War Versus Healthcare

[hanp]

1) Should we go into debt

Oops, too late!

[PassedOut]

The point is not whether or not Obama can convince the nation but can he make the right choice?  Generals always want more troops - but they are not the best source to ask IF we should be at war.

 

LBJ faced this same task and ended up getting bad advice which the nation would not buy.

I agree, Winston, and did not intend to suggest otherwise.

 

You seem to feel that pulling out the troops now is absolutely the right decision, and so do more and more voters. Others (including some with a financial interest) strongly argue that staying in is mandatory.

 

I think Obama's decision is very difficult, given the present circumstances and the history of our involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Whatever decision he makes, Obama will have to it explain well.

 

I certainly don't think that Obama is in the pocket of the military-industrial complex and would sacrifice lives to pump more money to those people. For the record, I don't think that George W. Bush, as poor a president as he was, consciously did that either.

 

Helene, the constitution gives congress the authority to declare war -- properly so, in my opinion -- and for a long time the very idea of a "standing army" was anathema in the US. That idea changed after WWII, and the congress has allowed the executive branch to usurp much of the power to declare war. President Eisenhower warned the US about what was happening, but we let it happen anyway.

 

The usual justification given for this change is a practical one: it is very difficult to get congress to declare war and to authorize the taxes to pay for it. The late entry of the US into WWII resulted from the absolute refusal of the republican party to support the US military until after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

In those days, the republican party was for conservation, civil rights, and fiscal responsibility, and against war and corporate monopolies. Today they stand for the exact opposite.

[blackshoe]

The idea of a standing army is still anathema to some of us - even some of us who made a career of military service.

 

Politics is nothing if not flexible. One generation's "liberal" party is the next's "conservative" and vice versa. Doesn't matter. Labels aren't important anyway - it's what they do that matters.

 

One of the principles the Founders espoused is that we should not get involved in Europe's wars. Many people (not just Republican Congressmen) of my father's and grandfathers' generations still felt that way in the first half of the 20th Century. So I don't think you can blame "the Republican Party" for our failure to declare war until we were attacked.

[PassedOut]

The idea of a standing army is still anathema to some of us - even some of us who made a career of military service.

 

Politics is nothing if not flexible. One generation's "liberal" party is the next's "conservative" and vice versa. Doesn't matter. Labels aren't important anyway - it's what they do that matters.

 

One of the principles the Founders espoused is that we should not get involved in Europe's wars. Many people (not just Republican Congressmen) of my father's and grandfathers' generations still felt that way in the first half of the 20th Century. So I don't think you can blame "the Republican Party" for our failure to declare war until we were attacked.

I certainly agree with you about labels. But I do think it impractical now, because of current technology, to disarm until attacked.

 

I'm not "blaming" the republican party for not declaring war before Pearl Harbor, just pointing out that a strongly isolationist group of republicans at that time staunchly opposed getting involved and prevented a buildup of the US military precisely to prevent such an involvement. When the US was attacked by Japan and then Germany declared war on the US, our military had a lot of catching up to do to fight effectively on both fronts. The isolationists had a lot of support back then, including from members of my own family. In fact, the word "war" was frequently expanded to "democrat war."

 

Of course, plenty of democrats shared the isolationist view, and Roosevelt clearly shaped his message to appeal to those voters too.

[mike777]

Perhaps now is a good time to not have a standing army, airforce or navy. We could channel the savings into helping the poor. With the Republicans/NeoCons out of power now maybe we can get this passed.

[vuroth]

So I don't think you can blame "the Republican Party" for our failure to declare war until we were attacked.

Which time? (You do know the WTC was attacked twice, right?)

[blackshoe]

I didn't say anything about disbanding all military forces. The Navy (including the Marine Corps) serves a different (and necessary, IMO) purpose than the Army.

 

Nor did I say anything at all like "let's take the money we save by firing all these warmongering military types and spend it on other things". Frankly, if there's a reduction in necessary expenditures, we ought to either use the "savings" to pay off the damn debt, or cut taxes.

 

Nor did I say "disarm until attacked". While it is true that the day when you could say "okay, folks, grab your rifles and let's go - there's a war to fight" is long gone (if it ever really existed), it is also true that a small, very well trained, highly mobile armed force could deal with most immediate problems at least until we get the Juggernaut mobilized. That is, in fact, the traditional purpose (one of them, anyway) for the Marine Corps. I will grant the MC won't help much against large numbers of nuclear ICBMs, or for that matter large numbers of smuggled 'suitcase' nukes, or any of several other potential modern threats - but a large standing army isn't much use against those threats either.

[blackshoe]

So I don't think you can blame "the Republican Party" for our failure to declare war until we were attacked.

Which time? (You do know the WTC was attacked twice, right?)

No, I haven't heard anything about the WTC. When did that happen? And what's a WTC, anyway? :rolleyes:

 

Maybe if you'd read the thread, you'd have realized we were talking about World War II. Or maybe not. :blink: :ph34r:

[mike777]

OK, I guess even if we just start with not having a standing army that might be a good first step. We can discuss getting rid of a standing airforce later I guess. I am not sure how big of a Navy we really need but in any event one step at a time.

 

 

As Winston has pointed out if having an army in Europe or Asia or Korea or elsewhere makes people hate us that may be a good first step to send all of them home and out of the army.

 

 

I dont mind paying down the debt but this thread was all about going into debt to pay for healthcare, regardless of how much it costs, yes?

 

 

btw in other threads the analogy of the having healthcare be a service just as the police and fire dept are was brought up.

 

The problem with this analogy is that if I have a fire or am robbed the police or fire dept dont fix my house up. I still got to pay for that. Perhaps we should have the police or fire dept also pay to make everything better again.

[ArtK78]

Perhaps now is a good time to not have a standing army, airforce or navy. We could channel the savings into helping the poor. With the Republicans/NeoCons out of power now maybe we can get this passed.

That is a very impractical view of how a nation must behave in today's world.

 

Yes, it is extremely important to address all of the social issues. But it is equally (or perhaps even more) important to maintain a standing army to address the realities of world affairs.

[PassedOut]

I didn't say anything about disbanding all military forces. The Navy (including the Marine Corps) serves a different (and necessary, IMO) purpose than the Army.

Thanks for the clarification. I should have realized that's what you meant. BTW, was your service in the Army?

[mike777]

I note we are only spending about 14,000$ per student for education in some places. This works out to 420,000$ for a classroom of 30 students per year. Yet we still have drop out rates of around 40% in places. Hopefully more money will help.

[blackshoe]

BTW, was your service in the Army?

Some of it. Three years Army active duty, seventeen years Navy.

[PassedOut]

BTW, was your service in the Army?

Some of it. Three years Army active duty, seventeen years Navy.

I truly appreciate your service to the country.

[Winstonm]

You seem to feel that pulling out the troops now is absolutely the right decision, and so do more and more voters. Others (including some with a financial interest) strongly argue that staying in is mandatory.

 

I favor what works and oppose what does not work. I think Glenn Greenwald has nailed this pretty well, presenting compelling evidence over a number of posts that the Neocon who support war and intervention virtually everywhere is truly the greater enemy of American ideals while study after study shows that non-confrontation works much better at eliminating terror threats than military intervention.

 

Interested parties can go here and read through Greenwald's latest posts and his older ones as well: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

[Winstonm]

BTW, was your service in the Army?

Some of it. Three years Army active duty, seventeen years Navy.

What is your opinion of Jeff Huber, if I may ask?

[Lobowolf]

You seem to feel that pulling out the troops now is absolutely the right decision, and so do more and more voters. Others (including some with a financial interest) strongly argue that staying in is mandatory.

 

I favor what works and oppose what does not work. I think Glenn Greenwald has nailed this pretty well, presenting compelling evidence over a number of posts that the Neocon who support war and intervention virtually everywhere is truly the greater enemy of American ideals while study after study shows that non-confrontation works much better at eliminating terror threats than military intervention.

 

Interested parties can go here and read through Greenwald's latest posts and his older ones as well: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

Does this mean you'd favor war in the Middle East if you thought it would work?

[helene_t]

I note we are only spending about 14,000$ per student for education in some places. This works out to 420,000$ for a classroom of 30 students per year. Yet we still have drop out rates of around 40% in places. Hopefully more money will help.

Sounds ridiculously cheap, probably more money could help meet some aims. Not sure if reducing drop-out rates should necessarily be first priority, though.

[luke warm]

I note we are only spending about 14,000$ per student for education in some places. This works out to 420,000$ for a classroom of 30 students per year. Yet we still have drop out rates of around 40% in places. Hopefully more money will help.

:)

[hrothgar]

I note we are only spending about 14,000$ per student for education in some places. This works out to 420,000$ for a classroom of 30 students per year. Yet we still have drop out rates of around 40% in places. Hopefully more money will help.

Normally, when one reads a sentence like this, one would infer that $14K per student is a minimum. In actuality, the $14K per student figure is a maximum for the US rather than a minimum.

 

Utah only spends about 1/3rd of this amount.

 

In general, there seems to be a clear discrepancy between States in the North East where seven of the top 10 spenders are located and the West and South which have heavy concentrations of schools that spend relatively little per student.

 

You also might want to consider examining whether there is a statistically significant relationship between spending and the drop out rate. It looks as if you are claiming that that increasing spending has no impact on drop out rates. (From what I can tell, this is a hotly disputed topic)

[Winstonm]

You seem to feel that pulling out the troops now is absolutely the right decision, and so do more and more voters. Others (including some with a financial interest) strongly argue that staying in is mandatory.

 

I favor what works and oppose what does not work. I think Glenn Greenwald has nailed this pretty well, presenting compelling evidence over a number of posts that the Neocon who support war and intervention virtually everywhere is truly the greater enemy of American ideals while study after study shows that non-confrontation works much better at eliminating terror threats than military intervention.

 

Interested parties can go here and read through Greenwald's latest posts and his older ones as well: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

Does this mean you'd favor war in the Middle East if you thought it would work?

I was not opposed to the initial Afghanistan invasion nor the U.N. led move to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. But notice these two actions had limited, specific, accomplish-able goals for military action.

 

I doubt whether any limited, specific, accomplish-able goal could be established for a Middle East war.

[kenberg]

He is the president, he must decide if it is worth it, and if it is then he must find a way to get the country behind it,

 

I believe this concept is a mistake that is made all too frequently - this rather blind trust that the guys at the top have all the information to make the correct decision and lead us in the correct path.

 

Perhaps there is a slight generation gap between me at 58 and Ken at 70. My generation was influenced by the Kennedy assassination, Vietnam, and Watergate - I don't think we trust the government, but feel compelled to challenge their claims as we have seen many times how facts were twisted to fit agenda.

I cannot think of what on Earth I may have said to lead you to believe I have blind faith in President Obama. Let me set your mind at rest, I worry greatly that the man may be intelligent (far short of brilliant, but probably intelligent), very assertive and very wrong.

 

As mentioned by Passed, we should await his decision and the thoughts he presents. But here are my thoughts on the general collection of options:

 

Pull out: I doubt he will do this.

We went to war there after 9/11 with pretty widespread support. For reasons that most feel were a mistake we downplayed that conflict and decided Iraq was the most important. During the campaign, Obama argued it was really Afghanistan, not Iraq, that was important. We already look a little foolish and if we now decide Afghanistan isn't important, I think that it would be fair for others to ask us if we could please make up our minds about what is important. We should not stay there just to avoid acknowledging that we have no consistent idea of what we are doing, but pulling out will have very substantial consequences and we had better be prepared for them.

 

Follow McChrystal's recommendations. Obama seems disinclined to do so. The general can give us his best opinion of what it will take to succeed. Wars rarely go as planned, so we would have to be prepared for setbacks. The general cannot tell us if the war would be worth the effort.

 

McChrystal light: This is rumored to be the way he will go. There are problems. McChrystal is clearly on record emphatically stating that the chances for success would be slim. Asking a general to lead his troops into war based on an approach he doesn't believe in is asking a lot. Obama can, of course, replace him. Or he could ask to be replaced.

 

None of the choices look great. Probably Obama's final choice will not exactly be any of them.

 

I never have blind faith in any president but I would be happier if I had more confidence in this one.

[ArtK78]

I never have blind faith in any president but I would be happier if I had more confidence in this one.

I have a lot more confidence in this President than I had in the last one.

[blackshoe]

The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If he doesn't trust his General's opinion of what is needed to succeed, perhaps he should turn over his other duties to his VP, and go take command in the field. Oh, wait, Obama has zero experience or expertise in that area. :)

[PassedOut]

The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If he doesn't trust his General's opinion of what is needed to succeed, perhaps he should turn over his other duties to his VP, and go take command in the field.

I think it's even more basic that that. The first question is exactly what it means "to succeed" in Afghanistan. And how, exactly, can one tell when that success has been achieved.