SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Pentagon recently asked nearly 10,000 soldiers to repay excessive bonuses they were given for re-enlisting in the California National Guard between 2007 and 2009 amid the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress was notified of the problem in 2014, but representatives failed to pass a provision that would allow the Defense Secretary to waive the repayments.
Some representatives claim that the California National Guard failed to convey the scale of the repayments issue or make it a congressional priority. An outraged and bipartisan group of legislators have called for quick action and full forgiveness of the overpayments (estimated to be around $70 million). On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and President Obama have promised to resolve the issue, even as officials acknowledge that the issue may extend to other states:
President Obama has told the Defense Department to expedite its review of nearly 10,000 California National Guard soldiers who have been ordered to repay enlistment bonuses improperly given a decade ago, but he is not backing growing calls for Congress to waive the debts, the White House said Tuesday. The comments by White House spokesman Josh Earnest suggest the administration is running into legal and policy roadblocks as it struggles to handle a public relations headache for the Pentagon, the National Guard and members of Congress who were caught off guard by the scope of the problem.
[...] California Guard officials say they informed California lawmakers about the scale of the debts in 2014, telling them in a list of legislative priorities sent to each House office and the House Armed Services Committee that "thousands of soldiers have inadvertently incurred debt, through no fault of their own because of faulty Army recruiting or accounting practices."
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 27 2016, @07:16PM
Says one of the most conservative members of the SN community, about a fraud that was perpetrated by a conservative administration that had full-throated support from conservatives. That's straight out of Karl Rove's playbook, ie. to accuse others of what you're thoroughly guilty of to forestall any uncomfortable questions. Classic, and classy, khallow.
In real life, while you (presumably) and Hillary Clinton were cheering the invasion of Iraq, I was protesting and organizing a grassroots movement to primary anybody from New York who supported the invasion of Iraq. I also wrote extensively and repeatedly on Stratfor and every other platform I could find about how invading Iraq would be disastrous for the Middle East and for US geopolitical standing. In other words, I did the diametrical opposite to what your philosophical brethren did.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 27 2016, @10:43PM
Says one of the most conservative members of the SN community, about a fraud that was perpetrated by a conservative administration that had full-throated support from conservatives. That's straight out of Karl Rove's playbook, ie. to accuse others of what you're thoroughly guilty of to forestall any uncomfortable questions. Classic, and classy, khallow.
I place more value on being accurate than on being conservative. And defense contractors are indeed no more responsible for the lies of the Bush administration than you are.
Second, the label of conservative has no real meaning here. In your next paragraph, you uphold 2500 year old pacifism ideals, and in general pacifism in the US is older than the US (Quakers settled Pennsylvania after all) and the default US response to wars in general. In general, a lot of our ethics and ideals are rehashed ancient ideas some perhaps from before we were even human. So that's one reason calling someone a conservative doesn't make sense.
Second, a traditional view of conservatism is as someone who conserves old ethics, ways of doing things, culture, etc or similarly opposes new ways of doing things. But by now, a lot of different groups are in on that game (such as prayer in schools or preventing sweat shops). I'll note that I've been quite liberal on a variety of economic and social policies, such as freedom to act, speak, own and use weapons, economic activity, etc. I've supported internet ridership and homestaying for profit. I've supported rich people being rich. I support the right of homosexuals to have all the legal privileges and advantages of heterosexuals, including marriage and having children. I also support the right of people to think and say what they want, even if those thoughts and words are homophobic. I support a rather hard core technology and biological development.
Yet somehow I get lumped with the "most conservative" members. I think you are in error here.
I also wrote extensively and repeatedly on Stratfor and every other platform I could find about how invading Iraq would be disastrous for the Middle East and for US geopolitical standing.
The obvious rebuttal is that Saddam Hussein is no longer developing a nuclear weapon. We only need to look at the treatment of Iran to see that there would have been nothing outside of the technology hurdles stopping him from developing nuclear weapons once the sanctions had been lifted. And of course, he'd still be killing people.
The problem with peace at any cost is that the cost can be very high.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:24PM
If you placed value on being accurate, you could not accept the policies of the political group called conservative in the modern US.
I'll go further. I know of NO political party that places much value on being accurate or which practices accuracy. NONE! It doesn't sell well.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 28 2016, @01:11AM
If you placed value on being accurate, you could not accept the policies of the political group called conservative in the modern US.
Indeed. I wrote:
Second, the label of conservative has no real meaning here.
I don't buy that there is a viable grouping which is covered by the label of "conservative". I don't consider the label more serious than any sports team affiliation, especially given that many of the people who don't fall under the label are quite conservative in outlook. The Precautionary Principle, for example, is an enormously conservative principle.
Moving on
I'll go further. I know of NO political party that places much value on being accurate or which practices accuracy. NONE! It doesn't sell well.
I guess that rules out me being a political party doesn't it? But if you think about it, a political party is about interests not accuracy. Thus, it's subject to the usual adversarial argument rules.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday October 28 2016, @06:59PM
It's too bad you can't mod an unmodified comment at underrated, or I would have so modified your comment. Nothing else seems appropriate.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 28 2016, @02:41PM
To clarify, I'm not a pacifist. I supported the Gulf War and the invasion of Afghanistan. I opposed the invasion of Iraq because the pretext was clearly fabricated and it was an intensely stupid move; history has validated that assessment. If you say that defense contractors and oil companies like Halliburton are completely innocent of that push to invade, then I say that is willfully obtuse.
You make a fair point that the definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" have morphed over time, and have even changed places. Milton Friedman, if asked from his day in the 50's to characterize your political leanings now, would have described them as "neo-liberal." Acknowledging that linguistic evolution does not, however, unwind what the terms "conservative" and "liberal" mean now. It also doesn't detach those with conservative politics from responsibility for the things they have done, such as invade Iraq on false pretenses and squander trillions of American tax dollars and kill a great many innocent people (what any honest man would recognize as a "war crime").
It is a relief that you are not a dittohead. Critical thinking is an unqualified virtue that every man ought to strive to practice. It seems it seldom comes through in what you write here. Perhaps it's your frustration and composition in the heat of the moment. Who in the world can't understand that, these days? How I wish, though, that frustration could be formed into scalpels instead of bludgeons. We can't perform surgery by beating a patient to death.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 28 2016, @04:33PM
If you say that defense contractors and oil companies like Halliburton are completely innocent of that push to invade, then I say that is willfully obtuse.
Push to invade is not a war crime and had nothing to do with the lying to the public to rationalize the war.
It also doesn't detach those with conservative politics from responsibility for the things they have done, such as invade Iraq on false pretenses and squander trillions of American tax dollars and kill a great many innocent people (what any honest man would recognize as a "war crime").
What does absolve them is not actually committing the crimes in question. Hence, my observation that we might as well persecute (or more accurately, bill) you for war crimes as anyone else who is innocent.
It seems it seldom comes through in what you write here. Perhaps it's your frustration and composition in the heat of the moment. Who in the world can't understand that, these days? How I wish, though, that frustration could be formed into scalpels instead of bludgeons. We can't perform surgery by beating a patient to death.
My approach is like with like. Two posters have proposed we fine innocent parties they don't like for crimes they didn't commit and I point out the legitimate legal and moral equivalence to fining the posters in question for the same thing.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday October 28 2016, @06:45PM
Push to invade is not a war crime and had nothing to do with the lying to the public to rationalize the war.
Oh, but it is! This was what came out the the Nuremberg Tribunals: initiating an armed conflict (otherwise known as "invading") is a crime against humanity, for which the principals in a government can be held to account. Of course in a truly representative government, the citizens of the aggressive country are also guilty, but when they were lied to, not so much. Soldiers that follow illegal orders to invade are also guilty of war crimes. Only one American soldier did the right thing and refused, and he was court-martialled for doing the right thing.
Thank you for your service in trying to keep American from committing a war crime, Phoenix!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 28 2016, @06:55PM
initiating an armed conflict
Is not the same thing as pushing to invade.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday October 28 2016, @07:19PM
initiating an armed conflict
Is not the same thing as pushing to invade.
So you are suggesting that the military-industrial-Republican complex was pushing for an unarmed invasion of Iraq? Seriously, khallow, you can only bend words so much until they break. I am starting to think you are trolling me!
.
.
The UN Charter states that all member nations renounce to the use of force in all international relations, except for cases of immediate self defense (REPELLING an invasion) or under the explicit authorization of the United Nations. Bush 1 got authorization. Bush 2 committed a war crime, specifically the crime of war. Interesting as well that at least one of the Nazi propagandists was found guilty of the crime of fomenting illegal war. Fox News should be very worried, if the rule of law ever returns to America.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 28 2016, @08:10PM
So you are suggesting that the military-industrial-Republican complex was pushing for an unarmed invasion of Iraq?
Are you?
The UN Charter states that all member nations renounce to the use of force in all international relations, except for cases of immediate self defense (REPELLING an invasion) or under the explicit authorization of the United Nations. Bush 1 got authorization. Bush 2 committed a war crime, specifically the crime of war.
Bush 2 did get explicit authorization from the UN. Lying to get it is not illegal especially when no one at the UN level can be bothered to care. That's the vast chasm between what is a war crime and what should be a war crime. Similarly, there is a chasm between what should be a war crime and the various proposals here to mess with defense contractors because they have to be guilty of something.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday October 29 2016, @05:24AM
Bush 2 did get explicit authorization from the UN
Um, you know that thing we talked about, where you cannot just make up facts because you believe them? You are doing it again. George W. Bush pointedly did not seek or get authorization from the UN for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Kofe Annan, UN Secretary General, denounced the US for its illegal use of military force. The Goddamned Pope said the invasion of Iraq was not a just war. It was called, the coalition of the billing, because only countries that the US could coerce into participating actually participated in this illegal violation of the sovereignty of a fellow nation. Khallow, you are out of your depth. You actually know nothing of international law, the International Laws of Armed Conflict, International Humanitarian Law, and the Just War tradition going back to the Romans. Seems to be a common affect among Libertarian type, like this Johnson guy. These things are not fictions, they are real, and pretending they are not does not serve the interests of you country, any more than pretending Anthropogenic Global Warming is not real. Tarbaby, Bro! But tarbaby in the Hague! You notice that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz do not travel abroad much, lately? But as for you, if you do not even know the basic facts of the war, I see no point in continuing to debate you. Good day, Sir!
,
,
Oh, re-enlistment bonuses, for soldiers lied into an illegal war? I say, let them have them! People coming back now to say that these incentives were perverse? Way to late. And I know of far greater horror stories of costing the taxpayers an awful lot of money just so one the their Government Issue guys could get an nice juicy re-enlistment bonus.