Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes it certainly does. If you do not think it does, state your case. Simple as that.
The push towards privatizations remains the idea of a band of bumbling civilian and military individuals who sold the idea of the "all volunteer" army to the government as way to shed a few layers of skin.
What it really was, was a giant rip-off.
Private armies are very much a part of the armed effort of the United States. No matter what you think, when most Iraqis see a convoy carrying the insignia of Blackwater corp, they do not differentiate. They are still American to the Iraqi eyes and they are here because Washington sent them to Iraq and they are part of the war effort wroguht on Iraqi by the Americans.
These private armies are run and owned by high ranking civilian and military guys who saw the potential to make billions by fleecing US taxpayers. They had all the right friends, and all the right connections.
Like I said, private armies are very much a part of the "all volunteer" model whether you like it or not.
Wow.
I wish you had bothered to read the article. Your post has nothing to do with the claims made in the article especially the part about "Remember our troops are taught to be soldiers not accountants."
Read the article.
Actually, I did and the point was that if there is anyone screwed up in this mess it's the Government Accounting Office. It's like the kettle calling the pot black. If you want to find something wrong that anyone is doing just start looking at their finances. They'll be so messed up you can interpret or twist them any way you want. That's why anytime I hear something about how some governmental agencies books aren't balancing I have to laugh.
Actually, I did and the point was that if there is anyone screwed up in this mess it's the Government Accounting Office.
Yeah TGS, just do what you best....ignore the people that prove you wrong. Since you're still in college, I'll give you some advice. You gripe and complain about others not discussing things rationally, yet, you double the irrationality of this board. Not only have you been proven wrong on numerous occasions, but you refuse to admit it. When you are proven wrong,your first inclination is to start calling people liears, then you just start ignoring posts after they put you in your place. If you really want to be as smart as you believe you are, start learning how to frickin interpret information correctly, and don't sit there and act like you're more intelligent than everyone else. No one likes a "know-it-all", especially one that acts like a "know-it-all" but really doesn't know jack. The problem you have is letting your biased emotion dictate what you find. IMO, you're someone who already has his mind made up, but is looking for information that will lead to a desired result, while casting all other information aside. You may think I'm some kind of internet personality (which is typically your only defense most of the time--and not to mention your right to have an opinion) but before you go around throwing blind accusations, ask yourself if there's any credentials you bring to the table? Degrees? Certifications? ???
By the way, your rep is really low, which doesn't mean that people don't like you. It means that they obviously know that you're full of crap 99% of the time.
Try sticking to the issue instead of obsessing over me.
I've stuck to the issue several times, and you've chosen to ignore it. You chastise everyone else in here about their intellectual abilities and you still fail to acknowledge your own intellectual faults. Instead of posting a nice long message debating my position, you've chosen to type a 10-word statement that really shows your own ignorance.
For the record, I'm not obsessed with you, I'm obsessed with making you look like an ass. Of course it's not that hard.....
Oh and BTW, nice dodge again.
My points remain astonishingly clear and so does the source.
Find fault with the GAO conclusions or do not. Highlight their legitimate points or do not. Provide a report with equal or greater prestige then the general accounting office, or do not. Substantiate your claim that an all volunteer army "functions" more efficiently than its opposite or does not.
Typing how you "owned" me or about "loving to kick my ass, or make me look like an ass" reveals a side the keen observer can only characterize as bizarre.
No rational being would ever level akward proclamations of victory towards the person whom one engages in conversation.
It is coarse and it is queer.
And how do you think the GAO screwed up?
Try sticking to the issue instead of obsessing over me.
You would have to have some first hand experience I suppose but let's try by looking at our tax laws, as an example. Now they don't have anything to do with it but they have grown in the same manner. The sets of rules (please note: plural) surrounding how they conduct themselves and others makes our tax laws look like a comic book. The politicians have had their hands in the GAO's inner workings for so long there is very little left that follows a course of normal rational thought.
I've done projects for state and federal governments. When you price work for the federal government you have to include lots and lots of time for accounting and finance. It's not a simple "I do the work and bill you for the hours" deal. There are overhead issues, which is huge!! Unbelievable!! Expenses? I wouldn't know where to begin. Rates? You'd think that was pretty cut and dry? Hah! Then you have subcontractors??? These are not just your usual subs, NO, they have be minority owned, women owned, disabled, disadvantaged, native american, etc. The list is endless and they have to get a very specific percentage and, of course, they have to also follow all the rules and you have to make sure they do.
I would charge the feds easily three times what I'd charge a state agency to do the same thing just to cover all the unknowns related to keeping the books straight. And it is a BIG unknown. Remember the $300 wrenches?
The states can get crazy too, but nothing close to the feds, although California and New York are trying very hard.
Your post is a winded rant. Very boring, contrived and unappealing.
You are talking absolute nonsense having nothing to do with the pointed claims made the by GAO.
If you do not think the claims are legitimate, then say so and adequately explain why.
Still waiting for anyone to address the claims made by the GAO.
Duh...ok.
From the head of the GAO:
Comptroller General David Walker, who heads the GAO, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday that "the least progress has been made on the political front." Fifteen of 37 cabinet ministers have "withdrawn support" for the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and serious problems remain in other ministries, Walker said.
The most failure is at the POLITICAL level...(Nothing to do with the Military.)
It says the miltary has failed to reach 2 of the 9 goals....wow...that's an overwhelming failure.
And I forgot to ask....since your against the war in Iraq so much (which is obviously driving your opinions of the military) how is it that the "failure" in Iraq applies to the military in Germany, Japan, U.S., Phillipines, Korea, and other nations??? You seem to be taking downfalls of one military conflict, and applying it to the entire armed forces.........you seem to possess Larkinn's aspirations of generalizations.
What a giant dog-turd you are.....(Shemptard)
As far as the actual topic goes....I've stated the fualts of your conclusion numerous times....
1.) The military does not make financial decisions in regards to limitations of their budget.
2.) The military does not make decisions on where they are to wage wars.
3.) The military does not enact legislation or policy with regards to where their funding comes from.
4. The military does not enact legislation or policy with regards to privately operated armies such as Blackwater and other mercanries.
5. The military has nothing to do with foreign policy or anything enacted there of.
The GAO's claims are brutally clear and none have anything to do with whatever the hell you posted above. A usual, you're arguing a position I have never challenged.
Well sir, since you cannot read worth a damn, let me spell it out for you.
The GAO claims the safeguards put in place to prevent such wanton theft and corruption were deliberately circumvented. You have not commented on this issue - the core issue of the article - because you are too busy inventing straw man arguments and obsessing over me.
Contrary to whatever runs through that lizard brain of yours, military men absolutely have a lot to with financial decisions.
Military men absolutely make decisions on where and when to wage wars.
Military men absolutely disproportionately influence legislation and policy directly concerning budgetary issues and private armies.
Military men have a hell of a lot to do with foreign policy as well.
Everything you stated in the above post is actually the opposite of what remains emblematic of the comings and goings of the real world.
The All volunteer model has been a disaster for the military and more importantly for the United States.
There existed and still exist a group of military and civilian men with direct and indirect stakes in firms like Blackwater pimping the modern AVA model and the outsourcing of jobs. They said "Don't worry Rummy, 125,000 troops will be enough!"
But it wasn't enough, not even close. Instead, the taxpayers got hosed, the "right" people got all the fat contracts and the military and the country remain mired in a crappy desert.
The United States sacrificed too much of its prestige for a military model that remains more of a liability than a strength.
This is essentially speaks to what the "all volunteer army" is really about: a giant ripoff masquerading as a patriotic and legitimate organizational push to transform the military. And the most culpable are certain high ranking military men and their civilian counterparts who've elected to hijack the military with the "all-volunteer army" bullshit.
Consequently, you may think I carry an extreme view but I do not. Discussion concerning the negatives of the all volunteer army remains frequently mentioned among military academic circles. It is not a new or fresh topic.
In fact, published papers from military academics addressing this very topic can be found.
I don't even think you knew such academic papers discussing this topic existed. Thats how uninformed you remain and thats how willingly you suffer to play the court jester.
Why bother to do the research? Why tinker with the fascinating or wrestle with the significant when its so much easier to type "I powned you" and relish the role of a clown.
The GAO's claims are brutally clear and none have anything to do with whatever the hell you posted above. As usual, you're arguing a position I have never challenged.
Well sir, since you cannot read worth a damn, let me spell it out for you.
The GAO claims the safeguards put in place to prevent such wanton theft and corruption were deliberately circumvented. You have not commented on this issue - the core issue of the article - because you are too busy inventing straw man arguments and obsessing over me.
Contrary to whatever runs through that lizard brain of yours, military men absolutely have a lot to with financial decisions.
Military men absolutely make decisions on where and when to wage wars.
Military men absolutely disproportionately influence legislation and policy directly concerning budgetary issues and private armies.
Military men have a hell of a lot to do with foreign policy as well.
Everything you stated in the above post is actually the opposite of what remains emblematic of the comings and goings of the real world.
The All volunteer model has been a disaster for the military and more importantly for the United States.
There existed, and still exist a group of military and civilian men with direct and indirect stakes in firms like Blackwater pimping the modern AVA model and the outsourcing of jobs. They said "Don't worry Rummy, 125,000 troops will be enough!"
But it wasn't enough, not even close.
Instead, the taxpayers got hosed, the "right" people got all the fat contracts and the military and the country remain mired in a crappy desert.
The United States sacrificed too much of its prestige for a military model that remains more of a liability than a strength.
This essentially speaks to what the "all volunteer army" is really about: a giant ripoff masquerading as a patriotic and legitimate organizational push to transform the military. And the most culpable are certain high ranking military men and their civilian counterparts who've elected to hijack the military with the "all-volunteer army" bullshit.
Consequently, you may think I carry an extreme view but I do not. Discussion concerning the negatives of the all volunteer army remains frequently mentioned among military academic circles. It is not a new or fresh topic.
In fact, published papers from military academics addressing this very topic can be found.
I don't even think you knew such academic papers discussing this topic existed. Thats how uninformed you remain and thats how willingly you suffer to play the court jester.
Why bother to do the research? Why tinker with the fascinating or wrestle with the significant when its so much easier to type "I powned you" and relish the role of a clown.