Supporting the Troops!

[JawnKarTurr]

You apparently don't because I didn't say that, you're just making it up to have something to be mad about.

Probably because out of blind partisanship you're incapable of admitting that the (R)'s have been by far the largest war for welfare cheerleaders for the past 30+ years.

Yes and we are without conflict or military spending while the Democrats are in office...lol Sorry I'm an independent and I find enough problems with both parties. I just find people like you tend to ignore one group in favor of another.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

Active duty numbers:

• American Military 1940 - 458,365
• American Military 1945 - 12,055,884
• American Military 1950 - 1,459,462

Only off by a million troops.

#MathIsHard

Actually no I'm not but thanks for the figures....

American Military 1940 - 458,365 Peace time military before the war.

American Military 1945 - 12,055,884 Military just before the end of the conflict.

American Military 1950 - 1,459,462 I'd say that was a much smaller number then five years earlier. Never mind this figure is probably after the start of Korea. Not as much as the peace time military a decade before, but now they had treaty obligations and weren't largely concerned with just guard in the continental United States.



Thanks for supporting my point while trying to be intelligent.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

There was a purge? Oh you mean when Gen Shinsecki (sie?) said that Iraq would take 200,000 troops to occupy and take decades to civilize and Rummy sidelined him?

History, yes Ike warned us and JFK was considering letting Viet Nam go, but was replaced by LBJ who sent millions of troops to support KBR's (aka Halliburton) profits.

Actually no I'm sure your facts are spot on, but I was referring to the large number of firings under President Obama.

Yes JFK was planning to only use advisers. So his vice President takes office in the wake of JFK's death (you'd think Halliburton would have bough Oswald a better rifle) and LBJ needs his friends to make more money so he escalates the conflict? Sure makes perfect sense.

Conspiracies theories aside I think they're a Washington institution that has weathered the storm and no administration wants to deal with. Like many vendors they need to be held accountable, but they're not. Hate the evil Republicans all you like, but nothing changes when there is a new person in the white house.

 

[JackLuis]

Actually no I'm sure your facts are spot on, but I was referring to the large number of firings under President Obama.

Yes JFK was planning to only use advisers. So his vice President takes office in the wake of JFK's death (you'd think Halliburton would have bough Oswald a better rifle) and LBJ needs his friends to make more money so he escalates the conflict? Sure makes perfect sense.

Conspiracies theories aside I think they're a Washington institution that has weathered the storm and no administration wants to deal with. Like many vendors they need to be held accountable, but they're not. Hate the evil Republicans all you like, but nothing changes when there is a new person in the white house.

I can't speak to " the large number of firings under President Obama" but it wouldn't hurt the military much to reduce the number of "Yes Sir, Yes Sir" Generals/Admirals in the pentagon by half. Particularly in the Air Force.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes and we are without conflict or military spending while the Democrats are in office...lol

I didn't say without, that's you just making shit up again.


But they are clearly not anywhere as war prone and defense spending happy as the republicans. Not even close.

Sorry I'm an independent

If that's so then why make up so much bullshit to deflect from the fact that the war machine is far more Republican than Democrat?

*sniff*....smell that? (R)publican asshurt....definitely

and I find enough problems with both parties. I just find people like you tend to ignore one group in favor of another.

You'd find wrong again, I bash Democrats on here it's taken most of the liburhuls on here the better part of a decade to figure out I'm not a teahaddist.

But Democrats wanting to go into an endless occupational war with everyone who so much as looks our general direction with an attitude aren't one of them.

In case you have been living under a rock for the past 50 fuckin years that's largely a Republican welfare scam. The Democrats dominate the HC/Education scams....they don't share all evils equally no matter how badly you wish.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

I can't speak to " the large number of firings under President Obama" but it wouldn't hurt the military much to reduce the number of "Yes Sir, Yes Sir" Generals/Admirals in the pentagon by half. Particularly in the Air Force.

No these were people who didn't agree with the President. The fact that the media doesn't cover issues like this is disturbing though.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

No your a guy who doesn't have much grip on reality, and doesn't have much more then petty insults. You can put words in my mouth though and you're not very good at it. Every major conflict and countless minor ones are on the Democrats watch. The Republicans build a large military and the Democrats use it while spending a fortune on failed social programs. Sure your impartial. Your a waste of space and more importantly a waste of my time.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Actually no I'm not but thanks for the figures....

American Military 1940 - 458,365 Peace time military before the war.

American Military 1945 - 12,055,884 Military just before the end of the conflict.

American Military 1950 - 1,459,462 I'd say that was a much smaller number then five years earlier. Never mind this figure is probably after the start of Korea. Not as much as the peace time military a decade before, but now they had treaty obligations and weren't largely concerned with just guard in the continental United States.



Thanks for supporting my point while trying to be intelligent.

"Supporting your point"?
Let's review what you said earlier....

After WWII the American military was reduced down to almost pre-war levels overnight.

(Emphasis added)

You made a claim that was not supported by facts, at least in the reality-based world.

The peacetime army in 1950 was over three times larger than pre-war levels. Your claim does not hold up to serious scrutiny, even allowing for a generous interpretation of "almost pre-war levels overnight".

Be a man and own your mistake.

 

[JackLuis]

No your a guy who doesn't have much grip on reality, and doesn't have much more then petty insults. You can put words in my mouth though and you're not very good at it. Every major conflict and countless minor ones are on the Democrats watch. The Republicans build a large military and the Democrats use it while spending a fortune on failed social programs. Sure your impartial. Your a waste of space and more importantly a waste of my time.

I think you're forgetting GW's Iraq fiasco and his Afghanistan dumbfuckery. Also GHWB's Panama and Regan's Grenada, Honduras, and Nicaragua cluster fucks. Plenty of dumb fuckery for everyone to share the blame. Oh and not to forget, Clinton bombed the Chinese Embassy too.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

"Supporting your point"?
Let's review what you said earlier....

(Emphasis added)

You made a claim that was not supported by facts, at least in the reality-based world.

The peacetime army in 1950 was over three times larger than pre-war levels. Your claim does not hold up to serious scrutiny, even allowing for a generous interpretation of "almost pre-war levels overnight".

Be a man and own your mistake.

I wasn't mistaken in what I wrote. You reacted like a child, so keep acting like you won something. I got some idiot to stop looking at porn and look for something and took the first thing Google turned up. Your opinion doesn't matter.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

I think you're forgetting GW's Iraq fiasco and his Afghanistan dumbfuckery. Also GHWB's Panama and Regan's Grenada, Honduras, and Nicaragua cluster fucks. Plenty of dumb fuckery for everyone to share the blame. Oh and not to forget, Clinton bombed the Chinese Embassy too.

Well you can characterize any of these actions any way you like. I'm not forgetting any I'm just tired of people always acting like their boys and their money is misspent when one party is in the white house. Clinton was bombing the Serbs to distract from his own little digressions. If only people held both parties to the same high standards would we have a government that works. Now we have polarization and each side (though I don't think anyone is 100% one side) claims they'll fix everything when they take over.

We need more Trumps and Sanders types because the shake up the establishment wrong or right. Changes and new ideas.

Recently idiots who support Sanders have been posting pictures of FDR claiming that the country was great under him. He was a national socialist and the people loved him and would have kept electing him if they didn't change the law...

Well the truth is most of his programs were declared unconstitutional, there were people in his administration who knew they were running out of money, he tried to pack the supreme court and was rebuffed, and the law preventing more then two terms didn't come into play until after his administration and not because of his policies.

The point is people often make arguments and leave out the facts they don't like. Well while that makes your argument stronger you still have to deal with consequences.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No your a guy who doesn't have much grip on reality, and doesn't have much more then petty insults. You can put words in my mouth though and you're not very good at it.

You're the only one who's trying to put words in others mouths.

Every post you make you're making pure bullshit up out of thin air.

Every major conflict and countless minor ones are on the Democrats watch.

Lies....last I checked Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush and his kid were not Democrats.

You are demonstrably wrong, though kudos for the blind Republican partisanship!

The Republicans build a large military and the Democrats use it

Sometimes, but the Republicans use it more and they are the ones cheering it's build and use right now.

Not the Democrats.

 

[JackLuis]

Well you can characterize any of these actions any way you like.

The point is people often make arguments and leave out the facts they don't like. Well while that makes your argument stronger you still have to deal with consequences.

So how does your argument help the troops?

Yes, "both sides do it" but how do we unfuck this fuck up?

Nothing you've said is constructive, you are just bitching.

Here I'll be constructive, we need to vote for intelligent thoughtful congress critters who understand that War is the last resort. We need to focus on our country and what make it better for the millions that are left out of the mainstream society, rather than regime change in third word shit holes that mean nada to America

Black crime is caused by the fact that our education and employment systems have failed. Our 'Leaders" are not focused on helping include them in our society they are focused on getting re-elected and stuffing their pockets.

We need a President who will enforce all our Laws for everyone and not let the powerful commit war crimes without facing the consequences of their actions. We need a President who will hold our regulating agencies accountable for their failures and appoint people who will do their jobs and not just cozy up to the people they are supposed to be regulating to get a cushy job after they leave a shambles in their wake.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

So how does your argument help the troops?

Yes, "both sides do it" but how do we unfuck this fuck up?

Nothing you've said is constructive, you are just bitching.

Here I'll be constructive, we need to vote for intelligent thoughtful congress critters who understand that War is the last resort. We need to focus on our country and what make it better for the millions that are left out of the mainstream society, rather than regime change in third word shit holes that mean nada to America

Black crime is caused by the fact that our education and employment systems have failed. Our 'Leaders" are not focused on helping include them in our society they are focused on getting re-elected and stuffing their pockets.

We need a President who will enforce all our Laws for everyone and not let the powerful commit war crimes without facing the consequences of their actions. We need a President who will hold our regulating agencies accountable for their failures and appoint people who will do their jobs and not just cozy up to the people they are supposed to be regulating to get a cushy job after they leave a shambles in their wake.

So I can't point out that both sides screw thing up? That actually is pretty constructive because a lot of the banter here is rather partisan. The hilarious posts are people who act like they're above it all but think their side has everything right.


And your solutions....Wow. Everyone should think things out clearly, make violence the last resort and enforce laws. That's common sense which ain't that common. We're at the hearts and mind stage. We have a good system with good laws, but it's the quality of the people. Like with the black community you singled out. They continuously vote democrat despite the inner cities of this country being worse. Never mind if you remove evil white racism tomorrow many issues will still exist.

We have to start supporting people of character. It's amazing how important that is.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I wasn't mistaken in what I wrote. You reacted like a child, so keep acting like you won something. I got some idiot to stop looking at porn and look for something and took the first thing Google turned up. Your opinion doesn't matter.

Be the man your daddy wanted you to be, not the sissy your mama raised.

Break the cycle of wuss that appears to be in your genes.