For now. That they were cut off at the knees by the Senate? Well, we’ll see what happens. We’re being told by our betters that now that this political theater is out of the way (and the ludicrous Tea Party dolts “mollified”), the grownups can talk, and therefore that real leaders (of the kind it takes to raise our ability to vote ourselves a credit increase in order pay for more things we can’t pay for by way of more borrowing we’ll soon be unable to pay back), can dig in their heels and reach a good, solid, bipartisan compromise.
— That benefits big government and the ruling class, raises taxes, leaves entitlements unreformed, and gives the federal government the money it needs to institutionalize its tax and spend agenda up to the point when it inevitably crashes the system.
So we’ve got that going for us.
Yay!
Wait, now that I think about it, that doesn’t sound all that great.
You’ve tricked me.
here is the roll call – all Rs voted for it plus 2 socialists except 5 Rs didn’t vote
Ayes for the gang of X will make a handy list for primarying, anyhow. Nice of them to collect themselves together thataway.
Boren and Shuler were the only socialists what voted to save America all the other socialists voted like good little obamawhores
Bachmann didn’t vote for it and also that corrupt piece of shit from Alaska didn’t either
The GOP in the Senate is going to force a third party break and get Obama re-elected. And I don’t think they mind — their being immune to the consequences of the policies of this President, being themselves part of the permanent professional ruling class.
If Bachmann didn’t vote for it ain’t because she capitulated, but rather because it doesn’t go far enough and cut Obamacare.
Yeah, I’m not a big fan of missing these sorts of votes.
Not voting? Well, I’ll forgive Giffords, I suppose. The rest? Present.
oh.
is this the wrong vote I’m looking at Mr. sdferr said in the other thread 9 Rs voted against
I’m confuzzled
that one I linked must be some procedural thing
the folks at “outside the beltway” have very boring beltway opinions
They’ll often change their votes hf. I was just quoting the article I linked over there. Your’s is probably a later, hence more accurate tally.
On the link I was looking at she was in the “not voting” category.
I’m not a fan of these maneuvers.
Yeah, you’re running for President. We get it. You can both vote yes on this and also vote yes on something even stronger if you can get it to the floor.
Well, maybe not.
maybe Bachmann had a headache
That’s it, happy. Staunch staunch staunch, ready to run with the latest media smear against a conservative woman.
These are the Rs that voted against
Bachmann
Broun (GA)
Canseco
DesJarlais
Griffith (VA)
Mack
Maloney
Paul
Rohrabacher
Rs not voting was just the corrupt representative from Alaska Mr. Don Young someone probably bought his vote in exchange for a new tile in his hot tub room or something
Who were the traitors? For clarity and payback.
While the founders were influenced by ancient Rome and Greece, we do not want to become Greece.
to her credit miss michele wanted repeal of barackycare included
Ah, here you go.
She said she wouldn’t vote to raise the debt ceiling, which this does, though with conditions. Guess she stuck with that.
I want to know the real traitors.
“maybe Bachmann had a headache”
or savage has penile dysfunction doing a santorum
she couldn’t vote for this? what is she waiting for the staunch fairy to come down from the sky with a super duper wonderful bill what balances the budget and repeals obamacare and provides funding to cure all the gays and amends the constitution for so the Sacred Definition is enshrined forever and ever amen praise Jesus?
She’s silly.
And my very own Rep., Cornelius Mcgillicuddy was against. While I haven’t seen his explanation, I doubt that it’s going to be because the measure went too far. More likely he’s going to say it didn’t go far enough.
the rent
is too damn high!
I don’t think she’s worried about the gays in this instance, save that we’re funding studies about how big their dicks are.
Personally, I’m not questioning her conservative or fiscal bona fides. You can do as you please, because you’re an often fucked in the head metrosexual wannabe-hipster dork who has serious mommy issues, and that’s just how you roll when one of these conservative women dare put on shoes and step out of the kitchen.
How does Speaker DeMint grab y’all?
Shit. Majority Leader DeMint, natch.
I blame Bush.
not so Mr. Jeff – actually I think it’s fair enough to infer from this that were Bachmann, who is suspected by many of having presidential ambitions, president today instead of bumblefuck, she would veto this cut cap and balance bill were the congress so deluded as to put it on her desk for her signature
I think that says a lot about her suitability for the office.
I’d take a DeMint, a Rubio, a Paul, or a Mike Lee. Now.
As best I know she doesn’t make a habit of this. I don’t mind a protest vote here and there. (Which, as an actual presidential candidate, has some possible juice if it isn’t over indulged in.)
Just don’t want her to get anywhere near that Paul territory where he’s always making a point and never making a difference.
the last thing our sad little country needs is another president with a penchant for making simple things complicated
I’d be overjoyed with any of those guys.
(Btw, as Paul came up again, Ron is the guy I’m bagging on. Rand is one of my favoritest Senators.)
at least Ron announced he wasn’t running again
that’s a dollop of hope and change there
Not now. 2013. Now ain’t gonna happen. First, primaries. Then, Baracky and Friends.
It’s a long, tedious war.
LITMUS TEST!11!1!
Seriously though, both she and Ron Paul have been saying for some time that they weren’t going to vote for this because neither of them believed in raising the debt ceiling. In the last couple of days Bachmann’s considered it if they would include Obamacare repeal as part of the measure.
There are others who have principled objections to this bill; saying that if it had been in place in 1980 Reagan could have neither cut taxes as he did not undertaking rebuilding the military in a manner that ultimately won the cold war. But I’ve only heard this from pundits, like Lowry and Kudlow, and no politicians.
On the other hand, Mike Lee’s response to such an assertion was, “times change”. And although I know what he means, desperate times and all, and he maintains that a supermajority or declared war are ways around the strict ban, I must admit that the notion of Reagan being unable to do two of his most important pieces of work as President made me a bit uncomfortable.
A Paul. We’re at that point, aren’t we?
I would not be so sure of that. Ron will never win, but sometimes making a point is making a difference. It’s shaping the battlefield. It’s moving the Overton Window.
Ron Paul has done a fair bit of that.
that’s just it Mr. Reed – she’s over in the wacko meadow huddled under an umbrella with nor laup while poor little America is flailing about helplessly like the girlfriend of that guy what fell down the hole
So don’t vote for her, happyfeet. To many here, your negative opinion of her suitability is as good as an endorsement.
There are worse places we could be. In fact, we could use a couple more of them. They get it.
I didn’t even have to click the link to OTB to know that it would contain the puerile rantings of Mr. Failconis.
I don’t mind that he’s left of center. What I do mind is Doug acting as though he’s smarter than me. He isn’t and is therefore not qualified to condescend to me.
But hey, he’s predictable. So he’s got that going for him.
I like Bachmann, but expect her to flame out. Is that so wrong?
I don’t really have a positive opinion of any of the R monkeys’ suitability for the presidency except maybe Perry and that’s more of a make-the-best-of-it thing
I expect she’ll get flamed out.
But then, our side seems to allow that.
I’ll grant you that, Pablo. But, a guy could do that same thing while still bringing much more to the table. And not flaking out on foreign policy all the time.
In a pinch, I think I’d bunk with the entire Paul Nation and vote Ron just to get out from underneath Obama. Consider that he’d get a fraction of what he ran on actually done, and that telling the limp-wristed multicultural western world to kiss off on former failshit US foreign policy ain’t all bad. So we stay home but turn em to glass if they get out of hand. Europe can learn to pay its own damn defense bills.
You won’t be satisfied or feel fulfilled until the GOP puts up a candidate who promises to slash deficit spending, but does so while fucking some dude dressed like Jesus in the ass wearing a condom made out of a boutique cupcake.
So it doesn’t much matter what opinion you have of the present candidates’ suitability.
Bachmann under an umbrella with Ron Paul; that’s some interesting imagery there :)
I personally admire Bachmann as well, but agree with Pablo; my intuition is that she’ll flame out as well. The probability get’s higher every day Palin stays out of the race, because the looney-left is focusing their crazy powers on her instead.
That and if Perry get’s in he has a broad enough appeal that he’ll still Mittenz Establicans and Tea-Party voters.
there is truth in what you say Mr. Howard – the worst thing a failshit little country can ever ever do is prance around like it thinks it’s a superpower
it’s expensive and silly both and it doesn’t really fool anybody
I have no idea what you’re talking about Mr. Jeff. Mitch Daniels would have served quite nicely and he’s a raving lifeydoodle.
He also doesn’t have an actual snatch, so he doesn’t terrify you.
But he isn’t running because his wife doesn’t want him too. So move on.
it’s not my fault most prominent conservative women are kooky bigots
paul mcartney played bass and had melody and married a chick with half a leg
so i me mine/scrambled eggs he’s got the over 40 youth vote but not me
rocky racoon!fool on the hill!penny lane!gimme shelter [ wot?]
and the ones what aren’t kooky bigots fall into the fiscally tepid Kay Bailey mold
it’s a conundrum
I really don’t want to talk about Mitch. He never even got in.
He’s dead. I’ve checked. He’s still not moving.
This is just bad juju.
I can go with that, feets. And I no more trust what Eisenhower called, and I paraphrase, a corrupt, money-mad agency in arms than I don’t already trust a corrupt, money-mad agency anywhere else in the federal government and it’s all corrupt, money-mad agencies.
The notion that we need to police stuff should be proportional to if we can afford to.
(Yet the left should be absolutely pilloried for slashing defense on their terms and for their reasons. Meaning we go defenseless in order to keep handing out food stamps for $400 in lobster and ice cream.)
Yes. This.
Supporter or not-so-much-a-supporter, it’s just the wrong path.
The Presidency seems to be an office of significantly increased powers coupled with, or currently held by, a man of significantly diminished capacities. If we would reduce the powers to a level commensurate with the capacities of the office holder, no matter how low those powers must go, we’ll all be better off I’m thinking. But in general terms, nearly any decent American would be fit for the necessary decisions to be taken by the President. This occupant simply isn’t one.
In other words, we don’t need some rip-roaring rootin’ tootin’ genius in that office. We need a decent human being with American sensibilities.
The notion that we need to police stuff should be proportional to if we can afford to.
this. Cause our debt is far and away a bigger national security concern than anything what lies outside our borders I think.
it’s a math thing
you can’t negotiate with math
I don’t think the S&P or Moody’s (the only entities what matter right now) will be mollified unless the Senate passes and BHO signs this most excellent House plan into law. Since that’ll never happen, and nothing the Senate puts forth will suffice, seems Socialism will die of asphyxiation; once the various ratings are slashed, money will be more difficult to print and borrow.
Barack Obama is on some thin ice. As is this entire little Republic.
“it’s not my fault most prominent conservative women are kooky bigots”
debbie sgt shultz, babs boxer, schatcowsky, et al you want dumb? go progg
palin- she knows the 5 finger chest palm from kill bill
u don’t know ur done till u take 5-4-3-2-1
whoesever r we will vote
Thank you. I especially like the part where it’s helped so nicely by the policies of a quasi-private monopoly unrepresented by vote and pretty much unaccountable to the Congress.
i’m still going with this for the boner guy to do list
link
Where’s the ‘new’ revenue coming from? Not so much a ‘Tax Increase’ as a ‘Deductions Decrease‘.
Ah, the voice of tolerance, compassion and understanding.
Heed, bitches! You too, cumsluts.
Somebody on this here board just doesn’t like women.
How’s about some nice Kevin ‘Fisting’ Jennings ?
What you guys are talking about regarding a reduced foreign policy footprint to go with our reduced economic outlook makes sense. There’s not debating some fundamental aspects of that.
It’s somewhat complicated though. We can not spend enough here or there in this regard and suddenly we don’t have an economy anymore.
And, I haven’t the slightest idea as to our actual security outlook at the present let alone any sort of geo-political any-fucking-thing.
So, some things are inevitable but we can’t just throw up our hands here and just say that we’re now a second tier country so just cut that budget all to shit.
To do so would be to forget that there are worse things than being a second tier country in the modern age. Like, the current state of humanity everywhere else. Like, the natural state of man throughout history.
Let’s not fall too many positions too quickly or without any thought. It fucking sucks to be a human in a state of nature.
the tan crying boner could say “hey baracky we’ll let you decide whether to cut gov’t”. much better than mitchy’s stupid idea
See, that’s the nub. Do you think you’d need to explain that to a Palin or a Bachmann? Girls can do math too, you know.
“Let’s not fall too many positions too quickly or without any thought. It fucking sucks to be a human in a state of nature.”
do the german’s need our military protection against the poles, czechs, and ukraine?
it’s not my fault most prominent conservative women are kooky bigots
oh lord, is hf knocking boots with nishit again or just pining for it?
mostly we need to be talking about it in a way that a lot of your Team R candidates are just not comfortable Mr. bh – several of them are on record saying we can’t can’t can’t cut defense
that’s not very conducive to a thoughtful discussion
Personally, I’m not questioning her conservative or fiscal bona fides. You can do as you please, because you’re an often fucked in the head metrosexual wannabe-hipster dork who has serious mommy issues, and that’s just how you roll when one of these conservative women dare put on shoes and step out of the kitchen.
Funny how it takes someone else saying it for me to notice how mean I am to this closet queen.
When is Iowa caucus?
you are mean you’re like Chet in Weird Science mean
No one says we can’t cut the waste out of the defense budget. But cutting defense — which is actually something the federal government is supposed to be funding — should be a non-starter for constitutionalists. Cut the EPA and all that other garbage first. Defense is what your job is.
Two things, bh:
-We can’t afford what we can’t afford. Missile shield the place and hunker in to recalculate strategic, liberty-centric foreign policy under another Administration. We’re outnumbered from here on out anyway.
-We don’t trust Ogabe’s corporatized military expansionism. That’s three wars and counting and you can look to GE for an example of how he beds his select FOBs. Nobody knows what’s going on out there or why.
Yup, like that.
Ron’s looking more on it with every passing day. Just saying.
I didn’t think it was a whale’s dick, honey.
Ron Paul’s foreign policy is fundamentally the same as McGovern’s. There are plenty of things a constitutionalist would cut before defense.
That’s Paul’s problem. That, and he hates him some Jews.
Sorry, did I say Jews?
I meant “neocons.” Pardon me.
Wouldn’t want to be accused of playing the race card.
Nah. Newrouter is Chet in Weird Science. At least after Kelly LeBrock morphed him into a lumpy gargoyle. I just use mean words what hurt because the internets have deprived me of the ability to knock the teeths what are in your mouth out of it. And that is what you ask for oftentimes by behaving like a housefly in human form.
R. Epstein on defense, as well as the rest of the thicket in the remaining body of the article:
“Newrouter is Chet in Weird Science.”
i’m so happy to be recognized
Ron Paul’s electability is moot anyway, Jeff. My point is that the worse things get, the more most of his positions make sense – money, debt, individual sovereignty, taxation, personal liberty and property.
The anti-Semitism not included and yes, the dynamic involving Israel’s precarious position is huge. If only Jewish political sentiment in this country were more cognizant of that fact.
I have feelings you know
I would guess not. But, I’d base that on what? A hunch? A few articles I’ve read here or there?
I don’t even know what our defenses there are. I know even less about other’s capabilities.
There was this guy, Burke, right? And he was all, “Be careful about changing shit around just because you, as a conceited smart guy, think you know what’s going on.” He looked at societies and history the same way that Hayek looked at economic planning.
We’re not this smart. We’re only in the third or fourth generation of Pax Americana (shit, I’m not even sure if that’s correct) and we’re going to rewrite the order of things because of gut feelings and our incomplete understanding?
There is a motivativing spirit to conservatism that is different than the motivating spirit of classical liberalism. And the motivating spirit of conservatism says, “Life is terrible, if you ever find yourself in a place where life isn’t terrible, be careful. Be very fucking careful.”
(I’d add footnotes but I’m pretty sure these are all readily recognizable, direct quotes.
well they’re going to the country, they’re gonna retire
they’re taking a streetcar named Desire
looking in the window at the pecan pie
lot’s of things they like they would never buy
tweedle lee dee is a sorry old man
tweedle lee dum
he’ll stab u where u stand
You won’t be satisfied or feel fulfilled until the GOP puts up a candidate who promises to slash deficit spending, but does so while fucking some dude dressed like Jesus in the ass wearing a condom made out of a boutique cupcake.
You know, Lord help me, I’d check a little box on my tax return giving up a buck or two to see that. Especially the cupcake condom. There’s got to be a way to market that.
yes. Mr. Epstein is having the discussion too many Rs slam the door on.
While there may be some waste, specifically in the “cost-plus” DoD procurement procedure, that can be cut, as Gates made clear in his resignation speech they have already cut defense to the bone; further cuts will impact readiness as well as future weapons programs.
We need to fund evolving missile defense capabilities.
We need to aggressively fund the energy beam weapons programs, both sea-borne and air-borne
We need to fund the expanded purchase of the F-22 to the modified force size of at least 350.
We need to rebuild or replace mechanized ground forces, helicopter airframes, and aircraft that have reached the end of their service life as a result of the last 10 years of fighting.
We need to get rid of the top heavy personnel structure of flag and general officers, retaining the JOllies and non-coms instead.
How can we save money?
-Scuttle the Littoral Combat Ship; any already being built should be detailed to the Coast guard; the DDX project can do all of the same tasks, better, than the LCS. It’s a boondoggle.
-Scale back the F-35 JSF project, unless Lockheed gets its act together in the next 90 days. Cut the intended numbers in half for all the services. Let the Air Force purchase F-16s, the Navy and Marines F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets to fill out the numbers they desire instead of the vastly reduced numbers they could purchase under this horribly over-run project that LM has milked for years.
-As much as I hate it philisphically, accelerate the development of UCAVs.
There’s more, but it would be the equivalent of nattering on about minutia.
“I don’t even know what our defenses there are. I know even less about other’s capabilities.”
steyn sub for rush today stated the us gave the eu the ability to become the cess pool of debt that it is by our defense being there. scroll it back on a time line. the krauts ain’t going to attack the french nor the czechs or poles.
“Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” Where’ve we heard that before ?
philisiphilitically?
also we need an aerial refueling tanker
maybe we can accomplish that after McCain retires and stops dicking with the process
mr. bob reed,
the nato folks need to defend themselves more now
most prominent conservative women are kooky bigots
And you say this because they don’t do anal?
that’s from the Bible Mr. serr8d
Grrrrrrrr.
I’d say take it to heart Mr. ‘feets. Save you lots of hurt feelings.
I heard Steyn today too, newrouter. That’s the policy that’s wrong-headed, wherever it exists. It’s military socialism.
And I’d bet precisely a nickel that Bob Reed doesn’t know of what he speaks.
Which is to say we need a new Administration fast.
Jim DeMint is at least standing firm.
“There is only one proposal that actually is written that will be voted on, and that is the ‘cut, cap and balance’ proposal,” DeMint said.
I know he means “voted on as of now”, but I like the cut of his jib.
billy crystal and the commentary crowd wanted pax americana. oblahblah is going one better giving us post americana.
In a truly rational world I would agree. Unfortunately I have concluded that the only possible way forward is to cut everything. Trusting that the need for those things truly essential will quickly arise as necessity dictates.
Yes, this could prove wasteful, but even if the re-constitution of national defense results in a doubling (or even trebling) of current expense, given how small a fraction of current total (much less projected) spending that would comprise it would still prove a timeless bargain. If we survive, that is.
But the decision point we are at is no less existential. I would rather place trust in those we call to answer martial questions to get by with less than the clowns who currently seek to dictate our fate.
To put it bluntly, we’ve been focused on fighting an infantry-centric assymetric ground war…
The biggest mistake one can make is to fight the last war.
The coming challenge will be from the “new cold war”, it will be with our “frienemies” the Chinese and the other memebers of their new comitern; NoKo, Pakistan, and Iran, with Venezuela as a minor player.
While there will be infantry fighting, like in all warfare, it won’t be the mismatch we enjoy now. It will be a near-peer struggle, where we’ll have to fight for, and to maintain, air superiority so that we can counter the vast numerical advantage our enemies will have; because although our allies will help in some capacity, and can provide large troop levies to any force, they won’t be equipped or trained comparably.
Oh, and one more reality? That 600 ship Navy Ronnie ordered, and Bubba cancelled? Yeah, we’ll need it, because we won’t be attacking from convenient land bases but projecting power and controlling sea lanes. And the punch line? There are currently a little over 240 ships in service-including submarines…
See what Gates was talking about?
it’s hard to trust a man what would up and squander a nickel like that Mr. Howard
CCB passed. From sdferr’s link in the other thread:
Lovely.
“I heard Steyn today too,”
mr. bob reed has some interesting things to say like having more admirals than in ww ii, but our prob is giving free sh*t to other countries. you want accountability decentralize. you want unicorns barackytize.
no matter how this fiasco plays out it’s hard to see the denouement moving the dial in a positive direction on the right track/wrong track numbers
Given the failed state of things in the world of public education in America, and the poor prospects that anything is going to be done in the near term to turn the whole mess around in any substantial sense, I’m thinking I’d be inclined to start there. Cut those expenditures in half or more. Heck, it’s got to be a better situation to cease teaching non-sense in turn for little to no teaching at all until a content rich system can be raised, rather than pour untold billions into teaching children crap.
“Oh, and one more reality? That 600 ship Navy Ronnie ordered, and Bubba cancelled? Yeah, we’ll need it, because we won’t be attacking from convenient land bases but projecting power and controlling sea lanes.”
link
sdferr; I meant philisophically. My budget doesn’t allow for an administrative war specialist these days, and my typing perenially stinks :)
newrouter: You are correct about the EU defending itself, but we can’t completely sever with NATO. We need cooperative ties to keep them trained up and familiar with combined operations. The Russians are weak now, but make no mistake that they still covet eastern Europe. But they need to pay their own way more fully.
happyfeet: I was lumping the tanker aircraft into the airframes that needed replacing due to reaching the end of their service life.
Swapping out Bob Bennett for Mike Lee is the best pair of votes I ever cast.
True you did Bob (philosophically), and I knew it, but I couldn’t resist a new coinage evenso.
JHO, do you mean I don’t know what Mark Steyn is saying, or what I myself am saying? Because, you know, the latter is always a distinct possibility :)
oh. mostly I just like to give that one guy a hard time Mr. Bob.
It’s a thing.
“but we can’t completely sever with NATO. We need cooperative ties to keep them trained up and familiar with combined operations.”
i’m of the sink or swim school
we should rent bjork cuz she owns
the skies and i know her and she will
work cheep cheep like a marshmellow chicken but she hates microwaves
I mean you out-know JHo in these matters and I’d limit my losses to five cents because of it, Bob.
And…Steyn makes a solid point and I have zero trust in this Administration and its various conflicts and all its unholy alliances.
nato is just like the epa: a bureaucracy in search of a new mandate after accomplishing its mission. eliminate the bureau
there’s so much cold war, war on poverty, war on drugs stuff to do away with. the fed. gov’t is like the old lady with 600 cats.
bjork has no bjureacracy
she has goat claws/ and hovers
and death
Hey newrouter, I respect the opinion of the brass as much as any other JOlly, but do you know what’s faster than a hypersonic DF-21D? The emissions from a directed energy beam weapon…
And for the record 1) The Chinese have to find the carrier first, and they don’t have what we refer to as AWACS. and 2) When the UCAVs come into their own the carriers will become much smaller, and can stand-off much further from their strike targets.
So in this case I’m gonna have to disagree with the Flags.
We just need massively destructive weapons by the basketful and the hell with a conventional army. Makes me sound like a lefty, I guess, until you consider the fact that I’m perfectly happy with the idea of literally incinerating the Middle East and anyone else who bothers me, I mean us.
JHo: Got it, man. Steyn make solid points almost always, especially since The Corporatist ascended to the WH.
happyfeey: Got it, man. You were bustin’ Meghan’s daddy’s chops.
newrouter: I’m not talking about giving them anything or keeping as large a force as we have there now, at least in terms of boots on the ground. But I would probably keep 2 or 3 divisions there to take part in continuous exercises with the NATO crowd. And because of the proximity of the ME, I personally would like to keep a few fixed-wing squadrons over there; 3 in southern Italy and 3 in eastern Germany (Both regional force would be 1 squadron each F-15/F-16/A-10 as well as support tankers).
fedgov is like
the future
‘zono.
I’m ok with that Abe, but that’s essentially what the Russians have gone with since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the no-nukes have been hyperventilating about that ever since.
I’m not just talking about nukes, but an entire military predicated upon being able to turn any country that crosses us into Afghanistan without having boots on the ground. It’s no way to win in conventional warfare, but I really don’t care about nation-building or restoration of democracy anymore. I’d rather countries be scared shitless of pissing us off and left to their own devices should anyone else cause them trouble. Whatever we once symbolized to the world and thus perceived to be our burden, we ain’t in the same paradigm anymore.
bob seger is hi lighting fedgov 2000 [er]
2010 a space oddsey[sp]
er
2013 winning the future!
btw- bob seger has died
gilbert gottfried will take up his vocal shit
against the wind
let the cowboys ride!~
Ah, I see…I’m pretty much OK with that too Abe. But there are a few allies I’d be willing to fight to defend.
But I would prefer that we were self sufficient, and as such weren’t tempted to go to war to “protect our interests”, if you know what I mean.
I see something that maybe Abe isn’t highlighting but is inherent. You can do more with less if you’re willing to be a hell-loving asshole.
The thing that stuck out to me with Rhodes’ book? The sections on incendiary bombing.
It’s terrible. It is.
What part of our budget comes not from our lower level rules of engagement but our higher level “war should be something that cable news watchers can stomach”?
We’ve all thought about this.
I like this guy!
Quite so. And the question why are there sticks still left standing in the ungoverned western territories of Pakistan is a question I haven’t found a suitable answer to.
I see what you’re sayin’ bh, but there are benefits to precision weapons that transcend the ability to strike with little collateral damage; although that’s a happy side effect to be sure!
One of the most prominent advantages is that less ordinance can do the same job. For instance, a B-2 can strike 16 independent targets with 2000 pund JDAM precision bombs. Less precise weapons would mean that more airplanes would be required to neutralize the targets that one B-2 could take care of. But this might be an extreme example, because the blast radius of a 2k bomb is considerable…
So really, although it makes it easy to sanitize for the evening news, precision capability is actually less expensive in the long run.
“But I would probably keep 2 or 3 divisions there to take part in continuous exercises with the NATO crowd.”
good bye to all of that. let them defend “the gates of vienna” in their own back yards of their own making.
Yeah, Bob. There are a few allies worth defending. But they’re rotting from within even quicker than we are, so the future Britain of Mahmoud the goatfucker ain’t exactly one I’d be willing to offer much more than moral support.
In my mind it isn’t so much about the economics of a grandiose foreign policy so much as it is that our true power resides in the ability to provide an unserious world with a colossal wake up call even more than it rests in our superior military might. We have enabled the world to grow increasingly frivolous, and I, for one, am tired of explaining to rather stupid foreigners how there is an immense difference between the US driving innumerable lunatics into the nether regions of Pakistan and the Soviets doing likewise to millions of harmless Afghan civilians. Our absence from all of this would bring a bit of clarity to the world methinks.
mr. abe we be chilling
You’re a guy who has maybe pushed that button. I’m not. We have to be clear about this so that I’m not just filling the room with bullshit.
But, is that actually a happy side effect? That’s what I’m getting at. Would Clausewitz say so? Would Sherman? Would Machiavelli? Would the Roman guy I’m forgetting?
Or will this conflict linger? And we’ll forget their wisdom once more out of misguided compassion.
That’s a very good point overall Abe, and a hilariously funny characterization Britain as, “the future Britain of Mahmoud the goatfucker” :)
I think you’re onto something about enabling frivolous behavior. If we did pull back peoples would be in for a rude awakening regarding just how much nicer it was to deal with the US versus the Russians or Chinese.
The US tries to respect sovereignty and culture; the Russians and Chinese tell them how it’s going to be…
The US fights to liberate people. The Russians and Chinese annex the vanquished as vassals…
The US gives foreign aid. The Russian and Chinese generally make loans…
Our absence would bring clarity indeed.
I’d have to say the happy side effect is purely political, and mostly for domestic consumption here at home and at the UN. It’s happy only in that it may defuse most of the criticism regarding, “the killing of innocent civilians”. So that we can say that we’re at war with the government/terrorists/whoevz and not the peaceful people of [X].
For me though the value is in the precision itself, in being able to strike wicked close to your own forces, if necessary, and not have to worry about inadvertantly hurting them; in knowing with a high degree of certainty that the target was destroyed. And in the efficiency of knowing that 1 aircraft can hit multiple targets with that same degree of certainty.
That, and it costs less to do the job right the first time :)
Heh. This is where I once again just have to admit I know shit about shit, Bob.
Your first paragraph is what I’m worried about. Your second paragraph makes sense to me even if I’m too ignorant to really grasp the specifics of that within my non-tactically inclined brain.
And you’re correct to worry about it bh. Of course, the Flag officers always talk about political concerns in any campaign, but in the latter part of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st, the US has gone to amazing extremes to prosecute war and injur astonishlingly few non-combatants. Sure, in once sense it’s because we can, but I can think of no other force in history that would have increased their own risks just to ensure that as little terror possible was inflicted upon the civilians of the combatant nation.
In some ways I think that it’s percieved as adding to the moral authority of us as liberators. But I don’t think it’s simple posturing, but truly a guiding paradigm. Which, you know, can be a disadvantage.
If the fit were to ever hit the shan, I’m pretty sure this would go by the wayside in an all-out-scrap.
But to tell you the truth, I flew fighters and never bombed any targets; but did make a couple of strafing runs in my day. And in those instances I was only worried about hitting the target.
Thanks, Bob. (I highlight that line because it stands out to me but also thanks for the earlier edification upthread.)
Hey, I’ve hit a rare time where I can go to sleep at a normal-ish hour.
Later.
I’m coming to the opinion that if we occasionally had, shall we say, a greater penchant for the “kill ’em all, let God sort ’em out” school of warfare, we would have significantly fewer problems on the ground, and fewer future potential trouble spots.
“Hi, Pakistan. We just laid waste to your next door neighbor. Do you really want to piss us off?”
After which the ordinary people of Pakistan might be rather more inclined to garnish their supply of pikes with the heads of our actual foes.
Our troops being as surgically precise as are has a side effect of the civilian populace thinking, “Meh, not my problem.”
[…] House,” Jeff Goldstein writes at protein wisdom, “did its job“: For now. That they were cut off at the knees by the Senate? Well, we’ll see what […]
Sorry, newrouter, but Bob is absolutely correct. As pathetic as NATO is, maintaining a handful of brigades in Europe makes a great deal of sense by keeping skin in the game; a NATO member keeps the Straits of Gibraltar open, a NATO member provides air bases in southern Italy and and another in Crete, two NATO members straddle the Black Sea entrance/exit. If you cannot see the value of those to the strategic interests of this country, well perhaps you are weighing up the cost disadvantages but failing to see what we get out of the deal. Absent those facilities, we would have to embark on the most colossal carrier/amphibious assault ship construction programme imaginable.
VII Corps is gone. V Corps is much reduced and our present strength on the continent is nowhere near cold war levels, nearly an order of magnitude lower. Cross training with coalition partners has been useful; as Bob will no doubt confirm, access to former Warsaw pact members’ aircraft in training is one small example. I see the alternative as isolationism, and I don’t think that is a safe option.
barnabus collins had a house
a house of dark shadows
As per Bob Reed’s comments above. From Heritage Foundation:
As is said so often, read it all. My take is that this administration considers this to be a situation they desire and will do what they can to make it not only stay this way but get worse. It has been the policy of the Democrats and the Left for decades that we should have never been the worlds sole superpower. They are getting their wish to come true with this.
Yeah, Bob. There are a few allies worth defending. But they’re rotting from within even quicker than we are, so the future Britain of Mahmoud the goatfucker ain’t exactly one I’d be willing to offer much more than moral support.
British troops have been fighting and dying alongside Americans for almost a century, Abe. At this moment, they’re still fighting and dying in Afghanistan. Some friends are still worth keeping.
See also. “China Details Anti-ship Missile Plans“, “Military in space: Less money, more junk to track“, “Report calls for restraints in space activity“, and this at Belmont Club.
Our fiscal woes are the result of policies that were started back in the Clinton years. The problems in our military come from policies that the Democrats started in the Carter years, which though reversed during Reagan were once more put back into effect during Clinton and have never really relented even during Bush.
Bribing the Democrats to allow a minimal ability to fight the war against the terrorists and their State sponsors set the spending course that we are on in place. The Obama “budgets” are only the final result of decisions made 20 years ago to peruse this now visible end, the breaking of America as a world power and force for freedom.
I was mostly being facetious, SW. Rest assured, should bands of French marauders ever make their way through the Chunnel with bad intent, I shall personally give them vigorous slaps to the head in the Benny Hill style and then steal their rations of Gauloises.
Bob,
Not to nitpick, ’cause I know you know your stuff and I respect you a great deal, but would you not agree with the following?
It’s no coincidence that despite that being the case, both the US’s and Israel’s armed forces are routinely singled out by the Leftocracy (media, academia, UN, NGO’s, etc.) as being guilty of precisely the opposite — i.e. “targeting of civilians,” etc.
I realize it may be somewhat tangential to the discussion, but it’s a clear example of why the US-Israel alliance is both natural (IOW, not motivated by “hidden” interests) and important, and I didn’t feel I could let it pass.
And, concerning the whole military readiness problem, I present to you Sarah Palin’s winning 2012 campaign slogan (really anyone could use it, but only Palin’s got the style of delivery – not to mention the stones – to really carry it off):
If the telltale whiff of garlic is scented from the Chunnel, Abe, I will shine the Batlight towards Manhattan. We will share the smokes.
OT, but significant. Defending reprehensible speech…
This. It’s amazing how many more problems we have today with jihadists than we did with fanatical Japs / Nazis, since part of the aftermath of defeat stopped involving standing in line amid a couple square miles of bombed / burned rubble to receive the meager rations your conquerors deign to provide. Really drives home that ancient lesson: This is defeat. Avoid it.
Hey Yackums,
I’m happy to agree with you, that the IDF also goes out of their way to minimize civilian casualties in the same manner, and for much the same reason, we do. But I also think they’re more willing to break a few eggs to make an omelete, if you know what I mean…
I think the vicious fighting in Fallujah, specifically the second battle in November 2004. Now, for 6 or 7 months prior to the actual engagement in the city our forces essentially encircled the city, announcing to the populace, and imbedded Tangos lurking there, that we were coming and that they should get out. And while the evacuation of most of the civilian population and the ensuing militaru operation were ultimately successful, it’s acknowledged that more than a few of the insurgent leaders and troops slipped out with the 250,000+ civilians that were allowed to pass from the city; leaving behind a rearguard of 3000-3500 fanatics.
Think about it for a moment. What other modern army has announced their intent to assault a city for 6 or 7 months prior, allowed anyone who wanted to leave to pass as long as they were unarmed at that time, giving the combatants plenty of time to booby trap buildings and set up bunkers and defensive positions, and only then finally engage the enemy. I submit to you that the Soviets, or Chinese, would have simply razed Fallujah, probably mostly by air, and cared not a wit about the multitude of civilians killed to do so.
Veritas…This is because Bush understandably changed the focus of DoD operations to match the needs of the War on Terror. Anyone remember when it was proclaimed that in the future our military would only need to worry about fighting “brush wars”? Yeah, I do…And as I said to folks then, we also needed to stay on track preparing for the rise of a near-peer adversary like China and its new comitern. Who’s military build up we’re paying for via our monthly trade imbalance, by the way. So the next time you’re at Walmart, consider that you’re essentially helping build the Chinese military…
This…This is perhaps the part that disgusts me the most. That Bush, understandably again, caved to the Democrat’s extorsion. They continually threatened to hold up funding for operations in Iraq, openly as well as more stridently in back-channels, unless program x or y was also fully funded. It doesn’t explain, or let him off the hook for, medicare part D or “no child left behind”, but it does explain the relentless increases in discretionary spending during his term.
[…] Jeff G doesn’t seem impressed with it either: – That benefits big government and the ruling class, raises taxes, leaves entitlements unreformed, and gives the federal government the money it needs to institutionalize its tax and spend agenda up to the point when it inevitably crashes the system. […]
Amazing how defense is the only component of the budget that the leftists are willing to actually cut.
Not so amazing JD. It’s pathetically obvious. Good article.
Related Exaggerating poverty for political gain. Fucking proggs.
Spies, Brigands and Pirates sighted over at Ric’s!
I, and none of the Soldiers that ever served under me, would embrace a “kill ’em all, God shall know his own” modus operandi.
Besides the reasons that Bob gave (near strike ‘without blue on blue results’ capability, lesser expense, etc.) do you want a Red Army or PLA type force wearing the uniforms of the United States of America?
I have caused/directed/brought about the death of many hundreds of my country’s enemies. Sometimes that bothers me and I cannot sleep. Sometimes it doesn’t bother me at all. As I consider myself fairly average for a Soldier, I can’t imagine what life would be like if I was indiscriminately killing innocent people/hostages/human shields.
I suspect most of you are snarking or give vent to the frustrations of the current feckless CinC and restrictive ROEs. If you aren’t, you need to take a bit of a look into your soul and see if there really is a part that doesn’t mind deliberately killing innocent men, women and children just to make things “easier”.
Back to the topic of the post – I shall wait and see, but I suspect I will be writing angry e-mails to Mark Kirk – I have given up writing to Dick Durbin, angry or not.
Oh, and “behaving like a housefly in human form”
May I use that? I thought it sort of clever, actually.
This. Especially the part about being like the Red Army/PLA. As I said upthread, minimizing collateral damage is not just utilitarian, or moral posturing, but a guiding paradigm.
Thanks for weighing in on that Colonel John.
On giving up on Durbin? When I lived in Maryland I ultimately did the same for Mikulski and Sarbanes, in the Senate, a Hoyer in the House. Had I not I’d have been corresponding daily!
As if you could identify one of those.
I suggest you all put on oilskins, since the splatter is bound to reach across the pond.
We have more people in poverty than Bangladesh, Carin. It is true.
Would The Great Prevaricator lie to you about something as important as poverty?
Where alse but the US could you have contradictions like “Retired people are poor|Retired people are on average wealthier than every other age group” exist side by side?
One good thing, I suppose, is that if there are no “AAA”-rated nations to remain in the (free) world, we won’t be all alone at the bottom of the barrel.
As if you could identify one of those.
they just had a thoughtful discussion on spending right here! – the kind of discussion pandering squacks like Palin can’t ever have cause of her simplistic pander formula forbids countenancing any cuts in defense spending at all. But even Bachmann is open to cuts in defense spending.
Slarti – that can only exist in a world where job killing tax cuts exist.
hey checkitout is a wurtle!
he has had many adventures
I’d forgotten this was happening this week
I do not know what these tea leaves say
I think that the tea leaves say that reporter is unable or unwilling to accurately describe what Gov Walkers reforms did.
One good thing, I suppose, is that if there are no “AAA”-rated nations to remain in the (free) world, we won’t be all alone at the bottom of the barrel.
In some scenarios (I realise Europhiles reject them as not necessary), this may not be the case. Let’s say the Eurozone implodes, PIIGS are slaughtered, and the core remains. I can see Germany retaining AAA rating. Alternatively, what if, for some reason, Germany can swing this fiscal union and bail out everybody. Would not this give bond holders a big tingle? Or the whole mess goes pear shaped and Germany goes back to D-marks, everyone says prosit.
In the particular case of the Hansen-VanderLeest contest hf, I think the locals understood that the best R candidate was left off the ballot due to not collecting enough petition signatures (or whatever it’s called) to be ungameable by the leftists, which leftists promptly had enough signatures of his disqualified that he couldn’t get on. So it was left to the inadequate VanderLeest to be ground to dust.
I would have thought people would be madder about how the socialists runned away
oh. Got it. So this was not measuring what I thought it was measuring.
We have more people in poverty than Bangladesh, Carin. It is true.
I’m strangely unmoved by that fact.
bh sometime back commented on the failure to get the good guy (whose name I don’t know) on the ballot being something of a disappointment, both on account of the goodness of the good guy, it seemed to me at the time, and on account of the ripeness of Hansen for the picking off. I think Althouse is covering that contest, and the Wisco guy at HotAir has had something to say about it too.
Never? If so, too bad.
Althouse says the challenger was deeply flawed and underfunded
That cracked me up, Carin. Why do you hate the poor?
#185 – have you ever killed anyone? Did they deserve it? Were you protecting yourself or stopping someone else from being harmed?
Conversely, would you flatten an orphanage with 200 kids in it to get one sniper? Would you care if the police burned your house down if you were being held hostage in it?
Please be sure to stay as far away from any recruiting station of the United States Armed Forces as you are able.
you have to sort the beans
House GOP passes ill-fated ‘cut,cap,and balance’ legislation
GOP too dug in on debt talks; public fears default consequences
House pursues balanced-budget bill; need for backup plan acknowledged
Finally, Minnesota open for business
Cost-Cutters, Except When the Spending Is Back Home
Sensing a trend? We’re beating the political team, so they’ve tagged out to the press partners.
motionview,
It is almost as if they had certain preconcieved notions!
On the Wa-Po/ABC poll, Podhoretz makes a decent point: crap polls like this are purposed to game public opinion, so caveat emptor.
Well Colonel, that would be one explanation. It could also be that people within the Democrat ruling structure have inside access to most members of the press. Or the reporters, editors, associates are coordinating today’s narrative on some secret email journolist.
#193 – I vote “both”.
There’s nothing quite like taking criticism for intransigence from a guy in a “Git ‘Er Done!” cap, sdferr.
The cap guy may have something cogent to say and he may not Squid: it’s bloody hard to tell unless we’re actually in conversation with him. On the other hand, when push comes to shove, actual voters do determine which way the country goes in many and varied respects.
That cracked me up, Carin. Why do you hate the poor?
Oh, the normal reasons. Racism. Selfishness. Shit like that.
Hey, JD, how’s the ankle healing? I just signed up for two runs – a 10 mile in Flint and half marathon in Detroit. IT goes across the bride (to Canada) and back through the tunnel. That’s in Oct. So essited. I dreamed about it last night.
I’m a pandering squack. I’m simple. I think we should be spending on defense, not on NPR or Planned Parenthood or Cowboy Poetry Festivals, or the EPA, or the Dept of Education, etc. Because it’s right there in the Constitution.
But that’s clearly not “serious.” It’s far too simplistic. The real deep wonkish thinkers need to get on this, to figure out ways we can cut defense and leave Medicare untouched and unreformed.
Deep, sober, conscientious. Unlike Caribou Barbie. And, like, me.
our defense spending is so out of whack relative to our little country’s actual finances it’s like putting a two-carat diamond on a crack whore
our
defenseentitlement and social spending is so out of whack relative to our little country’s actual finances it’s like putting a two-carat diamond on a crack whorefixt that for you Happy.
the world is a dangerous place.
It seems to me it’s the other spending that’s out of whack.
that too!
I think guns are too rednecky for happy. would lady gaga carry an automatic pistol no she wouldn’t she most certainly would not.
Not to worry! Obama’s going to let Russia take over for the US!
Smart! diplomacy, sdferr
my grandma had a fabulous mother of pearl lady’s pistol what she slept with
not without secreting it under a floor-length black leather duster, with the rest of the arsenal.
sdferr,
My main point is that I have a hard enough time respecting polls of low-information voters. There’s no way I’m going to swallow policies based on the opinions of low-information non-voters.
The insights from somebody whose primary contribution to the debate is that Congress and the President should just “git ‘er done!” are probably not all that enlightening. Call me elitist.
That’s fantastic, as long as it was really fabulous. And as long as she paid cash for it, because in my book it’s the worst of all possible offenses against decency to pay for firearms on credit. Don’t ask me why; I’ll just blather you up.
Me too then Squid, I’m with ya, though we might modify our definition of elitists to somehow embrace a meaning that includes a vast number of the marginally competent who choose to take upon themselves some modicum of responsibility for their own politics, no matter that they may turn around to use a match as a source of light to peer down the gasoline filler pipe to determine how much gas remains in the tank.
I think it was a gift from grampa – I never knew him very well before he went out one day in a blizzard to get some air and they found his body later that afternoon but that was just by luck cause a boot was sticking out of the snow. He was the one what tried to beat the gay out of my uncle.
It probably never occurred to him to try praying.
my first job was when i was 4 0r 5 and my uncle earl
who was a stone cold alky would lay in his bed and he built his own stereo system and
he would pay me a nickel [1965 dollars]
to change his albums
but it was a buncha j.p. sousa
so-i’m a lil marcher!
Sousa was all right. If it weren’t for Sousa, Monte Python would have had a less awesome opening song.