Question for Iraq war supporters

[finebead]

First, he made deep cuts in military spending which compromised the very military readiness he needed later.

Not true about Carter decreasing defense spending, see below; and just what did he need "military readiness" for? I had a great fact, but since I don't have 15 posts, I could not post a link to it, but the post shows Carter increased defense spending from 4.7 to 5.2% of GDP during his 4 years in office, and as GDP grows, the spending would have been increasing also.

Second, he applied pressure on the Shan to liberalize his society which only allowed room for Muslim radicals to operate unimpeded and laid the foundation for the Iran/Iraq War that reduced world oil supply--thus increasing world price of oil.

The Shah was an autocratic tyrant in his later years, using his secret police, SAVAK, to torture and terrorize the population into submission. Do you believe that liberalization of that form of govt. was bad?

You recall the first Arab Oil Embargo was in in 1973, over the US support of Israel in the Yom Kipor War, and the price of oil doubled from $3 to $6 a barrel in short order, under Nixon. You can't lay all this on Carter, although there was a second embargo in 78.

And finally, his refusal to consider a military option only until late in the hostage crisis means the students had time to fortify their positions around the hostages and made America appear impotent to the Islamic world.

This makes little sense. You mean the students were armoring the embassy? Do you think anything they could do would stop a properly planned helicopter assault? I believe the hostages had been separated and were being moved around in case of a rescue attempt, even knowing where they were was a problem. Carter was in a tough spot, and any US president would have been also.


These appear to be overly broad assertions based on isolated interpretations of a broad swath of history, that attempt to discredit Carter without consideration of everything else going on at the time.

I find little correlation between the incident cited and the proposed result of that incident, if you look a little closer.

 

[Gunny]

Not true about Carter decreasing defense spending, see below; and just what did he need "military readiness" for? I had a great fact, but since I don't have 15 posts, I could not post a link to it, but the post shows Carter increased defense spending from 4.7 to 5.2% of GDP during his 4 years in office, and as GDP grows, the spending would have been increasing also.


The Shah was an autocratic tyrant in his later years, using his secret police, SAVAK, to torture and terrorize the population into submission. Do you believe that liberalization of that form of govt. was bad?

You recall the first Arab Oil Embargo was in in 1973, over the US support of Israel in the Yom Kipor War, and the price of oil doubled from $3 to $6 a barrel in short order, under Nixon. You can't lay all this on Carter, although there was a second embargo in 78.


This makes little sense. You mean the students were armoring the embassy? Do you think anything they could do would stop a properly planned helicopter assault? I believe the hostages had been separated and were being moved around in case of a rescue attempt, even knowing where they were was a problem. Carter was in a tough spot, and any US president would have been also.


These appear to be overly broad assertions based on isolated interpretations of a broad swath of history, that attempt to discredit Carter without consideration of everything else going on at the time.

I find little correlation between the incident cited and the proposed result of that incident, if you look a little closer.

Are you kidding? I enlisted during the Carter Administration. You had E-3's filling E-5 billets, Marines reenlisting for E-4/E-5 because most untis were at 3/4 strength at best. We we had patched up, duct-taped and bailing-wired weapons and equipment. In my unit, we had to buy our own damned rifle-cleaning gear because the armory had none. We wore leftover Vietnam War cammies and boots, and ate leftover Vietnam War c-rats. And I couldn't afford to do anything BUT live in the barracks and eat at the chow hall, and if you want to know what Hell is, eat at a 1970s-early-80s ear 29 Palms chow hall.

Carter failed the military miserably, period.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you kidding? I enlisted during the Carter Administration. You had E-3's filling E-5 billets, Marines reenlisting for E-4/E-5 because most untis were at 3/4 strength at best. We we had patched up, duct-taped and bailing-wired weapons and equipment. In my unit, we had to buy our own damned rifle-cleaning gear because the armory had none. We wore leftover Vietnam War cammies and boots, and ate leftover Vietnam War c-rats. And I couldn't afford to do anything BUT live in the barracks and eat at the chow hall, and if you want to know what Hell is, eat at a 1970s-early-80s ear 29 Palms chow hall.

Carter failed the military miserably, period.

I joined in 79. even in 81 support Units did not issue rifles to their troops, after Reagan got all the increases that changed. From 88 on even all the support units had assigned weapons with heavy squad weapons per To&E. Hell in 81 it was a battle in support units to qualify on the range as required because of weapon shortages and ammo concerns.

81 may have been Reagan in office but it was still the budgets from Carter.

 

[Gunny]

I joined in 79. even in 81 support Units did not issue rifles to their troops, after Reagan got all the increases that changed. From 88 on even all the support units had assigned weapons with heavy squad weapons per To&E. Hell in 81 it was a battle in support units to qualify on the range as required because of weapon shortages and ammo concerns.

81 may have been Reagan in office but it was still the budgets from Carter.

Yeah, I know. Didn't get paid on time at the ends of FY80 and FY81. After that, we always had a continuing resolution.

 

[finebead]

Are you kidding? I enlisted during the Carter Administration. You had E-3's filling E-5 billets, Marines reenlisting for E-4/E-5 because most untis were at 3/4 strength at best. We we had patched up, duct-taped and bailing-wired weapons and equipment. In my unit, we had to buy our own damned rifle-cleaning gear because the armory had none. We wore leftover Vietnam War cammies and boots, and ate leftover Vietnam War c-rats. And I couldn't afford to do anything BUT live in the barracks and eat at the chow hall, and if you want to know what Hell is, eat at a 1970s-early-80s ear 29 Palms chow hall.

Carter failed the military miserably, period.

What happened in the mircrocosm of your rifle company cannot be used to analyze whether military spending went up or down under Carter. It proves your rifle company was underfunded, and that's all. Money could have been going into skunk works projects for stealth fighters or stealth bombers instead, and your rifle company would know nothing about that. The news item I found, but I can't post a link to because I have less than 15 posts (a poor rule IMO, that should be changed since it is hostile to newbies) stated the defense budget shrunk under Ford after the Vietnam war ended, and Carter raised it as a percent of GDP from 4.7% to 5.2%. Can you find any factual and broad based substantiation that Carter cut military spending?

Contrary to Rosen's contention, statistics from the Office of Management and Budget clearly show that while federal defense spending as a percentage of the GDP did, in fact, decrease following the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, defense spending as a percentage of the GDP increased throughout Carter's presidency -- from 4.7 percent in fiscal year 1979 (October 1, 1978, to September 30, 1979), to 4.9 percent in FY 1980. Congress again increased military spending from 4.9 percent GDP to 5.2 percent GDP from FY 1980 to FY 1981 (the final budget approved during the Carter administration). Over the entire course of Carter's presidency, spending for national defense increased from 4.7 percent GDP to 5.2 percent GDP.

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200701240002

I'm new to this forum, and maybe this one customarily uses casual observation of first hand experience and does not promote research and facts to substantiate opinions. If I'm off base, let me know, maybe this is not the right place for me. I'm looking for a new home to post on.

 

[Dr Grump]

You're not off base. Beat them into submission with facts (they'll squirm and wordsmith to the cows come home, but to us neutrals, we know BS from facts)...eh Gunny..

 

[Gunny]

What happened in the mircrocosm of your rifle company cannot be used to analyze whether military spending went up or down under Carter. It proves your rifle company was underfunded, and that's all. Money could have been going into skunk works projects for stealth fighters or stealth bombers instead, and your rifle company would know nothing about that. The news item I found, but I can't post a link to because I have less than 15 posts (a poor rule IMO, that should be changed since it is hostile to newbies) stated the defense budget shrunk under Ford after the Vietnam war ended, and Carter raised it as a percent of GDP from 4.7% to 5.2%. Can you find any factual and broad based substantiation that Carter cut military spending?

I'm new to this forum, and maybe this one customarily uses casual observation of first hand experience and does not promote research and facts to substantiate opinions. If I'm off base, let me know, maybe this is not the right place for me. I'm looking for a new home to post on.

Dude, the entire Marine Corps was that way. RGS wasn't a grunt and made the same observation. Heard the same thing from my brother who was on the East Coast, right down to rifle cleaning gear.

Substantiating your opinion is fine, but numbers on a piece of paper do not negate the reality on the ground.

Saying that Carter neglected the military is NOT saying Carter cut military spending. And your increase in spending numbers standing alone don't mean much of anything if cost went up twice as much.

Whether or not money was going into (it was the B-1 bomber that Carter bought) special funding for whatever is irrelevant if the result was the rest of the military was neglected, which is my assertion ... not that Carter cut funding. If in fact, that is the case, then those research items should have been funded additionally.

Since the price of everything escalates every year, I'm wise enough to not make a statement like "cut funding" when it's a game of smoke and mirrors, and it doesn't take any research to know that.

As far as the board goes, it's like any other poiltical message board. Some people do their homework, some don't. You're more than welcome to stay if you wish.

While you may feel that the 15 post rule is discriminatory toward newbies, its purpose is to weed out spammers and is quite effective.

 

[Gunny]

You're not off base. Beat them into submission with facts (they'll squirm and wordsmith to the cows come home, but to us neutrals, we know BS from facts)...eh Gunny..

I'd say he's off-base depending on who he is responding to. As already stated, his "facts" do not negate what we were living on the ground. He is merely trying to minimalize my opinion as that of some dumb grunt who can't see past his own little world and such was not the case.

I did not address whether or not Carter cut military spending. I was responded to as if I did.

And hey, if I get a $5. raise and cost of living goes up $10., I still get screwed regardless the smoke and mirrors with the numbers.

 

[jillian]

I'd say he's off-base depending on who he is responding to. As already stated, his "facts" do not negate what we were living on the ground. He is merely trying to minimalize my opinion as that of some dumb grunt who can't see past his own little world and such was not the case.

I did not address whether or not Carter cut military spending. I was responded to as if I did.

And hey, if I get a $5. raise and cost of living goes up $10., I still get screwed regardless the smoke and mirrors with the numbers.

Can we remember this the next time the discussion about the treatment of vets comes up and I say that expenditures on veteran care went down because, given the increase in the numbers of vets needing care, the pro rata piece of the pie dropped for each of them?

 

[Gunny]

Can we remember this the next time the discussion about the treatment of vets comes up and I say that expenditures on veteran care went down because, given the increase in the numbers of vets needing care, the pro rata piece of the pie dropped for each of them?

No. Simply for the reason that you and I have not had that discussion. The only discussion on the topic I have been involved in was that Republicans CUT expenditures for vets. See how that works?

 

[Gunny]

Can we remember this the next time the discussion about the treatment of vets comes up and I say that expenditures on veteran care went down because, given the increase in the numbers of vets needing care, the pro rata piece of the pie dropped for each of them?

BTW ... how much of an increase in VA expenditures were included in THIS latest budget?

 

[jillian]

BTW ... how much of an increase in VA expenditures were included in THIS latest budget?

You mean for AFTER Bush is out of office?

You don't get off that easy... come on.... what's happened to veteran's care on Bush's watch? They getting more or less per veteran NOW?

 

[Gunny]

You mean for AFTER Bush is out of office?

You don't get off that easy... come on.... what's happened to veteran's care on Bush's watch? They getting more or less per veteran NOW?

Nope. I mean right now with the almight Dems running the show.

I'm not trying to get off easy. I've never had the discussion with you before.

But to answer your question, THIS veteran gets more and has gotten an increase each year. Must be screwing somebody else.

 

[finebead]

Dude, the entire Marine Corps was that way. RGS wasn't a grunt and made the same observation. Heard the same thing from my brother who was on the East Coast, right down to rifle cleaning gear.

Substantiating your opinion is fine, but numbers on a piece of paper do not negate the reality on the ground.

Saying that Carter neglected the military is NOT saying Carter cut military spending. And your increase in spending numbers standing alone don't mean much of anything if cost went up twice as much.

Whether or not money was going into (it was the B-1 bomber that Carter bought) special funding for whatever is irrelevant if the result was the rest of the military was neglected, which is my assertion ... not that Carter cut funding. If in fact, that is the case, then those research items should have been funded additionally.

Since the price of everything escalates every year, I'm wise enough to not make a statement like "cut funding" when it's a game of smoke and mirrors, and it doesn't take any research to know that.

As far as the board goes, it's like any other poiltical message board. Some people do their homework, some don't. You're more than welcome to stay if you wish.

While you may feel that the 15 post rule is discriminatory toward newbies, its purpose is to weed out spammers and is quite effective.

I was responding to MasterSgt in posts 103 and 104 on the previous page of this thread, where he said Carter cut defense spending. Gunny has PM'd me and I have sent him a link to the article I found, showing Carter's increase in the defense budget. Thanks Gunny!

 

[Gunny]

I was responding to MasterSgt in posts 103 and 104 on the previous page of this thread, where he said Carter cut defense spending. Gunny has PM'd me and I have sent him a link to the article I found, showing Carter's increase in the defense budget. Thanks Gunny!

LMAO. Okay. That's MasterCHIEF you were responding to. I'm sure he'll LOVE the demotion. You're going to have fun. Two retired Gunnery Sergeants, an Army SgtMaj, Navy MasterChief, Navy Commander, Marine Corps Master Sgt, and few more vets ... gonna have to get your rank structure down.

And here's your link again:

Contrary to Rosen's contention, statistics from the Office of Management and Budget clearly show that while federal defense spending as a percentage of the GDP did, in fact, decrease following the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, defense spending as a percentage of the GDP increased throughout Carter's presidency -- from 4.7 percent in fiscal year 1979 (October 1, 1978, to September 30, 1979), to 4.9 percent in FY 1980. Congress again increased military spending from 4.9 percent GDP to 5.2 percent GDP from FY 1980 to FY 1981 (the final budget approved during the Carter administration). Over the entire course of Carter's presidency, spending for national defense increased from 4.7 percent GDP to 5.2 percent GDP.

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200701240002

 

[CSM]

LMAO. Okay. That's MasterCHIEF you were responding to. I'm sure he'll LOVE the demotion. You're going to have fun. Two retired Gunnery Sergeants, an Army SgtMaj, Navy MasterChief, Navy Commander, Marine Corps Master Sgt, and few more vets ... gonna have to get your rank structure down.

And here's your link again:

Interesting...it went up a total of one half of a percent. Wonder how much inflation went up over the same period? Too lazy yo go look myself.

My story is no different than the other vets who have posted. The reality on the ground was a stark contrast to the propaganda about increased defense spending. I can assure you that when you are supposed to get paid monthly or bi-monthly and it doesn't show up, you are VERY aware of where the money is and why.

 

[jillian]

Nope. I mean right now with the almight Dems running the show.

I'm not trying to get off easy. I've never had the discussion with you before.

But to answer your question, THIS veteran gets more and has gotten an increase each year. Must be screwing somebody else.

Apologies. I know I've discussed the issue, thought you were involved in it.

The budget DID increase with the Dems. The increase you attribute to Bush was passed by the Dem Congress.

My point was that Bush never anticipated or provided for the increased needs of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. And, while you may be lucky enough to have any services you need, that's not true for many, if not most, troops returning from battle.

And to paraphrase CSM's post above, even if there's an increase in funding, what's the increase in need based on the Iraq war and what's the increase in cost based on inflation?

Veterans Waiting for Care and Benefits | Print | Email
updated: June 29, 2007

Summary

More than 1.5 million troops have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 26,000 troops have been wounded in action, and almost 45,000 veterans have been diagnosed with PTSD. Since 2001, 138,000 veterans have received benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

But many of these troops and veterans are being forced to wait months and even years for medical appointments and disability pensions. Some veterans with serious mental health problems have committed suicide while waiting for emergency counseling, and others have fallen into debt awaiting government compensation for their injuries.

A major cause of the delays is the maze of paperwork troops and veterans must navigate to get care or benefits. The Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have separate health care systems and separate disability benefits systems, each with an exceptionally complicated and confusing bureaucracy.

Care and Benefits for Wounded Troops
The medical care offered through the Department of Defense (DOD) is some of the most advanced in the world. But some wounded troops are suffering delays in treatment because the military does not consistently use a digital medical records system. Moreover, troops too wounded to continue their service must chaperone complicated paperwork through an incredibly arduous and confusing process of medical evaluation. Veterans' advocates believe the Army is taking advantage of troops' confusion to lower their disability ratings and save money.

A Difficult Transition from DOD to VA
When these injured troops leave the service, they are transferred to the VA system. Other troops with less acute injuries, like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or hearing loss, also apply to the VA for their care and benefits once they have left the service. Unfortunately, the transition from DOD and VA is far from seamless. Paperwork regularly gets lost in the shuffle, and the transition to a local VA facility can mean a lower standard of care.

Care and Benefits for Veterans
Recent changes to VA eligibility rules have restricted access to VA health care, and contributed to the 1.8 million veterans who lack any health insurance. Once in the VA system, veterans face more delays and bureaucratic hurdles. Tens of thousands of veterans are waiting, sometimes six months or more, for their first primary-care appointment to be scheduled. The backlog is especially severe for veterans seeking mental health treatment. A VA official has admitted that mental health and substance abuse care are "virtually inaccessible." The VA disability benefits system is also massively backlogged. There are over 378,000 pending disability claims, including 83,000 that have been waiting six months or more.

The public outrage over bureaucratic neglect and shoddy conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center shined light on the many problems facing wounded troops and veterans. New commissions have made a wide array of recommendations to resolve these issues, but whether these recommendations will be effectively implemented remains to be seen

http://www.iava.org/component/option,com_/Itemid,66/option,content/task,view/id,2421/

 

[Warner]

Yes, I do. Are you aware that it's always been such? They may be holding onto transmission tapes longer, but the NSA has always had the ability to do such.

The NSA's capability to store such data has increased dramatically in the last 6 years. While they have had the capability to data mine before the PA, it was a crime to do so. Now they can and do analyze and store everything without concern that they are violating the constitution.

Cameras are for the most part a local issue. Not so big in my area of Chicago suburbs, huge in the city, but then again, they are issuing tickets based on them. I disagree with all of the above analysis, with the generalization of GB. As I've got to get going on dinner, I'll have to return to this later. Actually, while he signed it in 2005, it was 8 years in the making.

Camera's in the suburbs are also being monitored and the data is being stored. To an increasing degree the NSA is recording who goes where and developing the means to analyze this data to create travel maps. Again, this is a violation of the constitution which has been enabled by the PA. Within just a few years you will not be able to go anywhere without your movements being tracked.

Bush signs tougher
bankruptcy bill into law
Legislation makes it difficult
for Americans to fully wipe out debts
.​

You seem to be missing my primary point here. I do not have a huge issue with the changes to the bankruptcy laws, though I do feel they go a bit far and are especially designed to favor credit card issuers.

My problem is with the fact that no corresponding changes were made w.r.t. corporate bankruptcy, which is the bigger part of the bankruptcy problem in this country to start with.

Changes in the credit laws have been one sided for the past 25+ years. Penalties for late payments have been stiffened, terms under which higher interest rates can be applied have been weakened, and the cap on interest rates has been increased by OVER 50%.

With this change in the bankruptcy laws the lenders no longer have any incentive to negotiate a reasonable interest rate with a borrower once that borrower has fallen behind for even a short while. Once they have you they have you - they can then charge 30% interest and have no fear you might declare bankruptcy should they fail to offer relief.

Again, it is my belief that the lender bears some of the responsibility when they lend money. It is their responsibility to check the credit worthiness of the borrower and not make substantially more credit available than the borrower has the reasonable means to handle. When they fail to do this they too need to be held accountable for their failure - which happens when they have to explain to the share holders why debts are not being repaid. But now that won't happen except when the borrower is totally ruined and homeless.

We're now just one step away from debtors prisons.

No it didn't, he (Libby) was convicted, the time for deal making was over.

And with the commuting of his sentence it was made clear the Bush administration would protect those who refused to testify or perjured themselves in order to protect the White House from investigation.

I've read the Federalist Papers several times, I teach Constitution. Please site the #'s and the passages. Thanks.

Federalist Paper #69 paragraphs 6 and 9

Article 2 section 2 of the US Constitution

 

[Annie]

The NSA's capability to store such data has increased dramatically in the last 6 years. While they have had the capability to data mine before the PA, it was a crime to do so. Now they can and do analyze and store everything without concern that they are violating the constitution.



Camera's in the suburbs are also being monitored and the data is being stored. To an increasing degree the NSA is recording who goes where and developing the means to analyze this data to create travel maps. Again, this is a violation of the constitution which has been enabled by the PA. Within just a few years you will not be able to go anywhere without your movements being tracked.



You seem to be missing my primary point here. I do not have a huge issue with the changes to the bankruptcy laws, though I do feel they go a bit far and are especially designed to favor credit card issuers.

My problem is with the fact that no corresponding changes were made w.r.t. corporate bankruptcy, which is the bigger part of the bankruptcy problem in this country to start with.

Changes in the credit laws have been one sided for the past 25+ years. Penalties for late payments have been stiffened, terms under which higher interest rates can be applied have been weakened, and the cap on interest rates has been increased by OVER 50%.

With this change in the bankruptcy laws the lenders no longer have any incentive to negotiate a reasonable interest rate with a borrower once that borrower has fallen behind for even a short while. Once they have you they have you - they can then charge 30% interest and have no fear you might declare bankruptcy should they fail to offer relief.

Again, it is my belief that the lender bears some of the responsibility when they lend money. It is their responsibility to check the credit worthiness of the borrower and not make substantially more credit available than the borrower has the reasonable means to handle. When they fail to do this they too need to be held accountable for their failure - which happens when they have to explain to the share holders why debts are not being repaid. But now that won't happen except when the borrower is totally ruined and homeless.

We're now just one step away from debtors prisons.



And with the commuting of his sentence it was made clear the Bush administration would protect those who refused to testify or perjured themselves in order to protect the White House from investigation.



Federalist Paper #69 paragraphs 6 and 9

Article 2 section 2 of the US Constitution

Wow, he has the power of pardons and commutations, which I said. You repeat about impeachment, please what is your point on this?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Last I read Bush did NOT pardon Libby, if that changed can I have a link to it?