[slomojoe]

So where did all the money Peanut Head sent to the military go? And was it the US Military or Iran? All's that tells me is we got NO BANG FOR THE BUCK! He wasted it. Because the military was in worse shape afterwards.

You forget September 11, 2001. We went into a downturn after that. The tax cuts did spur back the economy though. Military spending had to increase. Clinton didn't do his job. If he did 9-11 would have never happened. We were and still are at war.

You are going to need a chiropractor after all these contortions, my friend.

The simple truth is that the military was not in such a bad shape as you make it after Carter (it was mostly the failed rescue operation in Iran which gave that impression), and that the build-up that occurred under Reagan (at least the part that was not squandered in the Star Wars fantasy) may have helped hasten the demise of the Soviet Union (though some historians and post-Soviet Russian sources disagree on this), but hardly brought us either any international stability or much "bang for the buck", since it was designed for a type of military confrontation (against a nuclear superpower) that we have not encountered since and are unlikely to encounter in the future. We have silos full of Reagan era nuclear missiles that will just keep rusting away.

As far as 9/11 is concerned, Clinton of course was the one who got closest to getting bin Laden in 1998 when he bombed his training camp in Afghanistan (and was accused of "wagging the dog" by Republicans), and of course it wasn't on Clinton's desk that the memo about a likely imminent strike by al Qaeda on US soil showed up in 2001. To be honest, however, although one can apportion partial blame for 9/11 quite generously, all the way back to the CIA support for the Afghanistan jihad against the Soviets in the 1980s, the truth of the matter is, terrorists are slippery and unpredictable, and if they are committed to hit you, they will find a way. We just have to give up on the illusion that aggressive militarism and our relinquishment of our basic freedoms can keep us safe.

[navcom]

The simple truth is that the military was not in such a bad shape as you make it after Carter (it was mostly the failed rescue operation in Iran which gave that impression), and that the build-up that occurred under Reagan (at least the part that was not squandered in the Star Wars fantasy) may have helped hasten the demise of the Soviet Union....

On this I have some experience. The military was in rough shape in the late 70's. Of this there is no doubt. It had a huge morale problem following the Vietnam War and the leadership, starting at the top with Ford and Carter, did not address it. Many of the political policies contributed to it. As far as funding goes, it was squandered as was said. There was a lack of direction. There was no real plan. We were still trying to figure out how to move forward after 10+ years in southeast asia.

On the "star wars" issue, you are totally wrong. I worked in the defense industry for years. The technology that came from the strategic defense initiative was invaluable. In part, it gave us missle defense systems such as the phase one Patriot missle system and tons of targeting and guidance systems we now take for granted...systems that separate us from everyone else. It also gave us advanced technologies such as the YAL-A airborne laser system. It was the media the spun that whole thing as a joke and you are buying into it. It was far from a joke. I have first-hand experience with former Russian engineers who said it was just the threat of SDI that had them scared. They knew we could afford to do it...they couldn't. It didn't happen overnight, but then getting to the moon didn't either.

It's interesting in your posts that you seem to criticize those who only have faith in the "right" while at the same time seemingly doing the same thing to your side, the left...paroting talking points. BOTH have made mistakes and continue to do so.

In fairness, everything cannot be laid at the feet of Carter for what happened in the late 70's. We were coming off the Vietnam War and the oil embargo, which all began before his term and the impact of such things takes years to be fully felt. The deficit of the 80's cannot be totally laid at the feet of Reagan. He had a Democratically-controlled Congress to deal with and was also dealing with things set in motion long before he showed up. A president just doesn't have that kind of power and rightly so. Congress and the many layers of governmental organizations have much more control over these matters. Plus, since it is very, very hard to link a particular policy change to a change in the economy, both sides can claim victory or shove blame at the feet of their political opponents for just about any policy. Statistics are legion as are explanations for them. Unfortunately the size of government is also legion, which makes it almost impossible to sift through the beuracracy to find the truth.

As far as the idea that we can give away our freedoms to remain safe, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[slomojoe]

On the "star wars" issue, you are totally wrong. I worked in the defense industry for years. The technology that came from the strategic defense initiative was invaluable. In part, it gave us missle defense systems such as the phase one Patriot missle system and tons of targeting and guidance systems we now take for granted...systems that separate us from everyone else. It also gave us advanced technologies such as the YAL-A airborne laser system.

Oh, far from me to argue that government investment in research and technology is a waste. In fact, I pretty much make a living off it.

The SDI was a joke not because it had no returns in terms of new technologies, jobs created, training etc (of course it did) but because it was based on a false strategic premise, and was a technological fantasy from the start. It still is widely recognized as unworkable to any reasonable level of reliability now, with a technology far more advanced than what we had 25 years ago, and most agree that it won't work for the foreseeable future, no matter how much money we would like to pour into it (and GW Bush himslef backed off the plans when he realized hiow wasteful they'd be vis-avis more pressing and realistic military research goals). It was an unachievable goal with purely political-propagandistic value.

As for the Russian scientists' reaction to SDI, their reaction was actually the same skepticism that US scientists had. In the mid-80's, they even published a report on (against) nuclear proliferation in which they made the point that space-based missile defense systems would not be feasible in any close timeframe (this may not have had much play in the US, but I was in Italy at the time and people were aware of it). This was confirmed by first-person accounts after the fall of the USSR. However, the Russian political leaders pretty much panicked, and made it a centerpiece in their diplomatic efforts, as well as poured money into similar research in the Soviet Union.

[navcom]

Oh, far from me to argue that government investment in research and technology is a waste. In fact, I pretty much make a living off it.

The SDI was a joke not because it had no returns in terms of new technologies, jobs created, training etc (of course it did) but because it was based on a false strategic premise, and was a technological fantasy from the start. It still is widely recognized as unworkable to any reasonable level of reliability now, with a technology far more advanced than what we had 25 years ago, and most agree that it won't work for the foreseeable future, no matter how much money we would like to pour into it (and GW Bush himslef backed off the plans when he realized hiow wasteful they'd be vis-avis more pressing and realistic military research goals). It was an unachievable goal with purely political-propagandistic value.

As for the Russian scientists' reaction to SDI, their reaction was actually the same skepticism that US scientists had. In the mid-80's, they even published a report on (against) nuclear proliferation in which they made the point that space-based missile defense systems would not be feasible in any close timeframe (this may not have had much play in the US, but I was in Italy at the time and people were aware of it). This was confirmed by first-person accounts after the fall of the USSR. However, the Russian political leaders pretty much panicked, and made it a centerpiece in their diplomatic efforts, as well as poured money into similar research in the Soviet Union.

We could go tit for tat forever over these issues. The fact is we have different points of view and different experiences. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I see SDI as having had countless benefits...initially politically...long term strategically. I would agree it was a huge pricetag. I would be the first to admint that ANY government spending will always include tons of waste...including military spending. Government has no competitive mechanism to control costs as they have no competition. In the long run, the private sector, when left alone to succeed or fail on their own merits, can almost always do it better and cheaper. But military spending is a legitimate government expense to me as a conservative...just as is providing the federal court system and making trade agreements on behalf of the states among others.

I detest war. It is the biggest waste of all. But I am also not so niave as to think that we do not need to be prepared for those who do not hold that view. I think most people on both sides of the isle agree with that. That is why I thought SDI was a good strategy. It is better to make your enemy believe that any attack will be futile. In the long run, it is much cheaper, both in treasure and more importantly in lives. A war with the Soviet Union would have been much more costly and an entire generation on both sides would have been wasted.

[slomojoe]

That is why I thought SDI was a good strategy. It is better to make your enemy believe that any attack will be futile. In the long run, it is much cheaper, both in treasure and more importantly in lives. A war with the Soviet Union would have been much more costly and an entire generation on both sides would have been wasted.

But Reagan did not say: we have this weapon and now you can't hit us. He said: we are building this weapon and when we have it, you won't be able to hit us. The outcome of that could have been one of the following:

a) if the soviets were just crazy mofos, they could have attacked us before SDI was in place, taking their chances to avoid being stuck in an inferior position
or
b) if the soviets were tough guys, they would have tried building their own SDI, possibly succeeding before us (though this was unlikely),
or
c) if the soviets were reasonable, or chicken, or hopelessly under-equipped technologically, they could have simply given up one way or another.

Reagan was probably fairly sure that b) was not the case, and gambled the world (literally) that a) would not happen. It was a winning gamble, but a gamble nonetheless, and with a horrible downside.

[navcom]

But Reagan did not say: we have this weapon and now you can't hit us. He said: we are building this weapon and when we have it, you won't be able to hit us. The outcome of that could have been one of the following:

a) if the soviets were just crazy mofos, they could have attacked us before SDI was in place, taking their chances to avoid being stuck in an inferior position
or
b) if the soviets were tough guys, they would have tried building their own SDI, possibly succeeding before us (though this was unlikely),
or
c) if the soviets were reasonable, or chicken, or hopelessly under-equipped technologically, they could have simply given up one way or another.

Reagan was probably fairly sure that b) was not the case, and gambled the world (literally) that a) would not happen. It was a winning gamble, but a gamble nonetheless, and with a horrible downside.

The Soviets were trying to build their own, though different than the way we approached it. The Soviets knew we didn't have one and our government knew that. It was just the threat of it that caused the stir. As I said, the Soviets knew we could afford it before they could. It was one of the straws that broke the financial back of the Soviets.

We knew the Soveits were not crazy "mofos". We are not idiots nor were they. We both lived under the premise of mutually assured destruction. In order to maintain the strength they had for so long required some military discipline and stability after all. And because of the long-lived cold war, we knew each other almost intimately.

Our government knew their strengths and weaknesses, and they knew ours. They were are adversary for 50 odd years. We fought them in Korea (we knew their pilots and advisors were there) and it didn't evolve into a nuclear war. We fought them in Vietnam (we knew they were there) and it didn't evolve into a nuclear war. And they backed down in the Cuban missile crisis as well (might I remind you was a Democrats dangerous bluff that brought us closer to nuke lighting than any other president). If Reagan would have done that, he would be called a war monger)...because neither of us were idiots. With this in mind, SDI was proposed. It wasn't proposed as a blind poker hand. Of all your options, the only one that was a real gamble would be that they would beat us to technology. That was highly unlikely considering the circumstances.

I worked in the aerospace air data research field for many years. I remember receiving a box of Russian military aircraft air data parts around 1990 or so. I was to see if there was anything we could learn from them. What I found was almost shocking, even though we had suspected it for a long time. All the parts looked almost identical to ours on the outside, but internally, they were much more primitive. In other words, they were copying our designs from pictures they were able to aquire, but they only had a very limited knowledge about what was inside that made them work, so they adapted. Some of the parts didn't even remotely do what our version did.

Knowing this (and if I knew it, our military certainly did long before), I don't think there was a real danger they would aquire something we could barely aquire ourselves...which may be why it was proposed to begin with. We knew that. What we did do was force them into panic mode, in a way. They needed to get ahead of us and many times they cut corners to do it. And with the knowledge we received from SDI, it catapulted us light years ahead.

The Soviets were not dummies. They have (and still do) some of the best scientific minds in the world. Some of the aircraft designs they have come up with rival anything we have. And they did it in a system that really hampered their progress.

How can you be so sure that there wasn't/isn't some form of SDI? You can't be 100% sure of that. Neither can I. Even throughout the cold war you knew that neither side would fire first. It was basically a bunch of chest thumping and posturing. Both sides knew that "pushing the button" would be futile for both sides. Neither could win. And yes, I do remember the air raid drills in school. And hiding under a desk. As if that would help.
As to war, it seems that after WWII this country lost its fortitude to succeed. We lost Korea and Nam because of the mamby pambys. The girlie boys in this country. We needed to strike hard, strike fast. And we failed. We haven't won since WWII.

And although I side with my Italian heritage, mostly, I thank God that my Grandparents on my father's side escaped the country club USSR

[JavaJoe]

Need to watch them Soviets

[Blue]

Considering that all key national economic positions (Treasury sec, chief economic advisor, FRB chairman and now Commerce secretary) are filled, I am not sure what you now think Granholm will be appointed to, that will allow here to "oversee the national economy" (as if any such position even existed in the US government).

In fact, Obama's current top economic team is somewhere to the right of Clinton's (one republican senator, one Bush appointee, one independent who was a registered republican for most of his life, and one pro-business democrat). I am afraid you'll have to look elsewhere to find a reason to panic at the coming socialist takeover.

Commerce Secretary is NOT filled. Judd Gregg backed out because of the Spending Bill and the fact that Rham Emanuel will be allowed to set up Barry-manders during the next Census. That's what we need setting up new congressional districts, a Chicago Politician(s) that are in the tank and or owned by ACORN.

[Blue]

You'all don't need to cut your defense spending, you need to cut your offense spending.
Just a thought.

We don't have that much of an offense anymore. That was one of the glaring weakness that showed during Iraq. We have had to rely to much on our Nat. Guard and Reserve units. If you are using your reserve units on the offensive, where is your reserve?

[Blue]

The US is basically bankrupt.
It will have to print more money to pay for the infrastructure spending needed to absorb the swelling ranks of the unemployed. Doing nothing is not an option. Invariably spiraling inflation will rear its ugly head and if not managed well the US dollar will be all but worthless (like some banana republic). Nationalizing the banks is the only way to compel the banks to restart the credit markets instead of preserving their capital and paying their senior management obscene amounts for poor performance, the hallmark of US corporate greed.

And we are getting ready to take out another trillion dollar loan from the Chi-Coms. Most people don't have a concept how much a trillion dollars is.

[Blue]

Glad to see you have come to the realization that increased spending is actually needed when the economy is in a downturn. Of course, the economy in 1981 was not half as bad as it is now, so I am sure you will now warmly support Obama's stimulus bill. Or is spending only absolutely needed when it is Republicans who want to do it?

I guess you forgot the 21% interest rates etc.

[Blue]

And he has a tax evader for head of treasury (IRS) D.C. is just moving to Cook's County that's all.

But then again Florida's Lt. Gov. has to repay for airfare for his family. Doesn't seem like it matters R or D they're all crooks.

Elect GraphicGr8s for Czar of the world. A Cadillac in every driveway. Even Australia. All paid for by the rich. (Bet you didn't know if you made a dollar a year, you're rich)

Don't forget that Charlie Crist has similar issues that Richards is facing in NM. I'd like to see Mel Martinez run against him in the next Gubernatorial election. Ever wonder why the call it Guber-natorial?

[slomojoe]

And we are getting ready to take out another trillion dollar loan from the Chi-Coms. Most people don't have a concept how much a trillion dollars is.

Hey, wait, I know!

One trillion dollars is:

- less than Bush's 2001 $1.2 trillion tax cut, the vast majority of which went to the top 1% of taxpayers and corporations.
- less than the $1.5 trillion estimated final direct costs of Bush's wars.
- less than the $3 trillion estimated total economic cost of the same wars.
- less than the loss in total stock value on a single day, September 29, 2008 ($1.2 trillions)
- MUCH less than the total value of stock capitalization lost throughout 2008 ($7 trillions).

Just to give folks an idea.

[Wheatfield]

We don't have that much of an offense anymore. That was one of the glaring weakness that showed during Iraq. We have had to rely to much on our Nat. Guard and Reserve units. If you are using your reserve units on the offensive, where is your reserve?

The other glaring weakness that showed during Iraq was the thought process that went into staring it.
You guys just don't get it.
9/11 came about because Amerika insists on sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. You do it often enough and long enough and someone will bloody it for you.
The Iraqi war came about because President Shrub needed to do something to make it look like he was doing something about very little, so he decided to take it out on Hussein, to try to finish off what daddy Shrub had managed to screw up.
Shrub lied to the world, and to the American people. Lied through his teeth.
He and his people made it up.
There were no WMDs until Amerika started bombing, there was no yellowcake, nothing radioactive until Amerika started using radioactive munitions to blow up Iraqis, and no links to Al Quaida.

Shrub didn't go after Al Quaida because he knew he couldn't win that one. The Russians spent a decade ruining their economy in Afghanistan, and Shrub knew he would fail there just like the Russians failed, so he went after an easier target.
Too bad he failed there too, though it wasn't through lack of weaponry, it was through butf##k stupidity.

Bush is big oil, Cheney is big weaponry, Iraq has oil and it had a leader who like to thumb his nose at the oval office.
The real Axis of Evil was Bush, Cheney and their trained goats.
The question now is who is going to rebuild Iraq now that the Amerikan military has flattened it in an illegal war of aggression.
Will Amerika do the right thing and pay reparations?