Politics

RobertDyck · 2017-12-10 02:44:32

Do not confuse "the swamp" with accusations of sexual misconduct. The term "the swamp" means abuse of authority, graft (bribery), and misappropriation of taxpayer's money. There's a lot of that. Trump promised to "drain the swamp". At one campaign rally, Trump said he didn't come up with it, his team did. He "tried it" to see what the response would be. The establishment now sees themselves under attack, so they're fighting back. Accusations of sexual misconduct have been the method of distraction for decades. Bill Clinton was accused of misconduct, which turned out be entirely consentual. And please don't argue with me or try to explain anything, the point was Clinton did a lot of things wrong, but they couldn't "get him" on any of that. So they concocted a sex scandal. Now "the establishment" is fighting back, trying to preserve kick-backs, multi-million dollar campaign donations, abuse of government in exchange for kick-backs and donations, etc.

SpaceNut · 2017-12-10 19:04:14

Maybe so but to me its about Ethics to which this falls into as the abuse of power is over those that are not or could not say no to the tempatataion of promises of those in power.

The call for impeachment is still ongoing and with that the light of recent resignations the call from Cory Booker Calls On Donald Trump To Resign over the more than a dozen sexual misconduct allegations against him.

“I just watched Al Franken do the honorable thing and resign,” the Democratic senator said. “Why isn’t Donald Trump doing the same thing?”
At least 19 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct, including forcible kissing and groping, since the 1980s. He even bragged about grabbing women “by the pussy” in 2005 on the now-infamous “Access Hollywood” tape.
Trump denied the allegations throughout his 2016 presidential campaign and dismissed the “Access Hollywood” recording as merely “locker room talk.”

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations:
Donald Trump, an American businessman and current President of the United States, has been accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment, including non-consensual kissing or groping, by at least fifteen women since the 1980s. Those accusations have resulted in three widely reported instances of litigation: his then-wife Ivana made a rape claim during their 1989 divorce litigation but later recanted that claim; businesswoman Jill Harth sued Trump in 1997 alleging breach of contract while also suing for nonviolent sexual harassment but withdrew the latter suit when the former was settled; and, in 2017, former Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos filed a defamation lawsuit after Trump called her a liar.

Trump accusers call for Congress to investigate sexual harassment allegations against him

RobertDyck · 2017-12-10 20:38:08

I saw TV interviews with Merv Griffin in 1988, who was originally smiling about his dealings with Trump. But months later, he was fuming angry. Everyone Trump deals with gets screwed. Why would Trump resign? These sexual accusations are minor compared to other things. He has been accused of getting special deals from China for his business(s) in exchange for using his authority as President to give trade concessions to China. Under the US Constitution that's called "emoluments", modern language calls that kick-backs. It's an impeachable offence. The sex stuff is nothing. Trump won't resign. Ever. There are only 3 ways to get him out: voters don't re-elect him him 2020 (yes, he will run), he completes his term in 2024, or Congress impeaches him. Note the last option means Pence becomes President. Do you really want Pence?

SpaceNut · 2017-12-11 20:01:17

It's a crazy world out there, anybody could just pick up a gun and shoot someone. "A terrorist is a terrorist irrespective of his or her ethnicity or religion, and must be brought to justice," and even the choice of weapon or weapons used in the act does not matter when trying to rid us of this terror. Todays NY would-be suicide bomber set off a pipe bomb strapped to his body during the morning rush hour on Monday, deep inside one of Manhattan’s busiest commuter corridors. He was seen with Wires that ran from his jacket to his pants with something strapped to his torso under his coat prior to the blast. A suspect, identified by the police as Akayed Ullah, 27, an immigrant from Bangladesh who lived in Brooklyn, was in police custody. He suffered burns to his hands and abdomen, and was in serious condition at Bellevue Hospital Center. Only three other people had minor injuries. He chose the location because of its Christmas-themed posters, recalling strikes in Europe against Christmas markets. Setting off the bomb in retaliation for U.S. airstrikes on ISIS targets in Syria and elsewhere. The 27-year-old suspect was admitted to the U.S. from Bangladesh on a family immigrant visa in 2011. He last visited Bangladesh on Sept. 8. So what happened over there is a question to be asked as ISIS has called for attacks at Times Square during the Christmas season. Weeks ago, pro-Islamic State media published a chilling photo of a Santa Claus standing in Times Square next to a crate of dynamite. So way to go...keeping the public in the dark about it....

SpaceNut · 2017-12-13 20:43:56

Republicans have a final deal on their tax bill — here's what's in the compromise bill proposes cutting the corporate tax rate to 21% — higher than the 20% in the House and Senate versions but still much lower than the current 35%. The bill would also lower the top individual tax rate to 37% from the current 39.6%, a more generous cut than the Senate version had proposed.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-go … ts-2017-12

So we will bring in less money at tax time and still payout more than we get from the taxes... Sound like to deficit will grow just as fast as the entitlements were under obama....And I am sure with the new found wealth at the top that we will not see a dime of that at the bottom where its needed in the low weekly wages.....

RobertDyck · 2017-12-15 04:01:18

kbd512: Lecturing people for not being rich is inappropriate and not productive. The rich have long manipulated the system to their benefit. The term "rich" is relative, it always means the most wealthy. But medieval standards, every working individual in western society is "rich". Think about it: a rusty pickup truck, separate house with central heat, running water, flush toilet, bath tub, refrigerator, microwave oven. But "rich" means the most wealthy. Charging taxes on the majority of Americans so the most wealthy can pay less, is not appropriate. Everyone has to pay their fair share. And all western countries have a progressive tax system, which charges a higher tax rate for the most wealthy. Screwing over the majority so a select few can benefit is what we're talking about.

By the way, those who will benefit from this tax cut do not replace their own car handles, or do their own plumbing.

RobertDyck · 2017-12-15 04:35:51

kbd512 wrote:

Why do liberals and people who vote for liberals constantly require more of other people's money...

I am a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, and I'm one of those called "fiscally responsible". We believe in reducing taxes, reducing the size of government, balanced budgets. But at the same time we believe in compassion. We can do both. I am constantly fight those within the party who believe in ever increasing taxes, and worse yet, deficit spending. I don't consider them to be Liberal, they're socialist. But one member of our party has accused me of being Conservative. I point out I've never been a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, or any other party, only ours. Whenever a Conservative government is in power, they talk about reducing spending and reducing taxes, even as they increase both. They talk about reducing the size of government, even as they increase it.

I could give specific examples from Canada. But they would probably go over your head. We're generally seeing something similar in the US. Republicans like to talk about reducing taxes, but increase them. Tax cuts go to only the most wealthy. Republicans like to talk about reducing regulation, but always increase them. Republicans like to talk about balanced budgets, but the worst deficits occur during Republican administrations. I won't excuse the gross spending of Obama, but that doesn't excuse the previous 3 Republican presidents.

During my lifetime, the only federal surpluses (debt reduction) has been in Canada under Paul Martin (Liberal) first as Finance Minister then Prime Minister, and in the US under Bill Clinton.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-12-15 04:39:41)

Terraformer · 2017-12-15 05:18:12

Charging taxes on the majority of Americans so the most wealthy can pay less, is not appropriate. Everyone has to pay their fair share.

A 'fair' system would charge everyone the same tax on their income, whether that be the same percentage or a fixed amount (!!! Imagine trying to get that through !!!) each year. It wouldn't see the rich paying a disproportionate amount, as happens at the moment.

If you're going to have an income tax, keep it simple. Have a tax-free threshold, and then a flat rate on all income above that. Within that system you can provide tax credits for families, to ensure that single-income couples aren't disadvantaged and families with children pay less (maybe half threshold for kids?). So if the threshold was $20k/year, and the tax was 1/3 on all income above that, a single person earning $50k/year would pay $10k/year in taxes. If they had a spouse, their joint threshold would be $40k/year, so if that was the only source of income they would pay $3.333k/year. If they had a children, the threshold would be $50k/year, and they would pay no tax at all.

I'm sure some people would scream about it being a tax on singleness and childlessness, but two people earning above the threshold would be paying the same tax whether or not they were married, and it's not like children are free (as in free beer, not as in free speech - children are neither)...

RobertDyck · 2017-12-15 10:37:51

I'm the guy who wants to get rid of income tax all together. During the 2006 Canadian federal election campaign, I said take the surplus that existed at that time, apply it all to the debt. Then take that payment to principle plus interest, and make the total a fixed total every year. As you pay down the debt, interest will come down. For every dollar of interest reduced, increase payment to principle by the same dollar. That's how the mortgage of a house works. Starting in January 2006, it would have taken 15 years to completely pay off the Canadian federal debt. Once the debt is gone, we can completely abolish federal personal income tax. Balancing the budget would have required freezing corporate income tax and GST (federal sales tax) at the level it was at that time. No increase, just no reduction either. Of course Employment Insurance and Canada Pension Plan premiums pay for those programs, so they have to stay, but no increase. Together they're the equivalent to Social Security. Provincial income tax is under authority of provincial governments, so anyone who wants to do anything with that will have to talk to their provincial politicians. Heath insurance is also under authority of provincial governments, so that has to stay. But at least federal personal income tax would be gone.

Unfortunately, they didn't listen to me. The other party got elected; squandered the surplus, drove us back into deficit, ran up the debt. My party has been back in power since the fall of 2015, but I have no influence with the current group.

Tax-free threshold: In Canada the "basic personal amount" (formerly known as "basic personal exemption") is $11,474. You don't pay income tax on the first that much, so if your income is that or less then you don't pay anything at all.

Income tax was created in the US in 1913, in Canada in 1917. In Canada in 1917 the rule was 4% on all income of single men over $2,000. In 2017 Canadian dollars that's $31,926.83. For others, the personal exemption was $3,000 ($47,890.24 in 2017 dollars). For those Canadians with annual incomes of more than $6,000 ($95,780.49 in 2017 dollars), the tax rate ranged from 2 to 25 per cent. Income tax is much higher today.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-12-15 10:44:08)

kbd512 · 2017-12-16 18:26:00

RobertDyck wrote:

So you're only reasoning is the top 1%, or fraction of 1%, of income earners in the US should be allowed to survive. Everyone else should be treated as cattle. These "cattle" can be overcharged, treated as slaves. Healthcare is a prime example, the rest of the world demonstrates how affordable healthcare can be. The US overcharges, corporations extort ridiculously excessive money with the threat of letting you die if you don't comply with the extortion. I've already explained how the Canadian system works. It isn't free, it's insurance with a premium, but it's affordable.

My reasoning is that your reasoning is fundamentally flawed and history has repeatedly proven what I stated. You seem to think this is about what I want versus what I could get other people to agree to. Our system of governance doesn't work that way. You also seem to think the Canadian way of doing things has achieved some level of perfection that it hasn't. Could the US have a better health care system? Yes. Could that system even use the Canadian system as a model? No. What works for Canada won't necessarily work for the US or any other country. California alone has more people than all of Canada. Scale matters and so does the input of the people being subjected to any particular system of governance. If the people don't want what's on offer, then a different solution is required. I'm neither proud nor pleased with a good number of things our government has done and I would not look to our government, nor any other government, for a solution to our problems. The government is the cause of the problem, the suffering is the symptom of the problem, the people are the source of the problem, and the solution to the problem lies with the source.

RobertDyck wrote:

Your idea of cutting spending is absolutely spot on! Of course! But those same rich people who benefit from the latest tax cut are those who demand overspending on military.

Everybody benefits from the US military, Rob. It's the one governmental institution that doesn't care where you're from, how much money you have, what you look like, or who your mommy and daddy happen to be. Irrespective of what you falsely believe to the contrary, everyone in the US military is a volunteer. The oath of enlistment and oath of office specifically dictates that the person accepting that responsibility do so freely and without mental reservation. Nobody forced me to sign a contract, nor take an oath of enlistment, and I've never heard of such a thing from anyone else I served with, some of whom were previously enlisted men in the US Army or US Marine Corps.

RobertDyck wrote:

They want to send anyone who objects to their control off to war to die.

Congress declares war, but there's only one person who sends Americans off to war and that person is the President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces. Nobody else, irrespective of how much money they have or don't have, gets to make that decision.

RobertDyck wrote:

And they own arms manufacturers, so want more wars to create a market for their product. Who cares that it doesn't provide security for Americans, who cares that it already caused financial collapse in 2008.

It doesn't matter what rich people want, with respect to war. America goes to war because our government decides to go to war.

The financial collapse in 2008 was caused by speculation on exotic debt securities created to make money off of mortgages, primarily the result of insurance companies underwriting debt securities little different than junk bonds and banks that approved loans for borrowers who could not repay the money lent.

RobertDyck wrote:

Yes, overspending on military is the core of the deficit, Congress didn't want foreigners to control the US so demanded domestic banks find a "creative way" to fund the deficit, what they came up with was junk mortgages, which caused the collapse. None of that would have happened if the tiny surplus (and I mean tiny) from Bill Clinton's administration simply continued, and that was used to pay down the debt.

The US defense budget accounts for fifteen cents of every dollar spent by the US government. The entitlement programs account for sixty-four cents of every dollar spent by the US government. If we spent zero cents of every dollar on the defense budget, we'd still be spending more money than we take in. The tiny surplus that the Clinton administration had for one year would not be sufficient to pay down the debt thanks to the increased expenditures on entitlements, even if the military budget was "flat" relative to inflation.

RobertDyck wrote:

Did Obama increase spending too much? Yes. But don't blame medicare and medicaid. Remember, I already said the US federal government spends 3.6% of GDP on medicare, plus 3.0% on medicaid, total 6.6%. The Canadian federal government spends 4.0% of GDP on healthcare. HINT! HINT! HINT!

There are certainly ways our money could be better spent, as it relates to the military, but when 64% of every federal dollar spent is going to entitlement programs and only 15% is going to defense programs of any kind, the first place that budget cuts need to be made is pretty obvious.

You may want Americans to decrease military spending and ignore those costly entitlement programs that account for 64% of US federal government spending while your own government reneges on its defense spending obligations, but that's not going to happen. Military spending didn't decrease under former Presidents Bush or Obama and won't happen under President Trump.

We're not relying on our allies to come to save the day if China or Russia decide they want to start WWIII. Make as many absurd claims about things you know nothing about as you see fit, but at the end of the day Canada has a fighting force less well equipped than the reserves forces stationed in California.

RobertDyck wrote:

You rant about working hard. I took computer science in university. I worked my way up to senior computer positions: senior systems analyst, technical architect, information systems specialist, etc. But I ran for politics, won the nomination for my electoral district for the federal election with one of the two major parties. That's when my problems began. I was screwed, lost my job. Still haven't gotten descent work. I have a home business doing computer repair, but that'll never earn enough to live on. In the last couple months got work doing installs of point-of-sale systems for large retail chains. It's better, but still not what I had. I keep sending out job applications, but they're ignored. Someone is blocking me. That's illegal, but I haven't found who's responsible.

I ranted about using your head when it comes to finances and exercising your voting privilege to vote for people who share your interests. If something isn't working the way you expect it to, then doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is insanity.

I know nothing about your personal situation apart from what you write here, so I'll concede that it is possible someone is out to make your life hell. I'd love to know who you think you pissed off so I can make a mental note to never piss off that person. I just have a hard time believing that someone with a computer science degree can't find work. There must be something more to your story. I've pissed off lots of people in my life, but none of them have ever followed me around for a decade to make sure I didn't get a job elsewhere. I don't offer any opinions on politics, religion, and social issues at work. I'm there to provide a service to my clients, the best I can manage with what I'm given to work with, and that's it.

RobertDyck wrote:

This started about tax. The tax rate for those same hard working Americans you talk about, those trying to get ahead, has to be fair and has to allow them to succeed. The system is rigged to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. And those middle class working people doing the things you recommend will only get poorer. They have to work harder and harder to get less and less, no chance of success.

This new tax bill does not propose increasing the taxes levied against the people you define as poor or middle class, Rob. If you read what was proposed, then you'd know that. You obviously didn't read the bill or ignored the text of the bill and inserted your own ideas about what the bill actually proposed doing. That's fairly typical of liberals here, too. Why bother reading when you can just choose to believe the partisan nonsense from partisans who claim to share your interests?

There's no way to spend more money by learning to do things yourself, given today's labor prices. Apart from recommending that people try a different approach when something isn't working, learning to do thing yourself was my only other suggestion. Everything I suggested doing is spot-on for people who want to retain as much of their money as they can and make more money when their current approach isn't working as well as they want it to. Your claim to the contrary is without evidence, meaning provably false, and the examples I provided demonstrate your claim is false.

SpaceNut · 2017-12-16 19:09:53

2nd times a charm hopefully as the last time my computer locked up while typing...
Sorry that it took so long to get back to the post #1168 and on to the last one.
I was not slighted by what in the post as a lecture as I know kbd512 is passionet about the US constitition and the words that it contains. As he was explaining that everyone has an equal chance for happiness and prosperity, the ability to grab the brass ring belongs to everyone to try to obtain. It just seems like others are more equal than others and that they control if not impede the chance for others to get there as well.
Some of the posts also corespond to the topic of poverty directly as well so there may be some continued there as well.
His life experiences as well as yours RobertDyck are not all that far off from where I am as we..
In fact today was auto mechanic day not only for my car but for my daughters as well. Freezing cold, icy covered dirt driveway all in the open to do the front disk pads on mine and to fix an exhaust leak on hers. Only car ramps, wrenches and jacks to make the work even possible. Something that I could not afford a garage to do.
Still no heating system in my home in an operating state and while its now below freezing the temperature outside, the inside while cold is in the 40's from natural heat from appliances and such.
I may be of income that places me in the upper poverty to low middle range for income so I am in survival mode until I have the fund or can make the repairs myself.

RobertDyck · 2017-12-17 10:25:15

Military:
I saw an interview on TV with Vladimir Putin. He said Russia only has 2 foreign military bases while America has 100. I checked online. Russia actually has 12 (Crimea is no longer considered "foreign"), America has over 800.

If you look at military budgets, in 2010 the US budget for military and national security was $901 billion. "National security" includes nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors for carriers/submarines etc, and other military things not part of the budget of the Department of Defence. That was higher than the next 28 countries combined, of which 25 are allies. The largest military budget other than the US or those 28 countries was $1.93 billion.

The last year the American federal government had a balanced budget was year 2000. The military and national security budget that year was $288 billion. Apply inflation to today, works out to $412.55 billion. Military and national security budget for 2016 was $625 billion, for 2017 it was $627 billion. That means military spending should be cut by $214.45 billion.

Global Fire Power, world military budgets for 2017 in $US:
China $161.7 billion
Russia $44.6 billion
North Korea $7.5 billion

This means cutting military spending to the level I ask would leave the US with 93% more than China + Russia + North Korea combined. And again, every other country of the world is either an ally of the US or has a military budget in single digit billions.

SpaceNut · 2017-12-17 15:58:25

Saw today that Trump supplied intell to Vladmir Putin stopped a terrorist plot....and if we are careful this will help to stabilize our relationshio if this is not FAKE news... The miltary expenditures are due to the wages paid from contractors and for those that service so cutting those plus all the support systems to which cuts mean a reduction in force or equipment....

kbd512 · 2017-12-17 16:12:06

Rob,

Once again, we're not taking advice on military spending from countries that don't meet their mutual defense spending obligations. If every other allied country devoted more of their national budget to defending themselves, our military planners feel that less spending is required on our part. Since that hasn't happened until very recently and in a limited number of cases, we've been spending more on defense than you think we should.

In 2000, Russia was not a serious threat to its neighbors, China was not building military bases in the South China Sea and developing aircraft carriers, and North Korea wasn't testing nuclear weapons and launching ICBM's over our allies' countries. Times have changed. Appeasement of North Korea has failed to prevent them from acting in a belligerent manner towards their neighbors, just like appeasement of Nazi Germany also failed. We're unwilling to risk another world war to "discover" what has been known all along.

Since I was in the US Navy during the last two years of former President Clinton's administration, I can also relay that there was insufficient funding available for basic repairs of the first ship I served aboard and other ships in our battle group, such as aircraft carriers, cruisers, and destroyers. In subsequent years, the US Navy's available assets (people, ships, planes, weapons) have only continued to decline in numbers and quality. The wars obviously didn't help, but that downward trend started well before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did.

If liberals wanted to roll back entitlement spending to what it was in the year 2000, I would be willing to agree to that, even at the expense of military readiness. Since they won't, we're at an impasse, but even liberal politicians won't cut back on military spending to what it was in 2000. If we ever were forced to fight another war, our combat units have about 1/3rd of their nominal strength. None of the things required to bring them to full strength can be had in a month or even a year since the decline didn't happen over a month or a year.

I also think we have too many overseas military bases, but the countries in those parts of the world where our military is forward deployed have insufficient military assets of their own to prevent their more powerful neighbors from causing needless death and destruction, were we to simply leave. Again, adult thinking is required to understand what will happen if we just shutter our overseas bases and leave. If you'd ever spent a day in uniform in those places, you'd know exactly what would happen if we did that.

SpaceNut · 2017-12-17 16:29:33

The strength of the US forces do by being nearby cause a stability effect for those nations that we are within for sure. As for the fleet size we are looking at another cost plus contracting, lack of equipment due to its outrageous cost and since its only low volume of build its not on the shelfs anymore as that does not make business sense to have a pile of money on a shelf that is not selling....

GW Johnson · 2017-12-17 19:45:56

There are two things important about a navy: number of ships, and how well-armed they are. The most modern USN ships are only well-armed in the sense of engagements requiring missiles. They have few-to-no guns. Yet, even today, gunboat diplomacy is very real. And so is asymmetric warfare. Missiles help with neither.

Similar considerations apply to the Army and Marines, and the Air Force. I have real issues with a top fighter (the F-35) for which the missiles and the guns still don't work, because of software issues. Yet wishful thinking and politics still dominates. I notice we are already selling F-35's to allies, and fielding them for ourselves, even though the guns and missiles still don't work. It'll be at least 2 years yet before they do. If they do.

Logic and common sense have a lot less to do with military budgets and procurement than any of us would like. That much is clear, and this disparity has prevailed for several decades now. Since the 1960's that I personally am aware of.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-12-17 19:47:05)

RobertDyck · 2017-12-17 21:37:29

kbd512: You have drank the coolaid. No, Canada is not spending too little. The US is spending too much. Lobbyists from military contractors and suppliers would like you to think that the West "must" purchase a certain amount of their product. So they can earn profits to pay their shareholders. We aren't here to support corporate shareholders.

Canada had 3 full divisions of army during World War 2; actually 4 divisions briefly at one point. Today Canada has 3 regiments of infantry. Although definition of a regiment is flexible, today Canada's regiments are about the size of a single battalion. Canada used to have 2 carriers, WW2 surplus light carriers from Britain. They became obsolete. Today between mid-air refuelling and alliances Canada has around the world, there's no need for a carrier. We downsized after the war ended. If you maintain a giant military, someone will find something for it to do.

When the United States was young, it did not maintain a standing army. Instead the US created a military academy to train army officers. The purpose was these officers could very quickly train new recruits to become an effective fighting force. So well staffed and very well trained corps of officers, but very few enlisted men. The US would only have a full army during war; once war is over, the soldiers go home. That academy was called West Point. For some reason the US forgot this policy, but Canada still does this.

Terraformer · 2017-12-18 06:37:33

To be fair, Robert, Canada only has a land border with the United States, and an ocean between it and the rest of the world, with the exception of Russia, Norway, and Denmark (Greenland), who would have to send troops through a frozen hell to get to you. Who is going to invade Canada?

kbd512 · 2017-12-18 07:24:48

Rob,

You've never spent a day in uniform, clearly haven't the slightest idea about how wars are fought and won, and your tired refrain that's never won any wars is ignored by people who know better from experience. I don't take advice on how to fight wars from people who have never been involved in one and no one else with a lick of sense should, either.

The lobbyists don't decide which equipment the US military will purchase, nor how much. The US military does that. Their people come up with requirements regarding what our equipment must be able to do and how much equipment is needed based upon past experience and projected future requirements. This is another example of an idea you have in your head that has no bearing on reality.

Tell me how long you think it takes to train an infantry officer to be an effective leader or to train a fighter pilot to use a sophisticated jet as an effective weapon in combat. Wars have been lost in less time than it takes to train an infantry officer, never mind a fighter pilot. I was merely a radioman and I had a year of training before I was ever allowed to operate any radio equipment under the supervision of seasoned men and women who had many more years of training, practice, and experience. Where do you think we'd get those men and women with years of experience and training if we hadn't already trained and seasoned them prior to the start of a conflict?

When the US was "young", we waited for invading armies to show up on our doorstep before doing something about it. That was our only practical option at that time. Times have changed and war has changed. Your military strategy of waiting until the last minute and then deciding to build and deploy a fighting force would produce a lot of needless casualties, and oddly enough it did when it was put into practice in the first and second world wars.

Your battalion of infantry would be destroyed in less than a week by a fighting force of the type that Russia or China can deploy by air with 24 hours notice. Your desire to go back to the revolutionary war model that the US used when that was the only option is absurd. For the sake of the Canadian people, I sincerely hope that Canada's military leadership doesn't believe the things you do about how wars should be fought. All romantic notions about the past aside, the US won't wait for our enemies to invade. We maintain a credible fighting force between them and the US mainland for that reason. Canada is free to maintain whatever fighting force they want to maintain, secure in the knowledge that the most powerful military in the world lies just to their southern border. We don't have anyone else who will come to the rescue if a real military decides to invade, so we deny our military adversaries that possibility.

RobertDyck · 2017-12-18 10:38:02

kbd512 wrote:

Rob ... clearly haven't the slightest idea about how wars are fought and won

Step 1: Don't. Don't fight. Stop killing people. When you kill people, their relatives and friends will seek revenge by killing you. Escalation. The US is interfering in matters that are none of its business.

Don't believe me? Osama bin Laden said the reason he founded Al Qaeda was to get all foreigners off Arab soil. The whole damn organization was there to kick America and NATO out of their country. You're attempts to "win", you're attempts to defeat them, have resulted in escalations we've seen.

Before the first Persian Gulf War, 1991, President George H. W. Bush told General Norman Schwarzkopf to have a clear military objective before he went in. President Bush was afraid this could become the next Vietnam, that America would never get out. He did; he kicked but, cleaned-up, went home. Unfortunately some yahoo in Washington insisted on "no-fly zones". That stupid decision means America is still in Iraq. American leaders just don't know when to leave. That has resulted in ever escalating conflicts resulting in what we have now. If they left in 1991, then 9/11 would never have happened. USS Cole would never have happened. All the crap we're dealing with now would never have happened.

kbd512 wrote:

The lobbyists don't decide which equipment the US military will purchase, nor how much. The US military does that.

Dream on. There are lots of examples of inferior equipment because some lobbyist convinced politicians to buy their stuff instead of what the military needs. But more to the point, lobbyists have convinced the government to create trouble with Russia so they can perpetuate the Cold War. They want to sell more stuff. And create trouble with China, despite the fact China doesn't want trouble, they want to sell copious quantities of stuff to help their economy. How many times have you heard news announcements that China is a problem?

kbd512 wrote:

training

A year to operate a radio? Seriously? When I was in first year university, 1980/'81, some young Canadian soldiers took courses there, told me stories. One was that Canadian soldiers where shown how to eat a meal from a field ration, took 10 minutes. That included showing them how to use an American ration. Some things were different, eg the can opener. American solders took 2 hours to learn how to eat. Similar stories about cleaning a combat assault rifle. I could tell you the ArtiSim story. At that time it was soon after the US ended the Draft, average IQ of a US enlisted man was 70. Officers were intelligent, but not average American soldiers. Is that still the case?

kbd512 wrote:

Your battalion of infantry would be destroyed in less than a week by a fighting force of the type that Russia or China can deploy by air with 24 hours notice.

Canada believes in making friends with Russia and China. And we rely on alliances with other nations. We don't stand alone. We help Britain and France and west Germany (now unified Germany). Canada has a force in the Baltics. And Canada is leading NATO in Ukraine. Canada sent non-lethal supplies, and trainers to actively train Ukrainian troops. This year Canada set a rule that Ukraine is permitted to purchase weapons from Canada. Yup, state-of-the-art military combat weapons.

But don't lecture. No one in the US is in a position to lecture Canada on a strong military independent of allies. When Russia completed the first test flight of a Tupolev Tu-95 bomber, called the "Bear", the Canadian air force set requirements for an all-weather interceptor to shoot it down. The bomber flew in 1952, requirements for the interceptor were given to contractors in 1953. The plane had to supercruise it mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet, combat speed with afterburner in flat-level flight at least mach 2.0, time from alarm to aircraft flying at 50,000 feet was a maximum time (exceptionally quick for the day), on-board computers so radar worked when out of radio range from an air base, endure ±3G turns, etc. Engineers at first complained it was far too advanced for 1953, but they got to work and built it. The Avro Arrow mark 1 started test flights in 1958. The mark 2 had the new engine intended for it, the first prototype mark 2 was just 8 hours assembly work from completion in 1959. The mark 2 could actually fly mach 2.5 in flat-level flight with afterburner, +9G turns, and fly-by-wire. The fastest American fighter jet of the day could fly mach 1.6. American fighter jet manufacturers screamed! They didn't like the fact Canada had the most advanced fighter jet in the world. Canada intended to sell it to NATO allies, including the US. But the US not only refused to buy it, but demanded Canada stop developing it. The US put heavy pressure on NATO countries to not buy it. They convinced the other Canadian political party to oppose it, so when there was a change of government, Avro Arrow as cancelled. The only American fighter jet that can do what Avro Arrow did is the F-22 Raptor, and that's a 21-century aircraft. The point is when Canada did spend money on military, the US applied extreme pressure to kill it!

kbd512 · 2017-12-18 15:07:23

RobertDyck wrote:

Step 1: Don't. Don't fight. Stop killing people. When you kill people, their relatives and friends will seek revenge by killing you. Escalation. The US is interfering in matters that are none of its business.

We didn't start any of the nonsense that lead to where we are today. Foreign aggressors did that. We killed them. We'll continue killing anyone who comes here to murder Americans. UBL sent his terrorists to murder Americans, he wouldn't stop doing it, the country he lived in refused to give him up, we invaded that country, and then we eventually killed him and his family members when they offered resistance during our attempt to take them alive. Our SEAL team members have superior firepower and training, so that ended that fight.

Don't come to America and murder Americans, don't provide save haven for people who murder Americans, and we won't invade your country. That seems pretty simple to me.

If someone came to Canada and murdered a bunch of Canadians, what would the government of Canada do about it?

RobertDyck wrote:

Don't believe me? Osama bin Laden said the reason he founded Al Qaeda was to get all foreigners off Arab soil. The whole damn organization was there to kick America and NATO out of their country. You're attempts to "win", you're attempts to defeat them, have resulted in escalations we've seen.

UBL doesn't get to decide which countries America has their military forces stationed in. The governments of those countries decided that we should be there, so we're there. UBL was just a dead terrorist who loved Americans when they were helping his organization fight the Russians, but then decided he hated Americans after the Russians were defeated in Afghanistan. We don't have to kowtow to the whims of a nutwhack who hates Americans.

RobertDyck wrote:

Before the first Persian Gulf War, 1991, President George H. W. Bush told General Norman Schwarzkopf to have a clear military objective before he went in. President Bush was afraid this could become the next Vietnam, that America would never get out. He did; he kicked but, cleaned-up, went home. Unfortunately some yahoo in Washington insisted on "no-fly zones". That stupid decision means America is still in Iraq. American leaders just don't know when to leave. That has resulted in ever escalating conflicts resulting in what we have now. If they left in 1991, then 9/11 would never have happened. USS Cole would never have happened. All the crap we're dealing with now would never have happened.

America only went to Iraq to begin with because of our British allies. We had no intention of becoming involved in the first Gulf War until our British allies reminded us of our obligation to support them and their allies (Kuwait). For whatever reason, liberals like you think we just decided to go over there and obliterate our former ally's military in that region on a whim. Nothing could be further from the truth.

RobertDyck wrote:

Dream on. There are lots of examples of inferior equipment because some lobbyist convinced politicians to buy their stuff instead of what the military needs. But more to the point, lobbyists have convinced the government to create trouble with Russia so they can perpetuate the Cold War. They want to sell more stuff. And create trouble with China, despite the fact China doesn't want trouble, they want to sell copious quantities of stuff to help their economy. How many times have you heard news announcements that China is a problem?

Do you have any evidence of all these things you think lobbyists have done?

RobertDyck wrote:

A year to operate a radio? Seriously? When I was in first year university, 1980/'81, some young Canadian soldiers took courses there, told me stories. One was that Canadian soldiers where shown how to eat a meal from a field ration, took 10 minutes. That included showing them how to use an American ration. Some things were different, eg the can opener. American solders took 2 hours to learn how to eat. Similar stories about cleaning a combat assault rifle. I could tell you the ArtiSim story. At that time it was soon after the US ended the Draft, average IQ of a US enlisted man was 70. Officers were intelligent, but not average American soldiers. Is that still the case?

I don't need to hear any of your frat party stories about what they taught people in the military to do. I was actually in the military. It's humorous that you have ideas about how things should work, but that's about as far as it goes. Nobody who was in the military in 1980 would have any clue about how to operate the equipment used today.

kbd512 wrote:

Canada believes in making friends with Russia and China. And we rely on alliances with other nations. We don't stand alone. We help Britain and France and west Germany (now unified Germany). Canada has a force in the Baltics. And Canada is leading NATO in Ukraine. Canada sent non-lethal supplies, and trainers to actively train Ukrainian troops. This year Canada set a rule that Ukraine is permitted to purchase weapons from Canada. Yup, state-of-the-art military combat weapons.

If appeasing China and Russia doesn't go as planned, what's your backup plan?

Canada has state-of-the-art military combat weapons?

kbd512 wrote:

But don't lecture. No one in the US is in a position to lecture Canada on a strong military independent of allies. When Russia completed the first test flight of a Tupolev Tu-95 bomber, called the "Bear", the Canadian air force set requirements for an all-weather interceptor to shoot it down. The bomber flew in 1952, requirements for the interceptor were given to contractors in 1953. The plane had to supercruise it mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet, combat speed with afterburner in flat-level flight at least mach 2.0, time from alarm to aircraft flying at 50,000 feet was a maximum time (exceptionally quick for the day), on-board computers so radar worked when out of radio range from an air base, endure ±3G turns, etc. Engineers at first complained it was far too advanced for 1953, but they got to work and built it. The Avro Arrow mark 1 started test flights in 1958. The mark 2 had the new engine intended for it, the first prototype mark 2 was just 8 hours assembly work from completion in 1959. The mark 2 could actually fly mach 2.5 in flat-level flight with afterburner, +9G turns, and fly-by-wire. The fastest American fighter jet of the day could fly mach 1.6. American fighter jet manufacturers screamed! They didn't like the fact Canada had the most advanced fighter jet in the world. Canada intended to sell it to NATO allies, including the US. But the US not only refused to buy it, but demanded Canada stop developing it. The US put heavy pressure on NATO countries to not buy it. They convinced the other Canadian political party to oppose it, so when there was a change of government, Avro Arrow as cancelled. The only American fighter jet that can do what Avro Arrow did is the F-22 Raptor, and that's a 21-century aircraft. The point is when Canada did spend money on military, the US applied extreme pressure to kill it!

You've been lecturing me about things you know nothing about, so I've decided to lecture you about things I've actually done and how our military actually works. Those are things you get to learn about, whether you want to or not, when you've actually been in the military. Reading something in a book, hearing a story from some dude you met in college, or watching a video on the internet doesn't mean you know how the military actually works.

The only people who pulled the plug on the Avro Arrow program were Canadians. It's getting kind of tiresome being blamed for something your countrymen decided to do. Canada was never under any obligation to kill a fighter jet program because someone from the US said "boo".

Terraformer · 2017-12-18 15:56:37

At that time it was soon after the US ended the Draft, average IQ of a US enlisted man was 70. Officers were intelligent, but not average American soldiers. Is that still the case?

I highly doubt the average infantryman was at the threshold required to be legally considered mentally retarded. Only ~2% of the population have IQs that low. Given that ~7% of the US population (or possibly just US men?) are or have been in the military...

I agree that the US military is too big. They should be more of a nuclear-armed Switzerland, I think. But their allies spend too little. If their allies think their own defence spending is enough, then that's on them. The US should not defend any NATO member that doesn't uphold their side of the bargain (2%! 2% It really isn't much at all).

kbd512 · 2017-12-18 20:36:58

Terraformer,

Rob's false assertion that half of our infantry soldiers were or are mentally retarded is just an insult directed at enlisted men in the US military. That said, most liberals can no more explain why they believe what they believe than they can fly, but they're all absolutely certain that they know best, everyone else is wrong, and everyone else should simply marvel at their intellect. The mix of insults and anecdotes that have little bearing on reality is what I've come to expect when their emotional appeals or logic-free arguments fail.

There is such a thing as a "nuclear armed" EU. The US gave the Europeans nuclear weapons, those weapons are sitting in a base under joint US and European control in Europe, and if the EU states feel the need to use nuclear weapons, then those nuclear weapons are reserved for their exclusive use. The Europeans have fighters equipped to deliver those weapons, too.

There has to be some sort of military response to hostile acts that falls between ignoring them and using nuclear weapons. That is what the bulk of the funding for the US military has been used for. There hasn't been a nuclear weapon used in anger in a human lifetime and that's a very good thing.

In terms of equipment and manpower, the US military continues to shrink. The fact that some here think we use our military simply because we have it ignores all the other instances where other countries have used their military, irrespective of size. I'm getting a lecture about military adventurism from someone who just bragged that their country is using their military to train and equip the Ukrainian military in its fight against the Russians. The pot wishes to inform the kettle that it is indeed "black".

Terraformer · 2017-12-19 06:00:08

Plus there's the nuclear weapons that the French have. We're leaving, so they can't use ours.

RobertDyck · 2017-12-19 10:26:44

kbd512: I mentioned that because your assertions make me think you're one of them. Your statements about military are naïve and stupid.

You want to hear the ArtiSim story? When I was in university, an 18-year-old recruit to the Canadian military told me this. He said his sergeant told him. At the time, I believed his sergeant told him, but questioned everything else. One day a Canadian solder was supposed to clean his APC. He drained the fuel tank, filled it with water. Duct taped foam over all the controls inside. Opened all hatches, and threw an in artisim (artillery simulator). The explosion blew out all dust. An American soldier saw this, thought it was cool! The American asked if he could have an artisim to clean his vehicle. The American went over to a tank, didn't drain the fuel tank, didn't tape foam over the controls, didn't even remove ammunition. The turret was blown off, when flying to crash some distance away. At the court-martial the judge asked him why he destroyed 30 million dollars of American asset? He answered he saw a Canadian do it. Since then all Canadian soldiers have been ordered to not use an artisim to clean their APC, for fear an American would see them. Again, this is a story told by a sergeant to a new recruit, probably to convince him not to do it.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#851 2017-12-10 02:44:32

Re: Politics

#852 2017-12-10 19:04:14

Re: Politics

#853 2017-12-10 20:38:08

Re: Politics

#854 2017-12-11 20:01:17

Re: Politics

#855 2017-12-13 20:43:56

Re: Politics

#856 2017-12-15 04:01:18

Re: Politics

#857 2017-12-15 04:35:51

Re: Politics

#858 2017-12-15 05:18:12

Re: Politics

#859 2017-12-15 10:37:51

Re: Politics

#860 2017-12-16 18:26:00

Re: Politics

#861 2017-12-16 19:09:53

Re: Politics

#862 2017-12-17 10:25:15

Re: Politics

#863 2017-12-17 15:58:25

Re: Politics

#864 2017-12-17 16:12:06

Re: Politics

#865 2017-12-17 16:29:33

Re: Politics

#866 2017-12-17 19:45:56

Re: Politics

#867 2017-12-17 21:37:29

Re: Politics

#868 2017-12-18 06:37:33

Re: Politics

#869 2017-12-18 07:24:48

Re: Politics

#870 2017-12-18 10:38:02

Re: Politics

#871 2017-12-18 15:07:23

Re: Politics

#872 2017-12-18 15:56:37

Re: Politics

#873 2017-12-18 20:36:58

Re: Politics

#874 2017-12-19 06:00:08

Re: Politics

#875 2017-12-19 10:26:44

Re: Politics

Board footer