Memorial Day Thread- Veterans are like labor unions

Whenever somebody criticizes labor unions for being out of touch and out of date, union defenders will always say something like "If it were not for us you would be working in a sweatshop at slave labor wages" or "If it were not for us bosses would be able to beat their workers." While unions may have been the driving force behind necessary legal and social reforms 100 years ago, they have done little or nothing for us lately other than cause problems.

The same can be said of veterans and soldiers in the US army. Okay, I acknowledge those who fought during World War II. If it were not for those who stormed the beaches of Normandy or dodged Kamikazees in the Pacific, we would all be speaking German or Japanese.

But what has the military done for us lately?

Increased the national debt through defense spending?
Lowered the US' international reputation by instigating quixotic wars?

Your thoughts....

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Increased the national debt through defense spending?
Lowered the US' international reputation by instigating quixotic wars?

Your thoughts....

You know, the least you can do is direct your anger towards the proper group. It's not the military who is driving up the national debt, it's Congress. It's not the military who decides where they're getting deployed to next, it's Congress. My thoughts are that I'm sick and tired of Congress getting a free pass for all the crap they pull because everyone would rather blame it on the military.

reply to post by Jenna


No member of Congress can cut military spending without being branded "unpatriotic." Furthermore, defense contractors which have a cozy relationship with the military, have several congress members on their payroll.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


Which is all the more reason to look at the role congress plays! Like the police no one wants the military unless they need them. As for what has our military done lately, what about Kuwait?

reply to post by hangedman13


Okay, the military has had a 25% success rate in the last 50 years. They liberated Kuwait with the help of every military in the Western and Arab world. They still lost in Vietnam and the second Iraq war. They did not get Bin Laden in Afghanistan and it looks like the Taliban is back.

The Detroit Lions had a 25% success rate last season. You don't see them strutting around like they are hot stuff as if they won the Superbowl. Yet the US military insists on calling themselves the most elite soldiers in the world and acts as if they are great. Other armies have better records.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
The same can be said of veterans and soldiers in the US army. Okay, I acknowledge those who fought during World War II. If it were not for those who stormed the beaches of Normandy or dodged Kamikazees in the Pacific, we would all be speaking German or Japanese.

But what has the military done for us lately?

If I posted my actual thoughts I'd be banned. Equating Vets with corrupt unions? :shk:

Here's more of my thoughts:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Direct your anger at those that deserve it, the gov't. Not the ones that have decided a service to ones country is above their own personal wants.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint

But what has the military done for us lately?

Well, they certainly don't create threads to criticize you on the day which you commemorate your fallen brethren and loved ones ... may I humbly suggest that you extend them the same courtesy.

If I posted my actual thoughts I'd be banned. Equating Vets with corrupt unions?

Agreed. So would I. My one thought that I will write is this: lack of taste, poorly constructed thread and timing meant to instigate rather than educate. There's always one (or more) willing to go this route on this day and/or Veteran's Day. True colors show...

________________________________
ETA:
Misguided or Misdirected anger does not solve issues ... focus on the true and/or underlying cause and you will be more effective. It's already been outlined, I'll leave it at that.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by LadySkadi]

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by hangedman13

 

Okay, the military has had a 25% success rate in the last 50 years. They liberated Kuwait with the help of every military in the Western and Arab world. They still lost in Vietnam and the second Iraq war. They did not get Bin Laden in Afghanistan and it looks like the Taliban is back.

The Detroit Lions had a 25% success rate last season. You don't see them strutting around like they are hot stuff as if they won the Superbowl. Yet the US military insists on calling themselves the most elite soldiers in the world and acts as if they are great. Other armies have better records.

Then problem is with the Government for getting us into wars and not allowing us to win them for political reasons. Politicians lost Vietnam not the soldiers the VC were destroyed during TET and Hanoi was in ruins and headed to peace table, but the politicians wouldnt let the job be finished, Iraq and Kuwait are not done yet, but I doubt the Politicians will let us win those either.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


Lost Vietnam? With the help of the anti-war movement. Loss of support for the war got the politicians rushing to get out. And we saw how that turned out for the people we left hanging high and dry. Trying to hamstring the military from doing it's job by those who have no clue helps a lot. I.E. the current rules of engagement. What enemy is not going to exploit a perceived weakness? Lots of folks know so much about the military from movies and video games

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


You're conveniently ignoring the fact that defense spending was darn close to being the same as healthcare spending for FY 2010.

Source

Pensions 754.1
Sickness and disability 8.1
Old age 746.0

Health Care 846.8
Medical service (Seniors) 457.8
Public health services 4.3
R&D Health 36.6
Vendor Payments (Welfare) 348.2

Defense 871.9
Military defense 712.9
Veterans 108.9
Foreign military aid 9.9
Foreign economic aid 40.2

Welfare 419.6
Family and children 91.3
Unemployment 91.8
Housing 56.9
Social exclusion n.e.c. 179.6

Protection 55.7
Police services 29.7
Law courts 18.1
Prisons 7.8

Transportation 106.9

General Government 25.6
Executive and legislative organs, financ 19.3
General services 6.3

Other Spending 214.3
Basic research 17.9
General economic, commercial and labour 36.2
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunti 32.6
Fuel and energy 15.0
Economic affairs n.e.c. 19.9
Pollution abatement 10.9
Protection of biodiversity and landscape 10.9
Housing development 30.2
Community development 28.0
Water supply 11.3
Recreational and sporting services 3.9

(Bold is the section headings, I separated each section by inserting an empty line between them. All figures are in billions.)

That's just the federal numbers and doesn't include what individual States pay for any of those things. It's blatantly obvious that healthcare spending is barely behind defense spending and that defense spending isn't getting the hundreds of billions more than everything else that people like to pretend it is. We're spending less on defense than we are on everything included in "Pensions", which includes social security and federal employee retirements among other things.

You want examples of things Congress is wasting our tax dollars on? Try the Pig Book for starters.A few examples of things Congress has asked for or earmarked:

$2,500,000,000 for the procurement of ten C–17 aircraft. In a floor statement on September 30, 2009, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) voiced his opposition to the C-17 funding: “That’s why the Administration ‘strongly objects’ to the addition of $2.5 billion in funding for these ten unrequested C-17 aircraft. The Department of Defense’s (DoD) own analyses shows that the 205 C-17s that the Air Force has or which are on order, together with the existing fleet of C-5 aircraft, are sufficient to meet the Department’s future airlift needs – even under the most stressing situations. So, I am absolutely convinced that we should not be having taxpayers put up $2.5 billion for these aircraft. Doing so not only misallocates procurement funds this year to buy expensive airplanes that are not needed, but it also imposes a continuing sustainment cost of $100 million dollars per year for every year thereafter for their operation.” This earmark was anonymous.

The DoD didn't ask for this, some congressman did anonymously.

$465,000,000 for continued development and initial procurement of the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. [...] On February 25, 2010, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell reiterated DOD’s position on the alternate engine, stating, “this money can clearly be better spent buying capabilities that our warfighters do need. This is a luxury we cannot afford.” No wonder that all 435 representatives and 100 senators refused to be identified with this massive waste of tax dollars.

Same as above.

$198,150,000 for 37 projects by Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), including: $23,000,000 for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network (since 2001, nine projects worth $180,650,000 have been earmarked for this network); $10,000,000 for a Hawaii technology development venture; and $8,000,000 for the Center of Excellence for Research in Ocean Sciences (CEROS).

Added to a defense bill, but had nothing to do with defense.

$69,100,000 for 32 projects by Sen. Robert Casey, Jr. (D-Pa.), including $4,500,000 for the Northeast Counter-Drug Training Center and $1,600,000 for the National Center for Defense Manufacturing and Machining. One of the Defense Manufacturing Center’s current Alliance Partners is Concurrent Technologies. According to a March 11, 2010 New York Times article, “Limiting earmarks to nonprofit recipients is not necessarily a cure-all. For example, Representative John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat famous for his earmarking largess, set up the Concurrent Technologies Corporation in his district in the 1980s as a nonprofit research center for metalworking, and he helped guide more than $1 billion in defense earmarks to it before he died last month.

Same as above.

Shall I post more? Or do you see where a lot of the money being spent on 'defense' isn't being spent on defense or is being asked for by Congress for things even the DoD says they don't need?

reply to post by LadySkadi


The OP is an attorney or claims to be in other threads, and they love doing that sort of thing....

[edit on 31-5-2010 by manta78]

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Then problem is with the Government for getting us into wars and not allowing us to win them for political reasons. Politicians lost Vietnam not the soldiers the VC were destroyed during TET and Hanoi was in ruins and headed to peace table, but the politicians wouldnt let the job be finished, Iraq and Kuwait are not done yet, but I doubt the Politicians will let us win those either.

I was reading in Maclean's a few months ago, you really should check out that magazine, it's Canadian but that's why you'll see truth there. It stated that the one of the worst things that happened during the VW was that Uncle Cronkite said the Tet offensive didn't work. WRONG. The article went on to say that that did more damage to the VW effort than anything. People trusted Uncle Walter. Media, go figure. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Ol Walter conveniently left out the fact that every city captured by the VC and PAVN was recaptured by the US and South Vietnamese forces within 3 weeks. He also ignored the fact that the VC was effectively destroyed and the PAVN morale was sapped ... had we pushed into North Vietnam in early 1968 after Tet we could have ended the war by 1969 - in an American victory and a unified non-communist Vietnam.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


We must not confuse associations of labor and veterans, which work for members' concerns, with those who employ them. There is a history of trade associations from the Early/Middle Ages to today.

The workers who built the deepwater oil rig Horizon had nothing to do with the actions of those higher up. Likewise, the American soldier is at the beck and call of the POTUS.

Since WW2 the military industry has been deemed good for the economy (both national and local, hence the fights in Congress for military contracts). Pres George W. Bush even said war could "revitalize" a nation's economy ATS thread.

Growing up in the 1950-60s, I heard the voter's folk wisdom, With Democrats you get war, with Republicans you get recession. Unfortunately, not heeding Pres Eisenhower's warning about the MIC, we have evolved to a political point where corporations control our govt, with Dems voting for military contracts and Republicans having both recession and war.

Today's soldier could be viewed as an employee in the business of war. No, that is not quite true; since war has been privatized, Blackwater etal employees hold that distinction. No, there still is a patriotic element to today's military, which we honor today. And that's how it should be.

Nonetheless, with the corporate/business intrusion into govt, one does pause to question if the military is employed in the national interest or the corporate interest. And maybe the dead oil rig workers and the soldiers who lie in their graves have more in common than membership in an organization. Maybe they both die because of actions of a corporation.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by desert]