The Official South Carolina/CBS News/National Journal GOP Debate Thread

[Wonkish1]

Perhaps I watching something else, but I didn't see much gleefull or giddyness about sending troops in the combat.  There are some candidates who are willing to do it if they judge necessary and others who wouldn't see such as necessary. But no one is say yea lets slaughter Iran, just like it would be unfair to say that Paul would let some enemy march in the streets in of NY if they wanted.

Also the Dems on here aren't realizing there is a huge difference between taking control of an entire country for years and storming a country to take out a nuclear facility. And there is an even bigger difference between that and conducting an airstrike to take out a nuclear program.

They assume that military intervention is synonymous with 100k plus troops when historically 90% of all military interventions resulted in few if any troops and no declaration of war because of its limited scope.

[Wonkish1]

You've got 8 candidates on the stage and a debate time of 1 hour and 30 minutes (of which 20 minutes are commercials and 10 minutes talking time by the moderators).

So you are left with 1 hour for 8 fu**ing candidates !!!

These debates need to last about 3 hours, without commercials, so that you can get a good sense of the candidates positions and let them finish their sentences ...

^^^^

[Wonkish1]

Why should Isreal be allowed to have nuclear weapons  and not sign  the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,  and be subjects to inspections, but Iran who is a party to the  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty shouldn't?

Well first I didn't even comment on whether or not the intervention is a good one or not. I'm just pointing out that acting like an intervention in Iran is synonymous with Iraq style multi-year war is a false one.

That said:
1) People at the height of power in Iran frequently talk about killing millions of Israeli's unprovoked on a regular basis.
2) Iran isn't a democracy(at least it can quite easily drop a nuclear bomb with only the approval of the Ayatollah). Democracies don't start wars as frequently as dictatorships do(feel free to name the US in Iraq 2, but that is one of the exceptions not the rule).
3) Moral relativism is stupid in matters of foreign policy because your actually on one side. To not try to prevent people that hate your existence from getting devastatingly powerful military capabilities for the sake of some universal moral relativism is stupid.


But ultimately I think Newt and Mitt's answers about trying to promote the opposition, go covert, and attempt to destabilize the government are all better options.

[Wonkish1]

I want military service to be compulsary for all citizens

So because you did it, I should? I thought the army supported Freedom...

Clarence's position is pretty stupid and not well thought out. I'm curious as to how he would handle a criticism like: How would compulsory military service not destroy economic output in areas such as a young man or young women owning a business being forced to shut the doors due to compulsory military service?

Or do you have a clue as to how much something like that would cost?

Or do you have any idea how much combat effectiveness drops when you have many people that don't want to be there?

Wouldn't you agree that people who criticize politicians for sending troops to war would have a much better argument if military service was compulsory instead of voluntary? At least for right now those serving chose to make a difference in the rest of the world.


I would point to Clarence's position as just another example of someone producing a knee jerk believe without really spending any time thinking about the consequences of something like that.

[Wonkish1]

I don't believe Iran poses an existential threat to the United States of America , and I don't believe they will anytime in the near-term future. If Israel has beef with Iran and thinks they are a threat, let them fight there own battles. When has Israel ever shed blood and treasure for us?

I would say that is at least a fair answer. Of course you would then by extension not care if Israel carried out airstrikes against Iran, right?


Lets just throw aside the defending of Israel as an ally, the providing of weapons to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan for killing American troops, the risks that a nuclear Iran poses to the region, and that further nuclear proliferation anywhere is probably not a good thing for a second. Just taking a look at the very low cost of engaging in building the opposition, covert, and destabilizing and maybe even air strikes vs. the hassle, far future risks to the US, and potential loss of life that could come from a nuclear Iran makes these moves no-brainers from my point of view.

[Wonkish1]

Good heavens Wonkish, the man might have legitimate reasons for holding that position, especially considering his experience. And if they weren't well thought out, it always a stronger strategy to let them put them forward first and then if they are, most would come to that conclusion on their own. By bringing it up first you run the risk of "being told" and simultanesouly having the focus shift to you and your style rather then the issue of compulsory military service.

Very true, but I was willing to take that bet though in the interest of cutting to the chase! And that may mean that I get schooled by someone that knows a lot about the military, costs, etc. and also has a very good cursory knowledge of the section of the economy that young adults impact, but I guess we'll see.

As to my style, well if he does an excellent job answering the questions then he has earned the right to humble me a little. But again we'll see.

[Wonkish1]

First of all to Chairman Sanchez, I am a proud veteran of the United States Navy, not the Army. Then again you're probably among the naive majority who thinks "army" and "military" are synonyms...

 As for Wonkish1...
I do not want to elaborate much on my time in Vietnam or the Navy as I don't want to 1) brag 2) bore you with details 3) relive some of the horrors I saw. Suffice it to say that I know the tragedy that war is and the effects combat can have on a person.  This discussion began with criticism of chickenhawks who send kids to war because THEY haven't thought it out as they have no lived through it. I assure you that any sentiment or belief I have regarding war or the military is more thought out than you could ever imagine.  Your rejection of my view as "stupid" and "not thought out" is immature and innaccurate.

Your views about the economic effects are precisely why I support it.  I disagreed with some others about this earlier but I look at Isreal as a model in many ways, their military as a perfect example. Do you ever wonder why Isreal is EXTREMELY productive for its small size? Why they have the percapita highest number of startups? Why they invent so much technology for military, health, agriculture, etc? Its because of the training and experience their ENTIRE citizenry has in the military.  Familiarization with technology translates into the real world, as my naval construction experience allowed me to have a long and successful career in construction of homes.

Imagine if every citizen at age 21 left the military with very high proficiency in math, science, engineering, etc. On top of that he / she had special skills that are applicable to work, and had the discipline and work ethic instilled by the military AND skills in health, fitness, dieting.  Of course, I also believe everyone should contribute to our national security by serving as it is the right thing to do, but the reasons above are some of the many benefits it would have for our nation's economy.

See Yankee the crux of this issue is economic not military(hence his military experience isn't all that pertinent to the discussion).

Clarence do you know that Israel also has a much, much, much higher start up fail rate than the US has?

Please show me how Israel's military training translates into the best education in the world for health and agriculture technology!

You haven't shown any proof that Israel's required military service leads to a high rate of innovation. Actually in the US those exiting the military have some of the lowest proportions of innovators of any group in the entire country. This makes sense because the military teaches discipline, structure, orders, etc. and definitely doesn't encourage creative thinking.

[Wonkish1]

To answer your questions about combat effectiveness...I served in Vietnam, when many men with me did not want to be there. Vietnam was the point of lowest morale in our nation's history. Today I read an article about how suicides among military service members have gone up in the past few years.  Still, combat effectiveness is perfectly fine now as it was in Vietnam. Readiness is formed in training, and soldiers who are not ready to go, don't make it.  Basic Training is meant to teach you how to deal with the worst case scenario

Wouldn't you agree that tactical errors today aren't even close to what they were like in Vietnam partially because today military personnel see military service as a calling that requires constant focus, attention, and improvement and that contrasts significantly with past wars like Vietnam where many people didn't want to be there.

[Wonkish1]

To answer your questions about combat effectiveness...I served in Vietnam, when many men with me did not want to be there. Vietnam was the point of lowest morale in our nation's history. Today I read an article about how suicides among military service members have gone up in the past few years.  Still, combat effectiveness is perfectly fine now as it was in Vietnam. Readiness is formed in training, and soldiers who are not ready to go, don't make it.  Basic Training is meant to teach you how to deal with the worst case scenario

Wouldn't you agree that tactical errors today aren't even close to what they were like in Vietnam partially because today military personnel see military service as a calling that requires constant focus, attention, and improvement and that contrasts significantly with past wars like Vietnam where many people didn't want to be there.

Tactical errors...I assume by what you mean you are referring to decisions made by officers, who clearly see military as a calling regardless of when they served. Draftees never rise far above private, seaman, airman, etc

As for the Isrealite military, start up fail rate regardless, you have to admit the amount of techonology that comes from there is proportionally far larger than any other nation in the world. They themselves attribute this to military service.

I find your comment that the military doesnt encourage creative thinking to be naive, inaccurate and offensive.  You are trying to paint a picture of the military as a bunch of grunts, men like me who did the rough jobs who are trained strictly for tasks. Did I not say in my last post how boot camp trains people for the worst case situation? When I'm in a village in Vietnam or a mountain pass in Afghanistan, and I'm ambushed, you don't think that requires more creative thinking than you could possibly muster?  Our military men and women are the most rugged survivalists in our nation.  

And training is changing as we rely much more on technology than manpower. Take for instance field artillery, the Army branch where my brother served. He'd tell me how they'd have graph paper and maps on the field and approximate the position of the forward observer, leading to innaccuracies which led to some civilian deaths.  Nowadays, you have the forward observer giving info, the fire data analyzers giving coordinates, and the men with the howitzers adjusting accordingly.

You look down upon the military for doing the dirty work to keep you free.  Lucky for you I never gave a sh**t what the Jane Fondas of the world thought, and neither did any of the men I served with. We served and people serve today because they believe in our country and are willing to be shot at, blown up, permanently disabled, and definitely emotionally scarred to defend it.

So you think that tactical errors aren't capable of being made at the squad level?

You haven't provided one shred of evidence showing that the high entrepreneurial proclivities of the Israeli population has anything to do with military service.

I don't understand how you could see that as offensive. Your free to disagree, but a body that very much discourages people from disagreeing with superiors can be argued as having a negative impact on the development of critical thinking skills. That is a far cry of accusing people in the military as not having those skills(in no way have I said that) instead I'm merely pointing out that there are many traditions in the military that can be a negative influence on the development of critical thinking. You would know better than I, but doesn't the military tell you to trust your training when serious situations present themselves?

Just because the military has gotten more advanced doesn't mean that they train people to be more innovative.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now I take huge offense to this statement. This is absolutely not true. I have over a dozen friends that have done tours in Iraq and Afghanistan one of which had a roadside bomb explode next to them. I have always showed a ton of appreciation to the sacrifices they've made and have supported their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just because I vehemently disagree with your position to make military service compulsory doesn't mean I "look down upon the military".

[Wonkish1]

Clarence, we dont agree, but thanks for your service in Vietnam. Happpy Vetrans day .

My highest degree of appreciation as well!

[Wonkish1]

Thank you Wonkish and Chairman Sanchez!

Wonkish- I know you did not mean to be offensive, this old sailor just gets riled up. As for evidence of the Isrealites, they say themselves that their techonological advancement is due to compulsary military service.


As for training, of course servicemen and women are always called upon to remember their training which is why even for active duty there is CONSTANT training to reinforce knowledge.  But the most important thing I was told in basic training, identified as most important by my senior drill instructor, a nasty son of a bitch but a helluva brave one, who advanced on Omaha Beach, was "trust that little voice in your head."  First day I set foot in Vietnam, got a rundown by a Lieutenant Commander- I believe his name was Willis- where he repeated the same thing.  If we heard a rustle in the bushes, if we heard what SOUNDED like an animal call, if we saw bubbles in the water...if it didnt feel 100% right, chances are it wasn't, and it was your job to act on YOUR instincts to save yourself and the men around you.

I divided your answer into two parts. The second one is a very good answer. The first one doesn't constitute evidence of compulsory military service causing their technological advancement. Its an anecdotal(if even that) statement of unidentified people in Israel who make the claim your making without any real step by step explanation as to why. That doesn't pass the test of what constitutes evidence!

I hope you realize that the argument you are making not only is that people can learn valuable lessons and skills from military service(that is kind of obvious), but that it is a unique and superior method of learning high value skills relative to all other places and methods of learning valuable skills and lessons. That is a very, very hard argument to make!

[Wonkish1]

First of all to Chairman Sanchez, I am a proud veteran of the United States Navy, not the Army. Then again you're probably among the naive majority who thinks "army" and "military" are synonyms...

 As for Wonkish1...
I do not want to elaborate much on my time in Vietnam or the Navy as I don't want to 1) brag 2) bore you with details 3) relive some of the horrors I saw. Suffice it to say that I know the tragedy that war is and the effects combat can have on a person.  This discussion began with criticism of chickenhawks who send kids to war because THEY haven't thought it out as they have no lived through it. I assure you that any sentiment or belief I have regarding war or the military is more thought out than you could ever imagine.  Your rejection of my view as "stupid" and "not thought out" is immature and innaccurate.

Your views about the economic effects are precisely why I support it.  I disagreed with some others about this earlier but I look at Isreal as a model in many ways, their military as a perfect example. Do you ever wonder why Isreal is EXTREMELY productive for its small size? Why they have the percapita highest number of startups? Why they invent so much technology for military, health, agriculture, etc? Its because of the training and experience their ENTIRE citizenry has in the military.  Familiarization with technology translates into the real world, as my naval construction experience allowed me to have a long and successful career in construction of homes.

Imagine if every citizen at age 21 left the military with very high proficiency in math, science, engineering, etc. On top of that he / she had special skills that are applicable to work, and had the discipline and work ethic instilled by the military AND skills in health, fitness, dieting.  Of course, I also believe everyone should contribute to our national security by serving as it is the right thing to do, but the reasons above are some of the many benefits it would have for our nation's economy.

See Yankee the crux of this issue is economic not military(hence his military experience isn't all that pertinent to the discussion).

I didn't say it was either in relation to his experience. I said that in view of his experience, people would have a very negative view of you questioning his depth of thought on this issue.

As to this statement itself, I fail to see how the crux of any issue relating to mandatory military service is not a military issue. Sure there can are economic effects, but it is by defination an issue concerning the military.

I wasn't questioning his depth of thought on military issues though I was questioning his thought on what the consequences of such a policy would be and the majority of those consequences are non military.

Apparently, Clarence disagrees with you. He is advocating compulsory military experience because he thinks it would improve the education of people in the United States and benefit the American economy. He isn't making the argument based on any strategic defense benefits that would come from having mandatory service.

[Wonkish1]

Thank you Senator North Carolina Yankee

Wonkish- here is a link that sums up what I've been hearing from advocated for Isreal http://www.economist.com/node/16892040

While I disagree with the way that article characterizes the US military, it shows what I've been trying to say. I've heard this before at events done by the American Isreal Political Affairs group who have done events that I have been invited to in my area, and I was invited as part of my church to attend their national convention in Washington, where I attended a seminar on Isrealite military technology and how it transitions into their civilian counterparts.  Was extremely interesting.

Now that is at least evidence! I should point out 2 things.

1) That in the article start-ups are only taking the brightest individuals out of Israeli military. That doesn't necessarily point to it being a superior value added model. Education isn't an entity that is good at selecting who are the smartest already, but instead something that focuses on providing the highest amount of increase or growth in knowledge between two points in time. But this is a minor point compared too...

2) This article does nothing to show that the military is a superior education system than all other alternatives.


Clarence I work in Finance why don't you explain to me how I would benefit on an educational level from time in the military?

[Wonkish1]

Wonkish- I don't disagree with Senator North Carolina Yankee. There are definitely strategic defense benefits from having an entire population (age 18 - 49 or so) trained and essentially ready for combat if it came to it.

Yeah, but couldn't that also be accomplished by compulsory military training as others have pointed out instead of compulsory military service?

Also, the thrust of your argument has been economic not defense oriented in nature. If your argument had been "whatever the economic consequences today's world requires the entire population being military trained" instead of what you said then it would be a different story.

[Wonkish1]

Beyond the benefits everyone gets from organization, discipline, etc.....there is an entire branch of each service dedicated to finance, accounting, business management, HR. I never had any of those jobs but I suspect they are all responsible for tens of thousands of men and women.  Working payroll for all these service members- including bonuses, incentives, different rates etc- is definitely good work experience before entering the civilian workforce.

None of what you just said would be job experience for my kind of work. If I was in corporate finance or accounting that would be a different story, but the military has basically no work applicable to securities, nor does it teach you how to sell yourself, nor does it provide any education or experience in matters of tax issues, etc.

Given my chosen career path a university provides significantly better education on those areas and designations provide even better education than a university.

[Wonkish1]

Is there a law that says he can't argue for it because of both? Your post seems to indicate he has to choose between the two as why it should be put in place.

There can only be 1 "crux of any issue".

[Wonkish1]

Selling yourself...ask any man seeking a promotion in the military. It's not something I'm proud of, but schmoozing is probably more important for an officer seeing the next grade than in anything else...too political. Tax issues have to also be dealt with all the time, especially with regards to combat pay.

Granted, nothing in the military prepares you to deal with securities. I have to say though that when I was wealthier and had a portfolio just over $1M, I chose my wealth manager based upon his military service. He was a Marine and told me that many of his clients were veterans, and his office actually directed all veterans to him so it provided him a steady flow of clients.

No offense but your first paragraph is kind of reaching. Bringing up the tax issues involved in combat pay is like bringing up your family budget as experience in handling the budget of a corporation. Its not realistic at all.

So would you agree that not all professions stand to benefit more from a military education in comparison to others?

[Wonkish1]

Why do the skills or attributes that are acquired from military service have to be career specific to benefit someone in a certain occupation?

Because if you are going to claim that the military is superior to all other education possibilities during that mandatory period than your going to have to actually establish that it is better than the alternatives and Clarence is advocating mandatory military service for all people and so it has to be superior to all alternatives for every profession because in a free society where I can choose any path to advance my future career aspirations I'll gravitate to the places that stand to provide me the most benefit for those career aspirations.

[Wonkish1]

That is just one example, but I think many would tell you that tax issues are very prevalent in military pay. I would absolutely not agree with that, as I believe everyone benefits from military service due to organization and discipline.

I did not grow up wanting to serve in the military. I flunked out of college at 20 after failing one too many engineering courses.  The United States Navy changed me and made me the man I became.  I retired as a Chief Petty Officer (a high enlisted rank) and made the transition from mobile military construction to the construction of new homes. The timing was good and I made my way down to Florida to participate in the boom there.  By the time I retired, I was living in a dream- a 13 acre property in rural North Florida with the woman I loved in a home I built. I had an investment portfolio of about $1.1 million.  If you had told me I would become a millionaire in the time between college and the Navy, I would have laughed. While I have lost most of my fortune in the past several years trying to make my wife's last years as comfortable as possible, I still have enough to buy a smaller house in a more urban area, pay for medical expenses, eat and drink plenty, and occasionally travel. If it weren't for the US Navy, I would be either homeless or dead.

Wait a minute you are actually going to tell me that military is superior to all other methods of education for a career in finance? You serious? This is news to me, and that would be news to a lot of people in my industry. Damn I really blew it then with my degree in finance and my designations, my experience working in securities while in college, and my 12,000 hours of personal study. I should have just not done all of that and instead just joined the military and I guess I would be a lot more knowledgeable today and be a lot further in my career than I am now. Oops!

Sorry for the satire, but if the military was better for my career prospects I would have done it and so would have many others in my industry. They didn't because its not.

[Wonkish1]

1- I've enjoyed this discussion up until now, but you are showing your true colors as a sarcastic, disrespectful, little prick.

2- Never would I advocate the military instead of a college education,but as a supplement.

Perhaps some military service would have done you wonders in terms of respect and professionalism.  I certainly hope you do not have this sort of attitude in your work with securities, getting coffee for a hedge fund manager or whatever it is you do.  

1. Hey I said sorry for the satire. I just used it to illustrate a point. Its not meant to be disrespectful. At one point you accused me of not appreciating those that have served in the military. I took offense to that. I definitely did not mean offense to this.

2. Then your advocating time outside of your chosen profession being the better part of a decade. That is a long time to not enter the professional world.

I actually put a lot of thought into joining the marines not because it offered much in the way to benefit my future career aspirations, but because I believe deeply that I was lucky to be born in this country and should look at doing what I could to defend it. The attitude within the firm is of aggressively challenging the assumptions of others because we are being trusted with a lot of other people's money and we don't take that responsibility lightly. When we are talking among each other the atmosphere is very blunt. When we are talking with clients its a lot more cordial.

[Wonkish1]

Typical military service nowadays is 3 years active duty, 3 years inactive reserve. 3 years for your country? No to hard a choice to make.

I gotta get myself to bed now

I'm aware of that as I said before I have over a dozen friends that have done tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. But 3 years active duty(and correct me if I'm wrong, but anything related to accounting, payroll, etc. requires a choice of career in the military you can't do those by taking the minimum) plus 4 years of college means a minimum of 7 years(better part of a decade) before you can go into your chosen profession.

Have a good night, thanks again for your service, and sorry again if my post above in this discussion was a little to forceful I definitely didn't mean any offense or disrespect behind it.

Also, sorry about your wife. My deepest sympathies.