Dragginbutt


Please do not take this as a personal attack or a let down. I want to say this first. If it wasn't for men/women such as yourself. We would not have this awesome nation called the United States of America. I do not agree with John Kerry's statements about getting stuck in Iraq. I believe most Americans are getting tired of the same lies and corruption that knows no limits. I personally am sick of the high deficits, political corruption, scams, moral decline, and many more that I care not to list. I have observed many military recruiters that try to entice young people to join the military service on hopes of bigger and better education. The military does train the young people with a wide skill base for service and civilian life afterwards. I do not believe the military people are dumb but highly trained techinicans, skilled labor, computers, tactics, and weapon experts. The real issue here are based on a bunch of broken promises to our young people who aspire for better education. It takes almost an ungodly amount of money to get an education and most young people are already in tons of debt after graduation. We recenlty had a young soldier that joined the service from Arizona. After the soldier's training and transport functions to be shipped off to Iraq immediately only to be killed 10 days later by an IED. The soldier left behind his family and wife. Let me ask you a question. Do you honestly believe those Iraqis give a chit about our troops or our efforts to help them? I am sorry GW Bush is a corrupted politican as well as his close cronies that need to be shown the impeachment door. I find it so applauding how Clinton was impeached by having sexual relations and lying to cover it up. When I look at GW Bush, his crimes go much higher and deeper than Clinton's crimes. I view GW Bush worse than Ford. My whole point....the US Government needs to remember that it works for the People!

 

Think about the NY Times, anyway you want, but they are the nations voice in the daily news. This was in todays editorials


The Difference Two Years Made

Published: November 5, 2006

On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for election, we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory. Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible.

That is why things are different this year.

To begin with, the Republican majority that has run the House ? and for the most part, the Senate ? during President Bush?s tenure has done a terrible job on the basics. Its tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the budget, hobbled the middle class and endangered the long-term economy. It has refused to face up to global warming and done pathetically little about the country?s dependence on foreign oil.

Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too long in power. They methodically shut the opposition ? and even the more moderate members of their own party ? out of any role in the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be self-perpetuation.

The current Republican majority managed to achieve that burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards. It was bad enough that a party that used to believe in fiscal austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It is worse that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed their campaigns and high-end lifestyles.

That was already the situation in 2004, and even then this page endorsed Republicans who had shown a high commitment to ethics reform and a willingness to buck their party on important issues like the environment, civil liberties and women?s rights.

For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans? attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints on the president?s ability to do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans feel you don?t need to have oversight hearings if your party is in control of everything.

An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.

Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American contractors who have botched everything from construction work to the security of weapons.

After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guant?namo Bay, Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House, Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though many of them were clearly sent there in error.

In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful of Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation for moderation to paper over the fact that the bill violates the Constitution in fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the president?s campaign to dilute their own authority, lawmakers used this bill to further Mr. Bush?s goal of stripping the powers of the only remaining independent branch, the judiciary.

This election is indeed about George W. Bush ? and the Congressional majority?s insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.

 

Again I am confused about your information sources. The military has NOT accepted anyone without a HS diploma for years now. As a former Drill instructor, I can also say that there are tight reins on what recruiters can say and promise to recruits. I remember quite a few that found themselves without a job when they crossed the line. Sure it may happen, but there are checks and balances. Your material sounds like it came from the Viet Nam era... things have changed drastically.
Again also, like I said, these kids are definately NOT overpaid. An E-1 makes chump change. Unless of course you figure in the food stamps they qualify for.
I agree with you on one point though... A lot of promises of benefits made when I enlisted have been eroded by congress over the years. I also agree that there is a lot of graft and waste in government. It all comes from the top. One of the reasons I have remained a consultant, and not become a federal worker. But my argument here is I do not think your views on the military enlisted serviceman is valid. Nor do I believe your opinions were gained from personal experience. You almost have to walk in their shoes to gain an appreciation for what they do, and why they do it.

 

I also believe that we are in this mess for a couple of reasons. First, the US has totally dropped the ball when it comes to diplomacy. Instead of working with nations, we tend to try and create the world in our own image. With little or no regard to history, or culture etc. We appear arrogant to most nations. For the past two decades, we have tried to make believe that the world needs us... they don't.
Secondly, we conveniently resort to big sticks rather than engaging in dialog.
This administration borders on insanity. And for this reason, for the first time in my adult life, I actually fear for our country. Two years to go... I hope whoever takes the reins has the common sense to wake up and smell the roses and figure out how to solve issues without resorting to the big stick mentality.

 

Well said , and i agree.

 

One last thing for Georged. In my time served, I found the majority of persons enlisting in our military to be highly motivated. You would be surprised to discover that most enlisted persons either have at least one degree, or are actively pursuing one, as it is almost a prerequisite these days if you wish to gain promotion. Many possess their masters, and a few doctorates are out there too. They are not lazy by any means, and they are not the dregs of society that you suggest they are. On the contrary, they are exactly the opposite. Where the mercenary force comment came from totally baffles me. They serve where they are told to serve. They stand up to be counted when asked. They bleed, they die so those of us sleeping in our beds tonight can do so in relative safety. They know the risks... AND STILL THEY COME. Not to become killers... not to get a thrill... but to make sure that their children and grandchildren do not have to...

 

Your experience seems to differ from DoD statistics. Perhaps you were thinking of officers. In the officer category 95% have formal degrees, mustangs promoted from enlisted ranks being the remaining 5%. Master and doctorate degrees for officers are, as they've always been, encouraged for promising career officers using detached duty.

For enlisted ranks DoD does not list college degrees for any service but does include college experience, that being defined as two years of accredited completion. As in civilian life, DoD does not consider the junior college associate degree a formal college degree.

For the Army, the bulk of enlisted military deployed to Iraq, that number is 10.7% of ALL enlisted personnel including lifers having completed at least two years of college level classes. As a bench mark comparison, 56.2% of civilians 18-42 achieved that level of higher education.

My post was not intended to infer enlisted military personnel are lesser quality people. I was making a point, not original, that US high school grads with no intent to continue their education for reasons of lack of scholastic ability and/or disadvantaged socioeconomic circumstances are now being recruited into the volunteer military based on income and benefit offerings exceeding available opportunities in the private sector.

Reiterated, the purpose of exceeding market value with that higher level of compensation services two goals:

1. Avoidance of military service by the upper tier of society and their children by elimination of conscription.

2. Plenty of cannon fodder for an unpopular war (Iraq) where the general public would have eventually rejected conscription, forcing early political leadership change. Politicians learned their lessons regarding conscription in wars of US aggression, Vietnam in particular.

Mercenary is defined as one who serves or works for monetary gain. The text of a recruitment presentation at our local high school was published in our local, conservative newspaper. The bulk of that recruitment effort was directed at describing advantages of military service over local offerings at the one remaining wood products mill ($8/hr entry wage, no benefits) and service industry work, same pay/benefits. No combat circumstances were presented, but according to the paper the multi-media portion of the presentation depicted every military job including truck drivers as resembling a movie top gun image. Patriotism was limited to lots of flags and serve your country emphasized by pay/benefits/time off/educational opportunities. And that's reported by a small town, conservative newspaper supporting primarily Republicans in a county with 60% registered Republican voters. I wonder what inner-city high schools are presented.

I do understand your patriotic post and thank you for your service. Things have changed.

 

dang you could write a flippn book!!![img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

 

Worst Congress ever...hmmm. Could be, but major problems in this country today are the causes of actions by past Congresses. I agree with Dragginbutt that we are not getting good candidates. A political science professor from UW--Madison made a similar point on public radio a few weeks ago. When asked to speculate on presidential candidates that are now emerging, he responded that none so far are "true leaders" like an FDR, JFK or Ronald Reagan. It's been a long time since a presidential candidate fit that mold.

It seems to me that we are increasingly governed by political hacks who put party politics ahead of what's best for the country. Voters are the same way. I know highly educated people who would vote for Osama bin Laden if he ran on their party's ticket.

 

Well said. Welcome to a declining empire.