The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

Of course. Their government has been expanding employment.

 

 

Not in the time period covered in that chart.

[NorthSideSox72]

That chart has to be fake. Just look at Texas.

Seems like a very odd mix there, hard to pin a reason on which states are strong and not. IL and IN are next to each other, but have castly different tactics they have been using lately. MT is a whole different story, and then there is the SE coast. On the strong side, TX and NM, and three plains states? Weird.

 

[StrangeSox]

NE and SD have been doing relatively well throughout this whole recession iirc.

[Balta1701]

Seems like a very odd mix there, hard to pin a reason on which states are strong and not. IL and IN are next to each other, but have castly different tactics they have been using lately. MT is a whole different story, and then there is the SE coast. On the strong side, TX and NM, and three plains states? Weird.

Which argues to me that the IL tax policy changes probably had some impact on growth, but it's not sending the state on a death spiral.

[Balta1701]

NE and SD have been doing relatively well throughout this whole recession iirc.

Think about their economies...those are mostly agricultural production states, and despite a moderate blip in 2008, food prices have remained high and government subsidies have remained strong.

[StrangeSox]

I'm pretty sure they were also able to avoid the housing bubble that sank pretty much everyone else.

[Balta1701]

I'm pretty sure they were also able to avoid the housing bubble that sank pretty much everyone else.

Well yeah...not a whole lot of demand for brand new tract housing in those states even in boom times.

[StrangeSox]

Think about their economies...those are mostly agricultural production states, and despite a moderate blip in 2008, food prices have remained high and government subsidies have remained strong.

 

This jives with what their governor recently said.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43658416/Farms_Keep...rowing_Governor

[The Sir]

77% of House Dems and 8% of House GOPers vote against bill allowing our troops in hostile areas "to proactively defend themselves".

 

Unbelievable. I know a bunch of you will whine endlessly if I say democrats are unpatriotic and anti-military, but I really don't know how else to take this.

 

f*** the Republicans who voted against this too. Traitors.

[StrangeSox]

Not sure how voting against a vague but substantial expansion of the ROE makes you unpatriotic or anti-military.

[CrimsonWeltall]

77% of House Dems and 8% of House GOPers vote against bill allowing our troops in hostile areas "to proactively defend themselves".

 

Unbelievable. I know a bunch of you will whine endlessly if I say democrats are unpatriotic and anti-military, but I really don't know how else to take this.

 

f*** the Republicans who voted against this too. Traitors.

 

What does it mean to "proactively defend yourself"? They're allowed to attack anything they want if they there's a possibility it could be a threat? Isn't this the thinking that got us into the giant mistake that is the Iraq War in the first place?

[EvilMonkey]

What does it mean to "proactively defend yourself"? They're allowed to attack anything they want if they there's a possibility it could be a threat? Isn't this the thinking that got us into the giant mistake that is the Iraq War in the first place?

There have been reports of soldiers WATCHING people bury IED's and could do nothing but report on it because of the ROE. Also reports of soldiers being fired upon and not able to return fire, until they can get an OK from someone higher up the chain.

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.facebook.com/MichaelYonFanPage/...123097424378854

Reports of soldiers ordered to patrol with the chamber empty. really?

[Cknolls]

http://www.facebook.com/MichaelYonFanPage/...123097424378854

Reports of soldiers ordered to patrol with the chamber empty. really?

 

 

Best war correspondent out there, period.

[StrangeSox]

There have been reports of soldiers WATCHING people bury IED's and could do nothing but report on it because of the ROE. Also reports of soldiers being fired upon and not able to return fire, until they can get an OK from someone higher up the chain.

 

That doesn't mean we need to vaguely expand the ROE to "proactive defense" though. Not supporting every single pro-military bill that comes up doesn't make someone anti-military.

[Soxbadger]

Since its about Rice, Ill put it here. But its an odd odd story.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...0,6893193.story

 

 

[StrangeSox]

lol saw that earlier, definitely bizarre.

[The Sir]

That doesn't mean we need to vaguely expand the ROE to "proactive defense" though. Not supporting every single pro-military bill that comes up doesn't make someone anti-military.

 

Would you agree that the ROE as accurately described by Alpha are ridiculous? That s*** gets Soldiers killed. Patrolling with empty chambers? That's not winning hearts and minds; that's being stupid. You don't want to fire rounds? That's what trigger discipline and an external safety are for. But leaving the wire with an empty chamber is basically suicide. Or being prohibited from killing IED emplacers. Really, what the f*** is that? Please tell me you don't think that's sensible.

 

I just get this impression that politicians on both sides of the aisle are playing games with our lives and well-being. And I don't like it. It's a betrayal from those who are supposed to lead us, and it's why I only vote for vets.

[StrangeSox]

It doesn't sound sensible but I also do not know the rationale behind it. I do know that expanding the ROE to "proactive defense" sounds like a terrible idea with lots and lots of room for interpretation and unnecessarily aggressive actions.

 

I also don't think our army should ever have gone nation-building in the first place, which would make this a non-issue.

[The Sir]

I also don't think our army should ever have gone nation-building in the first place, which would make this a non-issue.

 

I'll agree with that. We're trained to kill. And we're the best at that. We ain't trained to "nation build".

 

[StrangeSox]

Right, so there's necessarily restrictive ROE for urban peace-keepers vs. open battlefield situations. Because too aggressive of a ROE, too many innocent civilians get killed and you sabotage your own mission. Maybe the ROE's need to be reformed, but that doesn't mean any proposed reformation is actually a good idea and any vote against a change is traitorous.

 

edit: from wiki, a better-explained version of what I'm saying here:

 

ROE failures

In any engagement, the ROE need to balance two competing goals: The need to use force effectively to accomplish the mission objectives and the need to avoid unnecessary force. (Marcus Luttrell's "Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Red Wing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10" is a critique of America's rules of engagement for professional soldiers.[1]) This creates room for two types of error:

 

Excessively tight ROE can constrain a commander from performing his mission effectively, called a Type I error. It is typical for the political leadership to constrain the actions of military commanders. This is often a source of tension between the political leaders, who are trying to accomplish a political or diplomatic objective, and the military commanders, who are trying to make the most effective use of their forces. Sagan [2] provides an excellent discussion of this topic. The UN Peacekeeper's ROE (see UNAMIR) during the Rwandan Genocide is a tragic example of over-restrictive ROE.

 

Excessively loose ROE can facilitate the escalation of a conflict which, while being tactically effective, negates the political objectives that the use of force was meant to achieve. This is a Type II error or "escalatory" error. A common contemporary Type II error would be the use of excessive force, such as air-strikes, in an area with high numbers of noncombatants where such force would result in unintended collateral damage.

 

The military is a means to a political end and one tool, albeit a very large and important one, in the toolbox.

Edited August 25, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

BTW does Congress actually define the ROE's?

[The Sir]

BTW does Congress actually define the ROE's?

 

Couldn't tell ya. If I were to guess, I'd say they set very basic parameters and military leaders come up with the specifics. After all, civilians aren't going to have the battlefield knowledge/experience to create specific guidelines.

[StrangeSox]

Couldn't tell ya. If I were to guess, I'd say they set very basic parameters and military leaders come up with the specifics. After all, civilians aren't going to have the battlefield knowledge/experience to create specific guidelines.

 

Congress was reviewing them but it doesn't read like they set them? Another Washington Times article laid the blame for the restrictiveness on the military's agreement to abide by some of the Afghan government's rules.

 

What I'm getting at is this seems like it was another posturing vote, giving an opportunity to thump chests about supporting the troops with an ultimately meaningless measure.

[The Sir]

What I'm getting at is this seems like it was another posturing vote, giving an opportunity to thump chests about supporting the troops with an ultimately meaningless measure.

 

Sadly, you seem to be right. A meaningful bill that actually helps me and my brothers would have specifics (i.e. the ability to shoot IED emplacers, permission to patrol with rounds chambered etc). This bill, now that I look at it and really think about what it means, means nothing. Where are the specifics? "Proactively defend" doesn't expand our abilities, it just gives us another assload of red tape to deal with while some politician gets to go "Hey, look at me! I support the troops."

 

I guess it's nothing new. Politicians have always supported the troops when it's convenient for them, and when it's a good way to score points. And then they'll leave us in the lurch as soon as we become an inconvenience. That's f***ing sad, but it's true.

 

And it only solidifies my motivation to vote for vets and vets alone. They still might betray us, but I'd like to think it makes them less likely to do so when they were once a part of this. I mean, you can take a man out of the service but you can't take the service out of the man. Both my parents are retired military, and they're proof of that. Their service is marked on their hearts forever. And from what I know of them, Rick Perry and Allen West are no different.

 

But then you have a Sarah Palin or a Michele Bachmann or a Barack Obama, and how the hell do they support the troops? Because they say so? So what? I'm supposed to believe that? Nope. It's just like when I go into some random business with a sign out front that says they support the troops, and they don't even have a military discount. Whoa...how do you support the troops again? Did you just say that to attract schmucks like me? I don't need a discount, but if you're going to brag about your support for the troops, a discount is a nice display of gratitude to prove that support. If you don't, it's playing politics/business/whatever with our sacrifices, and I don't like it one bit.