" More than 120 retired generals signed a letter Monday pushing back on the White House's proposal to make major cuts to diplomacy and development.
"The State Department, USAID, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Peace Corps and other development agencies are critical to preventing conflict and reducing the need to put our men and women in uniform in harm's way," the generals wrote.
They went on to quote a 2013 remark by Defense Secretary James Mattis while commander of US Central Command: "If you don't fully fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition."
Foreign aid makes up about 1% of the federal budget and is seen by most military and foreign policy experts as an excellent investment in US national security interests. "
"The letter was organized by the Global Leadership Coalition, which backs investments in development and diplomacy....."
Lobbyists in disguise.
So, NO. A group of 120 retired generals did NOT spontaneously write a letter.
It should also be noted that at present there are somewhere between 4,500 - 5,000 retired general officers in the United States. A piddling 120 of them, (average 2.53%), signing onto a *sponsored* letter from a thinly disguised lobbying group is insignificant in the big picture.
This is also an established pattern with the "USGLC" lobbying concern.
In CNN's usual modus operandi they DID NOT quote General Mattis' COMPLETE statement:
“If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately. So I think it’s a cost benefit ratio. The more that we put into the State Department’s diplomacy, hopefully the less we have to put into a military budget as we deal with the outcome of an apparent American withdrawal from the international scene.”
CNN Fake news.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-27-2017).]
I don't understand why we don't reduce our defense spending. It is far more than anyone else spends, and is it far more than what we spend on anything else.
Our engineers don't need 3X the money to stay ahead of the Chinese. Plus, with global economies, first world nations can't afford to fight.
There is nothing wrong with giving a helping hand, but there does come a point where ya gotta say "holey crap, we just can't afford to keep doing this"
I watched Toronto news tonight, and with Trumps new travel ban they are expecting thousands of border jumpers.
The shelters are full. They are sticking them in motel rooms. This place is no different. Food banks have mile- long lines and churches are serving meals in basements.
Its gotta stop somewhere. We just can't save the entire planet. Its sad, its cruel, but we have hit the point where we have to say "sorry the account is dry"
Trumps doing the right thing. Its a dirty job to be the meanie, but sometimes it needs doing.
I don't understand why we don't reduce our defense spending. It is far more than anyone else spends, and is it far more than what we spend on anything else.
Our engineers don't need 3X the money to stay ahead of the Chinese. Plus, with global economies, first world nations can't afford to fight.
Having a weak military is a guaranteed path to conflict.
I don't understand why we don't reduce our defense spending. It is far more than anyone else spends, and is it far more than what we spend on anything else.
Our engineers don't need 3X the money to stay ahead of the Chinese. Plus, with global economies, first world nations can't afford to fight.
People got upset about the auto bailout and whine about BIG Government but military spending is the sacred cow. It will probably be over a trillion dollars this year, how's that for small Government?
Originally posted by randye: The letter was organized by the Global Leadership Coalition, which backs investments in development and diplomacy. . . .
<SNIP>
Those were all good points. A cogent analysis of this "Letter From Your Friendly, Local, Diamond Certified Retired General...".
Seriously.
I don't think these criticisms make it a "bad" letter, but they do add some perspective and context for it. Like changing a "snack" into a balanced meal.
As far as the CNN report itself (page link in the very first post, here) I would not describe it as "Fake News". It was a brief report that went so far and no further in terms of facts and analysis, but if there is anything within it that is fake or falsified, I don't know what that would be.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-28-2017).]
A simple retort regarding a very complex history of international relations.
International relations is indeed complex, but spending all our money on military, isn't going to change that, nor is it going to solve any of the vast number of domestic problems we have.
I'm inclined to say that if the gun-ho conservatives think PBS and NASA are extreme wastes of money, and should have to survive in a free market economy by getting citizens to willfully contribute directly to them for continued services, then the military should certainly also be held to that same standard. Why do my tax dollars have to go toward something which I think is egregious and unnecessary?
Sorry, but no, I do not wish to devolve our nation into a authoritarian military regime. We could literally cut our defense spending by half and still be spending more than the next few countries behind us, combined. By why do that, reduce the deficit, ensure people in our country our fed, have clean water, health care, and education, when we could go blow up more crap in the desert for the sake of cheap oil.
As opposed to the pretty much constant conflict we've been in for the past 100 years, despite being the "strongest" military on the planet?
Having the most or highest quality weapons dont mean much if the militarys hands are tied behind them. Viet Nam was an excellent example. What would happen if city cops were told to all turn in their guns and park their police cars. Criminals would take over in a week fighting cops on foot or bicycles armed with a baton or tazer.
Originally posted by rogergarrison: Having the most or highest quality weapons dont mean much if the militarys hands are tied behind them. Viet Nam was an excellent example. What would happen if city cops were told to all turn in their guns and park their police cars. Criminals would take over in a week fighting cops on foot or bicycles armed with a baton or tazer.
LOL. No. That is not how the world works. Maybe people like you would try to run amok, but there are plenty of first world nations where this is already the case, and that in fact does not happen. Your fear-mongering is ridiculous.
And what, you mean the Vietnam where the My Lai and Thanh Phong massacres happened? Yeah, I mean the soldiers who slaughtered unarmed civilians must have really had their hands tied behind them to be able to do that.
At the start of WWII, Germany had the strongest, most advanced military in the world.
..and when the U.S. formally entered the war, Japan had the most advanced and strongest navy in the world.
Leftists love to compare U.S. defense spending to other countries military spending, many of those that focus on quite the opposite of *defense*. Peace is certainly desirable but freedom is essential.
I also see that the usual leftist clichés' of the United States being an "imperialist" power are already starting to form in this thread. Predictable considering some of the participants...
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-28-2017).]
Originally posted by olejoedad: The efforts of our state department have worked so well over the last several decades........
What would things be like today if the State Department, through all these election cycles ("last several decades"), had not had any of the funding and authorizations to pursue the initiatives and projects that would otherwise have been beyond the reach of a "barebones" or "generic" U.S. State Department ..? The gamut of particular State Department initiatives and projects that are delineated in this "Letter From 120 Retired Generals"..?
I wouldn't want to try to undertake a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of the question that I just formulated.
I think if I were, I would start by searching for a book title. Perhaps there's a book that has been written (recently) that is framed by (or similar to) the question that I just formulated.
But I'm not saying that this was a "bad" observation, on the part of "olejoedad".
An immense and thorny thicket to cut through, for almost any of us--were we to undertake such an analysis.
..and when the U.S. formally entered the war, Japan had the most advanced and strongest navy in the world.
Leftists love to compare U.S. defense spending to other countries military spending, many of those that focus on quite the opposite of *defense*. Peace is certainly desirable but freedom is essential.
I also see that the usual leftist clichés' of the United States being an "imperialist" power are already starting to form in this thread. Predictable considering some of the participants...
My post was neither left nor right, merely pointing out that the biggest and best guns don't always win.
My post was neither left nor right, merely pointing out that the biggest and best guns don't always win.
At no point did I intimate that you had staked out any political stance. My comments and opinions, as always, are strictly my own unless I state otherwise.
In reference to your comment regarding " biggest and best guns", I would point out that *quantity* has a quality all its own. When you couple quality *with* quantity it should become obvious why this country tries to maintain both the *best* and the *most* in terms of military capabilities.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-28-2017).]
At the start of WWII, Germany had the strongest, most advanced military in the world.
And they came very close to kicking all of our asses Thank you my brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers who supported our country in those times It was through great sacrifice that our nation was able to come together with our allies and put this evil to bed
As far as the CNN report itself (page link in the very first post, here) I would not describe it as "Fake News". It was a brief report that went so far and no further in terms of facts and analysis, but if there is anything within it that is fake or falsified, I don't know what that would be.
As an experienced propagandist Ronald, you should obviously know that there are lies by *commission* as well as lies by *omission*.
Both are still lies.
Presenting a so-called "news" story and *omitting* certain salient facts from it in order to induce a false conclusion on the part of the casual reader is indeed Fake News, a/k/a propaganda.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-28-2017).]
As an experienced propagandist Ronald, you should obviously know that there are lies by *commission* as well as lies by *omission*.
Both are still lies.
Presenting a so-called "news" story and *omitting* certain salient facts from it in order to induce a false conclusion on the part of the casual reader is indeed Fake News, a/k/a propaganda.
So that's why Breitbart and InfoWars are OK, but CNN and BBC are bad? OK.
Originally posted by dobey: Why do my tax dollars have to go toward something which I think is egregious and unnecessary?
I ask the same question when ever I consider how my tax dollars are spent on some social programs.................
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun....
You can't do much about the length of your life, so focus on the width and depth. When Life throws you a curve, lean into it and roll that throttle!!
If, you wish to piss off a Conservative, lie to him. If, you wish to piss off a Liberal, tell them the truth.
Yeah, no. That's not how military spending works. The US isn't the only nation with freedom of speech.
Yeah, no. THAT's exactly how it works -
U.S. free speech is unique, even among democratic countries.
While racially and religiously offensive material is protected in the United States, hate speech or speech that incites racial hatred is illegal in Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and other European countries.
In the U.S., we value the rights of the speaker much more highly than the dignity of the person who feels insulted or the state's interest in trying to avoid violent protest.
As an experienced propagandist Ronald, you should obviously know that there are lies by *commission* as well as lies by *omission*.
Both are still lies.
Presenting a so-called "news" story and *omitting* certain salient facts from it in order to induce a false conclusion on the part of the casual reader is indeed Fake News, a/k/a propaganda.
More often that not, in the diplomatic and political arena, what is NOT said (privately and publicly) is far more important than what IS said.
Originally posted by RayOtton: Yeah, no. THAT's exactly how it works -
U.S. free speech is unique, even among democratic countries.
While racially and religiously offensive material is protected in the United States, hate speech or speech that incites racial hatred is illegal in Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and other European countries.
In the U.S., we value the rights of the speaker much more highly than the dignity of the person who feels insulted or the state's interest in trying to avoid violent protest.
Even you.
Again, that has nothing to do with military spending.
All government agencies have a budget which needs to be spent plus 10% just so they get more the next year. They have no incentive to manage their budgets. Mandatory budgets cuts is the only thing those in charge understand.
Originally posted by Old Lar: All government agencies have a budget which needs to be spent plus 10% just so they get more the next year. They have no incentive to manage their budgets. Mandatory budgets cuts is the only thing those in charge understand.
All government agencies, including the Defense Department? Better get President Trump on the line. I don't think he's planning on budget cuts for that government agency.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-01-2017).]
Originally posted by randye: Presenting a so-called "news" story and omitting certain salient facts from it in order to induce a false conclusion on the part of the casual reader is indeed Fake News, aka "propaganda".
Who decides whether particular facts are "salient" or otherwise?
If it were possible by some magic to eliminate every news report or "oped" (opinion/editorial) column that matches randye's working concept of "fake news" or "propaganda", it would leave precious little to read or view in the way of topical reporting, except for in-depth, magazine-style reports of anywhere from 5 to 10 (or more) fully-packed pages of content; video segments of 15 minutes (at the very least) and upwards; and full length books (100 pages and up) from the more reputable publishing houses.
Those are the "quantum" lower bounds: the smallest measures of information content that it would take to report in-depth about almost any of the topics that are today's front page news.
If the brief report that I referenced (via page link) at the very top of this thread is "fake news", the next question would be "What isn't?"
The problem that's more apparent isn't fake news. It's anyone who tries to stake too much of their credibility on brief and summary-level reports, like the one I started with here, from CNN.
This CNN report--and it's only a few short paragraphs--has this:
quote
Congress is not mandated to follow Trump's budget plan, and in the coming weeks committees are expected to call administration officials to Capitol Hill to explain their proposal. The generals are likely to make appearances as well, arguing against the dramatic cuts.
Are some of these retired generals likely to show up at the relevant Congressional hearings, to argue against budget cuts that would impact certain of the State Department's current projects--USAID, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Peace Corps and other development agencies--as delineated in this CNN report?
I think it's likely. What about "you"..? Does anyone else here think it's likely?
The tension in this thread isn't so much about fake news. It's about fake experts--anyone who tries to draw overly large conclusions from an insufficient amount of information--the evidence that supports.
Did I say that I am ready to provide convincing evidence to back up what these retired generals who are likely to show up at the Congressional hearings are likely to say about the State Department's projects and budgets?
No.
What I said was that in my estimation, it would be a very steep hill for me to climb, if I were to task myself with doing the kind of research that would be needed to back up the recommendations of these particular retired generals with any hard data about any of the various State Department projects and their impacts. Was that a misleading statement? A rhetorical question. I think not.
LOL. No. That is not how the world works. Maybe people like you would try to run amok, but there are plenty of first world nations where this is already the case, and that in fact does not happen. Your fear-mongering is ridiculous.
And what, you mean the Vietnam where the My Lai and Thanh Phong massacres happened? Yeah, I mean the soldiers who slaughtered unarmed civilians must have really had their hands tied behind them to be able to do that.
Your ridiculous in your believe that the world is fairytale land where there are no bad guys.
I didnt condone outright massacres of civilians when I was in Viet Nam. I flew fighters there and every daily briefing included a list of ALL the things in our scheduled target area that were OFF LIMITS from any attack. Things like schools, hospitals, park areas were off limits so guess what...thats exactly where the Cong put all their missile launchers, tanks and anti aircraft guns. I personally dropped a lot of stuff 'accidently' on those places that were trying to shoot me down. The enemy put those places in danger so collateral casualties were on them. I sleep fine. I dont know of anyone in any unit being prosecuted for it. War has civilian deaths. It happened all over Germany and England in WWII too. I had friends blown up there while passing out candy to 'innocent' Vietnamese kids who were carrying bombs, so dont give me any of your BS. Id rather respect fear than suffer complacency.
Your ridiculous in your believe that the world is fairytale land where there are no bad guys.
I didnt condone outright massacres of civilians when I was in Viet Nam. I flew fighters there and every daily briefing included a list of ALL the things in our scheduled target area that were OFF LIMITS from any attack. Things like schools, hospitals, park areas were off limits so guess what...thats exactly where the Cong put all their missile launchers, tanks and anti aircraft guns. I personally dropped a lot of stuff 'accidently' on those places that were trying to shoot me down. The enemy put those places in danger so collateral casualties were on them. I sleep fine. I dont know of anyone in any unit being prosecuted for it. War has civilian deaths. It happened all over Germany and England in WWII too. I had friends blown up there while passing out candy to 'innocent' Vietnamese kids who were carrying bombs, so dont give me any of your BS. Id rather respect fear than suffer complacency.
Cut the crap roger. If you're going to insult me, at least have the decency to actually read what I wrote and make a relevant insult. I never said there were no bad guys in the world. You're direct proof there are bad guys, with all your comments on this forum. I said your comment was utter crap.
Originally posted by newf: People got upset about the auto bailout and whine about BIG Government but military spending is the sacred cow. It will probably be over a trillion dollars this year, how's that for small Government?
Or the US could just with drawl from NATO, and stop protecting free loading countries such as ours that would rather give away our money to third world money sinks than fund our own military. The alt-left people such as you seem to have no problem having our country leach off the United States when it's convenient, neglecting our own defense spending and instead dumping billions into failed progressive initiatives. Imagine the money saved if they didn't have to worry about providing defense for the rest of the world?
Part of the problem is many don't think this country is in any financial trouble. Well it is. Many don't think close to 20 trillion in debt is worth worrying about, beyond me. I suppose the two most important words right there are "don't think".
I will put forth the analogy of a life raft filled beyond capacity and people in the water trying to get in. What do you do.............
Other countries are going to have to make some tuff choices in regards to where their money goes. They will find away to pay up once they have to though.
Cut the crap roger. If you're going to insult me, at least have the decency to actually read what I wrote and make a relevant insult. I never said there were no bad guys in the world. You're direct proof there are bad guys, with all your comments on this forum. I said your comment was utter crap.
I read every word you said...which all was a load of crap as you call it. You dont know anything about anything you talk about. Everyone here would be happy if you just shut the hell up. Im with the most peace loving people in here. I dont want anything but to be left alone by all your type of dicks that only speak on your own agendas. I have guns and dont have any interest in ever firing any of them at anyone ever for the rest of my life. Im a firm believer as Ive always been to live and let live. If someone like you likes causing trouble, stay away from me and Ill stay away from them. Do whatever they want in their own neighborhood and stay there and were all fine. Just where exactly in any of that does that make me a bad guy ? I simply just want to be left alone by troublemakers. Again, last Sunday I had cops all over my back yard nabbing a black guy who just robbed a business next door to me. Why dont these types, like you, stay and terrorize their own hoods and leave us peacefull people to live our own lives in peace. No, they cant do that in any way, shape or form. We just had 2 college girls here raped and murdered by blacks just recently out of prison on parole for the same thing. Both of them were just walking to their cars after getting off work and not bothering anyone. Just go suck your boyfriend azzhat.
Originally posted by rogergarrison: I read every word you said...which all was a load of crap as you call it. You dont know anything about anything you talk about. Everyone here would be happy if you just shut the hell up. Im with the most peace loving people in here. I dont want anything but to be left alone by all your type of dicks that only speak on your own agendas. I have guns and dont have any interest in ever firing any of them at anyone ever for the rest of my life. Im a firm believer as Ive always been to live and let live. If someone like you likes causing trouble, stay away from me and Ill stay away from them. Do whatever they want in their own neighborhood and stay there and were all fine. Just where exactly in any of that does that make me a bad guy ? I simply just want to be left alone by troublemakers. Again, last Sunday I had cops all over my back yard nabbing a black guy who just robbed a business next door to me. Why dont these types, like you, stay and terrorize their own hoods and leave us peacefull people to live our own lives in peace. No, they cant do that in any way, shape or form. We just had 2 college girls here raped and murdered by blacks just recently out of prison on parole for the same thing. Both of them were just walking to their cars after getting off work and not bothering anyone. Just go suck your boyfriend azzhat.
You're so peace loving, that's why you recommend shooting people all the time?
None of this has anything to do with this thread. You're an angry old white guy. We get it. You have made it so very abundantly clear.
Or the US could just with drawl from NATO, and stop protecting free loading countries such as ours that would rather give away our money to third world money sinks than fund our own military. The alt-left people such as you seem to have no problem having our country leach off the United States when it's convenient, neglecting our own defense spending and instead dumping billions into failed progressive initiatives. Imagine the money saved if they didn't have to worry about providing defense for the rest of the world?
They could certainly withdraw from NATO. I can't say I see Canada leaching off the U.S., what exactly do you mean? Neglecting our defense spending?? I suppose we could spend more but to what end? We have a massive land mass and a relatively small population with very few threats to either requiring a large standing military. Failed progressive initiatives? Sure I'm sure there are some. hindsight is often 20/20.
And they don't have to worry about providing defense for the rest of the world, they gleefully spend huge amounts of money to stick there noses in other lands affairs to suit their own self interests. When you are that big sometimes it's necessary but often it's not.
