• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama seeks 'consolidation authority' to merge agencies

This stuff is great for the current threats and its actually stuff we already do. I was on a combat adviser mission in Iraq from 07-08 and learned Arabic very well. The thing is, we aren't going to be in Afghanistan, etc, forever. We can't become too theater centric. Artillery for instance is the only all weather fire support system we have. If a jet can't fly to the target area because of low clouds or a sand storm, artillery is there to fill the fire support gap. We do this every war. We draw down, cut spending, become theater centric because we can't afford to train for more than one scenario, then get punched in the face with the next theater. Examples are WWI-WWII: Went from trench warfare to maneuver warfare. The machine gun greatly changed the battle field. We weren't prepared. WWII-Korea: Severe arctic environment where airborne couldn't be used. We weren't prepared. Korea-Vietnam: From arctic to jungle. We weren't ready for the guerilla tactics Vietnam-Cold War: Guerilla to huge arms race. Severly undergunned (this is where I think we're going this time) Cold War-Desert Storm: Only war where the last one translated. Then on to our current theaters. We came into Iraq in 03 ready for cold war era combat. The huge mess in Baghdad resulted and we failed to fill the power vacuum Saddam left. I will say the reaction to Afghanistan was the best of all theaters. However, we got lucky because A) We had a POTUS who would take the chance of letting Army Special Forces, CIA Paramilitary, and Marines go in there and actually do what they're trained to do and trust them and B) That theater was almost custom made for the aforementioned units. Our gov't needs to stop being so reactive to threats. I honestly believe we are in for a Cold War type environment. Once Iran gets a nuke (they will because politicians won't let us have another WMD escapade), it will turn into a nuclear standoff again. Then we'll be stuck being terrified of Iran launching a nuke for the next 10 years. We need to ensure the military has the money to be brilliant at the basics so that training to a specific theater only takes a month or two. If the military only has enough money to do specialized training for a particular theater, we get caught with out pants down.

Good post and it is definitely great to hear the perspective of somebody who knows what they're talking about first hand. I definitely agree with your points about getting locked in to a particular theater being a mistake. But, I don't agree about the cold war argument. During the cold war we needed to prepare for conventional warfare against a roughly equally matched adversary. Iran isn't that with or without nukes. With nukes they may be somebody we can't invade, but they aren't somebody we're going to have a prolonged conventional war with, where we needed to be prepared for that possible outcome during the cold war even though it never happened (and maybe never could have given deterrence). I think we could most likely defeat Iran's conventional army handily with like 10% of our military. We defeated Iraq's military in what, 1 week? And then we spent 10 years acting as a police force, suppressing terrorism, trying to restore order, building the foundations of democracy, etc. I think that's going to be how most wars go at least for the foreseeable future, and I still don't think our present military is well suited for that. Do you disagree that we'll have more wars like that? Or do you think we are well suited to resolving them optimally?
 
Good post and it is definitely great to hear the perspective of somebody who knows what they're talking about first hand. I definitely agree with your points about getting locked in to a particular theater being a mistake. But, I don't agree about the cold war argument. During the cold war we needed to prepare for conventional warfare against a roughly equally matched adversary. Iran isn't that with or without nukes. With nukes they may be somebody we can't invade, but they aren't somebody we're going to have a prolonged conventional war with, where we needed to be prepared for that possible outcome during the cold war even though it never happened (and maybe never could have given deterrence). I think we could most likely defeat Iran's conventional army handily with like 10% of our military. We defeated Iraq's military in what, 1 week? And then we spent 10 years acting as a police force, suppressing terrorism, trying to restore order, building the foundations of democracy, etc. I think that's going to be how most wars go at least for the foreseeable future, and I still don't think our present military is well suited for that. Do you disagree that we'll have more wars like that? Or do you think we are well suited to resolving them optimally?
I believe invading Iran would pull China into the fray. That is where they get their oil, which is the only resource in the world right now that can bring countries to fight each other. However, if China did not, take a look at Irans terrain. We can't air drop with the intention of linking a beach head to the territory inland ala Normandy. We can't drive in. A beach landing is the only way in. All you have to do is take a look at casualty rates of opposed beach landings to see that we would lose A LOT of troops. That is, unless Iraq would let us come in from their side (very, very highly unlikely). Iran would be costly simply because they have terrain on their side. Terrain always drives operations. Its the one factor we can't change. We have to plan around it or fight despite it.
I agree we are ill-suited for the police force stuff. Not for the reason you think though. For every 4 Marines pissing on a terrorist, you get a lot of guys doing things like this Captain A Tribute to Captain Travis Patriquin | Small Wars Journal. The fact is, higher leadership do not trust Marines and soldiers to do the things they need to do to win. I guarantee you the knee jerk reaction as a result of what those 4 Marines did is light years ahead of the reaction the Captain in the link got. I'll give you an example of ridiculous regulations. Lets say you see a 28-33 year old male, with a beard, a red bandanna wrapped around his face, a black head dress, military vest with magazine pouches, and all black clothes shooting at you from a window of a small hut. Suddenly, he stops shooting at you and ducks in the hut. 2 seconds later, an individual wearing the same clothes and with the same looks walks out of the front door of the hut without a weapon. You can't shoot him. You lost positive identification when he walked to the door. Lets not take into account you got a good look at him and you're not an idiot. According to high ranking officers (who are under pressure from Washington) we are idiots incapable of discerning that threat. Terrorists know this and exploit us everyday. That's why we're not good at being a police force. We can't even be trusted to be Marines and soldiers.
 
That's why we're not good at being a police force. We can't even be trusted to be Marines and soldiers.

Well but aren't being a good policeman and being a good soldier totally different things? A policeman is there largely to establish justice. Due process, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, relationships with the community, insight from the community on what is going on in the area, etc. Collecting evidence to prove guilt, investigating. A soldier is there to establish control of an area with force. They can't take time to collect evidence first, they need to make blunt calculations in split seconds if they're going to survive. An effective soldier does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt or due process. Somebody who does one of those things perfectly is doing the other thing terribly. I don't think it's a matter of being good Marines first, policemen second. It's more like an entirely different job. Some situations call for a soldier, others call for a policeman. How to sort that out I don't know, but it seems like a problem to me.

Part of what I think the problem was is that the military leadership, at least in the early years of the war, seems to have thought of it like their role was purely to accomplish military objectives and somebody else would be coming along to deal with "civilian stuff". For example, think of the billions of dollars in damage that was done with all the looting. There were a number of statements from top military leadership basically saying that they didn't think it was any of their business. They didn't seem to appreciate that they were not just a force of people who were there to topple the previous government of Iraq, they were the new government of Iraq. All the responsibilities of a government fell to them and they didn't take them on at all at first, and even in the end just barely. And I can't blame them. The military isn't set up to provide all the services and capabilities of a government. But that's what we need. A military that can topple a government and immediately step in to provide at least the basic governmental functions. I don't think we have that yet.

I blame Bush for the failures of the early years in Iraq. It's an outgrowth of the naive assumption many conservatives make that something like a thriving, peaceful, democratic, capitalist society is basically the default. If you remove oppression, that's what you get. Well that isn't true. If you remove an oppressive regime, you get anarchy, starvation, disease, chaos, terrorism and economic collapse. You only get the thriving society by building it one block at a time. If we want a military that is going to be able to tear down oppressive regimes, we also need a military that is capable of standing up something workable to replace it very fast.
 
Last edited:
1) Congress is incapable of doing anything, especially anything the President wants to have done.
2) Congress will not do it as each of these agencies has some congressional over-site, which means some congressman has the title of chair of some pissant subcommittee that provides that over-site.

Then we need to get people in Congress who will do what we want.

Look, if it takes a President asking Congress for the power to do what THEY should be doing, then we are in a world of sh@@. But giving the President that power will only make things worse. If Obama were serious about shrinking the size of government he should tell Congress...and BOTH Parties...to get off their dead @sses and do it.

And if Obama really wants to be taken seriously, he should start with Obamacare...not Commerce.
 
Last edited:
i think the right word to use here is....centralize not consolidate.but that might raise some alarm bells.crafty sob's
 
I raised this question in another thread, why isnt there a hiring freeze for the fed if all those baby boomers are retiring? If we really want to shring federal government shouldnt that be policy?
 
The cost savings are just incidental. It's making things more efficient for business that is the big win. For example, look at the list of some 10 agencies that deal with various business things that he wants to combine. That means a corporation only needs to have one contact instead of 10, maybe they only need to complete one review process or whatever instead of 10, it means having to deal with one set of requirements instead of 10, etc.

Now that we know that the savings argument is bogus lets look at the regulations.

Here are a few facts about alleged cost savings and fewer regulations.

New report cites 'regulatory tsunami' under Obama | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

This is Obama again pretending he is doing something when he's doing nothing, and many appear desperate to believe him rather than admit that the unifier they voted for is an incompetent. Luckily, you have a chance next year to correct your error and not make the same horrendous mistake again.
 
Now that we know that the savings argument is bogus lets look at the regulations.

Here are a few facts about alleged cost savings and fewer regulations.

New report cites 'regulatory tsunami' under Obama | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

This is Obama again pretending he is doing something when he's doing nothing, and many appear desperate to believe him rather than admit that the unifier they voted for is an incompetent. Luckily, you have a chance next year to correct your error and not make the same horrendous mistake again.

Instead of "Hope and Change", I think Obama could be more accurate this time around with "Smoke and Mirrors", or "That's the Ticket ... Yeah". He has so many water carriers as well.
 
Now that we know that the savings argument is bogus lets look at the regulations.

Here are a few facts about alleged cost savings and fewer regulations.

New report cites 'regulatory tsunami' under Obama | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

This is Obama again pretending he is doing something when he's doing nothing, and many appear desperate to believe him rather than admit that the unifier they voted for is an incompetent. Luckily, you have a chance next year to correct your error and not make the same horrendous mistake again.

Um, that article is from 3 months before he even proposed this... It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with this proposal...
 
Um, that article is from 3 months before he even proposed this... It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with this proposal...

It has everything to do with it.

You made the claim that "The cost savings are just incidental. It's making things more efficient for business that is the big win"", when we know his stated proposal is just words, not actions. I've given you his actions, not his words.

Which speaks louder?
 
It has everything to do with it.

You made the claim that "The cost savings are just incidental. It's making things more efficient for business that is the big win"", when we know his stated proposal is just words, not actions. I've given you his actions, not his words.

Which speaks louder?

Not sure how you think that is relevant to the proposal. Do you have any criticism of the proposal? Or just criticisms of Obama?
 
Not sure how you think that is relevant to the proposal. Do you have any criticism of the proposal? Or just criticisms of Obama?

There is nothing there. It is claimed to be a proposal but we all should know it is intended to make him look like he cares about streamlining government while government has actually grown by over 10% during his administration. It will go nowhere and was never intended to go anywhere.

Bill Clinton used to have people take surveys in shopping malls about different topics to see what the public mood might be. If mothers felt school uniforms were a good idea he would muse publicly that school uniforms might be a good idea, despite the feds not having any jurisdiction over school uniforms. BHO is saying these things because he knows people would like to see government streamlined, but his actions betray every word he spoke.

What is the problem with criticisms of Obama?
 
There is nothing there.

It would give the executive branch the power to merge departments, pending approval by Congress. He has listed off the departments he would like to merge personally, but the power would apply to future presidents too. Do you have any objection to that?
 
It would give the executive branch the power to merge departments, pending approval by Congress. He has listed off the departments he would like to merge personally, but the power would apply to future presidents too. Do you have any objection to that?
.

I repeat, there is nothing there. It is meaningless and a waste of time to discuss it.

Go by actions not words.

There are just too many Americans falling for this claptrap. It should stop.
 
.

I repeat, there is nothing there. It is meaningless and a waste of time to discuss it.

Go by actions not words.

There are just too many Americans falling for this claptrap. It should stop.

Why don't you just say what you mean? No matter what Obama does or proposes, you are against it.
 
Why don't you just say what you mean? No matter what Obama does or proposes, you are against it.

No, Obama is a political whore inept jackass. Why don't you just admit that? ;)

Of course, that is to admit that his followers are none too bright.
 
No, Obama is a political whore inept jackass. Why don't you just admit that? ;)

Of course, that is to admit that his followers are none too bright.

You are no different than Grant. All of your comments start with the premise that Obama is bad and you fit your arguments around that.
 
So you can't debate the point, and must resort to personal BS. What a shock !!! ;)
 
Well but aren't being a good policeman and being a good soldier totally different things? A policeman is there largely to establish justice. Due process, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, relationships with the community, insight from the community on what is going on in the area, etc. Collecting evidence to prove guilt, investigating. A soldier is there to establish control of an area with force. They can't take time to collect evidence first, they need to make blunt calculations in split seconds if they're going to survive. An effective soldier does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt or due process. Somebody who does one of those things perfectly is doing the other thing terribly. I don't think it's a matter of being good Marines first, policemen second. It's more like an entirely different job. Some situations call for a soldier, others call for a policeman. How to sort that out I don't know, but it seems like a problem to me.
DEA agents have started deploying to Afghanistan, however, they are hamstringed because Obama (yes, him, not any DOD personell) won't let us eradicate opium. Afghanistan produces approximately 95% of the worlds opium. Make no mistake, this stuff isn't being used for anything but illegal purposes. It fuels the Taliban machine. What are we doing about it? Walking right past it and acting like it doesn't exist. We should be burning it, offering free wheat to them (paid for by Afghani gov't), and buying it to be used on our bases over there. While we are doing that, we should be establishing a method of export for it. This would help immensely.

Part of what I think the problem was is that the military leadership, at least in the early years of the war, seems to have thought of it like their role was purely to accomplish military objectives and somebody else would be coming along to deal with "civilian stuff". For example, think of the billions of dollars in damage that was done with all the looting. There were a number of statements from top military leadership basically saying that they didn't think it was any of their business. They didn't seem to appreciate that they were not just a force of people who were there to topple the previous government of Iraq, they were the new government of Iraq. All the responsibilities of a government fell to them and they didn't take them on at all at first, and even in the end just barely. And I can't blame them. The military isn't set up to provide all the services and capabilities of a government. But that's what we need. A military that can topple a government and immediately step in to provide at least the basic governmental functions. I don't think we have that yet.
Its not our job though. Think about the huge machine you are talking about. We could establish our own government with the setup you're talking about. Literally, the military could start a gov't from the ground up with what you're talking about. That's dangerous. Also, we have civilians that are supposed to do all that gov't crap. They just sucked at it, to put it plainly. They still suck at it.

I blame Bush for the failures of the early years in Iraq. It's an outgrowth of the naive assumption many conservatives make that something like a thriving, peaceful, democratic, capitalist society is basically the default. If you remove oppression, that's what you get. Well that isn't true. If you remove an oppressive regime, you get anarchy, starvation, disease, chaos, terrorism and economic collapse. You only get the thriving society by building it one block at a time. If we want a military that is going to be able to tear down oppressive regimes, we also need a military that is capable of standing up something workable to replace it very fast.
You had to bring the conservative thing in huh? Who's a bigger failure at "their" war? Bush or Obama? That's an easy answer, if you ask me. Obama has NO CLUE what we're doing in Afghan. I have served in both theaters. Iraq had a purpose, we knew what it was, and we got up every morning (if we slept) to go accomplish it. In Afghan, its just beating your head against a wall. No purpose, no endstate, nothing.
 
So you can't debate the point, and must resort to personal BS. What a shock !!! ;)

I'm supposed to debate the "point" that Obama is a whore and a jackass? :2rofll:
 
DEA agents have started deploying to Afghanistan, however, they are hamstringed because Obama (yes, him, not any DOD personell) won't let us eradicate opium. Afghanistan produces approximately 95% of the worlds opium. Make no mistake, this stuff isn't being used for anything but illegal purposes. It fuels the Taliban machine. What are we doing about it? Walking right past it and acting like it doesn't exist. We should be burning it, offering free wheat to them (paid for by Afghani gov't), and buying it to be used on our bases over there. While we are doing that, we should be establishing a method of export for it. This would help immensely.

Any idea why Obama hasn't ordered all the opium burned? Is it because he' pro heroin and/or pro Taliban? Or is there perhaps another reason?
 
Any idea why Obama hasn't ordered all the opium burned? Is it because he' pro heroin and/or pro Taliban? Or is there perhaps another reason?
I don't entertain your questions anymore because they aren't honest and you do not seek debate. You seek argument. I've better things to do. I'm in the middle of a good debate with teamosil. Hang around and maybe you'll learn something.
 
Joining the chorus saying I don't care who is doing it or how as long as the blockade Congress has put on any progress toward raising revenue and lowering cost is not able to block progress.

This year and in 2014, we need to vote out a lot of the Congressmen that have helped maintain the blockade since Obama took office and demand both parties start working toward forging solutions instead of political posturing.

Personally, I would like to see recalls used more to oust those that form blockades to anything getting done. Realizing they could be removed in mid-term would force these bozos to work toward solving the many problems we are facing.

Excellent idea!!!
 
I'm supposed to debate the "point" that Obama is a whore and a jackass? :2rofll:

Who said that ? What you did do is the same-old same-old useless libtard attack on the poster.
 
Back
Top Bottom