2 of 3
2
False dichotomy: conservative vs. liberal
Posted: 09 April 2005 04:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2005-04-02

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]
First, it is largely because of the innovation and skill of defense contractors that your liberal a$$ is currently defended and protected by the most powerful, efficient and technologically advanced military force in the world.

I may be an a$$, but don’t call me a “liberal” (or a “conservative”, for that matter).

You mean the most bloated, bureaucratic, wasteful, top-heavy military in the world. The fact is, we don’t need half the crap the defense contractors are churning out. What we need is properly equipped soldiers. What those soldiers need is proper armor, ammunition and reliable rifles. Wars are won by boots on the ground, not fancy technology.

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]
Second, as a direct result of the innovation and skill of defense contractors, our military (volunteers) were able to quickly and soundly defeat the most powerful military force in the Middle East (twice) within days and with minimal loss of American lives.  Saddam would have given anything to have had our defense contractors supplying his military!

The bulk of Iraq’s vaunted military prowess was in it’s tank divisions, which was basically a bunch of rusted old WWII vintage tanks, most of which ran out of gas before we found them. They were primarily taken out by our A-10 Warthogs, which were actually scheduled for decomission before the Iraq conflict. These birds are NOT high-tech.

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]
Third, the technological prowess of the US defense contractors was a key reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union (they could not compete technologically and ultimately bankrupted their economy trying).

This is a bunch of propaganda. The Soviet Union was already on the brink of financial collapse before Reagan started dumping money into military spending. All that did was speed up their demise by as much as a decade at the cost of record deficits which we still haven’t paid off.

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]
Fourth, because of the obvious and clearly demonstrated, defense-contractor-provided technical superiority of the US military, it will probably not be necessary to fight too many more wars in the Middle East.  Libya, Syria, Iran and the rest of our potential opponents in that region have done the calculations and recognized that they cannot win militarily and must seek diplomatic solutions to resolve our differences.

I agree. We can pretty much count on not getting much use out of those Buck Rogers gadgets you guys keep coming up with. Most of them are only good against people who advertise their home address or choose to fight in large clustered formations. Problem is, the war we’re fighting now comes down to taking down one person at a time, not blowing up acres of land at a time. We’re never going to fight WWII again, so we need to stop thinking in those terms. Our most effective military weapon in the “war on terror” is our infantry. Just look at Iraq. What good does an unmanned aircraft do against a car bomb.

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]
Finally, almost all of the money spent on defense contractors flows directly back into the US economy through good well-paying jobs, product purchases and innovative technical advances that spawn commercial products and services (e.g., the Internet) as well as through federal, state and local tax contributions.

Ah, yes. The only “tinkle”-down economics theory. Still trying to sell us on that one, are you?

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]
The US taxpayer has gotten far more value and, more importantly, significantly better RESULTS from defense contractor expenditures than, for example, from the “War on Poverty” or the “War on Drugs” to name just a couple of very expensive and totally ineffective federal government boondoggles.

I couldn’t agree more about the “War on Drugs”. I don’t know much about the “War on Poverty”, which probably just demonstrates your point.

Have you ever heard of Col. David Hackworth? His book About Face is a definite must-read for anyone with an interest in the military. I’ll bet you have heard of him, being a former defense contractor. But in case you haven’t, you should check out his website:
http://www.hackworth.com/

- Bulldog

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2005 06:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1229
Joined  2004-12-22

I have ONE very small point to make

ALOT of our technological advances in the 60’s and 70’s were fueled not so much by defense, but by space…

yes, teflon, zip lock bags, pens that can write upside down even

okay wait, I miscounted, two points !!

the problem with our military contractors and in fact anyone’s, is that they need markets !!  in order to sell “defense” things like black hawk helicopters you need countries that want to buy them, and as a hippie, I have to say that selling “weapons” doesn’t seem to coincide with the idea of world peace.

Currently I understand we are upset with Venezula for buying weapons (not from us) and selling their oil (not to us)

rolleyes

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2005 07:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03

[quote author=“bulldog”][quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]Secondly, the US is paying less than 2% (most recently 1.89%) in real inflation-adjusted long term interest on debt and the economy is growing at an inflation-adjusted rate of between 3.5 and 4% annually.  If you could personally borrow money at less than 2% and invest the proceeds at 3.5 to 4%, how long would you continue to do so?  I expect that your (correct) answer would be…… “FOREVER!!”

I’m not an economist. I just believe that the soundest fiscal policy is always cash on the barrelhead. I’m not interested in arguing the numbers you are giving. I don’t doubt you can argue circles around me on that score, so I can only assume that your numbers are correct.

Nevertheless, I can’t believe that you are telling the whole story. By this logic, we would be crazy if we’re not borrowing as much money as possible, since we would be making twice as much in profit from the loan as we are paying in interest. There has to be something you aren’t telling me.

- Bulldog

Well, of course there is a practical limit to what you can borrow. 

If you try to float too much debt, the market for your bonds will begin to weaken and, in order to compensate for increased percieved risk, buyers will either demand a higher yield (interest rate) and/or shift their investments to lower risk instruments.

But, as long as the amount of debt sold each year (the deficit) is less than about 3 or 4% of GDP, bond buyers can be confident that the debt will be redeemed at full value plus interest when due.

Long term, it is not necessarily important to pay off the national debt,  As long as the growth in GDP exceeds the growth of the debt (the deficit),  eventually the national debt will gradually shrink as a fraction of GDP.

The danger comes if the economy suddenly stops growing or shrinks for an extended period of time because of a recession and deficits soar due to the resulting reduced tax revenues without offsetting spending cuts.

Traditonally, when this occurs, liberals want to raise taxes (on the rich)and conservatives want to reduce them in order to put more money in the hands of the people and investors thereby stimulating the economy.

History shows that the former generally does not work and that the latter generally does.

[ Edited: 09 April 2005 08:46 PM by ]
 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2005 07:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2005-04-02
[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]History shows that the former generally does not work and that the latter generally does.

I seem to recall we were in a recession most of the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush presidency, then suddenly the economy booms in the 90s, with a democrat in the White House, by coincidence. Is that not how you remember it?

- Bulldog

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2005 08:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2005-04-02

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]Long term, it is not necessarily important to pay off the national debt

I’ve heard this before, with all kinds of mumbo-jumbo (meaning I had a hard time following the discussion) but I just don’t buy it. It’s like saying that long-term, it’s not important to pay off your credit card bill. I don’t see how anyone can say that when the annual interest on the national debt is more than five times as much as the annual budget for education.

Annual interest on the national debt: over $300 billion.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm

Education budget: $56 billion
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget06/index.html

- Bulldog

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2005 08:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03
[quote author=“bulldog”][quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]History shows that the former generally does not work and that the latter generally does.

I seem to recall we were in a recession most of the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush presidency, then suddenly the economy booms in the 90s, with a democrat in the White House, by coincidence. Is that not how you remember it?

- Bulldog

No!

What I remember is that Reagan inherited from Carter a totally disfunctional economy in “stagflation” with no growth, double digit inflation and astronomical interest rates.

Reagan lowered taxes and increased defense spending thereby stimulating the economy during the 80s.

However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, goverment spending on defense suddenly dropped (the “peace dividend”) and this sudden change in government spending patterns temporarily disrupted the economy during middle of the first Bush administration.

The economy was in full recovery as Clinton/Gore took office in 1992. 

When the Republicans won control of the congress in 1994, as part of their “Contract with America”, they passed legislation forcing Clinton to institute welfare reform and to balance the budget which resulted in a thriving economy for the rest of the 90s.

The bursting of the tech bubble in 2000 at the end of the Clinton/Gore administration threw the country into another recession. 

Bush immediately cut taxes but, just as the economy was starting to turn upwards, 9/11 occured wiping out additional trillions of $ stock market value and lengthening the inheritied Clinton/Gore recession.

I think that history will show that Clinton had very little to do with the success of the economy during the 90s.  It was moslty driven by the tech boom and the fiscal discipline of the Republican congress.

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2005 08:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2005-04-02

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]...the fiscal discipline of the Republican congress.

Oh, for the good ol’ days.

- Bulldog

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2005 08:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03

[quote author=“bulldog”][quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]Long term, it is not necessarily important to pay off the national debt

I’ve heard this before, with all kinds of mumbo-jumbo (meaning I had a hard time following the discussion) but I just don’t buy it. It’s like saying that long-term, it’s not important to pay off your credit card bill. I don’t see how anyone can say that when the annual interest on the national debt is more than five times as much as the annual budget for education.

Annual interest on the national debt: over $300 billion.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm

Education budget: $56 billion
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget06/index.html

- Bulldog

The national debt is not like your credit card bill where you pay 18 to 20% annual interest.  It is more like your mortgage where you may be paying 4, 5 or 6% (tax deductible) interest over 30 years.

Depending upon your federal and state tax brackets your after tax cost of the interest on your mortgage is probably only about 60% of the APR.

If you can invest in the stock market at the historical long term return of around 10%, you would be a fool to take that money and pay off your mortgage instead of investing it.

The same logic is true of the national debt.

The federal education budget should be closer to zero than $59 billion.  Education should be funded at the state and local level.

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2005 08:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03
[quote author=“bulldog”][quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]Prior to the 2000 election, when Donald Trump was testing the waters for a possible run for President, he floated the idea that if all of the people in the US with net worth of greater than $10 Million were to be taxed on a one-time basis at the rate of 25% of their net worth, the national debt could be paid off.

Don’t be absurd. It has taken decades to run up the national debt to the current level. It would be nice to be able to pay it off overnight, but you have stated the obvious fact that it would incapacitate the US economy (albeit temporarily). Also, you’re talking about people’s net worth, not their annual income. The only sane solution is to pay it off the same way it was acquired, in incremental chunks.

- Bulldog

I only used the Trump proposal to illustrate the impact at the extreme “cold turkey” end of the possible debt reduction spectrum.

Whether you do it over one year, 10 years or 30 years, the effect is the same…..it just takes longer and the adverse effect is elongated but somewhat less precipitous. 

You are still extracting a significant fraction of total investment base from the economy for no good reason.

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2005 05:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03
[quote author=“bulldog”]You mean the most bloated, bureaucratic, wasteful, top-heavy military in the world. The fact is, we don’t need half the crap the defense contractors are churning out. What we need is properly equipped soldiers. What those soldiers need is proper armor, ammunition and reliable rifles. Wars are won by boots on the ground, not fancy technology.

No, I mean the smart, adept, resourceful, agile, brave, efficient and effective military that was able to react to 9/11 by projecting US military force half way around the world from a standing start within 30 days and free 25 million people from Taliban oppression within another 30 days with the loss of less than 200 US lives.

It is true that most wars are ultimately won by “boots on the ground”. 

However, you don’t just take those troops and their “proper armor, ammunition and reliable rifles” down to the local commercial airport, check their baggage at the curb and buy them a ticket to Baghdad International.  Nor, upon arrival, do you expect them to hail a taxi and tell the driver to take them to where the bad guys are so that they can apply their boots to the ground at the right time and location.  If they need air support, they don’t call the local crop duster to buzz the battlefield.  If they need reinforcements, they don’t go to the nearest pay phone and call their travel agent to book more seats on the next commercial flight. If they run out of food or ammunition, or their rifle or armor is damaged, they can’t run over to the local Wal-Mart with their credit card for re-supply.  If they are injured or wounded, they can’t check into the local urgent care clinic or emergency room for medical treatment.

Defense contractors only “turn out” items that meet validated military mission requirements that are approved, authorized and funded by the Congress.  Those requirements are constantly being reassessed in the light of the current and projected threats faced by the country and the military missions that must be carried out in order to successfully meet them.

Immediately upon taking office (after 8 years of neglect by Clinton/Gore/Cohen), the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration began the process of “transforming” the military into the much lighter, mobile and lethal force needed to meet the threats of the 21st century.  This process will take at least a decade and will depend heavily on the skills and “fancy technology” of the US defense contractor community in order to succeed.

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2005 07:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2005-04-02

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]
However, you don’t just take those troops and their “proper armor, ammunition and reliable rifles” down to the local commercial airport, check their baggage at the curb and buy them a ticket to Baghdad International.  Nor, upon arrival, do you expect them to hail a taxi and tell the driver to take them to where the bad guys are so that they can apply their boots to the ground at the right time and location.  If they need air support, they don’t call the local crop duster to buzz the battlefield.  If they need reinforcements, they don’t go to the nearest pay phone and call their travel agent to book more seats on the next commercial flight. If they run out of food or ammunition, or their rifle or armor is damaged, they can’t run over to the local Wal-Mart with their credit card for re-supply.  If they are injured or wounded, they can’t check into the local urgent care clinic or emergency room for medical treatment.

Yes, and all those exact same goods and services can be obtained by civilians for one-tenth of the price that defense contractors bilk taxpayers for. Look at the Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, in Iraq. They couldn’t even supply our guys food without overcharging and underdelivering.

In typical fashion, the success rate of the Patriot missile has been revealed to be wildly exaggerated, so the best defense against enemy missiles is still to dive into a bunker. Google “patriot missile success” or “patriot missile accuracy”. Here are some examples:
http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html
Excerpt:

A 10 month investigation by the House Government Operations subcommittee on Legislation and National Security concluded that there was little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scuds.

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/profiles/raytheon/raytheon4.htm
Excerpt:

4.11 Shoddy Merchandise / Missile Accuracy

...only 9% of Patriot-Scud engagements could be proved to end in a ‘kill’...In Israel/Palestine the amount of damage and number of casualties increased after the Patriots were deployed there.[70]

Our so-called “pinpoint accuracy” super-weapons tend to have a blast radius of a couple hundred yards. So apparently defense contractors use a different size pin than most people. The only genuinely pinpoint accurate super-weapons we have are called snipers. They cost in the thousands of dollars to train and they only require little or no equipment.

Do I need to talk about $80 hammers and $5 pencils? Meanwhile, where is the body armor? Where is the armor for the Humvees? Where are the basic supplies that the soldiers need? The money for these things is tied up in useless Buck Rogers whizz-bang technology, that’s where. Billions of dollars spent, and it always ends up having to be done the old fashioned way, with a soldier climbing up a rock with a standard-issue rifle.

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]
Defense contractors only “turn out” items that meet validated military mission requirements that are approved, authorized and funded by the Congress.  Those requirements are constantly being reassessed in the light of the current and projected threats faced by the country and the military missions that must be carried out in order to successfully meet them.

Each soldier in the enemy army can pay for his own supplies, equipment and any specialized training out of his own pocket, while working in a civilian job. So how many cruise missiles does it take to eliminate each of these soldiers. Answer: zero. All of your fancy technology is useless against them.

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]
Immediately upon taking office (after 8 years of neglect by Clinton/Gore/Cohen), the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration began the process of “transforming” the military into the much lighter, mobile and lethal force needed to meet the threats of the 21st century.

Your own comments put the lie to these statements. It was the Clinton/Gore/Cohen army that executed these brilliant victories in Afghanistan and Iraq that you have been gushing over. It was less than a year after the Bush administration took over that these military victories were accomplished. They were still working under the previous budget, still using the same equipment, still with the same leadership. The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration hadn’t had a chance to to squat and now, 4 years later, they still haven’t got their act together. Our boys still don’t have the equipment they need and they are dying unnecessarily because of it.

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]
This process will take at least a decade and will depend heavily on the skills and “fancy technology” of the US defense contractor community in order to succeed.

And it will end up being a waste of time, because it’s oriented towards people with fixed addresses, not terrorists. All that time, money and effort foiled by a bunch of people walking around with a few pounds of explosives strapped around their chest.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2005 07:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03

Nowhere did I mention, defend or even refer to the Patriot missile.

So, what’s your point?

If you or anyone else thinks that they can provide better and cheaper solutions for most military requirements, you are free to bid on them.  If you can do so, you will easily win lots of contracts!

The govenment even strongly encourages and gives special consideration and competitive preferences to small business (civilian) providers like yourself.

Go for it….......you are obviously much smarter than people who have devoted most of their lives to trying to understand and meet the military’s demanding requirements.  It should be really easy for a smart guy like you!

Or…..... maybe we should just adopt the tactics of our terrorist enemies and let our guys buy their own weapons and supplies at their own expense, strap explosives around their chests, let them pick up a sniper rifle at the local gun show and send them into battle.  It would no doubt be much cheaper plus save on a bundle on that messy and expensive post combat medical treatment.  Great idea!

And, you’re right, we need to get those pesky terrorists to register their addresses, cars and GPS coordinates and to stay in one spot so that we can target them with our Buck Rodgers stuff or hit them over the head with one of our $80 hammers….....Another Great Idea!......wish I had thought of it!!

Bulldog, ignorance is a truly wonderful thing….....everything is soooooo simple when you don’t have a clue what you are talking about!

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2005 01:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2005-04-02

Your post was a triumph of sarcasm. Too bad they don’t have this category for the Pulitzer prize.

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]Or maybe we should just adopt the tactics of our terrorist enemies and let our guys buy their own weapons and supplies at their own expense, strap explosives around their chests, let them pick up a sniper rifle at the local gun show and send them into battle.

No, I think taxpayers should pay to properly equip and train them and especially, to keep them alive. But I understand you are just being sarcastic.

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]It would no doubt be much cheaper plus save on a bundle on that messy and expensive post combat medical treatment.

This isn’t where the bulk of defense contracts go to and you know it. These are exactly the kind of basic supplies and services that should get top priority and funding. Instead, the bulk of the $400+ billion dollars a year goes to weapon systems just like the Patriot missile and these so-called “pinpoint accurate” missile systems.

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]And, you’re right, we need to get those pesky terrorists to register their addresses, cars and GPS coordinates and to stay in one spot so that we can target them with our Buck Rodgers stuff or hit them over the head with one of our $80 hammers….....Another Great Idea!......wish I had thought of it!!

At this point, you are abusing sarcasm, but at least we agree that these multi-billion dollar weapons systems are a waste of taxpayer money.

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]ignorance is a truly wonderful thing….....everything is so simple when you don’t have a clue what you are talking about!

It’s amazing how many similarities there are between knowing nothing and knowing everything.

- Bulldog

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2005 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2005-04-02

[quote author=“Conservative Atheist”]Nowhere did I mention, defend or even refer to the Patriot missile.

What are you defending, then?

- Bulldog

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2005 05:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03

[quote author=“bulldog”]This isn’t where the bulk of defense contracts go to and you know it. These are exactly the kind of basic supplies and services that should get top priority and funding. Instead, the bulk of the $400+ billion dollars a year goes to weapon systems just like the Patriot missile and these so-called “pinpoint accurate” missile systems.

Bulldog, you are simply mistaken and either too ignorant or too arrogant to know what you don’t know. 

If you would simply take the time to check your facts, you would know that about 66% of the DoD budget goes to fund such things as military personnel, operations & maintenance, family housing, military construction, etc.

Of the approximate 33% that goes to procurement and RDT&E (Research, Development, Test & Evaluation), less than 10% goes into anything that could be remotely considered exotic “Buck Rogers” stuff.  Most (over 90%) goes to fund next generation/transformational and/or replacement ships, planes, vehicles, computers, communications, satellites, weapons, etc.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/defense.html

I do not set the DoD priorities, and am not trying to in any way defend or justify any particular weapon system. 

However, I am quite familiar with the process by which the budget is created and the incredible amount of scrutiny from the military, the Congress, OMB. the intelligence community, the press, the “peace lobby” and (yes) the defense contractor establishment that goes into setting the priorities.

If you disagree with any of them (e.g. the Patriot Missile) you are free to express your objections directly to your elected representatives and/or thru the various people lobbying against them.

The process is very complicated in that the DoD must be prepared to deal with an incredibly wide range of missions, threats, geographies, climates, etc.  They have to prepare for everything from humanitarian relief, various kinds of international crises, terrorism, localized or civil warfare, and major regional confrontations between nations to the deterrence of nuclear war.

Unfortunately, the weapon systems needed to deter North Korea from invading South Korea or to prevent China from seizing Taiwan may not necessarily be well suited to chasing terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan.

My only point is…….. I know (from first hand experience) that, in general, the President, the DoD, the Congress and the defense contractors are striving to create the optimum set of the most cost-effective and efficient set of military capabilities possible in order to deter our enemies and, if that fails, to allow our troops to carry out current and future missions that they may be called upon to perform with minimum loss of American civilian or military lives. 

Having said that, nobody has a 100% accurate crystal ball to predict the next threat, crisis, theater of operation, mission, etc.

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed