Posted by Tina
Kerry thanked the Iranians this morning for their “quick response” after they released the ten sailors and two Naval boats they had captured Yesterday. The story is that the boats broke down and drifted into Iranian waters. Our sailors were held overnight and reportedly photographed for propaganda purposes. The female was forced to wear a headscarf for the pictures. While the President patted himself on the back for the great job he’s done the Iranians showed their citizens how weak and helpless the US is. Soon the sanctions will be lifted, another reminder that the Iranian government brought the Americans to their knees.
Yes, the crew was released this morning, but not without suffering humiliation for a second time when Kerry thanked their captors.
Yeah. Not so much just now.
http://journal.ijreview.com/2016/01/251903-asked-87-year-old-grandma-just-one-question-ww2-six-word-answer-took/
Ahh, I see Peggy beat me to it. Great minds think alike, yes?
Sorry about that RHT447. Her answer was out of the park home run. I grew up with the same pride in my country and find it so sad to see todays kids being raised to have contempt for their birthplace.
As it’s been pointed out many times one would not want to change/transform someone unless they found them flawed to the point of being unacceptable to live with. Obama’s declaration to do so was the pivotal point of a long laid out plan to strip us of our pride and replace it with contempt.
“The Ugly American,” statement once was stated only on foreign soil, now it’s the common description used by many who learned in our educational system to be ashamed of who we are and what we stand for. The good has been deleted and discredited.
Granny showed more leadership with those 6 words than Obumble has for almost 8 years!
And how much Intel might have been gathered from the two boats by the Iranian Government?
The boats and not the sailors, is what my guess is about the “overnight delay” and not assisting the US vessels back to non territorial waters instead of taking them as trophies and propaganda photo op’s ,
And a little side note to all you Liberal women who support an influx into the USA of able bodied Syrian men( that need to be in Syria fighting for recovery of their homeland) and even women (ref San Bernardino) and their children. Go pick out a fashionable head scarf, you’ll be needing it.
There is something fishy about this story. How could two well-tested patrol boats break down, both at the same time. More important, how could 10 Navy soldiers, well-equipped with weapons, even machine guns mounted on the boats, surrender without firing a shot? I know we have some Bo Bergdahl types in the military now, but the whole crew? Ask some of your Navy vets.
Agree Soaps, There is something fishy going on here. Boat and/or navigational malfunction for two boats at the same time? Sound just like the Pueblo when our ship and men were captured by North Korea when they entered their waters in the late 60s.
I also do not see the captain apologizing on video unless he was instructed to do so by his commander/s.
Good point Soaps.
How would the rules of engagement figure in, if at all?
We haven’t posted about the military as much as we did before. Our troops deserve better. From what I hear the moral is pretty low in the military:
TownHall
You’re going to love the tile of the next article:
USA Today, “Army morale low despite 6-year, $287M optimism program”
$287 million for an optimism program?
OMG
What is wrong with you guys?
The GPS broke the sailors were in Iranian waters. Iran is Iran and Propaganda is not theirs alone. The USA is guilty of that as well especially in Iraq war.
We would have taken the Iranian sailors and maybe even held them longer.
It was handled as it should have been.
So what should we have done when we were wrong to start with?
Bottom Line Bibi wants us to bomb Iran and since Israeli’s fund many of our political campaigns we should have started a war right?
Kerry handled it not Obama. It was a simple mistake by the USA and they are home end of story. No War sorry.
Be happy it is over. Be happy we have a deal with Iran that allowed this.
What is wrong with you Dewey?
The report was that the boats broke down (not the GPS) and they “drifted” into Iranian waters. then the US denied they were in Iranian waters. Then it was oh no worries they’re gonna give em back.
President of the United States…nothing…not a word.
This follows the missile test they did in the Gulf right after Christmas that came within 1500 yards of our aircraft carrier and several commercial vessels.
President of the United States? Vacationing in Hawaii…crickets.
Kerry is not our President.
If you think the Iranians aren’t making fun of Obama/Kerry you’re nuts. They’re playing us like a fiddle.
A reminder: We discuss current events on Post Scripts. If you don’t want to discuss an item please feel free to remain silent.
No one said this was a “war story”…except you when you brought it up and took a nasty shot at Netanyahu and the Israelis.
What would you do if a nation like Iran sponsored terror attacks in your country, refused to recognize your people as being human, and swore to wipe you off the map?
What would you think if a nation that was supposedly your ally suddenly gave that nation nuclear weapons capability and made sure they had billions to invest in WMD and the means of delivering them?
Why should Obama have made any public statements on this when the sailors were returned within 24 hours? It’s possible that doing so would have endangered the possibility of return. If that had happened you would have bashed Obama for speaking too soon and putting our people in more danger. You have no idea how diplomacy works, and your criticisms in this case are petty.
You are a naive child who has not given real thought to the art of diplomacy. You think its about making friends and playing nice.
There really is no sense in talking with you. Obama can do no wrong, the economy is fine, terrorists and sponsors of terrorism are really nice guys that we can trust and the moon really is made of green cheese…carry on.
Tina, when you lie about my positions, it just proves you can’t rebut them. I have criticized Obama and Iran enough times that your claims that I believe “Obama can do no wrong” and “Iran are a bunch of nice guys” are obvious straw man arguments to anyone who had payed attention. Stop fabricating arguments I have never made and respond to things I’ve actually said if you care about honesty at all.
What is wrong with you Tina?
—————————–
President of the United States…nothing…not a word.
——————————-
Diplomacy? Kerry did his Job. We have no idea how it was handled. But it was handled correctly.
There is a deal on going. The president does not report to you.
Also the President says anything and the RW Fox clown car twists and spins it for the Haters. That can affect the return of our sailors.
You realize it has been verified ISIS uses Trump in their soliciting Video. You do not understand world politics.
Tina you seem to live in an alternative world. You do not have a grasp on reality. Seriously.
I came to the DMV area to do research and some Lobbying. I am a Californian in DC right now. So go ahead tell me I am stupid and you know everything sitting in Chico CA.
I do get some knowledge out here.
No One trusts the Iranians. No one trusts anyone.
The endless profit wars do not work. Something has to change. Something has to stop the endless bleeding of taxpayers money and growing debt caused by military contractors abusing funds.
So where is that 3 -6 trillion that was unaccountable from the Pentagon? how did the Iraq war spread Democracy? We got ISIS from it.
Bottom Line I can not wait till the whole world economy is not dependent on oil, the corruption, and wars for control of oil.
There is a disgusting dirty world of insider trading that goes on. And it involves war.
It seems to me the real headline here is that, because of our improved relations with Iran (mostly due to Obama’s Iran deal), our people were returned swiftly and safely, and our administration reacted by speaking diplomatically and respectfully, thus reinforcing those improved relations.
But I’m not surprised by the desperation to spin good news into another sign of how Obama is sure to destroy America before he leaves office, brought to you by the same people who think our 5% unemployment is actually 42% (more than the entire non-working adult population in America).
Exactly
Improved relations? Exactly what have we gained in this grand bargain?
I literally just told you. We got these people back, most likely, as a result of the nuclear deal. (There’s a lot more we got out of the deal, but if you were actually able to hear and process that information, you would already know what it is, so there’s not a lot of point in reminding you.)
A big ZERO, ………but we already had that
Improved relations? Ha! In your dreams!
Chris, our people were taken at gun point, they were put on their knees, made to place their hands behind their head, like POWS. Then after filming was done, just to humiliate them and the rest of America, it was decided nothing further could be gained by their detention.
But, the release didn’t come until the Iranians televised a stupid looking smirking-smiling apology from the USN boat leader. He was on TV, cheerily saying it was a navigation error happened, all our fault. WHAT? WHAT? Whats…. wrong with him? He didn’t behave like any warrior I know! From what I saw on TV he should be court marshaled for his “friendly, smiling” behavior mugging for an enemy propaganda film! Damn I hated to see that, I wanted to punch that idiot right thru my TV screen. I can’t begin to imagine what was he thinking with that unprofessional behavior? Everybody I know would have (1) never made such an idiotic mistake and (2) if Iran came for us, we’re not going peacefully. I don’t care what the Commander In Chief orders… We had two high speed boats fully army and capable of fighting…no way should they have surrendered. Should have been a running gun battle all the way to a friendly shore.
Next gripe: In this day where GPS is common and the patrol boats are equipped with redundant navigation systems, how could this have happened? This needs to be explained.
Why were these boats in the area in the first place? What possible good could have come from being that close to Iran and risking an incident? We deserve to know what urgent military objective was so important as to put these boats that close to Iranian waters?
Iran made a fool us of again, and we (democrats) acted like grateful cowards, thinking this was such a wonderful cumbyah moment, like old pals just helping each other. Man, they must think the rest of America is a stupid as they are!!!!!!
At the same time the commander’s apology was being aired around the world, we have Kerry saying, no we didn’t apologize. Why should we? Why apologize for a mechanical breakdown? Ah, but, we did apologize – how could Kerry not know that? Now he looks like a fool.
What gets me is, both boats didn’t have the same mechanical error. Furthermore, anyone with a GPS on a cell phone would have known where they were…something stinks here.
I’m not buying the mechanical breakdown story for a minute, there’s got to be more to it. Either there is or the leader of the 2 boats needs to removed from the military for gross incompetence.
This is the second time we’ve “surrendered” to Iran. I am getting sick of hearing about it – somebody needs to be held accountable here! They walked all over us when they seized our embassy, they walked on us again when they seized another patrol boat before this and now these two boats? @@##$%%^%$%^&&*!!!!!
Geez the world must think we are idiots!
We have been disgraced over and over, I’m livid, Iran and North Korea have done things to us that even Canada would have gone to war over. We look like cowardly idiots; the kind they can push around at will and they do.
This is what Obama has done for us, this is the cost of his wonderful relationship with Iran and his brilliant military leadership.
I wish Obama would go live in Iran and leave us alone. I hate this bum…he needs to go.
Jack,
Calm down. You are not thinking rationally, and you’re making me wonder if your mind has been poisoned by some type of steroid.
“Should have been a running gun battle all the way to a friendly shore.”
I really don’t know what to say to this, other than it’s appalling that you think these two boats should have started an unauthorized armed conflict, in enemy territory, over what seemed to be their mistake, against a country which we have had a tense relationship with for years and which we have only just begun negotiating with., with absolutely nothing to gain from this. You criticize the commander for his “unprofessional” behavior, but with all due respect, I can’t think of anything stupider and more catastrophic than what you have just proposed. Not only would it have endangered the sailors on the boats, it would have been a huge international incident that could have sparked a war. That’s really what you want? You’re MAD that this was settled peacefully?
Dewey has accused you of wanting war before, and I thought that was crazy. But I really don’t know how else to interpret your rage here. It doesn’t make any sense.
You were in the military, weren’t you? What was your rank? I can’t imagine any high ranking member advocating what you’ve just advocated. It’s crazy. It is LITERALLY crazy.
“Chris, our people were taken at gun point, they were put on their knees, made to place their hands behind their head, like POWS.”
No, not like POWs. Like soldiers who were in enemy waters. WHICH THEY WERE.
Do you honestly think if the situation were reversed, we wouldn’t have done be exact same thing?
“Then after filming was done, just to humiliate them and the rest of America, it was decided nothing further could be gained by their detention.”
They could have humiliated us a lot more by keeping the sailors. Again, the spin here is desperate. The sailors were returned safely and quickly, and that upsets you, but it doesn’t stop you from pretending like it’s more evidence of the Obama administration’s failures when it’s actually a success.
You have to know all this on some level; you are letting your bias make you stupid.
Your proposal for what the sailors should have done here is enough to disqualify you from being taken seriously when it comes to military analysis.
Chris: ” Like soldiers who were in enemy waters.”
Enemy waters? I thought the deal meant our relations with Iran were friendly now. if not, why have we negotiated with an enemy, a sponsor of terrorism? What the heck was all of the deal making about if we are still considered enemies? What was smart about lifting sanctions so iran could use that money to produce WMD and use them against us? And don’t pretend we can trust these people…we can’t.
And Iran is still our enemy, then Jack is absolutely right. The Iranians could approach the boats, and even escort them back into international waters, but forcing the sailors to their knees (hands up don’t shoot?), and forcing the female to put on a head scarf was unnecessary humiliation. Captured enemies are not required to give more than their rank and serial number. This breach of protocol alone should have elicited a stern response from the Comander-in-Chief! But our CIC is about as effective as that empty chair next to MO at the SOTU.
There is no success here…just another example of an absentee leader.
Tina,
Negotiating with one’s enemies is a basic function of government. Reagan did it. Nixon did it. Every president has at least tried to do it. Your anti-negotiation stance, if implemented, would be unprecedented.
I don’t believe what happened to these sailors constituted “humiliation.”
If this had happened a year ago, do you believe the sailors would have been returned as quickly as they were in this case?
“They walked all over us when they seized our embassy, they walked on us again when they seized another patrol boat before this and now these two boats? @@##$%%^%$%^&&*!!!!!”
You are putting a hostage crisis which lasted TWO YEARS on the same levels as an incident that was peacefully resolved within 24 hours?
What the hell is wrong with you? No, that’s not rhetorical, I really mean it: Are you OK? Tell me this is some kind of performance art and you’re campaigning for the “Most Dramatic Loss of All Perspective” Award.
You may not be alone in your wish. They saying a picture is worth a thousand words really applies to these military brass during Obama’s speech.
Watch the Joint Chiefs of Staff React to Obama talking about the military:
http://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/83681153-video-joint-chiefs-diss-obama-at-the-state-of-the-union-2016
Peggy that video is stunning. Those men have to sit there and take this crap too. Incredible.
🙂
Jack, you gotta get with the program…the Iranian Leaders are really good honorable people. We can trust them, now that Obama made that deal.
But the world thinks otherwise:
Iran Laughing at Obama
Iranian General Obama’s Threats Are Joke of the Year
Iran’s Supreme leader Mocks Obama’s ISIL Strategy laughs at Kerry
And the real kicker posted 15 hours ago here:
But gee Jack that Navy guy must be wrong…Obama and Kerry used “di-plo-ma-cee” and that makes all the difference! See how it works? Fairy tales can come true…no, really.
Ok, let’s say the commander had refused to admit he made a mistake, even under duress. Then what? Where do you think those sailors would be right now?
It would have been far more embarrassing for the United States if this capture had been prolonged and turned into a hostage situation. Instead it was resolved quickly; over and done with. I don’t really see an admission of a mistake as “humiliating.” I don’t know Iranian culture well; maybe they see it that way. But I do know the alternatives–a lengthy hostage situation, possible armed conflict–would have been worse.
Has anyone here who has criticized the sailors’ admission of error (NOT an apology) even considered the alternatives? Would you rather those sailors were still over there, or killed in armed conflict, then admit they were wrong?
Any nation would have held the sailors for a similar period of time. The videotaping was probably done to embarrass, because it’s still Iran, but at that point there was nothing to be done. The mistake was sailing into foreign waters, not what came after.
Sorry, factual error above: the sailors did apologize to the Iranians. I hadn’t watched the whole video.
Any story with a reference similar to “The White House said today . . .” should read instead “The white house lied today about . . .”
Anyone serving in the military should be white with rage about the shameful behavior of this white house and their kowtowing to Iran!
Were those boats swift boats?
So who in Gods green acres said 42%, hummmmmmm ask the Donald:
When the Trump campaign was asked for a source of the 42 percent figure they didn’t respond.
The Fact Checker, however, traced it back to a column by David Stockman, who served as President Ronald Reagan’s budget director.
Ya got to love the number crunchers in DC, it keeps THEM and their party employed!
So, Stockman calculated that there are currently 210 million Americans between the ages of 16 and 68 — what he calls a “plausible measure of the potential workforce.
“If you assume that each of those people is able to hold down a full-time job, he wrote, they would offer a total of 420 billion potential working hours. However, during 2014, Stockman noted, only 240 billion working hours were actually recorded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
If you run the numbers, “the real unemployment rate was 42.9 percent,” Stockman wrote.
Economists say Stockman’s way of looking at the question — using actual hours worked divided by a theoretical maximum that could have been worked, rather than determining whether individual people are employed or unemployed — is provocative. But they say this raw measurement has serious flaws.
In the column, Stockman himself acknowledges that this figure is imperfect, even though his tone is flip when he does so.( My My :))
So what is the current number, well pick a number,as you see some have already.
If you use the U3 formula (which is favorable to only political types period), then in December 2015, using that exclusionary U-3 formula, you get 5.0%. (Only counting unemployed up to 4 weeks)
In the widely reported unemployment rate (U-3), the BLS only counts those who have looked for a job in the past four weeks as unemployed. They’re included in the labor force because their jobless situation is only temporary.
However if one is honest and keeps track of ALL those unemployed beyond a 4 week period and even longer, then using the U-6 method, the real unemployment rate was 9.9%, nearly double the widely-reported unemployment rate.
The real unemployment rate (U-6) is the widely reported rate (U-3) plus the marginally attached, discouraged workers, and part-time workers who would prefer full-time jobs. For that reason, it is nearly double the U-3 report.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) issues both in each month’s jobs report, but there isn’t as much media attention paid to the REAL unemployment rate. However U-6 paints a clearer picture of true unemployment in the United States.
Once they haven’t looked for a job in the past four weeks are no longer counted as unemployed or in the labor force. The BLS adds them to a group it calls the marginally attached. Among them are those who have given up looking for work altogether.
And that last group is a very large number.
Stockman’s exercise in number crunching does offer an idea of the large number of people now working part time that want full time work. The Washington Post noted in July of 2014 that part time workers were a concern in terms of the economy:
Has the administration admitted it’s policy is not working? No. Has the administration proposed anything that would change the situation? No, in fact they stubbornly refuse to admit their policies suck or change course. Instead they offer band-aid solutions like raising the minimum wage.
Of course people with business experience couldn’t possibly have better ideas about what would cause the economy to grow and become robust creating an atmosphere that would also cause good jobs to sprout up like summer corn.
But it is working. The percentage of part-time workers in the workforce has fallen slowly but consistently since 2009. This is good news, but not great news, since it remains too high. But that’s because we’re recovering from the worst recession our country has faced since the Great Depression. Of course it was going to be slow. And if it happened under a Republican president, you’d be praising the progress we’ve seen over the past few years.
This is real life. There’s no magic button Obama can press to return us to the ’90s boom. But we have seen TONS of progress since 2009. I know propaganda relies on people having short memories, but it’s amazing to me how willing people are to forget how bad the recession was at its height. Your determination to turn positive news into negative news–whether it’s about the economy or the safe return of our sailors from a country that, a year ago, would have likely held them hostage for months–is cynical and unprincipled.
Tina: “Of course people with business experience couldn’t possibly have better ideas about what would cause the economy to grow and become robust creating an atmosphere that would also cause good jobs to sprout up like summer corn.”
When you say business experience, are you including experience with bankruptcy four times?
Chris you have a nice safe government union job with fairly decent pay. Steve Jobs you’re not, but you will do okay.
Today that’s not the case for a disappearing middle class.
We don’t need MORE part time jobs…an increase in part time jobs would be great if we had enough full time jobs…we don’t!
“But that’s because we’re recovering from the worst recession our country has faced since the Great Depression.”
Still buying that excuse? It’s also the worst recovery since the depression and it’s debatable that it was worse than the recession Reagan inherited from Carter. Even worse, there are many people in the business world that are very worried that we are about to go into an even worse (deeper and broader) recession this year.
“And if it happened under a Republican president…”
But it wouldn’t happen if they adopted conservative economic policies. And yes I am that confident. Strong economies don’t happen by luck. Obama wasn’t elected in the most unfortunate period. His policies are directly responsible for the sluggish economy. Seven years of 2 percent growth is abysmal. Debt that exceeds our GDP is unforgivable. Having our credit rating lowered for the first time in our history is shocking. Americans can’t find work, can’t get ahead, struggle day to day and you say they should settle for it because nothing more or different can be done. This simply isn’t the truth. I sincerely hope you have the opportunity to experience a dynamic growing economy soon.
“There’s no magic button Obama can press to return us to the ’90s boom.”
Chris you really disappoint me. I have explained the nineties boom and the eighties boom and the sixties boom and they all had one thing in common…leaders who knew that if you want to create millions of jobs and create a robust economy you set the people free. You get government out of the way…you lower taxes and cut unnecessary, punishing regulations. It is the people that make it all work. Creative minds and investors, followed by workers and buyers. I have explained it over and over and you still talk to me about magic buttons.
“Your determination to turn positive news into negative news”
You have it exactly backwards. There is no point in discussing this further.
“We don’t need MORE part time jobs…an increase in part time jobs would be great if we had enough full time jobs…we don’t!”
We don’t HAVE more part time jobs, at least as a percentage of all jobs; as I said, the percentage of part-time jobs has gone down since 2009.
“it’s debatable that it was worse than the recession Reagan inherited from Carter.”
No, it’s really, really not debatable.
Also: until you acknowledge the fact that unemployment is nowhere near 42% or even 30%, I’m not real interested in what you have to say about the economy. This belief of yours shows that you don’t actually understand anything about it, and you don’t approach it in a reality-based way; you just repeat talking points that you like.
Until you admit this was wrong, I’m not sure why anyone would take the rest of your views on the economy seriously at all.
Yes I am. Your question shows just how naive and ignorant you are and for several reasons.
1. Failure happens only to those who risk.
2. In “real life” stuff sometimes happens and you get to deal with it.
3. The number of successes, the number of people employed because of them far outnumber the few failures.
4. People learn from their failures and move on if they are good…they freeze or hide if not.
Have you ever failed at something? What did you do about it? Do you deserve to be judged on those failures alone?
Lord you are such a task master when it comes to Republicans. But Obama…we should understand he doesn’t have a “magic button.” He does have tools at his disposal but won’t use them because they don’t fit his agenda.
Responsible? Really?
Thank you Harold. I’ve been a proponent of the U-6 Real Unemployment rate for a couple of years now because it does give a truer picture of our actual unemployment.
For a better overall picture the Labor Force Participation rate must also be taken into account. Just like a ledger where debts and credits are recorded the LFP rate is the credit side of the ledger. It counts those who have gainful employment while the U-6 unemployment rate counts the debit side and those out of work and under employed.
The LFP rate is at a 39 year low which is very bad. I hasn’t reached these levels since the Carter years. For those of us old enough to remember those years remember just how bad they were when compounded with extremely high interest and inflation rates.
This is for last November.
Labor Force Participation Remains at 38-Year Low; 94,513,000 Not in Labor Force; Unemployment Ticks Down to 5.0%:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/94513000-americans-not-labor-force-participation-rate-remains-38-year-low
Current figures from the BLS.:
Note the chart shows the rate for Dec. 2008 was 65,8% and for Dec. 2015 it has dropped to 62.6%
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
Harold and Peggy, that is great information.
It should be obvious to everyone that David Stockman’s methodology was ridiculous, and his conclusion mathematically impossible. Everyone knows you don’t measure unemployment in hours, you measure it in individual workers. It doesn’t take a trained economist to know that.
As Peggy shows, even if you counted every adult not in the labor force as unemployed–which you really shouldn’t do–that still would not come close to the 42% unemployment that Stockman devised and Trump parroted.
95,000,000 (the number not in the labor force) divided by 320,000,000 (the U.S. population) is 30%, which is much lower than 42%. How can the unemployment rate be greater than the total number of adults not in the workforce? It can’t; Stockman and Trump, and everyone who repeated that stupid number, were simply letting their anti-Obama bias poison their judgment.
They WANT unemployment to remain high as long as Obama is in office, and so if someone told them unemployment was 80% they’d probably believe it. They’re ready to believe that nearly half the country is unemployed, which is already so far removed from reality as to be laughable, so what wouldn’t they believe–and say–if it fit their agenda?
It’s important to note that even if you look at the U-6 as “real” unemployment, this number has gone down significantly under Obama. In 2009, the U-6 hit as high as 17%. Now it’s about 10%, and it’s fallen nearly every year since 2009.
Any way you slice it, the economy has recovered significantly since the dark days of the Great Recession.
Our population is approximately 320, 000,000. But that isn’t the working age population. In 2014 23.1% of the population figure that year (318,857,056) were under 18 years of age. So there’s more to consider in that figure. It’s amusing that it has become such a point of contention for Chris. Trump also mentioned the opinions of other economists including one around 32%…right in the Chris range.
Tilting at windmills.
Tina: “approximately 320, 000,000. But that isn’t the working age population. In 2014 23.1% of the population figure that year (318,857,056) were under 18 years of age. So there’s more to consider”
No, there isn’t; what you just said is completely irrelevant. People are counted in statistics on the labor force beginning at age 16. Even then, the percentage of people not in the workforce is only around 30%.
Are you suggesting we start counting at the moment of birth, and then count every child as unemployed as well? If not, what the hell is your point?
“Trump also mentioned the opinions of other economists including one around 32%…right in the Chris range.”
NO. Again, that would only make sense if you counted every single person 16-68 who is not in the workforce as “unemployed” No intelligent person would ever do that, because it doesn’t make any sense. The number not in the work force includes people on disability, stay at home moms, some retirees, college students who don’t want a job, etc. These people are NOT unemployed, and there are almost no policies we can implement shy of forced labor camps that would make them want or need a job.
Politifact did the work of counting up all those who may be working part time, those who’ve given up finding a job, etc. along with the unemployed–just like you’ve asked. They got 14%–nowhere close to Trump’s number.
“Tilting at windmills.”
This matters. Whether the unemployment rate is 14% or 40% isn’t just some detail you can brush off when you get it wrong. That is a HUGE difference. What Trump said was a stupid lie-a Big Lie–and you believed it because you’re willing to believe any bad economic news under this president, no matter how unbelievable. You are willing to make yourself look like a complete idiot as long as you can bash this president and defend a right wing candidate.
Turn your brain back on.
Chris: “95,000,000 (the number not in the labor force) divided by 320,000,000 (the U.S. population) is 30%, which is much lower than 42%. How can the unemployment rate be greater than the total number of adults not in the workforce? It can’t; Stockman and Trump, and everyone who repeated that stupid number, were simply letting their anti-Obama bias poison their judgment.”
Chris, don’t have time to address this fully right now cuz I’m headed out the door. Your math is wrong because the 320 million is for our total population, not just those of working age 16-65 who are looking for work. You can’t count little kids, the retired, disabled, homemakers, etc. The percentage is limited to those who want gainful employment and can’t find it. Big difference.
Peggy, you don’t seem to understand what I said.
“Your math is wrong because the 320 million is for our total population, not just those of working age 16-65 who are looking for work.”
I’m not trying to show those of working age who are looking for work. That would be the unemployment rate. I didn’t need to estimate the actual employment rate to prove that Stockman and Trump’s stated unemployment rate was impossible; all I had to do was show that the percentage of people not in the labor force is *smaller* than Stockman and Trump’s estimated unemployment rate.
The only way to get that percentage is to divide the number of people not in the labor force by the total number of Americans. You seem to be implying that I should divide the number of people not in the labor force by the unemployment rate instead, which makes no sense.
“You can’t count little kids,”
I’m not. People are considered as either in or out of the labor force at 16.
“the retired,”
Some retirees are counted, up to age 65 or 68, I can’t remember.
“disabled, homemakers, etc.”
Of course I can count them, because they are considered not in the labor force. We can’t count them as unemployed, though. Tell that to Trump and Stockman, who are wildly overestimating the unemployment rate, not me.
“The percentage is limited to those who want gainful employment and can’t find it. Big difference.”
Again, you’re talking about the unemployment rate. I’m talking about people not in the labor force.
The percentage of people not in the labor force is only 30%. That includes the disabled, homemakers, college students who don’t want to work, some retirees, and others.
Trump said the unemployment rate was 42%, basing that on Stockman’s study. He also said at one point that it was 30%.
This is impossible. The unemployment rate cannot be as high or higher than the percentage of people not in the labor force, since the latter includes both people who want to work and people who don’t.
Does that make sense now?
You people have no imagination.
I imagine that that there boat commander, the Iranian one, or more likely his commander, got one rip-roaring ear full, possible from Zarif himself.
Chris I don’t expect you to know much about the Code of Conduct for military personnel, because you have never served in the military. But, for those who have served in some capacity, from state guard reserves all the way up to regular fulltime armed forces, this is something that is taken very seriously and there are severe penalties for violating it.
M. C. of C:
Code of Conduct for Members of the United States Armed Forces
I
I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
[Article I amended by EO 12633 of Mar. 28, 1988, 53 FR 10355, 3 CFR, 1988 Comp., p. 561]
II
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
[Article II amended by EO 12633 of Mar. 28, 1988, 53 FR 10355, 3 CFR, 1988 Comp., p. 561]
III
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
IV
If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
V
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
[Article V amended by EO 12017 of Nov. 3, 1977, 42 FR 57941, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 152]
VI
I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
[Article VI amended by EO 12633 of Mar. 28, 1988, 53 FR 10355, 3 CFR, 1988 Comp., p. 561]
In the case of the navy patrol boats much information still needs to come out, but on the face of it, the Navy leader (don’t know his rank) did not act in accordance with the Code of Conduct.
There are many questions now that need honest answers:
We know that both boats were capable of making for open waters at speeds above 45 knots. Why didn’t they make for open sea, they were as fast or faster than the Iranian boats?
We know that both boats were armed with twin (mini-guns) Gatling type guns that fire a hail of lead and twin 50 cals; these weapons can knock out a helicopter at under a mile range. But, those weapons were never used to defend themselves. Why not?
Both boats had redundant navigation on them, that means a minimum of 4 gps nav units. How did they get that far off course?
Why were two river patrol boats travelling 300 miles across open and hostile water without an escort or backup plan? After all, this is in a hostile area known for mines laid by Iranian boats and for ships being harassed by Iranian boats.
Why did the leader of the two boats not follow the most basic boot camp training regarding the military code of conduct?
Why did he take it upon himself to take part in a propaganda film for Iran? And why was Iran making such a film, showing captured sailors on their knees, a violation of the Geneva Convention?
Why were our sailors treated like drug smugglers, not military personnel from a friendly nation?
The American people were publically humiliated by this incident and our national honor was damaged…again. Now maybe to you this is no big deal to you or Libby or Dewey, but to some of us it is. Some of us feel quite strongly about what happened and think at this point we need full disclosure by the White House.
There’s just too many troubling questions that need answers and you kibitzing me over my anger really doesn’t help solve this dilemma.
When you have the answer to these questions maybe we can talk, but until then I really have nothing further to say to you.
Jack, you’re ignoring the amendment to the Code of Conduct implemented in 1958:
“All members of the Armed Forces of the United States are expected to measure up to the standards embodied in this Code of Conduct while in combat or in captivity. To ensure achievement of these standards, members of the armed forces liable to capture shall be provided with specific training and instruction designed to better equip them to counter and withstand all enemy efforts against them, and shall be fully instructed as to the behavior and obligations expected of them during combat or captivity.”
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/readings/code_of_conduct2.htm
The sailors were not on a combat operation, nor were they on any kind of mission against Iran. Once they were taken captive, they did what they could to survive. I’m sure if they felt resistance was a possibility or a necessity they would have done so.
You’re looking at the letter of the Code rather than the spirit, and you’re ignoring basic common sense and judgment. I highly doubt any rational interpretation of the Code means “Start a shoot-out in foreign waters, don’t try to negotiate, get yourselves killed for nothing, and start an international incident that could easily escalate to a war.” The sailors made the smart, responsible choice. Your position is that they should have made a dumb, possibly suicidal, and dangerously irresponsible choice that, again, could have started a war. I don’t see at this point how you could convince me that they should have taken your option, especially considering their choice worked. They were returned safely. This is a good thing. Period.
Chris, your comment comes across as how telling how little Liberals are in standing up for the liberties that a dedicated American solder Honor of duty has afford you. Maybe you need to go earn them yourself. Groveling to the enemy isn’t going to preserve your freedoms.
Once more you start to argue points you have no first hand experience of, other than a keyboard Google and the Liberal pacifist smoke blown up your rump.
All this claptrap spilling out of your mouth, is part and parcel why the Iranian’s felt they could take them captive to begin with, not that they had drifted into their territorial waters, but because they fully intent to embarrass American at any given opportunity.
Lets review at what you so so boldly posted,
“specific training and instruction designed to better equip them to COUNTER and WITHSTAND all enemy efforts against them, and SHALL BE FULLY INSTRUCTED as to the behavior and obligations expected of them during combat or captivity.”
Bowing down on one knee and kissing any appendage thrust at them is not suggested in any manner, nor does it cut it, period!.
We temporally must endure a president that is a master at that, and Obama is enough.
Much Like Putin, Iran just proved to the world they own Obama and his puppets cabinet!
You also posted, ‘I’m sure if they felt resistance was a possibility or a necessity they would have done so”. As Reagan once said “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” And as far as I am concerned, you just proved it.
Jack is correct and you need to learn, when the leader of these two American patrol boats did what he did, he violated his oath and the Military code of conduct.
In addition, the chain of command has pretty much rotted out at the top—
________________________________
14 Jan 16
Among those without conscience, arrogance is contagious!
From a friend at an FOB overseas, in an area of active fighting:
“We were ‘treated’ to a brief visit recently by our current ‘Secretary of Defense.’
First off, all personnel were told our chow hall would be closed during his entire visit, and no alternate meals would be served. We were required to stop feeding everyone, so this pompous prima-donna could eat by himself, and not have to rub elbows with us mere mortals!
Apache pilots assigned to base overwatch during his visit were ordered to stay at least five miles away, so the Secretary ‘would not be disturbed by aircraft noise.’ Of course, they couldn’t do their job. No one seemed to care!
Really? A military airfield in a combat zone, with no noise and no activity!
And, the biggest slap in the face:
All military personnel and contractors were told to remove magazines from all weapons, all the time he was here. This paranoid twerp is more afraid of us than he is of the Islamics! His own bodyguard staff were exempted from this ‘rule,’ of course. His safety is important. Ours apparently isn’t!
We’re in a rough, dangerous place here! Our base could be attacked and overrun at any time. Yet, that was, and still is, all ‘subject non-grata.’
A true leader of men, would insist we gallantly carry the tools of our trade, without fear of any of us. Indeed, he would be delighted and proud to stand and serve with us, shoulder-to-shoulder, maybe even pick up a weapon himself. Not this grandiloquent, wingtip-wearing perfumed prince!
Believe me, this open and grotesque display of contempt and disrespect for soldiers and contractors, who daily risk our lives in this FOB, supporting US foreign policy, did not go unnoticed!.
When our own Secretary of Defense regards us with such condescending contempt here, it is no wonder liberals don’t trust, and have scant affection for, active-duty personnel and veterans back in CONUS.”
My comment:
When liberals get into power, they seem to think the rest of us peons exist solely to serve them! They typically abuse and mistreat security staff and others assigned to them, contemptuously regarding them the same way they regard the rest of us, as unwashed, expendable cannon-fodder!
While pompously insisting upon themselves being perfectly protected, and unfailingly treated like royalty, discomfort, danger, and inconvenience to which they so casually expose everyone else in the process is never of the slightest concern.
This is why it is critically important for us to sweep these dishonorable hypocrites out of office this fall!
“The father of all error is the ecumenical character-flaw of vanity. It is therefore incumbent upon every man of honor, who values his own dignity, to repent of error the moment it is discovered, fearing no censure so much at that of his own conscience.”
Samuel Johnson
/John
_________________________________
Link—
http://defense-training.com/2016/arrogance-is-contagious/
Harold” “All this claptrap spilling out of your mouth, is part and parcel why the Iranian’s felt they could take them captive to begin with, not that they had drifted into their territorial waters, but because they fully intent to embarrass American at any given opportunity.”
The Iranians felt they could take the Americans captive because they could take them captive. Legally, the Iranians did nothing wrong in this case. We were in their waters. They had the legal right to arrest and detain the sailors.
If the sailors shot at the Iranians while they were in their waters, they would have been the aggressors. Luckily the sailors were smart enough not to do that.
I don’t think it states anywhere in the Code of Conduct that members of the armed forces have a duty to start armed conflicts in foreign waters rather than admit to a mistake.
The sailors did the right thing. How do I know? They were home safe within 24 hours, and they didn’t start an international incident that could lead to a war. The sailors had NOTHING to gain by running or firing. Nothing. Not for themselves and certainly not for our country. The idea that they should have endangered themselves, our country’s relations with Iran, and the citizens of both countries based on an absurdly literal reading of the Code of Conduct which would have ignored all common sense and judgment remains ridiculous.
If anyone can tell me what would have been gained by Jack’s suggestion, and why the end result would have been superior to what actually happened, I’m all ears.
Harold, one thing has come to light today, one of the patrol boats was experiencing a rough running engine and they could not make high speed. Otherwise, the Navy would have expected them to make a run for open waters, which was apparently only minutes away. They were about 3 miles off Farsi Island and Farsi Island claims a 3 mile limit. This next part has also changed: Apparently, it’s not mandatory for US service personnel to give only name, rank and serial number anymore. They can talk, but they must not reveal any restricted information, or in any way aide the enemy. And this absolutely extends to being interviewed on TV for propaganda purposes.
My sources say, the Navy did expect them to resist capture, if both boats were running properly and that’s a very important part that lends credibility to what I was saying to Chris. Now, as far as the OIC (USN leader) being overly friendly with his captures and making an admission of guilt, that is not permissible. He absolutely was not allowed to make any statements of guilt, wrong doing or an apology. Every Navy person would agree without exception because this is part of their basic training.
Iran on the other hand grossly overreacted, they abused our sailors and violated the Geneva convention to make a gross propaganda film which only proves one thing – they are not our friends. Iran openly hates us, they have on many occasion publically advocated for our destruction! They are controlled by radical clerics that believe in our destruction1 They have caused the deaths of many soldiers in Iraq. We have a history with them that speaks of nothing but hate for America. Now that Obama signed a horrible agreement over the building nuclear weapons, Chris seems to think none of this bad stuff ever happened and that instantly they are our dear friends.
According to my Navy sources, had both boats been in good running condition they could and should have easily outrun their captures and in minutes would have been in open water. If they were fired up at any point they had a right to defend themselves. the Navy officials I’ve heard from said that would have been the right course of action and any attempt to board our craft in open waters should have been resisted by force. The Navy code of conduct was carefully crafted over decades to mean exactly what it says. Anyone suggesting that it’s just a suggestion, something not to be taken literally, would probably conclude the same about our Constitution. I would love to see such a person say that in a Navy bar. Doubt they would get out upright. lol
Jack, we are not at war with Iran. I know that you would like to be … but we are not. Therefore, the “name, rank & serial number” thing does not apply.
However … do you buy this “mechanical failure” thing?
This blogger argues convincingly that the sailors did not violate any regulations by surrendering:
“These sailors did NOT violate any type of standing military order or code of conduct by saying and doing what they did and said. In fact for some 28 years the Army SERE (survival, evasion, resistance, escape) training has been to teach EXACTLY what I saw on television coverage.
The old Code of Conduct that governed from WWII through Nam (name, rank and serial number) is no longer valid-it did not work under torture.
And last since we are NOT at war with Iran there is no application of a war code including Geneva–even if the sailors did “wrong”–and they did NOT!
So the politicians, pundits and those not knowing can kindly go to hell–the sailors did everything as right as it could be done! That Navy Lt. got his people and equipment out of there–that is a big part of his duty!”
http://mantalkblog.com/home/navy-boat-capture-by-iran/#
I’ll have to look deeper into his claim that the Code of Conduct is no longer valid.
Wikipedia seems to confirm:
“The Code of the U.S. Fighting Force is a code of conduct that is an “ethical guide” and a United States Department of Defense directive consisting of six articles to members of the United States Armed Forces, addressing how they should act in combat when they must “evade capture, resist while a prisoner or escape from the enemy.” It is considered an important part of U.S. military doctrine and tradition, but is not formal military law in the manner of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or public international law, such as the Geneva Conventions.
So Jack’s statement that there are “severe penalties for violating it” seems to be untrue.
It’s also untrue that simply videotaping prisoners being treated humanely during an arrest is a violation of the Geneva Convention.
The fact remains that the situation was resolved peacefully, and the sailors did the sensible thing.
Some conservatives were so eager to be livid before the sailors were released–so happy to have a new thing to bash Obama and the Iran deal for–that it didn’t even matter to them when the sailors were released. Now they just had to reach for new reasons to be outraged. Since they exist in a perpetual state of manufactured outrage, this was easy. The “Code of Conduct” line (which I doubt Jack came up with himself–apparently Allen West and the Blaze were both peddling it) became the last grasp for plausibility, an embarrassing attempt to dress up the stinking turd of an argument that the sailors were treasonous cowards, and if they were real men they would have opened fire in foreign waters, endangering themselves and their country, instead of handling things rationally and peacefully, and that their safe return was a BAD thing, because now it means Obama might get credit for improved relations with Iran and apparently you’d rather see American sailors dead than allow that.
Maybe some day you’ll wake up and be embarrassed by this, but I won’t hold my breath.
Chris you can start to breathe more easily , most Americans today are already embarrassed. However it is not by what you perceived as “convincingly blogged”, no sadly our embarrassment is through the actions of what Obama has done to our lower our standing in the world.
This will come back to haunt us many times over with the precedent that Obama is establishing in dealing with future acts of aggression toward the USA and its citizens and hostage taking.
For myself I do not agree with you and you theory of the “spirit” of the Military Code of Conduct about how the military of today conduct themselves when captured while in uniform, nor the impression you have founded viewing TV coverage.
Veterans and current enlisted personnel alike are shaking their heads in disbelief, (some are already posting their reactions, see other PS posts) in wonder as to how this drifting came about as well as the conduct of the smiling Lt on TV, (Another possible Bergdahl?)
Not only because that he was apologizing, but by recognizing the reactions of those captured with him while he was being filmed for propaganda use.
It is the reaction of those other sailors is what everyone in the USA should be discussing.
“This will come back to haunt us many times over with the precedent that Obama is establishing in dealing with future acts of aggression toward the USA and its citizens and hostage taking.”
There was no act of aggression in this case, nor was there any hostage taking, so I don’t see how this instance could set a precedent for either. Even if there were, what would that precedent be? Getting our guys back within 24 hours? That sounds like an awesome precedent. Let’s have more of that.
Well maybe in your world pointing a weapon at someone and forcing them to their knees with locked fingers is just considered a routine inquiry of intentions, but not so in the real world.
“Full Definition of aggression
a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master.”
To me non aggression would have been to ask if they needed help, toss them a line and tow them back to non territorial waters, especially if they did not have a missile to launch in their general direction.
Harold, if that’s how you think any nation–including the U.S.–would handle a military vessel from a foreign country invading their territory, then it’s you who needs to come back to the real world, not me.
Very good comeback Harold.
A law abiding American must be heavily restricted with respect to purchasing and owning weapons but Iranians with weapons that force our sailors to their knees and use pictures of them as propaganda and recruitment tools are above criticism and the fact that our President remained silent is perfectly normal.
Well if there “was no act of aggression” in this case, as you post and if in your post of the 13th “Obama had worked out such great improved relations with Iran (mostly due to Obama’s Iran deal)” Than the Iranians would have had no reason to force the 10 sailors to pose in such a POW photo OP.
No, Iran was the aggressor and the American sailors were captured pawns and put on display, and because of that this incident went beyond what was needed.
Chris ,my opinion is, in the real world if we did have the start of improved diplomatic relations , Iran should have instructed their people to request the US vessels to simply turn back ,or help guide them to non territorial waters. Remember we had one craft there that was under power and could have easily towed the other.
I can see no need to capture military people between friendly nations, or is there?
Once more I will remind you Obama’s Iran deal is not the feel good deal that you use it to be as a argument.
Unless your Russia and China looking for more oil, and through all this excellent diplomacy America has lost more importance in the world standings because of such agreements, not to mention the embarrassment of a friendly nation feeling the need to capturing US military equipment and personnel and putting them on display..
And beyond that, a possible deepening resentment in Israel toward America because of Obamas capitulation to Iran.
So what we have now in that region is very obvious to this blogger, which is much less than what we had before.
And now we’ve had a nice, civilized prisoner exchange … probably in the works for some time, but maybe moved forward a bit to make up for that little contretemps previous?
A nice civilized prisoner exchange is fine and dandy. It didn’t have to cost quite so much. The ramifications for Obama’s fantasy legacy will be felt for many years to come, quite possibly in extreme and tragic ways. But you go ahead and toss that confetti. It’s as phony a celebration as the Iran nuclear deal was and is.