The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: philw on January 06, 2012, 07:30:04 PM
-
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1616859/Obama-touts-leaner-US-military
President Barack Obama unveiled a strategy on Thursday for a leaner US military focused on countering China's rising power and signalling a shift away from large ground wars against insurgents.
The plan calls for preparing for possible challenges from Iran and China, requiring air and naval assets, while downplaying any future massive counter-insurgency campaigns such as those conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The "defense strategic review" sets out an approach for the US military in a looming era of austerity, as Obama's administration prepares for $487 billion in defense cuts over the next 10 years.
But the US president, anticipating attacks from his Republican rivals in an election year, said reductions would be limited and not come at the expense of America's military might.
"So yes, our military will be leaner, but the world must know -- the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats," Obama told reporters at a rare appearance at the Pentagon.
White House officials stressed Obama was deeply involved in the strategy review and sought to portray the president as taking a careful approach to defense spending having acted on the advice of leading commanders.
Saying the country was "turning the page on a decade of war," Obama said the new strategy would increasingly focus on Asia, where commanders worry about China's growing military capabilities.
"We'll be strengthening our presence in the Asia Pacific, and budget reductions will not come at the expense of this critical region," he said.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, appearing with Obama along with top officers, said the strategy envisages a "smaller and leaner" force that will expand the military's role in Asia while maintaining a strong presence in the Middle East.
According to the eight-page strategy document, the military will work with allies in the Middle East to ensure security in the Gulf and counter Iran's "destabilizing policies."
However, counter-insurgency operations receive a lower priority under the plan, enabling the administration to scale back ground forces.
Panetta said "with the end of US military commitments in Iraq, and the drawdown already under way in Afghanistan, the Army and Marine Corps will no longer need to be sized to support the large scale, long-term stability operations that dominated military priorities and force generation over the past decade."
But the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon, hit out at the strategy and accused Obama of gutting defense.
"The President has packaged our retreat from the world in the guise of a new strategy to mask his divestment of our military and national defense," McKeon, a Republican, said in a statement.
The review reinforces what defense officials have already signaled -- that funds will flow to aircraft, ships, missile defense and high-tech weaponry while the US Army and Marine Corps will be downsized.
Washington's focus on Asia is fueled by concerns over China's growing navy and arsenal of anti-ship missiles that could jeopardize America's military power in the Pacific.
In keeping with plans for a smaller force, the strategy discards the doctrine that the military must be prepared to fight two wars at the same time, an idea long debated inside the Pentagon.
Instead, the United States would be ready to fight one war while waging a holding action elsewhere to stave off a second threat.
The strategy review suggests reducing the atomic arsenal without saying how, amid calls from some lawmakers to reduce the number of nuclear-armed submarines.
The review also hints at scaling back the military's footprint in Europe but offered no details, saying "our posture in Europe must also evolve."
Britain's defense minister cautioned Thursday the US pivot to Asia should not neglect Russia, which he called an unpredictable force on the global stage.
"If the US is going to see its focus drawn increasingly to the Asia Pacific region, how does it secure the backyard?" said British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond during a visit to the US capital.
The new strategy comes ahead of the proposed defense budget for 2013 due to be released next month, which is expected to call for delays in some weapons programs, including the troubled F-35 fighter.
Despite talk of belt-tightening, the defense budget for 2012 came to $530 billion, not counting the cost of the war in Afghanistan.
Obama said future military spending will still remain high and "larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined."
An Obama downsize, likely end up costing twice as much!
-
Imagine, if you will...
A guy takes his big guard dog out in his yard, in front of the whole neighborhood and slits it from scrotum to sternum, just deep enough for the thing to survive if left alone. Think he'll have company the next time he leaves the house?
Well, something like that...
Welcome to the Global Community, where no one needs fear a neighbor..
-
Pres. Carter did the same thing......It's really true.....Carter v2.0,....but even Carter wasn't so bold to bypass Congress and the Constitution with impunity over and over....
Check the "dictator" phrase regarding BHO on Google,....it's up around 726,000 hits....
-
We're headed towards the English model. Just enough military to say we still have one but not enough to completely secure our borders so we have to have help from our neighbor we've been in open conflict with repeatedly over our entire history.
-
Maybe. Or maybe we have learned a valuable lesson. Eg., invading muslim countries and occupying them for a decade trying to establish democracy and respect for human rights is a waste of blood and treasure. Deal with them from the air and go home. We still maintain the Marines, and the Army is just scaled back. But if we have made, I hope, a resolution to never again in engage in an open ended commitment to sideshows like Iraq or Afghanistan and instead focus on real threats like Iran, North Korea and China, its not a bad thing. The test will be this. Will the BO, or future administrations expect us to do a repeat of Iraq or phase II of Afghanistan without the proper resources? If the answer is yest, its a bad idea. If instead we say "We aren't making those mistakes again". its not all that bad as a working theory. BTW, last I checked, the Europeans could put some decent armies in the field. Where TF are they? Time to stop giving them a free ride. (God, I sound like a Paulite, but its the truth).
FQ13
-
We're headed towards the English model. Just enough military to say we still have one but not enough to completely secure our borders so we have to have help from our neighbor we've been in open conflict with repeatedly over our entire history.
Which, in a real pinch would bring out tac nukes quicker....assuming of course we have the will to do something other than point our behinds in the air with our heads down.
It is important to remember that bravado without a big stick will get your head bashed in.
The people who are saying we can live with less are the ones that believe their own stupid BS...like Hollywood's itsy bitsy women kicking a 240 lb man's behind and wrestling him to the ground...pure foolishness....those are the same ones who will/are saying we'll have a sufficient deterrent. Weakness invites disaster....I hope we don't have a slaughter of soldiers because we would not back them or could not support them in some real war in the future because of the liberal fools and sheep who are absolutely destroying this nation.
-
Maybe Rastus, but if the ballon had gone up in NK or Iran a couple of years ago, we'd have been a little busy. The reality of military planning is that its always one war behind. "The Cold War is over", "We'll never fight another Gulf War", "We'll never fight another Vietnam", We need to focus on counter-isurgency, why do we need a new generation of fighters? Where is the enemy's airforce"? All of these have been proven wrong. Yet and still, there is only so much money, so you take your best guess. I don't think we need to use nukes tactically, just have them as a detterenet. And I do think making a decision to honor W.'s campaign promise 12 years too late to get out of the business of "nation building" is not an all bad idea.
FQ13
-
We are one more terrorist attack away, on the scale of 9/11,, to say one of two things....
1) "We can't spare the military resources available".
2) Nuke The FU*****
Depending on who is in the White House,....the "3rd" option,...is of Neville Chamberlain's greatest moment redux.....
Which would you prefer?
-
We are one more terrorist attack away, on the scale of 9/11,, to say one of two things....
1) "We can't spare the military resources available".
2) Nuke The FU*****
Depending on who is in the White House,....the "3rd" option,...is of Neville Chamberlain's greatest moment redux.....
Which would you prefer?
I think the third option is to do Afghanistan phase 1, which is to wage an operation based ona regime change/punative expedition and then go home. Historically, its a lot more in keeping with our values, as well as common sense. I'm not arguing in favor troop draw downs until I've seen all the facts. I am saying that we shouldn't plan keeping our recent levels of foriegn occupations up, and that should let us adjust our spending priorities towards other threats.
FQ13
-
It sounds to me like he forgot about Korea. "with guided missiles dog fights are dead." Oops!
The only way to hold ground is to have boots on the ground.
-
Well, I'm thinking that in any conflict the troops will benefit from good air support.
And if the other side doesn't happen to have an air force, all the better...no wasted time neutralizing it.
I do assume that if we had an Air Force and they didn't, we would use it and not feel bad that it gave us an unfair advantage.
-
I was reading a past issue of American Rifleman about the 1911 and in the article it was mentioned how the military was downsized after WW-I.
Same game plan different era.
-
FQ is just a dumbass.
There, I've said it !
I've been proving it right along.
Everyone knows it.
But now when he tries to justify the same stupid crap done by every other em administration I just can't resist.
His stupidly justifies the same actions that got us into the WWI, WWII, Korean war, and these last 2 that he condemns with such liberal wrath.
Hey Stupid, if Clinton had the balls to actually use what he had left of the military the people who want to cut your unused head off would not have had the balls to act.
With teachers as misinformed and ignorant as you in colleges it's no wonder the countries all f*cked up.
If engineering Profs were like you we wouldn't have standing bridge in the country.
A regular Pottifer Gubbins.
-
Ok, take a midol, and try reading the post. The ideas were two fold.
A) Don't base current configurations on missions like Iraq and Afghanistan that we don't and shouldn't plan repeating.
B) Base them, whether over or under current allotments, on the threats we will likely face in the future. Maybe we save, maybe we spend more. I have no opinion on that.
What I do believe is that we shouldn't base staffing and procurrement on repeating a mistake. We should be looking at better ways to deal with it if a strike comes from say, Somalia, than invading the country and trying to democratize it. That is all. Further, China, Iran and NK are threats that we can't deal with with a counter-insurgency based force structure. Its not that hard a concept Tom.
FQ13 who isn't endorsing a plan I haven't seen. I'm just saying that planning to fight the next Iraq or Afghanistan makes little sense, as there shouldn't be another Iraq or Afghanistan.
-
(http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/25d7510/en/fixed/470/352/US_Army_solder_on_a_Poppy_Field.jpg?format=jpg)
-
Look at the pretty money shrubs.
-
sitting on vast amounts of underground lithium deposits, which I heard the rights were sold to China.
-
Thank God we occupied them for 10 years and supported their government. Otherwise they might not like us and ally themselves with our enemies. ::)
FQ13
-
With teachers as misinformed and ignorant as you in colleges it's no wonder the countries all f*cked up.
All part of the plan.
But now when he tries to justify the same stupid crap done by every other em administration I just can't resist.
His stupidly justifies the same actions that got us into the WWI, WWII, Korean war, and these last 2 that he condemns with such liberal wrath.
Hard to argue, and every time we downsize inappropriately, we set ourselves up for others to bring out the knives and come at us, our allies or our interests worldwide.
I used the word "inappropriately" because is there anyone here who thinks that bho will downsize properly to actually build, ya know, a leaner and meaner military?
No one has pointed out that in downsizing and cutting forces, bho is dumping tens of thousands of people on an already weak and shaky job market. Think that's an accident?
Ok, take a midol, and try reading the post. The ideas were two fold.
That insult is getting old, and is part of your seriously misogynistic perspective that has been on display here all too often.
A) Don't base current configurations on missions like Iraq and Afghanistan that we don't and shouldn't plan repeating.
B) Base them, whether over or under current allotments, on the threats we will likely face in the future. Maybe we save, maybe we spend more. I have no opinion on that.
What I do believe is that we shouldn't base staffing and procurrement on repeating a mistake. We should be looking at better ways to deal with it if a strike comes from say, Somalia, than invading the country and trying to democratize it. That is all. Further, China, Iran and NK are threats that we can't deal with with a counter-insurgency based force structure. Its not that hard a concept Tom.
FQ13 who isn't endorsing a plan I haven't seen. I'm just saying that planning to fight the next Iraq or Afghanistan makes little sense, as there shouldn't be another Iraq or Afghanistan.
Just as you fight a war with what you have, you also fight the war you have, not the one you want to have.
Not to get all Zen on you, but there is a saying - train for nothing so you are prepared for anything. In other words, do not train for a specific mission, but train to fight anywhere at any time. We see this is SD when we are not taught to double tap and stop - you shoot to stop the attack.
Our military has been a very successful model, and has displayed an amazing talent to adapt. Yes, we make mistakes, and the top brass tend to think in terms of what they experienced, not the problems they faced at the moment. But hell, I had a college professor - my adviser no less - in Anthropology who did exactly the same thing. Most of the Dept. did in fact.
But the military is trained to adapt, as opposed to the Russian model in which you do not move unless some guy 27 levels above you says to do so. So if we have a scenario in which our current experiences do not apply, I believe the US military will adapt to the situation - assuming bho does not gut that ability to adapt by cancelling contracts with vendor for supplies and R&D, eliminating the wrong military units in planning and risk assessment, etc.
No Dem President has ever downsized the .mil effectively. FDR saw war with Germany as inevitable, but he missed or downplayed Japan and did not (was not able to?) build effectively until Pearl. But Wilson, LBJ, Carter and now bho have blown it.
FQ, that's your Q (get it? ;) ) to tell us all how the (R)'s have messed things up worse than the Dems. Only it's not so - I know of nothing that any (R) President did that damaged the .mil as much as the (D)'s have routinely done.
-
I think the first wave of boots in a future conflict should be liberals of all ages. Especially politician's families.
We can ship them over on the Love Boat and let them put flowers in the end of their worn out M4's.
If the boat can even make it out of one of our harbors, doing it this way the enemy has to use some of their stockpile and we don't have to deal with the self-important and ignorant dupes. With liberals gone it will allow us to concentrate on how to save ourselves from a bad situation. We may even decide on sealing our borders in a conflict.
-
Pathfinders very good post missed one classic example.
Truman cut the US military beyond the bone between '45 and '51.
The reason MacArthur landed at Inchon when he did was because the Marines, who had ended WWII with a combat strength of 6 reinforced Divisions plus Air Wings, had been cut in size and funding to the point it took them that long to assemble 1 deployable division.
And they only managed that by stripping the other 2 TOE divisions and recalling large numbers of Reservists to fill out units which were at 2/3rds strength.
Had the US maintained a credible force size and structure even with the reluctant approval of Stalin and Mao, the North would not have invaded.
If Clinton had showed more courage in his responses to terrorist outrages and the battle of Mogadishu then 9-11-01 would have been just another day.
As for the "tactical/ professional" comments FQ made
(A) Don't base current configurations on missions like Iraq and Afghanistan that we don't and shouldn't plan repeating.
B) Base them, whether over or under current allotments, on the threats we will likely face in the future.
I have to ask, "Just what the heck kind of wars do you expect in the future ?"
The days of WWII are gone, future wars will either be 1 hour nuke swaps, or they will be insurgencies.
Our tech advantage means that other than Russia or China, (purely because of numbers ) no armored force on the planet can stand against US armor, If we put 1 carrier off a nations coast in most of the world we automatically have the largest air force in the region, so with the same exceptions no one can beat us in the air.
That means that the only effective method of fighting the US is through the use of insurgents as so well demonstrated by the American Indians, the Filipinos, the Vietnamese, and now AQ in Iraq,(where in 6 months or less there will be full scale, 3 way civil war ) and by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
FQ fails to heed the lessons of Washington's campaign during the Revolution.
The "Established power loses by not winning, but the insurgent wins by not losing.
Until Yorktown Washington never had a prayer at "winning" the war.
His greatest victory was in preventing the destruction of his Army which would have lost the war.
-
IMHO our next missions will be a hybrid of conventional and counter-insurgency warfare in the Far East, and we'll loose. The other future war will also be fought in/from space and the internet.
Up until about a decade ago China had no significant amphibious capability and no integrated command control. Their Navy and Air Force didn't work together much although they're both officially part of the Army. They have never lost sight of Taiwan as a "lost colony."
Now the Navy is nearly as capable as ours, at least what we'd get to the area in a reasonable time, including a large amphibious force able to land large numbers of troops anywhere in the world. The carrier isn't ready for "prime time" yet but give them a few years and they'll be an operationsl air wing with more CVs in production. They also have really been improving the logistical footprint to maintain deployments further and longer than ever before. The AF and Navy are showing signs of more integrated, coordinated, independant operations, not scripted scenarios controlled by higher command.
If and when they decide to invade Taiwan we'll end up in a conventional fight that will end up house to house counter-insurgency on the island. IF we continue to operate after the first three weeks, between "carrier killer ICBMs" and shear numbers, you'll see significant increases in anti-satellite warfare and cyber attacks to shut down infrastucture and our ability to control our own forces effectively. We have collectively begun relying so heavily on technology that if the computer goes down (EMP burst anyone?) we're blind and deaf. That's if they don't add their own data to misdirect us.
-
This discussion probably would be more appropriate in "Proceedings", but I'm going to disagree with J because I enjoy this debate.
In my opinion, "conventional warfare is dead. The days of our army starts here their army starts there one big fight or campaign and the winner takes all has gone the way of the Dodo bird .
War between major countries will be either economic, Nuclear, I'll grant J the Cyber/Space war as part of what I had in mind when I mentioned a "Nuke swap". Those types of fighting will take place over an incredibly short time, and considering the dependance we place on computer control systems the winner could be slapped back to the 1800's while the losers entire social structure would simply cease to exist.
That would be war with a top tier society like Russia, China, India, Japan, S Korea.
Against any one at a lower level of development Iraq serves as a crystal ball.
Lets look at what actually happened there.
We launched a conventional invasion aimed at destroying the Iraqi military forces and ending the war.
Our 3 divisions and air power dominated the nation, blowing through Iraqi defenses like sh!t through a chicken.
Meanwhile anti western jihadis of every variety flocked to Iraq to repel the evil crusader invaders.
Did they flock to Saddam's forces where they would have access to artillery and all kinds of neat toys the Russians were shipping in ?
They did not, they did the same thing the dedicated Saddam supporters did. They blended in with the population and adopted classic guerrilla tactics, snipers, ambushes, bombings.
They avoided our strength in conventional combat power.
Instead they attacked the weakness of American public opinion. A constant trickle of casualties and a massive propaganda effort launched at the American media, while undermining our attempts at nation building by playing on local and regional fears, and animosities we barely understood using assassinations and terror.
The Jihadi's learned the lesson of Vietnam, if you can avoid destruction long enough the Americans will get fed up and leave.
That is the face of Future war.
No matter what we may plan, our foes will disappear into the woodwork and apply the tactics that work.
America is no longer the "Greatest Generation", they are now a bunch of pussies who will not accept the casualties required to actually win.
If you think I'm wrong I challenge you to consider the 1st Gulf War's, "Highway of death" and the fact that air attacks were discontinued due to a fear that such massive casualties even by the enemy would end support for the war.
That is the face of "Future war".
Regardless of our best laid plans, our foes will put up token resistance then fade into the woodwork to apply the tactics that have been proven to work.
As for China, they are no military threat to us unless we pay off our debt to them.
Thir own economy is to dependent on us for them to risk their own recession regardless of their capabilities.
-
True large scale conventional warfare is not going to happen as you mention but you can't get win anything without boots on the ground eventually. Cyber/space attacks will only get you so far. Economic warfare is already happening and only goes so far before somebody's weak enough to give the other side visions of taking over completely leading to an military attack of some sort.
Replace China with NK;
They don't have the military power to go toe-to-toe with us but just as they did in the 50s, they can walk through SK before anybody can do anything about it. We'd never get the UN support to do push them back and we'd never get enough power into the area fast enough to do any good. Their economy is already shot and Lil' Kim is only barely in power and needs to prove he's in charge. They made not have the power of China but they do have some of it, and they'd hurt us with enough shock to give us pause.
-
I would be more worried about NK in the sphere of cyber war. there have already been incidents in the last few years involving "denial of service attacks" and hacking against the US, Japan and SK.
I am nowhere near as concerned with their conventional forces since they can not even move their tanks with out oil donated by the South, and THOSE little buggers are no one to mess with lightly.
The Russians are another one to watch on the cyber war front.
They have already launched crippling attacks against Estonia and Georgia.
The top of the line though may very well be Israel, the last time they launched a major attack against Syria, knocking out the Syrian nuke program they not only had attack planes but landed troops to collect prisoners and other intel material.
TONS of it.
But the Syrian air defenses knew nothing till they read it in the paper.
-
(http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/25d7510/en/fixed/470/352/US_Army_solder_on_a_Poppy_Field.jpg?format=jpg)
I was goung to suggest that the "leaner" might be talking about horse shoes.. This picture drives it home for me.. I started raving about the "War on Drugs" when Reagan picked up the mantra. I thought it was stupid to spray pot fields with semi-poison rather than just killing the plants.. I screamed about heroin and the kind of stuff that really messed people up.. I was always told "What do you want us to do, invade Afganistan?". I told them that without doing exactly that, that any "War on Drugs" was just a game. WHY ARE THE POPPY FIELDS STILL GROWING??????
I med a CID guy a year ago last month who spent alot of time in Afganistan. I asked him what kind of stuff he dealt with there and he told me drug interdiction. I was surprised. I asked him how soldiers had access to drugs over there. He looked at me and said "THEY'RE IN AFGANISTAN"..
What, exactly, have we accomplished in Afganistan, beyond testing the upper limit of how much money we can spend per BG killed? Can anybody help me out with that, please?
My rant... No offence to the guys doing the heavy lifting over there. I just don't see leaving poppys in the ground over there as doing US any good for US..
-
All part of the plan.
No one has pointed out that in downsizing and cutting forces, bho is dumping tens of thousands of people on an already weak and shaky job market. Think that's an accident?
Remember when the "Clinton Crime Bill" was proposed to hire 100,000 downsized police from Hong Kong?
I think bho will find a place in his organization for young men with the proper attitude..
Just my baseless imagination musing upon the impossibilities.. ::)
-
The war on drugs is a useless BS money pit scam that does nothing but make criminals rich and give the govt cover for abridging our rights.
-
the current issue of Men's Journal (has Daniel Craig, the latest actor to play James Bond, on the cover) has an article about some super secret squirrel X-SEAL military contractor guy. there is a picture of him, also, standing in the middle of a poppy field.
what does he say about the drug war?
LEGALIZE ALL OF IT, NOW!
http://www.mensjournal.com/
-
I resisted the urge to join into Tom & J's comments about the modern battlefield. Those were great comments and relevant for today and now. However, after pondering a bit I think the modern battlefield concepts are presupposed on "conventional" concepts of defining success for an attacker or defender. Should we postulate on another concept of success? I think so and it may change our concept of defense strategy.
My assumption is that human population continues to expand. Resources for a "nation" or a "population" dwindle for whatever reason. At some point, and we see it in smaller, poorer nations either with or without manmade and natural disasters, a nation, tribe, population or whatever will perceive, rightfully or wrongfully, that some portion of their population will be severely and negatively affected by a lack of resources. The negative effects may be starvation, disease, overcrowding, whatever....death or a living death is the perceived future.
What is a population to do? Bad word coming up...just taking resources may not be sufficient....without doubt someone will opt to impose genocide on their neighbor. It is not like it has not happened in the past in ancient or modern times. There are examples here in North America and every populated continent. It is also a fact that humanity's ability to be cruel and ruthless has not changed.
So what now? I would suppose there are historical examples of the strategic steps defenders and agressors took when faced with such a fate that could be applied to modern times.
-
Any doubt that BHO is Carter v2.0?
The Nation Building crap has to stop...When we leave Afghanistan, I give it less than a year to return to pre war days. Taliban unopposed, any gov't will be corrupt, Warlords ruling regions as they always have, and offering terrorist training camp vacation packages.
The poppy fields will be delightful in Spring.
what does he say about the drug war?
LEGALIZE ALL OF IT, NOW!
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/twyacht/132313352973.jpg)
;D
-
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/twyacht/132313352973.jpg)
Notice there's not a suicide vest in sight ?
Rastus, Interesting thought, and you could have used our Southern border as an example.
It is a historical fact that through out human history various factors have caused mass migrations, usually East to West.
In ancient times it was the Huns being driven East to clash with, and eventually over run the Romans.
The Europeans flooding into the "New World" where they pushed the Indians out.
However that was nothing new here, they had been pushing each other around for centuries.
This thread is no argument, it isn't even a debate.
It's just a discussion of possibilities based on the trends we are seeing .
-
Well, sounds like this is beginning to examine the rewards of a well developed space exploration program.
Lots of resources spinning around out there that no one has tapped yet.
-
The military pushed the space program in every country to have one.
Were they curious ?
Seeking new frontiers ?
Hell no, they were following ancient military wisdom.
Seize the high ground.
-
The military pushed the space program in every country to have one.
Were they curious ?
Seeking new frontiers ?
Hell no, they were following ancient military wisdom.
Seize the high ground.
Reminds me of the "rebels" in Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, dropping rocks on the enemy below them.
Something started by Ooog and his clan.
-
Notice there's not a suicide vest in sight ? Sure did....
Rastus, Interesting thought, and you could have used our Southern border as an example.
It is a historical fact that through out human history various factors have caused mass migrations, usually East to West.
...........
The thing that had me thinking that way, oddly enough, was the extermination of one indian tribe by another. Specifically I was thinking of the Tangipahoa indians who were slaughtered when they moved to the banks of the Mississippi River. This area where I grew up is most decidely not of "cajun" background but of indian like the Choctaw, Huma, Houma, Natalbany, Manchac, etc. I have enough Choctaw to get an indian card but dad taught me to make it on my own. However, depending on how the national health care thing falls I may enroll just to escape federal death health insurance.
So far as military offensive/defensive doctrine, the aim and goal to completely eliminate a population does not seem to be a modern concept to me...except for some middle eastern nations stated goals. So, it might be good to examine their long term planning/goals.
-
Rastus
I know you won't generally listen to my advice, but make an exception here. If you're legitimately entitled to that card, get it, even if you never use it. Its one more member of the tribe as far as the feds are concerned. You might not need the money or benefits, but twenty years from now some deserving tribe member might, and money is allocated by numbers. As far as I'm concerned, tribal payments aren't a handout. Depending on your POV they are either reparations or payment for the land. To my mind taking that money isn't like taking a welfare check. Its like taking Social Security, only in this case it was your great grand dad that payed in. Just my .02.
FQ13
-
Rastus
I know you won't generally listen to my advice, but make an exception here. ...........
Just my .02.
FQ13
I’ll respond because this may highlight a basic difference between us. My concern is retaining the ability to access healthcare on my own by avoiding the government health program; not to look for a handout. I’m driven to provide for my own as I can and to ensure their health and well being. Over the last 20 years I’m out over $250k on reasonable and customary, etc. beyond insurance; my wife being on a heart transplant list for 10 years and after losing one nearly losing two of my other children when they 2 or less.
It is enslavement to be “entitled” and forced into a government program. I have not looked for handouts from the government. I set about the business of being a man and sacrificing what need to be sacrificed to provide for my family in a fair and honest manner without stealing from other people. I also give freely to honest people who are in bad situation who need help.
If you would be less concerned about taking an absurd offense about the possibility of someone being denied a handout as well as other assorted condescending liberal foolishness you may find your life more worthwhile.
Are you voting for Obama again? A question you need not respond to and my own 0.02.
-
frick!
I'd take that card in a heartbeat.
-
I’ll respond because this may highlight a basic difference between us. My concern is retaining the ability to access healthcare on my own by avoiding the government health program; not to look for a handout. I’m driven to provide for my own as I can and to ensure their health and well being. Over the last 20 years I’m out over $250k on reasonable and customary, etc. beyond insurance; my wife being on a heart transplant list for 10 years and after losing one nearly losing two of my other children when they 2 or less.
It is enslavement to be “entitled” and forced into a government program. I have not looked for handouts from the government. I set about the business of being a man and sacrificing what need to be sacrificed to provide for my family in a fair and honest manner without stealing from other people. I also give freely to honest people who are in bad situation who need help.
If you would be less concerned about taking an absurd offense about the possibility of someone being denied a handout as well as other assorted condescending liberal foolishness you may find your life more worthwhile.
Are you voting for Obama again? A question you need not respond to and my own 0.02.
FWIW Rastus
You are stealing from me if you can work but don't, and expect me to pay for you. You aren't stealing when your land was taken and a treaty was made which entitles you to certain benefits. Thats not a handout, its not theft, its payment of a debt. Those are two wholly different animals.
FQ13
-
FWIW Rastus
You are stealing from me if you can work but don't, and expect me to pay for you. You aren't stealing when your land was taken and a treaty was made which entitles you to certain benefits. Thats not a handout, its not theft, its payment of a debt. Those are two wholly different animals.
FQ13
That is the same "White guilt liberal" BS that drives the foolishness of "black reparations" for slavery.
The thing you are missing is that Rastus never had an inch of land "stolen" from him.
That was history 100 years before he was born.
Besides, nothing was stolen from the Indians, and only a college indoctrinated fool would say other wise.
They did not have the concept of "Property rights". They were semi nomadic squatters.
You can't steal what is not owned, you can only move in and displace the current users.
Exactly the same thing the tribes did to each other.
You ever hear of the Sioux filing a claim against the Huron for driving them out of the Great Lakes area in the mid 1600's ?
Charity is the job of the Churches and communities, not Govt.
That is why Churches were granted the unconstitutional tax exemption.
-
No liberal guilt at all. Just treaty rights. We are obligated to honor them, just as our grandchildren will be obligated to honor any treaties we sign. Its the way the world works. No one would ever do business with another nation if they thought a treaty only lasted until the next administration.
FQ13
-
Treaties are only valid between independent Nations. The Indians no longer are.
Or maybe you think we still owe obligations to South Vietnam ?
-
Treaties are only valid between independent Nations. The Indians no longer are.
Or maybe you think we still owe obligations to South Vietnam ?
Actually, under the law they still are. They are classified as "dependent domestic nations" and as such can enjoy limited soveriegnty. Its why they can operate casinos and set their own hunting regulations among other things.
FQ13
-
Actually, under the law they still are. They are classified as "dependent domestic nations" and as such can enjoy limited sovereignty. Its why they can operate casinos and set their own hunting regulations among other things.
FQ13
Those are the words that preclude valid treaties with them, disputes with them are settled through the courts.
And they are, in fact, as well as practice, "Wards of the Federal govt."
-
That is the same "White guilt liberal" BS that drives the foolishness of "black reparations" for slavery.
The thing you are missing is that Rastus never had an inch of land "stolen" from him. EXACTLYThat was history 100 years before he was born.
Besides, nothing was stolen from the Indians, and only a college indoctrinated fool would say other wise.
They did not have the concept of "Property rights". They were semi nomadic squatters.
You can't steal what is not owned, you can only move in and displace the current users. Genocide?Exactly the same thing the tribes did to each other.
You ever hear of the Sioux filing a claim against the Huron for driving them out of the Great Lakes area in the mid 1600's ?
Charity is the job of the Churches and communities, not Govt. EXACTLY
That is why Churches were granted the unconstitutional tax exemption. Like to see backup. Probably not entirely the reason.
Good post. Today we have liberals, both those who have something and use law to increase it and those who have little or nothing waiting for a handout, telling the worker he has to give up the fruits of his labor for the common good. The churches mostly abdicated their role in the 60's and let the government do it. People who are young don't understand and cannot comprehend the job that was compassionately employed to help people by the church. Liberals, for whatever reason, want to see their own human goodness employed at someone else's expense and, largely, to the detriment of the group receiving assistance. It's like you can't miss ice cream if you've never eaten it....if you have only seen the government in action along with some church action not based in it's historical context you can't see the possibility of what worked in the past.
This is severe thread drift. But the North American Indian history is something to study to see how genocide was employed by certain tribes upon other ones and then to scale that up to cities, states and nations in history who have either employed or attempted to employ techniques to enforce genocide. Genocide is something to defend from. One thing you don't want to do is comply with a government request for identification, movement restriction, relocation....you can see those results in Europe in the 1930's and 1940's. So, multi-level defense, from a personal level to a national level.
-
I’ll respond because this may highlight a basic difference between us. My concern is retaining the ability to access healthcare on my own by avoiding the government health program; not to look for a handout. I’m driven to provide for my own as I can and to ensure their health and well being. Over the last 20 years I’m out over $250k on reasonable and customary, etc. beyond insurance; my wife being on a heart transplant list for 10 years and after losing one nearly losing two of my other children when they 2 or less.
It is enslavement to be “entitled” and forced into a government program. I have not looked for handouts from the government. I set about the business of being a man and sacrificing what need to be sacrificed to provide for my family in a fair and honest manner without stealing from other people. I also give freely to honest people who are in bad situation who need help.
If you would be less concerned about taking an absurd offense about the possibility of someone being denied a handout as well as other assorted condescending liberal foolishness you may find your life more worthwhile.
Are you voting for Obama again? A question you need not respond to and my own 0.02.
Rastus, here is some more advice...
Over the years I've found it is not wise to forgo any options that you can secure.
Some you want to avoid using for many reasons...self reliance being a good one, but having the option does not require that you use it.
Let me use VA health care as an example.
I've been eligible since I was discharged in 1968 but never looked into it because I preferred to use a benefit I did not need and take what ever resources were allocated from those who did need it.
Well, times change and I found myself in need of health care coverage in the past few years.
I applied for the VA coverage and found the rules had changed about 2003. Rather than being automatically accepted, guys in my "classification" now have a few more hoops to jump through than we did from 1968 to 2003.
Not only that, the benefits we get come with higher co-pays than if we had enrolled pre-rule changes.
I would have been wise to enroll as early as possible, never use the benefit, thus not taking resources I did not need from those who did, and have them when I did need them.
It is always a wise move to keep and secure as many options as you can. The more flexibility you have, the better you can deal with what comes.
-
"That is why Churches were granted the unconstitutional tax exemption. Like to see backup. Probably not entirely the reason."
It is an assumption on my part based on attitudes of the time, I would like to see some confirmation as well.
Probably somewhere in the writings of the Founding Fathers or the Politicians who passed the income tax legislation.
However the Constitutionality is based on the 1st Amendment.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
However a law is required for tax exemption which grants undue favoritism to organized religions over simple groups of believers who worship together.
-
The founders were clear in that the establishment of a religion meant establishing a state sponsored religion and not keeping the state free of religous influence or foundation. Remember there was a state sponsored religion in England and an exodus of persons to Geneva occurred to escape that in the mid-late 1500's. In fact the founders used the Geneva Bible and would not have been caught dead using the King James Bible....an oft overlooked fact. Our three branchs are based to a large part on Leviticus and their are founder writings confirming that. So on that accord I don't see a tax exemption as unconstitutional.
I'll have to research further time permitting.
Solus, big difference. You participated in something which grants you the privilege. I did not by being part indian...that's all long and gone stuff. No one owes me anything along those lines. However, as our government continues to pervert our Constitution and twist and change the nation into something it was not then, no longer having a nation of laws, we become just like the rest of the world and I recognize that. So if we utlimately lose for the lie of universal healthcare I am not exploiting an honest system by finding a way out....just like Europeans, etc. do. Sheep have supported liberals/socialists/communists who have perverted our nation leaving us to find a way out just like in other countries....the dupes (sheep, liberals) will still be on the bottom of the bowl and less well off in their coming paradise.
-
Considering how all us gun owners seem to get classed as "Red neck racists", it might be to your advantage to be considered a member of an "oppressed minority".
-
Considering how all us gun owners seem to get classed as "Red neck racists", it might be to your advantage to be considered a member of an "oppressed minority".
;D
Yeah. I vaguely remember a "fear the Redneck" rant I launched some time ago. The dangerous redneck as compared to the compassionate leftist assassin, etc...
-
Considering how all us gun owners seem to get classed as "Red neck racists", it might be to your advantage to be considered a member of an "oppressed minority".
Beside, as an Indian, you can chew peyote (but then, why would you? You like puking? ? ? ? ? ), sell cigarettes without tax stamps, have a casino in your basement, and keep bald eagles as pets. ;D