Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship

Looks like the GOP has checked out for the decade...

Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship
By BEN EVANS
Associated Press Writer

http://images.politico.com/global/07...roun-paul4.jpg

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may - may not, I hope not - but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado in which he called for expanding the nation's foreign service.

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

The Obama transition team declined to comment on Broun's remarks. But spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama was referring in the speech to a proposal for a civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure - an idea endorsed by the Bush administration.

Broun said he believes Obama would move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national security force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."

---

Link

Don't tell Broun about Blackwater, he's likely to get caught in one of those GOP logic traps...

Quote:

---

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may - may not, I hope not - but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

---

Rep. Paul Broun went on to admit that his statement was based entirely on conjecture and a fear of black people.

Quote:

---

"You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler."

---

I’m not saying, I’m just saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rep. Paul Broun

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base..."

---

It actually sounds very crazy and completely off base...

He is complete DUMB ASS. That is all.

Georgia deserves the ignorant, paranoid, stupid hicks they elect.

These assholes make up just any old shit and the red-state, rural, ignorant, racist dumbfucks believe that any old shit.

This particular asshole is simply following the initiative, the example of McNasty and pitbull bitch in the non-stop inflammatory, trigger-pulling of character assassination of Obama.

Once again, a politician whose understanding of history is extremely narrow, whose concept of socialism and marxism is ridiculously incomplete, and whose penchant for exaggeration knows no bounds.

Damn, I really don't know what to think if someone like that can attain high office.

Much of surveillance apparatus is already in place supported by Republicans like Broun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Looks like the GOP has checked out for the decade...

Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship
By BEN EVANS
Associated Press Writer

http://images.politico.com/global/07...roun-paul4.jpg

Link

Don't tell Broun about Blackwater, he's likely to get caught in one of those GOP logic traps...

---

:smchode:

:lmao

I swear I am going to dress up like some communist worker from the old school Soviet Union propaganda posters, and follow this guy saying "comrade!" just to fuck with his dumb ass.

These ass-clowns seriously believe this stuff, and so many people that call themselves "conservatives" seem to only have a loose connection to reality.

This is why Republicans must be kept from the executive branch. Too many of them seemed to have worked for Bush, with predictable results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurster

Much of surveillance apparatus is already in place supported by Republicans like Broun.

---

But it was ok when it was a Republican president doing it. :rolleyes

Party over country, despite recent prattling to the contrary.

where is anti-christ when you need him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2centsworth

where is anti-christ when you need him?

---

Seriously. Talk about a tailor made thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2centsworth

where is anti-christ when you need him?

---

He's posting as Johnsmith today....must have lost his password...( in Idaho)

Quote:

---

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany"

---

Quote:

---

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."

---

He makes two Hilter analogies, then denies that it's a Hitler analogy, then makes another Hitler analogy. Thankfully, Mr Broun is not dumb enough to compare Obama to Hitler! We all know that would be crazy. I guess he's just a little fuzzy on the concept of comparison.

It does sound crazy, but it might not be. All we can do is wait and see. We shouln't forget however that before Hitler gained full power, he was loved by the people. Same with Saddam Hussein and other evil dictators.

I don't know what an Obama presidency will really do. I hope he is not so hell bent on his agenda that the truths he sees as presodent keeps him in check. If he does try to do all as he campaigned for, and he gets it... We truly are doomed.

Do you really believe all the bullshit you post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It does sound crazy, but it might not be. All we can do is wait and see. We shouln't forget however that before Hitler gained full power, he was loved by the people. Same with Saddam Hussein and other evil dictators.

I don't know what an Obama presidency will really do. I hope he is not so hell bent on his agenda that the truths he sees as presodent keeps him in check. If he does try to do all as he campaigned for, and he gets it... We truly are doomed.

---

God damn is the GOP giving lessons on saying one thing then acting like you just didn't say it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

God damn is the GOP giving lessons on saying one thing then acting like you just didn't say it?

---

Someone's gotta keep pace with boutons ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obama

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

---

The military is pretty strong, powerful, and well-funded. What does he plan to do with this new civilian national security force?

I bet if McCain had been elected and said the exact same thing then it would be headline news on the HuffPost in big red letters and Naomi Wolf would be freaking out... for good reason.

Aggie, Boutons is consistent as hell.

Go.Fuck.Yourself and your colleague-in-kneejerking WC.

Holy shit, Wild Cobra, do you seriously think that we are doomed? You seriously think this comparison of Obama to Hitler MIGHT not be crazy!?

Please tell us what policies Obama proposed that will destroy us whole!

:lmao @ 3rd person boutons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

Holy shit, Wild Cobra, do you seriously think that we are doomed? You seriously think this comparison of Obama to Hitler MIGHT not be crazy!?

Please tell us what policies Obama proposed that will destroy us whole!

---

Have you been in a coma all these months?

If Obama tries to impliment all he said he would, it would require bringing in so much more revenue. I don't recall the figures, but it is probable about a 40% increase in federal spending. The tax breaks he promises would never happen. It is impossible in my opinion to grow this nations GNP enough to have enough tax revenue, especially since it is pretty stable between 19% to 20% of GNP, regardless of tax rate.

Uhh, maybe because by the end of his first term or the early portion of his second term (yes, I assume he will be elected twice given the state of the GOP), we will be able to slash military spending at a huge rate.

As to your claim about GNP/GDP (almost exactly the same totals)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...centage_of_GDP

Yes, I would say we have quite a bit of headroom for increasing revenue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Broun

You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."

---

Sweet Jeebus...Godwin just got mutilated and ground into chuck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

Uhh, maybe because by the end of his first term or the early portion of his second term (yes, I assume he will be elected twice given the state of the GOP), we will be able to slash military spending at a huge rate.

As to your claim about GNP/GDP (almost exactly the same totals)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...centage_of_GDP

Yes, I would say we have quite a bit of headroom for increasing revenue.

---

Then please explain this:

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...0519194014.gif

You Can't Soak the Rich

part from wiki: Hauser's Law:

Quote:

---

In a May 20, 2008 editorial, the Wall St. Journal published a graph showing that even though the top marginal tax rate of federal income tax had varied between a low of 28% to a high of 91% between 1950 and 2007, federal tax revenues had indeed constantly remained at about 19.5% of GDP.

---

Thing with the other countries is they have a different tax structure and practice protectionism. Then we also have the second highest corporate tax rates in the world, which makes large businesses locate offshore that can. If we would lower corporate tax rates, they might bring their capital back here.

I agree we can increase revenues, but it is by decreasing the tax rates of the rich. Not increasing them.

And yes, I meant GDP, not GNP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Looks like the GOP has checked out for the decade...

Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship
By BEN EVANS
Associated Press Writer

http://images.politico.com/global/07...roun-paul4.jpg

Link

Don't tell Broun about Blackwater, he's likely to get caught in one of those GOP logic traps...

---

I was gonna post about blackwater, but you beat me to it.

[QUOTE=kwhitegocubs;2890926]Uhh, maybe because by the end of his first term or the early portion of his second term (yes, I assume he will be elected twice given the state of the GOP), we will be able to slash military spending at a huge rate.
QUOTE]
As for military spending, we cannot reduce it much if any. The extra we are spending now is 'supplemental spending' and not part of the annual budget. With your sentiments, I hope you were not one that complained the troops went to war without adequate equipment. It was president Clinton's reduction of the military budget that caused such issues. Should we have cause to go to war in the future, do you want our troops even less prepared?

Well, I'm all for adoption a whole host of Scandinavian-style macro-economic practices. And just about everything else.

I also don't see how an almost ever-decreasing top marginal tax rate and a near-stagnant tax revenue take indicates anything other than exponential wealth growth by the upper echelons of wealth. Which is true.

I mean, with the exception of the mild raises of the 1987-1992 range, I don't see anything but tax decreases. How do we not know that raising the upper marginal rate significantly now WON'T actually raise revenues significantly now?

If you notice, there IS a pretty solid correlation between decreased tax revenues and the Bush tax cuts. We can't know if the correlation swings the other way unless we try. And I am ALL for trying.

you mean like these guys.



http://civilizer.files.wordpress.com...water-logo.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It was president Clinton's reduction of the military budget that caused such issues. Should we have cause to go to war in the future, do you want our troops even less prepared?

---

Yeah, it's Clinton's fault we lied ourselves into an unnecessary war.

Umm, I actually wish the troops were so underfunded that it would be impossible for us to go into Afghanistan (needed), keep forces in overly large numbers in bases all over the world, and STILL have enough to go to Iraq.

Yes, I wish and hope and pray that our military is forced to pare down. We don't need imperialism. It's not like there is some pressing need to defend ourselves against land troops landing on our shores or crossing over from Canada or Mexico. The new terrorism we have bred by our actions far exceeds the terrorism we have quashed by our campaigns.

"Clinton's reduction of the military budget"

The USSR had collapsed. EVERYBODY expected a "peace dividend".

Clinton couldn't do any reductions without a Repug-controlled Congress approving it, even proposing it.

Don't let facts step all over your ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Then please explain this:

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...0519194014.gif

You Can't Soak the Rich

part from wiki: Hauser's Law:

---

Again with this crap? Didn't I post a link debunking it last time you brought it up? (Among other things I recall is that it didn't include al taxes, like payroll taxes. And BTW, Hauser's law is actually a theory)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Thing with the other countries is they have a different tax structure and practice protectionism. Then we also have the second highest corporate tax rates in the world, which makes large businesses locate offshore that can. If we would lower corporate tax rates, they might bring their capital back here.

I agree we can increase revenues, but it is by decreasing the tax rates of the rich. Not increasing them.

And yes, I meant GDP, not GNP.

---

We've been down trickle down economic policies for the past 8 years and this complete economic turd is what we have to show for it. Time to try something else.

And BTW, your attempt to justify that Obama can be anything remotely like Hitler based on his campaign platform is completely asinine. But I guess any excuse is good to bring back the old conservative talking points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

Uhh, maybe because by the end of his first term or the early portion of his second term (yes, I assume he will be elected twice given the state of the GOP), we will be able to slash military spending at a huge rate.

---

As for military spending, we cannot reduce it much if any. The extra we are spending now is 'supplemental spending' and not part of the annual budget. With your sentiments, I hope you were not one that complained the troops went to war without adequate equipment. It was president Clinton's reduction of the military budget that caused such issues. Should we have cause to go to war in the future, do you want our troops even less prepared?

---

Not only we can, we most certainly will.

[QUOTE=Wild Cobra;2891579]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

Uhh, maybe because by the end of his first term or the early portion of his second term (yes, I assume he will be elected twice given the state of the GOP), we will be able to slash military spending at a huge rate.

---

Quote:

---

As for military spending, we cannot reduce it much if any. The extra we are spending now is 'supplemental spending' and not part of the annual budget. With your sentiments, I hope you were not one that complained the troops went to war without adequate equipment. It was president Clinton's reduction of the military budget that caused such issues. Should we have cause to go to war in the future, do you want our troops even less prepared?

---

Just what in Sam Hill do our troops need to be prepared for? To go spelunking through the desert for more WoMD that are "promised" to be there? At what point do we need MORE of an army than what we already have?

Bush had two years to prepare for Iraq. The simple truth is he didn't expect to be there more than a few months. Too bad he and his administration fucked up over and over and over again in Iraq. No one can honestly say the invasion of Iraq was worth the diversion of men and resources from Afghanistan, but I'm sure some idiots here will try.

You know what, I just don't give a fuck about the GOP, Republicans, and Conservatives in this country anymore. Go fuck yourself, seriously. Go fuck yourself.

I'm tired of trying to argue simple logic to you moronic fucks. You simply refuse to accept the facts that are staring you straight in the face.

The next 8 years will be governed by President Barack Hussein Obama. Get used to it. Your party is a dying breed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

We shouln't forget however that before Hitler gained full power, he was loved by the people.

---

People left Germany in droves all through the 1930s. Go to Amazon.com and you will see many books about this topic.

And even if you don't like Obama, comparing him to Hilter is ridiculous. Even the completely failed presidency of GW Bush doesn't come close to warrant a comparison to Hitler.

You are over-reacting to your party's loss like an obsessed and hysterical partisan with a persecution complex.

Please calm down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

Just what in Sam Hill do our troops need to be prepared for? To go spelunking through the desert for more WoMD that are "promised" to be there? At what point do we need MORE of an army than what we already have?

---

They need to be prepared for when we need them. Just that simple. You don't reduce a standing army to where is is unprepared. That is when the shit hits the fan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Not only we can, we most certainly will.

---

Yes, we probably will. That is just an invitation of trouble. A mart president and congress will keep a strong standing Army.

What would president Kennedy have done?

Like I said....do you think we are going to have a land invasion in this country!? What threat to our country HERE is there? Hmm?

What the *fuck* do we need to be vigilant against!?

Terrorists blowing up shit in this country is going to be handled by security regulations or its not. A standing army isn't going to fix that. Seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tully365

People left Germany in droves all through the 1930s. Go to Amazon.com and you will see many books about this topic.

And even if you don't like Obama, comparing him to Hilter is ridiculous. Even the completely failed presidency of GW Bush doesn't come close to warrant a comparison to Hitler.

You are over-reacting to your party's loss like an obsessed and hysterical partisan with a persecution complex.

Please calm down.

---

There was a time the people loved Hitler. He had the Autobahns built. He had the Volkswagen financed. I think the period of the 30's you speak of was people fleeing a collapsing economy. Not Hitler, at least not till the later part of the 30's.

I'm comparing Obama to the early Hitler. Before he started a war and slaughtered the Jews. I'm not saying Obama will follow in his footsteps. That's your assumption.

Then a great number of presidents and leaders have been like the early Hitler.

Eisenhower presided over the construction of the Interstate Highway System. People loved him. The Big 3 and manufacturing were strong.

Was Eisenhower then like the early Hitler. If you say yes, I will no longer be offended or stupefied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I'm comparing Obama to the early Hitler. Before he started a war and slaughtered the Jews. I'm not saying Obama will follow in his footsteps. That's your assumption.

---

There is no other political figure in history you can compare Obama to on the basis of initial popularity, infrastructure rebuilding and industry financing? The one you jump to is the most hated figure in all of human history? And we're not supposed to draw assumptions from that? Please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

There is no other political figure in history you can compare Obama to on the basis of initial popularity, infrastructure rebuilding and industry financing? The one you jump to is the most hated figure in all of human history? And we're not supposed to draw assumptions from that? Please.

---

Because of the way they both have their popularity. Giving things to the people.

Every leader who is popular now must be compared with Hitler.

You guys have lost your minds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Because of the way they both have their popularity. Giving things to the people.

---

Obama hasn't even taken office yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Because of the way they both have their popularity. Giving things to the people.

---

So, every politician who is popular and promises better for their people is to be compared with Hitler? You are loop the frickin' loop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BradLohaus

The military is pretty strong, powerful, and well-funded. What does he plan to do with this new civilian national security force?

I bet if McCain had been elected and said the exact same thing then it would be headline news on the HuffPost in big red letters and Naomi Wolf would be freaking out... for good reason.

---

I find it odd that Obama gave that speech in Colorado and the Army is planning on establishing "...the largest military base in the world..." in Colorado.

Board Republicans are quickly eclipsing Nbadan and Galileo as the resident conspiracy loons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

Like I said....do you think we are going to have a land invasion in this country!? What threat to our country HERE is there? Hmm?

What the *fuck* do we need to be vigilant against!?

Terrorists blowing up shit in this country is going to be handled by security regulations or its not. A standing army isn't going to fix that. Seriously.

---

Actually, the army will stay strong, due to the fact that there's no way we leave Iraq until 2011 or so, and Obama wants to push for bin Laden in Pakistan.

The Army is going to transition from the 'standard' army to a mix of army tactics and police functions. I don't know about the Navy and Marines, but the Air Force keeps getting smaller. We're the 'techiest' branch of the military, I think, and many airmen are getting sourced out due to better technology and unmanned aircraft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

As for military spending, we cannot reduce it much if any. The extra we are spending now is 'supplemental spending' and not part of the annual budget. With your sentiments, I hope you were not one that complained the troops went to war without adequate equipment. It was president Clinton's reduction of the military budget that caused such issues. Should we have cause to go to war in the future, do you want our troops even less prepared?

---

Tell me how many divisions we needed to combat the threat of the USSR and warsaw pact in 1995.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Actually, the army will stay strong, due to the fact that there's no way we leave Iraq until 2011 or so, and Obama wants to push for bin Laden in Pakistan.

The Army is going to transition from the 'standard' army to a mix of army tactics and police functions. I don't know about the Navy and Marines, but the Air Force keeps getting smaller. We're the 'techiest' branch of the military, I think, and many airmen are getting sourced out due to better technology and unmanned aircraft.

---

Read the "Pentagon's New Map" by PM Barnett.

He pretty much describes the future of the US Military. The military is already taking the first few steps in the direction he has outlined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Should we have cause to go to war in the future, do you want our troops even less prepared?

---

We didn't have cause to go to war in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

There was a time the people loved Hitler. He had the Autobahns built. He had the Volkswagen financed. I think the period of the 30's you speak of was people fleeing a collapsing economy. Not Hitler, at least not till the later part of the 30's.

I'm comparing Obama to the early Hitler. Before he started a war and slaughtered the Jews. I'm not saying Obama will follow in his footsteps. That's your assumption.

---

I would compare Reagan with the early Hitler. The people loved Reagan too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I would compare Reagan with the early Hitler. The people loved Reagan too.

---

But did he build roads? That appears to be the litmus test.

We need a tin foil hat icon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Read the "Pentagon's New Map" by PM Barnett.

He pretty much describes the future of the US Military. The military is already taking the first few steps in the direction he has outlined.

---

I'll take a look for it. All I know is that the proposed AF 'cybercommand' may get squashed. Which would piss me off. I want to be in that, damnit! lol

If you guys really want to read about how the planning for the invasion of Iraq went completely off the rails of conventional Powell Doctrine priniciples, read Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward or Fiasco by Tom Ricks. Lack of equipment was far from the only problem with the invasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Actually, the army will stay strong, due to the fact that there's no way we leave Iraq until 2011 or so, and Obama wants to push for bin Laden in Pakistan.

The Army is going to transition from the 'standard' army to a mix of army tactics and police functions. I don't know about the Navy and Marines, but the Air Force keeps getting smaller. We're the 'techiest' branch of the military, I think, and many airmen are getting sourced out due to better technology and unmanned aircraft.

---

As for the Army staying "strong", the Army will continue to disintegrate, slowly but surely.

The loss of captains and middle-level NCO's to simple non-re-enlistment has really started to hurt.

The stress on families from endless deployments are causing the next generation of military leaders to simply not be there. The Army and probably Marines are losing a lot of talent.

Perhaps that will change with the drawdown of the Iraq occupation, but givent he likelihood of an Afghan build-up, I don't see the recruiting and retention problems easing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I'll take a look for it. All I know is that the proposed AF 'cybercommand' may get squashed. Which would piss me off. I want to be in that, damnit! lol

---

It will not, would be my guess.

The Chinese have gone full bore into cyberwar, as have the Russians.

Russian cyberattackers overwhelmed Georgian government websites and did other nasty things.

I also remember reading a report that Chinese hackers broke into both US presidential candidate's websites and downloaded as much information on policy as they could.

Given this and other events, I would say the US military and intelligence community will continue to build capacity in the "cyberwar" regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I'll take a look for it. All I know is that the proposed AF 'cybercommand' may get squashed. Which would piss me off. I want to be in that, damnit! lol

---

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/publi...gonsnewmap.htm

Mr. Barnett was a USSR analyst that "wandered in the wilderness" for a few years afte the collapse of the USSR, and examined the ways in which the US military has been utilized over the last few decades.

He has been giving a LOT of briefings to up and coming Lt. cols and Majors who will be generals in a few years, and seems to be very influential in shaping the thinking of the next generation of military leadership.

He is also right, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

As for the Army staying "strong", the Army will continue to disintegrate, slowly but surely.

The loss of captains and middle-level NCO's to simple non-re-enlistment has really started to hurt.

The stress on families from endless deployments are causing the next generation of military leaders to simply not be there. The Army and probably Marines are losing a lot of talent.

Perhaps that will change with the drawdown of the Iraq occupation, but givent he likelihood of an Afghan build-up, I don't see the recruiting and retention problems easing.

---

RandomGuy, I'm not sure of the retention levels. You may be correct; I just meant that I will be surprised if there's a top-down directed effort to reduce Army numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

It will not, would be my guess.

The Chinese have gone full bore into cyberwar, as have the Russians.

Russian cyberattackers overwhelmed Georgian government websites and did other nasty things.

I also remember reading a report that Chinese hackers broke into both US presidential candidate's websites and downloaded as much information on policy as they could.

Given this and other events, I would say the US military and intelligence community will continue to build capacity in the "cyberwar" regard.

---

Yes, but I think the AF one in specific will be squashed, in favor of a "DoD" cybercommand. Which would be a horrible idea, in my mind. I'm a network tech for the Air Force, and I can't tell you how horrible DISA (Defense Information Services Agency) is. They have a million different depts and none talk to each other.

But the Air Force has been smacked down hard recenty. The nuke incident, the tanker contract, drawdowns in the force... we're the red-headed stepchild of the services. (Not counting the Coast Guard that is... they're like, a stepson or something.) :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/publi...gonsnewmap.htm

Mr. Barnett was a USSR analyst that "wandered in the wilderness" for a few years afte the collapse of the USSR, and examined the ways in which the US military has been utilized over the last few decades.

He has been giving a LOT of briefings to up and coming Lt. cols and Majors who will be generals in a few years, and seems to be very influential in shaping the thinking of the next generation of military leadership.

He is also right, in my opinion.

---

I disagree with the premise of his article, personally. There are two ways to look at the way America must defend itself.

A) Go on the offensive. This is the 'world police' option that Barnett seems to endorse. Bringing democracy and connectedness to the world.

B) Stay on the defensive. Always go as small as necessary, and use intelligence and security to defuse would-be terrorists and other similar situations.

Of course, that does not mean there one has to be 100% for one option and 0% for the other. But most plans can be placed into one of the two categories.

My problems with the first are: 1) What moral right do we have to change the nature of a country? 2) Our very presence in these countries has a great chance of further accelerating antagonistic parties. 3) What is an acceptable cost for offensive maneuvers?

There are problems with choice B as well, the greatest being a 'reactionary' force. But I think the pros and cons favor B. I can accept valid arguments in favor of the other option.

I think another consequence of Iraq will be the reluctance of youth to enlist in part-time military ranks like national guard, etc. It's not just the full-time military numbers that will continue to suffer recruitment problems. Today's kids have witnessed how badly the national guard has treated by politicians, how their over-deployment has abused those who really signed on as back-ups in case of necessary emergency. It will take a long time for that trust to be re-established.

Sorry for the expletives earlier.

Yes, I do think that the military will stay strong until about the end of Obama's first term (which I said the first time I mentioned military spending cuts), but hopefully once we start to draw down in Afghanistan we can transition to your (speaking to LnGrrrr) plan B.

Technological warfare is obviously going to be focused more on mechanization and intelligence rather than sheer-numbers manpower.

We just need to stop fighting these wars that rely on guerilla tactics. It is a waste of manpower and the civilian death toll is just mind-boggling. I am hopeful that we have finally learned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

But did he build roads? That appears to be the litmus test.

We need a tin foil hat icon.

---

Einsenhower = Hitler. Clearly.

"Heil Hitler" has all the same letters as "I like Ike", except for the 2 k's. Add a 3rd K and what do you get? KKK! HOLY SHIT! WILD COBRA IS RIGHT! :wow:wow:wow:wow:wow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

So, every politician who is popular and promises better for their people is to be compared with Hitler? You are loop the frickin' loop.

---

It has to do with the specific types of promises. Especially the redistribution of wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

We need a tin foil hat icon.

---

Make mine out of Hastalloy. I need one that highly chemical resistant so some of the vile posts people make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It has to do with the specific types of promises. Especially the redistribution of wealth.

---

Please. Just. Stop. You had one goal in comparing Obama to Hitler. It had nothing to do with specific types of promises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

Please. Just. Stop. You had one goal in comparing Obama to Hitler. It had nothing to do with specific types of promises.

---

OK, I'll admit. I have nothing nice to say about that pompus piece of shit. I have no respect for someone who want to take my hard earned money and give it to others. My money, my decisions who to give to as charity.

When you penalize sometning, you get less of it. Liberals hate rich people. Guess what, raise their taxes, and more will move their capitol elsewhere. Out of our tax system.

When you reward something, you get more of it. Give the impoverished money, and you get mnore people who are content to live in poverty.

Not the America I grew up knowing. He's a fucking Marxist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

OK, I'll admit. I have nothing nice to say about that pompus piece of shit. I have no respect for someone who want to take my hard earned money and give it to others. My money, my decisions who to give to as charity.

When you penalize sometning, you get less of it. Liberals hate rich people. Guess what, raise their taxes, and more will move their capitol elsewhere. Out of our tax system.

When you reward something, you get more of it. Give the impoverished money, and you get mnore people who are content to live in poverty.

Not the America I grew up knowing. He's a fucking Marxist.

---

Thank you. Obviously, I violently oppose everything you just said, but at least it's honest.

You might want to note that some Liberals are rich people. Obama didn't raise all that money from $10 donations from everyday folk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

OK, I'll admit. I have nothing nice to say about that pompus piece of shit. I have no respect for someone who want to take my hard earned money and give it to others. My money, my decisions who to give to as charity.

When you penalize sometning, you get less of it. Liberals hate rich people. Guess what, raise their taxes, and more will move their capitol elsewhere. Out of our tax system.

When you reward something, you get more of it. Give the impoverished money, and you get mnore people who are content to live in poverty.

Not the America I grew up knowing. He's a fucking Marxist.

---

You make $250,000 a year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You make $250,000 a year?

---

He is in the 99.293820938203823 percentile of intelligence so wouldn't he be in the 99.398304938 percentile of salary as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Liberals hate rich people.

---

Rich people voted for Obama 52-46, so it follows that rich people hate themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

As for military spending, we cannot reduce it much if any. The extra we are spending now is 'supplemental spending' and not part of the annual budget. With your sentiments, I hope you were not one that complained the troops went to war without adequate equipment. It was president Clinton's reduction of the military budget that caused such issues. Should we have cause to go to war in the future, do you want our troops even less prepared?

---

Ah yes, the "blame Clinton" schtick.

Tell me, how many divisions we needed to combat the threat of the USSR and warsaw pact in 1995?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

OK, I'll admit. I have nothing nice to say about that pompus piece of shit. I have no respect for someone who want to take my hard earned money and give it to others. My money, my decisions who to give to as charity.

When you penalize sometning, you get less of it. Liberals hate rich people. Guess what, raise their taxes, and more will move their capitol elsewhere. Out of our tax system.

When you reward something, you get more of it. Give the impoverished money, and you get mnore people who are content to live in poverty.

Not the America I grew up knowing. He's a fucking Marxist.

---

Doesn't it feel good to finally get out the truth about how you feel and to stop being so coy and disingenuous with the Hitler analogies? Did you shout this same rant to the skies after Clinton got elected? Can you honestly say that the last 8 years have been more fiscally conservative than the 8 years between 1992-2000?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I have no respect for someone who want to take my hard earned money and give it to others.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Give the impoverished money, and you get mnore people who are content to live in poverty.

---

I agree. My mom does also, and she's 76.

I don't follow all the political haggling around here, but I don't see how people around here get pissed off about statements like the above.

WC meltodown!

:lmao @ comparing Obama to Hitler just because of his initial popularity... Seriously WC, who the hell do you think you're fooling??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It does sound crazy, but it might not be. All we can do is wait and see. We shouln't forget however that before Hitler gained full power, he was loved by the people. Same with Saddam Hussein and other evil dictators.

I don't know what an Obama presidency will really do. I hope he is not so hell bent on his agenda that the truths he sees as presodent keeps him in check. If he does try to do all as he campaigned for, and he gets it... We truly are doomed.

---

pretty much. while I don't hold to aspirations of Hilter or anything, I do believe he'll fuck up the country. But a dictatorship? Someone needs to stop sipping the GOP kool-aid.

-Mars

wild cobra being on welfare when he was a kid has turned into self-hate.

i like it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It does sound crazy, but it might not be. All we can do is wait and see. We shouln't forget however that before Hitler gained full power, he was loved by the people. Same with Saddam Hussein and other evil dictators.

I don't know what an Obama presidency will really do. I hope he is not so hell bent on his agenda that the truths he sees as presodent keeps him in check. If he does try to do all as he campaigned for, and he gets it... We truly are doomed.

---

Just a little quote:

"As part of his duties, Hitler also was asked to spy on certain local political groups, and during a meeting of the German Workers' Party, became so incensed by one of the speeches that he uncorked a fierce harangue at the speaker. The party's founder, Anion Drexler, was so impressed by Hitler's tirade that he asked him to join their organization. Hitler, after some thought, finally agreed in September 1919. He was eventually given responsibility for publicity and propaganda. His oratory succeeded in attracting larger and larger audiences and party donations. The party's name was changed to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NAZI) on April 1, 1920.

Hitler the orator

Hitler was discharged from the German army in February 1920. He continued to expand his influence in the party, and formed a private group of thugs that he used to quash disorder at party meetings, and later to break up rival parties' meetings. That group subsequently became the Sturmabteilung (SA) - Hitler's brown-shirted storm troopers. He also became the regular main speaker at party events and attracted large crowds at each meeting. Important Nazi Party members and Third Reich architechs, Heinrich Himmler, Hermann Goering and Rudolf Hess joined the party at this time."

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1695.html

:(

:lmao

some people need fear to be happy.

You guys seriously need to read your own stuff out loud to yourselves.

You are a bat-shit, crazy loon if you think Obama is somehow even remotely similar to Hitler.

Seriously fucking nuts. Delusional. Small-minded worthless bags of flesh.

I dont particularly think Obama's presidency is going to be a resounding success (quite the opposite actually) but that has more to do with our fiscal policies and economic structure and abuse for the past 30 years than anything he'll ever do.

Oh, and I wont even blame Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton or Bush Jr either. I blame Congress more than anything else and thats moot based on sheer volume of Congressmen. It was Congress' job to value our money and coin it and they gave that responsibility away as soon as they could.

So you douchebags can go and blame whomever the fuck you want, but the truth of the matter is this next President (McCain or Obama) was going to be royally fucked one way or the other. Did Iraq/Afghanistan/Homeland Security/etc exacerbate the problems? Yes. Are they solely to blame? Absolutely not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

You are a bat-shit, crazy loon if you think Obama is somehow even remotely similar to Hitler.

Seriously fucking nuts. Delusional. Small-minded worthless bags of flesh.

I dont particularly think Obama's presidency is going to be a resounding success (quite the opposite actually) but that has more to do with our fiscal policies and economic structure and abuse for the past 30 years than anything he'll ever do.

Oh, and I wont even blame Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton or Bush Jr either. I blame Congress more than anything else and thats moot based on sheer volume of Congressmen. It was Congress' job to value our money and coin it and they gave that responsibility away as soon as they could.

So you douchebags can go and blame whomever the fuck you want, but the truth of the matter is this next President (McCain or Obama) was going to be royally fucked one way or the other. Did Iraq/Afghanistan/Homeland Security/etc exacerbate the problems? Yes. Are they solely to blame? Absolutely not.

---

i would argue that comparing him to Hilter is a insane point of view, NOT a conservative point of view.

can you say his policies are socialist-lite? yeah! but to even try to compare...

-Mars