Obama expands mercenary armies

[barts]

With a slew of nations to democratize and liberate from the grasps of “evil and unscrupulous” dictators who,

If it's America's job to democratize and liberate nations, why hasn't it? Why does America support tyrants and dictators?

[Zeebadee]

…connections? …making connections? ….relations?….connected?….

Yeah, connections. Those with the proper connections got into the reserves, and stayed stateside.

[grandpa]

Yeah, connections.
Those with the proper connections got into the reserves, and
stayed stateside.

I assume few of them supported anti-war demonstrations, either.

Grandpa h.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

“Without much notice or debate…“ And for what reason should there be “much notice or debate?“ Should there be much debate where democracy and freedom beckons? Should there be much debate where the champion of peace is involved? Should there be any opposition even to such a humanitarian gesture? Are there not plenty of other {evil} dictators with mercenaries to worry about? Are there not enough stories of these on which the individual can feast the eyes upon? Take the “evil Mr. Ghaddafi” for instance Mr. Dan: Is it so that the individual does not feed on enough reports about he and his mercenaries that they should need any other?

Yes there should be Debate, lots of it. According to the Constitution the only reason to engage in "War" with another nation, is if they attack you or pose an emminent "Threat" to the security of the Nation.

……in which they are disappearing, torturing, and killing “their own citizens?”

Secondly, Mr. Head, for crying out loud, are we to simply forget how {ruthless} and {dangerous} these {bloodthirsty} dictators are? Are we to forget that these dictators are but cold blooded murderers? How can you not see that they are targeting “their own citizens” for assassination? Who stands around in good conscious while something like this occurs in other nations? How is this not a threat to all other {upstanding} nations who are said not to engage in such Actions?

Thirdly, one may not be too sure about how accurate this is but has it not been heard where governments have moved to execute certain individuals? Has it not been heard where there exists this Thing that governments engage in known as Capital Punishment?

I. Use of capital punishment by country

II. Capital punishment in the United States

III. America’s Tug of War over Sanctioned DeathThe U.S. History of Capital Punishment

IV. Methods of Execution

Now, is it not so that government is allowed to defend the Self? Has even this much not been said so by the individual himself? Then is it not so, that with this Capital Punishment it is that governments around the world have a means by which they defend the Self from Acts of attack and overthrow? And if it is so, then in defending the Self, have governments not been known to execute those who have engaged in these Acts, which, according to their rule, have been judged treasonous and worthy of death?

V. Treason

VI. Crime History: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg executed for espionage

VII. Iranian executed for spying for Israel

VIII. Samir Khan named as second US citizen to die in drone strike



So, in what reality is a government not to defend the self? In whose Constitution does it say that a government does not reserve the {right] to defend itself? In whose Constitution does it say that a government will not move to execute you for acts that have been judged treasonous and worthy of death? In whose Constitution does it say that a government will not move to execute you if it is that you choose to take up arms against it? Where in the Const …….never mind? One down and how many more to go?
CONT….

[gallo]

The draft of the 60's pretty much targeted the poor and unconnected. Those without the proper connections found themselves in Canada or Vietnam.

That's mostly true. Consider that Dan Quayle and George W. Bush managed to get into the reserves at a time when it wasn't possible to join the reserves. After my discharge I went into an Army Reserve armory and told the CQ SGT that I was interested in joining the reserves. His answer was, "Can't use you." When I mentioned that I had just been discharged from active duty he said, "Glad to have you."

On the other hand, Al Gore and John Kerry actually served in Vietnam.

The current military similarly targets the same groups by buying them with taxpayer money into military service. Coming out of high school or college with no prospect of a job makes the $40,000 enlistment bonus look pretty good. Finish an enlistment and you're enticed with a $90,000 reenlistment bonus. Add free or almost free medical care for life, and it seems to me that our current military is almost exclusively an army of mercenaries.

Your numbers are a bit (by "a bit" I mean "really, really") high. If those numbers are actually correct, they are rare in the extreme. My son is now on his 4th enlistment (just over 9 years - SGT at 3 years, SSG at 6 years, and now on the list for SFC), and while he was paid re-enlistment bonuses, they were never close to those amounts. My son is now with the 1st Infantry Division.

Moreover, with the reductions of combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, the reserve units that were activated are being released and preparations are being made to reduce the regular army. Thus, those bonus numbers are a myth in an army that is being reduced in force.

I suspect that the numbers were for personnel with very special skills.

But it makes a good story. To what point, I'm not sure.

[Zeebadee]

Your numbers are a bit (by "a bit" I mean "really, really") high. If those numbers are actually correct, they are rare in the extreme. My son is now on his 4th enlistment (just over 9 years - SGT at 3 years, SSG at 6 years, and now on the list for SFC), and while he was paid re-enlistment bonuses, they were never close to those amounts. My son is now with the 1st Infantry Division.

They aren't my numbers. I included the link to the source. My point was that it's again the poor and unconnected that, while not being drafted, are certainly bearing the brunt of combat duty, having found very few jobs available, while the affluent are de facto exempt.

I suspect that the numbers were for personnel with very special skills.

Sure, and I assume those "special skills" are being willing to be targets in Afghanistan, Iraq, and wherever else the U.S. decides to "liberate".

[Maryjane]

Army Re-Enlistment Bonus Tier Amounts

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

….INUE POST#16

The Executive Branch has long surcumvented the Constitution ,it and the Congress has been nothing more than a puppet for Corporate interests, since the 1913 Federal Reserve Act.

…. was corporately approved?

And the most recent Supreme Court decision , granting corporations the right of personhood,and the abilty to make unrestrained donations(payoffs), has legally sold your so called "Democracy" to the highest bidder.

….with a bowl of stew?

Secondly, so that we may judge, who was the “lowest,” and pray tell us what was his bid ?

But as "Dick" Chaney , so callously responded to the fact that the majority of the american "public", did not want War, "So What"

….if that’s not what is heard?

IX. Six Months LaterPoll Finds Support for Bush, War on Terrorism Isn’t Fading

Extract = Article
March 11 — Six months after Sept. 11, Americans are expressing enormous sustained support for the war on terrorism, broad approval of George W. Bush's job performance — and a swelling sense of patriotism that leads most to say this crisis has changed the nation for the better.Eighty-two percent approve of Bush's job performance; while that's 10 points below his peak in early October he has still soared higher, longer than any previous president in polls dating to 1938. Even more people — 88 percent — approve of Bush's handling of the war, while 64 percent approve "strongly." And more than eight in 10 think it's going well.All the same, some underlying numbers have slipped. There has been an 18-point drop since the fall of the Taliban in views that the fighting in Afghanistan is going "very" well for the United States — perhaps reflecting recent casualties. And "strong" support for Bush and the war, while still healthy, are both down from their early-October highs.


X. Poll: Steady Support for Action Against Iraq

Extract = Article
A majority of the public continues to support the United States taking military action to disarm Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein, and there is evidence of growing impatience for the action.A FOX News poll conducted this week finds 71 percent of Americans support using U.S. forces to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and 20 percent oppose. Support has been at about the same level for the last eight weeks.This leads to a growing number of Americans who agree, “it’s time to get it over with in Iraq.” A month ago, a slim majority wanted to “stop the uncertainty,” while today over two-thirds agree with the let’s “get it over with” sentiment.


XI. Poll: Support for the Iraq war deteriorates

Extract = Article
When American troops crossed into Iraq in 2003, nearly three out of every four Americans backed President Bush's decision to use military force to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein.


XII. Afghan War Edges Out Iraq as Most Important for U.S.Two-thirds say U.S. involvement in Afghanistan not a mistake

Extract = Article
Americans appear to strongly support the initial decision to go to war in Afghanistan, based on responses to Gallup's classic "mistake" question (which has been asked about U.S. conflicts since the Korean War in the early 1950s). Two-thirds (68%) affirm the basis for sending military forces to Afghanistan, saying it was not a mistake.


XIII. Voters Support War in Afghanistan, Fault Obama on Economy, Poll Shows

Extract = Article
A majority of Americans continue to support the war in Afghanistan and believe the threat of defeating terrorism there is worth fighting - and possibly dying - for, according to a new poll by Quinnipiac University. The poll, conducted from August 31 - September 7, indicates that despite increased casualties, Americans approve of President Obama's military actions in Afghanistan and do not perceive the conflict as "another Vietnam" - although 55 percent of those polled believe the United States will be unsuccessful in its efforts to eliminate terrorist threats there, and 65 percent support the proposed withdrawal of troops next July.The majority of Americans believe that the president has served the country well in his capacity as military commander. The poll found that 53 percent approve of his performance as commander-in-chief, and 59 percent believe he has strong leadership qualities.


XIV. In U.S. poll, 60 percent back Libya military action

Extract = Article
Of those polled, 48 percent described President Barack Obama's military leadership as U.S. commander in chief as "cautious and consultative," 36 percent as "indecisive and dithering," and 17 percent as "strong and decisive" in a question that offered only those three choices.The poll was taken three days after the U.S.-led bombing campaign against Libya was launched last Saturday.Seventy-nine percent of those surveyed said the United States and its allies should try to remove Libyan leader Gaddafi, who has ruled the oil-exporting North African country for more than four decades.This finding was similar to a CNN poll released on Tuesday, which found 77 percent of those questioned said it was very important or somewhat important to remove Gaddafi from power.In the Reuters/Ipsos survey, only 7 percent supported deploying ground troops.The survey showed 60 percent in favour of the Libya military action, with 20 percent strongly supporting it and 40 percent somewhat supporting it. Twenty-five percent somewhat opposed it and 14 percent were strongly against.
CONT…

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

…INUE

Not once since WW II , has the interest of Peace or Democracy had a thing to do with the Wars we've waged.

….. in the interest of liberation and having to share a Piece of Democracy?

To qoute from Chalmers Johnson's book "Nemesis,The Last Days of the American Republic""The United States has been continuosly engaged or mobilized for war since 1941. Using statistics compiled by the The Federation of American Scientists, Gore Vidal has listed 201 overseas military operations between the end of WW I I and Sept. 11 ,2001, in which the U.S. struck the "first blow". Among these was Operation Urgent Fury in 1983, "Reagan's attack on the island of Grenada, a month long caper that Gen. Alexander Haig disloyally said could have been better handled by the Provincetown police dept. Exluding minor military operations, Drexel University historian and politcal scientist Michael Sullivan counts only "invasions, intervensions,and regime changes since WW 11 and comes up with thirty bloody, often clandestine. American Wars from Greece (1947-49) to Yugoslavia (1995 and 1999). Neither of these compilations include the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq.It should be noted that since 1947, while we have used our military power for political and military gain in a long list of countries, in no instance has democratic government come about as a direct result. In some important case, on the other hand, democracy has developed in "opposition" to our "interference"-for example, after the collapse of the CIA-installed regime Greek Colonels in 1974; after the demise of the U.S. supported fascist dictatorships in Portugal in 1974 and Spain in 1975; after the overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines in 1986; after the ouster of Gen.Chun Doo Hwan in S.Korea in 1987; and after the ending of thirty-eight years of martial law in the island of Tiawan in the same year. The U.S. holds the unenviable record of having helped install the and the supported such "dictators" as the Shah of Iran, Gen.Suharto in Indonesia, Fulgencio Batista in Cuba, Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua, Augusto Pinochet in Chile, and Ses Seko Mobutu in Congo/Zaire, not to mention the series of u.S. backed militarists in S.Vietnam and Cambodia until we finally "expelled from Indochina. In addition, for decades we ran one of the most extensive terrorist operations in history against Cuba and Nicaragua because their struggles for "national independence" had produced outcomes we did not like.The unintended result of this record of militarism is the contemporary Leviathan that dominates Washington today, threatening our nation with bankruptcy, turning many of the organs of our "free press" into Pravda like mouthpieces, and disgracing the nation by allowing our young men and women to torture prisoners picked up on the battlefields or even snatched from city streets in allied countries."

Just in “allied countries?”

Secondly, so that we may not make the mistake of crossing into these areas, where are the exact locations of these “battlefields?”

Heil Hitler , Hail to the Chief, I see no difference.(see my signature)"Same Thing"Same Thing - Flobots - YouTube

…except he was not quite so altruistic with his invasions now, was he? So Mr. Head, what is this Thing that you speak? Who or what should make you speak so? Who or what has bewitched you? Without regard for self-interest, who or what did Fuhrer Hitler set out to democratize? Who or what did he set out to free? How many countries tasted the appley sweet taste of freedom as a result of his invasions? 1? 2? 3? Any? And yet, have we ourselves not given this appley sweet taste to 3? So how can there even be any comparison? How can there not be any difference? How many countries did he invade with thoughts for his self-interest dancing gleefully around in his head? 1? 2? 3? Any? And yet, have we ourselves not invaded 3 without the presence of such thoughts? So how can there even be any comparison? How can there not be any difference? Now tell us this: What country that was without any strategic resource did he manage to pry from the grasps of {evil} and {covetous} dictators? How many did he manage to free? 1? 2? 3? Any? And yet, have we ourselves not managed to pry 3 that were without such resources? So how can there even be any comparison? Please tell us how can there not be any difference?

[Sunbelt]

Green Change : Obama quietly expands army of mercenaries, outsourcing of wars

I still think Democrats are the party of global peace...

[grandpa]

I still think Democrats are the party of global peace...

I'd protest them with "stupid, un-American signs", too. They're no better -- and arguably even worse -- regarding war than Republicans. At least Republicans are more honest about being warmongers.

Grandpa h.