On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:21:09 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:43:26 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:44:36 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:13:53 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:54:58 -0500, wrote:


The problem with defense cuts is most if that budget is a jobs
program, building hardware we don't need and the Pentagon doesn't
want.

I would bring the troops home tho. Why prop up the economy of other
countries when we have as much trouble as we have.
We do have the precedent of having the military working on
infrastructure here with the Army Corps of Engineers. Maybe we should
declare war on bad bridges and roads here with a CCC type service.
The unions would never tolerate it.

So, it should all be done without union workers? Doesn't sound like
much of a jobs effort to me.

I was thinking more about what you can do with a half million military
people if we stop the wars and pull back all the people we have
scattered around the world in places where we won the war a half
century ago.

So, you want to use the military to do the same jobs as regular
citizens for 1/10th the pay? I'm sure that would do a lot for the
economy.

"1/10th"?
Why do you think military people are so poorly paid?

Your typical GI is making over $20k by the end of his first hitch and
if he really moves up through the ranks it could be $27k or more.
They also have most of their living expenses paid by Uncle Sam.

It may not be as much as an attorney makes but once you factor in room
and board, it is certainly competitive with a basic construction
worker who may only be making $14 an hour ... when he can find work.

$27K... wow, that's over the poverty line for sure. And, they get to
get shot at from time to time. So, you'd prefer to throw the basic
construction worker out of a job to save some money? Even that doesn't
compute.

As usual you totally miss the point. I am talking about creating
enough new infrastructure construction to put all of them to work.

I am also talking about bringing these guys home so they won't get
shot at.

I'm not missing the point at all. How do you intend to create the
infrastructure without government funding?

I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:45:06 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:21:09 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:43:26 -0800, wrote:


The problem with defense cuts is most if that budget is a jobs
program, building hardware we don't need and the Pentagon doesn't
want.

I would bring the troops home tho. Why prop up the economy of other
countries when we have as much trouble as we have.
We do have the precedent of having the military working on
infrastructure here with the Army Corps of Engineers. Maybe we should
declare war on bad bridges and roads here with a CCC type service.
The unions would never tolerate it.

So, it should all be done without union workers? Doesn't sound like
much of a jobs effort to me.

I was thinking more about what you can do with a half million military
people if we stop the wars and pull back all the people we have
scattered around the world in places where we won the war a half
century ago.

So, you want to use the military to do the same jobs as regular
citizens for 1/10th the pay? I'm sure that would do a lot for the
economy.

"1/10th"?
Why do you think military people are so poorly paid?

Your typical GI is making over $20k by the end of his first hitch and
if he really moves up through the ranks it could be $27k or more.
They also have most of their living expenses paid by Uncle Sam.

It may not be as much as an attorney makes but once you factor in room
and board, it is certainly competitive with a basic construction
worker who may only be making $14 an hour ... when he can find work.

$27K... wow, that's over the poverty line for sure. And, they get to
get shot at from time to time. So, you'd prefer to throw the basic
construction worker out of a job to save some money? Even that doesn't
compute.

As usual you totally miss the point. I am talking about creating
enough new infrastructure construction to put all of them to work.

I am also talking about bringing these guys home so they won't get
shot at.

I'm not missing the point at all. How do you intend to create the
infrastructure without government funding?

You say you didn't miss the point then you go off in the wrong
direction
Co back up to the top if this snip. the whole thing is about
REDIRECTING the DoD budget

I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

It's a nice way of handing over a bunch of Foreign aid, send a bunch of
Americans over and pay them to become a part of another countries
economy for a few years. Not saying there is no need for a presence, I
don't know the details, but still...

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:19:25 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:09:49 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

It's a nice way of handing over a bunch of Foreign aid, send a bunch of
Americans over and pay them to become a part of another countries
economy for a few years. Not saying there is no need for a presence, I
don't know the details, but still...

We probably have a better reason to be in Japan than Europe but make
no mistake, it is just to be a staging area for restarting the Korean
war.

In any case, you can't just give them a call and tell them to get on
the next plane.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:49:39 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:00:38 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:19:25 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:09:49 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

It's a nice way of handing over a bunch of Foreign aid, send a bunch of
Americans over and pay them to become a part of another countries
economy for a few years. Not saying there is no need for a presence, I
don't know the details, but still...

We probably have a better reason to be in Japan than Europe but make
no mistake, it is just to be a staging area for restarting the Korean
war.

In any case, you can't just give them a call and tell them to get on
the next plane.

Why not? They could certainly be gone in 180 days and that is a blink
in government talk.

Doubtful. It's more than just packing up and leaving. Of course,
you're an expert in this right?

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:49:39 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:00:38 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:19:25 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:09:49 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

It's a nice way of handing over a bunch of Foreign aid, send a bunch of
Americans over and pay them to become a part of another countries
economy for a few years. Not saying there is no need for a presence, I
don't know the details, but still...

We probably have a better reason to be in Japan than Europe but make
no mistake, it is just to be a staging area for restarting the Korean
war.

In any case, you can't just give them a call and tell them to get on
the next plane.

Why not? They could certainly be gone in 180 days and that is a blink
in government talk.

If we donated the equipment to the German military, we could be out of there in
much less than 180 days.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:51:18 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:49:39 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:00:38 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:19:25 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:09:49 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

It's a nice way of handing over a bunch of Foreign aid, send a bunch of
Americans over and pay them to become a part of another countries
economy for a few years. Not saying there is no need for a presence, I
don't know the details, but still...

We probably have a better reason to be in Japan than Europe but make
no mistake, it is just to be a staging area for restarting the Korean
war.

In any case, you can't just give them a call and tell them to get on
the next plane.

Why not? They could certainly be gone in 180 days and that is a blink
in government talk.

If we donated the equipment to the German military, we could be out of there in
much less than 180 days.

Sounds like socialism to me....

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:38:27 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:21:07 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:51:18 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:49:39 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:00:38 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:19:25 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:09:49 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

It's a nice way of handing over a bunch of Foreign aid, send a bunch of
Americans over and pay them to become a part of another countries
economy for a few years. Not saying there is no need for a presence, I
don't know the details, but still...

We probably have a better reason to be in Japan than Europe but make
no mistake, it is just to be a staging area for restarting the Korean
war.

In any case, you can't just give them a call and tell them to get on
the next plane.

Why not? They could certainly be gone in 180 days and that is a blink
in government talk.

If we donated the equipment to the German military, we could be out of there in
much less than 180 days.

Sounds like socialism to me....


We call it foreign aid.

All of our foreign aid combined is about 1% of the budget or some
similarly small number. I guess taxing rich people an extra 4% might
cover it. What do you think.

On Feb 28, 8:21*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:38:27 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:21:07 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:51:18 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:49:39 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:00:38 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:19:25 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:09:49 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? *The Soviets are gone.

It's a nice way of handing over a bunch of Foreign aid, send a bunch of
Americans over and pay them to become a part of another countries
economy for a few years. Not saying there is no need for a presence, I
don't know the details, but still...

We probably have a better reason to be in Japan than Europe but make
no mistake, it is just to be a staging area for restarting the Korean
war.

In any case, you can't just give them a call and tell them to get on
the next plane.

Why not? They could certainly be gone in 180 days and that is a blink
in government talk.

If we donated the equipment to the German military, we could be out of there in
much less than 180 days.

Sounds like socialism to me....

We call it foreign aid.

All of our foreign aid combined is about 1% of the budget or some
similarly small number. I guess taxing rich people an extra 4% might
cover it. What do you think.

Seeing you were born to make ridiculous and inane arguments, do you
really care for his well-thought response?

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:38:03 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:21:42 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:38:27 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:21:07 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:51:18 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:49:39 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:00:38 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:19:25 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:09:49 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

It's a nice way of handing over a bunch of Foreign aid, send a bunch of
Americans over and pay them to become a part of another countries
economy for a few years. Not saying there is no need for a presence, I
don't know the details, but still...

We probably have a better reason to be in Japan than Europe but make
no mistake, it is just to be a staging area for restarting the Korean
war.

In any case, you can't just give them a call and tell them to get on
the next plane.

Why not? They could certainly be gone in 180 days and that is a blink
in government talk.

If we donated the equipment to the German military, we could be out of there in
much less than 180 days.

Sounds like socialism to me....


We call it foreign aid.

All of our foreign aid combined is about 1% of the budget or some
similarly small number. I guess taxing rich people an extra 4% might
cover it. What do you think.


When in doubt change the subject huh?

You mentioned foreign aid, so you're the one who's trying to change
the subject.

On Feb 28, 9:38*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:21:42 -0800, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:38:27 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:21:07 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:51:18 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:49:39 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:00:38 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:19:25 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:09:49 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? *The Soviets are gone.

It's a nice way of handing over a bunch of Foreign aid, send a bunch of
Americans over and pay them to become a part of another countries
economy for a few years. Not saying there is no need for a presence, I
don't know the details, but still...

We probably have a better reason to be in Japan than Europe but make
no mistake, it is just to be a staging area for restarting the Korean
war.

In any case, you can't just give them a call and tell them to get on
the next plane.

Why not? They could certainly be gone in 180 days and that is a blink
in government talk.

If we donated the equipment to the German military, we could be out of there in
much less than 180 days.

Sounds like socialism to me....

We call it foreign aid.

All of our foreign aid combined is about 1% of the budget or some
similarly small number. I guess taxing rich people an extra 4% might
cover it. What do you think.

When in doubt change the subject huh?

Her only defence. But from her, this should only be expected.