Comments
Everyone on the Left seems to think that the U.S. spends too much on defense, but then complains about how fighting this small war in Iraq has "broken" our military, or "stretched it to the breaking point."

Am I mistaken, or didn’t we cut our division strength roughly in half during the Clinton years?

And are the Chinese not a problem?

Are they not the kennel keepers of North Korea? (And why do U.S. foreign policy people pretend otherwise? Is it impolitic or politically incorrect to call that what it is?)

Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
Oh, the Founders’ dream has been dead for a while, and the Republicans are as responsible as the Democrats for killing it. And neither seems inclined to fix it, either. They’re not dickering about their principles, but their price.



Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
... and the Republicans are as responsible as the Democrats for killing it.
I certainly won’t argue against that point.

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Military spending will be cut, we don’t need the massive military machine we have, and we need to rethink killing people and destroying lives as being the best way to try to represent our interests in the world. We’ve killed far more innocents and created far more orphans than has al qaeda.

The Congress can define, within legal frameworks determined by the Supreme Court, what costs are legitimate. But yeah, as the economy unravels our ability to maintain a massive military machine will shrink too. But we don’t need it — it’s been more a force for needless death and destruction in recent years than a force actually protecting our freedoms.

Seriously, who is going to invade and conquer the United States? How big of a military do we need to protect ourselves? The Iraq fiasco proves that our military power isn’t very effective anyway. Sorry if this language is too harsh for some of you who seem enamored with the military, but it is time we rethink whether or not a huge military machine is at all congruent with the founders’ ideals, the ideals of the US, or the ideas of limited governmental power. So don’t worry — you may not like the cuts that are coming, or the decline in America’s world role, but in the end you’ll find out that the only way to get smaller, less intrusive government is to make it less of a major world military power.

But the cuts are coming. After Iraq if Americans have to choose between maintaining programs at home, dealing with the health care crisis, and rebuilding our infrastructure or pumping trillions into a huge military monolith we don’t need, I think we’re in the mood to take care of real peoples’ problems at home.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://scotterb.wordpress.com
If we are going for original intent, didn’t the Constitution forbid congress from funding a standing army for more then 2 years?

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years. "

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag7_user.html#art1_sec8cl11

Written By: Tito
URL: http://
Erb:
Military spending will be cut, we don’t need the massive military machine we have, and we need to rethink killing people and destroying lives as being the best way to try to represent our interests in the world.
Smarmy lying crap.

You were one of the imbeciles who insisted that the small war in Iraq was too much for our military. Now you’re complaining about a "massive killing machine."

Our targets in the only wars that we’ve fought in the last eight years were al Qaeda (in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world), the Taliban, the murderers of the Hussein regime, both before and after removing Hussein, insurgents and carbombers, and you talk about the U.S. "killing people and destroying lives."

Good soldiers have died pursuing those murderers, but you get to take your next breath.

Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
4ZjWAs rmhkvanarrbj, [url=http://lemnwaqmkirb.com/]lemnwaqmkirb[/url], [link=http://rmpwopksvkyl.com/]rmpwopksvkyl[/link], http://uvcuwomiwlev.com/

Written By: kkoirnkdw
URL: http://qyuipkwrkohv.com/
Seriously, who is going to invade and conquer the United States?
No one. The US will fall from within - from people like yourself preaching to all of us poor stupid neocons about the sins of our past.
We’ve killed far more innocents and created far more orphans than has al qaeda.
. . it’s been more a force for needless death and destruction in recent years than a force actually protecting our freedoms.
Yep, once more the US is named the Great Satan - not declared as such by some third rate Iranian ideologue or some cheesy South American dictator but by what is supposed to be a pillar of our community - a college professor.
. . but it is time we rethink whether or not a huge military machine is at all congruent with the founders’ ideals
Huge military machine? At the beginning of the Clinton years, the US Air Force had 38 fighter Wings and was pointing to 40. Today - 15. At the beginning of the Clinton Years, the US Navy was approaching 600 ships. Today - 300 at best. The US Army is but a shadow of its former strength in numbers. Huge? I don’t think the word means what you think it means. Costly? Maybe that might fit. But the question here is what will all of these redirected funds be applied to? And where in our Constitution can you find the supporting language for those requirements?

Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
" But we don’t need it"

Of course not. We never do. Until we need it, and then it is a little late. I bet you don’t carry home, car, or life insurance either.

" Sorry if this language is too harsh for some of you "

It’s not the harshness, it’s the ignorance and stupidity. For someone who claims to have read some history, you seem to have learned nothing from it.



Written By: timactual
URL: http://
If we are going for original intent, didn’t the Constitution forbid congress from funding a standing army for more then 2 years?
After which, one would assume, it could be renewed for another 2. And another, and another ...

However, as to the point of the post, it’s at least an authorized and legitimate expense under the Constitution, isn’t it?

I’m still looking for wording that even hints that the expenditures Ms. Etelson et. al. want are legit.

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
"If we are going for original intent, didn’t the Constitution forbid congress from funding a standing army for more then 2 years?"

And Congress meets only two years. It can be done more than once, which is why we now have the 110th Congress.

Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Military spending will be cut, we don’t need the massive military machine we have, and we need to rethink killing people and destroying lives as being the best way to try to represent our interests in the world. We’ve killed far more innocents and created far more orphans than has al qaeda.

Seriously, who is going to invade and conquer the United States? How big of a military do we need to protect ourselves? The Iraq fiasco proves that our military power isn’t very effective anyway.
...

I think I just died a little inside

Well played, Erb. Well played.

Written By: Gregoir
URL: http://
Erb,

Tell that to the families of the folks who made the choice of jumping off the top of the WTC or burning to death. Think there’s no connection? Strong horse, weak horse to use OBL’s words.

The only thing worse than wasting all that money on the military is not wasting all that money on the military.

I see you don’t mention the Constitution in your defense of spending priorities. You ought to read it sometime.



Written By: MarkD
URL: http://
It’s not the harshness, it’s the ignorance and stupidity. For someone who claims to have read some history, you seem to have learned nothing from it.
It’s worse than ignorance and stupidity. What it is is the whispering down the lane of 60-year-old KGB propaganda that gained traction in academia and lives on in the foolish brains of professors.

If you’re in the mood for getting a good rage on, read In Denial by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr. It’s all about the studied ignorance and stupidity in the academic world, most specifically in the area of history.

It’s all inside the educational system now, from the universities down to the elementary schools, this sort of lying crap.

The counteroffensive has been more than overmatched. By the time students arrive at colleges they’re already indoctrinated and they know nothing about real history. Then they get put into classes with creeps like Scott.

Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
Erb, I try to refrain from lobbing personal insults on the ’net. Unfortunately, since your mendacity and opacity to reason is well-documented, I’ll have to be content with informing you that I would not p!ss down your throat if your heart was on fire.

Written By: Phil Smith
URL: http://
Military spending will be cut, we don’t need the massive military machine we have, and we need to rethink killing people and destroying lives as being the best way to try to represent our interests in the world. We’ve killed far more innocents and created far more orphans than has al qaeda.
\

I suppose it’d be too much to ask you to back your assertion with fact?



Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
"A massive killing machine" would have been a few ICBMS scattered throughout Iraq and Afghanistan.

Written By: TheOldMan
URL: http://
I suppose it’d be too much to ask you to back your assertion with fact?
This is the thing, Eric: Erb knows who does the serious killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he knows it is not the Americans.

Like I said, good soldiers have died hunting down those murderers, but Erb gets to take his next breath and with it spout this lying crap. It is not dissent. It is lying treachery, and the fact that it is tolerated in this country really raises the question of why the fOck anyone would want to serve in the military when their brothers and sisters might be hearing this lying crap in a college classroom from someone being paid by the state while they are out putting their lives in jeopardy to hunt down carbombers and make a place like Iraq safe.

Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
we need to rethink killing people and destroying lives
best laugh all day




Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Not to laugh too much, Joe...
He’s teaching our kids this rubbish.


Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Erb, it’s hard to believe you didn’t need to post your usual 30 paragraphs to express that amount of arrogance and ignorance.

You’re getting concise in your idiocy!
Well done!



Written By: looker
URL: http://

"I suppose it’d be too much to ask you to back your assertion with fact?"

AHAAHAAHAAHAAAHAA!
Wow. I haven’t laughed that hard in a while.

I think Erb is trolling again. That post was a little clearer than his usual septic tank pumpings.


Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Scott

Thanksgiving is tomorrow so this goes with the season

STUFF IT.



Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Here’s the deal, gang. I actually expect an answer, and I expect taht answer to make sense. In short, Erb is being called out here.

I can’t think of a better way to get this idiot to figuratively and publicly hang himself with his own keyboard.





Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
With Russia going Cold War, Iran going nuclear, Somali pirates taking every unarmed ship in sight...

Mr. World event - proving he’s blind to world events.

But ya know, ya have to love the liberal whining about the killing and destruction and the army, it’s so stereotypical lefty college professor.


Written By: looker
URL: http://
Not to laugh too much, Joe..
Yeah, well I am crying on the inside ;)
He’s teaching our kids this rubbish.
I am starting to think that a university education is over rated

Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
"...it’s so stereotypical lefty college professor..." who dishonestly claims to be a moderate.

I’m trying to see the difference between Erb’s position and a custard-headed, "why can’t we all get along" pacifist. I see none.

Written By: Grocky
URL: http://
At last some good news for the Russian economy, America is looking to reduce its participation in the defense industry.

Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
LOL! Yes, I’m being smug, but you guys are being proven wrong by events and after all the ridicule I don’t mind rubbing your faces in it a bit. McPhillips has made many predictions: Blair the most powerful man in Europe, the US feared in the Mideast, Hillary would beat Obama, Rev. Wright would destroy Obama...clearly the guy has no clue how the world operates. You have bluster and threats, but you’re an impotent crank — I imagine you as the guy who gets up and rambles on at school board meetings while the rest of the room rolls their eyes.

Bithead, caught up in the right wing whacko talk radio rhetoric, suddenly finds himself out in the cold, on the wrong side of politics and history, pushing issues that are all losers. No matter, just repeat the rhetoric, fall back to the usual ridicule, and avoid any substance. You’re a caricature.

Militarists that don’t get that a big superpower military is a sure fire route AWAY from small, limited government, or who want to deny the evil and horror of war. Many of you treat it as something good, honorable, totally ignoring the impact on families, cultures, women, and civilians. And after all that in Iraq, Iran emerges as the most influential player as the Iraqis force the US to embrace a timeline, with private militias and a defacto tripartite division in place. What exactly was worth the massive money, death and lives lost in the war? What about the cases of domestic abuse, the PTSD, families pushed to the brink by demands that take new fathers and mothers from their children. What exactly was worth destroying these lives? And what about the winter soldier stories, the human side of all this, lost in a political game where you simply defend military action because it is military action.

Look where it’s lead. Thanks to Iraq, the Bush domestic agenda was untried and now the Democrats have a massive majority. The Republican party was one of the biggest casualties of the war. Karmic justice?

OK, consider that a smug "I told you so" repayment for the last few years of ridicule and snide comments. Have the last word here, insult me all you want. When I post in the future I’ll return to focusing on substance and not this kind of personal response. But if this angers or frustrates you, realize I’m simply handing you back what you dished out. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.



Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://scotterb.wordpress.com
First off, trust me, Erb, you have nothing whatsoeverto be ’smug’ about.

Secondly, did everyone notice he avoided the question?

I mean, do I call this stuff?






Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Scott Scott Scott

Dont go away mad. Ummm Just go away.

"Many of you treat it as something good, honorable, totally ignoring the impact on families, cultures, women, and civilians"

No mention of the 50 million people who are now free of tyrants and dictators.

Though I am sure that thanks to Obama’s inaction in the future that Iran will have more power in the Middle East.

"Militarists that don’t get that a big superpower military is a sure fire route AWAY from small, limited government, or who want to deny the evil and horror of war."

Yep lets deny evil like umm Hitler who would have been in charge of us if we hadnt gone to war against him. Nope war never gets rid of pesky dictators like Saddam, Hitler, Mussolini or the like. They just wave good bye, give up the reins of power freely and walk away in your world Scottie boy.


"When I post in the future I’ll return to focusing on substance "

That will be a first. How about not only substance but facts as well. (that too would be a first).




Written By: retired military
URL: http://

Tut, tut.
Whatever happened to that cool, calm, rational person who deplored all the ad hominem attacks and emotionalism here?
I don’t know if he has drunk the Obama koolaid, but he has certainly consumed some sort of mood altering substance.

"Yes, I’m being smug"

At last, reality strikes! He finally notices something we have all noticed for quite some time now.



**************************************
"Secondly, did everyone notice he avoided the question?"

That’s pretty much a given. Did you really expect anything different?

Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Hey it’s all good.

Once AQ bombs a red state city, you’ll see the lov for the baby-killers racheted up....for a few weeks at least
Look where it’s lead. Thanks to Iraq, the Bush domestic agenda was untried and now the Democrats have a massive majority. The Republican party was one of the biggest casualties of the war. Karmic justice?
Actually, that title belongs to Saddam and AQ.

And the credibility of the "lose at all costs" left.


Gonna be very fun the next few years, dishing this sh*t back at you as the boy king f**ks everything up!





Written By: shark
URL: http://
In Iraq people are not really more free than they were under Saddam, and women are in much of the country worse off. The only place doing well is Kurdistan, but they were free from Saddam from the mid-nineties onward, they had autonomy then and now. Shi’ite militias and religious police are very active in Shi’ite sections, with considerable Iranian influence. Sunni tribes control Sunni sections, usually without a lot of individual freedom.

People like to state things in vague terms like, "these people are now free," without really looking at the cost in human terms, or the real conditions on the ground today.

Hitler clearly wanted war, though I’m not sure why you think he’d have been in charge of "us." If he had stopped in early June 1941 he may have consolidated his hold in Europe, but once he attacked the USSR he pretty much assured his defeat. Germany was not strong enough to hold all of Europe, I can’t imagine Germany ever even getting close to have taken the US. But your point that war sometimes is necessary is true — against aggressors, for real defense. When we go out and use military aggression as a policy tool, that’s something very different. I just am dismayed that so many seem to want to totally neglect the human cost of war, or deny the damage we inflict, or that war inflicts on our people as well. Yeah, my rhetoric in my "smug" post was a bit overboard, but the idea that war is something we should only engage in when necessary because it is inherently full of destroyed lives and families is real.

Oh, I didn’t avoid any question. Nothing of substance was asked.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://scotterb.wordpress.com
"When I post in the future I’ll return to focusing on substance "

Sorry, old boy, but you obviously have the wrong blog; you want the scatology blog.

**********************

Is anyone else reminded of the old Dicky Nixon speech after he lost the race for Governor of Ca.? Such frustration and bitterness.

Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Of course, if AQ (or whichever state sponsors them) is responsible for an attack on us.....I’m not really sure I’d support using our military for retaliation.

After all, using our military is eeeeeevil, according to some.

Dear potential terror victims: please have the good graces not to jump off towers next time. Can’t have you going and providing inflammatory pictures that may arouse our baby-killing rage.

Written By: shark
URL: http://
People like to state things in vague terms like, "these people are now free
Nothing vague about it.....especially to the people who are now free.

Too many of us take it for granted

Written By: shark
URL: http://
Shark, you don’t need a military of the size we have for counter-terrorism. That’s very different than large state vs. state warfare. Wars always contain evil deeds, and every side engages in them. Humans are humans, you’ll always have people pushed to the extremes. In the winter war stories last year one soldier told how, anguished over the death of his commanding officer, he beat an Iraqi suspect, smashing him over and over against concrete and then kicking him while he was down. This soldier apologized to the Iraqi people in an honorable way, and of course deserves understanding and forgiveness. But what does this do to him psychologically? Was it worth putting so many young men and women in such circumstances? Look at divorce rates and PTSD...was it worth that price? Think about the human cost of war, what was gained? Saying that sometimes military action is warranted is not the same as defending it writ large. Just because we do it doesn’t mean it’s just because it’s us — that’s the common error made by people throughout history, "our side always good."

Also, people in Iraq are not free. We have a history of supporting thugish regimes that deny freedom in the name of freedom.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://scotterb.wordpress.com
Oh well.

PTSD and divorce rates. I guess "counter terrorism" isn’t worth it either.

Terrorists, please have at it. Victims, please have the decency to die quietly.
"Was it worth it"
By your standards, nothing will ever be worth it. Was it worth it? May as well ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Did it have to be done? Yeah, I believe so. That’s the only standard that really matters to me. Don’t bother posting your patented 5 paragraph reply about how your opinion on the subject differs. If I really cared to rehash that debate for the umpteenth time, I’d give your blog some traffic.

Good was done. Even if you refuse to see it.

our side always good."
Yup.
Thanks for noticing.


Written By: shark
URL: http://
LOL! Yes, I’m being smug. Well, actually, I’m always smug but I seldom admit it so openly. Anyway, you guys are being proven wrong by events. Let me pick out one person and pretend that he’s the whole web site here. McPhillips has made many predictions: Blair the most powerful man in Europe, the US feared in the Mideast, Hillary would beat Obama, Rev. Wright would destroy Obama...clearly the guy has no clue how the world operates. And me, well, I’ve got it all figured out. The surge is going to fail, and violence in Iraq is going to increase later this year. Iraq will continue to be the greatest foreign policy disaster ever, because I decree it. What else? Oh, yes, I’m totally in tune with what a great man Jimmy Carter is, and you guys just better stop calling him a traitor if you know what’s good for you. And of course, I’m absolutely correct about how John Kerry is a stainless hero and the Swift Boat guys are inveterate liars, all fifty of them. I tell you, I’ve got my finger on the pulse of reality here, so you guys ought to just listen to everything I say.

And after all the ridicule I don’t mind rubbing your faces in it a bit. I mean really, how can you guys ridicule me like that? You don’t make such fun of other posters like glasnost, Captin Sarcastic, and Pogue. You guys even treat mkultra better than me. What’s up with that? I’m so smart and good and moderate and reasonable, how can you guys make fun of me in every single thread I come into? Are your lives so empty that you must make fun of me?

And don’t start up with how my own life is so empty that I have to come here and take the abuse just to get attention, just don’t start! I am not either obsessive about posting my leftist talking points to prove my own worth! Stop saying that! And stop laughing!

You have bluster and threats, but you’re all impotent cranks — I imagine you all as the guy who gets up and rambles on at school board meetings while the rest of the room rolls their eyes. And I’m not either projecting by saying that! Stop saying that! I don’t ramble at school board meetings! I give them eloquent but lengthy discussion of how they ought to take all sides into consideration and then do what we wise leftists think is right.

Bithead, caught up in the right wing whacko talk radio rhetoric, suddenly finds himself out in the cold, on the wrong side of politics and history, pushing issues that are all losers. Yep, that freedom stuff is a sure loser. We wise leftists long ago figured out that most people want security and to be ruled over by their betters, rather than taking on responsibility for their own lives. No matter, just repeat the rhetoric, fall back to the usual ridicule, and avoid any substance. You’re a caricature. And I’m not projecting that time either! Darn it, stop saying that! You amateur psychologists think you’re so cool. But I’m the one in the faculty lounge, shaping the next generation using my wise counsel and godlike powers of political science. I and my colleagues will make sure the next generation learns the truth: freedom is not so hot, military intervetion is always wrong, and negotiation is a magic process that cures all ills.

Militarists that don’t get that a big superpower military is a sure fire route AWAY from small, limited government. We should just stop with all that icky military stuff. You can’t deny the evil and horror of war. It’s just awful, do you hear, awful! Anything else is better. If we didn’t have our military, other nations would treat us with admiration and respect, and they would never threaten our beautiful leftist way of life. And don’t start up with that Hitler and Saddam stuff, do you hear! Just don’t start! I’m sure such men are a reaction to our nasty imperial aspirations, and if we would pull our troops out of everywhere and promise never to invade anyone again, they would lead lives of peace and fulfillment. Don’t you see, it’s our fault! Everything is our fault! Even Hitler! It just has to be that way according to the holy principles of post-modern leftist politics.

Many of you treat it as something good, honorable, totally ignoring the impact on families, cultures, women, and civilians. The military is evil, don’t you dense righties get it? It’s not honorable, and the horrible impact on families is just too much for me to bear thinking about, and don’t you dare start up with the impact of 9/11 on families, because that was our fault too! As I’ve told you, everything is our fault, so I’ve blocked off all your exits. Ultimately, no matter what you claim is the need for the military, it all comes back by axiomatic certainty that the military is bad and anything that goes wrong is our fault.

And after all that in Iraq, Iran emerges as the most influential player as the Iraqis force the US to embrace a timeline. I mean, what’s up with this idea of turning them loose to run their own country. I tell you, they’re wogs! They’re not up to it and they never will be. They have private militias and a defacto tripartite division in place. Don’t you see how bad that is! It has to be bad! I’ve told you what a failure Iraq is, and all my colleages in the faculty lounge and all my friend in Germany agree, so it has to be! It just has to! It can’t possibly ever, ever be a success! It can’t, it can’t, it can’t!

What exactly was worth the massive money, death and lives lost in the war? Fifty million free people and the possiblity of an inspiration for an entirely new direction in the Middle East? Bah. That’s not worth beans. It won’t ever work, because, as I told you, they’re just wogs who can’t rise above their noble savage religious tradition, so we should just respect their culture and do whatever they want. And that’s not appeasement! It’s retribution for what we’ve done to them in the past, because we are so evil.

What about the cases of domestic abuse, the PTSD, families pushed to the brink by demands that take new fathers and mothers from their children. Just because those folks volunteered, and many of them believe they’re doing the most important thing in their lives, well, that’s silly, because they’re just uneducated ignorant rednecks. They couldn’t possibly make an informed decision that it was all worth it. They’re just children, for goodness sake, the same age as my students. They need to be in my class being indoctrinated, uh, I mean educated about how their place in the world is to be good little citizens that do whatever their wise leftist leaders tell them to do, and to forget all this honor and duty stuff.

What exactly was worth destroying these lives? And what about the winter soldier stories? What do you mean, that was all a fraud? No it wasn’t! It sounds too good to be a fraud! It has the ring of truth! It fits so perfectly with leftist dogma that it absolutely has to be true, it has to be, do you hear me!!! The human side of all this, lost in a political game where you simply defend military action because it is military action. And I attack it because, by definition, all military action is evil. Evil, evil, evil!

Look where it’s lead. Thanks to Iraq, the Bush domestic agenda was untried. Well, I mean, he got the federalization of education thing with Kennedy, and the Medicare drug program all we wise leftists wanted, but still. And now the Democrats have a massive majority. And it has absolutely nothing to do with Bush aligning with we wise leftists and screwing his conservative base. Nothing at all! The Republican party was one of the biggest casualties of the war. Karmic justice? I certainly hope so, because you nasty Republicans and militarists are so evil you deserve everything bad that ever happens to you.

OK, consider that a smug "I told you so" repayment for the last few years of ridicule and snide comments. I’m right, I’m right, I’m right! I’ve always been right! About everything! Have the last word here, insult me all you want. I don’t care {sniff}. You nasty righties just go and have your fun! I can take it, because I have the holy principles of postmodern leftist thought to sustain me and assure myself that I’m always right and you evil, thick righties are always wrong.

When I post in the future I’ll return to focusing on substance. Well, what I consider substance, which means leftist dogma, of course. And not this kind of personal response. No, I’ve never done that before, never called anyone a coward or other personal attacks. Stop laughing! I haven’t, I tell you. Stop, don’t go to Google, you have my word for it! I’ve always been good and moderate and honest and above all that personal stuff. Just this once I let my true feelings show.

But if this angers or frustrates you, realize I’m simply handing you back what you dished out. Yessir, I got you guys good. I’m sure you’re just as ridiculed as I am. Stop laughing! You should feel ridiculed, I tell you. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.

Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://YouRightiesAreSoMeanToRidiculeMe.whimper/moan/sniff
Bithead, caught up in the right wing whacko talk radio rhetoric,
So Scott, you listen to right wing talk radio? I mean, in order to accuse bithead of this, you must KNOW what they talk about. Right?

Militarists that don’t get that a big superpower military is a sure fire route AWAY from small, limited government
Let’s rephrase that a little -

**Socialists that don’t get that a big superpower entitlement provider is a sure fire route AWAY from small, limited government**

How’s that taste?

What exactly was worth the massive money, death and lives lost in the war?
Just damn Scott... you have to ask? Have you ever heard or thought through the phrase ’freedom is not free’? Ever?
...but the idea that war is something we should only engage in when necessary because it is inherently full of destroyed lives and families is real.
War is only something we should engage in when necessary. And you have a problem with that?

I’m done with you -


Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Freedom is not free is just a slogan. In reality, we don’t need to be fighting wars all over the globe in order to defend American freedom. The Iraq war did nothing to defend our freedom; in fact, it probably endangered it and the health of our country’s economy.

I have listened to talk radio, and in fact doing so was part of putting together my next research project, which deals directly with the issue under discussion. I will have a semester sabbatical and focus on turning this into a book. I’ve described it here:
http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/why-is-war-easy/

It’s called "Why is War Easy? The Enlightenment and its Discontents" It deals with the odd way in which a culture like ours so quickly turns to violence and force in response to perceived threats or regimes different than our own. Feel free to e-mail me any comments about how you think I may be off base, or what else I need to consider in working on this. The sabbatical isn’t until next year, so right now I’m laying the ground work for this project, which will critique not only how we create a myth of war as something other than it really is, but also enlightenment thought.

That’s also one reason I’ve been fascinated by the ideas in this blog, and have at times provoked you guys to react — I am amazed at how you easily you dismiss the real costs of war in order to defend it politically, and how you don’t recognize that when a state develops a huge military and ambitions to use it for reasons other than defense, that government always grows and limits the freedoms of its own citizens. (Unfortunately I have no idea what your sentence up there about socialists means, meagain, it doesn’t make any sense). In many ways looking at arguments and posts in this blog has been part of my research.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://scotterb.wordpress.com
Somalia.

We pulled our troops out.

Now their pirates are taking over oil tankers and Islamists have a safe haven to train there.

So, now we have to have our Navy patrolling the sea lanes there.

Sometimes its better to pay upfront than to kick the can down the road.

Now, I don’t know if we could have even "fixed" Somalia, but its definitely important to realize that ’savings’ that come from cutting back our military may not end up ’saving’ much at all.

Now, if we matched dollar for dollar reduced defense spending with reduced social spending, maybe I could get on board...say cutting off all funding for Maine universitiies’ political science department, for example. That’s a complete waste of taxpayer money if you ask me.

Written By: harun
URL: http://
Oh, and reducing the military right when unemployment is going up and we are in a recession is probably not a wise idea, either.

Now, if we really need to get some cost saving, may I suggest not to cut our own costs, but to increase our sales instead? By that I mean charging Europe and other free-riders.

Defense spending as % of GDP below 4% and under US nuclear shield and NATO protection gets a chargeback to get to the 4% level.

The same can be applied to Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, etc. Maybe 3.5% would be a reasonable discount...say if your troops are willing to enter combat in Afghanistan.

Here’s a helpful map for our sales guys at state.

Written By: harun
URL: http://
Does anyone remember that we tried this sh*t before?
"PEACE DIVIDEND"
How’d that work out for us again?




Written By: shark
URL: http://
Iraq is still a "fiasco" to you, Scott, because you haven’t paid any attention to it since you began incessantly repeating that word a couple of years ago. It was a very popular description in the popular media back then. Did you maybe notice that no one uses it anymore, because it doesn’t apply?

And you’re even still defending Saddam Hussein. But, hey, what’s a Saddam Hussein here or there, when you’ve offered so much encouragement and justification for carbombers over the years.

Maybe the Germans were better off under Hitler, too! There’s an argument to be made! Hurry, it’s an academic niche you might be able to fill. Add an avant-garde haircut and get yourself some weird eyeglasses and maybe they’ll let you give a paper at a conference in Berlin.

And you’re certainly appreciated at this blog, even if I speak only as an occasional maker of comments here. Why, they keep on a fulltime satirist-in-residence just to squeeze every laugh possible out of you.

I guess that’s what gets done with an incompetent, chatty academic lemonade-stand Ward Churchill.

Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
Freedom is not free is just a slogan
Oh my lord.

That can only be uttered by someone who has been swaddled in freedom from birth and so takes it for granted as to place no value on it.

Please go down to any VFW hall or Veterans Cemetary and utter that pap.

Written By: shark
URL: http://
Just heard O! on Babwa Wawa and he promised not to be distracted by Iraq and to get Osama and destroy the big threat Al Queda and then all will be sweetness in the world.

Oh yeah. He is going to keep Americans safe. Yes he is.

===

Tell you what though - if Ds cut the military and we have an attack on Americans he is going to be in the deep end of the it.

Did I mention "militants" are attacking Americans in India? And Brits. And Israelis.

You know I get the feeling he will not have to wait 6 months to be tested. I think the probing attacks have already started.

Wed 26 Nov 008

Written By: M. Simon
URL: http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/
Freedom is not free is just a slogan. I can’t believe you dense righties fall for such obvious hoo-hah. Can’t you see slogans like that are just a way for The Man to keep you down? Why, it’s obvious that freedom doesn’t need defending. It just falls from heaven, like rain. Especially under the leadership of wise leftists.

In reality, we don’t need to be fighting wars all over the globe in order to defend American freedom. We should just pull back from everywhere else. Sure we might lose a city to nuclear terrorism every once in a while, or maybe a nerve gas attack every few years, but isn’t that a small price to pay for defanging the military and never again fighting an icky war?

The Iraq war did nothing to defend our freedom; in fact, it probably endangered it and the health of our country’s economy. As I’ve told you before, those wogs are just not up to ever getting past their noble savage heritage, and as part of that, they’re just going to keep producing terrorists. And since, as I’ve proven irrefutably, everything is ultimately our fault, we just need to take whatever those noble savage terrorists decide to do to us. Change the Middle East? Hah! I can’t believe you righties are so dense to believe the wogs can ever do that. And they don’t care about freedom, oh no. As I’ve already told you, freedom just falls from heaven when wise leftists take over, and since they’re not ready to move beyond tribalism directly into wise leftism, they’re just not ready for freedom. I’m not sure they ever will be, because it would require changing their brown noble savage nature, and we multiculturalists always think that’s a bad idea.

I have listened to talk radio, and in fact doing so was part of putting together my next research project, which deals directly with the issue under discussion. I have all kinds of obnoxious quotes from Rush Limbaugh - he’s even nastier towards wise leftists than you people here. I will have a semester sabbatical and focus on turning this into a book. Of course, that means I’ll have more time to come here and post and post and post about what I’m writing, and I won’t be doing it because of any compulsion to get attention, so stop saying that! As I explain on my blog, which I’m definitely not pimping here to drive up it’s hit count from the current half dozen per day, the book is going to be terrific.

It’s called "Why is War Easy? Because Dense Righties Like It" It deals with the odd way in which a culture like ours so quickly turns to violence and force in response to perceived threats or regimes different than our own. I mean, how can a little thing like invading neighboring countries and trying to acquire WMD result in military action? Especially when magical negotiation could have fixed the whole thing! Feel free to e-mail me any comments about how you think I may be off base, so I can immediately start looking down my nose at how ignorant you are and summarily dismiss your advice wholesale. And that’s not because I need to look down my nose at others to bolster my own self-worth, so stop saying that! And stop laughing!

Or tell me what else I need to consider in working on this. I’m sure none of the thick righties that hang around here could come up with anything relevant, but I have to say such things to maintain my facade of objectivity.

The sabbatical isn’t until next year, so right now I’m laying the ground work for this project, which will critique not only how we create a myth of war as something other than it really is, but also enlightenment thought. It will allow me to reach new heights in producing impenetrable prose, and I just can’t wait to talk to the seven people who buy the book so I can absorb their adoration for how smart I am.

That’s also one reason I’ve been fascinated by the ideas in this blog, and have at times provoked you guys to react — I am amazed at how you easily you dismiss the real costs of war in order to defend it politically. Especially the very real costs that it makes we wise leftists just feel icky to know war is going on. And shut up about the costs of we leftists having to eat our words about how it can never work out, just shut up about that! It never works out! Iraq is a fiasco, I tell you!

In many ways looking at arguments and posts in this blog has been part of my research. Yes, you dense righties are like aborigines, and I’m sort of doing anthropological research on you. Perhaps someday I’ll understand you well enough to see why you constantly ridicule a smart, moderate, well-behaved debater like me.



Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://ImWritingABookAboutWhyWarIsIckyAndHowStupidMilitaryTypesAre.tool/delusionalidiot/obsessivebasketcase
I think this Erb dude is kidding around. Nobody is that profoundly arrogant and ideologically hidebound. Don’t let a cartoon character get under your skin.

Written By: Dion
URL: http://
"In the winter war stories last year "

I am sure all those stories are just as credible as the ones that came out of VietNam.


" Nobody is that profoundly arrogant and ideologically hidebound"

New here, eh?

Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Nothing of substance was asked.
For the record, I will repeat it for you, in context:
But the question here is what will all of these redirected funds be applied to? And where in our Constitution can you find the supporting language for those requirements?
The first question is easy - all of the BS stuff socialists like yourself want the government to pay for. But for the record, try on the second question: And where in our Constitution can you find the supporting language for those requirements?

Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Yes, timactual, I am relatively new here. I’m not so new to the rest of the world that I haven’t heard the "Erb = herb = marijuana" tired fuzzy leftist jargon and arguments. My point is that there’s no use winding yourself around the axle over a pompous fool like "Erb."

Written By: Dion
URL: http://
SShiell — I don’t need to look at a document 200 years old to find "supporting language" for what government does now. As long as Congress approves and the Supreme Court doesn’t rule it unconstitutional, that’s all that matters. If that’s not good enough for you, that’s your problem, not mine. In other words, I don’t have to justify it.

So far nobody has even tried to claim we need such a large military for self defnese, or has dealt with the issue of the evil effects of war. Shark laughingly says "go say that in a VFW hall," as if that means anything. Shark, go make your arguments to "Veterans for peace" and see what they say. See, that works both ways. You guys haven’t shown any substance, just anger and posturing. You point to violence on other parts of the world as if that somehow justifies our high military budget or the evils of war done in our name. That hardly applies. The reality is that the "Iraq syndrome" will be more powerful than the "Vietnam syndrome," and combined with our economic crisis will force us to step down from our neo-imperial policies which have caused so much suffering. History is on my side, not yours. The times are indeed changing.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://scotterb.wordpress.com
A VERY PARTIAL DEFENSE OF ERB’s POSITION:

I am going to start by saying I believe Scott Erb is wrong in the sense that he decries the Republican party led invasion of Iraq when in fact, if we would have had a President Al Gore we almost certainly would have also gone to war in Iraq.

Consider that Saddam had repeatedly defied us, kicked out inspectors, bribed UN officials, and made us and the UN a laughingstock. Consider also, that nearly all the Democrats were behind the war at first. Clearly I think it was inevitable.

But I will agree more generally with him. Not about the winter soldier or the effect on divorce rates etc. That is namby pamby liberal crap, Nations cannot concern themselves with the private lives of soldiers or the few cases of rouge actions when setting policy. That is naive and silly.

But he is CORRECT in pointing out that there is no way to square limited or small government with large standing military, or an aggressive foreign policy.

Personally I am sick to death of this "bear every burden" crap that always falls upon the USA. That was important when facing a grave international movement like Communism which had already taken over two of the worlds largest nations, but we face nothing like that anymore. If we decided to simply take a step back and involve ourselves only in regions that we perceive as our absolute strategic interest, then we would have less reason to knock heads with every corrupt regime out there.

And here I will say something controversial. The Persian Gulf region is NOT in our strategic interest.

I know that the conventional wisdom is that the free flow of oil is so important yada yada. But speaking as an economist I can tell you that those nations in the region, no matter what king of government they have, have no choice but to sell their oil in world markets, because it is about the only source of wealth they have.

Oil is a fungible commodity and it does not matter where we get ours from.

Guess what? central/eastern Europe is also not a region of our strategic interest. Getting involved in someplace like Georgia would rank near the top of all the really stupid things we could ever do.

There are limits to what we can OR SHOULD do in the world. Erb is right about something else, we are nearly bankrupt.

Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Erb:
Shark laughingly says "go say that in a VFW hall," as if that means anything.
You mean to establish the veracity of "Freedom is not free"?

Because that is what shark was talking about, and he’s 100% correct.
Shark, go make your arguments to "Veterans for peace" and see what they say. See, that works both ways.
Yeah, it works both ways, the same way "it works both ways" between a locomotive and a car on a railroad track. Proportionality in your reasoning has never been one of your strong suits, Scott.
You guys haven’t shown any substance, just anger and posturing.
You say that every time your face gets rubbed in it, but your face and it are such old friends at this point you’ve developed a whole deranged psychology to cope, or maybe that psychology just came in the original package. Do you recall that in this very thread you accused U.S. troops of killing more civilians and creating more orphans than the terrorists and carbombers whose cheerleader you’ve been for several years now?

Good soldiers have died hunting those murderers, while you get to take your next breath.

Where’s the justice.

Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
Kyle:
But he is CORRECT in pointing out that there is no way to square limited or small government with large standing military, or an aggressive foreign policy.
That’s not true, at least if you’re talking about the original conception of limited government (enumerated powers) in the U.S. Constitution.

The Framers provided Congress with the specific powers to create a military and for the Executive to command it.

And what constitutes an "aggressive foreign policy" has a historical context and an eye of beholder context.
Personally I am sick to death of this "bear every burden" crap that always falls upon the USA.
That term was coined by JFK in his inaugural address to indicate steadfastness in what was indeed a global struggle with international communism in the "person" of the Soviet Union and its allies.

In today’s foreign policy the U.S. is involved in no major conflict precisely because of our capacity to project such military power and the potential of overwhelming force.

The role of "status quo superpower" has fallen to us. That means that we fix serious breaches in international order by restoring the status quo. Our reversal of the invasion and annexation of Kuwait by Iraq is an excellent example. We are also the guarantor of strategic peace, which means that we hold the big picture cards when it comes to thwarting huge internation conflicts: there are no major wars ongoing.

Our current conflicts, in Iraq and Afghanistan, are historically minor wars, which combined over several years now do not equal the intensity of some of the single battles of WWII. I like the example of the battle on Okinawa in the Pacific against the Japanese, which lasted about three months and was much more devastating than both of our current wars over six years combined.

As for our war on terrorism, that is an exercise in global counter-asymmetrical warfare. And we don’t see much of that because it takes place in the shadows, so to speak, but from India today we see the reason why we fight it.
And here I will say something controversial. The Persian Gulf region is NOT in our strategic interest.
Well, with the global interconnectedness, politically and economically, the Middle East’s instability and the reasons why it is unstable, by definition make it a strategic interest of the United States. There’s no way around it.

But deeper than that, contrary to the thinking of Pat Buchanan, the difficulties that the West has had with Islam and that region, did not begin in 1948. In fact, one of the effects of the long Cold War was to occlude the much longer struggle between the West and Islam.

The U.S. is either a global leader or some other country will be. I think that our most serious problems are internal — cultural, social, degrees of government. I think that our international posture is usually good, strong enough most of the time, usually right, and though we’ve made mistakes, the general effect has been good for us: a freer world, a stronger world economy (despite the current financial crisis), and a lot less serious warfare, which has made us wealthier. Ironically, many of our problems stem from our very success and prosperity.

Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
And here I will say something controversial. The Persian Gulf region is NOT in our strategic interest.
As long as we and our strategic allies get the huge quantities of oil our economies need from the Mideast, it will be in our strategic interest. This is why I think alternative energy is a dandy thing to try even though the left is largely deluding themselves about alternative energy’s short term capabilities.
Shark, you don’t need a military of the size we have for counter-terrorism. That’s very different than large state vs. state warfare.
And here we get to one of the two big liberal lies about the military. (The other being that we can fund large amounts of social programs by cutting military spending.)

Do you know why we have problems with small states and terrorists in the world? Because our military is so dominant in the big war that it has driven current conflicts to the small war. Only an idiot would try organized military action against the United States. There is no way to win anything other than a Phyrric victory. Instead they throw their support behind third party groups like terrorist organizations, not because those are particularly effective, but because it gives them cover. This was the issue that the Bush Doctrine was designed to address.

Now if you abandon the big war for the small war, what will happen? In the short term, not much. In the long term someone, maybe China or Russia, is going to perceive that weakness and exploit it for military gain. Then you have to spend all the money you saved and more to rebuild the military capability you lost. This is why our military is trying to develop flexible military systems and organizations that will hopefully be good at both kinds of warfare. Because you cannot abandon the big war no matter what.

Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
Referring to the Constitution. The document upon which our government is based. Erb states:
I don’t need to look at a document 200 years old to find "supporting language" for what government does now.
Which is "liberal speak" for "Constitution? What’s that?"

Keep it real there, Erb. I can always count on you to open your mouth and boldly insert your foot. And as usual, you have complied. It is good to know you, as with most leftards, view the Contitution with such contempt.

Constitution? We don’ need no stinkin’ Constitution!

Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Kyle,

I appreciate your limited defense of Erb. There will come a time when our country will become like Britain is now - not the world’s policeman but maybe a deputy sherrif. I don’t know when that will happen though I suspect Erb wishes to hurry this along thinking the EU and international law will handle everything. I am not so sure that will ever happen.

In fact, if we were to become more isolationist, the world might get much worse very fast. Russia attacking Georgia is not that important...until they decide that they could take back Azerbaijan, and maybe Latvia too. Who’s going to stop them? Sarkozy? What happens next? Every country will decide that nuclear weapons are the only way to keep the wolves at bay. Very bad. Yeah, what I describe seems a bit ludicrous.

Try Taiwan/China instead. If were to withdraw from our defense obligation to Taiwan, Taiwan would most likely buid nuclear weapons to defend themselves. It would be their best option (they tried in the 80’s actually until we stopped them.) Okay, fine. Taiwan has nukes. No big deal. Until you realize they would only have seconds to launch if they saw an attack coming. Totally huge chance for accidental nuclear war. NOT GOOD even if you know you could still buy semiconductors because they are a commodity.

Oh, and in the optimistic Erb world, we stop fighting all those wars and listen to the Europeans - who will promptly get us involved in fighting wars. We were lucky in Yugoslavia to come in at the end and not try to have to keep humpty dumpty together. Remember the media will help this along - when its GOP in power these wars are horrible and must be stopped. When its the Dems in power, they are important humanitarian police actions and we should not stand by while people are dying...though the Iraq experience will dampen down on this a lot. Maybe. Darfur, Congo, Somalia, lots of places to start off with peacekeeping and end up fighting.

Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Scott
"You point to violence on other parts of the world as if that somehow justifies our high military budget "

Exactly. Now look at the violence done in the US. Do you see suicide bombers? Airline hijackings? political assasination? coup attempts?

Maybe MAYBE once in a great while you may see one of these. But never on the basis in other countries. ANd the reason why is? The US Military. Also most democratic countries. IE Canada, Germany, France, England, most of Europe, dont have large militaries because they rely on the US military strength.

You are an blubbering idiot who wears rose colored glasses when you view the world.

Is war hell? Yes. It is supposed to be. But all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Why dont you go to one of those countries you profess is doing so much less harm to the world than the US and speak out against the politicians there, speak out against the government policies there. Speak out against the rape and torture that the govt condones in dozens of countries around the world like Iraq prior to Saddam. Oh wait. Not only dont you have b*lls but you know that if you did you would be impriosoned or worse. Instead you sit in the comfort of your living room spouting your b*llsh*t theories about how the US is damaging the world with its overblown military.

You and your ilk make me sick.










Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Scott left out one thing when he said

"As long as Congress approves and the Supreme Court doesn’t rule it unconstitutional, that’s all that matters. "

He left out "and I approve of it"

After all Congress approved Bush using force against Iraq and the Supreme Court hasnt ruled it unconstitutional so that is all that matters right Scott.

Did you say the same thing when Bush was President and the House and Senate were controlled by Republicans? I sincerely doubt that.


Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Retired military, I think you’re absolutely wrong about the US military protecting us at home from internal violence. That’s our internal security and relative isolation. If you look at most incidents of violence abroad they are small local groups, more like our McVeighs, then anything the military protects us against. We do not need such a massive force to defend our freedom, and most of our military action has destroyed more lives than it has served or protected. Hurl all the insults you want, but "me and my ilk" are now starting to assert more authority and power as we see a generational change in politics. Whine, complain, insult, do what you want, but get used to it.

I really think you don’t understand how the world works, and the nature of American foreign policy. I’ve spent my whole life studying it, and have looked at it from a variety of different perspectives. Perhaps you’re going on more on your gut here than your head. For instance, the Europeans would not have large militaries even if the US downsized dramatically. They know they don’t need them in this era, they do not face a 20th century like threat. They need intelligence units and smaller armies for defense, but nobody is about to invade, the era of massive world wars is over. They also don’t glorify war the way some in America do — they know it is horrid, it destroys lives, and it leaves a third or more of those who fight it with severe mental problems like PTSD, domestic abuse, and others. Anyone who glorifies war is deluded.

And, no, I never said that Bush’s actions in Iraq were unconstitutional or demanded people justify that with the constitution, so that point is irrelevant. All I noted is that it’s silly for people to say "justify our current spending in the constitution." No one has to. One can smile, shake their head, roll their eyes and walk away. Now, bring a case to court where the Supreme Court rules something unconstitution, then it matters. That’s not an issue of what’s right or wrong — one can oppose a lot of things allowed by the constitution. It’s just not relevant.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://scotterb.wordpress.com
"As long as Congress approves and the Supreme Court doesn’t rule it unconstitutional, that’s all that matters."

Ah, a man of strong principal and conviction. In other words, might makes right.


"or has dealt with the issue of the evil effects of war"

Get off your high horse, moron. Some of us don’t need to preen and show how concerned, compassionate, and caring we are. Perhaps we should also ’deal’ with the evil effects of hunger, disease, and carpal tunnel syndrome while we are at it.

"You guys haven’t shown any substance, just anger and posturing."

Posturing? I refer you to my previous remark.


Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Actually, I’m at the point right now that if I could be sure that such an attack would hit a "blue" area only, I’d about welcome a terrorist action in the states.

Yeah, that’s harsh, I know.

Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://gonzosbarandgogogrill.mensnewsdaily.com
squish:
"Militarists that don’t get that a big superpower military is a sure fire route AWAY from small, limited government, or who want to deny the evil and horror of war."
Yeah, but universal health care is going to save us all.

Drop dead, Erb.


Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Oh, the Founders’ dream has been dead for a while, and the Republicans are as responsible as the Democrats for killing it.
I have to disagree. FDR and LBJ are the ones mostly responsible. And the American people.

The Republicans have gotten in line because that seems to be the popular thing to do. Sure, they have capitulated, but reality is that it is very hard to undo social security or medicare, and I think the point with the medical drug bill Bush supported, the idea was that something similar was going through no matter what, it’s better if the right has a say and supports a drug bill that’s only 50% bad . . . sort of Captian Sarcastic’s point about medical care overall . . .



Written By: Don
URL: http://
So far nobody has even tried to claim we need such a large military for self defnese, or has dealt with the issue of the evil effects of war
1) I’ll claim that we need the large military. We have lots of places to cover, including the seas and skies. And furthermore, here’s the thing about militaries in time of war - if you don’t have it when you need it, you’re f**ked. Better to have a large military we don’t use than have a smaller force that leaves us playing catchup.

2) "Evil effects of war" - And there are no good effects?

Interesting.

But Scotty, even your "Veterans for Peace" would have to admit Freedom isn’t free. You there, sitting on your college-bound candy a$$ seems to have forgotten that the freedom you currently enjoy was paid for by far better men than you will ever be.

This country is true proof of that axiom.

Written By: shark
URL: http://
Retired military, I think you’re absolutely wrong about the US military protecting us at home from internal violence. I’m telling you, if the military just went away, magically no one would have any grievance against us, and we would be completely secure through the miraculous intervention of leftist guidance.

Plus, of course, our internal security and relative isolation. If you look at most incidents of violence abroad they are small local groups, more like our McVeighs, then anything the military protects us against. And I have complete and utter confidence that it will always be there, as long as the US undergoes a comprehensive regime of self-effacement, so that Russia and China know that we pose no threat to them. Then they’ll join us in celebration of everlasting peace! Don’t you see?

We do not need such a massive force to defend our freedom, and most of our military action has destroyed more lives than it has served or protected. No, I have zero evidence for that, but I just feel it because war is just icky, I tell you. Hurl all the insults you want, but "me and my ilk" are now starting to assert more authority and power as we see a generational change in politics. Whine, complain, insult, do what you want, but get used to it. We’re going to get rid of the military (mostly) and put glorious five year plans in place for our domestic agenda, and it’s all going to work out beautifully, you’ll see. And don’t start with how leftist plans have failed everywhere they’ve ever been tried, just don’t start! That’s the fault of counterrevolutionaries just like you, who refuse to accept the security and prosperity promised by wise leftists.

I really think you don’t understand how the world works, and the nature of American foreign policy. Yes, I know you actually have military experience, but how much does that count for really? I’ve spent my whole life studying it, and have looked at it from a variety of different perspectives. Yes, I’ve run the gamut from complete pacifism to class-warfare-based socialism, and from my campus office, I can assure you that I understand exactly how the world works. Which is why I have to come here and tell you dense righties again and again and again how things really work, because you’re so obviously deluded. And it has nothing to do with me needing to validate my self-worth, so dammit, stop saying that! I’m trying to help you understand, don’t you see?

Perhaps you’re going on more on your gut here than your head. For instance, the Europeans would not have large militaries even if the US downsized dramatically. They know they don’t need them in this era, they do not face a 20th century like threat. I’m telling you, you just have to take it on faith that we’ve fought the war to end all wars in Europe, and we;ll just never see another one. Those Europeans are just so enlightened that war is unthinkable there. And don’t start with what Russia might so, or something coming at Europe from the Middle East, just don’t start! It won’t happen, I tell you! It won’t, it won’t, it won’t! You have take it on faith from wise leftists like me, and stop all this bleating about how something might eventually happen that would need military force. Just because that has happened in every previous era in human history doesn’t mean it will happen again!

They need intelligence units and smaller armies for defense, but nobody is about to invade, but as I said, the era of massive world wars is over. It’s over, it’s over, it’s over! I decree it! They also don’t glorify war the way some in America do — they know it is horrid, it destroys lives, and it leaves a third or more of those who fight it with severe mental problems like PTSD, domestic abuse, and others. Yes, a third of soldiers are complete raving basket cases! Heck, you’re probably one of them! Just like McQ! And stop asking me to back up that assertion, I just feel that it’s true! And with my fine sense of emotional discrimination, I can just sense that you ex-military guys are emotionally crippled by the experience! I decree it!!! Anyone who glorifies war is deluded. And just by advocating that we actually need a military, you are glorifying war, don’t you see? What else would we ever use a miltary for?

And, no, I never said that Bush’s actions in Iraq were unconstitutional or demanded people justify that with the constitution, so that point is irrelevant. All I noted is that it’s silly for people to say "justify our current spending in the constitution." No one has to. One can smile, shake their head, roll their eyes and walk away. Now, bring a case to court where the Supreme Court rules something unconstitution, then it matters. By the holy principles of post-modernism, the original language doesn’t mean a thing. It’s all in what our colleagues in the post-modern media can convince five justices to do. Suck on it, righties. I know you think your precious Constitution actually means that something protects your right to disagree with wise leftists, but we’ve got seven decades of figuring out how to get around that, so you’re hosed. That’s not an issue of what’s right or wrong. By the holy principles of post-modernism, there’s no such thing, except that anything that opposes leftist policy is wrong and evil by definition.

Come on over to my blog, and I’ll tell you more about how you militaristic types are deranged and out of touch. That’s what my whole book is about, in fact.

Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://TotallyConvincedThatPeaceIsForeverAndWeNeedNoMilitary.dolt/deludedidiot/leftisttool
Happy Thanksgiving to our troops and God bless them.

Written By: Dion
URL: http://
Happy Thanksgiving to our troops and God bless them.
How can you say that, Dion? They’re all basket cases, heck they probably can’t even tell your sentiments from the voices in their heads. And anyway, they’re militaristic baby killers who are just like the Nazis, as I’ve told all you dense righties before.

Furthermore, they’re evil and unnecessary. They’re evil because war is just icky and they kill innocent people constantly, as I’ve outlined on my previous comments on this thread. They’re unnecessary because the world has become an enlightened place in which there will never be another large scale war. There just won’t be one, do you hear! There can’t be! The country has decided to let a wise leftist run things, and along with his wise leftist colleagues in Europe, the entire world will be guided into an era of peace and understanding. Everyone will live in harmony. As long as you dense militaristic righties don’t gum up the works, that is.

Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://IGuaranteeNoMoreWarBecauseHumanityHasCompletelyChanged.fool/delusional/pacifist/leftistjackass
Scott

"For instance, the Europeans would not have large militaries even if the US downsized dramatically. They know they don’t need them in this era, they do not face a 20th century like threat. They need intelligence units and smaller armies for defense, but nobody is about to invade, the era of massive world wars is over"

Really? Might want to tell the folks of Georgia (not the state) that.

And would you look at this?

http://www.athar.pk/amazing-stuff/ten-largest-armies-of-the-world/

World Top 10 - Countries with Largest Armies
Countries Army Personnel
China 1,600,000
India 1,100,000
North Korea 950,000
South Korea 560,000
Pakistan 550,000
USA 477,800
Vietnam 412,000
Turkey 402,000
Iraq 321,000
Russia 321,000

It takes troops to take and hold land.

I guess you should go tell China, India, NK, SK, and Pakistan that before you go preaching here. After all if the US doesnt need to keep an army its size than I am sure those countries dont need them.

Do you know what we spend a large part of the defense budget on? Things like Pay, education, training, health care for the military and their family.

What you fail to see (or just conveniently ignore) is that the enemies of the US would love for us to cut our force size. That way they can stetch us thinner than we are now and do what they want because we cant respond.

You need to get out of that ivory tower more and actually live in the world around you. Go tell the folks in Iraq face to face that they were better off under Saddam. Talk to the kurds in Iraq and mention that they were better off under Saddam. Talk to children actually going to schools that their life would have been better 10 years ago than now.



Written By: retired military
URL: http://
"I really think you don’t understand how the world works, and the nature of American foreign policy. I’ve spent my whole life studying it, and have looked at it from a variety of different perspectives. Perhaps you’re going on more on your gut here than your head. For instance, the Europeans would not have large militaries even if the US downsized dramatically. They know they don’t need them in this era, they do not face a 20th century like threat. They need intelligence units and smaller armies for defense, but nobody is about to invade, the era of massive world wars is over. They also don’t glorify war the way some in America do — they know it is horrid, it destroys lives, and it leaves a third or more of those who fight it with severe mental problems like PTSD, domestic abuse, and others. Anyone who glorifies war is deluded."

Basically Erb doesn’t like going to Europe for his "studies" and hearing his Europeans colleagues go on and on about us. He’s spent his life studying this stuff and all he ever mentions is Europe. Well, SCott spin the globe around a little more and read the papers, eh, its not all Europe.

Here’s a great example: North Korea

Europe does exactly ZERO to help resolve that problem or to contain their military. And I guarantee you North Korea is not a post-modern state that believes diplomacy and EU ascension is the future.

Another one.

Taiwan: The US guaranteess Taiwan’s survival. The EU cannot because they have small navies and not enough air transport to bring any amount of troops into the island in case of war. In fact, Europe pretty much is happy selling out Taiwan to make sure their sales to China stay high.

Oh, and the EU’s highest court just rejected a UN resolution, claiming EU law is above the UN law. How are you going to get international law to work when even the Euros won’t accept the will of the international community.

Note: France and the UK do spend more money and have their own nuclear deterrent. They are not as guilty of free-riding as others.

Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Erb Theory: Nobody is going to invade other countries anymore.

a. maybe because they realize the USA won’t tolerate it?

b. How does this claim stand up to the past 20 years of empirical evidence?
Hmmmmmm, not very well at all. In fact, Ethiopia just invaded Somalia within the last year or so. Tutsi rebels supported by Rwanda invaded Eastern Congo. The USA along with European allies included just invaded Iraq and Afghanistan - so even Europeans are breaking their own "theory"

c. Note that if someone provides you with a free taxi service, you can claim that you don’t need to own a car to get around.

I pray for his students.

Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I will say this for Erb’s theory. If you are, say Germany, your main threat is just some terrorists here and there, and NATO pretty much covers you on anything else. Eastern Europe is now a nice buffer zone and your neighbors are peaceful democracies.

The same can be said for the United States. We too could sit back and chill.

The thing America has learned and Europe has not is that global events can affect you. For example, while we were chilling in the 30’s with a tiny military, some regions of the planet became embroiled in huge wars that ended up dragging us into wars despite our own backyard being at peace.

And while right now, it sure looks like all we need to do is counter-insurgency in the 3rd world, that may not be the case in 10-20 years. And you will not enjoy trying to ramp up your military in time to meet, say China, over the Taiwan straights. War moves much faster now.

I would like to see specifically what Erb wants to cut. I’d be very curious. I bet he ends up with far less savings then he thinks is possible. Oh, right Iraq. He thinks he can retro-actively get that money back. Well, I’d like my Vietnam money back, too. Please have the Dems cut me a check, kay?

Written By: Harun
URL: http://
You’re being silly Harun. I’m just saying that we don’t need to spend half the world’s military budget and have a global neo-imperial armed forces in order to defend the US. The rest of what you claim is "my theory" is just off the wall silliness. And are you really afraid of North Korea? Even Bush isn’t afraid of North Korea. You still don’t really want to address the human costs of war, you want to hide that behind a bunch of vague abstract assertions. Humans matter. But it’s not up to us to take care of the world. No American should ever die for Taiwan. Taiwan and China have to deal with their own issues, it’s none of our business. If Taiwan is relying on an outsider to assure its survival, then one has to wonder if it deserves to survive. Of course, Taiwan is heavily invested in China, and China doesn’t want to destroy Taiwan’s possibilities to support it. I think they can settle their own issues without the US.

War is mass murder. It is an evil to be avoided whenever possible. Sometimes it is necessary. But it is never good. Never. The US has been too quick to embrace murder as an instrument of policy; luckily, that is unlikely to be the case in the near future for a variety of reasons. Iraq has taught us a few hard lessons. Given the severity of the economic crisis hitting America, we’re going to be looking inward rather than outward for awhile. It’ll be painful, but it’s a good thing for the long term.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
War is mass murder. It is an evil to be avoided whenever possible. Sometimes it is necessary. But it is never good. Never
You stupid infantile simplistic moral-equivalizing numbn*t f**kwit.

That sentence you spewed is what I’d expect to hear from a 13 year old girl who has unicorn doodles on the front of her notebook.

This is the "nuanced" mind of a fracking college professor? You’re a gawddamn South Park character "war is bad, mkay?"

War is neither good or evil. PEOPLE are good or evil. War is war. And it is NOT something to be avoided whenever possible - Mr. "Peace in our Time" avoided war for as long as it was possible. Was that the right move? As a matter of fact, Churchill could’ve avoided war a number of ways. Was that the wrong move? What if our founders had decided to avoid war?

War almost always sux true.....but there are plenty of times where "peace" sux just as much or more. War can have some GOOD consequences you know. This country is proof of that. Liberating people is a good thing. Removing the bad guys is another good thing. That you can’t get that concept amazes me. But I shouldn’t be- you do get it, you just willfully ignore it.

War is NOT mass murder. Believe it or not, war as it is today (among the civilized nations anyway) actually has a lot of legalities to it. What a lawful combatant is. How to treat prisoners. What weapons and tactics are permitted and which are not. How our troops can interact with civilians in combat zones. Etc. Just the decision to declare war itself has to meet a lot of legal hurdles. And that’s even before we add the extra bureaucratic layer of the U.N., for those who care about such things. Mass murder would be if someone came into one of your classes at your school and slaughtered everyone in the room.






Written By: shark
URL: http://
You stupid infantile simplistic moral-equivalizing numbn*t f**kwit.
Hmmm....I apologize to the QandO guys for writing this one. This blog is usually above that sort of thing.



Written By: shark
URL: http://
I apologize to the QandO guys for writing this one.
For this commentor, there is no need to apologize. You are only writing what the rest of us are thinking when Erb spews his sh*t. I pity the students who have to suffer lectures of this moron.

Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
"War is mass murder. It is an evil to be avoided whenever possible. Sometimes it is necessary"

War is a thing to be avoided.

However, war is not always mass murder. Sometimes it is self defense. THere is a difference though not in your mind.

"War is mass murder. It is an evil to be avoided whenever possible. Sometimes it is necessary"

Ask our ally South Korea that. And if we dont help our allies than why should we expect our allies to help us.

"The US has been too quick to embrace murder as an instrument of policy"

Yes the US is evil scott. That is your ilk’s line of thinking. How about justice. How about justifiable conflict? Again using your thinking than we would have never entered WW2 because it would be considered murder.

Do innocent people get killed in war? yes. But chances are the loss of innocent life in a justifiable conflict (yes in your mind there isnt really such a thing) is less than the cost of doing nothing.

Look at Dafur and the cost of doing nothing. Are innocent people dying? I guess it is okay since the US isnt doing anything right?

As I said come out of that white ivory tower and take off the rose colored glasses.






Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Erb sez:
You still don’t really want to address the human costs of war...
He has yet to address the human costs of non-war.

Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
Oh, I didn’t avoid any question. Nothing of substance was asked.
That’s not even a good try, Erb. You’re slipping. You can’t even make good excuses, anymore.



Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
the era of massive world wars is over
Yeah, that’s what I thought, too. History has shown me to be a jackass, and will again.

Written By: Phil Smith
URL: http://
Rats, that was supposed to be "The Ghost of Woodrow Wilson" in the above.

Written By: Phil Smith
URL: http://
Hello everyone. Justin Case here, to give you an update on development of the Emotionless Robotic Bloviator (ERB) program.

As you may recall we had almost finished our research on version 4 of the program (ERB-4), and subsequently we turned on version 5 (ERB-5), though we continued to use the moniker "Scott Erb" for posting. For several months, ERB-5 was restricted to posting on a new blog account, only venturing outside that account to attempt to bring in some traffic to the new blog.

Now that the election is over, and most political discussion has returned to less weighty matters, we have decided to let ERB-5 do some wider posting again. We have found that the commenters at the new blog average less than a week before gaining the intuition that something is not quite right about "Scott Erb" and leaving the site for good.

The main difference in ERB-5 is that we have attempted to graft in a more complex personality module. As a group, we did some brainstorming to decide what psychology for "Scott Erb" we needed to emulate.

We came up with the following personality attributes for "Scott Erb".

1. He’s fundamentally cowardly. This is the ultimate root of many of his behaviors. We decided that would be a plausible reason for several things: his pretended backstory of not hacking it in Washington, DC, and his isolation in a remote college campus from which he refuses to face reality.

From our discussion, we felt that his cowardice led naturally to a revulsion for the military. It’s common for a cowardly person to fear those who have courage, and to compensate by feeling revulsion and moral superiority over them.

Unfortunately, that has led to some over-reaching on the part of the program. It has basically descended to outright pacifism, which being a totally illogical position in world affairs, makes "Scott Erb" seem to lack verisimilitude. He appears somewhat fake as a result, and at least one new poster on another thread spotted it immediately.

2. Because of his cowardice and general lack of competence, he’s desperately searching for something that will prove his self-worth.

In the backstory we created for "Scott Erb", he ended up at a minor college writing books no one will read, and lecturing students whose only hope after the first week is to butter him up enough to get a good grade. He knows, deep down in his heart, just how worthless he is. That’s what makes him attack those of worth, particularly those in the military. He knows in his heart that he’s a coward, so rather than face that fact, he’d rather lash out at those who have the courage to do what must be done to defend us. Ahd he must be smug and condescending in demeanor to avoid facing any possibility that he might eventually realize that he’s a complete clown.

3. He lacks the emotional resilence and maturity to look war in the face. He simply can’t stand the thought of it, so he’s convinced himself that it’s unnecessary and evil, and that way he never has to think about the tough choices on when it’s necessary and when it’s not. He’s read history - he theoretically knows who Chamberlain is, and the consequences of his actions. But he lacks the courage to face the fact that avoiding war can be foolish and cause the deaths of millions later.

So he sits in his comfortable office, making a modest living without working very hard, and validates his own self worth by coming here and lecturing people so much smarter than him that he’s literally incapable of understanding their reasoning processes.

*********

One implication of having such a "personality" is that "Scott Erb" appears to be articulate but have no intelligence or connection to reality. Of course, being a computer program, that is perfectly correct. We’ve tried to mask that effect by making him accept the fundamentally incoherent principles of post-modernism. However, it’s our prime research problem to simulate the outward semblance of human intelligence, and allowing our program to support post-modernism and other self-evidently false concepts as pacifism is clearly not the long term answer. Over a span of time, ERB-5 just appears stupid, but such verbose and repetitious stupidity can certainly generate anger in men of reason. (See "shark" above.)

I’d like the commenters at QandO to remember the warning that appears on many electronic games - "For amusement only." We like to use QandO as our testbed for the ERB series because of its liberal policy towards commenters. ERB programs would be banned from many other sites because of the sometimes self-evident stupidity of the comments.

We are open to suggestions for expanding the ERB-5 personality module. Please post them in this thread if you have any. Thanks for your forebearance, and we hope the fact that we continue to allow "Ott Scerb" to parody the incoherent output of ERB-5 makes up for ERB-5’s nonsensical posting. (I wish I could get the author of the "Ott Scerb" program to come back and help us improve ERB-5, but after taking his doctorate, he has been engaged in top-secret work. We’re not sure, but we suspect he’s creating a program to automatically generate content for The Onion web site.)

Justin Case
Director, Turing Studies
Teacher Replacement Lab
University of Maine


Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://TotallyConvincedThatPeaceIsForeverAndWeNeedNoMilitary.dolt/deludedidiot/leftisttool
"I’d like the commenters at QandO to remember the warning that appears on many electronic games - "For amusement only." "

I find it also works well as a purgative and emetic, although the effects are perhaps a bit too long- lasting. I have also found that trying to follow the ’thought processes’ of the ERB-5 can cause disorientation, vertigo, and confusion. Much more work has to be done on its logic algorithms to even approach reality. Perhaps you should add the warning ’Do not read if you plan to drive or operate machinery’. Or eat.



Written By: timactual
URL: http://
We are open to suggestions for expanding the ERB-5 personality module.
I thought that part where you had the "personality" marry into the family of a former Russian Communist Party official was a little over the top. Like anyone is going to believe that his father-in-law used to run a collectivized farm in the Soviet Union. Yeah, right.

Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools: Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment: