@MCC ... While Cheney pushed hard for further privatization of government services and personnel, the 'privatization' of our federal government has been the Republican mantra since Pres. Reagan's administration. Since then, literally millions of government jobs have been "privatized." And in only a very, very few exceptions has that privatization actually saved the government and the taxpayers any money. In most instances, the costs for private employers to do what had been previously done by government employees are typically two to three times greater. An excellent example of this is the employees of the private security firms who are now largely responsible for security at the U.S. Embassy, as well as providing security for some Iraqi military and political leaders, and also providing additional security for the American trainers who remain in-country. The private contractors can earn upwards of $20,000 per month. During the early years of the Iraqi conflict it was, for some, $20,000 per week. The private contractors typically are housed in U.S. government housing (either in the embassy or in any one of the scores of bases the U.S. built and then gave ... yes, gave ... to Iraq) just as our military men and women and embassy personnel are. They receive their meals from sources paid-for by the U.S. government. And they are able to shop at small retail stores established within the "Green Zone" (again, courtesy of the U.S. government and American taxpayers), as well as having access to the U.S. military's PX (personnel exchange; ie, grocery store/dept store combo, but smaller than what we have in the U.S. obviously). Now, while the private contractors are making tens of thousands of dollars per month, U.S. servicemembers receive, on average, approximately $3,000 - 3,500 per month. The amount received varies by rank and length of service, but the figure mentioned above remains fairly accurate, since the lionshare of troops serving in combat units are in their early 20's, and therefore would have shorter lengths of service.

The most irritating thing about the whole privatization 'scam' that Republicans have pulled on the American taxpayers is the charade of when government jobs are privatized that the size of government is reduced. Now, most people, when they hear a phrase like "the size of government is reduced" would naturally assume that less/smaller government means that the government is resultantly spending less. Not hardly! The government usually spends more! And often times the work performed is not of any greater quality or efficiency than what was done by the private contractors government predecessors. Privatization is simply the transfer of government jobs to the private sector, with the government continuing to pay the costs of the work being done. Government isn't shrinking. There may be fewer workers being paid directly by the government, but there are millions across the country and scattered around the world who conduct business on behalf of the U.S. government, but they are not considered or counted as government employees because they are paid by the company awarded the service contract.

That IS the secret you are not supposed to publicize. The privatization of government, from the military to education, may on paper, shrink the "size" of government, but at a cost that is much more than we have had to pay government employees.

It just adds another layer of middlemen who profit greatly by providing substandard services to "our" government and displacing workers earning a living salary. The privatized worker in non-combat zones will earn little and have no benefits, although his/her middleman bosses will become wealthiER. We will lose our Unions (what is left) and our only hope to collectively bargain for a living wage.

In the ongoing scenario, privatization = fascism. Give me socialism any day.

Seems like the lunatic fringe is hard at work this morning or is it just Obama "volunteer" posters hard at work in thier minimum wage job for his majesty?

There most certainly are legitimate functions of government wherein PROFIT should NOT be in the equation; military affairs and prisons being only two of them. Ref: Halliburton and subsidiaries, Blackwater, CCA etc.

The Repukes & Assocs. mad rush,ever since the corporatist dog boy Reagan infested the American Body Politic, to privatize anything and everything done by government, at any level, is driven solely by their adoration of their merciless, bloodsoaked, never satisfied, bloated god---Mammon.

The lying rats that continually spew the mantra "Less Government" with the appended subtext lie "Less Government Spending", while they shovel mass quantities of millions to their connected insider buddy fellow rapists in Industry and Finance, need to have light, harsh retribution and Justice rained down upon them 24/7/365 until the lying rats and the havens wherein they hide are destroyed.

PS:
"Shaking my head" shakes his small, insufficient head so that he may hear the handful of peanuts inside it rattle around.

Lord the number of the ignorant participating in this discussion is amazing. I do realize most of you are products of the US education system from 80's onward but lord your allowed to do some research before spouting your nonsense.

The reason why privatation of GVT poisitions makes sense is very simple - cost. Yes we pay contractors more money upfront then we do GVT employees but and this is a big but - there are several reasons why the contractor is the better buy in the long run:

1. When the mission or job is completed they let the contractor go and have no long term obligations to them such as health care or retirement.

2. Invariablly the contractor has the necessary skill set to do the job and most often the GVT employee does not.

3. It is almost impossible to fire a GVT employee for incompetence, malfeasence, etc with a contractor you simply fire them or eliminate the position.

4. When the mission or job has come to an end the GVT employee is still around doing make work projects until they retire and then sit back and collect 75% of their base pay and healthcare for life at minimal cost.

etc

Cheney pushed Privatization????

I seems your facts are a bit askew.

In 1994, I was serving in the U.S. Army, when we were sent to Haiti in support of the UN mission there, and again to Bosnia under UN command.

ALL of the base support, supply transportation, and mess facilities for both missions were operated by locals, under contract to HALLIBURTON!

This was under the William Jefferson Clinton Administration and the Sec Def William Cohen.

But when you are a liberal democrat what do facts matter when fantasy is so much more convenient to your agenda?

The Clinton Administration not only privatized many jobs that were formerly held by the uniformed military, but in the process actually caused the cost of such jobs to increase, he did this by cutting 60,000 jobs from the military while increasing the number of civil bureaucrats, often at two to three times the price per job, resulting in nearly no actual dollar savings.

I see that Jay Carney is cracking the whip a great deal to keep the serial posters on the job.

Bank of Iraq???? Makes no sense...

What does that have to do with troops in Iraq?

@imrightnotyou

You're on the wrong thread, my friend.

Indeed. The downside of cutting government spending in a weak economy.

Just because they are coming home does not mean that they are leaving the military. If it were me faced with our current economy I would stay until I at least finished my twenty.

As I did when I left the military: I found a job that supported production instead of destruction and did my best to add to the GDP not add to the endless military costs.

Their very presence in the private sector adds demands and needs to the social system which , in turn, get provided by more available jpbs. VOILA, the economy grows.

The U.S. government gets billed an average of $1,200,000. per year for each deployed soldier annually. Who is underpaying our soldiers while raking in obsene profits abusing the unfortunate brave souls who have given their all for America and its' citizens. That is the question that should be asked.

The problem is with the foreign hawks and America's weapons suppliers that create wars and coerce through legal bribery of our lawmakers into endlessly backing warfare as the answer to the world's ills. All it does is suck the wealth out America just to make a few super rich and seemingly protect warmongering a little country. Enough already. Our country cannot afford to continue down this insane road anymore.

there is plenty of work for those that want it. just not maybe the types of jobs some people want.

Most of them are regular troops who have a contractual obligation for four years of military service so they will not be looking for civilian employment.

The problem is with the foreign hawks and America's weapons suppliers that create wars and coerce through legal bribery of our lawmakers into endlessly backing warfare as the answer to the world's ills.

No; the problem is with the American Voters!!! If you want to see our country saved, vote for Liberty for a change. Vote LIBERTARIAN.

The only reason the Democrats and Republicans keep winning elections is because people vote for them.

The only reason the Democrats and Republicans keep winning elections is because people vote for them.

What a concept! Democracy in action. Although, as you may recall, Bush was "Selected" by the rightwingers on the Supreme Court.

Very true. If you remember, Bush LOST the popular vote, so I guess people DIDN'T vote for him.

We do have a Southwestern border Narco terrorist problem the troops can move on. Oh , I get it, their not terrorists, unless they threaten Saudi Arabia or Israel ????

JK from PA

Although, as you may recall, Bush was "Selected" by the rightwingers on the Supreme Court.

That is not 100% correct. The USA Supreme push the issue back to the Florida Courts in a 7-2 decision. Al Gore was trying to change the rules after the fact. Each recount resulted in G W Bush receiving more votes. The USA has had several presidential elections go the same way.

Gore received a little over 500,000 mores votes, but lost the Electoral College Vote. There was wide-spread illegal votes for Gore in IL, WA, OR, CA, and TX made by illegals voters.

@JK ... I'm not going to even begin to touch the illegal voters issue, since both parties were accused of voting irregularities and potentially illegal voting. However, with respect to your comment about the actions of the US Supreme Court. The Court did hand-down a decision on a 7-2 vote that declared that the total State of Florida recount that had been ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It was the Court's decision that recounting all of the ballots would not answer the other, more important question of what constituted a legitimate vote (with respect to the punch ballot system used in Florida). Florida law required that all election returns be completed and certified by Dec. 12. Because the Court determined that it would be impossible to send the case back to the Florida Supreme Court, for them to establish clear procedures/policies to use in determining the validity of the ballots, could not possibly be completed by the Dec. 12 deadline. They therefore, by a 5-4 vote, officially terminated the recount and declared that because the Florida Sec of State had earlier certified Bush as the winner, and because any further action could not be completed by the Dec. 12 deadline, that the winner that had been previously certified would be declared the victor in the contest.

As to who actually won the State of Florida? An independent study was completed following the conclusion of the election and it was determined that who won the contest varied in small degrees, depending on the standard being used in determining ballot validity and which candidate would receive credit for that vote. Among the several scenarios and ballot-juging procedures the study reviewed, in every scenario but one Gore received the greater number of votes. The single result that showed Bush having the greater number of votes was a result not based on who actually received the most votes, but rather, whether or not all three members of the ballot reviewing committee agreed on who should receive credit for a particular ballot. If only two of the three members agreed on who should receive credit, the ballot was deemed invalid and not counted toward the election totals.

Whether or not Bush was correctly certified as receiving the most votes in the State of Florida is immaterial at this point; we can't turn back the clock. What is material and important to consider is how the US Supreme Court, by a narrow majority, chose to refuse to allow the State of Florida to establish a more clear method of determining the validity of questionable ballots. Had the government position that was to be determined been of the local or state-level, it is easier to understand why the Court might decide as it did, since the outcome would only affect Florida, and if it was determined that the certified results were highly questionable, the state could consider other remedies, like having another election in the near future. But since the election was to determine who would be President, the dissenting Justices that heard Bush v Gore believed the more appropriate course to take would be to allow Florida to establish clear ballot verification procedures, and then do a complete recount of the state. The Justices believed that only by abiding by that type of decision could Florida, as well as the nation, be as certain as possible as to who should have been determined the winner in the presidential contest.

And lastly, with respect to "changing the rules," the Gore campaign had not exercised it's initial recount request opportunity. The campaign then subsequently did wish to challenge the results in four counties. Both situations, not requesting a recount, and the later recount request, were alternatives offered to either candidate by the voting laws/procedures of the State of Florida. The only persons or entities that changed any of the rules was the US Supreme Court, and the Florida Appeals and Supreme Court, respectively.

stop the madening, there may be "plenty of jobs for those that want it. just not maybe the types of jobs some people want."

Yep, living wage jobs are what people must have. not many of those. Greed has destroyed America.

Gil;

Tthe most outragious aspect of your comments are the fictional statistics you throw out with absolutely no basis upon fact. The old axiom that figures don't lie but liars can figure is a testamony to your ration of BS.

I thought Osama was killed by military personnel, does Obama even know how to shoot a gun? BTW didn't we attack Afghanistan to get Osama? Why are we still there again? Oh, I forgot we are still there because war is so profitable for the companies that make HUGE campaign contributions. I am not trying to point the finger at Obummer here either, Bush made a fine mess of things as well. The point is we should not be voting for crooked politicians that get huge donations from corporations because the president ends up working for them, and make no mistake, Obama is just as big of a sellout as Bush if not worse. This is why we got involved with Libya when at home there are talks of shutting the government down, but hey they found more money for war without even looking! This is why we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ron Paul is the only one serious about stopping war and useless foreign aid and that is why politicians and the media keep doing their best to try to make him look crazy, they certainly don't want the trillion dollar cash cow called the war machine to stop!

Sorry to tell you that OBAMA didn't get any one. It was a group of Elite SEALS, the military got his sorry ass, Obama jsut happened to be the President at the time. Give credit where it is due, politicians all REPUGNANTS and DEMOGOGS all should take blame, they all agreed with the threats assessments and gave Bush the authority with crappy intelligence. SO ALL POLITICIANS are to blame for the loss of precious American blood.

brainwashed liberal fool. another stewpid product of our poor education system.

Raylopez--bunk. The soldiers deserve massive credit, however, Obama took a massive risk--a massive decision-to authorize the risky operation in a foreign country. Had it gone wrong, he would have suffered like Carter after the Iran rescue attempt, and the U.S. would have looked bad. When decisions work, Presidents should get credit.

Neither Carter nor Obama have military sense of battle. They are and continue to be cowards and hide behind folk they can blame.

Have you any idea that the failure in the Iranian desert rescue attempt was all on Carters shoulders? Read the story and see how Carter arrogantly wrested control of the rescue mission from seasoned desert commanders so he could at the last minute of the election defeat Reagan.

What a fool Carter was then and an even bigger fool today. A communist at heart from head to toe. I hope his peanut brain is drying up in the drought of Georgia.

You're a sick puppy, Josh, and an ill-informed one, too.

Bushy was in Crawford for more than a year and sureshot Cheney was hiding in a bunker for 8 years

So you ‘useful idiots’ on the left, who have scorned my perfect treatise are claiming that Carter ‘the bumbler’ was a 'military genius'?

He was told by the Chiefs that none of the choppers he was sending to 'rescue' the American prisoners held by Iran for over a year were capable of desert maneuvers. Couldn’t operate in the heat and the sand storms. He cared not whit as he was hell bent on getting his toothy face reelected at any cost.

And what an embarrassment he was and continues today to be one fool of a human.

Your point 'starbuck' is Duh ? Perhaps.

KAT you have in one brief sentence told the world that you are an ignoramus, that you are unaware of the history of the botched 'desert rescue' commanded by James Earl Carter II that well known communist supporter.

Maybe you have heard about a source called WIKIPEDIA ? It is free to all, but requires some brains to use it. Perhaps you can impose upon someone you might know who has a brain or two. Or lacking that ask someone who lived through the fool Carters escapades. They will be able to explain how the 'mission' was doomed from the start and how the Americans supposedly being rescued were treated after that miserable demonstration of ignorance and folly.

A couple of things you apparently know a whole lot about.

Neither Carter nor Obama have military sense of battle

And Bushy and Cheney did? My God man, it was 15 out of 19 terrorists from Saudi Arabia that attacked us. So what do bush and cheney do, attack Iraq. We lost 4500 of our finest young generation in that unnecessary war. That makes bush and cheney bigger terrorists than Bin Laden, he killed 3000 civilians. It took Obama to take out Bin Laden without losing one life.

So Josh , you hate commies right. Then I bet you buy American, and are against the Chamber of Commerce in the Bush years helping companies move to China? Just a reminder, China is a Communist state. Actually, the MOST DANGEROUS COMMUNIST STATE. But last time a CIA official said that, your REPUBLICAN representatives tried to have him fired for telling the truth.

When the RIGHT stops sleeping with China, I will stop considering them traitors to this country for greed.

The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
Theodore Roosevelt

Read more:http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/theodore_roosevelt_4.html#ixzz1g6zom2XR

starbuck49:

It took Obama to take out Bin Laden without losing one life.

Which was really stupid. The USA had been watching him for years and stealing information on his operation. President Obama made a horrible decision against the suggestions of the military. That will cost the USA lives!

Ha ha ha ha ha....Obama just doesn't stand a chance with you Republicants does he?

Friggin Bush is IN BED with the Saudis throughout this whole mess and YOU still can't see it.

The Bush-Saudi Connection - Hermes Press

www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm

Homer

How could the USA be watching him for years? Bushy said in 2005 that they lost gim, they have no idea where he is and it doesn't matter. Bin Laden is unimportant.

BigJim: the only thing larger than your ignorance and misinformation is your total lack of knowledge about the topic, the region and the realities of the situation. you are simply ione more obama liberal with their head stuck up there ass standing in the welfare line waiting for your latest GVT handpout because your either to lazy or stupid to earn a living on your own.

Can someone explain to me why it is in our interest to have 900 foreign military bases. As someone who is unemployed, and had to have an eligibility interview because I claimed 75.00 income. Does Pakistan, and Iraq have to have an eligability interview. I am pretty sure our friendship bribe is going to go way up now that they are mad.

in 2000 there were 90,000 marines total.

in 2011 there are 200,000 marines total.

after all, we are at war.

Actually the size of the US marines in 2000 was 175,000, grew to 178,000 in 2004 and to 203,000 incrementally from 2006 to 2010

Airborne!!!

The job is not over yet. Once Israel attacks Iran, American troops and personnel in Iraq are going to feel the "blow back big time. I expect that the "Green Zone" will be turned into the "Dead Zone" quite quick. Don't blame the Iranians, blame Israel.

See that's the problem MCR.....it's NEVER over!

I'm blaming the U. S. Gov. for turning us into a warring nation. Who made us the overseer of the world. Let someone else take over for the next few hundred years.

US ARMY Chemical Corp.

Nobody ever lets us play. Spray on Monday and again on Thursday. Problem solved.

MCR there are no more US troops in Iraq after 15 Dec 2011 except for 175 trainers owrking with the Iraq army and national police. We will meet the 31 Dec deadline established by Bush and executed by dumb ass obama

Why do you label Obama "dumbass" for adhering to the contract that Bush, finally!, made with Iraq to withdraw our troops? We had no business being there in the first place.

90% of his other campaign promises........ thats a joke. Good one BO!!!! I needed a good laugh!!

He made over 500 campaign promises and has only kept just under 1/3 of those. Try not to let the facts get in your way though Bo. LOL

They will get jobs squeezing our sausages for the TSA, invading our homes for the DEA or working as mercenaries for the CIA.

I have a cousin who just finished 20 years in the Marines where he saw combat in both Gulf Wars and served several combat tours in the Iraq occupation. While serving he earned a college degree in Criminal Justice. After a lengthy job search he now works as a private security guard (rent-a-cop).

The employment scene for discharged solders is very bleak

Well, that's the way to cure our country's problems overseas. Validate a bunch f lies and deceit by the Repug Party of No by being their supporters and spreading more finger pointing and lies to cover up your own incompetence.

Saying that Obama is merely following Bush's promise to withdraw troops is like saying a chef who has replaced the previous chef (who poisoned the broth in the first place or we wouldn't be there) is only producing a valid menu because of the previous chef's skills.

And the kitchen is still plighted and blighted by previous kitchen staff that were loyal to the long gone incompetent chef.

The current cook can no more control the quality of the end product to his own fame if those traitorous staff are still vying to sabotage the food in the name sake of merely proving the trumped up claimed inadequacies of the new chef. And to add to the confusion, a bunch of sheep in the form of waiters and bus staff that hail their mentors in the kitchen and remain faithful to the original infamous chef, empowering the lies and deceit even further.

Giving Bush any form of credit is ludicrous, given that he lied our way into the country in the first place. Poison the broth and kill the patrons to merely get at one customer? Jack the Ripper of the kitchen is what I say, and now that he is retired to speeches and infamous notoriety? He comes up with some facade of a single Iranian counterpart who misled the whole country, and the whole military might of the United States with mere claims that he wished to oust Saddam to free his own country? He fooled a nation and sent our men and women to war and unnecessary deaths, and cost his own countrymen and women their lives by claiming to US intel agents there were supposedly WMDs present and we fell for it because of one man's lies? Yes, but the lies were from a traitorous President, the original insane chef, who listened to military contractors and wealthy powers to lead our country into a ill famed war.

The salvation of our troops who can now realize a total withdrawal is from the menu of sustenance the current chef and administration has fought for. The direct influence of increasing troop presence in the last three years to help defeat enemy presence to a point where we can realize that whatever problems remain in Iraq are their own and cannot be cured, treated or swayed by further US military presence, is a direct product of the current chef's menu, and not the archaic design and poison of the previous cook.

Get over it Repigs, if you can't come up with opposition ammunition without lying and casting false credit, get the fk out of the kitchen!

Would it be nice if things were as simple as saying; Bush and Cheney are crooks, Obama is incompetent and we go to war because of the arms industry.

If all this is true, then our democracy is failed. The electorate is not able to detect crooked, incompetent politicians that will sell out to the arms industry.

I personally believe things happen for a combination of reasons and that politicians act for both self serving as well as for the greater good.

Hey Michael Lockwood prove it. Show us those 500 campaign promises!

Seeee knew you couldn't do it.....

rico

Are you that ignorant??? Pull your head out long enough to look it up and you might be able to find it all by your little self. However, if you are that incompetent, as to do a little research, let me know and I will post them for you.

Bo,

Your clueless, the size othe military was drastically reduced under both Carter and Clinton from a high of 18 US army division to the current 10 divisions. The Army was reduced from 1.1 million to the current 523,000, The air force is 2/3 the size it was 20 years ago, the navy is half the size in number of ships. We went from a force of slightly around 3 million to one hovering around 2 million. You know your allowed to spend time to research topics before conmmenting

you really believe that ?

My nephew (4th generation serving in the military, esp. in time of war) would tell you you are full of heifer dust....

That's an old cowboy expression for the chips left behind from a bull....

Looks the same as Saigon? Use some sense, Iraq is relatively stable and there are no armies rushing in to take over the country as we leave. Saigon was a panic situation.

Yeah, he believes it. He's stupid.

"Especially during peace times" ... ah yes, nothing like flexing your imperial reach across the globe under the guise of playing sheriff and/or bringing "democracy" to others. After all, if they got something we we want, we send in the military to insure we get it.

Can we afford to do this? Who cares! Let's keep borrowing our way out of it!!

Nothing bad is going to come out of this ... Dick Cheney said so.

Yessire, that's the ticket.

Let freedom ring !!

Llad: May I see your Green card please????

pHIL

If he promised to pull out all Combat troops within a year of taking office, then he is approx 2 years late don't you think? Or are you working off a different calendar than the rest of the world.

As for the pull out of troops. A status of forces agreement was signed by the U.S. and Iraq before Obama became President and it detailed dates that U.S. troops had to be pulled out of the country.

Its extremely easy to go and look just type in Status of forces agreement U.S. and Iraq and Google will take you right to it. In other words Obama is only doing what was already agreed to by the U.S. before he came into office. He just wants it to look like it was only his plan and only his idea.

"violence has not increased as we withdraw."

You may want to do some research about that statement,because violence sure as h*ll has increased as troops are leaving. Another of my friends was just injured severely last week-not everything is reported by the news media,and most of what is reported is far from the truth.

Try asking the people who have recently returned from Iraq and/or Afghanistan about the level of violence,or the number of attacks on U.S. military personnel and installations.

Actually your wrong, last combat troops left in May so he took slightly more than 2 years ot keep his promise though the reduction in combat troops has led to a significant increase in US casualties in Iraq since their departure

Actually, before Bush got off of his but and made an exit contract with Iraq, Obama stated that he would bring the troops home from Iraq, but that it depended on what was happening on the ground. As for Afghanistan, he said that we should never have taken our focus off of it, and bin Laden, and would redirect our troops there. He never said that he would remove our troops from Afghanistan.

Phil

So you are saying that 111 Dems that were Reps or Senators back in 2002 were planning on running for President. Where did you come up with that number because that is how many Dems voted for the Iraqi Resolution.

In fact it was 111 voting yes and 147 voting no from the Dems and that is in both houses. The majority of Dem Senators backed the Bill!

Your history is a little scewed don't you think????!!!!!!

This has gone on long enough. If you have not been there, you know nothing. Afghanistan was warranted. We went after the man responsible for the attack on our home soil. He is dead now. Mission accomplished. The do not want us there, send in all of the C-5, C-17, C-130 aircraft and roll everyone out. Let them get back to killing each other. They have been doing it for thousands of years and will continue. The President gets the credit deserved for making the tough call to invade a supposed ally to get Bin Laden. They complained, but they knew he was there. Had we told them about the raid, he would have gotten away again. He was going down, it was just a matter of the timing. That specific team does not stop until the mission is complete. As far as Iraq, please for all of you who do not have a clue and have been here safe and sound at home under the umbrella of protection I have served to give you, take you liberal garbage to another country!! Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the first Gulf War, destroying them caused Gulf War Syndrome in many troops. Saddam hid them everytime we went in to inspect, why do you think their inspections were always off schedule. He knew we were coming. He moved the majority of the junk to Syria. Satellite tracking proves that multiple vehicles carried loads across the border. And he dumped tons of the junk into his own lakes. Saw the sonar images of the missile tubes from a lake bottom, saw the satellite images of the moves. The intel was correct. Yes, the economy is hurting due to all of the money we pump into every foriegn country. We get nothing back but trade embargos or restrictions. Billions go the Iraq and Afghanistan monthly and the hate us, Pakistan is getting money for intel they are not providing(the hate us), OPEC is running up oil prices. You cannot threaten to elect new politicians to office effectively. They serve one term and get paid for the rest of their life. That is a problem with the system and firing someone and still giving them a pay check accomplishs nothing. Bad times for all, but please, the military is dumping service members who volunteered to help in this fight back out to the civilian world into the unemployment lines. There is no rhyme or reason, just money cuts. All of the services are kicking out members to reduce a budget that could be curbed by bringing our troops home and getting rid of the contracts for security units. We destry things and pay huge amounts over what it should cost to rebuild a city that our 1 million dollar cruise missiles destroyed. What sense does that policy make? There are good points from both sides, but it is not the military's fault. We do what we are told to do. the problem is alot higher and everyone voted for what we have.

Well said-as I posted in another comment-ask the people who have been there-they know a h*ll of a lot more than the media!

Thank you for your service,and thanks for pointing out the obvious to those who post here and are clueless about what really goes on/went on in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Phil: If you check the congressional record you will find over 90% of all democrats to include Biden, pelozi etc voted for the war - they may lie about it now but it is in the record. so please stop your BS about something you obviously are totally clueless about

Thank you for your service Gunner, I would never blame our military for following orders. Thank god they are coming home, we just need to make sure they get to stay this time.

I personally believe every US soldier who served in combat should be exempt from paying federal income tax for the rest of their life.

Phil:
No it would not have come apaqt with 16,000 troops still there - reasons - the 16,000 are a tripwire if they are in jepardy then troops from Kuwait and Afghanistan would be redirected as would 2 BCTs from Germany and one from Italy.

$1 trillion??

You're completely laughable... Thanks...

It started long before Clinton, Keck. Go all the way back to the "Carter Doctrine" if you want to see when we started the buildup in the Middle East.

After all, they gots the oil and we wants it.

We need it for our "American Way of Life".

"American Exceptionalism" ... gotta luv it.

yes 1 trillion dollars was spent from 1993 2002 by the u.s. to contain sadaam.

its public record.

don't forget the money we spent in the 70's and 80's to ARM saddam

Well if we are remebering, do not forget arming Iran too. Seems to be our MO, Sell weapons to the dicator in power, population rises up, we send in our children, and they get killed by the very arms our military industrial complex profited on. Capitalism at its finest.

dwighthuth

You are truely clueless. Nothing in your post is even close to true. WOW.

dwight

20 year vet hit it right on the head.... you are truly clueless.

You have obviously never served or was booted because you couldn't hack it.

Soldiers are never forced to give to charities. They do it because they hope that someone would help them or there family out if the help were needed and because they feel for their fellow man.

As for the G.I. Bill, guess what Einstein if what you posted were even close to being true then those soldiers that were diagnosed would most likely qualify for education benefits from the VA, which gives them a complete education, completely paid for, 100% plus an allowance.

Go sit back on the couch before you fall down because the current position of your head has cut off your oxygen supply.

dwighthuth:

We are creating a new reality in America and it started with President Obama. A reality that the GOP does not like

Yes, the dumbing-down of the USA, but the Democrats have been doing that for decades.

Actually it is, in part anyways. I'm a former Cavalry Scout with 1st AD 1-1 Cav and can honestly say I remember quite vividly the day my platoon was brought into our classroom, handed this huge 3 inch thick book containing charities and told to pick one to donate to. I don't believe we were forced to, but it was definitely something everyone did anyways...so as not to be ridiculed later. It was like $10 a paycheck...if that...no big deal.

As far as the GI Bill thing goes I don't think it's necessarily true though...I definitely just got into school last week using mine (which I add was a Chapter 33 Post 9-11 GI Bill which any service member can choose to use in lieu of their chap 30 MGIB) and I got out in 2008. So in my opinion it seems the government actually created even more ways for soldiers who served after 9-11 to get funding for school. Look up Chapter 33 Post 9-11 GI Bill and read how different and lenient the requirements are. It's based on aggregated days served (at least 90) and then you get a percentage of the total of your MGIB...so even if a Soldier didn't complete his obligation the government is still honoring their service with education. It's fact and not something I pulled out of the air...I didn't even know about it until a month ago which is why i went to lengths to research it.

To us it was really no different than donating to the platoon fund...which I add we HAD to donate to or we couldn't utilize it, and was every Friday. In Germany you rely on that fund...sometimes a soldier gets too tipsy and the fund would pay for a taxi...don't add to it and arrive back on post wasted...guaranteed 7/7 or 15/15 for being drunk on duty.

I think your right Eddie. I also think OWS should be all over this. America needs to wake up, and vote them ALL out next year. The "War Machine" has no boundaries.

Don't worry, will give Irag some more chemical weapons to hurl at Iran if they do.

Defense budget cuts??? That's funny..

To this day, teapublicans still harp about "Clinton gutting the defense budget" - soft on defense still plays to the Wal-Mart conservative crowd...

Additionally, The "military industrial complex" that Ike warned of 50 years ago, is alive and well.

Josh your a smart ass, and I totally despise smart asses, especially those that sit behind a screen a boldly yet spout crap that they know absolutely nothing about. You fill half a page with garbage false fallacy and then wonder why nobody flags in agreement with you. Get a life.......

jeffery f you ungrateful ass... it is you who does not know which way is up.

I welcome your showing all of us where I am incorrect. I know that you cannot so you will resort to the age old act of attacking the author instead of refuting the comments.

Please show us you are a person of good will and point out the comments which are GARBAGE , which are FALSE FALLACY (?) and offer any other critiques of value instead of ranting incoherently about facts and history which you clearly know nothing about.

Oh, by the way, unlike you I do not post to see my name in print. Never have, never will unlike you and your obviously public educated mind.

Oh jeffery f before you attempt to befuddle the readers with your left wing rant perhaps you should study how to do that successfully ?

One more point old boy if you meant YOU'RE and wrote YOUR a 'smart ass' that right away gave away your social, moral, ethical and political views. Ty to spell and use words as they are meant to be used. OK?

Vote out of office ALL the incumbents of both parties!

Hey Brogan enjoy "you're" suspension! Say hi to Sally for me.