Engage

Can we also add a scale showing how much in net assets each commenter has either contributed to or taken from the tax rolls? Yes, I a stinkin' civilian who has no earthly right to comment on what's done in my name. But I do pay the bills; the next time you want to go to war, might I suggest a bake sale?

Oh my God, you mean Soldiers don't pay taxes? I've been scammed for 18 years! Someone call CNN!

"Fake but accurate," dotcha know...

Oops, comment above is on the wrong post!

SFC D, taxes paid by soldiers are better described as "rebates."

Just exactly who is WW and what is s/he that it seems to be the very first commenter on EVERYthing? On a sliding scale of worth and value, and I have yet to read anything posted by WW worthwhile and non-argumentative. Are we to the point of being able to say for assuredly sure that WW is the anti-Rove, a determined poster of the Loony Liberal Left who will stoop to any position, post any lie, left unsaid any fact in order - not necessarily to win - but to discomfit George Bush and to make the situation in Iraq look as bad as possible for as long as possible, up to and including when we have won there, Zaqarwi is captured, and bin Laden has handed over his scimitar AND been beheaded?

Betcha WW is a professor at Berkeley which accounts for the amount of time s/he has to lurk on the internet, waiting to pounce and post the next near-lie.

Rebates...interesting concept. So how do I go about getting the rebate on sales tax, petroleum tax, property tax, state tax, vehicle registration tax, and all the other taxes?

Here's how it goes, SFC. Those of us who make money pay a third of our income to the government. Your president (I don't consider himself mine) and his fellow criminals in Congress borrow another half a trillion on top of that.

About a quarter of it goes to the military, 80% of which is to pay people and 20% of which is to buy new offices for Halliburton. You're one of the people who gets paid. You kick back about a third of what you're paid to, guess who, the government that my taxes fund.

Call your taxes a rebate, call 'em a kickback. But you're pay comes from those of us who fund it from our earnings in the productive economy. The military is necessary -- well, at least when its efforts aren't directed at debacles like Iraq -- but it is nonetheless a deadweight drag on the economy.

That's why wars are typically inflationary. You have a lot of people being paid, but they're not making anything. So the money they are paid goes and chases what is being made by everyone else. The bigger the military the more the inflationary risk.

I'm sure you'll think me an unpatriotic weasel for saying that, but even the most right-wing historians and economists on the planet will tell you that I'm right. It's one of the many reasons why empires tend to fall apart at the very peak of their military power: They take on too many commitments, and find that they are impossible to fund.

Get a job in the private economy, and you'll understand. And please don't try to tell me that the Iraq War is protecting my ability to live free and earn dough. Other way around; it's endangering our physical and economic security.

And guess what the very most expensive wars are? Occupations of hostile populations, especially those with radically different cultures. Even nations willing to be a lot more cruel than ours can rarely sustain them for very long. They always wind up cutting some sort of deal to stem the losses.

There are people in the so-called Milblogosphere who actually seem to think that the U.S. can sustain another decade of occupation in Iraq. If this country is also fighting a "war on drugs" (remember that one?) then someone should really go check some closets to see what's growing under the grow lamps because those people are crazier than loons.

This thing is falling apart. The wheels are wobbling for everyone to see, and they're going to come off within months. Time's growing short. The fish ain't biting. Time to cut bait. Really.

So, If I understood your lesson correctly, all I have to do is wean myself from the teat of military welfare and get a real job to understand economics.

And WW, I'd never call you unpatriotic.

No need to get a civilian job, but I might suggest a tad bit more respect for the people who sign your paycheck. I get a little sick of logging onto the so-called Milblogosphere and constantly reading that civilians have nothing to say about what you people do. Well, fine. Then pay for your own wars, dammit.

Civillians Vote, Soldiers risk their lives. Get some perspective WW.

I respect what they do, but it's not free. Not for them, but also not for me. In a general sense, the military answers to civilians not the other way around. It's about time someone around the so-called Milblogosphere remembered it.

Civilians need soldiers and soldiers need civilians. Viet Nam was an example of the civilian population letting down the soldiers. That will NOT happen again.

Civilians need to have a respect for the sacrifice of the soldiers, and the soldiers need to understand their dependence on an informed civilian population to support them. The military does not act independently of the civlian population. Viet Nam was a prime example of that reality. Because the civilian population gave up on the war effort, the soldiers were not able to continue and finish their mission.

While I will never say that I, as a civilian, am sacrificing as much for my country as a military member, I do expect military members to respect us civilians who do our best to support their efforts and get out the truth about the war effort and the military in general. And both groups should respect the informed opinions of the other.

Civilians should keep in mind that their right to vote is only in place because of the soldier who died to protect that right. And soldiers should keep in mind that a civilian vote to end the war (vote into power the anti-war political party) is the only thing that could defeat them in battle.

Respect must go both ways for the mission to succeed. "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" is much more than just a cliche.

As I said WW, Citizens vote. Your chronic confusion aside, that does mean the Military is subject to civillian control. Are you also so irritated that the omnibenevolent civillian government is inturrupted form its bussiness of protecting us from ourselves by memorial day, or veterans day? Is all that prime realestate in Arlington and Washington commemorating the US armed forces also an effront to your delicate sensibilites?

Or do you wear your concern on your sleeve about our Soldiers only when you can paint them as hapless victims of politicians you don't like?

Evidently, the Soldier is just another pawn in your political agenda, to be used and discarded at a whim. Your bald faced partisandship disgusts me.

Deamon, your drunken incoherence amuses me. Sober up. Let's talk in the morning.

"...your drunken incoherence amuses me."

That's ironic. Since I would bet most of the readers of your comments would say the same of you.

I would categorize myself as a 5 which is about as close as a 5"-38 would let me get. That's the Navy side. The MarCorps side would be about a 6. Although if someone purporting to be the enemy were standing there I'd blow him off the face of the earth without concern. I guess I'm no help to you there Grey.

I wonder how long before he complains of an Ad Hominem attack again?

Who? The dip?

WW, of course, Mike. Its late and I will indulge myself a break, you should too. Unlike ours, his cause Is lost.

Heh, Heh, to paraphrase someone we know.

WW Qoute: "Call your taxes a rebate, call 'em a kickback. But you're pay comes from those of us who fund it from our earnings in the productive economy. The military is necessary -- well, at least when its efforts aren't directed at debacles like Iraq -- but it is nonetheless a deadweight drag on the economy."

So what you are saying that the millions of dollars paid to military members is never put back into "the productive economy"? Where is this money going? I think that if you talk to the businesses in and around military bases, they would tell you we are the major part of their economy. The billions of dollars spent by the government, that comes from tax dollars, doesn't help the economy? As a farmer that is living on government subsidy, how his economy would do with out that money. The military is no more a drain on our economy than any other business in the US that recieves tax incentives or business from the US government. If fact, the US Government, include the US Military, maybe be one of the largest influences in the US economy.

GH,
Good point. A very modest 4 from here as well.

For the record, I'm a cat 9. (Hey, at least I'm not a pouge.)

Just exactly who is WW and what is s/he that it seems to be the very first commenter on EVERYthing?

WW is a troll. Don't feed the trolls and they go away. It's too easy.

SpectreCode, military wages net of the rebate (i.e., taxes) add to demand. But no supply was added by the expenditure. A military vehicle, for example, has no productive use. It generates no economic activity. By contrast, a civilian vehicle will cause all kinds of economic activity to be generated at the result of its use. That's why military spending is a dead-weight drag on the economy.

I know, I know. I'm an America-hating commie. Problem is, I'm repeating what every standard economics and history curriculum, even in the most right-wing department on earth, will tell you. Military spending is absolutely a double-edged sword; it can pay huge dividends if you win the right sort of war (WW2 being one of history's clearest examples) but it can be hugely draining as well (the late stages of the Roman and British empires).

The Iraq War is an example of the draining sort of expenditure. Had the so-called leaders who got us into it given this some thought in advance, they'd have done it differently. But no, in Bush-land there is no history before Jan. 20, 1981 when Reagan was inaugurated.

And look where we are now, going down to defeat in a country of 25 million shell-shocked people without an army or a visible outside supplier. Re-learning the lessons of Rome, the British in Iraq in the '20s, the French in Algeria, and the U.S. in Vietnam. No one even read Santayana. I think this is called hubris, which for those who haven't bothered to learn about the Greeks is translated as "arrogant overconfidence."

Gee Willy, now I KNOW that you are/were an economics graduate student. I also know you are an asshole.

But don't mind me, I'm just a stupid "pay-me-my-ill-gotten-salary-while-I-sit-on-my-ass-and-drink-beer" military overlord, milking the teat that you so grudgingly fill, and doing nothing to make sure you get any return on investment.

Go jump in the lake Darth Vader. Your panties are in a wad.

Subsunk

p.s.: Should we start a pool on when Deamon will crawl out of bed? Deamon, for that headache try three aspirin and a couple of cups of coffee. If that doesn't work, a little bit (but only a little) of the hair o'the dog that bit you. See you this afternoon.

sub, yes I do want a return on the investment. I'm thinking of the ways we could have spent that trillion bucks. At the very least, I expected victory. At least at the outset, I did. But once it became clear that Bush went in on a lie and then threw out core American values by approving torture of enemy combatants, I wrote it off.

Countries that tell those kinds of lies to themselves very rarely win their wars. And yeah, I know it pisses you off to have it boiled down to R.O.E. (return on equity for we civilians) but one of the iron laws of history is that wars and the empires they create and/or maintain are economic enterprises. Ignore that, and you're doomed.

Have that beer, sub. It's on me.

"Countries that tell those kinds of lies to themselves very rarely win their wars."

These lies, WW?

Wow, apparently my understanding of just how much of the budget is going to the military is way off. Did Willy say that 25% of the taxes paid were going to the military?

Documentation please. My understanding was that it was considerably less but you know us military folk ain't too bright and we only listen to right wing talk shows and watch Fox news.

Nice to see everyones favorite punching bag is back.

Defense + Veterans Administration + "Other Defense" = 23.9% of the federal budget. Department of Energy is another 0.9%. Most D.O.E. spending is on military stuff, i.e., nuclear bomb manufacturing and/or cleanup.

If you include it, then you get to 24.8% of the budget. And that's just on the surface. I'm sure an expert could find a bunch more than's scattered in other budget categories. Anyway, I wrote that 25% of the federal budget goes to the military. I think that's close enough for horseshoes and the Internet, don't you?

Oh here's a link. Check for yourself.

http://w3t.org/u/qn7

Then there's the question of what percentage of the taxes are going to military spending. You see, the Bush administration is borrowing roughly 15% of the budget. So, if military outlays are 24.8% of spending, they are 28.4% of taxes.

The difference comes from people who buy Treasury bonds, the majority of whom are foreigners (esp. Chinese and Japanese) who take the dollars earned for sales of cars, clothes and computers and turn them into ownership of U.S. companies and bonds.

Now, those bonds will have to be paid back with interest. But hey, the kids can do that. The U.S. borrowed heavily to finance WW2, by the way. But it won that one, and that particular victory brought economic benefits on a scale comparable to and probably exceeding the spoils of Roman victories and of Spanish plunder of Inca and Mayan gold.

Iraq? Financial black hole. Check this morning's New York Times. Half the oil output of Iraq is being siphoned off by smugglers. Want to know where the insurgents are getting their money? From us. For oil we buy from them.

I was a fan of George Bush I for having done the first Gulf War at a profit. It was a historical first; not only was there the usual profit afterwards ($20 oil, and buck-a-gallon gas, remember?) but he got the Europeans and the Japanese to pay for the war itself at list prices for all that inventory. Look at the accounts sometime, and you'll see a balance of payments surplus in the first quarter of 1991. Truly remarkable.

George W. Bush is the embodiment of the old saw about "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations." His grandfather made $100 million trading with the Nazis. His father tricked Saddam Hussein into a war over Halliburton's sideways drilling into Iraq reserviors from Kuwait, and then made money on the war and the aftermath.

George W.? Threw it all away, the idiot.

Let me see, we started off by having a good discussion on the utilization of information and got drawn off by the enemy onto an economics topic. Are we going to continue with the first topic or are we going to spend useless time with the dip?

Mike H., it did get off on a tangent. Let me wrap it back into the topic. My point was that civilians are no less qualified to discuss the Iraq War than retired military nut-scratchers are. The idea of a hierarchy of qualification based on the degree to which someone has been in combat is not only absurd, I think it's dangerous.

The rest is nothin' but whipped cream on dog feces.

This WW is a major troll, trying to foul up the comments of more than a few milblogs. Talking about economics- that isn't economics, that's washed up Marxist bullshit. Always wanting to blur the difference between a democracy and a republic, of course in the manner of the antiwar populist sentiment. You want to get into the intricacies of government financial policy? You do that because men better than you have died for that right. You want to go off about occupations and empires, I wouldn't trust you with a butter knife. That being said, I have nothing more for your 'contributions', as the worst thing for a troll is to be fed.

Cat 4 myself. And I'm a firm believer in morality of action, not in hypocritical human rights as defined by some sort of impossible and unobtainable ideal. Action implies mistakes. I wouldn't trust anyone who claimed otherwise, as all these second-guessers seem to be doing.

WW - We civilians can discuss war, but we cannot claim to know what happens on the battlefield nor what soldiers are thinking when in battle. We have not been there, nor seen what they have seen, nor experienced what they experienced. We only know what is reported in the anti-war agenda-driven media.

So while we civilians can express our opinions of whether or not the war was justified, we cannot discuss the situation in Iraq from experience. That is why military members are more qualified than civilians to talk of what goes on in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the inner workings of the military.

Any civilian who claims to know more than military members about war experiences and military matters based on reading a few books or some articles from the media are beyond arrogant.

What civilian has claimed "to know more than military members about war experiences?" You don't need that level of knowledge to know that marines committed a massacre at Haditha. Enough facts are on the table.

Sunguh, the economics I've talked about aren't Marxist. It is standard economics and history. In fact, I'd suggest that you have no idea what "Marxist economics" are. I have a little bit of exposure to that one, and it's quite the circus. Me a Marxist? Oh boy, are you ever wrong about that one.

p.s.: Sunguh, the definition of "troll" on the idelogical websites of the Internet is "anyone who disagrees with the prevailing sentiment." To that, I plead proudly guilty. I think the so-called Milblogosphere is out to lunch.

Clarification: The statement that a person should declare their combat experience was not meant to imply that unless you've been there you have no right to speak out. I don't believe Salamander meant to imply that either. In fact, I was pointing out that while I've been under enemy fire I have not been involved in daily exchange of fire with said enemy, have not had close friends obliterated right beside me, etc. etc. This is a statement of perspective and experience, not the ultimate detrmining factor as to the validity of my opinion relative to anyone else's.

I hope most people understood that immediately.

We're not out to lunch, WW. We just eat ours at a different deli. It has several choices on the menu, not just the same thing day after day.

Greyhawk, my apologies for feeding the troll. It's just so damn much fun to watch him chase his tail.

And for the record, I'm a cat 4.

We just eat ours at a different deli. It has several choices on the menu, not just the same thing day after day.

The Milblog Deli Menu

Truth Toast (Warning: Burnt)

Eggs a la Sweets and Flower (Warning: Broken)

It's All Hillary's Fault Stew

The Hippies Did It Casserole

The Lefties Hate America Soup

George W. Is God Salad

I Swear We're Winning In Iraq Stir Fry

Don't Mention The Dead or Wounded Pasta

All Iraqis Are Terrorists Sandwich

Saddam Has WMDs Appetizer (discontinued)

We Don't Torture Anyone Gravy (unavailable)

The Insurgency Is In Its Last Throes Pie (Warning: 1 year old, moldy)

I forgot one thing:

Halliburton Combined Dinner*

* Note: There will be a $10 million surcharge for this item

GH,
You are exactly right, and to follow one of my favorite hobbies - to quote myself;

As always, it is the very few how are CAT 1. I think that each CAT has its own view of what the military and combat is. If you are a CAT 4, you can theorize and discuss what happens at CAT 1 – but it is important to understand your limitations. The further away you are from the CAT you are talking about, the more pixilated your thoughts, opinions, or concepts are going to be.

Your hierachy is an absurd attempt to dodge from truth and accountability. No one needs to have served in the military to know that marines committed a massacre at Haditha. Those facts are out on the table. Details remain to be filled in, such as who pulled the triggers, although the USMC's (purposeful, in my opinion) delay in launching a criminal investigation seems likely to forever obscure that and other issues.

I observe that the military culture, so to speak, has done a pretty effective job of walling itself off from civilian culture. Plenty of devices for doing this. One is for almost all of the officers to join one political party. Another is to answer virtually all criticism by saying, in essence, "Go away, because you can't possibly understand."

Well, okay, if that's what you want you better be careful what you wish for. Take a look around the United States. Sure, you've got a bunch of people with yellow ribbon stickers on their pickups. You can buy 'em at the post office for 15 bucks. But how deep do you think the sentiment runs?

When you don't want civilians to stick their nose in what you clearly regard as "your business," then don't be surprised when those same civilians ignore the wounded and come to regard the rest of you as, well, I don't know, something that no one really spends a lot of time thinking about.

No one's going to be hostile. That lesson's been learned. But I'm telling you, the stance you're adopting -- which is very typical these days -- is virtually guaranteed to produce disconnection and indifference.

Now, it wouldn't surprise me if you really resent what I just wrote. After all, you guys resent Murtha for telling the truth so it stands to reason that you'd resent someone like me for doing the same thing. But I think if you really give it some thought, you'd see what I mean.

Remember that old peace demonstrator sign that read, "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" Well guess what? It happened, and now you're on your own. Be careful what you wish for, Salamander.

Let me tell you how deep the "yellow ribbon" sentiment runs. As I've been driving around lately, I've noticed that about a quarter of the ribbons are so faded that you can't read 'em. Hmm. Support our troops. Oh yeah.

You claim to know how these people with faded yellow ribbons spend their time, WW? Some of them could be contributing in many ways other than putting ribbons on their cars. Sending care packages to Iraq, supporting Valor-IT, supporting Operation A/C, Operation Iraqi Children, etc.

Amazing how you have to find the negative in absolutely everything.

Don't feed the Trolls. Well, sometimes it is fun to let them chew on some old stuff.....

Maybe so, Michael, but I doubt it. I think the public has checked out of this show. Now it's in syndication on Channel 73. Has a bunch of loyal fans, for sure, but it's fading from the radar screen. Who needs a new sticker for something you've pretty much forgotten about?

I mean come on, look at Mudville. Every now and then, there'll be blips like this one where he temporarily lifts his ban on me and he gets a shot of traffic. Absent that, this place is so deserted so can just about hear the wind whistling through the branches.

You obviously don't know it, but it's over. All that's left is for the lawyers to draw up the divorce papers and agree when to sign 'em. Really. You'll see.

Now here's something I really didn't expect. Wow!

The wife of a staff sergeant in the 3/1 battalion, who declined to be identified because she doesn't want to get her husband in trouble, told NEWSWEEK that there was "a total breakdown" in discipline and morale after Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani took over as battalion commander when the unit returned from Fallujah at the start of 2005. (Chessani's friends in his Colorado hometown defended him as a dedicated, patriotic, religious Marine.) "There were problems in Kilo Company with drugs, alcohol, hazing, you name it," said the woman. "I think it's more than possible that these guys were totally tweaked out on speed or something when they shot those civilians in Haditha."

What's also interesting is that the same unit was in Fallujah. Some people might recall the interview with the marine who was injured in the IED explosion that preceded the Haditha massacre.

He told KING-5 TV in Seattle that the deaths of the civilians in Haditha didn't move him. He was asked why, and he attributed part of his lack of feeling to medication he was taking and part of his lack of feeling to having seen much worse at Fallujah.

From Newsweek about Fallujah:

Fallujah was a vicious battle. The 3/1 lost 17 men in 10 days, fighting house to house. But the Marines were prepared. They had been taught to tie a rope to a wounded man to pull him to safety and to lay down a murderous blanket of covering fire. They expected their foe to resort to ruses, like dressing as women and using human shields. But the men of the Thundering Third had been given liberal rules of engagement to make sure people who looked like civilians didn't trigger hidden roadside bombs. "If you see someone with a cell phone," said one of the commanders, half-jokingly, "put a bullet in their f---ing head." During the battle, a TV camera crew photographed a Marine shooting a wounded, unarmed man. The Marine was later exonerated.

And about the leader of the 1st Marine Corps Division:

And yet, Mattis sent unforgivably mixed signals to his troops. Appearing last year on a panel in San Diego near his former home base at Camp Pendleton, Mattis said, "Actually, it's quite fun to fight them. You know, it's a hell of a hoot ... I like brawling. You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

And drug use:

The restrictions, combined with the omnipresent danger, can cause enormous mental strain. In December, NEWSWEEK interviewed some Army soldiers going home as conscientious objectors. To fight boredom and disgust, said Clif Hicks, who had left a tank squadron at Camp Slayer in Baghdad, soldiers popped Benzhexol, five pills at time. Normally used to treat Parkinson's disease, the drug is a strong hallucinogenic when abused. "People were taking steroids, Valium, hooked on painkillers, drinking. They'd go on raids and patrols totally stoned." Hicks, who volunteered at the age of 17, said, "We're killing the wrong people all the time, and mostly by accident. One guy in my squadron ran over a family with his tank."

And other disciplinary lapses:

Hicks claims that "there's a lot of guys who steal from the Iraqis. Money, family heirlooms, and then they brag about it. Guys would crap into MRE bags and throw them to old men begging for food."

http://w3t.org/u/qny

Oh, and by the way, Newsweek was correct about the desecration of the Koran at Guantanamo Bay. So don't even go there.

Maybe I've been too quick to dismiss comparisons to Vietnam. The U.S. military discipline fell apart there, too, amid widespread drug use. There'll always be lapses in wars; there certainly were in WW2. But this stuff is pretty surprising. Naturally, the Miblogosphere will cry foul. But you see, you have no credibility.

http://w3t.org/u/qo2

Two incidents, 12 people. Discipline is so lax in Iraq. Why there are people going around being courteous and respectful. Schools are being built, roads repaired, hospitals supplied. What's up with that? Oh, and don't forget taking on extra risks to insure civilians aren't harmed. I mean, what kind of American acts in that fashion? It's down right criminal. It keeps up our reputation may actually improve, and we can't have that.

We need to tighten up discipline, go back to the good old days when we nuked countries we didn't like and let God reassemble the pieces. 'Sides, the glow from the Birmingham, England rubble is starting to fade and it's making aerial navigation difficult

Alan, did you just say this? If you did, well, "You know who" might respond like this - and it all winds up like this. (yes, I am going off topic, but anything to distract the Trolls who have ruined the post anyway)

Two incidents, 12 people

Plenty more where that came from, I'm afraid. Remember when your guy O'Leilly was calling the torture at Abu Ghraib "fraternity pranks?"