Thread: Dishonorable discharge

Originally Posted by Blackgold1967

The only information we have as civilians is fed to us by a media driven by a need to sell ads and politicians with their own personal vendettas or agendas. It's been that way since our country began. Yellow journalism and political agendas are a given.

Regarding 'classified information' leaks....it's easy for us fat asses to sit in homes and arm chair quarterback life threatening situations without 'classified information'. The military doesn't run this country....the goof ball presidents do with little restraint from the other two branches of our government.

It bugs me that we have allowed our system to be subtley co-opted over time to where the president can get us in a full blown war (I'm not talking about spec ops/covert ops) without public congressional approval and a budget. Ridiculous breech of the constitution.

Regardless of party affiliation the executive branch of our government has garnered way too much authority and power over the years. It's been a creeping crud that congress and the supreme court have allowed.

What war didn't have congressional approval? I think your mistaken on that point blackgold.

Originally Posted by Blackgold1967

My memory is weak on specifics...so I am certainly capable of being wrong...thank you for your kind retort.

It's my understanding that the president has authority to put us at war for 90 days without public congressional approval or declaration of war. I believe there have been congressional committee reviews to build consensus. I think it's too much authority for one man which is why congress should have to approve them as a declared war....unlike many of the 'long term engagements' like Vietnam, Korea and now Afganistan. No doubt the president should have authority for quick, short term engagements. I see the necessity of that.

I don't understand all the budget stuff but I'm pretty darn sure I read in several places over time that we failed to budget for the 'extended engagements' in the middle east. I would guess that is a decent portion of our budget shortfalls. Frankly the numbers are so huge it's difficult to fathom what's a part of what.....

Side comment: I just got through reading a great U.S. history book that does a pretty decent job without injecting a whole bunch of nonesense when describing the evolution of our government and country. It's the first right of center U.S. history book I've ever seen (and I'm old) in that the vast majority of historians are revisionists and bluntly put....liberals. A hundred years ago I went to college to be a high school history teacher and still enjoy reading history.

Hence the comments about 'too much authority' in the executive branch.

A common mistake people make. The president has the power to place us in harms way for 90 days using only the Marine Corps. Before the 90 days expire there must be a congressional vote to either engauge our armed forces or withdraw the Marine Corps.

Our military budget is huge and i doubt any one any where would say other wise. That being said that budget does so much more then just buy weapons and pay troops. Our presence alone in foriegn countries keeps peace. Our abilty to deploy any where in under 72 hours keeps peace.

If we fixed our budget shortfalls by bringing all over our troops back to the US its likely chaos would spring out in multiple areas. Other countries love to hate on us (and some people here) for sticking our nose where it "doesn't belong" but have they thought about what happens when we dont stick our nose in? Have they considered what happens to people when we wait to long?

Dont get me wrong its a good cop out excuse but it really solves nothing. Cutting military budget would only hurt those that live in this country because the bulk of that money used for jobs and equipment go to people HERE. Its precisely why up to our resent wars the statement "War is good for the economy" came into play because it truly was. A much more effective way to fix our economy is start actually making our day to day shit here. Thats what we lost.

That´s a weak argument. I could say I employ 15,000 farmers working my land growing Coca and Marijuana crops...and another 15,000 in my cocaine and derivatives labs...hey, I´m employing 30,000 people...it´s good for the economy right?

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

That´s a weak argument. I could say I employ 15,000 farmers working my land growing Coca and Marijuana crops...and another 15,000 in my cocaine and derivatives labs...hey, I´m employing 30,000 people...it´s good for the economy right?

In a third world country sure you could say that but do it here and you all go to jail.

Seriously though the government employs a whole lot of people. How many of those would get laid off by bringing our troops home and cutting the defense budget in half? Sure doesn't seem like a bright idea to me in the economies current state. Actually doesn't seem like a good idea at all for military personel but we could stand to lose some TSA and Home land security. Realistically they haven't really done a damn thing any way but i would still wait until we have gotten over the hump on this thing to take action.

But after all that the two jobs discussed really dont compare.

The wife just told me to watch this after she asked what we were talking about. I guess she watched it over the weekend and said it was pretty good and aligns with what im saying if we cut our military budget and pull troops back home. Gonna have to give it a go. Sounds like someone else is preety smart.

The World Without USA.: Pay-Per-View only $2.99. The World Without US a documentary by Mitch Anderson and Jason J. Tomaric


I should mention she watched it on netflix.

Both jobs are harmful to societies around the world. That´s the parallel I´m drawing between the two. You can make a case against my opinion in both examples. You´re still going to be wrong (I know you´ll only try to make a case for the military, but you´re still wrong anyway).

In all seriousness though, all that manpower and resources that the military has and gets could be allocated for a good cause instead of the usual skirmish every now and then.