’s motivations — though I can only speculate based on what I’ve determined is his ideological worldview.
Ha. Ha. Ha. Oh, wow.
That laughter sounds forced I think. No one really laughs like that, Barrett.
I wonder if Barrett is as obnoxious in real life as he comes across on a message board. If he is, I hope we never meet.
“That laughter sounds forced I think. No one really laughs like that, Barrett.”
It’s a meme from Rin Tin Tin or some such. Signifies that one is being confronted with something very ridiculous and easily-refuted. The original comic is very amusing.
This isn’t my premise at all. See my response to Slart, above.
And please, don’t play the educated insider to my uberpatriotic rube. It’s clownish and insulting. I emailed you today and told you the kinds of time constraints I’ve been under. You responded to that email.
To turn around and pretend I’m sloppy for posting an argument by someone else to which I appended my reading of Obama’s worldview is bush league; there may be thousands of reasons for opposing FCS. And there are likely many people who do so for reasons other than those I believe guide Obama’s thinking. But those weren’t the focus of my post, nor did I pretend they were.
Maybe you should challenge Mr Robison to a debate. Tell him he’d better do his homework, though, because you can break out the forced laughter/hand-wave dismissal like a champ!
BB: “Your premise here seems to be that those who oppose FCS simply don’t care about troop safety. You appear to be unaware that many within the Pentagon are opposed to FCS as well, seeing it as a boondoggle that is pulling resources from more viable options.”
Like the Maus-like Crusader — too heavy to air-lift, insufficently accurate? Those viable options?
oh. Ok then. I like dogs.
“I wonder if Barrett is as obnoxious in real life as he comes across on a message board. If he is, I hope we never meet.”
I doubt we will. I live in a giant patch of arugula on the Upper West Side. William Kristol lives next door; I can hear him typing away about the dignity of the common folk and their peasant dances.
“This isn’t my premise at all. See my response to Slart, above.”
I see your response, Jeff. It contains this:
“But I don’t think I’m wrong about Senator Obama’s motivations  though I can only speculate based on what I’ve determined is his ideological worldview.”
What are his motivations, Jeff? State so plainly. You’re winking at us.
“I emailed you today and told you the kinds of time constraints I’ve been under. You responded to that email.”
What does this have to do with anything? I said nothing to contradict this. I simply implied that I look forward to our debate, particularly if this is the sort of stuff you spend your days reading.
“And please, don’t play the educated insider to my uberpatriotic rube.”
You posted a demonstrably nonsensical attack on Obama which, universally applied, would implicate a good portion of the Pentagon. Don’t give me an opening and I won’t take it. It’s nothing personal; heat, kitchen, etc.
“And there are likely many people who do so for reasons other than those I believe guide Obama’s thinking. But those weren’t the focus of my post.”
Yeah, tell me about it.
Whew. This place reeks of pseudo-intellectual douchebag! Some body crack a window!
My dog used to eat arugula just before he puked. He was nice dog though.
BB are you one of those people that hold their pinky out when taking a drink?
Barrett Brown –
Without going to Google once I can say without hesitation that this Democratic ticket, combined with the existing Democratic legislative majority, will be a disaster not only for the individual effectiveness and survivability of every one of our service people. Further and by extension, those scores of millions of people whom we have fought and bled for in order to introduce to self- government AS AN INSTRUMENT OF OUR NATIONAL POLICY will be cut loose instantly and without a thought, because their successful transition from despotism to democracy would stand as an affront to the Narrative embraced by the aspiring totalitarians and socialists who people the American Left, which is become the Democrat party.
Obama and friends don’t have to kibosh the lazer beemz and powered armor. They will do what Clinton did right there at the end of history and gut the services by offering early out retirments regardless of what the JCS says they need to fulfill the missions they have been assigned.
They will slice up maintenance and depot plums absent any consideration of what facilities are actually proven and efficient. (disclaimer: I fully expect Hill AFB to be closed if O! wins, even though the last four BRAC commission deliberations and the AF’s own inspector general has identified Hill’s performance as the best in the country, where depot level maintenance and rebuild is concerned. Nope, they’ll reactivate bases in California or some other Democrat hole and move the work, and the service people where the work won’t be done as fast or as well, but the cost of living will be higher).
What will a Democrat administration with a Dem majority in the legislature mean? RIF across the board. The supply system will go to hell again, like it did in the nineties, because carefully worked out schedules for modernization and upgrades will be shit into the slipstream and the money “saved” will go to midnight basketball, or abortions for fourth trimester minority moms, but the spares that aren’t there will translate into deadlined equipment, lower training standards, and ultimately dead fucking gomers when they try to fight with equipment that’s been run too long on the Dog Robber’s Repair Cycle.
What’s that you say? O! and friends will make sure that our troops aren’t sent willy nilly into harm’s way? How do you pretend to say that, in this year of our Lord 2008, after your last boy deployed more troops to more hotspots for longer missions than ANY president since Vietnam… and he played his games AFTER the end of history? We’ve had 9/11 since then, Robert. And in case you haven’t noticed, the
SoviRussians have already run a scrimmage on their new foreign policy initiative – “Lets Just Get What We Want With Tanks” – and must be drooling with the possibility they’ll have the O! to deal with come springtime…Voting for a Democrat means you don’t give a fuck about the military. More importantly, you explicitly approve of weakening the military, and thereby endangering every uniformed service member, and the possibility of success for any mission they may be tasked with.
And that’s why I’m voting for John McCain. Not because of his VP, but because I know that if he makes a mistake where our military is concerned, it will be a bug. Not a feature.
Can’t wait for the speech tonight. I wonder if the anarchists, communists, and other Obama supporters will try to burn down the city to disrupt the network coverage. It seems they are working themselves up for some sort of effort.
Really? I thought I was very clear:
I took that right from the post, incidentally.
I don’t spend my days reading any particular kind of thing. Oftentimes, especially on days when I’m busy, I read reader tips. And given that I have to feed the content monster, I don’t always have time to treat each blog post as a dissertation.
— Which is why I didn’t apply it universally. Did you miss that part? Or do you really think only YOU are careful with your language?
You assumed an opening not in evidence. If you want to take a swing at my assessment of Obama’s motivations, this is fair game. But to extrapolate out from motivations I attributed to him and people of a certain ideological mindset motivations of other people who have concerns over FCS is the reason you are left “laughing” at an argument I never made.
Nor, I should point out, have you made the case for how the attack on Obama, as you call it, was “demonstrably nonsensical.”
“Your premise here seems to be that those who oppose FCS simply don’t care about troop safety.”
Jeff’s isn’t. But I’ll take it up. Let me be clear: Those that oppose FCS eihter simply don’t care about troop safety or are insufficently informed as to what FCS is and is for that they aren’t consididering troop safety and simple recapitalization as proper factors.
You appear to be unaware that many within the Pentagon are opposed to FCS as well, seeing it as a boondoggle that is pulling resources from more viable options.
You can make all the bald assertions that you like. You say you’ve done your homework, then show your work. Who’s opposed? On what grounds? What’s your definition of “boondoggle” or “viable.” Better yet, skip all that (you will anyway) and just explain why you think it’s a “boondoggle that is pulling resources from more viable options” instead of trying to camouflage your opinions with those of anonymous experts.
Maybe by the end of today BB you can end up in Vanity Fair like me.
Baracky is not going to aggressively defend U.S. interests. That’s not what he does. He’s one of those no no no God damn America people. Plain as day, really. It’s frightening to think how vulnerable we’ll all be if he gets to be commander in chief.
“You say you’ve done your homework, then show your work. Who’s opposed? On what grounds?”
At least one Pentagon team, on several grounds:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001884.html
“Better yet, skip all that (you will anyway)”
Or not!
Anyway, I have to cut a video clip for youtube (catch wrestling; will post it here, as well) and pick the child up from school. Back later.
RTO can handle himself; as can Robison, if you wish to invite him over and Google-debate him, Barrett.
PW: LETTIN’ IT ALL HANG OUT!
OMG HE GAVE US A LINK!!!
carry on… I’ll read it later. it’s just I thought he should be commended for that. I’m all commendy that way.
let’s just say there’s some history there.
This gay dungeon master-looking heavy into leather sort of Air Force guy Barett links just wants to delay Future Combat Systems, not cut it completely to where our troops will be vulnerable and die so Baracky can prance around blaming Republicans for their deaths. I don’t think it really counts.
I like that it’s an AF guy. It’s only right.
But we’re not going to need FCS when Obama’s president because there isn’t going to be anymore war. He’s going carpet bomb Pakistan with love and then move in the infantry armed with some hope ‘n’ change.
I also notice Obama doesn’t say what he’s going to do to update the military when he unburdens them of the FCS program. I realize he probably doesn’t want to do anything because we shouldn’t go to war for any reason except to attack Pakistan, but I’d be interested to know exactly what he has to say on the subject.
Look you all are missing the nuance. O! will have bin Biden take on our enemies. He used to give out bloody noses on the playground like a miniature Chuck Norris.
gay dungeon master-looking heavy into leather sort of Air Force guy *Barrett* links
Jeff:
You are either ashamed of your argument or have forgotten it entirely. You quote a long piece of nonsense which concludes with the sentence, “Did Senator Obama even know that his pledge specifically threatened the force protection capability of our soldiers?” Your response begins: “Likely.” You later go on to write:
“If, however, you believe that US Presidents and the Congress nearly always proceed reluctantly to war  and that peace through strength (rather than through wishful thinking and Joan Baez dirges) is the most effective stance to adopt toward a world of would-be aggressors  then Obama’s desired cuts are shown up for what they are: ways to weaken national security, and so weaken the US position as a hyperpower.”
Which is to say, that if one only sees things as clearly as you and war bloggers see them, then Obama is revealed for what he is.
You are very clearly accusing Barack Obama of attempting to “weaken national security,” as you yourself write here. Either your evidence of this is the FCS nonsense which you post above, or you provide no evidence and rely simply on a cartoonish vision of what you think motivates members of the nation’s largest political party. If I were out to score cheap points, I could point to Cheney’s record in the House of cutting back on military spending after 1992 (with such cuts having once been known as the “peace dividend,” now known among war bloggers as knife-in-the-back cowardice on the part of effete traitors). That is the “opening” you provide. This is all even sillier in the context of Obama’s unrealistic pledge to recruit an additional 100,000 soldiers (which is laughable and probably not something Obama really thinks can be achieved).
I’ve got to go now (I’ll be accused of retreating by some of your readers, but that’s the price one pays for walking the dog in the 21st century), but we could incorporate this and any other issue you’d like into our forthcoming grand awesome debate, if you’d like. We’ll talk further soon.
Again, nothing personal. It is not destined that we hold hands and trade Pokemons. Politics first.
Poor research is not distinguishable from no research.
You cite a 3 year old article quoting from the head of a competing service in the middle of the budget cycle.
The Navy isn’t fond of the FCS if it means not getting a 3rd DD(X) either. Still and all, a lot has changed since that article was written.
HF, in BB’s defense, Barack only says (The italics here mean I don’t believe him) he wants to delay FCS as well.
Um … did anybody else notice that that thin bowl of gruel was poted in October of 2005? Geez, Barrett, you really must think the commentators here are stupid.
Although not as stupid as some of the comments on that post, especially the guy trying to make the constitutional argument that the military is only supposed to be funded for “a year or something like that.”
Well done Barrett! Perhaps you can link some Clinton era cutbacks as further proof of Defense department bloat.
D’oh. Air Force delenda est!
Regards,
Ric
(somebody needs to make good Latin out of that)
Baracky’s foreign policy a lot depends on our soldiers dying if they try to defend American interests. This is how he makes the case for having lunch with leftist dictators to see how we can get along more better.
You forgot the papers, happy. There will be White Papers on everything. Because Baracky is an intellectual, his brain uses a lot of energy. He can’t make papers without lunches.
I like that when the AF guy who wants to delay FCS was asked about a big AF program, he responded with a definite “no”.
From Barret’s link:
“A Pentagon team on October 5 recommended several steps, such as canceling the DD(X) destroyer being developed by Northrop Grumman Corp.; cutting tactical air forces by nearly a third; further delaying the Army’s Future Combat Systems program, led by Boeing Co.; building more fast sealift ships and submarines; and developing a new long-range bomber, according to sources familiar with the briefing.”
Now, I am a cyncial man, make no mistake about it… but we have an earnest and prinicipled AF guy here saying “cut this, cut that (cut TACTICAL air? I thought they’d figured out they can’t run CAS from Kansas anymore. Give the Marines or Army the A-10!)and oh by the way DEVELOP A NEW LONG RANGE BOMBER…
I believe the Navy actually canceled the DDX… yep they did, just days ago.
Back in the mid eighties I worked on a developmental mission for MIFASS. Bleeding edge stuff – vans full of 286 computers, genuine science fiction – like LCD displays, digital text messaging, intergrated GPS info. The idea was that every unit down to platoon size, every aircraft, every commander, would be a part of the network and all the intelligence data, weather info, terrain data…EVERYTHING would be at the commander’s fingertips. Scoop that used to take hours, if not days, to make its way through the system would now be almost instantly where it needed to be… and actionable intelligence could be acted upon before it went stale.
Golly Gee it sucked. The generators – the GENERATORS – that worked so well driving analog computers and reefer units just couldn’t work well enough to drive the literally hundreds of computers, displays, radios, teletypes, printers… and then we figured out it was the air conditioning on the vans that was really the problem… after they civilian reps spent weeks trying to field engineer a UPS buffer to keep us running… and then we’d be in the middle of running an op and everything would freeze.
We called it “My F*cking ASS” and just shook our heads at the wasted money….
If anybody here knows someone who was medevac’d successfully in either Afghanistan or Iraq, it’s because there is now a dedicated band on the military frequency scale for medevacs and nothing else. A radio operator can report his position, how many are hurt, and how badly, by punching in less than five characters into a unit not far removed from a cell phone. That info tells the angels where they are needed. It tells the commander of the battle space he has a dustoff in progress, and any units operating in the area see a graphic and receive an automated report and can make ready to assist or offer to assist…
I am proud to have worked on MIFASS. It even worked moderately well two days straight, once, if I remember correctly. Worth every penny. Nobody on the planet lives on our battlefields unless we allow them to.
And that’s going to be important here in the next few years. If we don’t piss it all away, of course.
oh. Thanks, RTO. I thought in that video he said he wanted to cut them. I must be misremembering. I still can’t bring myself to trust that Baracky would be a for real commander in chief. He’s more interested in socializing the economy and forcing people to support his visions of social justice in their leisure time. Hugo Chavez delayed the development of Future Combat Systems for Venezuela too, you know.
“You posted a demonstrably nonsensical attack on Obama”
– We are aware Barrett that this statement is the standard response by the Lefturd sphere to any and all critiques of the one. So what.
– BTW, I don’t necessarily agree with Jeffs assessment of Obama’s postion on this, or any other issue that might be seen as important in the eyes of the isolationists. Yes, they are not anti-war, they are isolationists).
– They reason I doubt said ideas is I don’t think Obama is either educated in the area sufficiently, nor that smart.
– My guess is hes simply “doing no harm” to the voting block assurance in his responses, for a group that can be highly fickle in their support, a group he cannot afford to lose.
– Your comments are equally sophomoric. There are so many fiefdoms and interests within the Military establishment that on the question of any program or system you’d need a battery of insiders to determing a consensus at any given moment. Add to that the inter-service rivalries and compitition for funding, and questions of viability are far down the list.
– You speak as you do simply because as a civilian you are outside the loop and totally unaware of the gaggle of politics that go on in the alligator pit over funding.
– there are litterily thousands of proposed systems, some good, some bad, some ufly, but they all rise and fall on a wide range of “preemptive reasoning” having very little to do with viability.
– If you’d like to know just ask.
– Oh, and trust me, the press is no help. In fact we use to laugh at the nonsense the press would spread about this or that system, and the “reasons” they had pulled out of their ass or at cocktail parties suggesting they knew a thing about “why” this or that was happening.
– they are pretty good at getting sneak fotos of classified systems, I’ll give them that.
– RTO would be a good source if you want to drastically up the accuracy of your writings.
MIFASS is today called WIN-T and it does appear to actually work now. Or I hope it does–that’s the principle job of my company.
I could have sworn someone said he taught Constitutional Law at Univ. of Chicago.
I built plywood removable floors (one offs) over cabling and conduit for a system somewhat like your description TmjUtah at TRW many years ago (it was probably in the eighties though). There were five or six heavy trucks carrying containers chock-a-block with terminals and comm. equipment. Fun days.
First — and again — I qualified. Barack doesn’t represent the worldview of “the nation’s largest political party.” He does however represent the worldview of a number of its contingent. You say this is a cartoonish depiction of that worldview. Have you really never heard this argument for gutting the military? Or for reinstituting the draft? Hint: it ain’t me who made those arguments, nor was it rightwingers with crayons drawing bubble thoughts over the heads of leftist cartoon characters.
The problem people like Obama face is how to sell the process to an electorate that doesn’t share his underlying motivations for the process — motivations I believe he picked up through a toxic combination of leftist intellectualism, black liberation theology, and Hyde Park salon dates with aging Weather Underground folk and their ideological fellow travelers. And so they will, as Alinsky instructed, seek new ways to sell the ends. It is no coincidence that the New Left, who once spat out the appellation “liberal” soon reversed course and adopted it.
In this case, I am saying that I believe Obama will sell such cuts or delays any way he can, framing them in the way that is most palatable to the people he is appealing to for votes. But the reason he actually wants these cuts, it is my argument, is that such things track with the thought that has defined him, and with the contingent with whom he closely associated himself.
I have no “proof,” because it would be a bad idea for a candidate to come right out and make such an argument — especially when he needs to appeal to those who cling to their guns and their Bibles. So it is my inference — but it is not an unreasonable one.
Perhaps you can explain to me why you think Obama’s real concern tracks with the concern of the Pentagon types you reference?
How, Jeff, do you plan to debate a guy who ghosts every time he runs up against coherant rebuttal?
Sdferr –
TRW was there. The displays were amber, approximately one foot and change wide, twice that tall. No mice but the screens were touch – input. Modular stuff – keyboards, displays, workstation cpu. Everything built milspec tough.
All mounted on the backs of Dragon Wagons, too. It was the first time I’d seen that many in one place at one time. This was the summer of ’87.
RTO –
I am glad to hear it works. Knowing teh suck, I’m glad it works well enough. Most of the time. *lol*.
Don’t you mean to say “with whom you so conveniently associated him with?”
– Sure thor. The Republican South Chicago goon squad frog marched him into Trinity every Sunday for twenty years.
– Ever the victim.
Comment by thor on 9/3 @ 3:12 pm #
Don’t you mean to say “with whom you so conveniently associated him with?â€Â
So now we are at the point that donating money to an organization, and attending weekly meetings of this organization for over 20+ years, is not an association by your standards? Hmmm that is puzzling. Maybe your reffering to Ayers there I could be wrong.
Didn’t Obama say he used to listen to Rev. Wright tapes in his dorm room?
– I heard he was actually chained to the pew.
– The reluctant adept. “Poor grasshopper. You will thank me for this someday.”
I wonder if the O! Force will be called in to deal with bitter clingers.
Baracky doesn’t have any real friends, just radical marxist people M’chelle says it’s okay for him to hang out with sometimes. It’s not hard to see that Baracky’s biggest problem is he’s very lonely.
you know how cranky the dog gets when you don’t take her for a walk. geez, just cause the dude does it all the time, doesn’t mean he will this time.
perhaps I need a walk… extra cranky today.
I have the Communist Manifesto on my hard drive, papers written by Chomsky close at hand, several books discussing Che, Cesar and Marti in my library and the spirit of Italo Calvino seared into my soul.
Quack, quack, quack!
– We always knew you had a fowl mouth and a ducked up brain thor.
Oh dearie dear…
“I have the Communist Manifesto on my hard drive”
Funny that the capitalists developed the hard drive.
Well, sure, doesn’t everybody? Except for the Calvino bit. Might as well be Khalil Gibhran.
Oh, and I read Capital (vol. 1 only, sorry to say) before I was ten. Doesn’t mean I don’t think the whole complex isn’t full of crap.
Regards,
Ric
I got Steve Earle in the CD player of my work truck. Don’t mean I believe any of the shit he says.
I have a photo of Stalin hanging inside the door to the water heater closet too. Proves what?
– Well the editors of “Us” magazine just discretely hid their principles behind the Xerox in the corner and dipped their fingers in the money driven cesspool of modern “journalism” with this months cover starring Palin, and side ledes featuring, among other very important political factoids, her daughters pregnancy,
– Principles…..We don’t need no stinking principles.
– Raked muck…..its whats for dinner!
TmjUtah–if you have an interest, I have an unclassified brifing on WIN-T if you want to peruse it.
#1 BJ:
Jeff, you’ve had one of the best weeks of output I can remember. Bravo!
Not surprising considering the subject matter.
Barack Obama’s pacifist manifesto.
I wipe my ass with kicking, scratching, flaming armadillos. And they’re huge! Not the small ones!
#4 Slart:
You are correct that some new ideas in weapons technology don’t pan out. The best example I can think of is the magnetic pistol* for torpedoes. Worked in tests, and a great concept, but in real life? An utter disaster that cost lives before it was finally pulled.
*The history of this has been written extensively in all detailed histories of the US Navy in WWII. It is the definition of an utter Charlie Foxtrot.
My father told me the armadillos were starting to migrate south again. Now we know why.
Sorry, I was reading my Koran. Did I miss anything?
RTO, thank you, but no. I’ll google the acronym if it’s all the same. No sense for you talking shop with a stranger, even UNCLAS, but I appreciate the offer, sir.
#8 Percy:
Oh, c’mon… are you saying “Malaise Forever!†isn’t a slogan we can all believe in?
It did start a riot in Springfield…
Freya and I are so ashamed.
Are there any UNCLAS versions of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge out there?
BBH, Jann Wenner owns US Weekly. It’s not about the money, it’s about the glory that is O!
“How, Jeff, do you plan to debate a guy who ghosts every time he runs up against coherant rebuttal?”
I was debating here till 2:00 am the other night, arguing with something like six or seven people at once. You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t have time to do that every night. The idea that I don’t engage people or simply run off in the face of your totally awesome rebuttals is ludicrous, and I think that many of the posters here will tell you the same thing. I have responsibilities, and arguing with anonymous strangers until such time as the anonymous strangers in question unilaterally decide that the debate is over is not one of them.
I forgive you, B.
You weren’t arguing, so much as evading and dissembling, but sure, go ahead and lie some more, apparently it’s in your nature.
Mr. Brown lives on the Upper West Side in NYC. What a shocker! Let me guess, you also vacation on ‘The Vineyard’ or at least on Cape Cod. You are probably a strong advocate of preserving the pristine wilderness in this country, while not actually ever working or living near it.
It takes a great deal of courage to be a liberal in Manhattan, BB. My hat is off to you and your independent thinking.
Yeah, but you’re a nice guy, feets.
I don’t.
So since you’re back, B, how about advancing an argument.
I think BB’s an empty suit. Same with O! So no BO!
I’d love to go to The Vineyard some day.
Shucks, even the Hamptons. Both of those places have to be in the top ten most beautiful places in America.
Oh for a day on the blue in a wooden sailing dinghy…
Okay. It’s official. Off until after Governor Palin gives her speech.
“Mr. Brown lives on the Upper West Side in NYC.”
No, Mr. Brown does not. Mr. Brown was joking. Mr. Brown forget that he was posting at baaaaaawwwwww.com, as Mr. Brown is the forgetful type. One must be very literal here, and even that doesn’t tend to work.
“Let me guess, you also vacation on ‘The Vineyard’ or at least on Cape Cod.”
Mr. Brown vacations on game preserves.
“You are probably a strong advocate of preserving the pristine wilderness in this country, while not actually ever working or living near it.”
Mr. Brown is from Texas, unlike Mr. Bush. Mr. Brown does not give a shit about preserving nature. Mr. Brown hates hippies more than you do, having spent several years forced to live among them. Mr. Brown is not a liberal. Mr. Brown simply happens to despise the GOP. So do millions of other people who once belonged to the GOP. Mr. Brown hopes that you will come to terms with that dynamic. The whole “effete” thing is not the surefire rhetorical tactic you think it is. Mr. Brown is going to go now, and wishes you all a pleasant evening no matter where your political sympathies may be.
So Mr. Brown is still going to camopuflage his lack of information in the ephemera and will not be advancing an argument.
McCain also apparently wanted to threaten the force protection capability of our soldiers (albeit this was back in ’05, he could have decided he was in favor of protecting them since then). Presumably his motivations were pure, rugged, and flannel-bound rather than latte-sipping, of course.
So Mr. Brown is still going to camopuflage his lack of information in the ephemera and will not be advancing an argument.</I.
Brown is, essentially, a dishonest pseudo-intellectual lightweight.
He sure is good at spewing bullshit, though.
I haven’t seen anything quite like it since Clinton’s careful parsing of the word “is”.
The idea that I don’t engage people
If by “engage” you mean “dissemble”, great point!
Tell us again what “equivalent” means, Barrett. That was a friggin’ work of art. Hey, maybe you and Chris Ofili could have a really bitchin’ posthumous multimedia collaboration with Piero Manzoni.
That would rule. For sure.
You’re a clown shoe, my friend.
the fact that he gave reasons kinda contradicts that. It’s been a while since I watched the Obama vid, so maybe I’ll review it after rehearsal, but I don’t remember there being a reason given.
Hubris, did you bother to actually read that article, or just decide you knew what it said after skimming the headline?
There were and have been problems with the way the FCS program has been structured. It’s changed many many times since it was conceived. No matter.
No where in the article does it say that SEN McCain wanted to kill it or slow it. If you can’t be bothered to read the whole thing for meaning, you might try just the concluding section: “McCain told Inside the Army….”
oh, it’s to spendy.
*snort*
“peace protesters†and folk singers to use as props in their ubiquitous anti-war propaganda
Where were these anti-war peace protesters when Russia invaded Georgia?
A little Barracuda tonight:
On her experience as a public servant:
“I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town. I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids’ public education better. When I ran for city council, I didn’t need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too. Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities.”
On why she is going to Washington, D.C.:
“I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. But here’s a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion – I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country.”
On energy policies that the McCain-Palin administration will implement:
“Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America’s energy problems – as if we all didn’t know that already. But the fact that drilling won’t solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all. Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines…build more nuclear plants…create jobs with clean coal…and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources. We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers.”
On John McCain:
“Here’s how I look at the choice Americans face in this election. In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/09/021409.php
I love the smell of bitchslapped lefturds like Barret in the evening…:)
I have seen that video of O! talking about what he’d do to the military if elected. Scary stuff. Gutting it doesn’t begin to cover it (the video was on You Tube at one point; Hot Air also, if I’m not mistaken).
But in all of this, what I have yet to see hardly anyone address is something else O! said recently. To wit, his desire to set up a “national police force, on the same level as the US military”.
Can you say Gestapo? KBG? Stasi?
Now THERE is some change you can believe in.
“So do millions of other people who once belonged to the GOP.”
I think that’s called “the tell”.
O! does not give a reason to cut programs so that he not nailed down to one. It can be any reason he needs for the moment. This could be because he is lawyer, or more likely, his handler knew it would be a better tactic.
A deeper point about this. If he connects this cut to something the Pentagon wants anyway, it would have been a very powerful argument. But it also would seem as if he is not LEADING or standing up to the establishment.
And just to make it an even further diluted post: I love how people always point to Development Testing results as a reason to cut a program. Because the Wright brothers flew the first time they tried and never learned from the failures.
Finally… remember that BB’s link also was from a “disgraced” General… from 3 years ago…
Barret? Hubris?
Hello?
thor,
your hemorrhoids must be ginormous or you ass is made of asbestos! Mine is just rubbed raw from watching the media go all in for Obama, so I’ll pass on the ‘dillo-charmin’.
As for Obama’s plans to slow down development of and delete weapon systems, he is so O’over that his plans are moot. My son, SGT FastLaneFlash, summed it up nicely when I told him who McCain had chosen for his VP: “Hell yeah, new weapons!”.
Hubris is clearly a moron. Just to flesh out a bit what the mighty RTO already pointed out:
AND MORE: FCS is “a huge program, and obviously we need to have a hearing on it. I have no preconceived notions about it,” McCain told Inside the Army today after a Senate policy luncheon. “I’m not against it. I’m not for it. I’m not trying to do anything other than exercise our legitimate oversight of the program.”
Cave Bear To wit, his desire to set up a “national police force, on the same level as the US militaryâ€Â
Ah… a gendarmes. Works great in small “state sized” countries in Europe. Not so much here. And they are so afraid of FISA now…
Jesus, RTO, am I allowed to eat a quick dinner without being accused of being unresponsive?
No where in the article does it say that SEN McCain wanted to kill it or slow it. If you can’t be bothered to read the whole thing for meaning, you might try just the concluding section: “McCain told Inside the Army….â€Â
I actually read the entire article, including:
“I’m not against it. I’m not for it. I’m not trying to do anything other than exercise our legitimate oversight of the program.”
Not against it or for it? My God, he wants America to be weak!
The simplest explanation is that McCain questioned FCS, and Obama wants cuts within it, because there are valid concerns regarding some of its efficacy and costs. Instead, the reaction here is that it must be attributable to bad motives on Obama’s part.
I don’t think Bush deliberately misled Americans to engage us in an unnecessary war. I don’t think Bush doesn’t care about black people. I don’t think Obama hates Jews. I don’t think Biden wants Israel to be nuked by Iran.
Maybe I’m naive.
“Jesus, RTO, am I allowed to eat a quick dinner without being accused of being unresponsive?”
– Fuck no. Next thing you’ll be wanting potty breaks.
Hubris is clearly a moron.
Wow, you win!
As an aside, I’m actually for throwing crazy money at both people and tech for the military. To automatically characterize arguments against particular programs as a desire for weakness, however, would presumably help lead to some stupid-ass programs.
BBH, that was actually pretty damn funny.
In the interest of full disclosure.
We report, you decide.
No. Apparently you just assume the rest of us are.
It’s a huge program. It requires looking after. It’s already killed a number of careers, public, private, and military.
McCain in 2005 was agnostic, which is what a person providing oversight should be. Obama opposes it. You wish to make one out to be the equivalent of the other, or at least to persuade others that that’s the case.
I’s not automatic. If you don’t have an alternative plan, and are willing ot share it, that will address teh 30, 40 and 50 year old platforms we are relying on in the Army, and advocate killing, stopping, or slowing the plan we have that does address those issues, then you ARE advocating weakness.
– One of the lines from Palins upcoming speech tonight:
– I was mayor of a small town. I guess thats like being a community organizer, except with actual responsibility.
No way of knowing for certain, of course, but McCain does tend to be very pro military, whereas Barack Obama suckled himself politically on the tits of those who were not.
So, while you seem to love to drop by and leave comments only when you can show your ostentatious “fairmindedness,” I happen to differ with your take on Obama’s ideological worldview.
Which is probably evident, given that I argued as much in my post. If you’d like to disabuse me of my reading of Obama — you, of course, being anything but a bombthrower, and a person who likely considers himself far more nuanced than we partisan hack noisemakers in need of your pointed corrections — have at it. But so far you’ve made no argument that I can see, other than that you wouldn’t “automatically characterize arguments against particular programs as a desire for weakness.” Making two of us.
There was nothing “automatic” about my take on Obama’s political views and motivations. In fact, I consider that take biographically and politically informed, and so a very reasonable argument to make.
Obama opposes it.
But he doesn’t state he opposes it (FCS) in its entirety, he say’s he’ll slow it and create some independent defense priorities review thingy, which would presumably be in charge of figuring out which new platforms we should spend money on to replace the aging ones.
And I don’t believe him. I think he has other motives.
My opinion. YMMV.
Off to “Back to School Night” at the pre-K. Which is awesome, because I love crayons and glue sticks.
So, while you seem to love to drop by and leave comments only when you can show your ostentatious “fairmindedness,†I happen to differ with your take on Obama’s ideological worldview.
Yes–while I think a compelling argument could be made against Obama’s positions on defense, I do not see actual evidence supporting your assertion that he desires weakness. We disagree.
I am anything but fairminded, and only ostentatious when wearing my riding chaps. [looks down] Oops!
You appear to be unaware that many within the Pentagon are opposed to FCS as well, seeing it as a boondoggle that is pulling resources from more viable options.
BB Admiral,
Up yours.
I can save him the time and money.
Except for the FCS Spirals we are already getting LMTV, FMTV, WIN-T, EPLRS, JTRS), they are all too old and need replacing.
There are other considerations too. An M1A2 weights 70+ tons. You can only move 2 at a time aboard a C-17, one on a C-5 and you can’t get one into, let alone carried by a C-130 (and this ignores taht all that airlift are 20+ year old airframes). FCS is supposed to give us a new primary combat vehicle that is as lethal, as survivable, and weighs less.
They killed Crusader. Probably the right call, but N-LOS Cannon isn’t online yet and the Paladins are getting old, and they, on occassion, will spontaneously burst into flames–because thay are old. Our M109 crews are the best in the world at fire drills, but they have to be.
A study isn’t a plan. Usually its a smokescreen. It allows politicians to look like they are doing something when they really really aren’t. No plan is equivalent, intentionally or not, of advocating weakness.
And I’m willing to compromise on that point–we could agree that SEN Obama is ignorant of the consequences of his positions.
– Hubris, thats a jackass fallacy. You cannot depend on just defense when your enemies have the flexibility of both Offense and defense. Unless they’re as dumb as a bag of hammers, that situation puts you at a tremendous disadvantage, and in most cases not just by a two to one factor. Any strategist that can find their asses with both hands will be happy to extol the virtues of mobility.
– “Defense only” is the dogma of the Isolationist/peacenik/antiwar crowd, and its simply stupid.
– The pages of history can hardly hold all the bodies of people who thought holing up and waiting for the enemy was smart.
– The elitist mindset is just not temperamentally suited to deal with the realities of aggressors.
– Fortunately rougher individuals exist that are willing to do what they do well so the elitists can sleep safe in their beds and dream of utopias.
– And Unicorns.
No, Mr. Brown does not. Mr. Brown was joking. Mr. Brown forget that he was posting at baaaaaawwwwww.com, as Mr. Brown is the forgetful type. One must be very literal here, and even that doesn’t tend to work.
Mr. Brown vacations on game preserves.
Mr. Brown is from Texas, unlike Mr. Bush. Mr. Brown does not give a shit about preserving nature. Mr. Brown hates hippies more than you do, having spent several years forced to live among them. Mr. Brown is not a liberal. Mr. Brown simply happens to despise the GOP. So do millions of other people who once belonged to the GOP. Mr. Brown hopes that you will come to terms with that dynamic. The whole “effete†thing is not the surefire rhetorical tactic you think it is. Mr. Brown is going to go now, and wishes you all a pleasant evening no matter where your political sympathies may be.
Writes Mr. Brown as Mr. Brown completely ignores the subject at hand and the thorough thrashing Mr. Brown got at the hand of a few poster who know military matters better than Mr. Brown.
I have responsibilities, and arguing with anonymous strangers until such time as the anonymous strangers in question unilaterally decide that the debate is over is not one of them.
Mr. Brown writes as Mr. Brown proceeds to waste perfectly good electrons writing the screed above, which Mr. Brown knows has nothing to do with the OP, yet Mr. Brown hopes will derail the thread enough that Mr. Brown can avoid answering any posts.
If Mr. Brown is not a liberal, what is Mr. Brown, and for what reason does he despise the GOP?
Can I stipulate, for all present, that we are in agreement that a slurpee (medium size, standard paper cup, plastic dome lid [clear], flavor red, with stroon, one each, would cost over four hundred dollars if purchased in accordance with every applicable rule in the DoD procurement manual?
(And further, that it would arrive at the point of delivery two months late, size large, in a plastic cup, flat lid, no stroon, and melted?)
I was on duty on Camp Pendleton in 1986 and opened a box containing dozens of spanking new M1 carbine double magazine ammo pouches. Box was marked “Pouch, Magazine, M9 Pistol.
Everything costs more when it is built milspec. But it costs more for a REASON. And I can live with that.
If Mr. Brown is not a liberal, what is Mr. Brown, and for what reason does he despise the GOP?
Methinks, above and beyond anything else, Mr. Brown is Mr. Brown’s biggest fan.
It isn’t just that Obama will cut FCS. He will. He’ll also cut a whole host of other programs that are vital. Say goodbye to the various missile defense programs, the F-22 Raptor, the F-35 Lightning II, the V-22 Osprey, and more Virginia class subs.
Don’t think we need advanced fighters and subs? Our future enemies won’t cooperate by using insurgency warfare (which we have learned to counter, see Petraeus’ Field Manual 3-25). No matter who’s elected we may well end up in a shooting war with the Chinese or Iranians, in which case we’re going to need every piece of advanced weaponry we’ve got.
The F-15s, F-18s, and 688 boats were designed in the 1970s. You can only upgrade an old platform so much. These systems are at the end of their ropes.
What unit, tmj? I was at 1st Tank Battalion in 1986.
Where is Barrett Brown’s brain.
The world wonders.
Hubris is a good damn guy, in my experience.
Racists
Hubris, thats a jackass fallacy. You cannot depend on just defense when your enemies have the flexibility of both Offense and defense.
BBH, I honestly don’t think I’m following you because I don’t believe that we’d really debate how the term “defense” is commonly used when talking about our military and its budget.
Tom the Redhunter, I don’t believe that Obama has indicated he would cut the F-22 Raptor, the F-35 Lightning II, the V-22 Osprey, and more Virginia class subs; rather, these are cuts desired by a lobbying group that endorsed Obama. I could be wrong.
Hey JD, thank you and I hope you and the family are doing well! I was just thinking, remember when I was considered a jingoistic winger at our old haunts? Times, they change. ;)
Ok. Who wants to chip in on a frame?
Mitt sounds very Steve Forbesy except for real is he actually worried about “pornography in the schools”? Mitt is kind of an idiot sometimes.
– Hubris, I wasn’t accusing you of taking any particular position, I was just stating a fact of history that a certain percentage of any societal group seems to be incapable of accepting.
– Which, when you think about it, its hardly surprising that Socialists dislike any sort of extended military readiness and support, since they see anything that takes away from discretionary government spending on social programs as stealing their main hole card.
– They don’t really care about the ME, or the WOT. They just see at as a giant money hole taking away from their pork barrel.
– So Obama is just following the usual nannystatist narrative, and I have no doubt he’d slash and burn ala Clinton, but even moreso.
We love the kids’ new school except for that horrid porn problem but we’re gonna get some of the other parents together and see what we can do.
That was a better Mitt than in the primaries, I think.
Hubris – I am still a jingoistic winger.
What, hf, the porn lacks insufficient diversity? No midgets, for example?
Oops, I’m a bad editor. Should be “sufficient,” obviously.
I still hate Fuckabee, no matter what that fat fuck says tonite.
Midget porn is not funny. Not at all.
Palin’s second oldest daughter (Willow?) seems to have been able to bring her boyfriend down to the convention too, at least if I read the McCain airport arrival greetings correctly. But then it wouldn’t have been fair to leave her out in the perks department really.
Yeah, I hate him.
I want to see Rudi hit one out of the park tonight. I still think he should have been our man, except he might not have picked Palin, and that would have been a lot less interesting.
Get Fuckabee off the stage. Rudy and Gov. Palin should give us some stemwinders tonite.
BBH, I disagree that we’d end up with unnecessary slash-and-burn in an Obama administration, and I don’t think Obama is a socialist (I believe most of our politicians fit within a farly centrist band of the overall political spectrum, which is nice) but I would agree that the downscaling in the ‘90s was ill-advised and shortsighted. So I’ll stop on an agreement.
JD, I’m still jingoistic too, and think Americans are generally better than we give each other credit for [/end ostentatious fairmindedness]. Give peace a chance.
That story Fuckabee told about the veterans and the school desks was pretty damn good.
Olber”I bathe in Baracky love juice”man is a really sad pathetic man.
I tried to like Hick but that didn’t happen. He sounds like he’s just saying things he thinks his hick pals want to hear. He comes across as something less than a grownup I think.
” I do not see actual evidence supporting your assertion that he desires weakness.”
You didn’t watch the video, did you.
It’s like Jimmah Carter Redux Squared.
Barack Obama scares me.
Baracky wants us taken down a peg. Duh. That’s the God he worships.
I thought that was kinda hokey, but I loved the crack about the elite media doing what he thought couldn’t be done: uniting the Republican party.
As regards “foreign policy†experience, I always think back to the story told of George Schultz as Reagan’s Sec. State. He invited newly appointed ambassadors into his office, which had a large map of the world on the wall, and asked the ambassador to point to his country on the map. When the ambassador approached the map and pointed to Mali or Spain or India or Vietnam or whatever, Schultz would draw them up short and hammer his finger down on the USA, saying NO, this is your country, this one right here.
Baracky would totally have been one of those fool ambassadors if he had the chance. Sarah Palin not so much.
“Comment by Hubris on 9/3 @ 7:38 pm #
BBH, I disagree that we’d end up with unnecessary slash-and-burn in an Obama administration”
Then you’re a self-delusory fool.
“and I don’t think Obama is a socialist”
Yep. Confirmation.
I think you are incorrect. Or a fool. Or both.
Obama is a third generation Alinskyite.
Your Associated Press:
“- Which, when you think about it, its hardly surprising that Socialists dislike any sort of extended military readiness and support, since they see anything that takes away from discretionary government spending on social programs as stealing their main hole card.”
Yeah, the Soviet Union certainly hated military readiness, and so do the Chinese and North Koreans today. Too busy munching on exotic cabbage and reading books on women’s studies, I imagine.
Why? Why? Why do you type?
I don’t think Obama is a socialist
But he plays one on TV.
(which is, of course, the only place the O! campaign really exists. To get all Star Trek geeky here, his campaign when the cameras are turned off is like a computer-generated character leaving the holodeck. It just “disappears”.)
Yeah, the Soviet Union certainly hated military readiness
Well, now, Barrett, a smarter man than you would realize that that depends on what side you’re on. I, personally, am 100% in favor of Iran disbanding its military and getting rid of all its weapons programs.
Schmuck.
Come on Barrett, do you really think BBH was referring to socialists outside the United States?
I like that Palin is not going to back down one little bit. That line about being a Mayor is kind of like being a community organizer, except with responsibility.
The fucks on MSNBC are still running with the meme that she was not vetted.
I hope Rudy lets it rip.
Hey lookie here, Mr. Brown found enough time to respond to a completely unrelated post. And continues to ignore the relevant issues.
What a suprise.
Good luck on getting a straight answer out of Barrett, TomB.
Then you’re a self-delusory fool.
…
I think you are incorrect. Or a fool..
Interesting arguments, thanks for sharing them!
Palin speech open thread. Go for it.
“Why? Why? Why do you type?”
– Why, why, why do you make such sophomoric comments.
– You honestly do not know the difference between Socialism as practiced in a Democratic Republic, and the totalitarian brand of faux Marxist Socialism?
– As I stated the other night, you continue to fail as a serious author, or a serious student Mr. Barrett.
“Well, now, Barrett, a smarter man than you would realize that that depends on what side you’re on. I, personally, am 100% in favor of Iran disbanding its military and getting rid of all its weapons programs.”
Great. I don’t know what that has to with anything. In the same spirit, though, the Founding Fathers spent much of their time railing against standing armies. Perhaps they were socialists.
“Come on Barrett, do you really think BBH was referring to socialists outside the United States?”
BBH thinks that the theory of evolution is an item of faith. There’s no telling what other ludicrous things he believes. At any rate, he hasn’t objected to my characterization. He did call me a schmuck, though. Maybe he used to write for Mad.
I don’t know what that has to with anything.
Hint: that would be because you’re playing stupid. And it’s not working any more, is it?
Jim in KC –
I was in the best direct support artillery battery in the entire United States Marine Corps. A prisoner of Las Pulgas – Bravo 1/ll, the Beastmasters. Two WESPACs, 3/1 and 1/3. M198’s back then; I understand they are running MLRS now. Best CO, best officers, best SNCOs, and best damned men I have ever known, or worked with. Or ever will.
I learned how to trust people there. It’s the secret to getting things done. And ya, I miss those guys.
“Hey lookie here, Mr. Brown found enough time to respond to a completely unrelated post. And continues to ignore the relevant issues.”
I’m not in the market for a narrator at the moment. Anyway, you’ve got a couple of competitors. Also, who the fuck are you and what are the “relevant issues” that I’m obligated to discuss? I see a bunch of posts about the convention and socialism and militarism. That’s what I’m going to talk about.
Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!
– I’m going to enjoy these two speeches Barrett. You’ll just have to try to keep from drooling on your bib until I return.
“I’m going to enjoy these two speeches Barrett. You’ll just have to try to keep from drooling on your bib until I return.”
Oh, you. That’s mean! I am so not a baby and haven’t worn a bib for weeks and weeks!
Enjoy the speeches. I’m going to get some sleep. BECAUSE OF THE EXHAUSTION!
Huckabee: Sarah Palin got more votes for mayor of Wasilla than Joe Biden running for President. lol
Barrett Brown does not play stupid. He comes by it naturally.
Tmj–
We were at Las Flores. Crap, that was so long ago we still had Jeeps.
Excepted from Investor’s Business Daily:
So, yeah, Obama is a Socialist.
Brown,
“Just explain why you think [FCS] a “boondoggle that is pulling resources from more viable options†instead of trying to camouflage your opinions with those of anonymous experts.”
RTO, it seems that the subject article is alleging that Obama is secretly socialist but not really revealing it (e.g., the “front door” reference). To me he seems to be a free-marketer and a capitalist, but obviously would have different ideas regarding government programs and tax structures when compared to campaign. It’s really mostly a difference of degree, not of kind. Hey, don’t listen to me–look at his chosen economic advisors, who Mankiw has described as “…all top-notch economists…their views are left of the political center, as one would expect, but only slightly.”
We probably differ on what constitutes “socialism.” Its an amorphous term so I won’t link definitions or whatnot.
It’s already been demonstated, clearly at lest to me, that his advisors are mostly window dressing.
300 foreign policy advisors, Joe Biden for a running mate and he still follows McCain’s lead (such as in Georgia), and “top-notch” economists who tell Canada that anti-NAFTA messages are just rhetoric.
Even if you are right, and I don’t agree that you are, that it’s a matter of degree–that’s also how one boils a frog–I’m sure you’re familiar with the analogy. It’s the same reason the US observes Labor day on the first Monday of September–May 1st would have been too obvious.
– I personally think, and I don’t expect anyone to necessarily agree, that you’d have to be something akin to a door stop not to hear the class warefare, and unbridled victimhood. even under tones of race baiting, in almost every speech I’ve ever heard Onama give.
– Now if that was all you had to go on, you wouldn’t have any choice but to call it all socialism, all the time.
– Generally you would have some sort of record of specific executive, foriegn relations, or military experience to examine.
– In Obama’s case we have none of that, not even rudimentary, at a city or state level. All we have is his Senate record, and that is extremely thin at best.
– So with the normal bench marks its simply a no brainer.
– But wait. Lets look at the practical aspects of the Presidency. Suppose all of his talk along socialist lines is just red meat for the far Left base. Even if its real, which we have no way of knowing, what exactly would that mean if he wins the office.
– Its a true-ism, and I’ve opined this wlsewhere that if he won we could probably weather 4 years og his sort of Jimmy Carter/Clintonesq leadership. In truth a president probably only can effect realistically a tiny part of his ideas. The problem is, in this case he may have a filibuster proof majority in Congress, which makes his clout much much more viable.
– So I guess I just made the case for:
I’m Callin for McCain/Palin!!!
Oh, I am just as honored by your reply!
I’m not in the market for a narrator at the moment.
You should be. It might help.
Also, who the fuck are you and what are the “relevant issues†that I’m obligated to discuss? I see a bunch of posts about the convention and socialism and militarism. That’s what I’m going to talk about.
The issue is the original post, strangely enough, and your reply. To which you were ripped to shreds.
So the question, at least the one reiterated by RTO is:
“Just explain why you think [FCS] a “boondoggle that is pulling resources from more viable options†instead of trying to camouflage your opinions with those of anonymous experts.â€Â
Hubris said”
To me he seems to be a free-marketer and a capitalist, but obviously would have different ideas regarding government programs and tax structures when compared to campaign.”
You’re contradicticing yourself here. So far he has said and done nothing that would indicate he is a capitalist. On the contrary. His avowed policies are hard core anti capitalism and protectionist. I’m not really sure he understands ecomics at all. If you want a definition of socialism then just look at his domestic policy. There is nothing amorphous about that.
We’vedone the Jimmy Carter thing once already. Barry is another Carter, less the experience, but with a better tan. Peace through weakness didn’t work then, didn’t work too well for the Brits in 1939, and probably won’t work too well now.
McCain seems to me to be on the right side of the military procurement conundrum. He opposed the Boeing tanker lease fiasco, but he does recognize that we need a military prepared for this war, and the next one. Which hopefully, will then never come, and we can again listen to arguments about all this money we waste… I’d much rather listen to this stuff all day long than bury friends and relatives because we needed it and didn’t have it.
Since it looks like I will be hanging around the military for a while longer, I would really rather not see SEN Obama as my CinC. I joined just as were were shaking off the last of the Carter near destruction of the Armed Forces. I really would rather not go through that again, thanks.
I would hope that FCS can avoid being “studied” to death – thus not yielding the kit our Soliders, Sailors and Marines (and Coasties!) deserve. Oversight is one thing, but a nod and a wink that you will smother it with a pillow while claiming to care about it is another.
I think that’s an exercise in futility. The argument here, as I see it, is that Obama doesn’t care about the troops enough to keep FCS. Robison states that there are some things about FCS that would improve troop survivability:
Now, I understand what argument Robison is making, but it’s not necessarily an argument for the overall merits of FCS. Robison is making an argument for the merits of a particular component of FCS. And if that component is what I think it is, it is something that could be mounted on existing armor.
My point is that arguments counter to FCS aren’t necessarily arguments counter to troop survivability. APS is, as far as I can tell, being adapted to existing Stryker units even now; there’s no reason at all why it can’t be adapted to mount on other military vehicles.
So I think the APS argument is not an apt one, as far as the fate of FCS goes.
I’ll try emailing this to Robison, but I won’t be able to do so right away. I don’t think this is something I want to email from my work address.
Me, too, but it seems to be heading down a well-trodden (Commanche, in particular) path at present.
Further qualification: I don’t have any particular liking for Obama, but if all Robison’s article is based on is that Obama commercial, there’s no there there. Obama hasn’t stated why he opposes FCS in any way. As I’ve said, far more eyebrow-raising is the bit about fissile materials. If there’s an Obama position paper on why he wants to do away with FCS, I’d like to see it.
Again, true. Not necessarily.
But that wasn’t my argument. My argument was that Obama will use any pretense to kill such programs. Give him an inch…
I’m not sure what pretense he’s using, Jeff. I haven’t seen that he has any particular reason at all for wanting to kill FCS.
I’m not arguing with you so much as attempting to point out that there’s just not enough material out there to do a condemnation.
Unless there is, and I’ve just missed it.
… that peace through strength (rather than through wishful thinking and Joan Baez dirges) is the most effective stance to adopt toward a world of would-be aggressors â€â€
Not that I’d nominate Joan Baez as our ambassador for anything, but only Joan Baez amongst the international left has acknowledged and called out the left’s complicit, unapologetic role in enabling the horrors of the NV and the Khmer Rouge, after run blocking for them for a decade.
It doesn’t merit a Nobel but I’d cut her enough slack in at least replacing her with any one of the other million eligible loons as the face of transnational dopey kumbayahness.
Hanoi Jane, f’rinstance.