^^ Did you just compare teaching children and putting out fires to fighting a war? Cuz I think you did. Fighting fires can be dangerous, but far fewer firefighters die than soldiers. Being a soldier is probably the most dangerous job there is and the point was that many people are far too willing to go to war without considering the people who will actually have to do the fighting. It's a much more different situation than teaching or extinguishing fires.

Also... 5

[Edited on January 10, 2008 at 12:12 PM. Reason : ]

1/10/2008 12:12:12 PM

ok.

everybody wants crab legs but nobody's getting on planes to alaska to join a crab crew.

and being an alaskan king crab fisherman IS a more dangerous job.

1/10/2008 12:19:32 PM

You watch too much television.

1/10/2008 12:24:02 PM

# of deaths on the job : total number of alaskan king crab fisherman

is a higher ratio than

# of deaths on the job : total number of US military soldiers

thats simply a fact...maybe you dont watch enough tv

1/10/2008 12:46:26 PM

BUT THAT DEFEATS HIS POINT. IT MUS'T ME TRUE

1/10/2008 12:50:16 PM

UNLESS YOU NORMALIZE THE DATA IT IS MEANINGLESS

1/10/2008 12:51:28 PM

Quote :

"Did you just compare teaching children and putting out fires to fighting a war? Cuz I think you did. Fighting fires can be dangerous, but far fewer firefighters die than soldiers. Being a soldier is probably the most dangerous job there is and the point was that many people are far too willing to go to war without considering the people who will actually have to do the fighting. "

Well, by all estimates I can find, serving in the military -- at least during the past five years -- has indeed been the most dangerous job in America, with about 127 deaths per 100,000 people in the job per year. That's pretty high, although, in fairness, it's only slightly higher than the rate experienced by timber cutters (118 deaths per 100,000).

Now, I ask you, is there really some magic level between 118 and 127 that distinguishes the pro-war from the pro-wood? That is where the cutoff point is that says I should enlist for loving the war, but don't have to break out the chainsaw for demanding paper?

---

I'm really not trying to trivialize the hardships of serving in the military, which should be taken into account when making decisions to go to war. But, ultimately, going to war is their job. It's what they're trained and paid to do, and they knew that going in when they made their choice to sign up. As a result, their hardships are not the primary factor in making a decision or even having a position on a military action.

1/10/2008 4:18:02 PM

I agree with you 100% that that is not the only thing to consider when going into war and it's not really even near the top. It is their job and they should be expected to do it. But it also seems that a lot of people nowadays are much too quick to go to war and that is just not right. Statements like the ones made in this post show how trivial some people think going to war is. Either that or they think that we're so completely dominant on the battlefield that the loss of life will be minimal, which may be true but there will always be a loss of life, which is a shame. Even 100 deaths affects thousands of people around the ones that died. I'm not totally anti-war and I don't believe that we live in some Candyland where war doesn't exist. But I feel like I'm rational enough to explore every other possible avenue before war because that's the absolute last thing I want.

Me and the other liberal pussies just get angry when the hawks go around criticizing our own people for not starting a confrontation, which is what happened in this thread. The admiral or whoever was in charge obviously made the correct call in not firing on those boats and yet he's criticized for showing "reckless restraint?" It shows a complete lack of respect for human life being so gung ho and that's the same attitude that got us into the situation we currently find ourselves militarily. I would have hoped we'd learned something by now but I guess some people just never do.

1/10/2008 4:38:13 PM

I'm down with pretty much all of that. It was the tired old, "Well if you support the war you should enlist or else you're just a chickenhawk armchair general."

Quote :

"But it also seems that a lot of people nowadays are much too quick to go to war and that is just not right."

Agreed, although the most important things they're forgetting in their haste are basic questions of capabilities. That's what makes soldiers' deaths so particularly intolerable.

1/10/2008 4:48:56 PM

I think I made clear, in my posts, that I wasn't saying you couldn't hold an opinion about the war.

I think I made it clear that my comments were directed at those who are excited about constantly pushing us towards another war when the military is already over-extended (due to a war of questionable -- at best -- justification) without any intent of volunteering themselves.

I haven't, and will never, suggest that we shouldn't have civilian control of the military. What I am saying is that the military is being asked to bear a disproportionate amount of the burden in this war compared to Vietnam (draft), Korea (universal military training), and WWII (draft). This isn't Desert Storm, this isn't Grenada, this isn't Panama, and this isn't Kosovo. This is a protracted military engagement with the smallest military we've had since at least Vietnam and there are numerous people calling for extending the theater of operations without offering any substantial explanation about how they'll support this with troop numbers.

Quite frankly, if you wish to keep an all volunteer military, you can't treat them with the attitude that "oh, they volunteered, it is their job." Aside from the asinine moral implicaiton of that statement, sooner or later their ass will un-volunteer.

1/10/2008 5:07:10 PM

Ok, so on the drive home I thought about the Alaskan Crab Fisherman analogy, so lets run with it.

If I want Alaskan Crab Legs, I pay for them. On the last trip, two fishermen lost their lives and thus the remainder demanded extra pay. Feeling that the market would sustain higher prices, the captain of the fishing boat raised their pay, passing on the added expense through each link in the supply chain until it got to the consumer.

When the consumer goes to the store, he finds that the price of his crab legs have gone up 20%. It aggravates him, but he's willing to pay it since he feels the benefit of the crab legs are worth the added cost. There will come a point where this is no longer true, the demand for crab legs will recede and thus the salary for crab fishermen will be depressed. Crab fishermen will leave the industry until the supply of and demand for crab fishermen settles at a price point that the market can bear. Awesome, the free market at its finest.

Now the military:

First off, we have to set aside the fact that a crab fisherman is completely voluntary and can quit his job at any time unlike a serviceman who can be subject to stop-loss or stop-move and who cannot, in the middle of a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan, decide to up and leave theater without facing federal prison time. (Technically, he can be executed for desertion, but this war isn't popular enough for that to be stomached.) If a Soldier feels that the value of his life is above his current compensation, he is unable to leave the service before a specified date. This adds inelasticity to the market, but in all fairness, it is what he signed up for.

However, the military, the Army in particular, is having trouble meeting its current retention goals. Therefore, it has to offer increasingly large bonuses (a senior Special Forces Non-Commissioned Officer is eligible for as much as $150k) in order to retain or bring in new Soldiers. Simultaneously, the equipment they use is wearing out at a rate not previously seen or projected for. Therefore, the military industrial complex (neutral connotation here folks) gears up to replace, repair, and resupply equipment that has been worn out. All of this drives up the overall cost of operations. How is this paid for? By the promise of the Federal Government to pay off debts that it incurs.

Of course, to pay off these debts, taxes are raised to cover the short-fall, production is shifted from consumer goods to military goods, and citizens are encouraged to buy war-bonds and conserve to support the war effort. No, wait. For the first time in American history, a protracted war has occurred without the general populace being asked to bear any of the burden of the effort. The price of service members has gone up, but no one is being asked to pay it except the service members and their families.

Now some will argue this is because the American economy is so strong that it can bear it, except that it is not being asked to bear it directly. Others will point out that the production of military goods creates jobs, and while this is true to a point, I don't think we want job creation to be a factor in the decision to execute military operations (although some say economic benefit was a large part in the decision to invade Iraq).

Do we see the disconnect?

1/10/2008 6:05:27 PM

yep. the disconnect was where i saw how long winded that shit is and refused to read it.

1/10/2008 6:17:23 PM

you dedication to understanding complicated issues is breathtaking.

1/10/2008 6:18:11 PM

1/10/2008 6:55:28 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4115702&page=1

It may not have been the speedboat threatening the ship.

[Edited on January 10, 2008 at 7:53 PM. Reason : a]

1/10/2008 7:52:44 PM

^ I like how the dudes on the boats in that picture are wearing life jackets. Safety first even on kamikazi missions...

1/10/2008 10:18:04 PM

Quote :

"I think I made it clear that my comments were directed at those who are excited about constantly pushing us towards another war when the military is already over-extended (due to a war of questionable -- at best -- justification) without any intent of volunteering themselves."

That's all a bit of a vague description, isn't it? Exactly what military actions can a person be for, and how strongly can they be for them, before you think they need to start volunteering?

Quote :

"Quite frankly, if you wish to keep an all volunteer military, you can't treat them with the attitude that "oh, they volunteered, it is their job." Aside from the asinine moral implicaiton of that statement, sooner or later their ass will un-volunteer."

Later on you speak about "the free market at its finest." As you allude to, people will eventually stop volunteering -- in fact, they already have. Like the price of crab legs, this refusal to participate will make changes necessary, either in the form of national unwillingness and inability to participate in further military actions, or in increased support from taxes (since the current refusal to raise taxes to pay for this operation can't last forever).

And I'm afraid that in order to maintain an effective all-volunteer military it is necessary to make clear that they did volunteer and it is their job. There was perhaps too long a period of complacency where some elements forgot that when they signed up they accepted the very real possibility of going to a very real war. I'm not suggesting that wars be started to remind everybody, nothing of the sort. But it is the truth and must be impressed upon soldiers and civilians lest we start basing our military decisions on our soldiers' excitement to get involved.

Quote :

"First off, we have to set aside the fact that a crab fisherman is completely voluntary and can quit his job at any time unlike a serviceman who can be subject to stop-loss or stop-move and who cannot, in the middle of a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan, decide to up and leave theater without facing federal prison time."

No, first off let's set aside for the moment that you chose someone else's example of crab fisher rather than my two examples, both of which were also government jobs more-or-less as exempt from free market influences as military servicemen.

The terms of the contracts one signs before joining the military are quite clear on the inability to simply quit later on. Many other contracts have stiff penalties for early termination, and while these are admittedly less severe they are nonetheless at times quite steep.

1/11/2008 1:02:21 AM

Quote :

"Of the six candidates, only Ron Paul said he thought the incident was being blown out of proportion. “Let’s put it in perspective. We have five small speedboats attacking the U.S. Navy with a Destroyer? They could take care of those speedboats in about five seconds. And here we’re ready to start World War III over this? … You know there are people in this administration and in Washington, D.C., that are looking for the chance” to bomb Iran, the 10-term Texas congressman said. “I’m worrying about the policy of why we’re looking for a justification. … I mean, we’re already, with our CIA, being involved in trying to overthrow that government, and we don’t need another war. And this incident should not be thrown out of proportion to the point where we’re getting ready to attack Iran over this,” Paul said."

1/11/2008 1:03:23 AM

Paul was then ridiculed by McCain.

Paul then retorted and humbled McCain.

Paul was then ridiculed by Guiliani.

1/11/2008 1:13:52 AM

Video from what *seems* to be the perspective of one of the Iranian boats:

1/11/2008 2:57:35 AM

Quote :

"That's all a bit of a vague description, isn't it? Exactly what military actions can a person be for, and how strongly can they be for them, before you think they need to start volunteering?"

I don't think so. Grumpy, you're pretty smart, so it seems like you're being unnecessarialy obtuse on this issue. Re-read the sentence of mine that you quoted, I had a very narrow group of people in mind.

Quote :

"And I'm afraid that in order to maintain an effective all-volunteer military it is necessary to make clear that they did volunteer and it is their job. There was perhaps too long a period of complacency where some elements forgot that when they signed up they accepted the very real possibility of going to a very real war."

I hope I'm not coming across as bitching about having to do my job, or that most other Soldiers are doing this. Looking back, I can see how I might be giving that impression, but that isn't my intent. At just over six years after we invaded Afghanistan, pretty much everyone in the military knows what they signed up or re-enlisted for.

Quote :

"But it is the truth and must be impressed upon soldiers and civilians lest we start basing our military decisions on our soldiers' excitement to get involved."

Yet again, many of those in the military establishment who could speak out against the Iraq war (mostly retired officers), did. The primary push for it was from civilians who had never served. I hope to God we're not making policy decisions based on Lance CPL Shmuckatelli or PFC Joe Snuffy Smith's adolescent wish for adventure.

Quote :

"The terms of the contracts one signs before joining the military are quite clear on the inability to simply quit later on. Many other contracts have stiff penalties for early termination, and while these are admittedly less severe they are nonetheless at times quite steep."

I address this with the line, "they knew what they signed up for", I just brought it up to illustrate that strains in the military may not be immediately reflected in the "price" of a service member.

Quote :

"No, first off let's set aside for the moment that you chose someone else's example of crab fisher rather than my two examples, both of which were also government jobs more-or-less as exempt from free market influences as military servicemen."

Well I didn't address yours because I didn't find it compelling. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. We're not currently burdening firefighters to the point that we'll do long term damage to their firefighting ability. Currently, the "market" for firefighters and equipment is fairly well sustained. Also since they are generally locally funded, their cost to the community is reflected fairly precisely in a local municipalities taxes. The same goes for superintendents and police.

1/11/2008 6:39:18 AM

Quote :

"Chavez and Ahmadinejad have been using the same trick since the invasion of Iraq - playing up the possibility of a US invasion and then portraying themselves as the only thing keeping Bush at bay in order to consolidate support. Saber rattling is essential to such a policy."

Funny how you could interchange the names and it would still be just as true.


You could also change my "funny" to ridiculous, goddamn insane, fucked up, infuriating.....

[Edited on January 11, 2008 at 7:54 AM. Reason : .]

1/11/2008 7:53:46 AM

Either way if we had not have gotten ourselves neck deep in the unjustified war with Iraq bc we want to play empire, our destroyer would not have been off the coast of Iran to be "threatened"

1/11/2008 9:59:53 AM

either way, if terrorists hadnt attacked us on 9/11, we wouldnt have had to lie about a link to Iraq, and our destroyer would not have been off the coast of Iran to be "threatened"

1/11/2008 10:04:15 AM

There's a fairly decent chance that destroyer would be there anyway, actually. Maybe not in that exact location, but the Navy is going to protect this general region.

1/11/2008 10:21:54 AM

why doesn't King Saud fucking pay his own boats to protect his gulf.

1/11/2008 10:23:20 AM

Quote :

"either way, if terrorists hadnt attacked us on 9/11, we wouldnt have had to lie about a link to Iraq"

Do you want to clarify this?

1/11/2008 12:18:48 PM

yes...it was just as pointless a comment as HUR's "if" scenario in the post immediately above that essentially blamed bush and the iraq war for this iran incident...i figured i might as well blame the 9/11 terrorists for the iran incident since it happened before the iraq war started!

1/11/2008 12:33:42 PM

I'm betting that the threatening voices in the radio transmission were broadcast from the Grassy Knoll.

1/11/2008 12:46:09 PM

[Edited on January 11, 2008 at 12:51 PM. Reason : .]

1/11/2008 12:51:46 PM

Quote :

"Either way if we had not have gotten ourselves neck deep in the unjustified war with Iraq bc we want to play empire, our destroyer would not have been off the coast of Iran to be "threatened" "

not correct.

the 5th Navy is stationed in that area to protect the oil shipping lanes from piracy or just general douchebaggary on the open water. I believe that has been their 'mission' since the late seventies.

1/11/2008 3:41:56 PM

fuck it

im voting for ron paul

1/11/2008 9:20:23 PM

fuck it

i'm throwing my vote away

1/11/2008 9:35:06 PM

Military now acknowledging that the voice threats could have come from a local radio prankster. No mention of how ridiculously bad the fake accent was in the video, yet. hahaha.

The military should really stop trying to sex up evidence because they really suck at it.

From the hate-america democratic blogosphere:

Quote :

"All ships at sea use a common UHF frequency, Channel 16, also known as “bridge-to bridge” radio. Over here, near the U.S., and throughout the Mediterranean, Ch. 16 is used pretty professionally, i.e., chatter is limited to shiphandling issues, identifying yourself, telling other ships what your intentions are to avoid mishaps, etc. But over in the Gulf, Ch. 16 is like a bad CB radio. Everybody and their brother is on it; chattering away; hurling racial slurs, usually involving Filipinos (lots of Filipinos work in the area); curses involving your mother; 1970’s music broadcast in the wee hours (nothing odder than hearing The Carpenters 50 miles off the coast of Iran at 4 a.m.) On Ch. 16, esp. in that section of the Gulf, slurs/threats/chatter/etc. is commonplace. So my first thought was that the “explode” comment might not have even come from one of the Iranian craft, but some loser monitoring the events at a shore facility."

[Edited on January 15, 2008 at 4:58 AM. Reason : .]

1/15/2008 4:54:55 AM

AP has picked the 'prankster' story up as well and the military is kinda saying 'well, maybe.'

1/15/2008 8:33:41 AM

"I am coming right at you, You will explode in a few minutes" = "All your base are belong to us, You have no chance to survive make your time"

???

1/15/2008 9:00:06 AM

I do not understand why just b.c someone has enough common sense that they do not want to go war mongering around teh world with Bush means they "hate" America.

I am sure even though they did not approve of the kremlin's policies under Stalin most russians did not "hate" russia.

1/15/2008 9:15:31 AM