Budget Cuts, The Troops and History

Apparently the powers that be have not learned from history.


When we were attacked on Dec.7^th 1941 we had a very small army. The army and the Marines had so little equipment to train with that they were using wooden guns and literally attacking saying “bang, bang” just as we did when we played as kids. There had been a steady increase of men enlisting because everyone could smell war in the air, but when we were finally attacked we were not much of a fighting force. We didn't have the equipment. The Japanese actually counted on that and calculated that if they took out most of our naval forces in the Pacific we would just cut our losses and run. They were wrong but it took us quite awhile to get all the forces that we needed ,and all the equipment which left our nation vulnerable. It would seem that we may be on the verge of repeating that mistake.


Citing an end to our current wars, and the end of the the “cold war”, the Obama administration, as recommended by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, is planning on cutting military personnel to pre WW2 levels, as well as cutting back on various weapons systems, and cutting pay and benefits for troops as a step to get the budget under some sort of control.


Let me state that I have no objections to ending these very wasteful and pointless wars we have been involved in, and I have suggested many times that one of the ways to save money would be to close out all our bases around the world and bring everyone home, but now, instead ,they are going to target the troops themselves and this is just patently wrong.


I have served with infantry and artillery as well as communications in both peace time and war. I have literally walked in the boots of the troops as they have marched across the sand in foreign countries or on forced marches while in training. I understand the hardships of both being single and being married, with kids, and trying to live off of a paycheck that tends to be a lot less than your civilian counterparts, while your job in comparison is by far more dangerous.


The problem with cutting pay is that around most bases everything from rent to food is higher priced. Land lords know what you get paid , based on your rank, and they charge you more. Grocery stores and the big chain stores know this as well. We are not even talking about utilities or other things that you might need for your families. This is why we have so many military families on food stamps; they get sucked dry by those they are sworn to defend.


On top of pay cuts, they want to have military personnel pay for some of their medical costs. How many people in the civilian world, other than police officers and firefighters, are required to put their lives on the line 24/7 at a moments notice? Not many. How many train in potentially dangerous situations because that's the only way to prepare for the real thing? Very few. My point is that I can't see how you could expect someone who is doing as they are ordered to ( remember you can't just quit the military ) and they get hurt in the line of duty or get sick to have to cough up the money to cover it. If this is their idea of a way to cut military expenses then they should have the option to quit their jobs,just like their civilian counterparts, at any time. That would make it fair.


They have also talked about cutting equipment. I could care less about some of the old obsolete equipment, but I tend to worry about what up graded personal equipment might be lost that protects the troops on the ground. When we went into Iraq, as least my unit anyhow, we didn't have all the equipment that we needed. We were using the old style flak jackets, because the ones with the armor plating that was resistant to small arms fire and small explosions was not widely available as they are today. Our Hummers had no armor at all and our only protection from landmines were sand bags under our feet. I know just how ineffective that equipment was. I had one friend who took a spear like piece of shrapnel through his chest,the only reason he lived was because they didn't remove it until he was in surgery and another one who died because the flak jacket wasn't strong enough to resist a round from and AK-47. We lost vehicles, people and equipment simply because it wasn't that good. We were not properly equipped.


Last point. What makes the powers that be think that we live in a safer world where we can let our guard down?

Russia,China, Iran and North Korea are all threats to us and our allies. Do we just cut and run and ignore our obligations and treaties because we are cutting back? Do we need another Pearl Harbor to remind us?


Cut the fat, certainly, stop all the bloated projects that are costing more than they are worth but don't try to balance the budget on the backs of troops who have given up everything for your protection and the protection of our allies.


Just my Simple Minded opinion.

Creation,Evolution, and the Bible

I have been seeing many comments about the debate that went on last night between a prominent evolutionist and a creationist. The comments have been fascinating to say the least and somewhat heated. So I just thought I'd put my two cents worth in.


Let me start by saying that I believe in God. Furthermore I believe that it is entirely likely that God, how ever you may determine God to be, created this world and quite possibly the universe as we know it. I am not however a creationist.


To be a creationist you have to believe that the world was created literally 6000 years ago. Archeological digs have found sights that are much older than that, the oldest, that I know of anyhow, being in the range of 15-17 thousand years old. Having said that I also don't buy into millions of years old either, some of that same archeology and artifacts found in strange places tells me differently.


I am also not an evolutionist. To believe that I essentially would have to believe that all this life, in all it's varieties, just accidentally popped into being for no reason and without help in perfect conditions to form a functioning universe. Granted evolutionist say that it took billions of years of adaptation and only the strongest survive but it doesn't really answer the question as to how they manged to survive and adapt, it only suggests that they did.


I think the bottom line to this debate is that your never going to be able to prove either side of the argument to anyone who doesn't want to believe your viewpoint in the first place. The second thing though is that insulting your opponent, simply because you disagree with them is a little silly and doesn't help your argument at all.


One comment I would like to address though is the basic idea that the Bible shouldn't be taken seriously or it should be gotten rid of because it impedes real science. Really?


The bible has been at the core of western civilization for hundreds of years. The bible has helped influence everything from literature to art. The words, especially the Psalms and Isaiah ,along with the words of Jesus, have influenced more music and poetry, not to mention the great paintings, then any other book in the world. It's laws have been the foundation from which the western world has drawn it's own laws. The three biggest religions in the world, which affects billions of people world wide, all draw their history and beliefs from that book. It is a book that brings hope and comfort to all.
If you don't care for it, that’s your right, but don't be insulting to those who treasure it and see it's value.



Shalom