With many politicians long seeing the military as an all-purpose problem solver with a bottomless budget, it is unsurprising that the outbreak of coronavirus has many, particularly high-ranking Democrats, angling for a declaration of war and an outright militarization of the domestic issue.
“I would call out the military now,” Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden said on Sunday. He said it’s an emergency and the US needs to treat it like a war. He suggested that the military could provide a “surge” for US hospitals, building more beds and tents that are secure. “We’re at war with the virus,” Biden added.
They all think that sounds like a great idea, except for the US military itself. Pentagon officials are warning that fighting a virus really isn’t their thing, and that those tent hospitals are designed to treat combat casualties, not respiratory illness.
Gen. Paul Friedrichs, the top medical adviser to the Joint Chiefs, said that the US military simply doesn’t have any 500-bed hospitals designed for infectious disease. Even more of a problem, they don’t have a bunch of idle doctors and nurses to man them if they did.
If the military was expected to set up such tent hospitals, they’d have to call in reserves and the National Guard to staff them, and many of them would be taken away from civilian facilities, meaning they’re just shifting people from a building to a tent.
Friedrichs added that the military is eager to help, but that he thinks the Pentagon needs to be transparent about its limitations before starting this huge “war” for the sake of public health. Whether that will deter anyone remains to be seen.
it was going to happen, everybody portraying the military as supermen able to perform heroics at any given moment. Even with the military saying they really couldn’t do this, the govt will make them and they will attempt to do it, just in the military’s own special way,
You’d think there were more than enough militarized cops to demand temperature and vaccination papers at every soon-to-be ‘health’ checkpoint…
… And blood samples…
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131120/18453625315/texas-police-set-up-checkpoints-to-collect-blood-saliva-volunteers.shtml
… Meanwhile Canadians probably thought marijuana legalization would be a liberating experience…except for where cops can take blood samples…
https://lfpress.com/cannabis/police-struggling-with-how-theyll-collect-blood-samples-from-suspected-drug-impaired-drivers/wcm/d2ab303e-fb7e-45a6-a0d3-c072a19a080c
Odd, how things all come together.
“You’d think there were more than enough militarized cops to demand temperature and vaccination papers at every soon-to-be ‘health’ checkpoint”
Probably not. For one thing there aren’t that many military cops. For another, it would be completely illegal to use them in that manner (see Posse Comitatus Act of 1878).
Yes the act matters but more in terms of the declaration of martial law, curfews, etc, Actually having armed MP’s at checkpoints for “virus” is a gray area of the law that would have to be addressed by Congress.
“The Posse Comitatus Actoutlaws the willful use of any part of the Army or Air Force to execute the law unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress” — https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42659.pdf
I understood the commenters question about ‘militarized police’ this way:
So all of the Israeli tactics, doctrine, training and the trillions spent on so called “Homeland Security Grants” to state and county law enforcement received only taught them how to kill unarmed brown people? I am more concerned by my local sheriffs office with its 40 year track record of excessive force being in charge than I am about active duty military where I live.
https://sputniknews.com/us/202003171078605715-us-police-announce-they-wont-be-arresting-petty-criminals-during-covid-19-crisis/
Sorry, I was referring to the militarized civilian police services, not the military police of the official armed forces themselves.
Although, I’d almost trust the professional soldiers more at home.
Very, very bad answer. The answer should have been — we are ready for any emergency should commander in chief issue orders. What is with the “poor us, cannot help” nonsense. What this shows is the rot military is in. The military is NOT capable to respond to an emergency in case of nuclear, chemical or biological war? To step in when civilian administration and capabilities are exhausted? In any military event on our soil, dies the wise guy think that civilians in county and state offices would be coordinating medical emergencies in the case of war? That civilian county officials will be on their cell phones managing crisis — provided cell towers are functioning, crossing damaged roads in their Honda Civics?
The swollen heads in military better figure out how to deal with an equivalent of biological warfare. If that means pulling back 1,000 bases from around the globe — so be it.
Private truckers are going bankrupt as supplies of containers from ports to warehouses has been disrupted, and the deliveries to supermarkets will be affected with fewer rigs. There is an increase in restrictions, meaning that supplies are going to dwindle as produce and other staples will not move smoothly. This is where superior, nationwide organization of military can step in.
And they better figure out how to build field hospitals and pull their health staffs from around the globe to help population.
Due to the utter arrogance and obsession with nit closing borders — Europe has since Friday seen each day a increase in new cases by the thousands. Friday, ten thousand new, Saturday 20,000 new, Sunday 30,000 new cases. It is estimated that by April, Europe will have over 90,000 cases. That exceeds China that has been stable now at 84,000 for a week. And the problem has just started in US.
Military better be ready to spend of its resources defending homeland. Coronavirus is a good live, readiness test.
Actually, citing a lack of capability is militaryspeak for “Fund us.”
Sort of like how scientists citing a lack of data is grantspeak for ‘Fund me.”
$US 700 billion budget and the U.S. military never thought they’d have to help police an outbreak at home.
All those Hollywood disaster movies with the military stepping up were just movies!? Say it ain’t so.
You seem to be mis-understanding what is being asked and why is being refused.
What is being asked: Crank up all those field hospitals you’d use in a war and fill them with COVID-19 patients.
Why it is being refused: Those field hospitals are set up to treat gunshot wounds and other combat-related traumas, not mass infectious disease outbreaks. Furthermore, a lot of the staff are reserve/National Guard who are already working in civilian hospitals; the only effect of mobilizing them would be to move them to inferior facilities.
It’s not a matter of “fund us,” it’s a matter of “that’s not what we do, nor is it what we’re set up to do, so it would be fucking stupid to have us try and do it.”
We the society fund them to do whatever is needed to protect us from massive harm.
Let us say this is a biological warfare. WHAT, THESE ARE NOT GUNSHOT WOUNDS? Our medics are trained to treat gunshot woulds only! You civilians treat your own boo-boos!
What, a biological warfare on our own soil? That is supposed to happen in Iraq and preferably Iran!
We, defend the country! Preposterous!
You both present arguments that go hand in hand it seems. The empires global military is a colossal waste of resources that (you would expect with all their resources $$$ and people) should be better positioned to help in the current situation.
It seems our military is not as great as the average American might believe (no surprise to us).
“We the society”
“Society,” as such, does not exist. There are only individuals. Only individuals think, feel, perceive, enjoy, and suffer. “Society” no more has a soul, or interests, than does a rock.
Something keeps us in sync as individuals, beyond brute coercion, though.
Collectiveness exists at least in function to enough of a degree that we have cohesive societies and civilizations.
My point is not that there are not freely chosen collective entities within society, my point is that such collectives are neither more nor less than the sum of the individuals who comprise them. They are not conscious, and as such, they can never have any “interests” superior to those of the individual. When a politician says they support any so called “public interest” superior to “individual selfishness and greed,” head for the hills, as what they are really saying is that they support their own interest (i.e. their own selfishness and greed) in controlling and robbing you, and merely assert that that is synonymous with the public interest.
There are leaders, and there are followers. What if their common expectations and aspirations can form a kind of group consciousness? We all ‘know’ when someone is ‘on side’ so some degree, and to what measure digression may be allowed before group purpose is challenged.
Technically they are all individuals but some more of one than the other. When that all clicks (or cliques) often enough in a certain way, patterns of relationships emerge and formalized as forms of group governance. This includes complex systems of lying politicians, were we all know they lie yet somehow have an interest in those lies as much as the truths.
Social insects are discrete individuals, but function as one being. Scientists can play with some of the critical functions that makes that possible, like chemical signalling. Propaganda games with insects, kind of.
Humans, are not nearly as individualized as they like to think they are. Many libertarians and anarchists act as if they are incapable of fully processing some gelling signals
Like being the one person able to see full colour in a land of the colour blind. What one sees, may be relevant, but not always socially so to those adapted to not seeing in colour.
You are correct about one thing, and what I should have stated was:
In my opinion, there is no such thing as a group consciousness. And I acknowledge that the reason I believe this is that, if one does exists, I am simply not part of it.
I suspect we share common basic social expectations of decency, fairness, and accountability with each other and our communities.
Morals are a form of group consciousness written into the DNA of complex social beings. We can’t function without a critical mass of people sharing awareness of those concepts.
We are also highly autonomous as individuals about how to apply that grey area, Scott Adams’ Weasel Zone, between ideal and not-ideal applied behavior. Morals become ethics, and some individual discord begins.
I try and accommodate less-than ideal community standards, while pushing for higher. You seem to have no use at all for those incapable of anarchic autonomy.
If so, your position is valid, but will be a source of psychological anguish, a moral being unreconciled to an ethical box can find perspective and identity difficult.
“You seem to have no use at all for those incapable of anarchic autonomy.”
No, I am not an atomist. I am highly dependent myself upon the good will of others, and interaction with them. It is not social norms I am against, including any “ethical boxes,” I am simply against imposing one or mere people’s view of those norms on everyone through violence.
When libertarians oppose government run and funded schools, people accuse us of being against education. When we oppose foreign military intervention, they accuse us of being against freedom, and in favor of famine, torture, tyranny, genocide, and slavery in other countries. I am quite surprised someone has not accused us of being against God because we would oppose the creation of a “National Endowment for Worship.” We are not necessarily opposed to any social or economic values, all we are opposed to is the violence required by the state to provide these things.
Actually we are quite collectivist in this one regard: we seek to make nearly universal the moral and ethical box encapsulated by the non-aggression principle. That would be one of the shared principles of our desired society. There would, however, be other moral and ethical principles that would probably be nearly universally shared, such as good will and charity toward others, and the golden rule, as it almost requires those sentiments before one can take the leap to embracing the nonaggression principle in its entirety. It takes a great deal of acknowledgement of the dignity and worth of other individuals before one acquires such a radical and unpopular point of view.
There are exceptions to this pattern of course. Just as Christ’s teachings have been warped throughout history to support mass murder, libertarianism has been warped by some to support, for instance, a denial of immigration rights for certain groups of people, such as homosexuals and those who would be likely to vote for Democrats, and endorsing the violent action of the existing state apparatus to enforce this (honestly, Hans Hermann Hoppe has got to be the biggest “libertarian” crank I have ever encountered).
In summary, we’re not against ethical boxes, we’re against aggressive violence.
Strict non-aggression is an ethical box too many people would find hard to accept for themselves, even if they would lay claim to it and absolutely demand it of others.
Also, the definition of non-aggression isn’t always as clear-cut as it seems. Social and psychological aggressive violence, for example, have varying triggers and acceptable responses up to and including physical violence.
“Social and psychological aggressive violence, for example, have varying triggers and acceptable responses up to and including physical violence.”
I realize this, but it is my opinion that occurrences of acts of social and psychological violence are not reduced in number, but, rather, increased, under a regime of institutionalized physical violence. For instance, my current financial situation, living paycheck to paycheck and always being on the edge of ruin, is something I believe would be less likely without the state depressing economic activity. I, and many others in the small town I live in, are in this situation, putting us at the mercy of anyone who wields significant economic power, such as landlords and employers. My ideal would be a society where 40-hour workweeks would not even be necessary for most people to provide for themselves. My understanding of economics is that the state is a drain on (certainly the warfare state), not a stimulus to, the economy.
The only societies that functioned as you idealize, were technologically-minimalist hunter gatherer societies in regions that easily supported that lifestyle.
Perhaps a kind of return is possible with AI and automation, but that’s all utopian fantasy for now. The reason individuals mattered in any society was that they were needed for work.
Not needing people for anything, is an unusual challenge society has never faced.
I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I did not say no work would be necessary to sustain us, I was stating that less work would be required, because, not only would work be more productive, but the substantial waste and drain by the state would not be present.
History of the American economy shows that, the period of greatest increases in the median standard of living occurred during times when government interference in the economy was at the lowest levels (although, of course, still not a true free market). And this at a time of immigration by millions of new workers. There is no reason we could not return to that situation, it would only require that we dispel the politico-economic myths surrounding the all powerful state, and its beneficence as the benefactor and champion of the common person.
After many years of living in a free market, probably well beyond my lifetime, productivity and wealth may advance to the point where we could achieve Lysander Spooner’s dream of people working an hour per day for their own needs, and devoting the rest of their earnings toward helping others or contributing to causes they consider important. In such a situation, yes, it would be possible for many to not work at all, and still enjoy an incredible lifestyle by today’s standards. But even in the short to medium term, possibly within my lifetime, I can foresee every honest person being better off than they are today.
Sounds like the Star Trek utopia, where people only have to work for self-improvement and the betterment of their own and other societies.
The main problem with utopia, is that there are many visions of it, and not everyone is bound to non-aggression in pursuit of their utopia.
The Puritan settlers of North America have a good story when only the sanitized version is read. However, they were quite ruthless and murderous with the locals to acquire ever more land to settle.
Thanksgiving, is a Euro American holiday originally meant to celebrate a successful massacre of Aboriginals..
“However, they were quite ruthless and murderous with the locals to acquire ever more land to settle.”
And things like that are the result of not seeing the inherent, irreplaceable value and worth of an individual consciousness. Either that, or simply the result of defining the native population as not really human. What does that have to do with non-aggression?
Has it ever worked long-term?
“The main problem with utopia, is that there are many visions of it, and not everyone is bound to non-aggression in pursuit of their utopia.”
My vision is not utopian is the original meaning of the word (the word “utopia” is Greek for “no place” [roughly – “nowhere”]). In that meaning there is the implication that it is unrealistic and not achievable. I think my vision is quite achievable, if enough people agreed that it was desirable.
Even if it were impossible for a majority to adopt the idea of non-aggression, does that make the principle any less desirable? Does the fact that not every Christian turn the other cheek or practice the golden rule consistently make those ideas any less desirable as principles to adopt? I know one thing for sure, the idea of non-aggression will never be dominant if those who explicitly recognize the principle as desirable do not make an attempt to promote it. Really, what choice do I have? Simply accept the world as it is, with the predominance of first resort to violence as a means of achieving political or social goals, or do something to try to change it?
Yes, there are many visions of “utopia,” but in a free society such visions compete peacefully, and everyone’s interests are compatible with each other. There is a synergy created when people’s approaches are non-violent, and this non-violence grows as a social means of achieving goals. Is it really so shocking that as our political leadership uses violence as a first resort to achieve their goals, that such events as the Columbine mass shooting occurred?
I really do believe in the principle of Karma, that you reap what you sow. The scary thing about that is maybe we will all reap bad Karma (such as what is happening now) because the Karmic effects or our previous hateful thoughts and actions have a larger exponent for their growth than that of our previous loving actions. The pleasant thing about it is that at all times, we have the possibility of deriving a better outcome than we otherwise could have if we think and act appropriately, with compassion instead of hatred.
My concern would be, that non-aggression is not a consistently, definable, enforceable principle but just an idea.
We all apply it, but differently. Even some of the more fanatical U.S. imperialists claim – and would probably pass a lie detector – to be non-aggressive and acting in self defense.
Its incomplete. To allow self defense, invites perversion of the notion of self defense. Apply non-aggression to the point of denying defense, invites slavery or permanent removal from the dialogue.
“Its incomplete. To allow self defense, invites perversion of the notion of self defense.”
This is why a free society’s legal system would include fully informed and empowered juries, to judge both the facts of a case, as well as the justice or applicability of the law itself.
“Apply non-aggression to the point of denying defense, invites slavery or permanent removal from the dialogue.”
As I have pointed out elsewhere, even absolute pacifists could not forcibly interfere with others’ self defense, because they could not use violence to do so, as it would violate their principles. This is why anarcho-capitalism could coexist with absolute pacifism. I am not an absolute pacifist, I am somewhere between an anarcho-capitalist and an anarcho-pacifist, but closer to the former. I do believe that there are situations where even defensive/retaliatory violence is not appropriate, but in actual practice, this gray area would have to be determined by each individual.
What exactly, is your alternative to the non-aggression principle? Do you believe the legal system you desire should be founded on any principle at all, or simply on some vague notion of “the public interest?” I am not being snide here, I honestly wish to know, as I am curious.
The NAP seemed incomplete, needing a completion, not an alternative.
Incomplete, its dangerous and misleading and can reward or encourage aggression. Yet, I keep drawing a bit of a blank trying to phrase a completion.
“Incomplete, its dangerous and misleading and can reward or encourage aggression.”
The non-aggression principle says that, violence is justified at most for defensive purposes, not in all cases of defensive purposes. Again, it is self restraint with regard to the use of violence, not the case of the school yard bully whining ‘but he started it!”
Yet, that’s all high geopolitical diplomacy and sabre-rattling amounts to; “He started it”.
By the way, assuming you are in the western hemisphere, what the heck are you doing up so late? Maybe you’re like me, and simply not a morning person.
Couldn’t sleep, got nothing else to do but think and grouse.
I’d much rather be living my life to decadent materialist distraction, but that didn’t work out.
The NAP seems incomplete, needing a completion, not an alternative, that is as succinct as the first part.
“My concern would be, that non-aggression is not a consistently, definable, enforceable principle but just an idea.”
Interestingly enough, anarcho-capitalist David Friedman (yes, he is Milton Friedman’s son), has pointed out that this is a very difficult issue. He uses an infinite regression argument to demonstrate that if you carried the principle to an extreme, it would become aggression simply to exhale (because you would be polluting others’ oxygen rich air with CO2). While his arguments are hopelessly utilitarian for my taste, he does a pretty good job of solving the issue through property rights and social contract theory. In my opinion, anarcho-capitalism creates a true social contract, because the law which was created was agreed to by your contract with the law enforcement agency.
Yes, but what of those outside the contract wanting in on more unfair terms?
Exclusion can be misinterpreted as offense.
The purpose of military medicine is to treat military personnel in military situations.
We the society fund them because we get put in jail or shot if we don’t, full stop.
Mission creep happens, though.
True, military has been, or, should have been aware of what happens to soldiers since, at least, 1918. To pretend it is not in their capability displays total incompetence. War and disease have been partners since the invention of pottery.
COVID-19 is still officially and popularly accepted as a natural disaster, not an act of war.
So, lets kind of keep it that way while acknowledging the possibility otherwise always exists as a potential threat?
I certainly hope so, but do you really think Posse Comitatus would be enforced by a media-supported social panic?
Seems a little optimistic. Even the ACLU recognizes the erosions of traditional popular understandings of how the law is supposed to work.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/erosion-posse-comitatus
“The answer should have been — we are ready for any emergency should commander in chief issue orders.”
If that had been the answer, every general officer should have been put up against the wall and shot for the protection of public safety.
Cute. In every society in history there were moments that tested the society’s ability to overcome hardships. And those moments usually uncover the weaknesses. Inability to mobilize its resources is one of the fatal weaknesses. It tells us all we need to know about leadership.
It is as if the elite and its leaders woke up one day, being annoyed at the whining prols and something called pandemic. They long to go back to the days of their happy partisan name calling, orange menace and woke concerns. Good old days.
People who do not know how the food comes to their table.
You seem to worship militarism, or, at least, the military frame of mind. The “resources” you seek to “mobilize” rightfully belong to the people who worked to create them, NOT to your precious fascist state.
At one time, Hitler praised Roosevelt, and Roosevelt even had a few kind things to say about Hitler. That is not surprising given that their attitudes toward the rights of the individual bore striking similarities. Democratic fascism is Nazism with a halo.
I do nothing of a sort. The resources rightfully belong to the people. Sure! And who are the people you are referring to? How do these imaginary people express their will on how the resources should be used? I do not wish one of our soldiers to spend one day outside of this country, and I question every bomb dropped. And how does it matter what I think? Or millions of us think? Please do not talk about “people” unless you know how can “people” ever have their multitude of different voices heard! Please do not.
We have what we have. Our Congress, President and Administration. We have States and a garden variety of local governance. These are the institutions that CURRENTLY represent the people. Virus spread is real and it is now — not imagined, or in a different reality.
Thus I see no point in a military dude musing about their beds being for battlefront injuries, as if today we will see front lines drawn through Kansas.
So, the dude will take order by Commander in Chief, and that will be that.
What is wrong with the entire picture? What if we are victims of biowarfare right now? Would the dude just tell us that US military is not equipped to deal with it — sorry call your local health department! Sorry we do not have medical facilities and have no clue how to stop this thing from spreading! We guys just do Iraq and Afghanistan. Good luck. Hope you see the absurdity of the answer — the complete detachment from the reality. It is the homeland that needs protecting — for a change,
“We have what we have. Our Congress, President and Administration. We have States and a garden variety of local governance. These are the institutions that CURRENTLY represent the people.”
They never have represented the people, they don’t represent the people, and they never will represent the people.
The function and purpose of the state is to milk the people (and kill those who refuse to be milked) on behalf of the ruling class.
As for the military running hospitals in pandemic, that makes even less sense than the postal service thwarting invasion.
Indeed, shut down all the overseas empire of bases, but stay the hell off our streets and out of the business of law enforcement in this country.
The Empire declaring “War” on anything is famously a feeding trough where the “cure” and the “disease” come from the same salesman. War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terror….if you just change, “on” to “of”, they make a lot more sense…why should this be any different from any other govt scheme to grab more power and feed the establishments.
1. Disaster, real or imagined.
2. Government fucks up literally everything it does to address the supposed disaster and actively thwarts the ability of markets and voluntary society to address the supposed disaster.
3. Government simultaneously claims that things would have been worse if it didn’t have so much power and that the reason it fucked literally everything up was that it doesn’t have enough power.
4. Government seizes more power.
5. Go to 1.
4 1/2. Once the disaster is perceived as lessened, the government pays some lip service to reducing the power acquired to fight the disaster, but, in actual practice, never gives up even half of it.
Thomas,
Item 2) on your list occurs when Norquistians place incompetents in management positions and underfund agencies. When you have a politically connected Arabian horse breeder running FEMA, of course his efforts will fail, because he’s not qualified to run FEMA. Here’s a list you should like more:
1. Right wingers elected to office to shrink the gov’t
2. High-end and corporate tax rates are immediately slashed to irresponsibly low levels, immediatelycausing greater deficits
3. Incompetent people are hired to run departments and agencies
4. Agencies which do not contribute directly to the enrichment of political donors find their funding slashed
5. disaster, real or imagined
6. Government unable to respond due to lack of funding in key departments and also b/c of the incompetent leadership
7. The right wing argues that the failure to respond is an issue with big government in general, and not with how they’re running it, so more reduction in funding
8. The stock market takes a slight dip and $1.5 TRILLION dollars are instantaneously freed up so that the insanely wealthy don’t have to miss a minute of sleep thinking that their portfolios aren’t continuing to grow at a record-setting pace
9. The poor and immigrants are blamed by the gov’t for sucking up all the resources and causing the increase in deficits in #2, social safety nets are cut further.
True, the gop functions as a devastator of government systems which protect citizens from excessive greed and corruption. They are good at it.
One correction, the fed wall st bailout is not “instantly freed up” per se. It is not allocated by congress. The fed has created debt, in the form of loans. I would wager if those loans fail, the US taxpayer will cover it…again.
“the dems and gop function as facilitators of government systems which plunder citizens and foster excessive greed and corruption.”
Fixed, no charge.
Yeah, but you don’t want the foxes watching the hen houses either. What you need is a patriot that has a background in whatever is required. And they need a fully funded department. We need to get control of the budget and end this spending on the military.
“Right wingers elected to office to shrink the gov’t”
Name me one time that right wingers, once elected, actually did any shrinking of government. Trump and the Republican Senate? Are you bloody that out of touch with reality?
So, you say it’s not a problem with the incompetence of political (i.e. coercively violent) power in general, we just need to put the right technocrats in charge? How many times have we heard that snake oil sales pitch?
In a supposed democracy, how does one prevent the election of the “wrong” people? I guess you’ve got your plans for that too.
The whole system needs to be remade more with each department independent and run like a business using boards that have no allegiance to either party. Actually eliminating the whole party system in favor of people having patriotic views and doing what’s best for the people not for the economy which is why our system is so sociopathic.
Democracy without meritocracy does not work. How to nurture meritocracy and governance in public interest is hard to imagine under the system we evolved into.
Whatever it is — the patchwork of institutions on various levels managed and directed by people who pay their way to leadership, and then they influence hiring and firing on all levels. Such patchwork cannot survive in the world of modern technology. It is not just about virus. It is more about what it revealed.
“Item 2) on your list occurs when Norquistians place incompetents in management positions and underfund agencies. ”
Item two occurs every time (and is positively, not negatively, correlated with funding).
Mork, are you OK? I haven’t heard from you in several days. I hope you are not sick.
Here’s an interesting little tidbit: https://youtu.be/AoLw-Q8X174
Of note is the date of the “exercise” and the people involved. Also, Gates stepped down from the MS board a few days ago…
I smell Indiana Jones levels of Rat here
“Government is a disease, masquerading as its own cure.” – Robert Lefevre
… U.S. vets are routinely shortchanged and military housing is a disaster… so the Dems want the Pentagon to handle COVID-19.
Dems only sound stupid because the RINOS have their mouths full at the Presidential trough…
Dems only sound terrifying because the Pentagon only fights quagmires as of late, and WE DO NOT want COVID-19 to be a quagmire.
If the Pentagon’s budget is breaking records every year, why are the issues you mention, even issues to begin with? Oh yes, because it’s more about handing out taxpayer money to wealthy corporations than actually running the military responsibly.
Biden is a pro-corporation, pro-big business, status quo loving kinda guy. He’s very much like GW Bush, actually. Stupid, and thoroughly owned by special interests. It’s sad that he passes for a Democrat these days. But then, when Trump is the nominal head of the GOP, I guess Biden looks pretty good in comparison.
“It’s sad that he passes for a Democrat”
He is quite representative of Democratic politicians in general. He could even pass for a Republican, without changing any of his policies, he would just have to change his rhetoric. Mork, there ain’t a dime’s worth of difference (except for the rhetoric).
Pretty much; progressivespeak and conservative speak is like horse whispering for humans.
… at a glue factory.
You’re accurate insofar as the standard of assessment is fairly shallow and appearance oriented.
Trump looks waaaay better than Biden and is no RINO to half the country. Things are quite the opposite for the other half.
Trump is… Trump. His status quo echoes the perceived glory of the Reagan era. Biden implies a promised return to the more recent Obama vibe [which half the country hated…].
Meanwhile, the military is ambushed at home. A sad state of affairs, continued from administration to administration and this corruption is bipartisan
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/usa-military/
Our ‘War on [insert boogeyman]’ has never worked or produced any satisfactory results. How long has our ‘War on Drugs’ been going on? How’s that ‘War on Poverty’ working out? Qui Bono? Follow the money.
The ‘War on Drugs’ is in the same category as right wingers who also want to simultaneously ban abortion, limit access to contraception, and nix sex education in schools. Can’t see what those factors together might lead to! hahahahahaha! But it lets the holier-than-thou types to feel better about themselves, because they’ve done something Right, and that’s all that matters. No matter the actual effect of their ill-conceived policies. In that regard, it’s just like drone bombing Afghan wedding parties then wondering why ISIS and AQAP are growing in numbers!
“But it lets the holier-than-thou types”
Mork, am I the only one here who thinks you sound a little “holier than thou?”
Call out the military… to do what exactly mister allegedly-responsible leader? Biden was not my choice and I will not be rallying to support him.
And people call Trump the totalitarian in the race. Should we just start calling him “Uncle Joe (Stalin)” now?? The enemy is microscopic. The Pentagon can’t even deal with enemies living in third world caves. Everything the government has declared “war” on only gets worse and worse and worse.
Trump is more the totalitarian because he finds Congressional oversight and any criticism of himself unpalatable. He’s used to running a business which he owns, surrounded by sycophants, and not used to running a government on behalf of the general public and definitely not used to having to answer to anyone at all. He prefers to have ‘acting’ heads of departments because they don’t need to be Congressionally approved. Also, wasn’t Trump talking about mobilizing the Army to serve at the US-Mexican border?
Biden is awful, though. If he’s the Dem nominee, strap in for another four years of childish nicknames and labeling of political opponents as ‘enemies of America’ as Trump will win handily.
Mork, it would be very difficult for Trump to win at this point, even against someone as repulsive as Biden. The economic shocks have barely begun. The basic health of the economy was quite weak even before the coronavirus trigger. Now we are in for the worst economic downturn in our country’s history.
It really didn’t matter whether a Democrat or a Republican was president at the time, as the massive inflationary bubble created by both parties was bound to burst soon. The fact that the fallout from the epidemic triggered it a few months earlier is kind of beside the point. Trump will, rightly or wrongly, take the entire blame, and he will fall. I really don’t have a generic preference in regard to Republicans and Democrats, but, I guess you will get your wish and have a Democrat sweep. Enjoy it while it lasts. We are in for a very rough ride.
Because I cannot comment on the article below named “German Firm Denies Receiving US Govt offer for Vaccine Right” I must mention here that the person named as director of the Curevac company is not the majority owner. That is Dietmar Hopp.
The military of the “greatest generation”
was trained to meet the unexpected with,
“improvise, adapt, overcome”.
If Pentagon generals can’t, they should be fired!
The military is designed to kill enemy troops and physically hold and defend areas. That’s what the military did in the time of the “Greatest Generation”. The US military is NOT designed to combat infectious diseases – that’s the role the Center for Disease Control should fill. However, because there’s no F-35 money at the CDC, their budget has been slashed so that we can keep flushing more money down the Pentagon’s toilet.
Nonsense the military is there to PROTECT against all threats to the nation.
Idiotic excuses that some types of threats
are not in their “job description” are just weak and stupid.
“Nonsense the military is there to PROTECT against all threats to the nation.”
Odd, considering that our military has not been used to defend the United States even one time in the last 70 years, and has, in fact, been called to do things which made us much less safe.
The military was designed to protect and defend the nation
from all threats foreign and domestic.
The fact that politics and party’s
in the past, have misused and abuse that institution,
in no way changes their original purpose.
“The military was designed to protect and defend the nation”
Good intentions don’t count.
Original intent always counts,
those who abuse it bear the condemnation.
“from all threats foreign and domestic.”
No.
The military was (supposedly) designed to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Even if that was the real mission, ridding your home of termites and wiping your nose isn’t included.
I said “nation”,
bet your boots if termites were weaponized to attack the nation, the US military would be involved in it’s defense.
Termites in your home or wiping your nose is a personal issue,
not a threat to the nation, the difference.
Yes, you said nation.
And you were completely wrong.
In theory, from the beginning, the mission has been to protect the Constitution, not the nation.
In practice, from the beginning, the mission has been to protect the ruling class, anything and everything else be damned.
The nation, as founded, is the Constitution.
The military can be deployed to protect it,
including against a viral attack.
Yes, and the Postal Service and the Offfice of Management and Budget, and the Patent and Trademark Office can be deployed to protect it against a viral attack too. Which would make about as much fucking sense.
Navy hospital ships are deploying on both coasts,
the Corp of Engineers are assembling field/tent hospitals,
the military is tapping it’s stockpiles for masks, respirators, ventilators and oceans of stored medical equipment all staffed with military, specialists, doctors and nurses. Not to mentions the VA system and it’s resources.
Six states have called up the National Guard, so far.
Get real Tom. The military is among the first to be deployed in a national emergency. It’s happening because they are needed.
“It’s happening because they are needed.”
If the goal is to make sure more Americans die, true.
The only “national emergency” going on at the moment is the headlong panic that has allowed war communism and martial law to be implemented.
So deploying a 1000 patient capable US Navy hospital ship to NY harbor is … a threat?
This sounds like another case where your political ideology gets destroyed by reality.
Deploying a US Navy hospital ship to New York harbor is not, per se, a “threat.” It’s just unnecessary theatrics.
The president seizing control of all US industry and making the US into a command economy, as he did yesterday, on the other hand, is a threat at least three orders of magnitude greater than COVID-19 would have ever become even if totally ignored.
“that’s the role the Center for Disease Control should fill. However, because there’s no F-35 money at the CDC, their budget has been slashed”
When was it slashed? It’s grown every year of Trump’s presidency.
When I saw the headline, I thought maybe we planned to bomb the shit out of the virus. It’s our go to plan for everything else, why not? I’m sure some general can promise to “make gains” every 6 months like our other wars. We should have the virus licked in around 20 years or so.
I remember a funny cartoon I saw many years ago toward the end of George H. W. Bush’s Administration. It showed Bush making a statement about bringing the efficiency of the military in Desert Storm to the job of protecting the environment (this was actually from a real speech he made). Then, in the next frame, it showed a bomber dropping bombs on a forest, with Smokey the bear tossing his spade into the air and running for his life toward the hills. At the time, while I thought it was funny, it is kind of sad that it wasn’t too far from the truth.
Aren’t Set Up to Fight Coronavirus
Or much of anything judging from from the last half century.
Biden with his brilliant ideas would rival Trump!
More detached dementia-dipped dribble from the “best” the DNC has to offer. Tulsi, please switch parties!
No hospitals designed for chemical weapons? That seems a bit short-sighted given the amount of my money they loose every year. Not that the military can even be deployed to the mainland but it’s a curious situation that they are not prepared for chemical weapons considering all the chemical weapons they use on others like depleted uranium, chlorine and I’m sure a host of others. One day soon they will be held to account.
Can’t missile it, mmm, got nothing else.
The Pentagon IS set up to spend an incredible amount of $$$.
Military is not there to serve but rather to be served, as the rest toil for them as they do their military drills and exercises to protect the universe.