This is shameful [Archive] - Debate Policy

Drummond

11-13-2014, 06:55 AM

These decisions continue to baffle me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/us/cuts-in-military-mean-job-losses-for-career-staff.html?_r=0

Couldn't agree more - military cuts of this type are a tragedy on a number of levels. For the loyal servicemen putting their lives on the line, only to be rewarded with that kind of treatment. For the security of your own nation. And for that matter, it's something of a tragedy for the wider Western world too, when you consider the nature of our enemies out there.

The UK has been involved in round after round of military spending cuts in recent years ... so much so that there's debate about the extent of harm it'll do to continue with them. Here's a recent article on the subject, for what it may be worth (if anything) to anybody here ...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4ac0bde8-6512-11e4-91b1-00144feabdc0.html

Britain’s military chiefs have warned that the next government will be unable to cut the defence budget without wide-ranging implications for what the UK can do with its armed forces.

Speaking in front of the Commons defence committee on Wednesday, the chiefs of the three military services and the head of the joint forces command told MPs that any cut in current spending proposals would jeopardise the government’s “future force 2020” strategic plan. Many analysts believe a spending cut is highly likely given the need to reduce the UK deficit.

“We would be very quickly in a position where we could not deliver [the strategic plan],” said Sir George Zambellas, first sea lord and chief of the naval staff. “If we do not stick to current spending then we would return to the government and say we can’t do what we are asked to do and what do you want us to give up.”

Jeff

11-13-2014, 06:57 AM

revelarts

11-13-2014, 07:05 AM

Drummond

11-13-2014, 07:24 AM

It's a sign of the times, this country has no morals any longer, we push out all religions except Muslims and while your at it lets down size the military, our country has been turned so liberal it is disgusting. And all this sheot they are doing is setting us up perfect ( or so the Gov thinks ) to have ISIS or some other scum walk in and take over, what they forget is our armed citizens make up the biggest army in the world and we wont be playing by anybodies rules !!

My theory is that the chief reason why we all don't suffer more terrorist attacks than we do, is that terrorists are too busy busting their guts laughing at us, to get around to planning new atrocities.

Relying on terrorists being entertained by the West's weakness is, in my view, NOT the way to go !!!!

Drummond

11-13-2014, 07:38 AM

"be all you can be" then well kick you out with partial pay.
"thank you for your service"

This is BS. They could skip buying a handful of new Planes or Delay a new drone program,
Stop the wars for 2 days and have enough cash to keep all the men plus fund other items.

the military budget is eaten up by contractors, the enlisted men are getting crapped on as usual.

-- I see a Leftie agenda in the making ?

'Stop the wars for 2 days'. Yeah, sure.

Well .... it'd be a bigger saving for such cessations to last a lot longer, eh ? And if all wars just stopped .... then, heyy wouldn't that be just peachy ??

Ignore, of course, the massive inroads the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda etc would then make. Ignore the certainty of one or more Nation States turning into a Failed State, along the lines of a pre 9/11 Afghanistan .. BECAUSE, IF THE LEFT HAD ITS WAY, 9/11 WOULD TEACH US ALL PRECISELY NOTHING, AND WE'D BE JUST WAITING AROUND FOR MORE OF THEM TO HAPPEN.

Like lambs to the wholly avoidable slaughter, eh, Revelarts ??

And, who'd carp the loudest, if one such terrorist atrocity occurred ?

LEFTIES ... I'd bet ....

revelarts

11-13-2014, 08:15 AM

-- I see a Leftie agenda in the making ?

'Stop the wars for 2 days'. Yeah, sure.

Well .... it'd be a bigger saving for such cessations to last a lot longer, eh ? And if all wars just stopped .... then, heyy wouldn't that be just peachy ??

Ignore, of course, the massive inroads the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda etc would then make. Ignore the certainty of one or more Nation States turning into a Failed State, along the lines of a pre 9/11 Afghanistan .. BECAUSE, IF THE LEFT HAD ITS WAY, 9/11 WOULD TEACH US ALL PRECISELY NOTHING, AND WE'D BE JUST WAITING AROUND FOR MORE OF THEM TO HAPPEN.

Like lambs to the wholly avoidable slaughter, eh, Revelarts ??

And, who'd carp the loudest, if one such terrorist atrocity occurred ?

LEFTIES ... I'd bet ....

A 'LEFT AGENDA' is what you see here?!
It's amazing what some people "see" here sometimes
but you're a singular piece of work Drummond.

Bilgerat

11-13-2014, 08:26 AM

Couldn't agree more - military cuts of this type are a tragedy on a number of levels. For the loyal servicemen putting their lives on the line, only to be rewarded with that kind of treatment. For the security of your own nation. And for that matter, it's something of a tragedy for the wider Western world too, when you consider the nature of our enemies out there.

The UK has been involved in round after round of military spending cuts in recent years ... so much so that there's debate about the extent of harm it'll do to continue with them. Here's a recent article on the subject, for what it may be worth (if anything) to anybody here ...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4ac0bde8-6512-11e4-91b1-00144feabdc0.html

Defence cuts leave Royal Navy so short of engineers it has to BORROW them from US Coastguard

American service personnel will start work later this month as engineering technicians on board Type 23 frigates
Defense cuts have left the Royal Navy so short of engineers it has had to BORROW them from the US Coast Guard.

American service personnel will start work later this month as engineering technicians on board Type 23 frigates.
If this is successful, a team of 36 US are due to be working in the naval dockyard in Portsmouth by the end of 2016.

The navy says it is bringing the engineers to the city because of cuts to staff numbers

http://www.marsecreview.com/2014/10/rn-borrowing-engineers-from-uscg/

aboutime

11-13-2014, 08:51 AM

Nobody wanted to listen to old farts who didn't know what we were talking about...when all of this began with the Clinton administration back in the 90's.

We were told to shut up, mind our own business, and be thankful we're getting something (the govt. called our pensions), even as they made excuses...as to WHY they govt. wasn't keeping their promise to Military people.

I personally warned many, many people in uniform, before I retired. How the contract with the Govt. was never going to be completely honored as the cutbacks, and what they called "DOWNSIZING" was chasing highly experienced, seasoned people out of uniform with near BRIBES for large sums of money IF...they just left active duty.

This is what our military is getting these days. BROKEN PROMISES, and all of it is being blamed on Republicans, while the Dems enjoy showing their NEAR ILLITERATE voters how they NEVER LIE.

Drummond

11-13-2014, 09:51 AM

A 'LEFT AGENDA' is what you see here?!
It's amazing what some people "see" here sometimes
but you're a singular piece of work Drummond.

I'm a singular piece of work, am I ?? You flatterer ...

But I'm RIGHT, all the same. The most strident voices against 'wars' (in reality, policing actions in parts of the world where they're most needed) are those from THE LEFT.

Consider all the marches undertaken, worldwide, to protest against the 2003 anti-Saddam invasion. Those were all Leftie organised and Leftie driven. Of course they were.

If you want to find one common denominator amongst all those pressing for measures that show undue consideration for terrorists, it'll be their Leftie outlooks and sympathies.

And, Revelarts .. please be honest. If ever your two-day 'war cessation' were to ever happen, there'd be a never-ending chorus of voices saying it needed to be longer ... or, permanent. The moment you open the floodgates to that sort of thinking, the Left would ensure there'd be no going back.

Only terrorist enemies could gain from that.

No, Revelarts. I live in the real world. I'm not in the business of giving bloodthirsty enemies favours !!! Maybe you are. But not me. And if that - supposedly - makes me a so-called 'singular piece of work', then that's something to take pride in.

... So, thank you !!!

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-13-2014, 10:05 AM

Drummond

11-13-2014, 10:15 AM

Actually, they see no reason to since Obama is doing it for them. Told everybody I know, the scum is a traitor and that's not just because of these one thing--look at the all the harm he has done our military since he became CIC. Then add in ALL the massive harm he has caused this nation--its not accidental--its not incompetence--its ffing deliberate..
He bats for our enemies folks.. --Tyr

.. Gets to the heart of the problem once more. Well said, Tyr.

Drummond

11-13-2014, 10:41 AM

"be all you can be" then well kick you out with partial pay.
"thank you for your service"

This is BS. They could skip buying a handful of new Planes or Delay a new drone program,
Stop the wars for 2 days and have enough cash to keep all the men plus fund other items.

the military budget is eaten up by contractors, the enlisted men are getting crapped on as usual.

... and Revelarts: let me offer you another answer !

Consider ISIS, and the advances it's made (and still wants to make).

Cue a 2-day cessation of air strikes -- because Lefties advocate it.

Two days goes by. ISIS does its damndest to take advantage, and advances as much as it possibly can over the period. All the while, ISIS regards the disappearing air presence as weakness, lack of resolve (if not both).

At the end of those two days, lives would of course have been lost which would've otherwise been safe, and at least relatively secure. Territory would've been taken that it might actually take weeks of bombing runs to reverse 'ownership' of ... costing how many MORE lives ?

How much extra effort and resources would it take to reverse the damage done by forces taking a temporary 2 day hike ??!!?

And consider: ISIS would in all probability regard the 2 day lull as evidence that hostages being beheaded DID have strategic value to them. How many more hostages would eventually die, Revelarts, as a direct consequence of your Leftie 'scruples' ... ??

So you see, a Leftie approach is pure poison. Destructive in the extreme. I don't care how many other Lefties opt to support you in your thinking !!

revelarts

11-13-2014, 12:47 PM

... and Revelarts: let me offer you another answer !

Consider ISIS, and the advances it's made (and still wants to make).

Cue a 2-day cessation of air strikes -- because Lefties advocate it.

Two days goes by. ISIS does its damndest to take advantage, and advances as much as it possibly can over the period. All the while, ISIS regards the disappearing air presence as weakness, lack of resolve (if not both).

At the end of those two days, lives would of course have been lost which would've otherwise been safe, and at least relatively secure. Territory would've been taken that it might actually take weeks of bombing runs to reverse 'ownership' of ... costing how many MORE lives ?

How much extra effort and resources would it take to reverse the damage done by forces taking a temporary 2 day hike ??!!?

And consider: ISIS would in all probability regard the 2 day lull as evidence that hostages being beheaded DID have strategic value to them. How many more hostages would eventually die, Revelarts, as a direct consequence of your Leftie 'scruples' ... ??

So you see, a Leftie approach is pure poison. Destructive in the extreme. I don't care how many other Lefties opt to support you in your thinking !!

Drummond consider this, If we were to make an unannounced cessation of war activity on 1 day this month then another day next month the savings could be used to PAY to have more experienced men in uniform STAY ON THE JOB for 5 more years and pay their pensions in full. How much work would it take to replace the decades of experience loss in the field and in arrears if we decommission men because we say we say we can't pay them any longer? is that a solid goal Drummond? why do i have to explain this?! Are you going to pay them? Is England going to send us money to do so?

Don't IMAGINE my "liberal Motives", my so-called "liberal agenda" or make up BS about what i REALLY MEAN, i've stated what i really mean. One solution to real one problem. Don't crazily extrapolate my issue specific comment into a some sinister agenda! Sorry to say that's BS Crazy talk Drummond.

You seem MUCH more obsessed with fighting fantasy liberals and BOGGYMAN liberal polices than creating a sensible effort against the terrorist. Or treating our troops with real respect by making sure thay are getting paid and treated well. All the verbal respect and, RAH RAH US Mil, is nice but when they are homeless on the streets because with PTSD they can't keep a job and the VA isn't giving them SQUAT, all your respect to keep your imagined safety for 2 days won't mean jack.

Drummond

11-13-2014, 01:09 PM

Drummond consider this, If we were to make an unannounced cessation of war activity on 1 day this month then another day next month the savings could be used to PAY to have more experienced men in uniform STAY ON THE JOB for 5 more years and pay their pensions in full. is that a solid goal Drummond? don't IMAGINE my "liberal Motives" or make up BS about what i "REALLY MEAN" i've stated what i really mean.

why do i have to explain this?!
You seem MUCH more obsessed with fighting fantasy liberals and BOGGYMAN liberal polices than creating a sensible effort against the terrorist. Or treating our troops with real respect by making sure thay are getting paid and treated well. All the verbal respect and, RAH RAH US Mil, is nice but when they are homeless on the streets because with PSD they can't keep a job and the VA isn't giving them SQUAT all your respect to keep your imagined safety for 2 days won't mean jack.

I'll give you this much. Spacing out your cessation of hostilities over such extended periods is definitely better than the other scenario I addressed.

But even so ... YOU'RE STILL DOING TERRORISTS SOME FAVOURS, FAVOURS THEY'VE IN NO WAY EARNED.

I ask why you're REALLY so keen to make life easier for them ? Easier than it would be otherwise ?

Can you tell me why Lefties keep on doing this ? I'd really like to know !!!!

And anyway, I suggest a tactical flaw to your latest proposal. If ISIS can't discern a pattern in any of that, and it so happened that lulls coincided with hostage beheadings ... how would THAT be perceived ?

Perhaps a hostage beheading would stop such lulls in their tracks, force a rethink ? Or -- would it make not a jot of difference ? Would your determination to give terrorists their breaks actually be too great to involve consideration for the death of the hostage, and his/her family's feelings ?

Regardless, giving ISIS terrorists any breaks at all, WILL be seen as weakness by those terrorists. You might never convince them that it was anything else ... in which case, you are still unacceptably endangering hostage lives to an extent that you wouldn't have been otherwise.

I've nothing at all against your troops being paid well, or getting the utmost respect ... why WOULD I have ?? But, consider ... an emboldened enemy is one that'll be a WORSE enemy for your troops to fight ... harder to defeat, if the enemy's morale is boosted. Is that, Revelarts, your idea of doing your best for your people ???

Give ISIS any breaks at all, and it'll profit THEM, to the detriment of YOUR forces (.. or any other Coalition forces that may ever be involved). Terrorists consider part of their war to be a propaganda war. I have no interest in helping them gain victories on ANY level, at all.

But then - I'm not a Leftie ...

tailfins

11-13-2014, 01:32 PM

I'll give you this much. Spacing out your cessation of hostilities over such extended periods is definitely better than the other scenario I addressed.

But even so ... YOU'RE STILL DOING TERRORISTS SOME FAVOURS, FAVOURS THEY'VE IN NO WAY EARNED.

I ask why you're REALLY so keen to make life easier for them ? Easier than it would be otherwise ?

Can you tell me why Lefties keep on doing this ? I'd really like to know !!!!

And anyway, I suggest a tactical flaw to your latest proposal. If ISIS can't discern a pattern in any of that, and it so happened that lulls coincided with hostage beheadings ... how would THAT be perceived ?

Perhaps a hostage beheading would stop such lulls in their tracks, force a rethink ? Or -- would it make not a jot of difference ? Would your determination to give terrorists their breaks actually be too great to involve consideration for the death of the hostage, and his/her family's feelings ?

Regardless, giving ISIS terrorists any breaks at all, WILL be seen as weakness by those terrorists. You might never convince them that it was anything else ... in which case, you are still unacceptably endangering hostage lives to an extent that you wouldn't have been otherwise.

I've nothing at all against your troops being paid well, or getting the utmost respect ... why WOULD I have ?? But, consider ... an emboldened enemy is one that'll be a WORSE enemy for your troops to fight ... harder to defeat, if the enemy's morale is boosted. Is that, Revelarts, your idea of doing your best for your people ???

Give ISIS any breaks at all, and it'll profit THEM, to the detriment of YOUR forces (.. or any other Coalition forces that may ever be involved). Terrorists consider part of their war to be a propaganda war. I have no interest in helping them gain victories on ANY level, at all.

But then - I'm not a Leftie ...

President GW Bush was correct when he said that we deal with those who would harm America on THEIR soil so we don't have to deal with them on OUR soil. Notice that I didn't specify any particular religion.

Drummond

11-13-2014, 01:52 PM

President GW Bush was correct when he said that we deal with those who would harm America on THEIR soil so we don't have to deal with them on OUR soil. Notice that I didn't specify any particular religion.

... and he was exactly right. I totally agree. It's the only possible common-sense approach to take. By total contrast, unilaterally deciding to give terrorist enemies BREAKS from their being dealt with, only aids the enemy. Doing it different ways changes the degree of advantage they get, but the advantage IS STILL THERE for them to exploit.

Revelarts scorns my seeing Leftie 'Boogeymen' ... YET ... time and again, I keep seeing that very same line from them. Always, it's some excuse or other to be kind or considerate to terrorists, and wholly needlessly so.

I'm thoroughly fed up with it !!

[I suppose the next plea will have something or other to do with considering terrorists' so-called 'human rights' .... a favourite nonsense the Left indulges in !! .. ??]

revelarts

11-13-2014, 02:04 PM

Drummond consider this, If we were to make an unannounced cessation of war activity on 1 day this month then another day next month the savings could be used to PAY to have more experienced men in uniform STAY ON THE JOB for 5 more years and pay their pensions in full. How much work would it take to replace the decades of experience loss in the field and in arrears if we decommission men because we say we say we can't pay them any longer? is that a solid goal Drummond? why do i have to explain this?! Are you going to pay them? Is England going to send us money to do so?

Don't IMAGINE my "liberal Motives", my so-called "liberal agenda" or make up BS about what i REALLY MEAN, i've stated what i really mean. One solution to real one problem. Don't crazily extrapolate my issue specific comment into a some sinister agenda! Sorry to say that's BS Crazy talk Drummond.

You seem MUCH more obsessed with fighting fantasy liberals and BOGGYMAN liberal polices than creating a sensible effort against the terrorist. Or treating our troops with real respect by making sure thay are getting paid and treated well. All the verbal respect and, RAH RAH US Mil, is nice but when they are homeless on the streets because with PTSD they can't keep a job and the VA isn't giving them SQUAT, all your respect to keep your imagined safety for 2 days won't mean jack

I'll give you this much. Spacing out your cessation of hostilities over such extended periods is definitely better than the other scenario I addressed.

But even so ... YOU'RE STILL DOING TERRORISTS SOME FAVOURS, FAVOURS THEY'VE IN NO WAY EARNED.

I ask why you're REALLY so keen to make life easier for them ? Easier than it would be otherwise ?

Can you tell me why Lefties keep on doing this ? I'd really like to know !!!!

And anyway, I suggest a tactical flaw to your latest proposal. If ISIS can't discern a pattern in any of that, and it so happened that lulls coincided with hostage beheadings ... how would THAT be perceived ?

Perhaps a hostage beheading would stop such lulls in their tracks, force a rethink ? Or -- would it make not a jot of difference ? Would your determination to give terrorists their breaks actually be too great to involve consideration for the death of the hostage, and his/her family's feelings ?

Regardless, giving ISIS terrorists any breaks at all, WILL be seen as weakness by those terrorists. You might never convince them that it was anything else ... in which case, you are still unacceptably endangering hostage lives to an extent that you wouldn't have been otherwise.

I've nothing at all against your troops being paid well, or getting the utmost respect ... why WOULD I have ?? But, consider ... an emboldened enemy is one that'll be a WORSE enemy for your troops to fight ... harder to defeat, if the enemy's morale is boosted. Is that, Revelarts, your idea of doing your best for your people ???

Give ISIS any breaks at all, and it'll profit THEM, to the detriment of YOUR forces (.. or any other Coalition forces that may ever be involved). Terrorists consider part of their war to be a propaganda war. I have no interest in helping them gain victories on ANY level, at all.

But then - I'm not a Leftie ...

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/4OVLKQc.gif

DLT

11-13-2014, 02:48 PM

My theory is that the chief reason why we all don't suffer more terrorist attacks than we do, is that terrorists are too busy busting their guts laughing at us, to get around to planning new atrocities.

Relying on terrorists being entertained by the West's weakness is, in my view, NOT the way to go !!!!

I disagree. The terrorists are probably more like leftists and as such, are fascists with NO sense of humor whatsoever. The only brand of humor they can ever possess or express is negative mocking, which is humorless. That said, they are mocking us big time. And are too busy planning their next big attack on America, with the help of their bud, Barack Hussein Obama, who has gutted our abilities to defend ourselves....and has resurrected that political correct Clinton/Gorelick Wall that facilitated the 9/11 attack. Hell, when Obama can't even call Nissan's attack anything but "workplace violence", that should tell you all you need to know about how he'll handle the next 9/11. That is, if he's even still in the country.

fj1200

11-13-2014, 04:19 PM

...and has resurrected that political correct Clinton/Gorelick Wall that facilitated the 9/11 attack.

Link?

Drummond

11-13-2014, 05:46 PM

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/4OVLKQc.gif

You really have no better an answer than 'that' ?

Well, I can't say I blame you ! When I'm right, I'm right ....

Drummond

11-13-2014, 06:04 PM

I disagree. The terrorists are probably more like leftists and as such, are fascists with NO sense of humor whatsoever. The only brand of humor they can ever possess or express is negative mocking, which is humorless. That said, they are mocking us big time. And are too busy planning their next big attack on America, with the help of their bud, Barack Hussein Obama, who has gutted our abilities to defend ourselves....and has resurrected that political correct Clinton/Gorelick Wall that facilitated the 9/11 attack. Hell, when Obama can't even call Nissan's attack anything but "workplace violence", that should tell you all you need to know about how he'll handle the next 9/11. That is, if he's even still in the country.

Some very good points !

I certainly agree with your comparison between terrorists and leftists ... which explains something of how it is that Obama can be associated, in character and his intentions, with both. I daresay that he'd have closed Gitmo as he planned, if the fallout from such an action hadn't been so obviously a vote loser ..

That said ... it's been such a cherished objective of Obama's, that he's never really given up on it. Which is more than can be said for The War on Terror !!!

See ...

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/23/obama-global-war-on-terror-is-over

The "Global War on Terror" is over, President Barack Obama announced Thursday, saying the military and intelligence agencies will not wage war against a tactic but will instead focus on a specific group of networks determined to destroy the U.S.

This shift in rhetoric accompanies new or updated efforts to defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates, the president said in a speech at the National Defense University within Washington, DC's Fort McNair. Al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan is on a "path to defeat," he said, so the U.S. must focus instead on al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula -- "the most active" in plotting against the U.S. -- homegrown violent extremism and unrest in the Arab world that leads to attacks like the assault on the Benghazi diplomatic post.

"We must define our effort not as a boundless 'Global War on Terror,' but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America," Obama said.

"Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon," he said. "So that's the current threat: Lethal yet less capable al-Qaida affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them."

Part of this effort includes closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, which Obama says has "become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law."

Of course - even assuming that one can take Obama at his word - the problem is that if you're going to go in for 'targeted efforts' (and that means that NON-TARGETED TERRORISTS ARE LEFT ALONE), you have to GET THE CORRECT TARGETS.

... and, at the time Obama was pontificating, where did ISIS fit into all this ???

While Obama's been reducing America's anti-terrorist capabilities and efforts, ISIS has grown to be what it is today. Yet, even now, I see Lefties want the military to TAKE DAYS OFF from attacking ISIS !!

You couldn't make this stuff up .....

Drummond

11-13-2014, 06:14 PM

You really have no better an answer than 'that' ?

Well, I can't say I blame you ! When I'm right, I'm right ....

By the way, Revelarts, I asked you to explain why Lefties are so keen to make life easier for terrorists. The question was genuinely meant: I'd really like to have an answer to that !!

So ... I'm asking again. Please explain.

SassyLady

11-13-2014, 09:05 PM

tailfins

11-13-2014, 09:06 PM

Link?

Would you like a tutorial on how to do web searches? Why is a link needed for common knowledge that any idiot could find?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/29/20040429-122228-6538r/?page=all

SassyLady

11-13-2014, 09:08 PM

-- I see a Leftie agenda in the making ?

'Stop the wars for 2 days'. Yeah, sure.

Well .... it'd be a bigger saving for such cessations to last a lot longer, eh ? And if all wars just stopped .... then, heyy wouldn't that be just peachy ??

Ignore, of course, the massive inroads the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda etc would then make. Ignore the certainty of one or more Nation States turning into a Failed State, along the lines of a pre 9/11 Afghanistan .. BECAUSE, IF THE LEFT HAD ITS WAY, 9/11 WOULD TEACH US ALL PRECISELY NOTHING, AND WE'D BE JUST WAITING AROUND FOR MORE OF THEM TO HAPPEN.

Like lambs to the wholly avoidable slaughter, eh, Revelarts ??

And, who'd carp the loudest, if one such terrorist atrocity occurred ?

LEFTIES ... I'd bet ....

Drummond ... I don't see what Rev said as a leftist agenda. I see it as we need to stop the waste in the military so we can take care of those who have sacrificed for the rest of us. As he said ... just don't produce one piece of equipment and these people would be taken care of. Not leftist ... protectionist of our military members getting what they deserve.

SassyLady

11-13-2014, 09:12 PM

fj1200

11-13-2014, 09:54 PM

Would you like a tutorial on how to do web searches? Why is a link needed for common knowledge that any idiot could find?

I don't need to do a search to know about the Gorelick memo, I was interested in the resurrection. You do raise an interesting second question though. ;)

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-13-2014, 10:21 PM

Would you like a tutorial on how to do web searches? Why is a link needed for common knowledge that any idiot could find?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/29/20040429-122228-6538r/?page=all
The corruption of the Clinton administration and its destructive policies are protected just as are those of the Obama administrations--that's the thing with dems, their slavish media and their major ally the globalists-they have the power to protect such doings for years and often even for decades to come.
If this nation survives that long it will take a 50 to a 100 years for most of the corruption and treason Obama has been doing and involved in to ever see the light of day. -Tyr

Drummond

11-14-2014, 08:06 AM

Drummond ... I don't see what Rev said as a leftist agenda. I see it as we need to stop the waste in the military so we can take care of those who have sacrificed for the rest of us. As he said ... just don't produce one piece of equipment and these people would be taken care of. Not leftist ... protectionist of our military members getting what they deserve.

Sorry, Sassy, but the 'Let's find reasons not to take on terrorists, let's be kind to them, let's knock ourselves out fighting for TERRORIST human rights, GW Bush was a warmonger for ever carpet-bombing Afghanistan, and how DARE have ever considered military action against Saddam's regime' ...... I have heard Leftie bleating after Leftie bleating over all such offensive stances. To say the least, I'm sick of the way the Left finds the most puerile excuses going to give terrorist scum a break !!

We even had one ridiculous Leftie on this forum who took up pages on a thread, here, to tell me that my lack of willingness to see terrorists as 'human' was 'disgusting'.

Who else but either Muslims, or the Left, would work so hard to give terrorist scum break after break !

NOW, we've got Revelarts who wants to give them breaks from America's 'wars' ... !!!!!!!

Let me remind you of his original wording ...

This is BS. They could skip buying a handful of new Planes or Delay a new drone program,
STOP THE WARS FOR 2 DAYS and have enough cash to keep all the men plus fund other items.

... yeah. The same old 'Let's be good to terrorists' line, complete with unconvincing argument to back it. Same old, same old ... !!

I've answered that at length earlier in this thread.

Sorry, Sassy, but I've seen way too much of this BS argued out already, persistently, over YEARS. Revelarts is posting thoughts that I know the hard Left, over here, would applaud him for. [The same hard Left that hates all America stands for.]

Giving terrorists ANY break of ANY kind will embolden them, give them advantages which their savagery absolutely DOES NOT entitle them to !!

And I say this, be it true of the UK, or the US ... cutting back on military resources in the face of a fanatical and thoroughly savage enemy is absolute madness !!!

Cutting back just makes things worse for those service personnel who have to cope with the effects of those cuts. OR, it makes things worse for civilian populations, after the enemy has finished profiting from our weaknesses !!!!

I've a debating 'pal' loyal to the Left, here in the UK, who happily calls, and even genuinely regards, GWB as being 'a war criminal', and he wants to see him put on trial at The Hague - the same place that the likes of Goering and other Nazis were tried, for THEIR war crimes !!!

This is what supporting the Left leads to, I'm afraid. Give them an inch .. they'll take a light year ....

fj1200

11-14-2014, 09:07 AM

:rolleyes:

Abbey Marie

11-14-2014, 11:29 AM

I think the very DAY he made Captain, he should have been irreversibly entitled to a Captain-level pension. Knocking it down to a lower level is wrong. Seems like he should have grounds for a lawsuit based on that denial.

fj1200

11-14-2014, 01:50 PM

I think the very DAY he made Captain, he should have been irreversibly entitled to a Captain-level pension. knocking it down to a lower level is wrong. Seems like he should have grounds for a lawsuit based on that denial.

Why? Seems like common practice. It would keep people from retiring two weeks after being promoted.

gabosaurus

11-14-2014, 02:12 PM

Why is it acceptable for every employer in the country (including the government) to downsize their work force except the military?

jimnyc

11-14-2014, 02:19 PM

Why is it acceptable for every employer in the country (including the government) to downsize their work force except the military?

Because those other jobs are not placing their lives on the line? Other than police and firemen and similar, and I'm willing to wager folks think they should get similar treatment. Many of these folks gave their entire lives, and can get screwed going into retirement.

gabosaurus

11-14-2014, 02:29 PM

Because those other jobs are not placing their lives on the line? Other than police and firemen and similar, and I'm willing to wager folks think they should get similar treatment. Many of these folks gave their entire lives, and can get screwed going into retirement.

There are tons of people out there who have given their entire lives to their employers and ended out on the street. They pay into retirement plans and set back money and still end up with nothing. They are out on the street with few options.
One positive part of the military as that it teaches you specific skills. You are much more employable than others that lose their jobs.

aboutime

11-14-2014, 02:48 PM

Why is it acceptable for every employer in the country (including the government) to downsize their work force except the military?

Gabby. Instead of dialing 911, or expecting to keep you, and your family safe according to the constitution. The answer to your question should be. How SAFE would you feel calling MACDONALDS, asking one of their workers to protect you and your family?

This is just another case of YOU proving to all of us. How literally DUMB you really are. Despite your claims of education.

tailfins

11-14-2014, 04:10 PM

There are tons of people out there who have given their entire lives to their employers and ended out on the street. They pay into retirement plans and set back money and still end up with nothing. They are out on the street with few options.
One positive part of the military as that it teaches you specific skills. You are much more employable than others that lose their jobs.

That's why you work to please the market and not necessarily your employer. One's daily focus should be on having the most marketable skills you can muster. Don't let your employer's way of doing things trump the market's way for more than a very short time. Complacency leads to poverty.

Abbey Marie

11-15-2014, 05:38 PM

Why? Seems like common practice. It would keep people from retiring two weeks after being promoted.

It is usually up to the employer to determine who deserves promotion (unless a union interferes). If they misread an employee that badly, then it's tough. Is it your contention that we should deny so many their earned levels because of a few bad apples?

fj1200

11-15-2014, 05:56 PM

It is usually up to the employer to determine who deserves promotion (unless a union interferes). If they misread an employee that badly, then it's tough. Is it your contention that we should deny so many their earned levels because of a few bad apples?

Who says that they're bad apples? It's my contention that they have rules for a reason and that people would wait for a promotion to retire. My understanding is that private sector pensions are based on the last X years of service and have an averaging of sorts built in.

BoogyMan

11-15-2014, 09:34 PM

Why is it acceptable for every employer in the country (including the government) to downsize their work force except the military?

Because those other "employers" are not charged with the defense of our nation. When the Marxist left-wing scourge of filth that infests DC constantly cuts our defense there will at some point in the future be a reckoning with those in the real world who want to see America fall.

aboutime

11-16-2014, 02:57 PM

Because those other "employers" are not charged with the defense of our nation. When the Marxist left-wing scourge of filth that infests DC constantly cuts our defense there will at some point in the future be a reckoning with those in the real world who want to see America fall.

BoogyMan. Don't listen to gabby. She's just a trouble-making, non-thinker, who hates anything, or anyone YOU or I know.

Wonder if she would be asking the same question about downsizing the military if ISIS moved into her Luxurious neighborhood, and began to Behead the Self-proclaimed, Smartest, and Richest Americans first?

Liberals always use the military as their target. On one hand they CLAIM to Love, Admire, and Support the Military. While, at the very same time. They hide the knives behind their back they would use to CUT out large sections of the Military they pretend to love.

Dementia, and Stupidity work hand-in-hand...LIBERALLY SPEAKING.

Abbey Marie

11-17-2014, 01:06 AM

Who says that they're bad apples? It's my contention that they have rules for a reason and that people would wait for a promotion to retire. My understanding is that private sector pensions are based on the last X years of service and have an averaging of sorts built in.

You were the one who brought up the immediate retirement as a problem. If you think they're not bad apples for retiring immediately after promotion, then where's the problem? Pay them based on the rank at which they retired.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-17-2014, 09:02 AM

Because those other "employers" are not charged with the defense of our nation. When the Marxist left-wing scourge of filth that infests DC constantly cuts our defense there will at some point in the future be a reckoning with those in the real world who want to see America fall.

Same happened prior to WW2.. The same type of people and politicians had gotten their way and our military was drastically downsized and very ill equipped. It cost us very dearly the first year of the war.
Nothing new here, we've always had ignorant folks screaming for a weak military but they are the first to scream for protection when things get rough. Most are short sighted fools, yet some are enemies of this nation and all it stands for. Those are the ones that need a serious attitude adjustment with a size 12 boot stuck up their ass on a daily basis IMHO.
Dem party champions a vastly weaker military-- need I say more?-Tyr

fj1200

11-17-2014, 09:32 AM

You were the one who brought up the immediate retirement as a problem. If you think they're not bad apples for retiring immediately after promotion, then where's the problem? Pay them based on the rank at which they retired.

I would imagine that the Army would have a problem with it. Why should they get captain's retirement for two weeks at captain. I would think it wise to require someone to earn a captain's retirement by being captain for a significant period of time. My guess? The Army agrees.

SassyLady

11-18-2014, 01:15 AM

Why is it acceptable for every employer in the country (including the government) to downsize their work force except the military?

Because the other government agencies haven't made commitment to give their life for you to maintain your lifestyle of freedom and because they deserve better than any other government agency.

Do you really think we need more bureaucrats and soldiers?

SassyLady

11-18-2014, 01:31 AM

There are tons of people out there who have given their entire lives to their employers and ended out on the street. They pay into retirement plans and set back money and still end up with nothing. They are out on the street with few options.
One positive part of the military as that it teaches you specific skills. You are much more employable than others that lose their jobs.

And, that makes it alright to screw our military personnel?

Working for the same company your entire career does not even equate to a soldier willing to give his life for you. I think anyone who is willing to give their life ... military, law enforcement and firemen deserve to be well compensated.... way more than the average government worker.

Mighty10th

11-25-2014, 01:47 PM

gabosaurus

11-25-2014, 04:03 PM

And, that makes it alright to screw our military personnel?

Working for the same company your entire career does not even equate to a soldier willing to give his life for you. I think anyone who is willing to give their life ... military, law enforcement and firemen deserve to be well compensated.... way more than the average government worker.

In a sane society, we would keep all the rank and file soldiers and eliminate 50 percent of the Pentagon beaucracy. But that is not how business or government work. They overpay the excessive dead wood and cut from the lesser compensated bottom.
If you need to cut the budget, you have to cut all areas. The military has as much dead wood as anywhere. We have too many outdated weapons programs and too many unnecessary military installations. But no one wants to have their cash cow sacrificed.
I find it intriguing that the upper echelons of society are OK with sacrificing jobs to allow companies to move overseas in search of greater profits, but they want to see any piece of the military eliminated.
If it's not necessary, you get rid of it. Like I said before, members of the military are more hireable than many other occupations because they are taught vital skills.

aboutime

11-25-2014, 04:41 PM

In a sane society, we would keep all the rank and file soldiers and eliminate 50 percent of the Pentagon beaucracy. But that is not how business or government work. They overpay the excessive dead wood and cut from the lesser compensated bottom.
If you need to cut the budget, you have to cut all areas. The military has as much dead wood as anywhere. We have too many outdated weapons programs and too many unnecessary military installations. But no one wants to have their cash cow sacrificed.
I find it intriguing that the upper echelons of society are OK with sacrificing jobs to allow companies to move overseas in search of greater profits, but they want to see any piece of the military eliminated.
If it's not necessary, you get rid of it. Like I said before, members of the military are more hireable than many other occupations because they are taught vital skills.

In a sane, non-Obama society, you would keep and maintain the trained, experienced, seasoned Leaders for those Rank, and File soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. Like Obama's administration. Without a leader, we have near Mob Rule, that hinges on Anarchy. Just look at what is taking place in the streets of major cities today. AL SHARPTON is pretending to be IN CHARGE, while Obama tells everybody to KEEP FIGHTING against laws Not even He will follow.

Kathianne

11-26-2014, 01:37 AM

These decisions continue to baffle me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/us/cuts-in-military-mean-job-losses-for-career-staff.html?_r=0

That is beyond shameful. I do wonder if there is a remedy via West Point officers? So wrong.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-26-2014, 11:04 AM

This is nothing new....back in the Vietnam days they would rift majors to an enlisted soldier. I went thru the drawdown in the 90s that was planned by the bush administration and executed under Clinton......many NCOs were getting QMP'd. They chose the ones with bad stuff in their records ....and 6 months prior...they warned all of us to get stuff out of our records if we could and warned us of the cuts.

As far as this captain...how could have almost 20 years or so and still be a captain? Most good officers make that rank in 5 years or less. No doubt he was not cream of the crop. He may not have done anything wrong but its obvious he wasn't a stellar officer either. Officers have a very tough rating system. Its unfortunate they bounced him back to his last enlisted rank but that happens to enlisted too. An E-8 has to have at least 2 years at that rank before he can retire as one.

Its never a good time for anyone to serve thru a downsizing.

I went thru the drawdown in the 90s that was planned by the bush administration and executed under Clinton......many NCOs were getting QMP'd.

^^^^^^^^^^^ HOW ABOUT SOME LINKED SOURCES TO VERY THE FACTS AND STATS YOU JUST CLAIMED IN THAT STATEMENT, ESPECIALLY THE ONE THAT IT WAS PLANNED BY BUSH AND THEN EXECUTED BY CLINTON.

[QUOTE]As far as this captain...how could have almost 20 years or so and still be a captain?

^^^ Subject is not whether he was a "good" captain since no evidence has been presented that only bad officers are being reduced in rank or canned. The Obama purge is not about improving quality, it is about saving money and thus weakening our military.-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-28-2014, 09:20 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^ HOW ABOUT SOME LINKED SOURCES TO VERIFY THE FACTS AND STATS YOU JUST CLAIMED IN THAT STATEMENT, ESPECIALLY THE ONE THAT IT WAS PLANNED BY BUSH AND THEN EXECUTED BY CLINTON.
[QUOTE]

^^^ Subject is not whether he was a "good" captain since no evidence has been presented that only bad officers are being reduced in rank or canned. The Obama purge is not about improving quality, it is about saving money and thus weakening our military.-Tyr

hmmmmmm....

fj1200

11-28-2014, 09:37 AM

hmmmmmm....

With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, the Army once again reduced its size during the early 1990s, going from 780,000 soldiers to 480,000.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/index.cfm/articles/Downsizing-the-Army-Profession/2013/05/08

Active Duty Military Personnel, 1940–20111

<tbody>
Year
Army
Air Force
Navy
Marine Corps
Total

1940
269,023

160,997
28,345
458,365

1945
8,266,373

3,319,586
469,925
12,055,884

1950
593,167
411,277
380,739
74,279
1,459,462

1955
1,109,296
959,946
660,695
205,170
2,935,107

1960
873,078
814,752
616,987
170,621
2,475,438

1965
969,066
824,662
669,985
190,213
2,653,926

1970
1,322,548
791,349
691,126
259,737
3,064,760

1975
784,333
612,751
535,085
195,951
2,128,120

1980
777,036
557,969
527,153
188,469
2,050,627

1985
780,787
601,515
570,705
198,025
2,151,032

1990
732,403
535,233
579,417
196,652
2,043,705

1991
710,821
510,432
570,262
194,040
1,985,555

1992
610,450
470,315
541,886
184,529
1,807,177

1993
572,423
444,351
509,950
178,379
1,705,103

1994
541,343
426,327
468,662
174,158
1,610,490

1995
508,559
400,409
434,617
174,639
1,518,224

1996
491,103
389,001
416,735
174,883
1,471,722

1997
491,707
377,385
395,564
173,906
1,438,562

1998
483,880
367,470
382,338
173,142
1,406,830

1999
479,426
360,590
373,046
172,641
1,385,703

2000
482,170
355,654
373,193
173,321
1,384,338

</tbody>

Read more: Active Duty Military Personnel, 1940–2011 | Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html#ixzz3KNG3aX1S) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html#ixzz3KNG3aX1S

:dunno:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-28-2014, 11:11 AM

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/index.cfm/articles/Downsizing-the-Army-Profession/2013/05/08

:dunno:

Posted as you miss the main point. The military purge bambastard is doing is getting rid of highly trained and more importantly experience military officers. Those officers took many years and even decades to reach that level--they can not be replaced in a one or two year rush , even if we had that much time in a major World War type breakout--which we would not!!
Think first 6 months of ww2 , we were caught with our pants down and our collective asses hanging out to be kicked.
And that sad state of affairs was because of thinking like Obama/crew espouse and implement.
That you show past stages where liberal idiots got their way and downsized plus ill equipped our military means nothing .
Nobody ever said its never been down before!
And I asked a question of another member where he got his facts and to give specifics, you trot out this which only proves the ffing mistake has been made before!
Hell, I myself point that out as a reason its a mistake and I use the WW2 EXAMPLE TO DO THAT.

His statement still stands to be proven with facts and specifics directly relating to the totality of his statement.
Perhaps let him try to explain /answer directly for his own words.......

Your presentation merely proves previous follies.....:laugh:-Tyr

gabosaurus

11-28-2014, 02:51 PM

We have the largest, best trained and best equipped military in the world. If we it by a third, we would still have same.
Like pretty much everything in the government, the Pentagon has a huge amount of unnecessary fat.

You people complain endlessly about budget surplus and excessive government spending, then you want more of the same.
Yeah, I know, cut everything except where I am. :rolleyes:

fj1200

11-28-2014, 03:38 PM

Posted as you miss the main point. The military purge bambastard is doing is getting rid of highly trained and more importantly experience military officers.

Ah yes, the narrative never changes.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-28-2014, 06:26 PM

Ah yes, the narrative never changes.

Yes, TRUTH never changes..
You obviously have a problem with that reality!
That you can not remake it frustrates you so you belittle others that deal in it..
Which is entirely your problem not any of mine.
Well, except when it leads you to make grossly mistaken and silly comments...Tyr

Drummond

11-28-2014, 09:17 PM

We have the largest, best trained and best equipped military in the world. If we it by a third, we would still have same.
Like pretty much everything in the government, the Pentagon has a huge amount of unnecessary fat.

I 'wonder why' it is that Lefties consistently offer up arguments for greater military weakness ? Why they're so intent upon cutting back on the means to ensure a nation's security ?

Regardless of the fact that the US military is 'so large' .. it's also a fact that the world has seen, and has HAD to see it deployed in substantial numbers in multiples of trouble spots. Gabby, even if you think you see that your military is too large for your current needs, you cannot possibly know what your FUTURE needs will be.

We know that there are many terrorist groups in the world, for example. What if they work to destabilise Governments, creating Failed States, from which repetitions of 2001's Afghanistan could be established ? Would a weaker military make it a lot harder to resist, or fix, such scenarios ?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-28-2014, 09:32 PM

I 'wonder why' it is that Lefties consistently offer up arguments for greater military weakness ? Why they're so intent upon cutting back on the means to ensure a nation's security ?

Regardless of the fact that the US military is 'so large' .. it's also a fact that the world has seen, and has HAD to see it deployed in substantial numbers in multiples of trouble spots. Gabby, even if you think you see that your military is too large for your current needs, you cannot possibly know what your FUTURE needs will be.

We know that there are many terrorist groups in the world, for example. What if they work to destabilise Governments, creating Failed States, from which repetitions of 2001's Afghanistan could be established ? Would a weaker military make it a lot harder to resist, or fix, such scenarios ?
Its the old- "head in the sand syndrome". fj seems to have it too. Reality is a beast to be denied.
While Russia and China both ramp up their militaries we are cutting ours and demoralizing it too. Never think bamscum does this for no deeply planned reason. He is doing so to weaken/lesson our world influence.
He longs for the day that we as a nation must beg socialist nations to let us trade, our even protect our own interests not only overseas but here as well!
We must be degraded to the point we are so weak that renounce our sovereignty and void our Constitution--that's the globalist plan-- the ffing bamscum is a globalist puppet engaged in treason daily. Fact.. -Tyr

Drummond

11-28-2014, 09:49 PM

Its the old- "head in the sand syndrome". fj seems to have it too. Reality is a beast to be denied.
While Russia and China both ramp up their militaries we are cutting ours and demoralizing it too. Never think bamscum does this for no deeply planned reason. He is doing so to weaken/lesson our world influence.
He longs for the day that we as a nation must beg socialist nations to let us trade, our even protect our own interests not only overseas but here as well!
We must be degraded to the point we are so weak that renounce our sovereignty and void our Constitution--that's the globalist plan-- the ffing bamscum is a globalist puppet engaged in treason daily. Fact.. -Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap:

.. and all that is being done, & will be done, in a way that doesn't admit to the realities involved.

Perhaps the greatest single defining truth of the Left wing is their disregard for realities whenever it suits their agenda to do so. I consider that a great litmus test both for the detection of Lefties, their agendas .. and to measure the extent of harm they intend.

fj1200

11-28-2014, 10:22 PM

Yes, TRUTH never changes..
You obviously have a problem with that reality!
That you can not remake it frustrates you so you belittle others that deal in it..
Which is entirely your problem not any of mine.
Well, except when it leads you to make grossly mistaken and silly comments...Tyr

Truth never does. Seek it.

Its the old- "head in the sand syndrome". fj seems to have it too. Reality is a beast to be denied.
While Russia and China both ramp up their militaries we are cutting ours and demoralizing it too. Never think bamscum does this for no deeply planned reason. He is doing so to weaken/lesson our world influence.
He longs for the day that we as a nation must beg socialist nations to let us trade, our even protect our own interests not only overseas but here as well!
We must be degraded to the point we are so weak that renounce our sovereignty and void our Constitution--that's the globalist plan-- the ffing bamscum is a globalist puppet engaged in treason daily. Fact.. -Tyr

:laugh:

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

.. and all that is being done, & will be done, in a way that doesn't admit to the realities involved.

Perhaps the greatest single defining truth of the Left wing is their disregard for realities whenever it suits their agenda to do so. I consider that a great litmus test both for the detection of Lefties, their agendas .. and to measure the extent of harm they intend.

:laugh: :laugh:

The circle of imagination is complete. I offered two links with no commentary and you've created a whole position for me in your head. Mind boggling.

aboutime

11-28-2014, 10:31 PM

Gotta add my lousy 2 cents here with regard to the Obama drawdown of our entire military.

As we have all seen with the denial of the man in question. (who just happens to be a Black American Veteran).

Obama, and the Democrats in Congress will never admit they have racial undertones (hidden in the DOD, and the Pentagon Machine).

Sadly. Officers like the Captain in question are being USED as the pawns Obama needs to maintain his RACIST destruction of the military since OBAMA, and the PENTAGON know...this man, and thousands of others like him, will never show themselves to be Unhappy with anything related to OBAMA. They have too much to lose, in the form of Retirement, and Medical benefits THEY HAVE RIGHTFULLY EARNED as American veterans.

But...sad to say. Even their own people...like in Ferguson, would quickly jump on them, and begin the UNCLE TOM railroading job against ANY BLACK AMERICAN who is negative about Obama.

We all know what is taking place. BUT.....Very few..other than a few of us here. Have the Honest Gonads to CALL A SPADE A SPADE. And that is not intended to be a RACIAL, or RACIST Slur.

Of course. We have members here who hide behind their skin color to destroy the rest of us who DARE to speak out, or tell the truth THEY refuse to hear.

In other words. Obama and company are happily using BLACK AMERICANS as their playthings. Which I suspect, is why Holder, or Obama CALLED OFF THE NATIONAL GUARD in Ferguson the other night too!