Berkeley City Council Doing Its Anti-Democracy Bit

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

~snip~ but as a call for a more rational use of our (considerable) military might.

I too agree with that statement, but that is not at all what I took out of his original one. Sorry for any misinterpretation.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Its not our military, as anything but a deterrent. Which once more brings us back around to, i'm against the idea of using the military except in cases of actual invasion. Reduce it to a national guard force, not an international police force (or, alternatively, armed gang).
They arent doing it for the same reason we aren't forcibly making china a democracy. Its a pipe dream, a fantasy, not a realistic short-term goal.

Originally Posted by classicman

I too agree with that statement, but that is not at all what I took out of his original one. Sorry for any misinterpretation.

Neither did I.

[aimeecc]

Originally Posted by BigV

I, too, agree with the tone of Ibram's posts. But I read them differently. Not as a cry for a return to isolationism, but as a call for a more rational use of our (considerable) military might.

We **HAVE** awesome military power, and it is powerfully appealing to want to use the biggest hammer in the toolbox. But it is not always the best option. It is not always the most effective means of achieving a result.

Even when a goal is laudable, it may be a poor use of the military as well. They're soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen and coasties. As part of their job, they may know how to build a bridge or a school. They may know how to talk to a civilian suspect. They're clearly highly competent in their areas of speciality, and their training is excellent. But they're not nation builders. They're not even peace keepers. They're warriors, right? Isn't that what they train for? For war.

During this administration, they've been used and abused as a blunt heavy instrument. Not all our problems, problems we share with others can be bombed into submission.

I can't agree more. I think 2008 marks the year where the US spending on defense will surpass the spending of the rest of the world combined. We buy new billion dollar aircraft (Joint Strike Fighter) against an air threat that does not exist. We maintain bases in overseas regions that no longer require us to be there, and would frankly like us gone (although it would hurt the local economies to leave). I've always thought we should reduce our force and close most overseas bases. Mostly what we need is a few naval ports, and agreements to use a handful of airfields as required.

President Clinton reduced our forces. This alienated the military from the democrats, combined wth anti-military comments from other democrats. To make it worse, during Clinton's terms the military had more deployments as peace-keepers. Smaller force, more deployments, to areas in which the military's skills weren't in tune with what was needed. Military forces are trained to fight - not to keep peace. Sure, miltary have engineers that can dig wells and schools - but that's not the mission of the military. Protect and defend, not dig wells.

The US was never truly isolationist. If you look at the period when we were so called isolationists we were stilling fight small 'wars' in areas we had an economic interest in.

[BigV]

Marines can stay in Berkeley, without an apology from City Council

The Berkeley City Council attempted to make nice with U.S. Marines recruiters Wednesday morning by taking back a letter it planned to send calling the Corps 'uninvited and unwelcome intruders' in the city.

But a motion to formally apologize failed.

Instead the City Council with a 7-2 vote at 1 a.m. sought to clarify one of its Jan. 29 Marines motions with new language that recognizes "the recruiters' right to locate in our city and the right of others to protest or support their presence."

The new statement also said the council opposes "the recruitment of our young people into this war."

I also applaud this second refinement of the BCC's position.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

I can't agree more. I think 2008 marks the year where the US spending on defense will surpass the spending of the rest of the world combined. We buy new billion dollar aircraft (Joint Strike Fighter) against an air threat that does not exist. We maintain bases in overseas regions that no longer require us to be there, and would frankly like us gone (although it would hurt the local economies to leave). I've always thought we should reduce our force and close most overseas bases. Mostly what we need is a few naval ports, and agreements to use a handful of airfields as required.

President Clinton reduced our forces. This alienated the military from the democrats, combined wth anti-military comments from other democrats. To make it worse, during Clinton's terms the military had more deployments as peace-keepers. Smaller force, more deployments, to areas in which the military's skills weren't in tune with what was needed. Military forces are trained to fight - not to keep peace. Sure, miltary have engineers that can dig wells and schools - but that's not the mission of the military. Protect and defend, not dig wells.

The US was never truly isolationist. If you look at the period when we were so called isolationists we were stilling fight small 'wars' in areas we had an economic interest in.

I would disagree about the comments concerning the JSF or a huge reduction in overseas bases but I would agree about the comments concerning the Clinton administration. Having been on AD during that complete period we were marginalized and degraded. The times we prepared demonstrations and expected to have a chance to make a case for specific unit missions were met by 20-something's Congressional staffers and scorn by the Demoncratic administration of the time. Another reason not to vote for Ms. Clinton IMHO. We don't need to swing that far again. Our need to project military power world wide will not be reduced in the future. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

BigV nailed it, we are warriors not nation builders, but it does not mean that we cannot be compasionate and care for civilians caught in the crossfire of misdirected policy. We can and do that to a much greater degree than the majority of the public knows or understands. The information fed to the public by the press is packaged and sanitized by both the government censors and liberal supporters with agendas and an axe to grind, much of it is off the mark and does not tell the real story.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Even with an all volunteer military, we don't have legions of Rambos, frothing at the mouth, to kill. Well trained and capable, but mostly just decent people with a soft spot for puppies, children, and people that are hurting.

[aimeecc]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I would disagree about the comments concerning the JSF or a huge reduction in overseas bases but I would agree about the comments concerning the Clinton administration. Having been on AD during that complete period we were marginalized and degraded. The times we prepared demonstrations and expected to have a chance to make a case for specific unit missions were met by 20-something's Congressional staffers and scorn by the Demoncratic administration of the time. Another reason not to vote for Ms. Clinton IMHO. We don't need to swing that far again. Our need to project military power world wide will not be reduced in the future. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

BigV nailed it, we are warriors not nation builders, but it does not mean that we cannot be compasionate and care for civilians caught in the crossfire of misdirected policy. We can and do that to a much greater degree than the majority of the public knows or understands. The information fed to the public by the press is packaged and sanitized by both the government censors and liberal supporters with agendas and an axe to grind, much of it is off the mark and does not tell the real story.

By all accounts, the plan is for 2,000-3,000 JSFs, each costing around $37-$48 million each, depending on the variant. I know our aircraft have to be replaced - we're still flying aircraft that were shot at in Vietnam allmost 40 years ago. However, there has to be a more cost effective way to replace them. Should we upgrade capabilities? Of course. Should we test technology? Of course! But we could buy newer versions of older models at a fraction of the cost to meet most of the need (and threat), and only have a small number of JSFs just to have the ability to push new technology to the limit, get lessons learned, and improve on it even more.

Overseas bases? We have thousands of people in Japan, ostensibly to keep Kim Jong-il in check, as well as China. There is a plan to relocate most of the force to Guam - which is great. The Japanese people don't want us there. Our forces in Germany were there to guard against the Communists. They are no longer a threat, and Germany is just a great place for soldiers and airmen to spend a few years drinking beer and going skiing in the Alps. The Germans would like us gone too, although they don't hate our presence as much as the Japanese. These are just the two largest concentrations. Close most overseas bases, and we can still project our power through long range bombers and Expeditionary Strike Groups. No permanent basing needed. And it would save a lot of money.

Would we appreciate Japan having a base in Hawaii, or the Germans in Colorado, or the Italians in Washington, or the Bahraini's in DC? The answer is no.

[TheMercenary]

The key word in JSF is Joint. The reason it is an important platform is that all three services are going to use it. All the other countries are updating and we are required for security reasons to stay ahead. The JSF is the best way to go.

I agree that we could reduce our overseas presence in some places, but not in others. Germany is more than a place to vacation Europe from and drink beer. We have already closed numerous and redundent posts in Europe, as we should have, but the largest air fields, combined with the Medical Center are and have been extremely important. The ablity to project power from that location is very important. I could see how we could close some more bases in some areas of Europe.

Japan, Germany, and Italians really have no beef with us, Canada, or Mexico so they really would not want to be here any how.

[lookout123]

But we could buy newer versions of older models

and hope that others in the world aren't upgrading? Doesn't work that way.

Anyway, you've been in the military long enough to know that those cost projections are fluffed up by billions in BS R&D costs that escalate for no valid reason other than political BS.

Don't believe that? Read this about this guy.

[xoxoxoBruce]

WASHINGTON, Nov 12 (Reuters) - U.S. and foreign defense contractors are
jockeying for position as the Pentagon moves toward launching a mammoth
competition to replace some 170,000 Humvees in the U.S. military fleet.

Defense analysts and industry sources say the Joint Tactical Light
Vehicles contract is worth well over $10 billion and possibly three to
seven times more, depending on the final cost of the vehicle chosen for
the Army and Marine Corps to use for the next three to four decades.

The replacement vehicles will become the workhorse of the two services and
will be used to carry troops and equipment, with an eye to protecting them
better from roadside bombs than the current fleet of Humvees.

"It is a very lucrative program," said defense consultant Jim McAleese.
"Whoever wins this, they're going to build the light tactical vehicle for
the Army for the next 40 years."

The Pentagon expects to release a formal request for proposals for
technology development of the new trucks by the end of March 2008.

Several of the Pentagon's top contractors are gearing up to bid for the
work, including No. 1 Lockheed Martin Corp which teamed with Britain's BAE
Systems Plc , which acquired Armor Holdings this year. Also expected to
bid are No. 2 Boeing Co with partner Textron Inc , and No. 4 General
Dynamics Corp , which has teamed with Humvee maker AM General.

BAE, which has a big stake in a U.S. project worth more than $20 billion
that is sending armored Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to
Iraq, also has a separate bid for the new contract. BAE is teaming up with
rival MRAP maker Navistar International Corp's International Military and
Government LLC.

Specialty truck maker Oshkosh Truck Corp is also participating in the
competition.

The Army and Marine Corps had hoped to begin production of its Humvee
replacements by 2010, but the Pentagon recently decided to return to its
original 2012 target.

That decision followed a move by acting Pentagon arms chief John Young in
September to require development of prototypes before the government moves
into the costly system design and development phase of new programs.

"Competing teams producing prototypes of key system elements will reduce
technical risk, validate designs, validate cost estimates, evaluate
manufacturing processes, and refine requirements," Young wrote in a memo
explaining the policy.

Defense analyst Paul Nisbet with with JSA Research, lauded the move. The
military's failure to test prototypes with the MRAP program resulted in a
range of problems, including equipment that did not work as expected, he
said.

In the MRAP program, which was rushed through by Congress, the Pentagon is
"ending up with half a dozen different vehicles that are going to be a
logistical nightmare," Nisbet said.

He said it made more sense in the case of the Humvee successors, which
were not as urgently needed, to "slow the process down and buy one type of
basic vehicle" to be built by one manufacturer, or possibly two sharing
the same design.

McAleese expected the Pentagon to whittle the field to two or three teams
that would build a prototype and eventually settle on one manufacturer for
the new vehicles.

Teams with experience mass producing vehicles and leading other big
programs would probably have a competitive edge, he said.

Lockheed executives acknowledged their company is better known for
advanced fighter jets, but said its experience integrating communications
and sensors would give it an edge in the truck competition.

In addition, Lockheed's design has a V-shaped hull that offers troops
similar protection to the much heavier -- and far less transportable --
MRAP vehicles, said Steve Ramsey, executive vice president of Lockheed's
Systems Integration.

Huge bucks and these aren't what I'd call serious weapon systems.

[DanaC]

no there aren't any threats to us - 9/11 never really happened - just like we never landed on the moon.

a) How does military service overseas help protect you from another 9/11?
b) Whilst damaging, in what way does such an attack actually threaten your country's survival/way of life/basic freedoms?

I understand that it was a watershed moment, but the stark reality is that in terms of actual loss of life it was very little compared to what many countries deal with on a day-to-day basis. It took what? six or seven years to plan? A major operation, yet managed to do little more than scratch America's surface.

In terms of real threat to your nation there isn't one unless it comes via a nuclear strike and having troops stationed across the Middle East is hardly going to prevent that.

The idea that you are under threat from, at war with, a great and terrible enemy is a lie. It's been sold to you on the back of 9/11 just as surely as you were sold reds under the beds in a previous generation. Duck and cover everyone. Stay vigilant.

And, no this isn't just about Americans. We're being sold the same bullshit over here. A couple of buses get blown up and suddenly that's justifcation for all sorts of changes to our legal system that'd have us shuddering in disgust under 'normal' circumstances.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

a) How does military service overseas help protect you from another 9/11?

By hunting the people who want to make us go away and killing them.

[deadbeater]

And how is it that the terrorists, al-Qaeda et al, aren't using the war, the Iraq War, as real-world training, like the Chechyans are using the war vs Russia as real-world training?

[Ibby]

But the thing is, they dont want us to 'go away', they want us to leave their countries. They want us to go home, and get out of their 'holy land'. A military force overseas only help recruit to their cause. They dont want us all dead, they dont want us to leave america and let them take over, they dont want to impose sharia law on us, as anything more than hopeless pipe dreams, the same way we want everyone to have a democracy and do what we say.
Theofascism, islamic or otherwise, is obviously a threat to the freedom of it citizens, and therefore to freedom worldwide, but its one for us to deal with by encouraging revolution and sanctions to undermine the power of the government.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

But the thing is, they dont want us to 'go away', they want us to leave their countries. They want us to go home, and get out of their 'holy land'. A military force overseas only help recruit to their cause. They dont want us all dead, they dont want us to leave america and let them take over, they dont want to impose sharia law on us, as anything more than hopeless pipe dreams, the same way we want everyone to have a democracy and do what we say.
Theofascism, islamic or otherwise, is obviously a threat to the freedom of it citizens, and therefore to freedom worldwide, but its one for us to deal with by encouraging revolution and sanctions to undermine the power of the government.

Get back to me on the Wahhabist philosophy and let me know some more about that.