Prioritize safe return
To follow yesterday's "The real meaning of 'Support the Troops'," it appears basic that young Americans should not be put in harms way unless absolutely necessary and once sent, our troops should be protected as best possible. Their safety should be a priority.
Rock the Vote has been adamant in our support of prioritizing our national spending to meet the needs of young Americans. The point? Hey Pentagon: prioritize shifting some of your funding to armored Humvees and other such life-saving measures.
-- posted by Miles Granderson
Rock the Vote has been adamant in our support of prioritizing our national spending to meet the needs of young Americans. The point? Hey Pentagon: prioritize shifting some of your funding to armored Humvees and other such life-saving measures.
-- posted by Miles Granderson
posted by RTV Street Report at 4:55 PM
17 Comments:
You obviously have not taken a look at the ongoing effort to armor humvees and the numbers that are deployed. I love it when people don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story.
Here is another example of someone who thinks throwing money at an issue will completely solve it. As the granddaughter of two WWII veterans, the daughter of two army officers and the sister of an army officer, I can safely say that I know a few things about the military, past and present. The issue with Military supplies is not money, it is production. Only so many Humvees can be made at a time. If more money could bring faster production, then the Pentagon would gladly spend more on it. But as it stands, the makers are producing as many as they can.
Another aspect of this debate is the Humvee armor. Humvees are not supposed to have armor. They are made to ride over rough, unpredictable terrain faster than a tank could. Since speed is an issue, the Humvee has to be light so that it can move quickly. Adding armor to the vehicle makes it less efficient because the added weight puts strain on the vehicle. This is a trade off of course because being light in weight also means less protection. If protection is more important, then drive a tank, but it won't be able to move out of or into an area as quickly making it an easier target.
I love the military. The military provided me and my family with a wonderful life, and I am truly grateful to the soldiers who fight for this country. They make it possible for us civilians to know freedom unlike any nation in the world. I do not take this freedom lightly because I know that it takes a great deal of sacrifice, sometimes lives must be lost to maintain it. I am thankful every day that I live in a nation that has freedoms worth dieing for.
I know that the officers in charge of strategizing and budgeting care about the U.S. soldiers as much as I do. They know the U.S. presence must remain in the Iraq and Afghanistan because other wise those nations would fall into complete chaos. I wish more money for Humvees would fix the problem, but it won’t. The U.S. military doesn’t have all the equipment it needs, that is true, but the soldiers are doing an amazing job with what they have, and the officers in charge are doing their best to get the soldiers what they need as fast as humanly possible.
Two very good comments.
The humvee issue is something many Americans don't fully understand. Not every soldier can or should travel around in tanks, its both impractical in the modern battlefield and terribly expensive. As the previous posted explained not all humvees were designed to have armor plating to the extent many in the press have been calling for. Imagine taking your car and adding another two thousand pounds, not terribly efficient unless you upgrade the entire chassis and drivetrain.
Humvees are being re-armored at a fast pace, in fact I live near a plant here in Texas that is in charge of this operation and they're running 24/7 to keep up with the demand, but the problem in getting more humvees refitted is not from a lack of funds but the amount of time and resources it takes to refit one vehicle. This is not something you can just throw at any manufacturing plant, these armor plates must be fabricated to exact specs and the amount of materials used isn't quickly produced.
If RTV truly cared about the soldiers they would call for an immediate reduction in pork barrel spending in DC and an immediate increase in military funding. So far all we've read on this board is tax more and give it to SS, hardly a resounding banner of support for constitutional spending (which does include the military).
Speaking of spending and pork...
They tacked this Real ID thing on to a spending bill for the Iraq war. It passed.
Read more here www.unrealid.com
The previous poster seems to want to argue against the Real ID act, which is not surprising given that the Rock the Vote generation (which I'm unfortunately a part of) complains constantly about any security measures that our government implements domestically- all the while complaining when our troops have to go abroad to protect us against terror and foreign threats, because of 9/11 which happened due to lax domestic security.
The Real ID Act is an excellent provision that blocks illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses. In case you didn't know, many of the 9/11 hijackers had driver's licenses from not one, but numerous states- they were able to use those licenses to board the planes on that day. It is a common sense measure, and even if it results in all of us getting a national ID card, it is a good thing.
You want to protect our troops and make sure they're only in battle when they ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY have to be? Then support domestic security measures, so we don't have any more future 9/11s. Whining about homeland security measures only weakens this country's security, which sets us up for more battles.
I'm the previous poster that the previous poster is refering to. Confusing huh?
Anyway, I don't like that this Real ID was just slipped into the bill instead of getting on it's own bill.
Although I'm sure its happening, I don't really understand how illegals are getting DLs anyway. Anyone have info on that for me to read up on.
I think illegals should be deported immediately; well right after we remove the plaque from the statue of liberty that says, "bring us your...". Has anyone brought a false advertisement suit up on this, that would be cool. K, getting really off track here.
I don't know if I'm for or against RealID yet. I know I'm not for it coming into existance in this manner.
If putting armor on Humvees is such a bad ides, Anon, then why is the military insisting that it is a top priority? Yes, it is an ongoing effort, slowed by the muck of bureaucracy and only speeded up by the very public calls of soldiers, their families and websites like this one.
So, Multi-Anon, how about the lack of personal body armor? I think that that my tax dollars would be better spent protecting our soldiers from bodily harm rather than paying Halliburton million dollar bonuses for a "job well done".
Oftentimes, enlisted men and women simply do not have the financial resources to pay for these vital supplies. Perhaps your strategizing officer corps should have done some better cost/benefit analysis on this situation. The potential costs of serious injury and loss of life (especially when the Army has not reached its recruiting goals 4 months running) should be far outweighed by the benefits of universal body armor.
I also come from a military family (mostly USMC and a few Navy pilots). I was honorably discharged from the USMC in 2002. I will always have great respect for the Marine Corps.
However, I think that it is asinine to say that you "love the military" because they paid your father and uncles well enough to give you a comfortable life. The military establishment in the US is a massive bureaucracy. Like any bureaucracy, it is callously unresponsive, slow to react, burdened by the desires of special interests and incapable of financial responsibiltiy. See Joseph Heller's "Catch 22" as well as many scholarly articles.
To say that you "love the military" because you are "thankful [to] live in a nation that has freedoms worth dieing(sic) for" is bad logic. Do you beleive that there is NO other way to live with freedoms worth dying for, perhaps without actually having to die?
I think that you need to dig a little deeper. The modern US economy is completely dependant on defense industry driven business. Keynes and other economists (whose theories still rule the roost) cited military expenditures as a sure fire way of pumping up a staggering economy. I am NOT saying that the Bush Administratioon decided to go to Iraq to boost this economy. I am, however, saying that we did not go there to find WMD, protect human rights or the safety of Americans. If that were the case, then we would have first secured Afghanistan (which it looks like we'll never do) and taken on the more serious threats of Syria and North Korea.
My point? Don't love the military. Love your family and your fellow man. Don't love your country at the cost of human life. Love the Bill of Rights. Respect and try to understand the role of nations and militaries and religions in this very complex "modern" system of global interactions.
Tell me this: What is the endgame for the modern military structure? If we achieve democracy and peace for every human being on this planet, will the military establishment (and their investors) peacefully lay down their arms? Or will they ever allow us to see that day?
I'll ramble a little more out of frustration. Wars are thrust upon us because of greed and bigotry. The first world's seemingly inexhaustible appetite for cheap natural resources from across the globe have put our comfortable way of life at odds with the health and well being of everyone in the third world.
Everyday, people are taught to look down on, ignore, or hate someone else because of a difference in religion, ethnicity, or nationality. These are the tools with which the rulers of this planet divide us and ultimately conquer (physically, mentally, and spiritually) us all.
AmericanDream - If wars are started out of greed and bigotry I wonder if the 9-11 ransom note just got lost in the mail? Perhaps we should have just stayed out of the European theater in WWII because we had no reason to be there? You want to increase spending for the military? GREAT! In the mean time I assume you're already giving to the USO? Perhaps you gave to your local military drives or adopted a local military family like myself and many of my neighbors did here in Texas? You don't have to wait for the government to give to our men and women in uniform, as you well know as an ex-Marine (thank you for serving BTW) military budget cuts always hurt the soldier.
I remember talking with a pal of mine who is in the 82nd Airbore, currently waiting to attend the next rotation for Ranger School in Georgia, about how they get around cuts during exercises... when they can no longer use rounds for scenarios and training they just yell "budget cut" with each pull of the trigger. Nice. When his unit was about to be shipped out to Afghanistan I bought him a camel back unit, and pooled together money to pay for other essentials with other supporters here in his hometown. Its amazing to see that support can come from other sources rather than Government!
SEAN - I still find it hard to believe that you're a professor of anything. Please elucidate on your area of expertise.
"If wars are started out of greed and bigotry I wonder if the 9-11 ransom note just got lost in the mail? Perhaps we should have just stayed out of the European theater in WWII because we had no reason to be there?"
The perpetrators of the atrocities of 9/11 were (and are) young men convinced by radical Islamists that the only true way to live on this planet was by a strict interpretation of the Koran, not the New Testament, the Torah, or the teachings of Buddha; hence, bigotry.
The instigators of WW2, Nazi Germany, propogandized their way to prominence with the age old scapegoats, Jews; hence, bigotry.
Both of these situations have their roots in the fertile ground of extreme poverty (or the perception thereof).
Most of Al-Quaeda's, and Hezbolla etc etc, recruits are young, uneducated men with little hope for economic advancement. See Afghanistan after decades of war. See Saudia Arabia's authoritarian regime that embraces extreme wealth inequity. That doesn't excuse their actions, but it helps us to understand them... get at the root of a problem and maybe we can rid ourselves of the problem.
Weimar Germany (post WW1) was economically depressed and the entire country was pretty down about their inglorius fall from wealth. The quickest way to jump start an economy? Why crank up the war machine and off we go. Think a few old white guys made a shit ton of money arming the Nazis? you betcha.
In case you haven't noticed, there are modern parallels.
Yes, prof. Foushee, wars are caused by greed and bigotry.
BTW, I think that it is very noble of you to support our troops. However, that support is one of the main reasons the US govt exists today, to provide for our common defense. Interestngly, George Washington warned us against the evils of a standing army... seems improbable at first, but perhaps this whole defense industry driven economy has actually become the primary driver of intl conflict... greed... just a thought
Dream, you can believe what you want that won't change the fact that I am a professor. I know many young Americans (my students included) find it hard to believe that I don't tow the liberal line considering my profession.
Perhaps to clear up you supposition on the cause of wars it would best be stated that "wars are started due to greed OR bigotry." And while there is some truth to that statement it still does not relieve us from our duty to protect this country or stand up to tyranny and oppression.
You didn't answer my question, prof. Foushee - what line of academia?
As for "our duty to protect this country or stand up to tyranny and oppression", how about the tyranny that exists in North Korea, Syria, Sudan and countless other "ignorable" nations? Don't they also pose a threat to our security? Don't they also tyrannize their citizens?
Did you catch the memo that was recently leaked from 10 Downing Street about the reasoning behind out decision to go to Iraq? It should give us all pause.
What exactly is the liberal line that you're supposed to be towing? Are there only two ways to believe about the multitudinous issues that face us, conservative or liberal? Bull.
dream - multimedia design and programming, not that it has anything to do with this discussion. If you want to support action against North Korea and Syria then I'm with you, you'll have no disagreement from me.
Dream - oh and I also taught music in public school for a time after college.
Dream, did you also teach ballet and tap dancing?
All of you neocon and libertarians are quick to accuse posters on this blog of not contributing substance, take a look in the mirror (what the f*#@ does ballet and tap dancing have to do with anything?
prof. Foushee - i wouldn't be too worried about your students being concerned about your constantly playing anti-progressive hack. Computer programming and multimedia design doesn't come to mind when I think of the hallowed, often progressive, halls of academia; more of an engineering and advertising pursuit.
BTW, you know that the most sought after universities teach their students a well rounded sampling of topics, thus giving them a "Liberal Arts" education, right?
In this case "liberal" means that students are taught to look at macro-level problems within historical contexts and through the eyes of all of the participants. There should be no place for jingoism or anthropocentric thought in American schools.
That was a little beside the point, but back on topic, I'm glad that you agree that North Korea and Syria are serious problems. Now will you agree that we created the problem in Iraq when we should have dealt with the much more serious problems in N. Korea and Syria? Why are you so loathe to criticize this Administration?
A quick & dirty answer to the question regarding how the terrorist suspects gained ID's:
1) They were not fakes ID's, they were genuine
2) In several cases, the ID's were not obtained by providing doctored background information
3) The terrorists selected states with minimal to (almost) no in-depth background checks
4) The terrorists purchased the required information from illegal aliens who worked and resided in those states
5) The terrorists bought "documentation" proof from the aliens for cash
6) The terrorists submitted said documentation for identification
7) The terrorists received a valid state's identification card
I can not vouch for the accuracy of what is described above but it was discussed in a college course I attended this year (a source to follow up with was not provided when the opinion was presented).
Supposedly, Real ID is to reduce opportunites for this possibility.
But, it is okay to question Real ID: be sure you understand what it's really supposed to do & not just give in to the rhetoric supporters or detractors toss out because it has some very good benefits AND some unsettling side issues, as well.
I'm glad to see dream is on board with taking care of N. Korea and Syria now. I don't know what it took for you to finally have an epithany.
I'm curious to see what your criticism will be of how Bush will handle these issues.
For one, Bush is proposing multi-lateralism with N. Korea. He is trying to get everyone in the region to put pressure on N. Korea to end its pursuit of nukes. It may not work, but it's worth the effort in order to avoid having to send American troops over there to shoot that stupid haircut off that degenerate dictator.
Also, I think Iran is a more serious threat than Syria, and so far Bush has allowed the all intelligent and superior European's to lead this effort of diplomacy. Recently, discussions have come to a halt and the Europeans are running to the Americans to help solve the problem.
Bush is trying to involve the rest of the world, and what do his critics say, "Why aren't you engaged evil Bush?" "Give N. Korea whatever they want."
Don't forget. Clinton already gave N. Korea the know how to go Nuclear in return for a promise not to use their nuclear knowledge for weaponry. What do you know? The communist dictator was lying.
Oh well, give him more stuff, and maybe he will play nice this time. Sounds like a pipe dream.
Post a Comment
<< Home