Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Hey, you know now that Iraq's basically over, and Afghanistan has a hard date for winding down, it looks like after more than a decade at war, we might finally be able to relax and enjoy a "peace dividend" unless, oh son of a b--   (foxnews.com) divider line 317
    More: Sad, Afghanistan, Iraq, Latin American, United States, Gil Kerlikowske, border protection, Mexican Army, arms exports  
•       •       •

34985 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Feb 2013 at 12:40 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



317 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-04 01:09:35 PM  
The designer drugs are also a result of the drug war. Would bath salts even have been discovered if it weren't so profitable? The damage done by some of the new drugs is worse than what they replace. Meth seems to be destroying peoples lives faster than cocaine with worse health effects.
 
2013-02-04 01:11:06 PM  

Cythraul: You really thought the military industrial complex was going to sit on its hands, subby?


www.sheppardsoftware.com

I warned you.
 
2013-02-04 01:11:43 PM  
No brown person left unshot.
 
2013-02-04 01:11:51 PM  
Well, we all know who is ultimately responsible for this - people who continue to buy marijuana, thus creating a market for it, and thus giving rise to drug cartels, and all of their associated evils. Stop supporting the drug cartels.
 
2013-02-04 01:13:47 PM  
Let's allow drug money a path into the US military.  What could possibly go wrong?
 
2013-02-04 01:14:13 PM  
Maybe if there wasn't such a market for it......who am I kidding, as long as man exist there will be a market for drugs.
 
2013-02-04 01:14:19 PM  

TwowheelinTim: Old_Chief_Scott: My last cruise on active duty was patrolling the Mexican west coast.

Were you in the CG or USN?


USN. Twenty years worth.


Litig8r:
No doubt.  I really hate it when I'm out of my jurisdiction and I see someone who might be doing something that is illegal within my own jurisdiction.  And then when I ask them if I can come take a look to see if they are doing something that isn't illegal where we are, but is illegal in my jurisdiction, they immediately move to a jurisdiction where I'm not allowed to follow and harass them.  I mean, seriously, it's like they think they have rights or that I have limitations on my power or something.  They're clearly crazy.  Or terrorists.  Or crazy terrorists.

My point, which you seem to have missed, is that the mother ship was obviously tipped off by someone in government service somewhere in our communication chain.
 
2013-02-04 01:15:09 PM  

JohnCarter: On duty as we speak


Came for Ding Chavez/John Clarke. (and to rail about the M/I Complex, too, I guess)

Leaving satisfied
 
2013-02-04 01:16:07 PM  

ha-ha-guy: While I'm all for legalization of some drugs, commitment of military assets to dealing with drugs isn't that bad.  Even with pot legal, we'll still have issues with things like heroin which I assume won't be legalized any time soon.


If we were sensible, we'd decriminalize it.

 In additional to that, some cartels present border security problems.

Create a rational guest worker program, and strictly enforce the laws against hiring illegals. Then you get rid of the two or three million people sneaking across the border to get a job, and the drug smugglers will stand out.

 Others have gotten in local politics and are destabilizing regimes in their home country (or started as a rebel movement that sells drugs to fund operations).



It is the interdiction and illegality that raises the price of drugs.  Legalize them, and the cartels would be fighting each other in an attempt to control the supply and thus the price.  Today, the cartels lose very little on interdictions (the production and transport cost is small and the profit margins high). Let them get through and the price will drop, and you cut the financing out from under them.

Just look at Mexico, where mayors who stand up to corruption and cartels die in a hail of gunfire.  I'm not exactly bothered by the thought of the Zetas coming into contact with a USMC platoon and finding out what it feels like to be at a firepower disadvantage.

I am not willing to lose a single American soldier or Marine's life just to stop people from getting high. You join the military to defend this country, not play Customs agent.

Honestly 20 billion or so does not seem that excessive.  If the cost balloons out of control, then we need to think about scaling back funding, but it doesn't seem to be at that point.  If anything I'd rather see more attempts to build up Latin American forces along the lines of how we helped train and build the Egyptian Army.  The end result in Egypt was a professional military that refused orders to crush the protests and now is helping to check their new President and his power grabs.  Spend the time and money to build various armies down there into something like that seems to have value.


Yeah, because strong militaries have been so good for Latin America in the past.
 
2013-02-04 01:16:24 PM  

AirForceVet: I hated doing drug interdiction work personally while on active duty. The REAL problems stem from my fellow Americans excession consumption of illegal drugs.

/Legalizing pot would be a step in the right direction, IMHO



Oh, it would be more than a step in the right direction. It would pretty much be checkmate.

The vast, overwhelming majority of illicit drug us in America is marijuana. Other drug use doesn't come anywhere CLOSE to the percentage of drug use which pot makes up. Despite the lopsided attention the use of the hardest drugs gets, the hardest stuff (crack, coke, heroin) is almost a rounding error.

And the problems which the marijuana trade has would absolutely be allieviated by legalizing the pot trade. We could grow it right here on America's own soil, and the smuggling and crime associated would simply no longer be needed. Our prisons, which are just choked with marijuana "criminals" would suddenly have vacancy again, our prison overcrowding problems would be eliminated overnight.

And then maybe we wouldn't have to be embarrassed anymore about how lovely places like China and Iran arrest and incarcerate fewer of their own citizens then we do. China even has us beat not just per capita but in real numbers!!! It's disgusting.
 
2013-02-04 01:18:00 PM  

zarberg: Pair-o-Dice: Yea, cause the war on drugs is going sooo well...

Since 2000 we've spent over $600 a second on the war on drugs for no appreciable positive outcome.

/true story


That's not true, the prices have come way down.
 
2013-02-04 01:18:05 PM  

GORDON: Obama 2016.


Nah, if they don't change sockpuppets every 4 to 8 years the dumbasses might get a clue.
 
2013-02-04 01:18:08 PM  

ethics-gradient: Oh yeah thanks America,your unrelenting focus on prohibition has made the world a better place. For heartless cops and the most ruthless inhuman gangsters.


Don't forget the owners of private prisons!  They're spiffy.
 
2013-02-04 01:18:15 PM  
Fred Thompson, former senator and cast member of Law and Order:

"...with just a fraction of the money spent on the 'war on drugs', we could burn every poppy field on the planet.  But we won't, and you wanna know why?  Because there's got to be a 'war on something' for folks in Washington to get elected."
 
2013-02-04 01:18:19 PM  
david_gaithersburg:
.
The goal of the Tea Party is to reduce spending, and reduce government.    At least someone in this country has the balls to stand up to the establishment.  But you keep on supporting the Republicrat party.


6/10.  Needs more "sheeple".
 
2013-02-04 01:19:11 PM  

ha-ha-guy: While I'm all for legalization of some drugs, commitment of military assets to dealing with drugs isn't that bad.  Even with pot legal, we'll still have issues with things like heroin which I assume won't be legalized any time soon.  In additional to that, some cartels present border security problems.  Others have gotten in local politics and are destabilizing regimes in their home country (or started as a rebel movement that sells drugs to fund operations).

Just look at Mexico, where mayors who stand up to corruption and cartels die in a hail of gunfire.  I'm not exactly bothered by the thought of the Zetas coming into contact with a USMC platoon and finding out what it feels like to be at a firepower disadvantage.

Honestly 20 billion or so does not seem that excessive.  If the cost balloons out of control, then we need to think about scaling back funding, but it doesn't seem to be at that point.  If anything I'd rather see more attempts to build up Latin American forces along the lines of how we helped train and build the Egyptian Army.  The end result in Egypt was a professional military that refused orders to crush the protests and now is helping to check their new President and his power grabs.  Spend the time and money to build various armies down there into something like that seems to have value.


ha-ha-guy: While I'm all for legalization of some drugs, commitment of military assets to dealing with drugs isn't that bad.  Even with pot legal, we'll still have issues with things like heroin which I assume won't be legalized any time soon.  In additional to that, some cartels present border security problems.  Others have gotten in local politics and are destabilizing regimes in their home country (or started as a rebel movement that sells drugs to fund operations).

Just look at Mexico, where mayors who stand up to corruption and cartels die in a hail of gunfire.  I'm not exactly bothered by the thought of the Zetas coming into contact with a USMC platoon and finding out what it feels like to be at a firepower disadvantage.

Honestly 20 billion or so does not seem that excessive.  If the cost balloons out of control, then we need to think about scaling back funding, but it doesn't seem to be at that point.  If anything I'd rather see more attempts to build up Latin American forces along the lines of how we helped train and build the Egyptian Army.  The end result in Egypt was a professional military that refused orders to crush the protests and now is helping to check their new President and his power grabs.  Spend the time and money to build various armies down there into something like that seems to have value.


it's about 60% more expensive than the federal school lunch program, that feeds 30 million kids everyday.
it's double what exxon booked as profit last quarter.
it's more than 1% of total federal income tax receipts for last year.
it's a massive, massive amount of money for a program that causes more problems than it solves.
and why do you feel you are particularly well placed to decide what consenting adults can and can't do with their bodies in the privacy of their homes?
authoritarians, everywhere....
 
2013-02-04 01:19:29 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: nmemkha: We just HAVE to blow the money shooting at brown people.

There are plenty of brown people in Africa.  That's why we're going to 35 or more countries over there.


Citation needed
 
2013-02-04 01:22:48 PM  
"Billions upon billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been spent over the years to combat the drug trade in Latin America and the Caribbean," he said. "In spite of our efforts, the positive results are few and far between."

www.csmonitor.com

"Yeah...wellll..."
 
2013-02-04 01:25:18 PM  
Great, more tax money going out of our pockets to increase the profit margins for clowns who pay no taxes on those profits.  Price Support Subsidy agents (all that law enforcement/military represent).

I'd like to know just how many Americans have been saved from themselves, over the past 40yrs, by such futzing around with the `free market'?  How much did it cost to `save' each of those individuals?  Could have given them all the drugs they wanted AND paid for their health insurance and, I'm betting, still came out ahead (without the corruption or the death of innocents).
 
2013-02-04 01:26:08 PM  

Madbassist1: "
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
"


Yep, we're farked.
 
2013-02-04 01:26:32 PM  

Old_Chief_Scott: My point, which you seem to have missed, is that the mother ship was obviously tipped off by someone in government service somewhere in our communication chain.


No, I got your point.  You messaged stateside command, your command messaged state, state messaged Mexico (presumably because the ship was flagged Mexican), Mexican state messaged Armada de Mexico, and somewhere between the state department contacting its counterpart in Mexico, someone in the Mexican government or navy contacted the ship and told it to get the hell out of international waters before it was boarded by an American warship.

And why wouldn't they?  I'll bet we don't much care for U.S. flagged ships being boarded in international waters by warships of other countries, either.  And if I was in the U.S. department of state and received a message from the department of state of another country about the impending boarding of a U.S. flagged ship I'd probably tell them to move into U.S. waters so that they're boarded and searched by our own authorities, too.

Countries are in the business of sovereignty -- why would any rational country defer law enforcement to the military of another country?  Especially in international waters.
 
2013-02-04 01:27:10 PM  

drayno76: TwowheelinTim: AirForceVet: I hated doing drug interdiction work personally while on active duty.

I'll second that.

/retired uscg.

Two in one day, I'm going to farking die!


Prepare to fall over. US Army Ranger. I hated Panama and Honduras/Guatemala in the summer... yuck.
 
2013-02-04 01:28:38 PM  
Meanwhile US forces guard poppy fields in the middle east, which fund CIA and military black projects.

The thing is, if you use tax dollars to fund things you can't really hide it as well from taxpayers and congress. But if you use drug funds you can do whatever the hell you want with it and no one asks where the money went.

What the 'war on drugs' has always been about, is eliminating the competition.
 
2013-02-04 01:29:24 PM  

Netrngr: nmemkha: We just HAVE to blow the money shooting at brown people.

Would you prefer we shoot at really white people? I hear Germany gets uppity every few decades or so. Idiot


Lol.  You mad.
 
2013-02-04 01:31:33 PM  

MisterRonbo: I am not willing to lose a single American soldier or Marine's life just to stop people from getting high. You join the military to defend this country, not play Customs agent.


I like how you state "getting high", as if pot is the only product the cartels ever sell.  I'd say the Chinese experience with opium (when the Euros forced the import of it upon them) is a pretty good example of why a lot of drugs will never be legal.  America had its own issues with morphine abuse, which is just refined opium.  Heroin, of course a morphine replacement in the medical field, is also unlikely to ever be legalized for recreational use.  As such there are always going to be a certain level of drugs that remain controlled and people seek to obtain illegally.  So the cartels will always have a product to sell and they'll be down at the border shooting at US Customs Agents, pretending to be the Mexican military to move around in convoys, building submarines, and kinds of other violent and dumb shiat to move their product around.  As such dispatching elements of the US military to supplement the abilities of the Customs agents and secure our borders is a valid use of the military.

If the Zetas are shooting across the border, I'd rather have the military there to shoot back instead of sitting around in Fort Hood and going "Well we only signed up to fight enemies that have a flag...".

Treatment of the drug problem solely by domestic policy is not going to remove 100% of the product catalog of the cartels or their incentive to get goods into America.

/plus in the case of things like the nacro submarines it is stupid and redundant spending to buy the Customs Agents ASW assets when the Navy already has a whole bunch of P-3 Orions sitting around on the flight line
 
2013-02-04 01:31:50 PM  
we might finally be able to relax and enjoy a "peace dividend" unless

America decides we need another warmongering Republican in the White House in 2016.

Otherwise we are headed there.  And I know it makes you realpolitik types hopping mad.
 
2013-02-04 01:34:08 PM  
I'm not joking here, I've written this prior to now - the only solution is for these corrupt governments to hire an outfit like Executive Outcomes.  Ask the fine folks in Sierra Leone about their work there.  Solid numbers escape me now but it took about six weeks to end a civil conflict that had gone on for at least a year if not longer. Never mind what happened when they with drew (think "Saigon").
E/O is gone but parts live on in other groups

Unless of course the CIA needs the drug money to fund some other issue.
OR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-jvHynP9Y    go hang with Ike.
 
2013-02-04 01:35:37 PM  

whidbey: America decides we need another warmongering Republican in the White House in 2016.


Because CIA black ops and drone wars which kill civilians aren't going on. We're not supporting Israel's apartheid against Palestine. We're not backing French imperialism in Africa. And the reason for our interventions in other people's rebellions are noble. The Drug War has ended. Private prison companies aren't making buku money. Our security apparatus isn't going out of its way to repress political dissidents.
Not saying any of that is anything new or just new ways of doing old things, but don't pretend Democrats and the American state apparatus in general isn't in the business of imperialism.
The Democrats are smarter and better at it is all.
 
2013-02-04 01:36:25 PM  

david_gaithersburg: TwowheelinTim: david_gaithersburg: Just what the fark did you libs think the government was going to do with all of the extra tax money you've been chomping at the bit to give them.  You voted for this shiat, own it, or wake up and join your local Tea Party.

Nicely done. This could have been 10/10, but the "join your local Tea Party"  was a little excessive; it kinda set you back a few points. I'll give you 6/10.

Still, you should get some bites (besides mine of course).

.
The goal of the Tea Party is to reduce spending, and reduce government.    At least someone in this country has the balls to stand up to the establishment.  But you keep on supporting the Republicrat party.


You've obviously mistaken me for somebody who voted for either of the two corporate owned bozos in the last presidential election.
 
2013-02-04 01:36:25 PM  

Netrngr: Prepare to fall over. US Army Ranger. I hated Panama and Honduras/Guatemala in the summer... yuck.


My brother got stuck down there during his time.  I was luckier and ended up sitting in Korea and staring across the DMZ, with the occasional trip to SE Asia for military exercises.  I'd have to say Thailand has worse jungles than Latin America, but the citizenry is about a million times nicer.

/the times they sent me during the wet season, urgh
 
2013-02-04 01:37:13 PM  
Is there anything that evil Bush and his cronies won't do???
 
2013-02-04 01:37:59 PM  

whidbey: we might finally be able to relax and enjoy a "peace dividend" unless

America decides we need another warmongering Republican in the White House in 2016.

Otherwise we are headed there.  And I know it makes you realpolitik types hopping mad.


You're really pretending there's a difference in a War on Drugs thread? Really?
 
2013-02-04 01:38:55 PM  
i830.photobucket.com
"War on Drugs? It's not a war. Wars end."

/just wrapped up watching S4 last night
//if by "as good as Breaking Bad" people mean "As spirit-crushing as Breaking Bad" then yes
 
2013-02-04 01:39:09 PM  

zarberg: Pair-o-Dice: Yea, cause the war on drugs is going sooo well...

Since 2000 we've spent over $600 a second on the war on drugs for no appreciable positive outcome.

/true story


"No appreciable positive outcome" to you, but to the Congress members who keep the pork rolling back to their districts for DoD/DEA/DoJ contracts see a huge positive outcome for them.
 
2013-02-04 01:40:05 PM  

Old_Chief_Scott: TwowheelinTim: Old_Chief_Scott: My last cruise on active duty was patrolling the Mexican west coast.

Were you in the CG or USN?

USN. Twenty years worth.


Thanks for your service Chief. You have my gratitude.
 
2013-02-04 01:41:35 PM  
blog.hillbent.com
 
2013-02-04 01:42:40 PM  
So far my side, drug users, is winning.

Go drugs!

But seriously, if old white millionaires want to sell me pot, I am all for it. Because even black people admit that black people are the worst drug dealers.
 
2013-02-04 01:43:07 PM  

ethics-gradient: Oh yeah thanks America,your unrelenting focus on prohibition has made the world a better place. For heartless cops and the most ruthless inhuman gangsters.


Your welcome.  Thanks for getting your asses kicked out of every country you attempted to colonize across the globe.  AND thanks for jumping on the slave trade bandwagon after the Dutch kicked it off; which put a nasty smear on our countries history and ultimately lead to the Civil War.  But please continue talking shiat about us while ignoring all the things y'all farked up in the name of King/Queen and country.  Yeah yeah, there were American slave traders too, but we didn't start trading them before y'all started selling them.
 
2013-02-04 01:44:38 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-04 01:44:52 PM  

m2313: Not saying any of that is anything new or just new ways of doing old things, but don't pretend Democrats and the American state apparatus in general isn't in the business of imperialism.
The Democrats are smarter and better at it is all.


I don't see it that way at all.   The right-wing in this country are the warmongers.  They controlled the government for 8 straight years, and people still keep electing them.

The Democratic Party has been wasting time, public money and energy basically cleaning up their foreign and domestic policy f*ckups.   You obviously want them to pull the plug on everything the Republicans did, and they can't.  Which is how the right-wing still controls this country.

We have a chance to keep them out of our government in 2016 by not re-electing Republicans to the House and refusing to entertain whatever Neo-Reaganite the GOP is undoubtedly attempting to run in 2016.

The whole "both sides are bad"  argument is bullshiat when it's clear the Democratic Party is interested in social progress, and cutting military expenditures.
 
2013-02-04 01:46:19 PM  

Old_Chief_Scott: y point, which you seem to have missed, is that the mother ship was obviously tipped off by someone in government service somewhere in our communication chain.



You sure that your communications were not intercepted?
 
2013-02-04 01:46:23 PM  

YixilTesiphon: whidbey: we might finally be able to relax and enjoy a "peace dividend" unless

America decides we need another warmongering Republican in the White House in 2016.

Otherwise we are headed there.  And I know it makes you realpolitik types hopping mad.

You're really pretending there's a difference in a War on Drugs thread? Really?


Is that what this is?   I thought it was a Peace Dividend thread.

At any rate, I'm not clicking on that Fox News bullshiat.
 
2013-02-04 01:47:21 PM  

over_and_done: Madbassist1: "
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
"

Yep, we're farked.


the war on druggies developed independently of choices made by Boeing, EADS, etc.
the whole military industrial fallacy is a nice way for people to avoid taking responsibility for their actions and omissions and the actions and omissions of their elected leaders. the pull of money and jobs may result in even extreme waste in the procurement process at times, but it sure as f*ck doesn't create the idiots that populate this thread and cheer on the drug war, assassinate jfk, or dictate our posture as a hyper aggressive predator nation.
 
2013-02-04 01:48:15 PM  

The First Four Katy Perry Albums: [i.imgur.com image 512x662]


You're blaming the a government prohibition of a demanded product on capitalism?

whidbey: The whole "both sides are bad"  argument is bullshiat when it's clear the Democratic Party is interested in social progress, and cutting military expenditures.


Oh my, you're dumb.
 
2013-02-04 01:48:34 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Let's allow drug money a path into the US military.  What could possibly go wrong?


www.examiner.com
 
2013-02-04 01:48:51 PM  

Litig8r: Old_Chief_Scott: My point, which you seem to have missed, is that the mother ship was obviously tipped off by someone in government service somewhere in our communication chain.

No, I got your point.  You messaged stateside command, your command messaged state, state messaged Mexico (presumably because the ship was flagged Mexican), Mexican state messaged Armada de Mexico, and somewhere between the state department contacting its counterpart in Mexico, someone in the Mexican government or navy contacted the ship and told it to get the hell out of international waters before it was boarded by an American warship.

And why wouldn't they?  I'll bet we don't much care for U.S. flagged ships being boarded in international waters by warships of other countries, either.  And if I was in the U.S. department of state and received a message from the department of state of another country about the impending boarding of a U.S. flagged ship I'd probably tell them to move into U.S. waters so that they're boarded and searched by our own authorities, too.

Countries are in the business of sovereignty -- why would any rational country defer law enforcement to the military of another country?  Especially in international waters.


The vessel was Panamanian flagged. It had nothing to do with sovereignty and everything to do with corruption.

TwowheelinTim: Old_Chief_Scott: TwowheelinTim: Old_Chief_Scott: My last cruise on active duty was patrolling the Mexican west coast.

Were you in the CG or USN?

USN. Twenty years worth.

Thanks for your service Chief. You have my gratitude.


*checks profile*

Same to you, Chief.
 
2013-02-04 01:49:39 PM  

ha-ha-guy: I like how you state "getting high", as if pot is the only product the cartels ever sell. I'd say the Chinese experience with opium (when the Euros forced the import of it upon them) is a pretty good example of why a lot of drugs will never be legal. America had its own issues with morphine abuse, which is just refined opium. Heroin, of course a morphine replacement in the medical field, is also unlikely to ever be legalized for recreational use. As such there are always going to be a certain level of drugs that remain controlled and people seek to obtain illegally. So the cartels will always have a product to sell and they'll be down at the border shooting at US Customs Agents, pretending to be the Mexican military to move around in convoys, building submarines, and kinds of other violent and dumb shiat to move their product around. As such dispatching elements of the US military to supplement the abilities of the Customs agents and secure our borders is a valid use of the military.

 Your nuanced and intelligent post has no place in FARK, sir.


/hoped you got to enjoy the "nice people" of Thailand if you know what I mean
/didn't mean the ladyboys
 
2013-02-04 01:51:27 PM  

YixilTesiphon: The First Four Katy Perry Albums: [i.imgur.com image 512x662]

You're blaming the a government prohibition of a demanded product on capitalism?

whidbey: The whole "both sides are bad"  argument is bullshiat when it's clear the Democratic Party is interested in social progress, and cutting military expenditures.

Oh my, you're dumb.


My you don't really have anything to say except a predictable personal attack in lieu of an actual argument.

How surprising.
 
2013-02-04 01:52:06 PM  

Cythraul: You really thought the military industrial complex was going to sit on its hands, subby?


There was no peace in the 1990s (Haiti, Somalia, Balkans etc,etc) just an underfunded over deployed military.   To be fair Bush the I started te  Peace Dividend  crap , Clinton just picked it up and ran with it.

  Between 1960 and 1991, the United States Army conducted 10 "operational events." From 1991 through 1999, the Army conducted 26 operational events --- 2 1/2 times that number in 1/3 the time span.  It was wore for  the Navy and Marine Corps

  To pay for operational commitments the military found itself having to transfer funds from maintenance, training and procurment.

Things got so bad there were many problems like the AIr Force found itself running out of cruise missiles (production had been shut down) Morale was bad and the leadership was even worse.  The Army Chief of Staff thought he would improve morale by making everyone  wear new hats -a stupid beret. (That same military genius is now running the VA) While the AIr Force's equally stupid solution was leather flight jackets for pilots and Navy looking Uniforms for officers.  Of course these meansures were cheaper than real fixes.

You want to improve troops morale? Make sure they are well equipped and trained (cost money)  make sure their barracks  and housing  are not falling apart (again cost money).  These areas got short changed to finance operational deployments. For example the supposedly ony 18 month deployment to Bosnia did not even get put into the budget until 3 years after it started.

Other problems

By 1999, the Navy was short  22,000 personnel in a 324-ship fleet

 The armed services suffered a severe ammunition shortfall going into the Kosovo engagement. According to the Service Chiefs, the FY99 ammunition shortfall for the Marine Corps is $193 million. For the Army in FY00, it was $3.5 billion.

A-10 pilots flying over Kosovo were forced to spend their own money to buy inferior, off-the-shelf GPS receivers at local stores and attach them with Velcro to their planes to use in conjunction with their outdated survival radios should their planes crash.

In 1999, more than half of the B1-Bs at Ellsworth AFB were not mission capable because they lack critical parts.


And tha tis just a very few items off a very long list.
 
2013-02-04 01:52:23 PM  

mwfark: ALL the die-hard libs who blindly support Obama are just as foolish as all the die-hard conservatives who blindly supported GW Bush.


Thank God I'm a moderate.  I support reason and sanity.  Too bad neither of those ideals are represented in politics.
 
Displayed 50 of 317 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report