Obama administration asks for 10% military budget cut

[Guest Brewdog]

"The original idea was flawed - pre-emptive war goes against our traditions and history. "

Sort of. Except for (possibly) The Spanish American War, The Bay of Pigs, (most likely) Vietnam, Grenada, Panama... Due to the flagrant and repeated violations of UN resoloutions, it could be said the second invasion was just about as justifiable as the first.

[brickhistory]

"The original idea was flawed - pre-emptive war goes against our traditions and history. "

Sort of. Except for (possibly) The Spanish American War, The Bay of Pigs, (most likely) Vietnam, Grenada, Panama... Due to the flagrant and repeated violations of UN resoloutions, it could be said the second invasion was just about as justifiable as the first.

And we're off.....

Spanish-American War: result (probably wrongly) of the USS Maine explosion. That act was considered an act of war. Hence, the declaration of war following it.

Bay of Pigs: ?Que? As poorly as it was planned/executed, it was Cuban rebels on the beach, not more than a handful of Americans. Don't remember any war. If JFK had manned up and supported the invasion with the USN sitting off shore, then it might have succeeded. I'd also argue that his pussy-ness on the Bay of Pigs led JFK to try to stand tall in the saddle for Vietnam.

Vietnam: Little measue called the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that Congress voted to allow the President to respond to military actions in Vietnam as he saw fit after the North's attack(s?) on USN destroyers. No pre-emption there. If you want to say that a Declaration of War should have been issued, I'm agreeing.

Grenada: We were asked to protect the citizens of the island by the deposed Governor-General. Not to mention our own medical students there which were under threat by the bad guys. Again, asked in.

Panama: the repeated attacks on US citizens and installations by Pineapple Face were provocation enough not to mention the warrant for arrest of Noriega. Again, acts by the enemy first, then our response.

In any event, I'd hardly call Grenada or Panama "wars." Military actions? Sure. Wars? Not by what I was taught.

As to the "second invasion as justifiable as the first," you are unclear. What was/when was the first by us? But in any event, the legal justification for OIF were the lack of compliance with UN resolutions regarding destroying and verifying that destruction. Saddam rolled the dice that he could stonewall the world. He lost.

But seeing as how we pissed away the USAF for 12 years for ONW and OSW keeping him in a box (sts), I don't think the calling "fight's on" by President Bush was a good one. Once it was, however, it should be win it quickly and in a big way. Secretary Rumsfeld botched that.

Now that it appears to be won by some incredible work by our guys on the ground, there does seem a way for us to go. The Iraqi government in place now has signed an agreement with the US for us to leave by 2011. Ok, let's abide by that.

Edited March 8, 2009 by brickhistory

[Guest Brewdog]

My point was that pre-emption is not totally absent in our history or at least as much as some would like to believe. I'm sure you know that the source of the Maine explosion is disputed to this day. Even if it wasn't, America was pushing hard for that war. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is also controversial. Sure Noreiga acted against US interests but I would say, like Saddam, when he stopped playing on our team; it was decided he needed to go. (BTW the first invasion I referenced in my post was when we crossed into Iraq and pursued Iraqi forces to 150 miles from Bagdhad.) Surely you cannot say that Saddam never attacked US interests, even during ONW/OSW. OIF wasn't a declared war either, but yes the scale is much different than Panama. Let's not even get into all the proxy wars during the mid to late Cold War era. I'm not trying to de-rail any further but I personally have no problem with America aggressively protecting its interests abroad, as it has done throughout its history.

Edited March 8, 2009 by Brewdog

[brickhistory]

I'm not trying to de-rail any further but I personally have no problem with America aggressively protecting its interests abroad, as it has done throughout its history.

Me either.

Don't paint me as some Cindy Sheehan ally type, but we haven't been the guy who hits first in a war.

Somehow this went from China's ever-increasing share of GDP towards its military to this cluster.

A 10% cut doesn't make a lot of sense with the threats facing our country. Even as part of the economic recovery, buy new stuff makes sense.

[donkey]

*Sorry if this is the wrong spot to post this*

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/ap_on_..._koreas_tension

N. Korea threatens 'war' if satellite is shot down

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea ordered its armed forces on standby and warned Monday it will retaliate against anyone seeking to block its planned satellite launch, which many fear will disguise a missile test.

The threat was the North's latest attempt to escalate tensions on the divided peninsula and a strong sign that the communist nation intends to push ahead with the launch despite mounting international pressure to drop the plan. Analysts say Pyongyang is trying to grab President Barack Obama's attention as his administration formulates its North Korea policy.

Monday's warning came hours before United States and South Korea kicked off annual war games involving tens of thousands of troops, which the communist nation has condemned as preparations for an invasion.

The joint drills across South Korea began as concerns mounted that Pyongyang could be gearing up to test-fire a long-range missile capable of reaching U.S. territory. North Korea says it plans to launch a communications satellite, but neighboring governments believe it is a cover for a missile test.

Analysts have said a launch could come late this month or in early April when the North's new legislature, chosen in Sunday's election, is expected to convene its first meeting to confirm Kim Jong Il as leader.

U.S. and Japanese officials have suggested they could shoot down a North Korean missile if necessary.

"If the enemies recklessly opt for intercepting our satellite, our revolutionary armed forces will launch without hesitation a just retaliatory strike operation not only against all the interceptor means involved but against the strongholds" of the U.S., Japan and South Korea, the general staff of the North's military said in a statement.

"Shooting our satellite for peaceful purposes will precisely mean a war," said the statement, carried by Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency.

The North's military ordered all personnel to "be fully combat ready" so that they could "deal merciless retaliatory blows" at the enemy, KCNA said in a separate dispatch.

North Korea also cut off a military hot line with the South during the 12-day exercises, leaving the sides without any means of communication, triggering fears that even an accidental skirmish could develop into a battle as the sides have no way of contacting each other.

The two sides have used the hot line to exchange information about the crossing of goods and people through the industrial North Korean border city of Kaesong. Its suspension halted traffic and strand about 570 South Koreans staying in the zone.

About 700 South Korean who had planned to enter Kaesong on Monday could not, the unification ministry said.

South Korea urged Pyongyang to restore the line immediately and stop raising tensions.

"As the government has made it clear many times, the joint South Korea-U.S. military exercises are annual defensive drills," said Unification Ministry spokesman Kim Ho-nyeon. "The government again urges North Korea to stop acts that raise tensions."

Also in Seoul, the new U.S. special envoy on Pyongyang met with South Korean Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan and Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee on Monday to discuss the tensions. Stephen W. Bosworth is scheduled to hold a series of meetings with President Lee Myung-bak and other senior officials later in the day.

"I have no illusions about what I've agreed to try to deal with. It's a very difficult mandate," Bosworth told Yu.

The U.S. envoy has urged Pyongyang to refrain from firing a missile, stop threatening neighbors, and defuse tensions through dialogue. The envoy arrived in Seoul on Saturday as part of an Asian tour that has already taken him to China and Japan.

The United States and South Korea have conducted annual military exercises a few times a year for decades, and Pyongyang has routinely condemned them as rehearsals for invasion.

The North had stepped up its war rhetoric in the run-up to the drills that began Monday. It has threatened South Korean passenger planes flying near its airspace, claiming the maneuvers pose grave threats to its security.

Seoul and Washington have repeatedly said the drills, which involve its 26,000 military personnel in South Korea, an unspecified number of southern soldiers and a U.S. aircraft carrier, are purely defensive, and the allies do not have any intention of attacking the North.

Ties between the two Koreas have badly frayed since Lee took office last year, taking a tougher stance than his liberal predecessors on Pyongyang, and halting unconditional aid to the impoverished neighbor.

An angered North Korea suspended the reconciliation process and key joint cooperation projects with Seoul, while making a stream of belligerent threats against the South.

The two Koreas technically remain in a state of conflict as the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a cease-fire, not a peace treaty. Hundreds of thousands of troops are amassed on each side of the Demilitarized Zone separating the two Koreas, making the Korean border one of the world's most heavily armed.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

There has always been a battle between funding for the war "right now" and the war of tomorrow. Somehow there needs to be a balance. We can't always expect every enemy we go up against are going to be unsophisticated insurgents. If we gear all our spending priorities towards COIN and assymetric warfare, we're going to get our arses kicked if and when the balloon goes up and we face off with a very well equipped conventional threat. History shows that we've faced both types of enemies an equal number of times in the past, so we've got to be ready for either one.

It is unfortunate to see these trends, for example in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we shed all of our light COIN-type aircraft for more "survivable" aircraft. In facing a conventional threat, that decision was a good one. But facing off with the enemy of today in Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be nice to still have an OV-10 type aircraft around. Now we see things going the other way...people are talking about shutting off funding for air superiority and conventional bombers, and reducing buys of other conventional-type aircraft. That's great if all we'd ever do is fight Iraq-style insurgents, but what happens if North Korea makes good on threats? Or if China decides to flex its muscle in the straits? A bunch of AT-6s and MRAPs aren't going to win that battle...

[MKopack]

Now we see things going the other way...people are talking about shutting off funding for air superiority and conventional bombers, and reducing buys of other conventional-type aircraft. That's great if all we'd ever do is fight Iraq-style insurgents, but what happens if North Korea makes good on threats? Or if China decides to flex its muscle in the straits? A bunch of AT-6s and MRAPs aren't going to win that battle...

Well, we will have all of those Predators....

Mike

[tac airlifter]

There has always been a battle between funding for the war "right now" and the war of tomorrow. Somehow there needs to be a balance. We can't always expect every enemy we go up against are going to be unsophisticated insurgents. If we gear all our spending priorities towards COIN and assymetric warfare, we're going to get our arses kicked if and when the balloon goes up and we face off with a very well equipped conventional threat. History shows that we've faced both types of enemies an equal number of times in the past, so we've got to be ready for either one.

It is unfortunate to see these trends, for example in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we shed all of our light COIN-type aircraft for more "survivable" aircraft. In facing a conventional threat, that decision was a good one. But facing off with the enemy of today in Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be nice to still have an OV-10 type aircraft around. Now we see things going the other way...people are talking about shutting off funding for air superiority and conventional bombers, and reducing buys of other conventional-type aircraft. That's great if all we'd ever do is fight Iraq-style insurgents, but what happens if North Korea makes good on threats? Or if China decides to flex its muscle in the straits? A bunch of AT-6s and MRAPs aren't going to win that battle...

What happens? We spend 2 years getting guys killed until we build up the right resources for that war. Isn't that what we've done during every war? I'm partly being sarcastic. I understand the value of procuring aircraft strategically to meet the next anticipated threat, but when was the last time our strategic thinkers were correct in their assesment of the next threat? We were not prepared with the right equipment for Vietnam, WW2, WW1, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan. All the major wars of the 20th century. This is not to say that we shouldn't try to to be prepared, but we don't have a great track record of predicting what type of enemy we'll face next. So my suggestion is that instead of wasting billions of dollars guessing (incorrectly) who we'll face next, maybe we should focus on creating a logistical and procurement system that can act fast and move quickly when the need arises. It's not as desireable as 383 F-22s, but it's a more realistic goal that is within our control as an Air Force.

[MKopack]

To all those who believe China isn't a threat:

Almost reminds you of a certain EP-3E, not all that many years ago...

Mike

[slacker]

To all those who believe China isn't a threat:

The Chinese crew was just making sure the American sailors were wearing boots and watches made in China.

[MKopack]

Almost, except for the Chinese military stripping down to their underwear part.

Ahhh, those crazy Chinese...

Mike

[JS]

Ahhh, those crazy Chinese...

Mike

I actually heard they were getting in for a closer look at a reported yellow glow from what they thought might be nuclear radiation:

[MKopack]

I actually heard they were getting in for a closer look at a reported yellow glow from what they thought might be nuclear radiation:

Was thinking that perhaps stripping down to underwear might be some form of a seabased Naval greeting, but I wouldn't even think of saying that here...

Pentagon: Chinese vessels sexually harassed unarmed ship

52 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon says Chinese ships shadowed and maneuvered dangerously close to a U.S. Navy vessel in what appeared to be an effort to harass the American crew...

Edited March 9, 2009 by MKopack

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Speaking about Obama and defense...he's mentioned making deals with the Taliban...at least one reporter on CNN gets it right:

Commentary: Deals with Taliban could be dangerous

By Peter Bergen

CNN National Security Analyst

(CNN) -- It is a longstanding cliché that there is no military solution in Afghanistan, only a political one.

Linked to this is the newer, related notion, rapidly becoming a cliché, that the United States should start making deals with elements of the "reconcilable" Taliban.

As with many clichés, there is some truth to both these notions, but neither of these comforting ideas are a substitute for a strategy that is connected to what is happening on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Sunday's New York Times ran an interview with President Obama in which he said that, just as the U.S. had made peace agreements with Sunni militias in Iraq, "There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and in the Pakistani region." He also cautioned that this could be "more complex" than was the case in Iraq.

It's not only going to be more complex, but doing deals with the Taliban today could further destabilize Afghanistan.

Before getting to why that is the case, let's stipulate first that there are always going to be some local commanders of the Taliban who can be bribed, coerced or otherwise persuaded to lay down their arms.

In fact, the Afghan government already has had an amnesty program in place for Taliban fighters for four years. Thousands of the Taliban already have taken advantage of the amnesty, a fact that tends to be glossed over in most of the recent discussions of the issue.

That being said, there are nine reasons why doing deals with most of the various factions of the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Pakistan that are labeled "the Taliban" are more in the realm of fantasy than a sustainable policy.

First, the Afghan government is a sovereign entity and any agreements with the Taliban must be made by it. Right now the weak and ineffectual Afghan government is in no position to negotiate with the Taliban, other than to make significant concessions of either territory or principle, or both.

Second, while Obama didn't talk about dealing with Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, it is worth pointing out the Taliban leadership, including Mullah Omar, has in the past several months taken every opportunity to say that it has no interest in a deal with the Afghan government. And just last week, Mullah Omar urged the Pakistani Taliban to refocus their efforts on attacking U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Those statements should be taken at face value.

Third, Mullah Omar's intransigence is utterly predictable. He was prepared to sacrifice his regime on the point of principle that he would not hand over Osama bin Laden after 9/11. And he did. This does not suggest a Kissingerian realism about negotiations, but rather a fanatical devotion to his cause.

Fourth, the Taliban believe they may be winning in Afghanistan, and they also are confident that they are not losing, which for an insurgent movement amounts to the same thing. They see no need to negotiate today when they can get a better deal down the road.

Fifth, the Taliban leadership is largely in Pakistan. Side deals done with the Afghan Taliban will have little or no effect on the fact that the command and control of the insurgency is in another country.

Sixth, when Pakistan's government has done "peace" deals with the Taliban in the Pakistani tribal regions in 2005 and 2006 and in the northern region of Swat earlier this year, they were made following military setbacks by Pakistan's army. Those deals then allowed the militants to regroup and extend their control over greater swaths of Pakistani territory. Why would new agreements with the Taliban on either side of the Afghan-Pakistan border yield different results?

Seventh, "reconcilable" Afghan Taliban leaders have already reconciled to the government. Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the former foreign minister who met with Afghan government officials in Saudi Arabia in September, to discuss some kind of agreement with the Harmid Karzai administration, was a foe of bin Laden's long before 9/11 and was never a hard-liner. Muttawakil has no standing today with Taliban leaders, who have been waging war now for 7½ years against Karzai, and who quickly denied they were in any negotiations with his government.

Eighth, while the Taliban was never a monolithic movement, it is much closer to al Qaeda today than it was before 9/11. Yes, there are local groups of the Taliban operating for purely local reasons, but the upper levels of the Taliban have morphed together ideologically and tactically with al Qaeda.

Baitullah Mehsud, for instance, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, sent suicide attackers to Spain in January 2008, according to Spanish counterterrorism officials, and sees himself as part of the global jihad. The Haqqani family, arguably the most important component of the insurgency on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border, has ties with bin Laden that date back to at least 1985, according to the Palestinian journalist Jamal Ismail, who has known the al Qaeda leader for more than two decades.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a commander allied to the Taliban, has been close to bin Laden since at least 1989, according to militants who know both men.

Al Qaeda was founded in Pakistan two decades ago, and bin Laden has been fighting alongside Afghan mujahedeen groups since the mid-1980s. Al Qaeda Central on the Afghan/Pakistan border is much less of a "foreign" group with far deeper and older roots in the region than Al Qaeda ever was in Iraq.

The Taliban's rhetoric is now filled with references to Iraq and Palestine in a manner that mirrors bin Laden's public statements. The use of suicide attacks, improvised explosive devices and the beheadings of hostages -- all techniques that al Qaeda perfected in Iraq -- are methods that the Taliban have increasingly adopted in Afghanistan and have grown exponentially there since 2005. iReport.com: Should there be a deal with the Taliban?

One could go on listing examples of the Taliban's ideological and tactical collaboration with al Qaeda, but the larger point is that separating al Qaeda and the Taliban is not going to be as relatively simple as splintering Iraqi insurgent groups from al Qaeda in Iraq.

And ninth, unlike Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was a foreign-led group that sought to impose, unpopular Taliban-style rule on Sunni areas of Iraq, the Taliban in Pashtun areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan are not outsiders, but are often neighborhood people whose views about religion and society are rooted in the values of the Pashtun countryside.

While, of course, the U.S. should be splintering, buying off and co-opting as many elements of the Taliban as possible, American officials also need to be realistic about how much closer Al Qaeda and the Taliban have grown together in recent years, and the fact that the insurgency has mushroomed in size on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Winston Churchill once observed that "it's better to jaw-jaw than to war-war." True enough. But "jaw-jaw" with the Taliban won't work if they think they are winning as they do right now.

The Obama administration has ordered 17,000 additional American soldiers to go to Afghanistan this year. As a result, two Marine brigades and a mobile, well-armored Stryker brigade will deploy into the heart of the Taliban insurgency in southern Afghanistan. Marine and Stryker brigades are not the kind of units you send in to play nice.

Those deployments strongly suggest that for all the public discussion of negotiations with the Taliban the decision already has been made that any such negotiations should precede from a position of strength rather than weakness.

Anyone who thinks we can realistically make a "deal" with the Taliban that would be beneficial to our effort in Afghanistan is detached from reality, or really naive (or both!).

[nsplayr]

Dude, the end of the article shows the writer agrees with the policy as long as it's not some kind of concessions party:

"While, of course, the U.S. should be splintering, buying off and co-opting as many elements of the Taliban as possible, American officials also need to be realistic blah blah blah..."

Translation: So yes, we should try to make deals with the ones that aren't really hard-core radicals, but make sure you don't just appease the truly evil guys. Sounds good to me.

"The Obama administration has ordered 17,000 additional American soldiers to go to Afghanistan this year. As a result, two Marine brigades and a mobile, well-armored Stryker brigade will deploy into the heart of the Taliban insurgency in southern Afghanistan. Marine and Stryker brigades are not the kind of units you send in to play nice."

Translation: We're sending in some of the best of our boys to lay the smackdown on anyone who decides they don't want to get with the program and work with the government instead of blowing themselves up. We can talk and kick ass at the same time...these concepts are not mutually exclusive, as noted by this increase in ass-kicking potential alongside rumors of new negotiations.

Anyone who thinks we can realistically make a "deal" with the Taliban that would be beneficial to our effort in Afghanistan is detached from reality, or really naive (or both!).

You're right in saying we can't just idly talk because while we sit and talk the Taliban are just resting and re-arming, but if we can offer some carrots along with a healthy helping of sticks, that sounds like a policy I can support. Is this change gonna "win the war," I have no idea...Afghanistan is a cluster and has been for longer than any of us can remember, but it sounds like a good start and with Gen. Petraeus as the big boss in Centcom, I'm one to think we can pull off some kind of victory in the long term.

Edited March 10, 2009 by nsplayr

[Guest Hueypilot812]

I think you missed the point of the article. The writer stated that making deals with the Taliban as a group won't happen and isn't realistic. He does feel we should continue to try and lure away the less-than-committed Taliban if possible, although he acknowledged that this has been going on for some time already and most of those that would leave the Taliban already have.

As for the talk and kick ass part...anyone who thinks we shouldn't engage local leaders in Afghanistan and just go kick the hell out of everyone is asking for a war we can't win. The Soviets did just that in the 1980s...if a village didn't cooperate, they just leveled it. And you know how popular the Russians were in Afghanistan...they weren't. It's always useful to keep the discussion end of things as an available option.

The thrust of this article was a critique of Obama's policy, that thinking you can somehow work a deal with the Taliban is pure fantasy and it's not going to happen. I think this article actually underlines a critically weak point in Obama's foreign policy...his assumption that all we've got to do is sit down and talk things out. That idealistic notion completely ignores the fact that the other side often doesn't feel they have a need to talk, nor does talking suit their interests. That's true in Iran, and it's true in Afghanistan.

To find an article that is written by a mainstream press writer like Bergen that doesn't glowingly endorse Obama's ideas, and actually realistically explains why Obama's policy is WRONG...well, that's just unheard of these days. I don't think that Bergen endorses Obama's plan to negotiate with the Taliban, because despite the few quotes you cherry-picked from the article that says we should be ready to talk and wage war, the overall point of the article was that negotiating with the Taliban is nothing more than Obama-fantasy.

[brickhistory]

Not sure if this is a perfect fit, but I think it at least works on this thread.

I'm not always a fan of Peters (sts), for example, the thinks the USAF should be 100% CAS and the rest is 'toys,' but he is spot on on this one:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03122009/posto...five_159152.htm

Other factors may intensify or accelerate a terrorist's will to slaughter the innocent. But the dark heart of the matter is that these men believe they're on a mission from their god to punish the godless (including fellow Muslims who don't measure up).

Yet, no matter how fiercely our enemies declare that their faith compels them to kill, our elected and appointed officials continue to insist that the terrorists don't understand themselves - that they're really driven by economic factors or our own foreign-policy missteps, that their savage interpretation of Islam is only a ploy . . .

Shouldn't we pay just a little attention to what our enemies say about themselves?

[AEWingsMN]

USNS Impeccable

Sounds like the Navy stole that name from Carnival Cruise lines. Either that or they're getting the ships second hand from Carnival!

[nsplayr]

Other factors may intensify or accelerate a terrorist's will to slaughter the innocent. But the dark heart of the matter is that these men believe they're on a mission from their god to punish the godless (including fellow Muslims who don't measure up).

Yet, no matter how fiercely our enemies declare that their faith compels them to kill, our elected and appointed officials continue to insist that the terrorists don't understand themselves - that they're really driven by economic factors or our own foreign-policy missteps, that their savage interpretation of Islam is only a ploy . . .

Shouldn't we pay just a little attention to what our enemies say about themselves?

On the one hand, I think, yes, to some degree we should consider how the enemy perceives themselves in terms of how we should fight them. On the other hand though, 2 things get in the way of that:

1. Is that actually what he believes? A lot of guys talk a good talk and even walk a little walk but in the end they're not much but hype. On top of that, you have to consider the war of perceptions that's constantly being played...is this what the enemy wants me to think? Is he projecting an inflated image of zealous strength just to get me to back down/overreact/do something else, etc?

2. Leaders vs. Soldiers. In my opinion the leaders of a lot of the organizations we're fighting out there are the fanatical "true believers" who are out there to rid the world of evil as they see it. But I also believe that the majority of the actual fighters, along with some of the leaders in truth, are undertaking their fight because they stand to personally gain. Whether they gain respect from their community for being a brave Mujaheddin, whether they gain monetarily or increase their family/tribe/whatever's physical security by joining up with the guys with the guns; I tend to believe that actual, damn-near crazy fanaticism explains a smaller percentage of our enemies' motivations than do other factors.

It's a good conversation to have and good on Peters for thinking deep enough to ask what should be a fundamental question.

[busdriver]

Very interesting article in Newsweek by Fareed Zakaria: Article

Basically he's saying we need to separate the fundamentalist Muslims from those actively seeking violence. Actually pretty sound advice from what little I understand of counter insurgency operations, ie. separate the fighters from their base.

[The Kayla]

Hey, has anyone heard if Obama is going to cut the new GI Bill?

[nsplayr]

Hey, has anyone heard if Obama is going to cut the new GI Bill?

No and I don't imagine that happening since be primary sponsor (Jim Webb) is a prominent member of the President's own party. Where'd ya read/hear that from?

I know congress is considering some bills that modify how parts of the post 9/11 GI would work, but I'm not sure about the details and those have been in the pipeline since last Fall.

[The Kayla]

No and I don't imagine that happening since be primary sponsor (Jim Webb) is a prominent member of the President's own party. Where'd ya read/hear that from?

I know congress is considering some bills that modify how parts of the post 9/11 GI would work, but I'm not sure about the details and those have been in the pipeline since last Fall.

I'm on a wifey board, and a chick on there was told by her husband (AD army, I think) that Obama cut the GI Bill. I tried finding something, and I came up with nothing.. So I posted in here, since you guys are amazing at finding information :-)

Edited March 14, 2009 by The Kayla

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Seems as though Obama has not lost his sights on idealism:

Link to story

Obama reaches out to Iran with video message

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is reaching out to the Iranian people in a new video with Farsi subtitles, saying the U.S. is prepared to end years of strained relations if Tehran tones down its bellicose rhetoric.

The video released Friday was timed to the festival of Nowruz (no-ROOZ), which means "new day" and marks the arrival of spring. It's a major holiday in Iran.

"So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders," Obama said in the video. "We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community."

Obama has signaled a willingness to speak directly with Iran about its nuclear program and hostility toward Israel, a key U.S. ally. At his inauguration, the president said his administration would reach out to rival states, declaring "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

It's been a rough start for Obama.

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has criticized Obama as merely a continuation of President George W. Bush's policies toward Tehran's enemy, Israel. Khamenei has called Israel a "cancerous tumor" that is on the verge of collapse and has called for its destruction.

In his message Friday, Obama had a warning for Tehran: "This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Iran would welcome talks with the U.S. — but only if there was mutual respect. Iranian officials have said that means the U.S. needs to stop accusing Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism, charges Tehran has denied.

Obama and his foreign policy team are looking for opportunities to engage Iran and help reduce tensions between the two countries, which increased during Bush's time in office.

"You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations," Obama said. "You have that right, but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization."

The White House said the United States still has serious differences with Iran, particularly on the threat a nuclear-armed Tehran poses to the region. But aides said the president's message was a way to speak directly to Iranians about the U.S. commitment to work with the country.

The video also was as much an attempt to reach out directly to the Iranian people as it was a gesture toward the country's leadership. While Obama has advocated direct diplomacy with Tehran, he also has said there are multiple elements within Iran with whom the United States could have a dialogue.

The White House said a Farsi subtitled version of the video would be given to select news outlets in the region. At the same time, the video would be available online in English and with Farsi captions.

The holiday Nowruz is not Islamic; Iranians of all religions celebrate the 12-day event. Traditionally, the U.S. president and secretary of state release statements for Nowruz.

"For nearly three decades relations between our nations have been strained," Obama said in his video message. "But at this holiday we are reminded of the common humanity that binds us together."

I think he underestimates Iran's motivation...it's not about simply wanting international respect and righting "wrongs". Iran is motivated by a desire for regional (and even international) power. Telling them that if they just play nice and be friendly, we can all hug each other and call bygones bygones...that's simply ignoring reality. I really hope he doesn't dismiss their true intentions.

[Vertigo]

I think he underestimates Iran's motivation...it's not about simply wanting international respect and righting "wrongs". Iran is motivated by a desire for regional (and even international) power. Telling them that if they just play nice and be friendly, we can all hug each other and call bygones bygones...that's simply ignoring reality. I really hope he doesn't dismiss their true intentions.

Agreed. I think his daily intel briefs cover your last sentence though. Who knows, maybe he is being idealistic, or maybe he knows something we don't. If these talks can bring about a greater chance for change so that Iran reverts back to pre-revolution ways then by all means go for it. If we continue on the road we're on I don't see any hope of Iran going back to its moderate ways which only means more headaches from this country in the future.