Is the call for Iraq pull out uniting Americans?

[TheProfessional]

And what do you propose for the people who can't afford to finance their own retirement? Bear in mind, these people will be in the majority. Would you have them fend for themselves? This is what we had before Social Security, when old people were literally starving.

We can still have social security, but not at the federal level. Too much corruption. Social security at the state level would be better, and allowing us who can manage our retirment would be best. I will not pay into a retirment system all my life when that system is just going to collapse right when I'm ready to get my money back.

Then what do I do. My government retirment was squandered, and because of the high taxes, I was never able to manage up enough money of my own for a happy retirement.

SS isn't broke yet, but one day it will.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

I thought about it, and I conclude that you are wrong.

Rich and poor alike pay into SS by taking it from their paychecks. Rich and poor alike recieve money back upon retirement (or other circumstances).

Where is this redistribution of wealth you are talking about?

Just for argument's sake, there are 10 people. The first contributes $1,000,000 into the pot, two contribute $500,000 into the pot, three contribute $250,000 into the pot, and four contribute $5,000 into the pot. Those who put in the least get more than half back from the pot than those who put in the most.

This is a redistribution of wealth. This is how SS works.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

We can still have social security, but not at the federal level. Too much corruption. Social security at the state level would be better, and allowing us who can manage our retirment would be best. I will not pay into a retirment system all my life when that system is just going to collapse right when I'm ready to get my money back.

Then what do I do. My government retirment was squandered, and because of the high taxes, I was never able to manage up enough money of my own for a happy retirement.

SS isn't broke yet, but one day it will.

Too true.

 

[TheProfessional]

Rich and poor alike pay into SS by taking it from their paychecks. Rich and poor alike recieve money back upon retirement (or other circumstances).

The rich pay a lot into it, and they get very little back out, but in any case, they don't need it.

SS shouldn't be for everybody. It should be people who need it. The people that don't can save up for their retirement, and a major drop in their SS taxes would certainly help them a lot.

 

[JustOneWay]

Just for argument's sake, there are 10 people. The first contributes $1,000,000 into the pot, two contribute $500,000 into the pot, three contribute $250,000 into the pot, and four contribute $5,000 into the pot. Those who put in the least get more than half back from the pot than those who put in the most.

This is a redistribution of wealth. This is how SS works.

For arguments sake, why not provide some actual data instead of a confusing analogy.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Just for argument's sake, there are 10 people. The first contributes $1,000,000 into the pot, two contribute $500,000 into the pot, three contribute $250,000 into the pot, and four contribute $5,000 into the pot. Those who put in the least get more than half back from the pot than those who put in the most.

This is a redistribution of wealth. This is how SS works.

If you've got $1,000,000 to put into the pot in the first place, why on Earth do you need Social Security? You sound pretty secure to me.

 

[USincognito]

That's what an effect of the U.S. military's policy of preparing to fight the last combat action, police action, or whatever.

Great point, but only half correct. During the 1970s and 80s we continued to gear up for the great conflagration in Europe with the Soviets. There were some great light vehicles like the British Scorpion and Scimitar along with some wheeled vehicles built by Cadillac-Gage that would have been great additions to our inventory, but our concentration was on more Abrams and the MLRS.

IIRC, H. Norman Schwarzkopf wrote something about in his book (I highly recommend it by the way), because for GW 1, they had to replace a lot of the jungle equipment with desert eqipment.

Jungle cammies had been long gone by 1990. It was woodland being switched for desert. In the four years I was associated with the Army from 1988 to 1991 I never once was issued anything with desert camoflauge.

After GW 1, the U.S. military focused on a preparing for a short high intensity conflict. You can see that approach worked for March and April.

Yep. It was an adjustment of Combined Arms Doctrine from maintained high intensity conflict against armor and developed/established C3 structure for a short duration. Unfortunately, while greatly successful during the conflict, such planning wasn't what we needed during the occupation/rebuilding period.

After this unpleasantness, the military is going to be gearing toward a long drawn out relatively low intensity occupation in primarily an urban and desert environment.

The next war will probably be a lot different.

Repeat ad infinitum.

Everyone who's watched a decent military documentary knows the phrase - After Action Review. I don't have much optimism for Iraq, but after VietNam, and almost the same thing happenig in post-invasion Iraq, I'm sure the next conflict will be based on wisdom gleaned from previous experience....

...unless the sabre rattlers convince the Administration to attack Iran next...

 

[Nathan Poe]

...unless the sabre rattlers convince the Administration to attack Iran next...

IMO, I think the Administration's minds were already made up -- no saber rattling necessary.

 

[TheProfessional]

Everyone who's watched a decent military documentary knows the phrase - After Action Review. I don't have much optimism for Iraq, but after VietNam, and almost the same thing happenig in post-invasion Iraq, I'm sure the next conflict will be based on wisdom gleaned from previous experience....

The wisdom to be gleaned from this, and Vietnam, is when you fight a war, you fight it like a war. You don't limit which bases and buildings you can target, and you don't let symapthies or political correctness get in the way.

You defeat the enemy, and if you are going to occupy, you do it with a strong hand. You break their will to fight with the war, and when everyone who wants to fight is dead, you've won, and the occupation is the easy part.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You defeat the enemy, and if you are going to occupy, you do it with a strong hand. You break their will to fight with the war, and when everyone who wants to fight is dead, you've won, and the occupation is the easy part.

Except that it was Saddam's "strong hand" which is our justification du jour for the war in the first place. How can we accomplish this objective without taking pages out of the playbook of the man we ousted?