Obama Proposes Military Funding Cuts

[ELVIS]

I know some will dismiss article this over the first four words, but anyway ...

February 01, 2009

by Mark Whittington (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1438569/obama_proposes_military_funding_cuts.html?singlepa ge=true)

http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/image/A4673/467323/470_467323.jpg
USS Ronald Reagan


According to Fox News, President Barack Obama has demanded that the Department of DefenseObama Proposes Military Funding Cutscut its budget request for Fiscal Year 2010 by ten percent, about fifty five billion dollars. The brunt of the cuts will fall on weapons systems.

The proposed military funding cuts come not only during a time of war, but while Congress is demanding that the military expand to meet its commitments. Also, ironically, President Obama's defense funding cuts are being proposed while at the same time he is demanding a nearly trillion dollar stimulus package consisting of domestic spending increases.

Barack Obama's apparent desire to cut back military spending while expanding its size carries within it the very real danger of recreating the Jimmy Carter era "hollow military." The hollow military of the 1970s, in the wake of the Vietnam War, was strong on paper, but because of inadequate funding lacked the necessary weapons, supplies, and training to effectively carry out the national security missions of the United States.

The proposed Barack Obama budget cuts would seem to be dangerous to the point of recklessness in a time when the United States is preparing to fight a major campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan while maintaining other worldwide commitments. The proposed defense funding cuts also sends a signal of weakness to America's enemies.

Considering Barack Obama's wiliness to spend profligately on virtually everything else, one wonders why he had decided to skimp on national defense. It doesn't make sense, even from an economic stimulus perspective. Tens of thousands of people work in industries that manufacture tanks, planes, and ammunition. Defense funding cut backs would tend to depress defense industries, helping to defeat the purpose of an economic stimulus policy.

One reason for the proposed Obama defense cutbacks may be tied into the shift in foreign policy the Obama administration is pursuing, concentrating more on diplomacy than had the Bush administration, the Bush administration used the US military as a tool of American foreign policy. The liberation of Iraq, for instance, while controversial, has had the salutary effect of creating the first real democracy in the Arab world, as one might note the successful and largely peaceful provincial elections that just concluded in that country. Creating democracies where there were none, reasoned the Bush foreign policy team, is not only a worthy goal in and of itself, but also tends to lend to peace and stability in the long run.

The threat of force is also a good diplomatic tool, which might prove to have salutary benefits for every problem ranging from Iran's quest for nuclear weapons to checking the expansionist desires of Russia. The liberation of Iraq proved that the United States was willing to use force if necessary. The threat of it happening again causes America's enemies to at the very least proceed with caution. One example of this occurred soon after the fall of Baghdad when Libya, afraid that it might be next, agreed to give up all of its weapons of mass destruction.

The Obama administration, it would seem, desires to eschew the use of military force or even the threat of it. It therefore follows that when ones pursues a relatively pacifist foreign policy that one need not spend as much on national defense.

The problem is that a pacifist foreign policy and a weak military tends to invite military disasters. President Carter's Presidency was all but destroyed by the failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran as well as the unchecked Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. President Clinton's Presidency was damaged severely by the Blackhawk Down episode in Somalia when eighteen American Army Rangers were killed and their bodies but on grotesque display.

As sure as night follows day, Barack Obama's proposed military funding cuts will likely result in another military debacle as America's enemies exploit the opening that provides. America's standing in the world, which relies more on fear and respect than affection, will be harmed. American servicemen an dperhaps American civilians will needlessly die. Barack Obama's Presidency will be irreparably damaged. If only for the latter if not the two former reasons, Barack Obama should rethink his approach to military spending.



:elvis:

[FORD]

Here's how to cut the Defense Budget:

1) Not a penny for BlacKKKwater or any other mercenary thug "contractors". Private armies are illegal, and cannot be tolerated.

2) End the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the long term occupations of Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. Why are there still US troops in countries where the war ended generations ago?

3) The United States Military should be used for its intended purpose, defending the United States of America. Not as world police, or to secure corporate profits.

4) Audit every last penny going to "defense" contractors. Prosecute the criminals who have defrauded the American taxpayers, and shut their criminal corporations down.


Can anybody make a reasonable argument against these proposals?

[ELVIS]

Not against number four...Or three...

[Nickdfresh]

I know some will dismiss article this over the first four words, but anyway ...

February 01, 2009

by Mark Whittington (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1438569/obama_proposes_military_funding_cuts.html?singlepa ge=true)

http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/image/A4673/467323/470_467323.jpg
USS Ronald Reagan


According to Fox News, President Barack Obama has demanded that the Department of DefenseObama Proposes Military Funding Cutscut its budget request for Fiscal Year 2010 by ten percent, about fifty five billion dollars. The brunt of the cuts will fall on weapons systems.

The proposed military funding cuts come not only during a time of war, but while Congress is demanding that the military expand to meet its commitments. Also, ironically, President Obama's defense funding cuts are being proposed while at the same time he is demanding a nearly trillion dollar stimulus package consisting of domestic spending increases.

Barack Obama's apparent desire to cut back military spending while expanding its size carries within it the very real danger of recreating the Jimmy Carter era "hollow military." The hollow military of the 1970s, in the wake of the Vietnam War, was strong on paper, but because of inadequate funding lacked the necessary weapons, supplies, and training to effectively carry out the national security missions of the United States.

The proposed Barack Obama budget cuts would seem to be dangerous to the point of recklessness in a time when the United States is preparing to fight a major campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan while maintaining other worldwide commitments. The proposed defense funding cuts also sends a signal of weakness to America's enemies.

Considering Barack Obama's wiliness to spend profligately on virtually everything else, one wonders why he had decided to skimp on national defense. It doesn't make sense, even from an economic stimulus perspective. Tens of thousands of people work in industries that manufacture tanks, planes, and ammunition. Defense funding cut backs would tend to depress defense industries, helping to defeat the purpose of an economic stimulus policy.

One reason for the proposed Obama defense cutbacks may be tied into the shift in foreign policy the Obama administration is pursuing, concentrating more on diplomacy than had the Bush administration, the Bush administration used the US military as a tool of American foreign policy. The liberation of Iraq, for instance, while controversial, has had the salutary effect of creating the first real democracy in the Arab world, as one might note the successful and largely peaceful provincial elections that just concluded in that country. Creating democracies where there were none, reasoned the Bush foreign policy team, is not only a worthy goal in and of itself, but also tends to lend to peace and stability in the long run.

The threat of force is also a good diplomatic tool, which might prove to have salutary benefits for every problem ranging from Iran's quest for nuclear weapons to checking the expansionist desires of Russia. The liberation of Iraq proved that the United States was willing to use force if necessary. The threat of it happening again causes America's enemies to at the very least proceed with caution. One example of this occurred soon after the fall of Baghdad when Libya, afraid that it might be next, agreed to give up all of its weapons of mass destruction.

The Obama administration, it would seem, desires to eschew the use of military force or even the threat of it. It therefore follows that when ones pursues a relatively pacifist foreign policy that one need not spend as much on national defense.

The problem is that a pacifist foreign policy and a weak military tends to invite military disasters. President Carter's Presidency was all but destroyed by the failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran as well as the unchecked Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. President Clinton's Presidency was damaged severely by the Blackhawk Down episode in Somalia when eighteen American Army Rangers were killed and their bodies but on grotesque display.

As sure as night follows day, Barack Obama's proposed military funding cuts will likely result in another military debacle as America's enemies exploit the opening that provides. America's standing in the world, which relies more on fear and respect than affection, will be harmed. American servicemen an dperhaps American civilians will needlessly die. Barack Obama's Presidency will be irreparably damaged. If only for the latter if not the two former reasons, Barack Obama should rethink his approach to military spending.



:elvis:

What's "Obama's wiliness?" "dperhaps" someone can tell me?

[Nickdfresh]

This article is mostly opinion based on hearsay. But it's pretty funny when sloppy right wing tools try to fault Obama for military budget cuts "during wartime" when they fucking support TAX CUTS "during wartime" as well...

I guess it's okay to wage perpetual wars as long as you can borrow the money from the Chinese...

[FORD]

Not against number four...Or three...

If you agree with #3, then you have to agree with #2. So why not make it unanimous and agree with #1 also. You can't possibly think private thug mercenary armies are a good thing?

[thome]

-THE WORLD- begs us to be thier police.

Daily.

Now, what are YOU going to answer the world with?

These are the things you never see. You will never understand.

[thome]

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." President Thomas Jefferson
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." --Ben Franklin

In context "Directed toward the British Crown" in the year 1770.
Not towards the US constitution, they were drafting.

[Redballjets88]

If you agree with #3, then you have to agree with #2. So why not make it unanimous and agree with #1 also. You can't possibly think private thug mercenary armies are a good thing?

I agree, but don't feel that bringing everyone home is good. We have bases all over the world for a reasons, mostly to be able to respond at a moments notice to a threat of any kind. But other than that I'm cool with it.

[FORD]

I agree, but don't feel that bringing everyone home is good. We have bases all over the world for a reasons, mostly to be able to respond at a moments notice to a threat of any kind. But other than that I'm cool with it.


The only sort of threat that you only have a moment to respond to would be a nuclear threat. And I'm talking Russia or China here.... someone with an actual capability of throwing missiles at us. And no amount of troops stationed in Europe or in the Middle East are going to make a damn bit of difference if, God forbid, that ever happens.

The last real threat to this country from a foreign power was World War II. Japan hit a US base in Hawaii (not yet a state, but clearly established as a US territory by then) and we responded. Now you could make arguments one way or the other to whether we should have considered Hitler a threat before then, but in any case, when the actual threat to the US became a reality, congress declared war within the next day or so, and it was on. Everything was done according to the Constitution, and with the purpose of defending THIS country. So what was wrong with that approach?

(aside from the internment camps for Japanese Americans, but that's a whole other discussion)

[WACF]

-THE WORLD- begs us to be thier police.

Daily.

Now, what are YOU going to answer the world with?

These are the things you never see. You will never understand.

You only respond when your own self interests are at risk.

The world police bit is a crock...

[Sarge]

Here's how to cut the Defense Budget:

1) Not a penny for BlacKKKwater or any other mercenary thug "contractors". Private armies are illegal, and cannot be tolerated.

2) End the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the long term occupations of Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. Why are there still US troops in countries where the war ended generations ago?

3) The United States Military should be used for its intended purpose, defending the United States of America. Not as world police, or to secure corporate profits.

4) Audit every last penny going to "defense" contractors. Prosecute the criminals who have defrauded the American taxpayers, and shut their criminal corporations down.


Can anybody make a reasonable argument against these proposals?
I agree with most of your post except for number 3.
We need a presence in these areas in order for our national security. For the United States to lose all of it's quick strike capabilities would be a detriment.
We have drawn down some in Korea (about time!) and things need to be looked at on how to strategically place our personnel so that they can be used to their abilities and decrease in size. We shouldn't be maintaining large armies in other countries.

This is a time where we can shake things up some.
I hope the government tries to rethink a few things instead of doing business as usual.
The Military wastes resources and we can save money by rethinking a few things.
Here are a few ideas.
These might be bad ideas, but they are worth looking at.

1. Combining services on some of the branches of service is a good idea.
It's not a good idea to have ONE military. Why not combine our personnel, pay and medical services? These services are being duplicated in every branch and seem like a waste to me.

2. Seabees and Army Engineers used to construct the infrastructure on most military posts. Most of this has been farmed out to civilian contractors. Why?
Yes the local community benefits from this, but at the benefit of the taxpayer.
Everything on most posts is now run by civilian contractors.
Security personnel are at every gate, mess hall is mostly civilians, landscaping, construction etc is not done by soldiers anymore.
Yes we are stretched thin with 2 conflicts but we should be providing some of these services.
All the security contracts in the Middle East need to stop right now. It's amazing people were allowed to profit on that.

3. Government contractors need to be held accountable for their expenses.

4. This is going to piss some people off, but we need to rethink the VA Health care system. We have VA Hospitals in every major city. They provide a valuable resource to our veterans.
The VA Health care system was instituted when we didn't have a Hospital on every corner. Seems like a waste of resources and things can be looked at to provide the same level of care to these soldiers at a reduced cost to our country. The health care system in the US is really fucked right now so it might be best to leave things as they are for those who have given so much to our country.

5. IRAQ is what is running this country bankrupt. So much could be done with 3 trillion like universal health care and efforts to encourage small business growth.
What a shame. I am eternally grateful for those who have died and served in that conflict, but as someone who has deployed multiple times and a wife that deployed.. it's not worth it. Something needs to be done to reduce troop strength and eventually pull out. I am not the person pulling the trigger on this and I am glad. It's a no win situation in a volatile environment.

More to come when I get time....

If you do not agree with anything I said..
:fufu:
Breasts,
Sarge

[sadaist]

3) The United States Military should be used for its intended purpose, defending the United States of America. Not as world police, or to secure corporate profits.



So how about placing them along the Unites States borders to prevent non-citizen criminals from illegally crossing into US territory?

[ELVIS]

3. Government contractors need to be held accountable for their expenses.

More to come when I get time....

If you do not agree with anything I said..
:fufu:
Breasts,
Sarge


The understatement of American civilization as we know it...


:elvis:

[Guitar Shark]

I agree with most of your post except for number 3.
We need a presence in these areas in order for our national security. For the United States to lose all of it's quick strike capabilities would be a detriment.
We have drawn down some in Korea (about time!) and things need to be looked at on how to strategically place our personnel so that they can be used to their abilities and decrease in size. We shouldn't be maintaining large armies in other countries.

This is a time where we can shake things up some.
I hope the government tries to rethink a few things instead of doing business as usual.
The Military wastes resources and we can save money by rethinking a few things.
Here are a few ideas.
These might be bad ideas, but they are worth looking at.

1. Combining services on some of the branches of service is a good idea.
It's not a good idea to have ONE military. Why not combine our personnel, pay and medical services? These services are being duplicated in every branch and seem like a waste to me.

2. Seabees and Army Engineers used to construct the infrastructure on most military posts. Most of this has been farmed out to civilian contractors. Why?
Yes the local community benefits from this, but at the benefit of the taxpayer.
Everything on most posts is now run by civilian contractors.
Security personnel are at every gate, mess hall is mostly civilians, landscaping, construction etc is not done by soldiers anymore.
Yes we are stretched thin with 2 conflicts but we should be providing some of these services.
All the security contracts in the Middle East need to stop right now. It's amazing people were allowed to profit on that.

3. Government contractors need to be held accountable for their expenses.

4. This is going to piss some people off, but we need to rethink the VA Health care system. We have VA Hospitals in every major city. They provide a valuable resource to our veterans.
The VA Health care system was instituted when we didn't have a Hospital on every corner. Seems like a waste of resources and things can be looked at to provide the same level of care to these soldiers at a reduced cost to our country. The health care system in the US is really fucked right now so it might be best to leave things as they are for those who have given so much to our country.

5. IRAQ is what is running this country bankrupt. So much could be done with 3 trillion like universal health care and efforts to encourage small business growth.
What a shame. I am eternally grateful for those who have died and served in that conflict, but as someone who has deployed multiple times and a wife that deployed.. it's not worth it. Something needs to be done to reduce troop strength and eventually pull out. I am not the person pulling the trigger on this and I am glad. It's a no win situation in a volatile environment.

More to come when I get time....

If you do not agree with anything I said..
:fufu:
Breasts,
Sarge

Killer post. :hitch:

[thome]

You only respond when your own self interests are at risk.

The world police bit is a crock...


Not in reality.

I knew a few military guys who were almost courtmartialed back in 95? When Clinton made us incorporate ourselves into the UN peace keeping force and the reason for the actions against -OUR- military, was the fact they(our enlisted) refused to remove their insignia and wear a UN beret inplace of the american military uniform.

We have always been everywhere keeping the peace even if it never hits the press.

Bad economy or not -We- support the peace world wide.With military action and lots of volunteers, social workers and money.

Bushes admin has given more aid to africa than any other admin in history.

We have been elected by the world, as the worlds doorman, and it sukks sometimes, but the hard descisions have to be made by someone..Yes?No?

If Obama cuts military spending by much I am quite sure there will be a more noticable meltdown around the world.

Iran Hostage Crisis was evidence of the last military cuts.

Lack of training and maintenance is directly related to the Black Opps Crashes in the desert.

We are needed and need to be ready .

Some see that as Busco crap and they are just blind.

[Nickdfresh]

Breasts back to you Sarge...

Have you ever read any of the thoughts of Colonel Hackworth (Ret.)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hackworth

He was a US Army officer and commander in the Vietnam War turned sort of renegade reformer and Pentagon critic who advocated the US military should unify along the lines of the Canadian Forces. He was said to be the inspiration for Deniro's character in "Apocalypse Now."

[WACF]

Breasts back to you Sarge...

Have you ever read any of the thoughts of Colonel Hackworth (Ret.)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hackworth

He was a US Army officer and commander in the Vietnam War turned sort of renegade reformer and Pentagon critic who advocated the US military should unify along the lines of the Canadian Forces. He was said to be the inspiration for Deniro's character in "Apocalypse Now."


The down side of what our forces did is that they all compete for the same money out of one bucket...when in reality...each branch should have it's own bucket...the current goverment is working hard to recoup and replace what needs to be.

I think the best place is somewhere in the middle.

Our Libs paid for our deficit with allocating %25 of the forces budget towards debt in the 90's...it really killed the military.

[Nickdfresh]

The down side of what our forces did is that they all compete for the same money out of one bucket...when in reality...each branch should have it's own bucket...the current goverment is working hard to recoup and replace what needs to be.

I think the best place is somewhere in the middle.

Our Libs paid for our deficit with allocating %25 of the forces budget towards debt in the 90's...it really killed the military.

Yeah, but your bucket is about 2% of your GNP. I think ours is 6% or 7%. The unification would probably save about 1/5th of that.

And the Canadian Forces have always been underfunded unfortunately. They still have a very high quality level of training and morale.

And one thing those guys can say, at least until very recently, is that the Forces people have the highest relative pay rate in NATO I believe...

[WACF]

Not in reality.

I knew a few military guys who were almost courtmartialed back in 95? When Clinton made us incorporate ourselves into the UN peace keeping force and the reason for the actions against -OUR- military, was the fact they(our enlisted) refused to remove their insignia and wear a UN beret inplace of the american military uniform.

We have always been everywhere keeping the peace even if it never hits the press.



Well...if you want represent the UN and look impartial...then you need to wear the UN blue beret and patch...plus fly the UN flag over you vehicle.

Your friends were wrong.

Being neutral means you do not choose sides...in the former Yugoslovia Canadians fought US trained Serbs at one point.


Giving aid is necessary...you guys have the tax base to give more than most...keeping a caring, helpfull appearence around the world is important to any country with broad interests...and it needs to be done.

I do not think you were elected by the world...you stepped up because then you can have a say...and protect your interests.

When the UN pleaded for help in Rwanda...they asked Clinton's administration because they had the airlift capabilty.

They said no...and a genocide occured...then a few later he was on the news asking how this happened and pointed out it should not happen again.

The news here was ripe with it as the UN comander Romeo Dallaire was rather outspoken about what happened...it was pretty disgusting to see Clinton try and pretend they did not know.

The reality was Rwanda did not mean...or rather...have anything of interest...so they let it happen...

[WACF]

Yeah, but your bucket is about 2% of your GNP. I think ours is 6% or 7%. The unification would probably save about 1/5th of that.

And the Canadian Forces have always been underfunded unfortunately. They still have a very high quality level of training and morale.

And one thing those guys can say, at least until very recently, is that the Forces people have the highest relative pay rate in NATO I believe...

Yeah...you are pretty much right there.

Remember...we have health care...a big expense.

Afghanistan has really shown Canadian's what our military is capable of...it has also forced the government to replace and buy some excellent weapons and vehicles...and help get out of the "Peacekeepers do not need guns and armour" bs the Libs fed us in order to cut funding.

Trudeau's government turned the military into it's wallet for social programs...it has left a mark ever since.

saving a fith of your military budget would be huge...there are advantages...if done right it can be good...

[Nickdfresh]

Especially since the US spends more on the military than our next 13 potential adversaries combined...

[WACF]

Especially since the US spends more on the military than our next 13 potential adversaries combined...

WOW...

But...carrier groups aren't cheap either...

[Redballjets88]

Eritrea has a larger military than Canada and Great Britain. Fun Fact!

[Nickdfresh]

Eritrea has a larger military than Canada and Great Britain. Fun Fact!

But Eritrea can't project its power beyond its borders and has lost every War its ever been in I think....

True military power is economic power....

[kwame k]

But Eritrea can't project its power beyond its borders and has lost every War its ever been in I think....

True military power is economic power....

That's what the Chinese are thinking........

[BITEYOASS]

breasts back to you sarge...

Have you ever read any of the thoughts of colonel hackworth (ret.)?

He was a us army officer and commander in the vietnam war turned sort of renegade reformer and pentagon critic who advocated the us military should unify along the lines of the canadian forces.

fuck that!

[Seshmeister]

5. IRAQ is what is running this country bankrupt. So much could be done with 3 trillion like universal health care and efforts to encourage small business growth.
What a shame. I am eternally grateful for those who have died and served in that conflict, but as someone who has deployed multiple times and a wife that deployed.. it's not worth it. Something needs to be done to reduce troop strength and eventually pull out. I am not the person pulling the trigger on this and I am glad. It's a no win situation in a volatile environment.


Glad you finally posted about Iraq. :)

As I said to you the other night it did get a bit tiresome a few years back having all the posters shouting 'How dare you be against the war in Iraq when Sarge himself is over there defending our freedoms'.

As far as the spending goes it's always useful to get US military spending in context.

http://takeaction.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/350px-worldmilitaryspending.jpg


http://www.notimetokill.org/images/military_spending_population.gif


Both of these graphs are a few years old it's even more nutso now.

Obama could cut spending by 80% and still have enough to defend the US.

That would maybe involve less time for army personnel on Italian beaches though... ;)

[kwame k]

Looks like they need a bigger graph............

[BITEYOASS]

Here are some of my ideas for military spending.

1. Drop the amount of active nuclear warheads we have to 200, since Iran, North Korea and maybe Pakistan are not very large targets.

2. Move the missile defense shield to Turkey and don't start construction it until we have deactivated all of our nukes. You can have either mutually assured destruction or a missile defense shield, not both!

3. Ditch AFRICOM, there is no use for it. In fact just have two operational commands: NORTHCOM and WORLDCOM. We need to cut some generals from the payroll anyway, there are too many imo.

4. Have 2 carrier groups per continent. Which means we should have 12 nuclear carriers.

5. Only have the air force become partially stealth. Especially since it is only useful in operations involving targets surrounded by large SAM networks. In operations like Iraq and Afghanistan, stealth technology serves no purpose. With long range missiles and UAVs, who needs em.

6. No more permanent combat units overseas. With our fast air transports and ships, an expeditionary force nearby or in theatre is all that is neccessary. Only have a permanent joint logistics and command unit with the alliances or an allied country's permission in order to adequatly prepare for impeding conflicts.

7. Increase size of ground military force in conflict, to the point in which a division can spend 1 year in and 2 out.

8. Get the military out of that hellhole called Iraq and they're will be plenty of money on hand for veterans health and benefits.

9. Prosecute and sue the shit out of private contractors.

that's all I have for now.

[Seshmeister]

3. Ditch AFRICOM, there is no use for it. In fact just have two operational commands: NORTHCOM and WORLDCOM. We need to cut some generals from the payroll anyway, there are too many imo.



The British navy now has more admirals than warships... :)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/3073680/Admirals-outnumber-warships-in-Royal-Navy-report-shows.html

[Nickdfresh]

fuck that!

Or we could just get rid of all the services except for the Marine Corp since they already have ships, tanks, and fighter aircraft in one service. :D

[Nickdfresh]

The US projection of power around the globe is probably the most expensive thing of it all. The truth is that if the US simply transitioned to meeting most of its own energy needs, we simply could stop giving a fuck about the Middle East...

The military budget should be more focuses on that!

[BITEYOASS]

Or we could just get rid of all the services except for the Marine Corp since they already have ships, tanks, and fighter aircraft in one service. :D

Nah, we ride the navy's ships, the air forces aircraft and have to borrow some of the Army's field artillery and construction equipment when we are short. Hell I remember that a lot of the weapons I built for the aircraft were basically leftovers from the other services that the USMC gets at bargain basement prices. USMC is made for small wars, amphibious landings and island invasions. Because if one of the airborne divisions did our missions, half of them would drown, since the deepest water they've probably been in was probably the creek back home.

Oh yeah, and don't be around them when they're drunk. It will look like Keith Moon on steroids. LOL

[Va Beach VH Fan]

4. Have 2 carrier groups per continent. Which means we should have 12 nuclear carriers.

You realize you're in effect making the deployments for those remaining carriers longer, right ??

[BITEYOASS]

You realize you're in effect making the deployments for those remaining carriers longer, right ??

I'm stating how many there should be on hand regardless of status, not on the amount that should be deployed.

[kwame k]

wrong forum.......bad post

[LoungeMachine]

What percentage of our military expenditures goes to protecting our oil interests?

It's a hidden tax that adds up to billions.

:gulp:

Imagine if we got off the teet.

[kwame k]

Imagine if we got off the teet.

As the poet said.......

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-b7qaSxuZUg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-b7qaSxuZUg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[hideyoursheep]

Or we could just get rid of all the services except for the Marine Corp since they already have ships, tanks, and fighter aircraft in one service. :D

There's not enough of them to go around...

[hideyoursheep]

There's plenty of waste to be trimmed from the budget....he's been briefed and I trust his calculator has batteries.

[Nickdfresh]

There's not enough of them to go around...

I was joking. One of the biggest opponents of any unification is the USMC, and there was talk of combining them with the US Army as a special naval infantry or amphibious assault group under the Dept. of the Army both before and after Vietnam I believe...

They frustrated this effort by (sometimes rightly) pointing out that marines had a much better combat record in instances such as the early part of the Korean War because of better, more consistent infantry training and esprit de corp with a different culture. That's was true, but I'm not sure it is anymore or that the US really needs a separate small military force that essentially duplicates the other three services today...

[LoungeMachine]

There's plenty of waste to be trimmed from the budget....he's been briefed and I trust his calculator has batteries.

Solar calculators only in this white house.

Cheney's pacemakers used all of the batteries

[hideyoursheep]

I was joking....I knew that..;)


One of the biggest opponents of any unification is the USMC, and there was talk of combining them with the US Army as a special naval infantry or amphibious assault group under the Dept. of the Army both before and after Vietnam I believe...

They frustrated this effort by (sometimes rightly) pointing out that marines had a much better combat record in instances such as the early part of the Korean War because of better, more consistent infantry training and esprit de corp with a different culture. That's was true, but I'm not sure it is anymore or that the US really needs a separate small military force that essentially duplicates the other three services today...
I don't want to get into that. There's plus and minuses to both. They do what they do, and the Army does what it does, which is move in and occupy. The Corps was originally drawn up to be deployed from off shore quickly and back on board without giving the appearance of a long standing occupation, which is probably why to this day their deployments are shorter.

But 1st I.D. isn't supposed to be doing amphibious assaults, either. (see Normandy)


I say keep it the way it is, but stop the waste.

[GAR]

4) Audit every last penny going to "defense" contractors. Prosecute the criminals who have defrauded the American taxpayers, and shut their criminal corporations down.


Can anybody make a reasonable argument against these proposals?

First off with your last gripe, it's impossible to call Fraud where you have the collusion of the then-Commander-In-Chief as well as his Cabinet. Even if they are controlling him, the ultimate liability is with the contracts signed and not the Chief nor the cabinet and contractors.

Secondly, the US military is in a lot of places American business interests are, from which a great deal of the economy is derived and at the core of your argument, you preclude that the economic maintenance of the Military as World Police was not fiscally balanced to account for these presences in the first place. Which could not be further from the truth.

Blackwater and other hired thugs did what they do best in the age when the CIA actually functioned, and hired privateers, formerly experts while in the Military to do the dirty work when civility played out of things. They'll always sniffing around and probably thrive very well under Obama especially if we engage another nation or get attacked.

And if you have to ask "Why are the troops still in ____ country" look no further than Korea, where every fucking day our troops posted in the DMZ get fucked with, get shot at.. because bad peoples never change and you got whole societies of ferocious fuckers like North Korea and China who'll cut your heart out for an apple and NEED to see lots of guns and tanks in their face to keep order making them behave.

Eventually two things happen regardless: America's industrial and technical edges give way to other countries we export all that to do the work for us, and the duality of that truth will be that we become less free as those nations become less Communistic and Regime-based and stable.

That's the biggest threat to our way of life, balancing the edge of the developing world against ripping off our prosperity, and our giving it away for nothing by losers here who want peace, love hope and understanding for those over there without the spiritual initiatives behind such a way of life that's now so independant and hedonistic of our beginnings, we eventually lose everything and regress to third-world status ourselves.

[GAR]

If you agree with #3, then you have to agree with #2. So why not make it unanimous and agree with #1 also.

Why is a 10% budget reduction to a Military that did such a good job that's the reward the get?

Why not specify equipment vs payroll: Congress keeps voting payraises now you'll be damned to find a Rep or Congressman making less than $100K, when we just lost 5,000 over the last 6 years.

They should get paid double, the troops should get a big fat raise and duty-tour bonus when pulled out or discharged for the job well done.

I mean, why ten percent when 20 percent sounds a hell of a lot better?

Why not just hollow out the military entirely, and just coast on the prosperity like Rome did.. they proved you could coast along for a few hundred years doing nothing after conquering the world. There's no common enemy nation on our borders except Mexico, and we all know how poorly the Mexicans fight with their soggy Menudo filled bellies.. we'll be alright, just like the twin towers were in NY right FORD?

[sadaist]

Food for thought.


"Speak softly and carry and big stick; you will go far.' If the American nation will speak softly, and yet build and keep at a pitch of the highest training a thoroughly efficient navy, the Monroe Doctrine will go far." Theodore Roosevelt

Roosevelt described his style of foreign policy as “the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis.”

[GAR]

You can thank FDR for hollowing out the Monroe Doctrine.

[Nickdfresh]

You can thank FDR for hollowing out the Monroe Doctrine.

And defeating Nazi Germany. And the Monroe doctrine was obsolete as Euros were done with their Imperialism (except for the French) by WWII...

[GAR]

I haven't read the term Democracy expressed using the word "Imperialism" since the fall of the Soviet regime!

Take it easy on the Hugo Chavez literature, there'll be no test once his regime's cuntcluded, either..

[Nickdfresh]

I haven't read the term Democracy expressed using the word "Imperialism" since the fall of the Soviet regime!

Take it easy on the Hugo Chavez literature, there'll be no test once his regime's cuntcluded, either..

Can you be more specific, dummy? Because I, as usual, have no fucking idea of what you are talking about. But then, that makes at least two of us, right BlimpyDouche?

[GAR]

Can you be any more course or vague?

[LoungeMachine]

GAR = thome without the wit or brains

scary thought.

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Can you be any more course or vague?


Yes, I can in fact.

[Nickdfresh]

GAR = thome without the wit or brains

scary thought.

:gulp:

RAG never been the same since the Mexican Immigrants stole his job (collecting bottles and cans for deposit gig)...

[LoungeMachine]

RAG never been the same since the Mexican Immigrants stole his job (collecting bottles and cans for deposit gig)...

If we'd just build the damn wall already, GARfield would have the job security he so richly deserves....

Imagine if those "illegals" ever started getting library cards.....

:mad0233:

Gar would have an aneurism.

:gulp: