opinion of the military?

[Gabu]

Positive.  Even if America was a harshly imperialist country, that wouldn't be the military's doing; that would be the doing of the leaders of the country.  Don't blame the foot soldiers for simply following orders.  They're just there because they have to be, and they're very brave for being willing to put their life on the line for their country.

[WMS]

Extremely positive.

Not paid enough...yep, and here's a little Stratfor story for ya:

There is a manpower problem in the ground forces, especially the Army Reserves, and the military cannot keep up this rate of action indefinitely - the military has said so themselves, repeatedly. Now, there lies a dilemna: how do you fix this? Well, either you seriously scale back the military's engagement abroad (and I mean seriously, to the point where the U.S has very little abroad), an option simply not viable with the war on Islamism; or you institute the draft (an act of utter political suicide, and also strongly opposed by the military), which is not going to happen.

Or, Option 3: you dramatically - and we mean dramatically - raise the pay and benefits of soldiers to draw in more voluntary recruits. It will be quite expensive, over and above what we pay now. But expect it to happen. And here's where 'ol Stratfor surprised me: they expressed STRONG moral approval of this, saying, in essence, that it is a travesty that we pay those who fight and die for us so little. Here is part of it, from Stratfor's founder himself: [emphasis mine]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, this is the United States and it is a commercial republic. It is one thing to risk your life. It is another to emerge impoverished from the experience. The soldier's job is to place himself between home and war's desolation. It is the homeland's job to reward a soldier for a job well done. It is the peculiarity and, to us, the charm of the United States that soldiers will indeed give their lives for their country out of patriotism -- but they expect their country to pay them for the risk.

There is an unpleasant tradition in our country of paying soldiers poorly. It is as if the United States intends to dare its troops to serve. There is another side to this -- a hidden contempt by businessmen and professionals toward those who would serve at that kind of pay. We know that the children of wealthy businessmen and professionals don't serve, but the deeper shame is the lack of respect the elite has for those people who do. Part of it goes back to the aristocratic tradition of the enlisted man as brute, but it also extends to officers -- there is a feeling that if these men and woman were any good, they would be selling bonds.

That is about to change with a vengeance. The United States will not institute a draft. The children of the elite will not enlist. The United States is going to lose its army in the coming year or so, or will face a revolt of the exploited in the ranks -- men and women trapped in commitments that are far more extensive than anyone expected, and whose lives are being thereby ruined. But there is a war on and it is not going to go away.

The United States will have to replace some of the existing force, will have to compensate the remainder for staying on and will have to induce others to join. These will be men and women prepared to sacrifice their lives if need be, but not their financial futures. Nor is it fair to expect them to do so. They will be fighting not only so that others might live -- but also so that others can make a pile of money while they serve.

No one wants a draftee on his flank, but those who will not serve must surely pay and pay big time. The idea that a captain leading a company in Iraq should make less than a successful professional in any other field is absurd. The idea that a senior IT technician at a brokerage or hospital should have a 401(k) while a sergeant working computers in Baghdad has to put in 20 years before he sees a nickel in retirement income, is obscene.

And, leaving moralism aside, it will not work. There is no way around an expanded force and there is, therefore, no way around vastly increased pay and benefits for the troops. This will mean either higher taxes or cutbacks in other areas. However, those who don't serve and don't send their children to serve are no longer going to be able to simply count on being protected by the faceless "others." There ain't no such thing as a free lunch -- and that goes for national defense, as well.

Something healthy will come out of this. For a country that fights as many wars as the United States does -- and it fights a lot of wars -- the idea that the profession of arms should be treated worse and paid any less than professions like the law or medicine is absurd. Soldiers do not deal with matters of less importance to Americans than lawyers and doctors. In the past, it was possible to get soldiers on the cheap. Those days are past. If the United States plans to have a military in two years, it will have to pay for it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They're bloody right, and I blame both left and right for this state of affairs. Time to bite the bullet - there is no way to win this war on the cheap, and we shouldn't be doing so. Back off, rightist tax cutters and leftist welfare programmers - there are things more important than your pet ideologies.

[Alcon]

Very positive, although some of their recruiting methods bother me, and there are certain cultural issues. However, the former is pretty much necessary, and the latter you'll get whenever you have many young men together in a violent, competitive atmosphere.

[??????????]

Negative - The focus is too imperalistic rather than humanitarian.

The military isn't built for mercy, it's built to protect us from our enemies and kill those enemies. What exactly did you expect the military to be?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The military is the first defense of our welfare. It is the one inarguable thing the federal government should do. Just keep that in mind. I'm sure costs could be cut in terms of efficiency, though.

Although the majority of the welfare goes to politically connected corporations.

True. Corporate welfare should end.

Dibble I agree and may I add.

At least you can prove the constitutionality of the armed forces. You can't show me anywhere in the USCONST that gives the government the right to create all sorts of different social programs.

[TexasPatriot2024]

Nclib can you remind me how the U.K. or France helped us find Osama Bin Laden before he attacked us? With respects to our allies, especialy the U.K. the only way to fight terrirosm is an active presence. We cant sit at home being everyones friend and expecting the terrorist to be to scared to attack if we have allies. We have to get out there and hunt these people down, even if its a slow process its the best chance we have, their not going to go away if we ignore them.

[nclib]

Nclib can you remind me how the U.K. or France helped us find Osama Bin Laden before he attacked us?

We trained Bin Laden against the Soviets in the '80s.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Nclib can you remind me how the U.K. or France helped us find Osama Bin Laden before he attacked us?

We trained Bin Laden against the Soviets in the '80s.

Your point? we also sold weapons to saddam then too.... it was the correct thing to do at the time but a mistake in the end..... we cant take it back now

[Jake]

Nclib can you remind me how the U.K. or France helped us find Osama Bin Laden before he attacked us?

We trained Bin Laden against the Soviets in the '80s.

John Ford has posted at least twice on how we didn't fund his branch of the mujhaddein.  I'll see if I can get him to post it again.

[The Duke]

We funded the Hezbis and the Jamiat.  The Hezbis were in the east, led by Gulbuddhin Hekmatyar, and when we realized he was a crummy ally we started funding the Jamiat, which later became the Northern Alliance.  Osama's faction was the "Arab Afghans", a band of non-Afghanis who went to fight the USSR.  He was never associated with the Jamiat and had only loose ties to Hekmatyar's Hezbis faction.  He recieved no US money or training, funding most of his activities the same way he funded his Al Qaeda network -- through donations by wealthy Arabs back in the Kingdom, Islamic goverment sponsorship (particularly Pakistan), and illicit activities like gun and drug running.

[TexasPatriot2024]

Thank you! thats a lot of long names, thank you for helping clear up that common misconception.

[Jake]

Appreciate it Ford.  Please try to get a job in the news industry