# Why do you think this country needs more invested in the Military.



## jbander

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.


----------



## norwegen

We need it so the snowflakes will have something else to cry about.


----------



## TNHarley

we dont.
We could probably use some "up dating" but with all the waste, im sure we could fit that in with current budgets.


----------



## jbander

norwegen said:


> We need it so the snowflakes will have something else to cry about.


Do you know how stupid this remark is., You get everything from real answers to the brain dead.


----------



## jbander

TNHarley said:


> we dont.
> We could probably use some "up dating" but with all the waste, im sure we could fit that in with current budgets.


 Unless you add in the nuclear threat , where no one wins . there is no country that can fight a war with the US military ,add in what we have and our allies have and there isn't any amount of countries that could or would have a chance. Money spent on our military above what we spend now is just spent to cycle back into the hands of the wealthy. Other then that it's absolute insanity to waste money that way.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.



How about the fact that some of the housing, including where my daughter lives, was built in the 1960s and is slowly falling apart?

How about the fact that most of junior enlisted personnel qualify for SNAP?

How about the fact that our military is being stretched thin by deployments in Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and disaster relief in the Caribbean?

How about the fact that much of the equipment is being worn out due to the increased operating tempo?

How about the fact that lack of sleep caused by crew members on Navy ships has been cited as a cause of numerous accidents?


----------



## jbander

How about the fact that the right gives only lip service to veterans and military personnel why voting against just about every bill to make these group lives better and the Democrats support just about all bills that support these groups. How about staying out of wars that are fought only for the bottom line or some nonsense like the domino theory .
    We have been at war for 222 years of the last 239 years but there is but a couple  handfuls that we needed to get involves with. The rest were all levels of lies and nonsense and cruelty. 
     I support, above everything else, that the veterans and your family members in the service get paid every dime reasonable and be supplied with everything needed to protect this group. every one of those issues that i support is well within the budget we have now and well within a budget that is cut 20 or 30% 
   I'd like to thank your families  involvement in the military,


----------



## Unkotare

jbander said:


> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.




Ah, the innocence of youth...


----------



## jbander

Unkotare said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the innocence of youth...
Click to expand...

Have no clue what your point is but if your talking about me, I'm 73 and your comment seems to come from the idle , lack of knowledge  mind of one of your youths you're pointing to.


----------



## mhansen2

jbander said:


> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.


I see your point, but what areas of military spending would you cut back?

I remember back in the 1960s, black groups at Cape Canaveral protesting the manned space program for spending money needed for civil improvement.  They, too, had a point, but most of the country, including me, wanted to go to the Moon.


----------



## Darkwind

jbander said:


> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.


You may have a point when the needy begin to take responsibility for themselves.

You see, without the worlds strongest military, the 'needy' won't have any champions of the needy because third world dictatorships don't give a fuck about the 'needy'.

Or to be even blunter, if we cannot keep our freedom from government and tyrants, no one is going to care about the poor.  It is only the strong and powerful who can hope to set aside resources for those in need.


----------



## whitehall

Investment in the military is what brought the U.S. out of the "Great Depression". Think of investment in the military as a win-win situation. Within certain boundries it makes Americans safer and the money invested in ships and planes and weapons goes back into the economy.


----------



## jbander

mhansen2 said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> I see your point, but what areas of military spending would you cut back?
> 
> I remember back in the 1960s, black groups at Cape Canaveral protesting the manned space program for spending money needed for civil improvement.  They, too, had a point, but most of the country, including me, wanted to go to the Moon.
Click to expand...


----------



## jbander

Darkwind said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> You may have a point when the needy begin to take responsibility for themselves.
> 
> You see, without the worlds strongest military, the 'needy' won't have any champions of the needy because third world dictatorships don't give a fuck about the 'needy'.
> 
> Or to be even blunter, if we cannot keep our freedom from government and tyrants, no one is going to care about the poor.  It is only the strong and powerful who can hope to set aside resources for those in need.
Click to expand...

 Oh great, you seem like a person of great insight, tell me some study or research and not hate mongering, that shows that these people in need are taking advantage of anything. And tell me how the poor can take responsibility to pay for their food and a roof over their head if they get jack shit for income. 
      The idea that we can't defend ourselves when this country and it's allies spends 3 out of every 4 dollars that is put out for the military is absolutely nonsense. There is no country in the world that can take over this country, so your scenario about some dictator taking over is at best comedy. Opposition and attacks on the poor has already been dumped on us, along with dictatorship thanks to the right.
 I'm telling you straight out , you have no idea what your talking about. The reality is that with our military and our allies military there is no combination of powers that can even tickle us yet destroy us. We could handle every country in the world if they came out against our military and the military of our allies.
 So your comment is nonsense. Don't come back with nuclear weapons because they won't be used and if they are no one will be here to complain about it.


----------



## miketx

jbander said:


> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.


Because, that's why.


----------



## Unkotare

jbander said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the innocence of youth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have no clue what your point is but if your talking about me, I'm 73 .....
Click to expand...


That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."


----------



## fncceo

jbander said:


> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.



Put the needy in the military... problem solved.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> How about the fact that the right gives only lip service to veterans and military personnel why voting against just about every bill to make these group lives better and the Democrats support just about all bills that support these groups. How about staying out of wars that are fought only for the bottom line or some nonsense like the domino theory .
> We have been at war for 222 years of the last 239 years but there is but a couple  handfuls that we needed to get involves with. The rest were all levels of lies and nonsense and cruelty.
> I support, above everything else, that the veterans and your family members in the service get paid every dime reasonable and be supplied with everything needed to protect this group. every one of those issues that i support is well within the budget we have now and well within a budget that is cut 20 or 30%
> I'd like to thank your families  involvement in the military,




We have been at war 222 out of 239?  Did you recently suffer a head injury or did you flunk American history?

Democrats vote for the troops?  What fantasy world do you live in?


----------



## jbander

whitehall said:


> Investment in the military is what brought the U.S. out of the "Great Depression". Think of investment in the military as a win-win situation. Within certain boundries it makes Americans safer and the money invested in ships and planes and weapons goes back into the economy.


 That same dollar spent on anything else drives the economy at the same rate as your military dollar. But there is one thing  a hell of a lot more effective then  the dollar  spent on the military, the dollar spent in the broad market  , goes to a hell of a larger spectrum of our population then the military dollar.  guess where the military dollar goes to.(Try Eisenhower's speech about the military industrial complex) , and it is a hell of a lot worse now then back then.. 
   The right couldn't justify their requests to spend more on the military so they came back with the need to be able to fight in two wars. Which is nonsense. The solution to that nonsense is not going into wars for the sake of someone's bottom line.  Other then a few wars out of the 222 years of war we have been involved in in the last 237 years. There was no reason to go, nothing involved with protecting this country. Only for the sake of someones bottom line . Many of these wars were simply evil and cruel and in no way needed.


----------



## jbander

fncceo said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put the needy in the military... problem solved.
Click to expand...

Who in the hell do you think is in the military, Try vietnam, all the poor got drafted and all the rich got a free pass.


----------



## Wyatt earp

jbander said:


> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.



The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post


No?


----------



## Indeependent

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the fact that the right gives only lip service to veterans and military personnel why voting against just about every bill to make these group lives better and the Democrats support just about all bills that support these groups. How about staying out of wars that are fought only for the bottom line or some nonsense like the domino theory .
> We have been at war for 222 years of the last 239 years but there is but a couple  handfuls that we needed to get involves with. The rest were all levels of lies and nonsense and cruelty.
> I support, above everything else, that the veterans and your family members in the service get paid every dime reasonable and be supplied with everything needed to protect this group. every one of those issues that i support is well within the budget we have now and well within a budget that is cut 20 or 30%
> I'd like to thank your families  involvement in the military,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have been at war 222 out of 239?  Did you recently suffer a head injury or did you flunk American history?
> 
> Democrats vote for the troops?  What fantasy world do you live in?
Click to expand...

You stole my post; I will now hate you for 27 seconds.


----------



## jbander

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the fact that the right gives only lip service to veterans and military personnel why voting against just about every bill to make these group lives better and the Democrats support just about all bills that support these groups. How about staying out of wars that are fought only for the bottom line or some nonsense like the domino theory .
> We have been at war for 222 years of the last 239 years but there is but a couple  handfuls that we needed to get involves with. The rest were all levels of lies and nonsense and cruelty.
> I support, above everything else, that the veterans and your family members in the service get paid every dime reasonable and be supplied with everything needed to protect this group. every one of those issues that i support is well within the budget we have now and well within a budget that is cut 20 or 30%
> I'd like to thank your families  involvement in the military,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have been at war 222 out of 239?  Did you recently suffer a head injury or did you flunk American history?
> 
> Democrats vote for the troops?  What fantasy world do you live in?
Click to expand...

Fact, heres a list of all the wars and years they fought them, tell me which one is wrong //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations I've spent much time looking at voting records. Your more then welcome to come up with your own facts. Neres a few that were voted down by your party, that the democrats supported "*The Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act of 2010* " "*Veterans Job Corps Act of 2012" "Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration act of 2014" Women Veterans and Families Health Services Act of 2014" "Veterans Affairs Funding Bill 2015" "Republicans blocked an amendment by Sen. Tester (D-MT) that would have made it harder to restrict veterans’ ability to access VA health care. While Democrats have sought to provide better funding and health care access at the VA, Donald Trump has proposed eliminating the agency altogether" "What does the rights president offer the vets , Cuts to veteran program ." The Latest  "The largest piece of veterans legislation in decades — aimed at expanding health care, education and other benefits — was rejected Thursday by the Senate. The legislation died on a vote of 56–41, with only two Republicans voting for it.”" These are the main veteran bills over the last few years, the family value party hasn't done very well by the veterans. These are all in the congregational record so take a look.
     So it is pretty clear by the facts that you are the one that must have flunked your history classes. I love it when these clowns call you out because of what they say are lies but they never check. the information is available on these issues and is easily accessed. But they think they know it all, so they dump on you and I get  massive enjoyment sticking it to these fake, liars and distorter. *


----------



## jbander

bear513 said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post
> 
> 
> No?
Click to expand...

bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I


Unkotare said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the innocence of youth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have no clue what your point is but if your talking about me, I'm 73 .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.


----------



## jbander

miketx said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, that's why.
Click to expand...

Look at his comment , then look at his added words at the bottom of the page.


----------



## Unkotare

jbander said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the innocence of youth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have no clue what your point is but if your talking about me, I'm 73 .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
Click to expand...


Some dope said:

"it's not even logical or conscienable [sic] when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country."


----------



## fncceo

jbander said:


> If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the fact that the right gives only lip service to veterans and military personnel why voting against just about every bill to make these group lives better and the Democrats support just about all bills that support these groups. How about staying out of wars that are fought only for the bottom line or some nonsense like the domino theory .
> We have been at war for 222 years of the last 239 years but there is but a couple  handfuls that we needed to get involves with. The rest were all levels of lies and nonsense and cruelty.
> I support, above everything else, that the veterans and your family members in the service get paid every dime reasonable and be supplied with everything needed to protect this group. every one of those issues that i support is well within the budget we have now and well within a budget that is cut 20 or 30%
> I'd like to thank your families  involvement in the military,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have been at war 222 out of 239?  Did you recently suffer a head injury or did you flunk American history?
> 
> Democrats vote for the troops?  What fantasy world do you live in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact, heres a list of all the wars and years they fought them, tell me which one is wrong //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations I've spent much time looking at voting records. Your more then welcome to come up with your own facts. Neres a few that were voted down by your party, that the democrats supported "*The Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act of 2010* " "*Veterans Job Corps Act of 2012" "Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration act of 2014" Women Veterans and Families Health Services Act of 2014" "Veterans Affairs Funding Bill 2015" "Republicans blocked an amendment by Sen. Tester (D-MT) that would have made it harder to restrict veterans’ ability to access VA health care. While Democrats have sought to provide better funding and health care access at the VA, Donald Trump has proposed eliminating the agency altogether" "What does the rights president offer the vets , Cuts to veteran program ." The Latest  "The largest piece of veterans legislation in decades — aimed at expanding health care, education and other benefits — was rejected Thursday by the Senate. The legislation died on a vote of 56–41, with only two Republicans voting for it.”" These are the main veteran bills over the last few years, the family value party hasn't done very well by the veterans. These are all in the congregational record so take a look.
> So it is pretty clear by the facts that you are the one that must have flunked your history classes. I love it when these clowns call you out because of what they say are lies but they never check. the information is available on these issues and is easily accessed. But they think they know it all, so they dump on you and I get  massive enjoyment sticking it to these fake, liars and distorter. *
Click to expand...



I guess you just have an extremely uneducated definition of war.

BTW, I am a Navy veteran with a degree in military history, so I suggest you check your definitions again.  Hardly any of those actions constitute war.

In regards to your other comments, it just proves that your reading skills really are at an elementary school level at best.  Be advised cutting and pasting without attributing the source is consider plagiarism.

I suggest you edit before the mods remove it.


----------



## Wyatt earp

jbander said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the innocence of youth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have no clue what your point is but if your talking about me, I'm 73 .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
Click to expand...


Once again the more money we spend on the military  Hanes,  the more freedom you have to post ..... stuffing your fat face eating doughnuts  sitting on a couch


----------



## jbander

Unkotare said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the innocence of youth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have no clue what your point is but if your talking about me, I'm 73 .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some dope said:
> 
> "it's not even logical or conscienable [sic] when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country."
Click to expand...

 Tell me where in that statement I said "That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy." Your scum bag president and party is pulling massive amounts of money that is used to help the needy to give to the wealthy and to increase spending on the military. Your comment at best is simply mindless at worst stupid.


----------



## jbander

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the fact that the right gives only lip service to veterans and military personnel why voting against just about every bill to make these group lives better and the Democrats support just about all bills that support these groups. How about staying out of wars that are fought only for the bottom line or some nonsense like the domino theory .
> We have been at war for 222 years of the last 239 years but there is but a couple  handfuls that we needed to get involves with. The rest were all levels of lies and nonsense and cruelty.
> I support, above everything else, that the veterans and your family members in the service get paid every dime reasonable and be supplied with everything needed to protect this group. every one of those issues that i support is well within the budget we have now and well within a budget that is cut 20 or 30%
> I'd like to thank your families  involvement in the military,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have been at war 222 out of 239?  Did you recently suffer a head injury or did you flunk American history?
> 
> Democrats vote for the troops?  What fantasy world do you live in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact, heres a list of all the wars and years they fought them, tell me which one is wrong //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations I've spent much time looking at voting records. Your more then welcome to come up with your own facts. Neres a few that were voted down by your party, that the democrats supported "*The Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act of 2010* " "*Veterans Job Corps Act of 2012" "Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration act of 2014" Women Veterans and Families Health Services Act of 2014" "Veterans Affairs Funding Bill 2015" "Republicans blocked an amendment by Sen. Tester (D-MT) that would have made it harder to restrict veterans’ ability to access VA health care. While Democrats have sought to provide better funding and health care access at the VA, Donald Trump has proposed eliminating the agency altogether" "What does the rights president offer the vets , Cuts to veteran program ." The Latest  "The largest piece of veterans legislation in decades — aimed at expanding health care, education and other benefits — was rejected Thursday by the Senate. The legislation died on a vote of 56–41, with only two Republicans voting for it.”" These are the main veteran bills over the last few years, the family value party hasn't done very well by the veterans. These are all in the congregational record so take a look.
> So it is pretty clear by the facts that you are the one that must have flunked your history classes. I love it when these clowns call you out because of what they say are lies but they never check. the information is available on these issues and is easily accessed. But they think they know it all, so they dump on you and I get  massive enjoyment sticking it to these fake, liars and distorter. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you just have an extremely uneducated definition of war.
> 
> BTW, I am a Navy veteran with a degree in military history, so I suggest you check your definitions again.  Hardly any of those actions constitute war.
> 
> In regards to your other comments, it just proves that your reading skills really are at an elementary school level at best.  Be advised cutting and pasting without attributing the source is consider plagiarism.
> 
> I suggest you edit before the mods remove it.
Click to expand...

 Funny that the encyclopedia lists them as wars. Your trying to say the are police actions or some other con that you gum drops use as a excuse to get around having to go through congress to start a war.
  I don't believe for a second that you some Military scholar. Your a military bullshitter ,not a scholar. 
  On your last comment ,My quotes weren't really quotes they were a listing of bills that your party voted down to help veterans . Doesn't matter anyway I said "*the family value party hasn't done very well by the veterans. These are all in the congregational record so take a look." SO they were sourced. Your reading ability is weak.*


----------



## jbander

bear513 said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the innocence of youth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have no clue what your point is but if your talking about me, I'm 73 .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again the more money we spend on the military  Hanes,  the more freedom you have to post ..... stuffing your fat face eating doughnuts  sitting on a couch
Click to expand...

You said that already . it meant nothing before and that hasn't changed.  There is no country in the world that can take our freedom away , even if we cut a massive amount from the military.  Tell me how anyone can take it away from us when 3 out of every 4 dollars that is spent on the military is spent by us and our allies. Your nonsense doesn't carry any weight here.


----------



## jon_berzerk

jbander said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the innocence of youth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have no clue what your point is but if your talking about me, I'm 73 .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again the more money we spend on the military  Hanes,  the more freedom you have to post ..... stuffing your fat face eating doughnuts  sitting on a couch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said that already . it meant nothing before and that hasn't changed.  There is no country in the world that can take our freedom away , even if we cut a massive amount from the military.  Tell me how anyone can take it away from us when 3 out of every 4 dollars that is spent on the military is spent by us and our allies. Your nonsense doesn't carry any weight here.
Click to expand...



the only ones that can take our freedoms away is us


----------



## Windparadox

`
`
I think NOT.
`
`
`


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the innocence of youth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have no clue what your point is but if your talking about me, I'm 73 .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some dope said:
> 
> "it's not even logical or conscienable [sic] when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me where in that statement I said "That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy." Your scum bag president and party is pulling massive amounts of money that is used to help the needy to give to the wealthy and to increase spending on the military. Your comment at best is simply mindless at worst stupid.
Click to expand...


So, tell us oh wise one!  How much has TANF been cut?  How much has SNAP been cut?  

Oh, that's right!  Not a single person has seen a reduction in their benefits.

Why don't you just admit you have no idea what you are bitching about?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the innocence of youth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have no clue what your point is but if your talking about me, I'm 73 .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some dope said:
> 
> "it's not even logical or conscienable [sic] when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me where in that statement I said "That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy." Your scum bag president and party is pulling massive amounts of money that is used to help the needy to give to the wealthy and to increase spending on the military. Your comment at best is simply mindless at worst stupid.
Click to expand...


So, tell us oh wise one!  How much has TANF been cut?  How much has SNAP been cut?  

Oh, that's right!  Not a single person has seen a reduction in their benefits.

Why don't you just admit you have no idea what you are bitching about?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the innocence of youth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have no clue what your point is but if your talking about me, I'm 73 .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some dope said:
> 
> "it's not even logical or conscienable [sic] when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me where in that statement I said "That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy." Your scum bag president and party is pulling massive amounts of money that is used to help the needy to give to the wealthy and to increase spending on the military. Your comment at best is simply mindless at worst stupid.
Click to expand...


So, tell us oh wise one!  How much has TANF been cut?  How much has SNAP been cut?  

Oh, that's right!  Not a single person has seen a reduction in their benefits.

Why don't you just admit you have no idea what you are bitching about?


----------



## rightwinger

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the fact that some of the housing, including where my daughter lives, was built in the 1960s and is slowly falling apart?
> 
> How about the fact that most of junior enlisted personnel qualify for SNAP?
> 
> How about the fact that our military is being stretched thin by deployments in Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and disaster relief in the Caribbean?
> 
> How about the fact that much of the equipment is being worn out due to the increased operating tempo?
> 
> How about the fact that lack of sleep caused by crew members on Navy ships has been cited as a cause of numerous accidents?
Click to expand...

All of which can be handled by re prioritizing our military budget and our. Mission as policeman for the world

We spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined. Eight of which are our allies


----------



## cnm

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> BTW, I am a Navy veteran


So will never want to see the trough reduced.


----------



## cnm

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> BTW, I am a Navy veteran


So will never want to see the trough reduced.


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the fact that some of the housing, including where my daughter lives, was built in the 1960s and is slowly falling apart?
> 
> How about the fact that most of junior enlisted personnel qualify for SNAP?
> 
> How about the fact that our military is being stretched thin by deployments in Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and disaster relief in the Caribbean?
> 
> How about the fact that much of the equipment is being worn out due to the increased operating tempo?
> 
> How about the fact that lack of sleep caused by crew members on Navy ships has been cited as a cause of numerous accidents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of which can be handled by re prioritizing our military budget and our. Mission as policeman for the world
> 
> We spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined. Eight of which are our allies
Click to expand...



We are not the policeman for the world, we are the policeman for American interests in the world.


----------



## cnm

rightwinger said:


> All of which can be handled by re prioritizing our military budget and our. Mission as policeman for the world


Policemen answer to a court. Your mission is capo to the world.


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the fact that some of the housing, including where my daughter lives, was built in the 1960s and is slowly falling apart?
> 
> How about the fact that most of junior enlisted personnel qualify for SNAP?
> 
> How about the fact that our military is being stretched thin by deployments in Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and disaster relief in the Caribbean?
> 
> How about the fact that much of the equipment is being worn out due to the increased operating tempo?
> 
> How about the fact that lack of sleep caused by crew members on Navy ships has been cited as a cause of numerous accidents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of which can be handled by re prioritizing our military budget and our. Mission as policeman for the world
> 
> We spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined. Eight of which are our allies
Click to expand...



We are not the policeman for the world, we are the policeman for American interests in the world.


----------



## frigidweirdo

jbander said:


> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.



So the rich people who own military companies can get richer.

So the politicians can be given bribes by the military companies.

So the people have a distraction from the leaders taking bribes from military companies.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the fact that some of the housing, including where my daughter lives, was built in the 1960s and is slowly falling apart?
> 
> How about the fact that most of junior enlisted personnel qualify for SNAP?
> 
> How about the fact that our military is being stretched thin by deployments in Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and disaster relief in the Caribbean?
> 
> How about the fact that much of the equipment is being worn out due to the increased operating tempo?
> 
> How about the fact that lack of sleep caused by crew members on Navy ships has been cited as a cause of numerous accidents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of which can be handled by re prioritizing our military budget and our. Mission as policeman for the world
> 
> We spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined. Eight of which are our allies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are not the policeman for the world, we are the policeman for American interests in the world.
Click to expand...

Wrong


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the fact that some of the housing, including where my daughter lives, was built in the 1960s and is slowly falling apart?
> 
> How about the fact that most of junior enlisted personnel qualify for SNAP?
> 
> How about the fact that our military is being stretched thin by deployments in Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and disaster relief in the Caribbean?
> 
> How about the fact that much of the equipment is being worn out due to the increased operating tempo?
> 
> How about the fact that lack of sleep caused by crew members on Navy ships has been cited as a cause of numerous accidents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of which can be handled by re prioritizing our military budget and our. Mission as policeman for the world
> 
> We spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined. Eight of which are our allies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are not the policeman for the world, we are the policeman for American interests in the world.
Click to expand...

Wrong


----------



## Darkwind

jbander said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> You may have a point when the needy begin to take responsibility for themselves.
> 
> You see, without the worlds strongest military, the 'needy' won't have any champions of the needy because third world dictatorships don't give a fuck about the 'needy'.
> 
> Or to be even blunter, if we cannot keep our freedom from government and tyrants, no one is going to care about the poor.  It is only the strong and powerful who can hope to set aside resources for those in need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh great, you seem like a person of great insight, tell me some study or research and not hate mongering, that shows that these people in need are taking advantage of anything. And tell me how the poor can take responsibility to pay for their food and a roof over their head if they get jack shit for income.
> The idea that we can't defend ourselves when this country and it's allies spends 3 out of every 4 dollars that is put out for the military is absolutely nonsense. There is no country in the world that can take over this country, so your scenario about some dictator taking over is at best comedy. Opposition and attacks on the poor has already been dumped on us, along with dictatorship thanks to the right.
> I'm telling you straight out , you have no idea what your talking about. The reality is that with our military and our allies military there is no combination of powers that can even tickle us yet destroy us. We could handle every country in the world if they came out against our military and the military of our allies.
> So your comment is nonsense. Don't come back with nuclear weapons because they won't be used and if they are no one will be here to complain about it.
Click to expand...

Why should I respond to your hate mongering?  There are literally thousands of threads on this forum alone that discuss and detail some solutions on how those who are dependant on the US Government can be addressed.

It is absolute nonsense to think that this world is not a dangerous place and that the whole world would like nothing better than to do away with the United States, take our resources, and do away with our freedoms.  You want to talk about cutting our defense, then you support politicians who will absolutely do a number of things.

1.  Stop preventing the United States from energy independence.  That means opening up the Nuclear, Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas industry.  Without implementing crushing taxation on them.

2.  Stop rushing to the aid of anyone in this world.  Let Europe and the rest of the world fend for themselves.

3.  Annihilate any country that threatens us.  No nation building.  Just go in, crush them so that their ability to wage war is set back two thousand years, then go home.

Until such time, spending on our defense is the NUMBER 1 Priority in this nation and supercedes ANYTHING else.


----------



## cnm

rightwinger said:


> Wrong


Right


----------



## jbander

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have no clue what your point is but if your talking about me, I'm 73 .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some dope said:
> 
> "it's not even logical or conscienable [sic] when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me where in that statement I said "That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy." Your scum bag president and party is pulling massive amounts of money that is used to help the needy to give to the wealthy and to increase spending on the military. Your comment at best is simply mindless at worst stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, tell us oh wise one!  How much has TANF been cut?  How much has SNAP been cut?
> 
> Oh, that's right!  Not a single person has seen a reduction in their benefits.
> 
> Why don't you just admit you have no idea what you are bitching about?
Click to expand...

You can be conservative and make your points but why be a dumb clueless partisan. .from MPR "The House budget plan would slash spending by $5.4 trillion over 10 years, including more than $4 trillion in cuts to mandatory spending like Medicaid and Medicare, while ramping up defense spending." You seem to be rather mindless.


----------



## jbander

jon_berzerk said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have no clue what your point is but if your talking about me, I'm 73 .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again the more money we spend on the military  Hanes,  the more freedom you have to post ..... stuffing your fat face eating doughnuts  sitting on a couch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said that already . it meant nothing before and that hasn't changed.  There is no country in the world that can take our freedom away , even if we cut a massive amount from the military.  Tell me how anyone can take it away from us when 3 out of every 4 dollars that is spent on the military is spent by us and our allies. Your nonsense doesn't carry any weight here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the only ones that can take our freedoms away is us
Click to expand...

 Philosophically your right, it's a state of mind but your freedom disappears real quick when you try to licence the media that tell the truth about non stop right wing lies and then are intimidated threatened and called junk news. When the truth is that it is a junk party without lies and distortions couldn't/wouldn't exist.


----------



## MarkDuffy

*Why do you think this country needs more invested in the Military.*

We need to spend more on the military so we will have justification for more tax cuts for the rich and corporations!

What? You think this does not make sense? Just ask ANY republican!


----------



## jbander

jon_berzerk said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have no clue what your point is but if your talking about me, I'm 73 .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again the more money we spend on the military  Hanes,  the more freedom you have to post ..... stuffing your fat face eating doughnuts  sitting on a couch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said that already . it meant nothing before and that hasn't changed.  There is no country in the world that can take our freedom away , even if we cut a massive amount from the military.  Tell me how anyone can take it away from us when 3 out of every 4 dollars that is spent on the military is spent by us and our allies. Your nonsense doesn't carry any weight here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the only ones that can take our freedoms away is us
Click to expand...

 Philosophically your right, it's a state of mind but your freedom disappears real quick when you try to licence the media that tell the truth about non stop right wing lies and then are intimidated threatened and called junk news. When the truth is that it is a junk party without


Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the fact that some of the housing, including where my daughter lives, was built in the 1960s and is slowly falling apart?
> 
> How about the fact that most of junior enlisted personnel qualify for SNAP?
> 
> How about the fact that our military is being stretched thin by deployments in Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and disaster relief in the Caribbean?
> 
> How about the fact that much of the equipment is being worn out due to the increased operating tempo?
> 
> How about the fact that lack of sleep caused by crew members on Navy ships has been cited as a cause of numerous accidents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of which can be handled by re prioritizing our military budget and our. Mission as policeman for the world
> 
> We spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined. Eight of which are our allies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are not the policeman for the world, we are the policeman for American interests in the world.
Click to expand...




Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the fact that some of the housing, including where my daughter lives, was built in the 1960s and is slowly falling apart?
> 
> How about the fact that most of junior enlisted personnel qualify for SNAP?
> 
> How about the fact that our military is being stretched thin by deployments in Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and disaster relief in the Caribbean?
> 
> How about the fact that much of the equipment is being worn out due to the increased operating tempo?
> 
> How about the fact that lack of sleep caused by crew members on Navy ships has been cited as a cause of numerous accidents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of which can be handled by re prioritizing our military budget and our. Mission as policeman for the world
> 
> We spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined. Eight of which are our allies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are not the policeman for the world, we are the policeman for American interests in the world.
Click to expand...

There is zero reason why this country should use it's youth as cannon fodder for any corporate interest. Or any bottom line issue. And the people who think it's OK are selling out their country and it's people.


----------



## jbander

Darkwind said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> You may have a point when the needy begin to take responsibility for themselves.
> 
> You see, without the worlds strongest military, the 'needy' won't have any champions of the needy because third world dictatorships don't give a fuck about the 'needy'.
> 
> Or to be even blunter, if we cannot keep our freedom from government and tyrants, no one is going to care about the poor.  It is only the strong and powerful who can hope to set aside resources for those in need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh great, you seem like a person of great insight, tell me some study or research and not hate mongering, that shows that these people in need are taking advantage of anything. And tell me how the poor can take responsibility to pay for their food and a roof over their head if they get jack shit for income.
> The idea that we can't defend ourselves when this country and it's allies spends 3 out of every 4 dollars that is put out for the military is absolutely nonsense. There is no country in the world that can take over this country, so your scenario about some dictator taking over is at best comedy. Opposition and attacks on the poor has already been dumped on us, along with dictatorship thanks to the right.
> I'm telling you straight out , you have no idea what your talking about. The reality is that with our military and our allies military there is no combination of powers that can even tickle us yet destroy us. We could handle every country in the world if they came out against our military and the military of our allies.
> So your comment is nonsense. Don't come back with nuclear weapons because they won't be used and if they are no one will be here to complain about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I respond to your hate mongering?  There are literally thousands of threads on this forum alone that discuss and detail some solutions on how those who are dependant on the US Government can be addressed.
> 
> It is absolute nonsense to think that this world is not a dangerous place and that the whole world would like nothing better than to do away with the United States, take our resources, and do away with our freedoms.  You want to talk about cutting our defense, then you support politicians who will absolutely do a number of things.
> 
> 1.  Stop preventing the United States from energy independence.  That means opening up the Nuclear, Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas industry.  Without implementing crushing taxation on them.
> 
> 2.  Stop rushing to the aid of anyone in this world.  Let Europe and the rest of the world fend for themselves.
> 
> 3.  Annihilate any country that threatens us.  No nation building.  Just go in, crush them so that their ability to wage war is set back two thousand years, then go home.
> 
> Until such time, spending on our defense is the NUMBER 1 Priority in this nation and supercedes ANYTHING else.
Click to expand...


----------



## jon_berzerk

th


jbander said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again the more money we spend on the military  Hanes,  the more freedom you have to post ..... stuffing your fat face eating doughnuts  sitting on a couch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said that already . it meant nothing before and that hasn't changed.  There is no country in the world that can take our freedom away , even if we cut a massive amount from the military.  Tell me how anyone can take it away from us when 3 out of every 4 dollars that is spent on the military is spent by us and our allies. Your nonsense doesn't carry any weight here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the only ones that can take our freedoms away is us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Philosophically your right, it's a state of mind but your freedom disappears real quick when you try to licence the media that tell the truth about non stop right wing lies and then are intimidated threatened and called junk news. When the truth is that it is a junk party without lies and distortions couldn't/wouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

the media is licensed already 

the broadcasters NBC -CBS-ABC are not licensed but the stations that carry them are 

personally i think it is dangerous idea 

the leftists tried that in the past


----------



## jbander

Darkwind said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> You may have a point when the needy begin to take responsibility for themselves.
> 
> You see, without the worlds strongest military, the 'needy' won't have any champions of the needy because third world dictatorships don't give a fuck about the 'needy'.
> 
> Or to be even blunter, if we cannot keep our freedom from government and tyrants, no one is going to care about the poor.  It is only the strong and powerful who can hope to set aside resources for those in need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh great, you seem like a person of great insight, tell me some study or research and not hate mongering, that shows that these people in need are taking advantage of anything. And tell me how the poor can take responsibility to pay for their food and a roof over their head if they get jack shit for income.
> The idea that we can't defend ourselves when this country and it's allies spends 3 out of every 4 dollars that is put out for the military is absolutely nonsense. There is no country in the world that can take over this country, so your scenario about some dictator taking over is at best comedy. Opposition and attacks on the poor has already been dumped on us, along with dictatorship thanks to the right.
> I'm telling you straight out , you have no idea what your talking about. The reality is that with our military and our allies military there is no combination of powers that can even tickle us yet destroy us. We could handle every country in the world if they came out against our military and the military of our allies.
> So your comment is nonsense. Don't come back with nuclear weapons because they won't be used and if they are no one will be here to complain about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I respond to your hate mongering?  There are literally thousands of threads on this forum alone that discuss and detail some solutions on how those who are dependant on the US Government can be addressed.
> 
> It is absolute nonsense to think that this world is not a dangerous place and that the whole world would like nothing better than to do away with the United States, take our resources, and do away with our freedoms.  You want to talk about cutting our defense, then you support politicians who will absolutely do a number of things.
> 
> 1.  Stop preventing the United States from energy independence.  That means opening up the Nuclear, Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas industry.  Without implementing crushing taxation on them.
> 
> 2.  Stop rushing to the aid of anyone in this world.  Let Europe and the rest of the world fend for themselves.
> 
> 3.  Annihilate any country that threatens us.  No nation building.  Just go in, crush them so that their ability to wage war is set back two thousand years, then go home.
> 
> Until such time, spending on our defense is the NUMBER 1 Priority in this nation and supercedes ANYTHING else.
Click to expand...

" Why should I respond to your hate mongering?" Don't you think that your endless response is a little ridiculous after the premise  of your above quote being your first line.  Other then massacring Indians in the endless Indian wars there has only been 4 wars that was fought in our borders. That's out of a couple of hundred. Your simply a puppet ,in fact a rather unintelligent puppet to think this country freedom is threatened in any way. It's total nonsense. Tell me who's going to take over this country other then hate groups from your party. Also tell me how they could even possibly do it. Otherwise your comment is just rhetoric , blind rhetoric.


----------



## rightwinger

Our military does not defend us

We have not been invaded in 200 years. No nation on earth has the capability of in ading us

We use our military to extend our power around the world


----------



## jbander

jon_berzerk said:


> th
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again the more money we spend on the military  Hanes,  the more freedom you have to post ..... stuffing your fat face eating doughnuts  sitting on a couch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said that already . it meant nothing before and that hasn't changed.  There is no country in the world that can take our freedom away , even if we cut a massive amount from the military.  Tell me how anyone can take it away from us when 3 out of every 4 dollars that is spent on the military is spent by us and our allies. Your nonsense doesn't carry any weight here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the only ones that can take our freedoms away is us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Philosophically your right, it's a state of mind but your freedom disappears real quick when you try to licence the media that tell the truth about non stop right wing lies and then are intimidated threatened and called junk news. When the truth is that it is a junk party without lies and distortions couldn't/wouldn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the media is licensed already
> 
> the broadcasters NBC -CBS-ABC are not licensed but the stations that carry them are
> 
> personally i think it is dangerous idea
> 
> the leftists tried that in the past
Click to expand...

 President gum drop said he wants to take aways the license of NBC, now it's your turn You said the leftist tried to do that in the past. Tell us all about that.


----------



## jbander

rightwinger said:


> Our military does not defend us
> 
> We have not been invaded in 200 years. No nation on earth has the capability of in ading us
> 
> We use our military to extend our power around the world


Sop are you willing to get hundreds of thousand of our young people killed to achieve that goal???


----------



## rightwinger

jbander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our military does not defend us
> 
> We have not been invaded in 200 years. No nation on earth has the capability of in ading us
> 
> We use our military to extend our power around the world
> 
> 
> 
> Sop are you willing to get hundreds of thousand of our young people killed to achieve that goal???
Click to expand...


We have had hundreds of thousands killed on foreign shores

In the past 200 years, we have had a few thousand killed defending our shores


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the innocence of youth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have no clue what your point is but if your talking about me, I'm 73 .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some dope said:
> 
> "it's not even logical or conscienable [sic] when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me where in that statement I said "That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy." Your scum bag president and party is pulling massive amounts of money that is used to help the needy to give to the wealthy and to increase spending on the military. Your comment at best is simply mindless at worst stupid.
Click to expand...


So, tell us oh wise one!  How much has TANF been cut?  How much has SNAP been cut?  

Oh, that's right!  Not a single person has seen a reduction in their benefits.

Why don't you just admit you have no idea what you are bitching about?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

cnm said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I am a Navy veteran
> 
> 
> 
> So will never want to see the trough reduced.
Click to expand...


Trough?  The liberals want their minions lined up at the trough so they can get their votes.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some dope said:
> 
> "it's not even logical or conscienable [sic] when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me where in that statement I said "That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy." Your scum bag president and party is pulling massive amounts of money that is used to help the needy to give to the wealthy and to increase spending on the military. Your comment at best is simply mindless at worst stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, tell us oh wise one!  How much has TANF been cut?  How much has SNAP been cut?
> 
> Oh, that's right!  Not a single person has seen a reduction in their benefits.
> 
> Why don't you just admit you have no idea what you are bitching about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can be conservative and make your points but why be a dumb clueless partisan. .from MPR "The House budget plan would slash spending by $5.4 trillion over 10 years, including more than $4 trillion in cuts to mandatory spending like Medicaid and Medicare, while ramping up defense spending." You seem to be rather mindless.
Click to expand...



WTF is MPR?

I see you could not answer my question so you deflected to medicare and Medicaid.

$5.4 trillion across 10 years is $540 billion out of how many trillions already wasted on these programs every year?

Medicare spending is never cut because the actual cost is undetermined until after the fact.  That is why it is called mandatory spending.  The only thing Medicare actually cuts is reimbursement to doctors and other medical providers.  The individual will never see any cuts to the program. 

Medicaid should be a state program and the federal government needs to cut all funding for it.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our military does not defend us
> 
> We have not been invaded in 200 years. No nation on earth has the capability of in ading us
> 
> We use our military to extend our power around the world
> 
> 
> 
> Sop are you willing to get hundreds of thousand of our young people killed to achieve that goal???
Click to expand...


Hundreds of thousands?  Now you have just gone off the deep end!


----------



## cnm

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Trough?


Yes, trough, the US defence offence  budget. Apparently just under 50% of Federal Income Tax receipts.

https://www.warresisters.org/sites/default/files/fy2018piechart_color2.pdf


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

cnm said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trough?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, trough, the US defence offence  budget. Apparently just under 50% of Federal Income Tax receipts.
> 
> https://www.warresisters.org/sites/default/files/fy2018piechart_color2.pdf
Click to expand...




cnm said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trough?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, trough, the US defence offence  budget. Apparently just under 50% of Federal Income Tax receipts.
> 
> https://www.warresisters.org/sites/default/files/fy2018piechart_color2.pdf
Click to expand...


I could have sworn that was one of the duties of the federal government specified in the Constitution.

Why don't you be honest and use the 28% figure?


----------



## cnm

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Why don't you be honest and use the 28% figure?


Ah. It is dishonest to pay for past military adventures? No surprise there.


----------



## cnm

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> I could have sworn that was one of the duties of the federal government specified in the Constitution.


General welfare is also mentioned.


----------



## jon_berzerk

who cares he can't directly do that 

he can 


jbander said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> th
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again the more money we spend on the military  Hanes,  the more freedom you have to post ..... stuffing your fat face eating doughnuts  sitting on a couch
> 
> 
> 
> You said that already . it meant nothing before and that hasn't changed.  There is no country in the world that can take our freedom away , even if we cut a massive amount from the military.  Tell me how anyone can take it away from us when 3 out of every 4 dollars that is spent on the military is spent by us and our allies. Your nonsense doesn't carry any weight here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the only ones that can take our freedoms away is us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Philosophically your right, it's a state of mind but your freedom disappears real quick when you try to licence the media that tell the truth about non stop right wing lies and then are intimidated threatened and called junk news. When the truth is that it is a junk party without lies and distortions couldn't/wouldn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the media is licensed already
> 
> the broadcasters NBC -CBS-ABC are not licensed but the stations that carry them are
> 
> personally i think it is dangerous idea
> 
> the leftists tried that in the past
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> President gum drop said he wants to take aways the license of NBC, now it's your turn You said the leftist tried to do that in the past. Tell us all about that.
Click to expand...


who cares he cant directly do that 

however private stations that carry the lying station are licensed

he can talk to the FCC about compliance issues that could effect the licensing 

the point is he knows that they are a phony news organization 

may require disclaimers that they are not reliable news for example


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

cnm said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you be honest and use the 28% figure?
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. It is dishonest to pay for past military adventures? No surprise there.
Click to expand...


Those are not military adventures.  

What does the chart say?  Veteran's benefits.

Including interest on the national debt as part of the military expenditures makes the whole chart bogus.

Why don't you look up the actual expenditures?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

cnm said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could have sworn that was one of the duties of the federal government specified in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> General welfare is also mentioned.
Click to expand...


That is not welfare as in payment for those unable or unwilling to work, but you know that!


----------



## cnm

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Including interest on the national debt as part of the military expenditures makes the whole chart bogus.


Yes, money for military adventures is free, only money for other purposes has a cost.


----------



## cnm

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Those are not military adventures.


Veterans did not take part in military adventures like Vietnam, leading to lifetime costs? Oh well.


----------



## cnm

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Why don't you look up the actual expenditures?


I have provided data. You haven't.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

cnm said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you look up the actual expenditures?
> 
> 
> 
> I have provided data. You haven't.
Click to expand...


You provided bogus data.  Try again.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

cnm said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not military adventures.
> 
> 
> 
> Veterans did not take part in military adventures like Vietnam, leading to lifetime costs? Oh well.
Click to expand...


Oh, Mister 20/20 hindsight, does that mean we simply stop paying for those things with which you disagree politically?


----------



## jbander

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some dope said:
> 
> "it's not even logical or conscienable [sic] when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me where in that statement I said "That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy." Your scum bag president and party is pulling massive amounts of money that is used to help the needy to give to the wealthy and to increase spending on the military. Your comment at best is simply mindless at worst stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, tell us oh wise one!  How much has TANF been cut?  How much has SNAP been cut?
> 
> Oh, that's right!  Not a single person has seen a reduction in their benefits.
> 
> Why don't you just admit you have no idea what you are bitching about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can be conservative and make your points but why be a dumb clueless partisan. .from MPR "The House budget plan would slash spending by $5.4 trillion over 10 years, including more than $4 trillion in cuts to mandatory spending like Medicaid and Medicare, while ramping up defense spending." You seem to be rather mindless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is MPR?
> 
> I see you could not answer my question so you deflected to medicare and Medicaid.
> 
> $5.4 trillion across 10 years is $540 billion out of how many trillions already wasted on these programs every year?
> 
> Medicare spending is never cut because the actual cost is undetermined until after the fact.  That is why it is called mandatory spending.  The only thing Medicare actually cuts is reimbursement to doctors and other medical providers.  The individual will never see any cuts to the program.
> 
> Medicaid should be a state program and the federal government needs to cut all funding for it.
Click to expand...

He said nothing will be taken from the needy but we know a trillion will be taken and our resident hate monger after I proved him wrong tries to say this and that don't count. It counts to the people who feed their family and keep a roof over their heads with it. He is just part of the ugly right that hates everything.


----------



## jbander

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not military adventures.
> 
> 
> 
> Veterans did not take part in military adventures like Vietnam, leading to lifetime costs? Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, Mister 20/20 hindsight, does that mean we simply stop paying for those things with which you disagree politically?
Click to expand...

What a joke , your quote about Vietnam 
"Those weren't military venture"  hay I thought you had a degree in military science or what ever you said, I was right though when I said you had a degree in military bullshit. This proves it.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not military adventures.
> 
> 
> 
> Veterans did not take part in military adventures like Vietnam, leading to lifetime costs? Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, Mister 20/20 hindsight, does that mean we simply stop paying for those things with which you disagree politically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a joke , your quote about Vietnam
> "Those weren't military venture"  hay I thought you had a degree in military science or what ever you said, I was right though when I said you had a degree in military bullshit. This proves it.
Click to expand...


Why do you never pass up an opportunity to show your ignorance and that you are a total asshole on top of that?

Do you know the difference in a venture and an adventure?  Apparently not!

WTF does hay have to do with anything?

You have to start laying off the booze and drugs when you post.  Your true personality shines through when you do that.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some dope said:
> 
> "it's not even logical or conscienable [sic] when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country."
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me where in that statement I said "That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy." Your scum bag president and party is pulling massive amounts of money that is used to help the needy to give to the wealthy and to increase spending on the military. Your comment at best is simply mindless at worst stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, tell us oh wise one!  How much has TANF been cut?  How much has SNAP been cut?
> 
> Oh, that's right!  Not a single person has seen a reduction in their benefits.
> 
> Why don't you just admit you have no idea what you are bitching about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can be conservative and make your points but why be a dumb clueless partisan. .from MPR "The House budget plan would slash spending by $5.4 trillion over 10 years, including more than $4 trillion in cuts to mandatory spending like Medicaid and Medicare, while ramping up defense spending." You seem to be rather mindless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is MPR?
> 
> I see you could not answer my question so you deflected to medicare and Medicaid.
> 
> $5.4 trillion across 10 years is $540 billion out of how many trillions already wasted on these programs every year?
> 
> Medicare spending is never cut because the actual cost is undetermined until after the fact.  That is why it is called mandatory spending.  The only thing Medicare actually cuts is reimbursement to doctors and other medical providers.  The individual will never see any cuts to the program.
> 
> Medicaid should be a state program and the federal government needs to cut all funding for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said nothing will be taken from the needy but we know a trillion will be taken and our resident hate monger after I proved him wrong tries to say this and that don't count. It counts to the people who feed their family and keep a roof over their heads with it. He is just part of the ugly right that hates everything.
Click to expand...


I see you cannot answer simple questions.  I am sorry that your limited intellect has been overloaded by the topic.

You keep talking about a figment of your imagination.  No budget has been passed and no tax reform bill has been passed.  Stop tilting at windmills there Don Quixote!


----------



## jbander

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me where in that statement I said "That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy." Your scum bag president and party is pulling massive amounts of money that is used to help the needy to give to the wealthy and to increase spending on the military. Your comment at best is simply mindless at worst stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, tell us oh wise one!  How much has TANF been cut?  How much has SNAP been cut?
> 
> Oh, that's right!  Not a single person has seen a reduction in their benefits.
> 
> Why don't you just admit you have no idea what you are bitching about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can be conservative and make your points but why be a dumb clueless partisan. .from MPR "The House budget plan would slash spending by $5.4 trillion over 10 years, including more than $4 trillion in cuts to mandatory spending like Medicaid and Medicare, while ramping up defense spending." You seem to be rather mindless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is MPR?
> 
> I see you could not answer my question so you deflected to medicare and Medicaid.
> 
> $5.4 trillion across 10 years is $540 billion out of how many trillions already wasted on these programs every year?
> 
> Medicare spending is never cut because the actual cost is undetermined until after the fact.  That is why it is called mandatory spending.  The only thing Medicare actually cuts is reimbursement to doctors and other medical providers.  The individual will never see any cuts to the program.
> 
> Medicaid should be a state program and the federal government needs to cut all funding for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said nothing will be taken from the needy but we know a trillion will be taken and our resident hate monger after I proved him wrong tries to say this and that don't count. It counts to the people who feed their family and keep a roof over their heads with it. He is just part of the ugly right that hates everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you cannot answer simple questions.  I am sorry that your limited intellect has been overloaded by the topic.
> 
> You keep talking about a figment of your imagination.  No budget has been passed and no tax reform bill has been passed.  Stop tilting at windmills there Don Quixote!
Click to expand...

I'll keep this simple for you, you either contribute or your gone. This is the thread,
*Why do you think this country needs more invested in the Military.*
you contribute within that parameter. Do us all a favor and tell me you don't care.


----------



## Unkotare

jbander said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, tell us oh wise one!  How much has TANF been cut?  How much has SNAP been cut?
> 
> Oh, that's right!  Not a single person has seen a reduction in their benefits.
> 
> Why don't you just admit you have no idea what you are bitching about?
> 
> 
> 
> You can be conservative and make your points but why be a dumb clueless partisan. .from MPR "The House budget plan would slash spending by $5.4 trillion over 10 years, including more than $4 trillion in cuts to mandatory spending like Medicaid and Medicare, while ramping up defense spending." You seem to be rather mindless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is MPR?
> 
> I see you could not answer my question so you deflected to medicare and Medicaid.
> 
> $5.4 trillion across 10 years is $540 billion out of how many trillions already wasted on these programs every year?
> 
> Medicare spending is never cut because the actual cost is undetermined until after the fact.  That is why it is called mandatory spending.  The only thing Medicare actually cuts is reimbursement to doctors and other medical providers.  The individual will never see any cuts to the program.
> 
> Medicaid should be a state program and the federal government needs to cut all funding for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said nothing will be taken from the needy but we know a trillion will be taken and our resident hate monger after I proved him wrong tries to say this and that don't count. It counts to the people who feed their family and keep a roof over their heads with it. He is just part of the ugly right that hates everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you cannot answer simple questions.  I am sorry that your limited intellect has been overloaded by the topic.
> 
> You keep talking about a figment of your imagination.  No budget has been passed and no tax reform bill has been passed.  Stop tilting at windmills there Don Quixote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll keep this simple for you, you either contribute or your gone. This is the thread,
> *Why do you think this country needs more invested in the Military.*
> you contribute within that parameter. Do us all a favor and tell me you don't care.
Click to expand...





Another genius who thinks starting a thread makes him a mod!


----------



## jbander

Unkotare said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can be conservative and make your points but why be a dumb clueless partisan. .from MPR "The House budget plan would slash spending by $5.4 trillion over 10 years, including more than $4 trillion in cuts to mandatory spending like Medicaid and Medicare, while ramping up defense spending." You seem to be rather mindless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is MPR?
> 
> I see you could not answer my question so you deflected to medicare and Medicaid.
> 
> $5.4 trillion across 10 years is $540 billion out of how many trillions already wasted on these programs every year?
> 
> Medicare spending is never cut because the actual cost is undetermined until after the fact.  That is why it is called mandatory spending.  The only thing Medicare actually cuts is reimbursement to doctors and other medical providers.  The individual will never see any cuts to the program.
> 
> Medicaid should be a state program and the federal government needs to cut all funding for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said nothing will be taken from the needy but we know a trillion will be taken and our resident hate monger after I proved him wrong tries to say this and that don't count. It counts to the people who feed their family and keep a roof over their heads with it. He is just part of the ugly right that hates everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you cannot answer simple questions.  I am sorry that your limited intellect has been overloaded by the topic.
> 
> You keep talking about a figment of your imagination.  No budget has been passed and no tax reform bill has been passed.  Stop tilting at windmills there Don Quixote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll keep this simple for you, you either contribute or your gone. This is the thread,
> *Why do you think this country needs more invested in the Military.*
> you contribute within that parameter. Do us all a favor and tell me you don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another genius who thinks starting a thread makes him a mod!
Click to expand...

 This one I'm really glad about. He's gone, there is one more I'm waiting on. This isn't complicated you contribute or I dump you.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, tell us oh wise one!  How much has TANF been cut?  How much has SNAP been cut?
> 
> Oh, that's right!  Not a single person has seen a reduction in their benefits.
> 
> Why don't you just admit you have no idea what you are bitching about?
> 
> 
> 
> You can be conservative and make your points but why be a dumb clueless partisan. .from MPR "The House budget plan would slash spending by $5.4 trillion over 10 years, including more than $4 trillion in cuts to mandatory spending like Medicaid and Medicare, while ramping up defense spending." You seem to be rather mindless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is MPR?
> 
> I see you could not answer my question so you deflected to medicare and Medicaid.
> 
> $5.4 trillion across 10 years is $540 billion out of how many trillions already wasted on these programs every year?
> 
> Medicare spending is never cut because the actual cost is undetermined until after the fact.  That is why it is called mandatory spending.  The only thing Medicare actually cuts is reimbursement to doctors and other medical providers.  The individual will never see any cuts to the program.
> 
> Medicaid should be a state program and the federal government needs to cut all funding for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said nothing will be taken from the needy but we know a trillion will be taken and our resident hate monger after I proved him wrong tries to say this and that don't count. It counts to the people who feed their family and keep a roof over their heads with it. He is just part of the ugly right that hates everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you cannot answer simple questions.  I am sorry that your limited intellect has been overloaded by the topic.
> 
> You keep talking about a figment of your imagination.  No budget has been passed and no tax reform bill has been passed.  Stop tilting at windmills there Don Quixote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll keep this simple for you, you either contribute or your gone. This is the thread,
> *Why do you think this country needs more invested in the Military.*
> you contribute within that parameter. Do us all a favor and tell me you don't care.
Click to expand...


Read the thread.  I already covered that.  Do you have a child around that can assist you?


----------



## jbander

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can be conservative and make your points but why be a dumb clueless partisan. .from MPR "The House budget plan would slash spending by $5.4 trillion over 10 years, including more than $4 trillion in cuts to mandatory spending like Medicaid and Medicare, while ramping up defense spending." You seem to be rather mindless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is MPR?
> 
> I see you could not answer my question so you deflected to medicare and Medicaid.
> 
> $5.4 trillion across 10 years is $540 billion out of how many trillions already wasted on these programs every year?
> 
> Medicare spending is never cut because the actual cost is undetermined until after the fact.  That is why it is called mandatory spending.  The only thing Medicare actually cuts is reimbursement to doctors and other medical providers.  The individual will never see any cuts to the program.
> 
> Medicaid should be a state program and the federal government needs to cut all funding for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said nothing will be taken from the needy but we know a trillion will be taken and our resident hate monger after I proved him wrong tries to say this and that don't count. It counts to the people who feed their family and keep a roof over their heads with it. He is just part of the ugly right that hates everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you cannot answer simple questions.  I am sorry that your limited intellect has been overloaded by the topic.
> 
> You keep talking about a figment of your imagination.  No budget has been passed and no tax reform bill has been passed.  Stop tilting at windmills there Don Quixote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll keep this simple for you, you either contribute or your gone. This is the thread,
> *Why do you think this country needs more invested in the Military.*
> you contribute within that parameter. Do us all a favor and tell me you don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the thread.  I already covered that.  Do you have a child around that can assist you?
Click to expand...

 It's a beautiful thing one less slug pulled from the slug army of the right. Bye. Clean slate. All they had to do was contribute to the thread and they didn't even want to do that. This one introduced himself having a degree in military sciences or some such crap and he told me he knew it all so I had to watch what I wrote. The Only degree this clown has is a degree in bullshit. Clean sweep they all are gone.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is MPR?
> 
> I see you could not answer my question so you deflected to medicare and Medicaid.
> 
> $5.4 trillion across 10 years is $540 billion out of how many trillions already wasted on these programs every year?
> 
> Medicare spending is never cut because the actual cost is undetermined until after the fact.  That is why it is called mandatory spending.  The only thing Medicare actually cuts is reimbursement to doctors and other medical providers.  The individual will never see any cuts to the program.
> 
> Medicaid should be a state program and the federal government needs to cut all funding for it.
> 
> 
> 
> He said nothing will be taken from the needy but we know a trillion will be taken and our resident hate monger after I proved him wrong tries to say this and that don't count. It counts to the people who feed their family and keep a roof over their heads with it. He is just part of the ugly right that hates everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you cannot answer simple questions.  I am sorry that your limited intellect has been overloaded by the topic.
> 
> You keep talking about a figment of your imagination.  No budget has been passed and no tax reform bill has been passed.  Stop tilting at windmills there Don Quixote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll keep this simple for you, you either contribute or your gone. This is the thread,
> *Why do you think this country needs more invested in the Military.*
> you contribute within that parameter. Do us all a favor and tell me you don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the thread.  I already covered that.  Do you have a child around that can assist you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a beautiful thing one less slug pulled from the slug army of the right. Bye. Clean slate. All they had to do was contribute to the thread and they didn't even want to do that. This one introduced himself having a degree in military sciences or some such crap and he told me he knew it all so I had to watch what I wrote. The Only degree this clown has is a degree in bullshit. Clean sweep they all are gone.
Click to expand...


I answered your question in the thread.  You don't even have the common decency to acknowledge that?  Good riddance to bad rubbish.

You are a waste of human flesh and an oxygen thief!


----------



## Unkotare

jbander said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is MPR?
> 
> I see you could not answer my question so you deflected to medicare and Medicaid.
> 
> $5.4 trillion across 10 years is $540 billion out of how many trillions already wasted on these programs every year?
> 
> Medicare spending is never cut because the actual cost is undetermined until after the fact.  That is why it is called mandatory spending.  The only thing Medicare actually cuts is reimbursement to doctors and other medical providers.  The individual will never see any cuts to the program.
> 
> Medicaid should be a state program and the federal government needs to cut all funding for it.
> 
> 
> 
> He said nothing will be taken from the needy but we know a trillion will be taken and our resident hate monger after I proved him wrong tries to say this and that don't count. It counts to the people who feed their family and keep a roof over their heads with it. He is just part of the ugly right that hates everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you cannot answer simple questions.  I am sorry that your limited intellect has been overloaded by the topic.
> 
> You keep talking about a figment of your imagination.  No budget has been passed and no tax reform bill has been passed.  Stop tilting at windmills there Don Quixote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll keep this simple for you, you either contribute or your gone. This is the thread,
> *Why do you think this country needs more invested in the Military.*
> you contribute within that parameter. Do us all a favor and tell me you don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another genius who thinks starting a thread makes him a mod!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one I'm really glad about. He's gone, there is one more I'm waiting on. This isn't complicated you contribute or I dump you.
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

jbander said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is MPR?
> 
> I see you could not answer my question so you deflected to medicare and Medicaid.
> 
> $5.4 trillion across 10 years is $540 billion out of how many trillions already wasted on these programs every year?
> 
> Medicare spending is never cut because the actual cost is undetermined until after the fact.  That is why it is called mandatory spending.  The only thing Medicare actually cuts is reimbursement to doctors and other medical providers.  The individual will never see any cuts to the program.
> 
> Medicaid should be a state program and the federal government needs to cut all funding for it.
> 
> 
> 
> He said nothing will be taken from the needy but we know a trillion will be taken and our resident hate monger after I proved him wrong tries to say this and that don't count. It counts to the people who feed their family and keep a roof over their heads with it. He is just part of the ugly right that hates everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you cannot answer simple questions.  I am sorry that your limited intellect has been overloaded by the topic.
> 
> You keep talking about a figment of your imagination.  No budget has been passed and no tax reform bill has been passed.  Stop tilting at windmills there Don Quixote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll keep this simple for you, you either contribute or your gone. This is the thread,
> *Why do you think this country needs more invested in the Military.*
> you contribute within that parameter. Do us all a favor and tell me you don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the thread.  I already covered that.  Do you have a child around that can assist you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a beautiful thing one less slug pulled from the slug army of the right. Bye. Clean slate. All they had to do was contribute to the thread and they didn't even want to do that. This one introduced himself having a degree in military sciences or some such crap and he told me he knew it all so I had to watch what I wrote. The Only degree this clown has is a degree in bullshit. Clean sweep they all are gone.
Click to expand...



What exactly are you talking about?


----------



## Two Thumbs

jbander said:


> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.


Where would you like to make cuts?
In the contracts?

oops, not allowed, and if you did, UE goes up.
closing ports and bases?  what would you do with the extra personnel?
copy what that vile fuck Clinton did and just shit on our men and women?


yea, that's what you want, isn't it.


----------



## rightwinger

Two Thumbs said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Where would you like to make cuts?
> In the contracts?
> 
> oops, not allowed, and if you did, UE goes up.
> closing ports and bases?  what would you do with the extra personnel?
> copy what that vile fuck Clinton did and just shit on our men and women?
> 
> 
> yea, that's what you want, isn't it.
Click to expand...

Best place to make cuts is to redefine the USs global mission

We do not need to be the worlds policeman. Let the EU take prime responsibility in the Middle East. Let Japan and South Korea take the lead in handling N Korea

We can cut down on the number of carrier task forces, cut down on the number of ships in our Navy, cut back our nuclear arsenal that has sat dormant for 70 years, reduce the number of Army divisions

The future of global military action will be cyber anyway


----------



## Two Thumbs

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Where would you like to make cuts?
> In the contracts?
> 
> oops, not allowed, and if you did, UE goes up.
> closing ports and bases?  what would you do with the extra personnel?
> copy what that vile fuck Clinton did and just shit on our men and women?
> 
> 
> yea, that's what you want, isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Best place to make cuts is to redefine the USs global mission
> 
> We do not need to be the worlds policeman. Let the EU take prime responsibility in the Middle East. Let Japan and South Korea take the lead in handling N Korea
> 
> We can cut down on the number of carrier task forces, cut down on the number of ships in our Navy, cut back our nuclear arsenal that has sat dormant for 70 years, reduce the number of Army divisions
> 
> The future of global military action will be cyber anyway
Click to expand...

so you want to make deep cuts in supplies and personnel, in a time of war.


I would like to take a moment and remind you that it was Wilson (D) that got us involved in the worlds affairs.  Every conservative told him it was a bad idea.

and now here we are, openly seeking to fuck over the military in a time of war.


what a bizarre world we live in.


----------



## rightwinger

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Where would you like to make cuts?
> In the contracts?
> 
> oops, not allowed, and if you did, UE goes up.
> closing ports and bases?  what would you do with the extra personnel?
> copy what that vile fuck Clinton did and just shit on our men and women?
> 
> 
> yea, that's what you want, isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Best place to make cuts is to redefine the USs global mission
> 
> We do not need to be the worlds policeman. Let the EU take prime responsibility in the Middle East. Let Japan and South Korea take the lead in handling N Korea
> 
> We can cut down on the number of carrier task forces, cut down on the number of ships in our Navy, cut back our nuclear arsenal that has sat dormant for 70 years, reduce the number of Army divisions
> 
> The future of global military action will be cyber anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you want to make deep cuts in supplies and personnel, in a time of war.
> 
> 
> I would like to take a moment and remind you that it was Wilson (D) that got us involved in the worlds affairs.  Every conservative told him it was a bad idea.
> 
> and now here we are, openly seeking to fuck over the military in a time of war.
> 
> 
> what a bizarre world we live in.
Click to expand...


Yes I do
We are not engaged in "war"....we have deployed troops in a dangerous area
$600 billion a year spending will not help them

Our military is not getting fucked over...the American taxpayer is
Our military spending is more than the next ten nations combined and eight of those nations are our allies
Time to make our allies assume more of the burden in their area of influence

The US needs to redefine our role in global conflicts......Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq proved that


----------



## eddiew37

We need more spending  so we can destroy the world 10x over rather than just the 5x now


----------



## jbander

Two Thumbs said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Where would you like to make cuts?
> In the contracts?
> 
> oops, not allowed, and if you did, UE goes up.
> closing ports and bases?  what would you do with the extra personnel?
> copy what that vile fuck Clinton did and just shit on our men and women?
> 
> 
> yea, that's what you want, isn't it.
Click to expand...

Its good to have a few bases close to trouble spots, but we have 800 bases in 70 countries, Britain, france and Russia have 30 bases between them. So yes you dam right, bases will be a good place to start. Their should be zero wars, or police actions or military bases that exist to protect the bottom line of any corporations. This country and our allies spent 3 out of every 4 dollars spent on the military for all countries around the world. It's bullshit to think there is a real threat to us or any of our allies. that we can't take care of.
     There is only one party that has voted against veteran programs and money and that is the hate party . the democrats will always vote for good Veterans programs. These veterans should get a ton of support more then they do now. The men in the military should have a large enough increase in pay to make it it a better choice for young people deciding to go in the service. There is only one party that shits on the men and women in the military and as veterans. Again your hate party.
  There is only one reason why the hate party supports military buildup and that is for their pocket books and they have stupid enough supporters that they can talk their puppets into believing we need it , we don't , in fact its close to insanity, doing it.


----------



## jbander

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Where would you like to make cuts?
> In the contracts?
> 
> oops, not allowed, and if you did, UE goes up.
> closing ports and bases?  what would you do with the extra personnel?
> copy what that vile fuck Clinton did and just shit on our men and women?
> 
> 
> yea, that's what you want, isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Best place to make cuts is to redefine the USs global mission
> 
> We do not need to be the worlds policeman. Let the EU take prime responsibility in the Middle East. Let Japan and South Korea take the lead in handling N Korea
> 
> We can cut down on the number of carrier task forces, cut down on the number of ships in our Navy, cut back our nuclear arsenal that has sat dormant for 70 years, reduce the number of Army divisions
> 
> The future of global military action will be cyber anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you want to make deep cuts in supplies and personnel, in a time of war.
> 
> 
> I would like to take a moment and remind you that it was Wilson (D) that got us involved in the worlds affairs.  Every conservative told him it was a bad idea.
> 
> and now here we are, openly seeking to fuck over the military in a time of war.
> 
> 
> what a bizarre world we live in.
Click to expand...

 Boy you people are blind as a bat , the only actions we are in now are total lies. 95% of every action this country has ever taken, never should have been and in fact many of them were evil to protect corporate monetary interests  As long as the military industrial complex has weak brained people like you , we will always hear stupidity as far as the military is concerned. I want no discount of supplies needed to keep the Soldiers safe. I would increase any to anything needed. I would rase the wages of the people in service , and I would right law that would increase veterans spending a lot higher then it is now.
    All this could be done for over a decade for the price of one aircraft carrier and it's planes, it could be done for 25 years with one carrier group.


----------



## jbander

A trillion dollars won't protect us from terrorism around the world or military action like vietnam or the lies we are involved with now. To accomplish this ridiculous spending on the military, you need robot brains that support what they are told to support. Very dumb robots to be exact.


----------



## rightwinger

jbander said:


> A trillion dollars won't protect us from terrorism around the world or military action like vietnam or the lies we are involved with now. To accomplish this ridiculous spending on the military, you need robot brains that support what they are told to support. Very dumb robots to be exact.



Terrorism is used as an excuse for increasing our military budget

But very little of our military budget is allocated to fighting terrorism as much as extending our global reach


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> A trillion dollars won't protect us from terrorism around the world or military action like vietnam or the lies we are involved with now. To accomplish this ridiculous spending on the military, you need robot brains that support what they are told to support. Very dumb robots to be exact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism is used as an excuse for increasing our military budget
> 
> But very little of our military budget is allocated to fighting terrorism as much as extending our global reach
Click to expand...




Myopia ^^^^


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> A trillion dollars won't protect us from terrorism around the world or military action like vietnam or the lies we are involved with now. To accomplish this ridiculous spending on the military, you need robot brains that support what they are told to support. Very dumb robots to be exact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism is used as an excuse for increasing our military budget
> 
> But very little of our military budget is allocated to fighting terrorism as much as extending our global reach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Myopia ^^^^
Click to expand...

Wrong


----------



## jbander

When you come up with facts that make adding more money to the military as being asinine the gun bubbas hang on with a commie behind every corner or other forms of paranoia, then when they are buried with the truth they go to just calling you names. Probably a communist. which we know doesn't even exist in this country  or any past government in this country.


----------



## Two Thumbs

jbander said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Where would you like to make cuts?
> In the contracts?
> 
> oops, not allowed, and if you did, UE goes up.
> closing ports and bases?  what would you do with the extra personnel?
> copy what that vile fuck Clinton did and just shit on our men and women?
> 
> 
> yea, that's what you want, isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its good to have a few bases close to trouble spots, but we have 800 bases in 70 countries, Britain, france and Russia have 30 bases between them. So yes you dam right, bases will be a good place to start. Their should be zero wars, or police actions or military bases that exist to protect the bottom line of any corporations. This country and our allies spent 3 out of every 4 dollars spent on the military for all countries around the world. It's bullshit to think there is a real threat to us or any of our allies. that we can't take care of.
> There is only one party that has voted against veteran programs and money and that is the hate party . the democrats will always vote for good Veterans programs. These veterans should get a ton of support more then they do now. The men in the military should have a large enough increase in pay to make it it a better choice for young people deciding to go in the service. There is only one party that shits on the men and women in the military and as veterans. Again your hate party.
> There is only one reason why the hate party supports military buildup and that is for their pocket books and they have stupid enough supporters that they can talk their puppets into believing we need it , we don't , in fact its close to insanity, doing it.
Click to expand...

The dems put Vets on the street.

I was one of them.

so fuck you


----------



## jbander

Two Thumbs said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Where would you like to make cuts?
> In the contracts?
> 
> oops, not allowed, and if you did, UE goes up.
> closing ports and bases?  what would you do with the extra personnel?
> copy what that vile fuck Clinton did and just shit on our men and women?
> 
> 
> yea, that's what you want, isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its good to have a few bases close to trouble spots, but we have 800 bases in 70 countries, Britain, france and Russia have 30 bases between them. So yes you dam right, bases will be a good place to start. Their should be zero wars, or police actions or military bases that exist to protect the bottom line of any corporations. This country and our allies spent 3 out of every 4 dollars spent on the military for all countries around the world. It's bullshit to think there is a real threat to us or any of our allies. that we can't take care of.
> There is only one party that has voted against veteran programs and money and that is the hate party . the democrats will always vote for good Veterans programs. These veterans should get a ton of support more then they do now. The men in the military should have a large enough increase in pay to make it it a better choice for young people deciding to go in the service. There is only one party that shits on the men and women in the military and as veterans. Again your hate party.
> There is only one reason why the hate party supports military buildup and that is for their pocket books and they have stupid enough supporters that they can talk their puppets into believing we need it , we don't , in fact its close to insanity, doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dems put Vets on the street.
> 
> I was one of them.
> 
> so fuck you[/QUOTEBullshit , if you had one Iota of the ability to think,  you could look at the track record of veterans support bills and find out who votes for them and who votes against them.  Your would find out clearly that you're full of crap and it has been your hate party that voted down bills to help the veteran. You people are fucked and pitiful, you spend your life being pulled around by your hate party, by the ring in your nose. You're the sucker.
Click to expand...


----------



## Two Thumbs

jbander said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Where would you like to make cuts?
> In the contracts?
> 
> oops, not allowed, and if you did, UE goes up.
> closing ports and bases?  what would you do with the extra personnel?
> copy what that vile fuck Clinton did and just shit on our men and women?
> 
> 
> yea, that's what you want, isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its good to have a few bases close to trouble spots, but we have 800 bases in 70 countries, Britain, france and Russia have 30 bases between them. So yes you dam right, bases will be a good place to start. Their should be zero wars, or police actions or military bases that exist to protect the bottom line of any corporations. This country and our allies spent 3 out of every 4 dollars spent on the military for all countries around the world. It's bullshit to think there is a real threat to us or any of our allies. that we can't take care of.
> There is only one party that has voted against veteran programs and money and that is the hate party . the democrats will always vote for good Veterans programs. These veterans should get a ton of support more then they do now. The men in the military should have a large enough increase in pay to make it it a better choice for young people deciding to go in the service. There is only one party that shits on the men and women in the military and as veterans. Again your hate party.
> There is only one reason why the hate party supports military buildup and that is for their pocket books and they have stupid enough supporters that they can talk their puppets into believing we need it , we don't , in fact its close to insanity, doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dems put Vets on the street.
> 
> I was one of them.
> 
> so fuck you[/QUOTEBullshit , if you had one Iota of the ability to think,  you could look at the track record of veterans support bills and find out who votes for them and who votes against them.  Your would find out clearly that you're full of crap and it has been your hate party that voted down bills to help the veteran. You people are fucked and pitiful, you spend your life being pulled around by your hate party, by the ring in your nose. You're the sucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

so you are trying to claim, what was done to me, didn't actually happen, b/c you think the sub-standard service we get makes up for all of it.


seriously, go fuck yourself.  You're clearly a child with zero life experience.


----------



## jasonnfree

bear513 said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the innocence of youth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have no clue what your point is but if your talking about me, I'm 73 .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again the more money we spend on the military  Hanes,  the more freedom you have to post ..... stuffing your fat face eating doughnuts  sitting on a couch
Click to expand...



Totally untrue.  What country in their right mind would try to take on the USA even if we've given them reason to want to?   We spend more on military than several other countries combined.   War is a business and business is doing very well, since we outspend several other countries combined on our wars of aggression.

U.S. Defense Spending Compared to Other Countries


----------



## Bleipriester

America could save a lot of money if it gives up on the global military presence and carrier groups that all serve no defensive purpose. Giving up on that also leads to the omission of the need to deploy them.


----------



## rightwinger

Two Thumbs said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Where would you like to make cuts?
> In the contracts?
> 
> oops, not allowed, and if you did, UE goes up.
> closing ports and bases?  what would you do with the extra personnel?
> copy what that vile fuck Clinton did and just shit on our men and women?
> 
> 
> yea, that's what you want, isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its good to have a few bases close to trouble spots, but we have 800 bases in 70 countries, Britain, france and Russia have 30 bases between them. So yes you dam right, bases will be a good place to start. Their should be zero wars, or police actions or military bases that exist to protect the bottom line of any corporations. This country and our allies spent 3 out of every 4 dollars spent on the military for all countries around the world. It's bullshit to think there is a real threat to us or any of our allies. that we can't take care of.
> There is only one party that has voted against veteran programs and money and that is the hate party . the democrats will always vote for good Veterans programs. These veterans should get a ton of support more then they do now. The men in the military should have a large enough increase in pay to make it it a better choice for young people deciding to go in the service. There is only one party that shits on the men and women in the military and as veterans. Again your hate party.
> There is only one reason why the hate party supports military buildup and that is for their pocket books and they have stupid enough supporters that they can talk their puppets into believing we need it , we don't , in fact its close to insanity, doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dems put Vets on the street.
> 
> I was one of them.
> 
> so fuck you
Click to expand...

Get a job


----------



## rightwinger

Bleipriester said:


> America could save a lot of money if it gives up on the global military presence and carrier groups that all serve no defensive purpose. Giving up on that also leads to the omission of the need to deploy them.


We have ten super carrier groups. No other nation has more than one

Position a few carriers in known hot spots


----------



## rightwinger

jasonnfree said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the innocence of youth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have no clue what your point is but if your talking about me, I'm 73 .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again the more money we spend on the military  Hanes,  the more freedom you have to post ..... stuffing your fat face eating doughnuts  sitting on a couch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Totally untrue.  What country in their right mind would try to take on the USA even if we've given them reason to want to?   We spend more on military than several other countries combined.   War is a business and business is doing very well, since we outspend several other countries combined on our wars of aggression.
> 
> U.S. Defense Spending Compared to Other Countries
Click to expand...

Our nation is totally safe
We have peaceful neighbors on our borders and two huge oceans. No nation on earth is capable of invading us

Our military protects our global interests


----------



## Bleipriester

rightwinger said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> America could save a lot of money if it gives up on the global military presence and carrier groups that all serve no defensive purpose. Giving up on that also leads to the omission of the need to deploy them.
> 
> 
> 
> We have ten super carrier groups. No other nation has more than one
> 
> Position a few carriers in known hot spots
Click to expand...

They cost a lot and you´re making even more. Iranian underwater missiles are cheap.


----------



## Bleipriester

rightwinger said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more money we spend on the military  , the more freedom you have to post
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit, the more wars you stay out of the less threat there is to this country. If you mean by freedom as being corporate profits then you might have a point. otherwise there is little reality between freedom and the wars we fight in. Maybe you would like to look at the total list I
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have no clue what your point is but if your talking about me, I'm 73 .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty old to still be dumb enough to think a $1 reduction in military spending would mean a $1 increase in spending on "the needy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about, maybe you would like to point out where I said that bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again the more money we spend on the military  Hanes,  the more freedom you have to post ..... stuffing your fat face eating doughnuts  sitting on a couch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Totally untrue.  What country in their right mind would try to take on the USA even if we've given them reason to want to?   We spend more on military than several other countries combined.   War is a business and business is doing very well, since we outspend several other countries combined on our wars of aggression.
> 
> U.S. Defense Spending Compared to Other Countries
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our nation is totally safe
> We have peaceful neighbors on our borders and two huge oceans. No nation on earth is capable of invading us
> 
> Our military protects our global interests
Click to expand...

What is a "global interest"?


----------



## Wyatt earp

rightwinger said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> A trillion dollars won't protect us from terrorism around the world or military action like vietnam or the lies we are involved with now. To accomplish this ridiculous spending on the military, you need robot brains that support what they are told to support. Very dumb robots to be exact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism is used as an excuse for increasing our military budget
> 
> But very little of our military budget is allocated to fighting terrorism as much as extending our global reach
Click to expand...


So? More middle class jobs


----------



## jbander

Two Thumbs said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Where would you like to make cuts?
> In the contracts?
> 
> oops, not allowed, and if you did, UE goes up.
> closing ports and bases?  what would you do with the extra personnel?
> copy what that vile fuck Clinton did and just shit on our men and women?
> 
> 
> yea, that's what you want, isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its good to have a few bases close to trouble spots, but we have 800 bases in 70 countries, Britain, france and Russia have 30 bases between them. So yes you dam right, bases will be a good place to start. Their should be zero wars, or police actions or military bases that exist to protect the bottom line of any corporations. This country and our allies spent 3 out of every 4 dollars spent on the military for all countries around the world. It's bullshit to think there is a real threat to us or any of our allies. that we can't take care of.
> There is only one party that has voted against veteran programs and money and that is the hate party . the democrats will always vote for good Veterans programs. These veterans should get a ton of support more then they do now. The men in the military should have a large enough increase in pay to make it it a better choice for young people deciding to go in the service. There is only one party that shits on the men and women in the military and as veterans. Again your hate party.
> There is only one reason why the hate party supports military buildup and that is for their pocket books and they have stupid enough supporters that they can talk their puppets into believing we need it , we don't , in fact its close to insanity, doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dems put Vets on the street.
> 
> I was one of them.
> 
> so fuck you[/QUOTEBullshit , if you had one Iota of the ability to think,  you could look at the track record of veterans support bills and find out who votes for them and who votes against them.  Your would find out clearly that you're full of crap and it has been your hate party that voted down bills to help the veteran. You people are fucked and pitiful, you spend your life being pulled around by your hate party, by the ring in your nose. You're the sucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you are trying to claim, what was done to me, didn't actually happen, b/c you think the sub-standard service we get makes up for all of it.
> 
> 
> seriously, go fuck yourself.  You're clearly a child with zero life experience.
Click to expand...

Live in your ignorance. It's just a shame watching your ignorance living in the land of right wing lies. You're pitiful.


----------



## jbander

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> A trillion dollars won't protect us from terrorism around the world or military action like vietnam or the lies we are involved with now. To accomplish this ridiculous spending on the military, you need robot brains that support what they are told to support. Very dumb robots to be exact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism is used as an excuse for increasing our military budget
> 
> But very little of our military budget is allocated to fighting terrorism as much as extending our global reach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? More middle class jobs
Click to expand...

It doesn't get more pitiful then that answer, make thetools  for politicians to hand out to the young to go to a war that is a lie. and watch them get killed and say it creates more jobs.


----------



## Wyatt earp

jbander said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> A trillion dollars won't protect us from terrorism around the world or military action like vietnam or the lies we are involved with now. To accomplish this ridiculous spending on the military, you need robot brains that support what they are told to support. Very dumb robots to be exact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism is used as an excuse for increasing our military budget
> 
> But very little of our military budget is allocated to fighting terrorism as much as extending our global reach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? More middle class jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't get more pitiful then that answer, make thetools  for politicians to hand out to the young to go to a war that is a lie. and watch them get killed and say it creates more jobs.
Click to expand...


Who said anything about entering the military? Talking about defense union  contractor  jobs, building fighter planes, bombs, missles, aircraft carriers and the like , ya know we use them and sell them to our allies .


----------



## Manonthestreet

Almost every branch of military is unready for anything other than minor ops. Try to  keep up


----------



## jbander

bear513 said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> A trillion dollars won't protect us from terrorism around the world or military action like vietnam or the lies we are involved with now. To accomplish this ridiculous spending on the military, you need robot brains that support what they are told to support. Very dumb robots to be exact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism is used as an excuse for increasing our military budget
> 
> But very little of our military budget is allocated to fighting terrorism as much as extending our global reach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? More middle class jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't get more pitiful then that answer, make thetools  for politicians to hand out to the young to go to a war that is a lie. and watch them get killed and say it creates more jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about entering the military? Talking about defense union  contractor  jobs, building fighter planes, bombs, missles, aircraft carriers and the like , ya know we use them and sell them to our allies .
Click to expand...

Tell me were the hell you see any of what you ask about in my comment.  My Quote-"It doesn't get more pitiful then that answer, make the tools for politicians to hand out to the young to go to a war that is a lie. and watch them get killed and say it creates more jobs." There is zero reason to make the amount of weapons we make as far as our military is concerned , half that amount is about right . You commenting supported that nonsense  is ridiculous. We have had what 200 wars in our history maybe a half dozen at the most were justified.   All we needed is not going to war to make some fatcat money and for wars that are lies. How much weapontry did we need for those  6 wars. not much. Making weapons so someone can get a job is absolute lunacy. In this country if you make it ,some weird right winger will find a way to use it so we can make more to feed their pockets.


----------



## jbander

Manonthestreet said:


> Almost every branch of military is unready for anything other than minor ops. Try to  keep up


That has me rolling on the floor, you keep up. Your comment has zero connection to facts.


----------



## Wyatt earp

jbander said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> A trillion dollars won't protect us from terrorism around the world or military action like vietnam or the lies we are involved with now. To accomplish this ridiculous spending on the military, you need robot brains that support what they are told to support. Very dumb robots to be exact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism is used as an excuse for increasing our military budget
> 
> But very little of our military budget is allocated to fighting terrorism as much as extending our global reach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? More middle class jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't get more pitiful then that answer, make thetools  for politicians to hand out to the young to go to a war that is a lie. and watch them get killed and say it creates more jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about entering the military? Talking about defense union  contractor  jobs, building fighter planes, bombs, missles, aircraft carriers and the like , ya know we use them and sell them to our allies .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me were the hell you see any of what you ask about in my comment.  My Quote-"It doesn't get more pitiful then that answer, make the tools for politicians to hand out to the young to go to a war that is a lie. and watch them get killed and say it creates more jobs." There is zero reason to make the amount of weapons we make as far as our military is concerned , half that amount is about right . You commenting supported that nonsense  is ridiculous. We have had what 200 wars in our history maybe a half dozen at the most were justified.   All we needed is not going to war to make some fatcat money and for wars that are lies. How much weapontry did we need for those  6 wars. not much. Making weapons so someone can get a job is absolute lunacy. In this country if you make it ,some weird right winger will find a way to use it so we can make more to feed their pockets.
Click to expand...


What kind of rant is that? Didn't you ever read history books...at the turn of the 20 th century the world was like 90% filled with dictators and the like at the turn of the 21st century they are democratic ..

And who led the way?


The United States with her military and views..


----------



## jbander

The wacko right think that we should dump massive amounts of money into the military. The reason is , their controllers make tons off of war and military buildup. The last Iraq war was a complete lie and the two companies that made the most out of the war was Carlyle group and Halliburton. Follow the money, you people with your ring in your nose will believe anything your masters tell you. In the whole world this country and it's allies spend 3 out of every 4 dollars spent on the military. Ya you bet we should worry. I don't and anyone with a ounce of sense wouldn't either. 97% of the wars this country has been in had nothing at all about protecting this country, literally all of them were lies and most of them we were the aggressor against the defenceless. Or killing our young for some corporation, That is what the right wants for this country.


----------



## Wyatt earp

jbander said:


> The wacko right think that we should dump massive amounts of money into the military. The reason is , their controllers make tons off of war and military buildup. The last Iraq war was a complete lie and the two companies that made the most out of the war was Carlyle group and Halliburton. Follow the money, you people with your ring in your nose will believe anything your masters tell you. In the whole world this country and it's allies spend 3 out of every 4 dollars spent on the military. Ya you bet we should worry. I don't and anyone with a ounce of sense wouldn't either. 97% of the wars this country has been in had nothing at all about protecting this country, literally all of them were lies and most of them we were the aggressor against the defenceless. Or killing our young for some corporation, That is what the right wants for this country.



Lie..the Chinese got the majority control of Iraq's oil contracts


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

bear513 said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wacko right think that we should dump massive amounts of money into the military. The reason is , their controllers make tons off of war and military buildup. The last Iraq war was a complete lie and the two companies that made the most out of the war was Carlyle group and Halliburton. Follow the money, you people with your ring in your nose will believe anything your masters tell you. In the whole world this country and it's allies spend 3 out of every 4 dollars spent on the military. Ya you bet we should worry. I don't and anyone with a ounce of sense wouldn't either. 97% of the wars this country has been in had nothing at all about protecting this country, literally all of them were lies and most of them we were the aggressor against the defenceless. Or killing our young for some corporation, That is what the right wants for this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lie..the Chinese got the majority control of Iraq's oil contracts
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


China Is Reaping Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom

*China Is Reaping Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom*
*China Reaps Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom*

551


----------



## jbander

bear513 said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism is used as an excuse for increasing our military budget
> 
> But very little of our military budget is allocated to fighting terrorism as much as extending our global reach
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So? More middle class jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't get more pitiful then that answer, make thetools  for politicians to hand out to the young to go to a war that is a lie. and watch them get killed and say it creates more jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about entering the military? Talking about defense union  contractor  jobs, building fighter planes, bombs, missles, aircraft carriers and the like , ya know we use them and sell them to our allies .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me were the hell you see any of what you ask about in my comment.  My Quote-"It doesn't get more pitiful then that answer, make the tools for politicians to hand out to the young to go to a war that is a lie. and watch them get killed and say it creates more jobs." There is zero reason to make the amount of weapons we make as far as our military is concerned , half that amount is about right . You commenting supported that nonsense  is ridiculous. We have had what 200 wars in our history maybe a half dozen at the most were justified.   All we needed is not going to war to make some fatcat money and for wars that are lies. How much weapontry did we need for those  6 wars. not much. Making weapons so someone can get a job is absolute lunacy. In this country if you make it ,some weird right winger will find a way to use it so we can make more to feed their pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of rant is that? Didn't you ever read history books...at the turn of the 20 th century the world was like 90% filled with dictators and the like at the turn of the 21st century they are democratic ..
> 
> And who led the way?
> 
> 
> The United States with her military and views..
Click to expand...

 Well if that isn't a example of blind ignorance .tell me what the military did to make these countrie democratic. They followed our example and had nothing to do with us  running around killing the defenceless. There has been no country in history that has supported more military dictatorships then us. What a goofball. You tell me which countries in the world support our militarism around the world. Since they were all turned into democracy because of our military, tell me why they don't support our military actions. and there is no country in the world that is more hated then this us. These countries and people who hate us around the world  are wrong but you throw shit all over the world and dictate to other countries and if that's all they see , they will hate you every time.  There has been no president then the gum drop that is hated more by the rest of the world ,in our history.


----------



## Wyatt earp

jbander said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? More middle class jobs
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't get more pitiful then that answer, make thetools  for politicians to hand out to the young to go to a war that is a lie. and watch them get killed and say it creates more jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about entering the military? Talking about defense union  contractor  jobs, building fighter planes, bombs, missles, aircraft carriers and the like , ya know we use them and sell them to our allies .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me were the hell you see any of what you ask about in my comment.  My Quote-"It doesn't get more pitiful then that answer, make the tools for politicians to hand out to the young to go to a war that is a lie. and watch them get killed and say it creates more jobs." There is zero reason to make the amount of weapons we make as far as our military is concerned , half that amount is about right . You commenting supported that nonsense  is ridiculous. We have had what 200 wars in our history maybe a half dozen at the most were justified.   All we needed is not going to war to make some fatcat money and for wars that are lies. How much weapontry did we need for those  6 wars. not much. Making weapons so someone can get a job is absolute lunacy. In this country if you make it ,some weird right winger will find a way to use it so we can make more to feed their pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of rant is that? Didn't you ever read history books...at the turn of the 20 th century the world was like 90% filled with dictators and the like at the turn of the 21st century they are democratic ..
> 
> And who led the way?
> 
> 
> The United States with her military and views..
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if that isn't a example of blind ignorance .tell me what the military did to make these countrie democratic. They followed our example and had nothing to do with us  running around killing the defenceless. There has been no country in history that has supported more military dictatorships then us. What a goofball. You tell me which countries in the world support our militarism around the world. Since they were all turned into democracy because of our military, tell me why they don't support our military actions. and there is no country in the world that is more hated then this us. These countries and people who hate us around the world  are wrong but you throw shit all over the world and dictate to other countries and if that's all they see , they will hate you every time.  There has been no president then the gum drop that is hated more by the rest of the world ,in our history.
Click to expand...


Another rant? Again don't you read the history books or are you feed indoctrination?

God damn son once again America with her military might changed the world to democracy you ignorant fool.


----------



## jbander

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wacko right think that we should dump massive amounts of money into the military. The reason is , their controllers make tons off of war and military buildup. The last Iraq war was a complete lie and the two companies that made the most out of the war was Carlyle group and Halliburton. Follow the money, you people with your ring in your nose will believe anything your masters tell you. In the whole world this country and it's allies spend 3 out of every 4 dollars spent on the military. Ya you bet we should worry. I don't and anyone with a ounce of sense wouldn't either. 97% of the wars this country has been in had nothing at all about protecting this country, literally all of them were lies and most of them we were the aggressor against the defenceless. Or killing our young for some corporation, That is what the right wants for this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lie..the Chinese got the majority control of Iraq's oil contracts
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China Is Reaping Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom
> 
> *China Is Reaping Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom*
> *China Reaps Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom*
> 
> 551
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about. Why should I care about who makes the most money in the Iraq of 2017, my point has to do with who would gain the most making war, and I answered it for you, Carlyle (Bush) and Halliburton (Cheney) and they created the lie that put us into that war.


----------



## Likkmee

Simple. The more money they have to offer unemployable idiots into the scam the lower the unemployment rate appears. MAGA


----------



## Manonthestreet

jbander said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost every branch of military is unready for anything other than minor ops. Try to  keep up
> 
> 
> 
> That has me rolling on the floor, you keep up. Your comment has zero connection to facts.
Click to expand...

Cant help it you are ignorant'''
Today the Navy and Marine Corps are facing a fundamental choice: maintain current levels of forward presence and risk breaking the force or reduce presence and restore readiness through adequate training, maintenance, and time at home. This choice is driven by the supply of ready naval forces being too small to meet the demand from Combatant Commanders, as adjudicated by the Secretary of Defense. To close the gap, the Department of Defense (DoD) will need to grow the fleet and force, base more ships overseas, or pay to maintain a higher operating tempo. Deploying Beyond Their Means: America’s Navy and Marine Corps At a Tipping Point | RealClearDefense
Air Force is short 1000 pilots 
Most of Naval Air cant fly due to lack of maintenance 

Today, only about 1/3 of our BCTs, 1/4 of our Combat Aviation Brigades and half of our Division Headquarters are ready. Of the BCTs that are ready, only three could be called upon to fight tonight in the event of a crisis. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20170207/105530/HHRG-115-AS00-Wstate-AllynD-20170207.pdf


----------



## jbander

bear513 said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't get more pitiful then that answer, make thetools  for politicians to hand out to the young to go to a war that is a lie. and watch them get killed and say it creates more jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about entering the military? Talking about defense union  contractor  jobs, building fighter planes, bombs, missles, aircraft carriers and the like , ya know we use them and sell them to our allies .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me were the hell you see any of what you ask about in my comment.  My Quote-"It doesn't get more pitiful then that answer, make the tools for politicians to hand out to the young to go to a war that is a lie. and watch them get killed and say it creates more jobs." There is zero reason to make the amount of weapons we make as far as our military is concerned , half that amount is about right . You commenting supported that nonsense  is ridiculous. We have had what 200 wars in our history maybe a half dozen at the most were justified.   All we needed is not going to war to make some fatcat money and for wars that are lies. How much weapontry did we need for those  6 wars. not much. Making weapons so someone can get a job is absolute lunacy. In this country if you make it ,some weird right winger will find a way to use it so we can make more to feed their pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of rant is that? Didn't you ever read history books...at the turn of the 20 th century the world was like 90% filled with dictators and the like at the turn of the 21st century they are democratic ..
> 
> And who led the way?
> 
> 
> The United States with her military and views..
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if that isn't a example of blind ignorance .tell me what the military did to make these countrie democratic. They followed our example and had nothing to do with us  running around killing the defenceless. There has been no country in history that has supported more military dictatorships then us. What a goofball. You tell me which countries in the world support our militarism around the world. Since they were all turned into democracy because of our military, tell me why they don't support our military actions. and there is no country in the world that is more hated then this us. These countries and people who hate us around the world  are wrong but you throw shit all over the world and dictate to other countries and if that's all they see , they will hate you every time.  There has been no president then the gum drop that is hated more by the rest of the world ,in our history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another rant? Again don't you read the history books or are you feed indoctrination?
> 
> God damn son once again America with her military might changed the world to democracy you ignorant fool.
Click to expand...

 It wasn't a complicated question I asked you a simple question, you said our military turned country's into democracy's , tell us a little about that , How did they do that. Which country by the way. If you don't respond and just shoot back the old I don't like you and the your dumb routine you are gone. your out of here.


----------



## Wyatt earp

jbander said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about entering the military? Talking about defense union  contractor  jobs, building fighter planes, bombs, missles, aircraft carriers and the like , ya know we use them and sell them to our allies .
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me were the hell you see any of what you ask about in my comment.  My Quote-"It doesn't get more pitiful then that answer, make the tools for politicians to hand out to the young to go to a war that is a lie. and watch them get killed and say it creates more jobs." There is zero reason to make the amount of weapons we make as far as our military is concerned , half that amount is about right . You commenting supported that nonsense  is ridiculous. We have had what 200 wars in our history maybe a half dozen at the most were justified.   All we needed is not going to war to make some fatcat money and for wars that are lies. How much weapontry did we need for those  6 wars. not much. Making weapons so someone can get a job is absolute lunacy. In this country if you make it ,some weird right winger will find a way to use it so we can make more to feed their pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of rant is that? Didn't you ever read history books...at the turn of the 20 th century the world was like 90% filled with dictators and the like at the turn of the 21st century they are democratic ..
> 
> And who led the way?
> 
> 
> The United States with her military and views..
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if that isn't a example of blind ignorance .tell me what the military did to make these countrie democratic. They followed our example and had nothing to do with us  running around killing the defenceless. There has been no country in history that has supported more military dictatorships then us. What a goofball. You tell me which countries in the world support our militarism around the world. Since they were all turned into democracy because of our military, tell me why they don't support our military actions. and there is no country in the world that is more hated then this us. These countries and people who hate us around the world  are wrong but you throw shit all over the world and dictate to other countries and if that's all they see , they will hate you every time.  There has been no president then the gum drop that is hated more by the rest of the world ,in our history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another rant? Again don't you read the history books or are you feed indoctrination?
> 
> God damn son once again America with her military might changed the world to democracy you ignorant fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't a complicated question I asked you a simple question, you said our military turned country's into democracy's , tell us a little about that , How did they do that. Which country by the way. If you don't respond and just shoot back the old I don't like you and the your dumb routine you are gone. your out of here.
Click to expand...

What is this a threat you going to put me on ignore? Promises promises..

So now I have to re educate you after years of indoctrination by your liberal school teachers?

Here is an idea think for your self..and research the years between 1890s till today..

It was all about America and her military..


----------



## jbander

Manonthestreet said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost every branch of military is unready for anything other than minor ops. Try to  keep up
> 
> 
> 
> That has me rolling on the floor, you keep up. Your comment has zero connection to facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cant help it you are ignorant'''
> Today the Navy and Marine Corps are facing a fundamental choice: maintain current levels of forward presence and risk breaking the force or reduce presence and restore readiness through adequate training, maintenance, and time at home. This choice is driven by the supply of ready naval forces being too small to meet the demand from Combatant Commanders, as adjudicated by the Secretary of Defense. To close the gap, the Department of Defense (DoD) will need to grow the fleet and force, base more ships overseas, or pay to maintain a higher operating tempo. Deploying Beyond Their Means: America’s Navy and Marine Corps At a Tipping Point | RealClearDefense
> Air Force is short 1000 pilots
> Most of Naval Air cant fly due to lack of maintenance
> 
> Today, only about 1/3 of our BCTs, 1/4 of our Combat Aviation Brigades and half of our Division Headquarters are ready. Of the BCTs that are ready, only three could be called upon to fight tonight in the event of a crisis. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20170207/105530/HHRG-115-AS00-Wstate-AllynD-20170207.pdf
Click to expand...

Bullshit thats the point, pressance is what has to go we ar e in 300 to 800 bases outside of our country ,depending how you count bases. The rest of the world 15 or 20. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Your source is as idiotic as you can get. Even the military denies most of this bullshit your trying to sell here. From your bullshit source. I'd advise anyone who is interested to look at the first joke page this guy gives as a source. The second is better but leave out the fact that we shouldn't be in 95% of the areas we have combat troops in now and with that taken care of , we are in fantastic shape. That's the whole point we shouldn't be there. It is not protecting this country it is only supporting corporate interest. There is no reason in the world that any Young American dies for any fucking corporate interest.
      This response from this nut with the ring in his nose should be looked at for it's insanity, look at what he is trying to sell and look at the facts


----------



## jbander

bear513 said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me were the hell you see any of what you ask about in my comment.  My Quote-"It doesn't get more pitiful then that answer, make the tools for politicians to hand out to the young to go to a war that is a lie. and watch them get killed and say it creates more jobs." There is zero reason to make the amount of weapons we make as far as our military is concerned , half that amount is about right . You commenting supported that nonsense  is ridiculous. We have had what 200 wars in our history maybe a half dozen at the most were justified.   All we needed is not going to war to make some fatcat money and for wars that are lies. How much weapontry did we need for those  6 wars. not much. Making weapons so someone can get a job is absolute lunacy. In this country if you make it ,some weird right winger will find a way to use it so we can make more to feed their pockets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of rant is that? Didn't you ever read history books...at the turn of the 20 th century the world was like 90% filled with dictators and the like at the turn of the 21st century they are democratic ..
> 
> And who led the way?
> 
> 
> The United States with her military and views..
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if that isn't a example of blind ignorance .tell me what the military did to make these countrie democratic. They followed our example and had nothing to do with us  running around killing the defenceless. There has been no country in history that has supported more military dictatorships then us. What a goofball. You tell me which countries in the world support our militarism around the world. Since they were all turned into democracy because of our military, tell me why they don't support our military actions. and there is no country in the world that is more hated then this us. These countries and people who hate us around the world  are wrong but you throw shit all over the world and dictate to other countries and if that's all they see , they will hate you every time.  There has been no president then the gum drop that is hated more by the rest of the world ,in our history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another rant? Again don't you read the history books or are you feed indoctrination?
> 
> God damn son once again America with her military might changed the world to democracy you ignorant fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't a complicated question I asked you a simple question, you said our military turned country's into democracy's , tell us a little about that , How did they do that. Which country by the way. If you don't respond and just shoot back the old I don't like you and the your dumb routine you are gone. your out of here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is this a threat you going to put me on ignore? Promises promises..
> 
> So now I have to re educate you after years of indoctrination by your liberal school teachers?
> 
> Here is an idea think for your self..and research the years between 1890s till today..
> 
> It was all about America and her military..
Click to expand...

 I told you to respond to the thread and that doesn't include you telling me you don't like me and I'm dumb. Why would I care what you think of me. it is a total waste of my time and anyone who is following this thread.Your Gone.


----------



## Wyatt earp

jbander said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of rant is that? Didn't you ever read history books...at the turn of the 20 th century the world was like 90% filled with dictators and the like at the turn of the 21st century they are democratic ..
> 
> And who led the way?
> 
> 
> The United States with her military and views..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if that isn't a example of blind ignorance .tell me what the military did to make these countrie democratic. They followed our example and had nothing to do with us  running around killing the defenceless. There has been no country in history that has supported more military dictatorships then us. What a goofball. You tell me which countries in the world support our militarism around the world. Since they were all turned into democracy because of our military, tell me why they don't support our military actions. and there is no country in the world that is more hated then this us. These countries and people who hate us around the world  are wrong but you throw shit all over the world and dictate to other countries and if that's all they see , they will hate you every time.  There has been no president then the gum drop that is hated more by the rest of the world ,in our history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another rant? Again don't you read the history books or are you feed indoctrination?
> 
> God damn son once again America with her military might changed the world to democracy you ignorant fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't a complicated question I asked you a simple question, you said our military turned country's into democracy's , tell us a little about that , How did they do that. Which country by the way. If you don't respond and just shoot back the old I don't like you and the your dumb routine you are gone. your out of here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is this a threat you going to put me on ignore? Promises promises..
> 
> So now I have to re educate you after years of indoctrination by your liberal school teachers?
> 
> Here is an idea think for your self..and research the years between 1890s till today..
> 
> It was all about America and her military..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you to respond to the thread and that doesn't include you telling me you don't like me and I'm dumb. Why would I care what you think of me. it is a total waste of my time and anyone who is following this thread.Your Gone.
Click to expand...


We are talking about the thread and you continue to go on a obsecure tagent,  that you think the world would be a better place if it wasn't for America's military might ..


----------



## Wyatt earp

Kid some one had to be the world's police man and God choose the United States to lead the way..


----------



## rightwinger

Without question, we have a kickass military
Most powerful in the history of mankind

But what do we sacrifice for having such a military?

Other countries have better healthcare, infrastructure, public transportation, education


----------



## Manonthestreet

jbander said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost every branch of military is unready for anything other than minor ops. Try to  keep up
> 
> 
> 
> That has me rolling on the floor, you keep up. Your comment has zero connection to facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cant help it you are ignorant'''
> Today the Navy and Marine Corps are facing a fundamental choice: maintain current levels of forward presence and risk breaking the force or reduce presence and restore readiness through adequate training, maintenance, and time at home. This choice is driven by the supply of ready naval forces being too small to meet the demand from Combatant Commanders, as adjudicated by the Secretary of Defense. To close the gap, the Department of Defense (DoD) will need to grow the fleet and force, base more ships overseas, or pay to maintain a higher operating tempo. Deploying Beyond Their Means: America’s Navy and Marine Corps At a Tipping Point | RealClearDefense
> Air Force is short 1000 pilots
> Most of Naval Air cant fly due to lack of maintenance
> 
> Today, only about 1/3 of our BCTs, 1/4 of our Combat Aviation Brigades and half of our Division Headquarters are ready. Of the BCTs that are ready, only three could be called upon to fight tonight in the event of a crisis. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20170207/105530/HHRG-115-AS00-Wstate-AllynD-20170207.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit thats the point, pressance is what has to go we ar e in 300 to 800 bases outside of our country ,depending how you count bases. The rest of the world 15 or 20. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Your source is as idiotic as you can get. Even the military denies most of this bullshit your trying to sell here. From your bullshit source. I'd advise anyone who is interested to look at the first joke page this guy gives as a source. The second is better but leave out the fact that we shouldn't be in 95% of the areas we have combat troops in now and with that taken care of , we are in fantastic shape. That's the whole point we shouldn't be there. It is not protecting this country it is only supporting corporate interest. There is no reason in the world that any Young American dies for any fucking corporate interest......
> This response from this nut with the ring in his nose should be looked at for it's insanity, look at what he is trying to sell and look at the facts
Click to expand...

Didnt bother to read did ya.......yeah we could spend less in other areas......savings however would not cover this shortage


----------



## Manonthestreet

your say so is not a rebuttal......some of that was written by the military .......you are nothing more than a poor talking point trooper


----------



## jbander

Manonthestreet said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost every branch of military is unready for anything other than minor ops. Try to  keep up
> 
> 
> 
> That has me rolling on the floor, you keep up. Your comment has zero connection to facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cant help it you are ignorant'''
> Today the Navy and Marine Corps are facing a fundamental choice: maintain current levels of forward presence and risk breaking the force or reduce presence and restore readiness through adequate training, maintenance, and time at home. This choice is driven by the supply of ready naval forces being too small to meet the demand from Combatant Commanders, as adjudicated by the Secretary of Defense. To close the gap, the Department of Defense (DoD) will need to grow the fleet and force, base more ships overseas, or pay to maintain a higher operating tempo. Deploying Beyond Their Means: America’s Navy and Marine Corps At a Tipping Point | RealClearDefense
> Air Force is short 1000 pilots
> Most of Naval Air cant fly due to lack of maintenance
> 
> Today, only about 1/3 of our BCTs, 1/4 of our Combat Aviation Brigades and half of our Division Headquarters are ready. Of the BCTs that are ready, only three could be called upon to fight tonight in the event of a crisis. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20170207/105530/HHRG-115-AS00-Wstate-AllynD-20170207.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit thats the point, pressance is what has to go we ar e in 300 to 800 bases outside of our country ,depending how you count bases. The rest of the world 15 or 20. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Your source is as idiotic as you can get. Even the military denies most of this bullshit your trying to sell here. From your bullshit source. I'd advise anyone who is interested to look at the first joke page this guy gives as a source. The second is better but leave out the fact that we shouldn't be in 95% of the areas we have combat troops in now and with that taken care of , we are in fantastic shape. That's the whole point we shouldn't be there. It is not protecting this country it is only supporting corporate interest. There is no reason in the world that any Young American dies for any fucking corporate interest......
> This response from this nut with the ring in his nose should be looked at for it's insanity, look at what he is trying to sell and look at the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didnt bother to read did ya.......yeah we could spend less in other areas......savings however would not cover this shortage
Click to expand...

You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/


----------



## Manonthestreet

jbander said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost every branch of military is unready for anything other than minor ops. Try to  keep up
> 
> 
> 
> That has me rolling on the floor, you keep up. Your comment has zero connection to facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cant help it you are ignorant'''
> Today the Navy and Marine Corps are facing a fundamental choice: maintain current levels of forward presence and risk breaking the force or reduce presence and restore readiness through adequate training, maintenance, and time at home. This choice is driven by the supply of ready naval forces being too small to meet the demand from Combatant Commanders, as adjudicated by the Secretary of Defense. To close the gap, the Department of Defense (DoD) will need to grow the fleet and force, base more ships overseas, or pay to maintain a higher operating tempo. Deploying Beyond Their Means: America’s Navy and Marine Corps At a Tipping Point | RealClearDefense
> Air Force is short 1000 pilots
> Most of Naval Air cant fly due to lack of maintenance
> 
> Today, only about 1/3 of our BCTs, 1/4 of our Combat Aviation Brigades and half of our Division Headquarters are ready. Of the BCTs that are ready, only three could be called upon to fight tonight in the event of a crisis. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20170207/105530/HHRG-115-AS00-Wstate-AllynD-20170207.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit thats the point, pressance is what has to go we ar e in 300 to 800 bases outside of our country ,depending how you count bases. The rest of the world 15 or 20. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Your source is as idiotic as you can get. Even the military denies most of this bullshit your trying to sell here. From your bullshit source. I'd advise anyone who is interested to look at the first joke page this guy gives as a source. The second is better but leave out the fact that we shouldn't be in 95% of the areas we have combat troops in now and with that taken care of , we are in fantastic shape. That's the whole point we shouldn't be there. It is not protecting this country it is only supporting corporate interest. There is no reason in the world that any Young American dies for any fucking corporate interest......
> This response from this nut with the ring in his nose should be looked at for it's insanity, look at what he is trying to sell and look at the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didnt bother to read did ya.......yeah we could spend less in other areas......savings however would not cover this shortage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/
Click to expand...

LLMMMaaaooo......deny all you want .......talking point trooper......still just your uninformed opinion


----------



## jbander

Manonthestreet said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has me rolling on the floor, you keep up. Your comment has zero connection to facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Cant help it you are ignorant'''
> Today the Navy and Marine Corps are facing a fundamental choice: maintain current levels of forward presence and risk breaking the force or reduce presence and restore readiness through adequate training, maintenance, and time at home. This choice is driven by the supply of ready naval forces being too small to meet the demand from Combatant Commanders, as adjudicated by the Secretary of Defense. To close the gap, the Department of Defense (DoD) will need to grow the fleet and force, base more ships overseas, or pay to maintain a higher operating tempo. Deploying Beyond Their Means: America’s Navy and Marine Corps At a Tipping Point | RealClearDefense
> Air Force is short 1000 pilots
> Most of Naval Air cant fly due to lack of maintenance
> 
> Today, only about 1/3 of our BCTs, 1/4 of our Combat Aviation Brigades and half of our Division Headquarters are ready. Of the BCTs that are ready, only three could be called upon to fight tonight in the event of a crisis. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20170207/105530/HHRG-115-AS00-Wstate-AllynD-20170207.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit thats the point, pressance is what has to go we ar e in 300 to 800 bases outside of our country ,depending how you count bases. The rest of the world 15 or 20. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Your source is as idiotic as you can get. Even the military denies most of this bullshit your trying to sell here. From your bullshit source. I'd advise anyone who is interested to look at the first joke page this guy gives as a source. The second is better but leave out the fact that we shouldn't be in 95% of the areas we have combat troops in now and with that taken care of , we are in fantastic shape. That's the whole point we shouldn't be there. It is not protecting this country it is only supporting corporate interest. There is no reason in the world that any Young American dies for any fucking corporate interest......
> This response from this nut with the ring in his nose should be looked at for it's insanity, look at what he is trying to sell and look at the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didnt bother to read did ya.......yeah we could spend less in other areas......savings however would not cover this shortage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LLMMMaaaooo......deny all you want .......talking point trooper......still just your uninformed opinion
Click to expand...

Deny bullshit , I have all the facts on my side , Your want a military that goes out and kills and gets itself killed for corporations to make money, you being a dumb mindless fuck, you Don't look at shit and if you did you would be to dumb to understand anyway. , you're too busy trying to sell your hate and how you want to use our young and very best for gun fodder. You're just part of the hate party that's made up of blind ignorant fucks that want to have a few people killed, even out of our own, so you can get your rocks off. Your a waste of humanity and your hate party is made up of thousand off you pukes. and you and you God and Leader President Scum Bag have to go. And it will happen when this country see that people like you are ignorant bastards that don't have anything except hate to share with the rest of you pukes.


----------



## Manonthestreet

jbander said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cant help it you are ignorant'''
> Today the Navy and Marine Corps are facing a fundamental choice: maintain current levels of forward presence and risk breaking the force or reduce presence and restore readiness through adequate training, maintenance, and time at home. This choice is driven by the supply of ready naval forces being too small to meet the demand from Combatant Commanders, as adjudicated by the Secretary of Defense. To close the gap, the Department of Defense (DoD) will need to grow the fleet and force, base more ships overseas, or pay to maintain a higher operating tempo. Deploying Beyond Their Means: America’s Navy and Marine Corps At a Tipping Point | RealClearDefense
> Air Force is short 1000 pilots
> Most of Naval Air cant fly due to lack of maintenance
> 
> Today, only about 1/3 of our BCTs, 1/4 of our Combat Aviation Brigades and half of our Division Headquarters are ready. Of the BCTs that are ready, only three could be called upon to fight tonight in the event of a crisis. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20170207/105530/HHRG-115-AS00-Wstate-AllynD-20170207.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit thats the point, pressance is what has to go we ar e in 300 to 800 bases outside of our country ,depending how you count bases. The rest of the world 15 or 20. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Your source is as idiotic as you can get. Even the military denies most of this bullshit your trying to sell here. From your bullshit source. I'd advise anyone who is interested to look at the first joke page this guy gives as a source. The second is better but leave out the fact that we shouldn't be in 95% of the areas we have combat troops in now and with that taken care of , we are in fantastic shape. That's the whole point we shouldn't be there. It is not protecting this country it is only supporting corporate interest. There is no reason in the world that any Young American dies for any fucking corporate interest......
> This response from this nut with the ring in his nose should be looked at for it's insanity, look at what he is trying to sell and look at the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didnt bother to read did ya.......yeah we could spend less in other areas......savings however would not cover this shortage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LLMMMaaaooo......deny all you want .......talking point trooper......still just your uninformed opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deny bullshit , I have all the facts on my side , Your want a military that goes out and kills and gets itself killed for corporations to make money, you being a dumb mindless fuck, you Don't look at shit and if you did you would be to dumb to understand anyway. , you're too busy trying to sell your hate and how you want to use our young and very best for gun fodder. You're just part of the hate party that's made up of blind ignorant fucks that want to have a few people killed, even out of our own, so you can get your rocks off. Your a waste of humanity and your hate party is made up of thousand off you pukes. and you and you God and Leader President Scum Bag have to go. And it will happen when this country see that people like you are ignorant bastards that don't have anything except hate to share with the rest of you pukes.
Click to expand...

You havent posted any facts....only your uninformed opinion........when you have maintenance crews visiting museums to strip parts off exhibits ya might have a prob eh


----------



## jbander

God the right is made up of a whole lot of scum bag haters. They and their God and Leader the scum bag have to go, there is no room in a healthy country with these pukes polluting everything around them. They are by far the biggest threat this country has and they have to go. 
  Scum bag will fall soon, it's all catching up to the slimy  bastard  But the hate party has to go also, it will be replaced by another conservative group , the conservative voice has to be part of this country but they haven't been the republican party in decades , they are the hate party . The new party  won't be populated with the haters that could possibly get another  President Scum Bag elected. They will be gone, and the name republican won't be used because it is so poisoned by these anti Government pukes that are the  enemy of this country.


----------



## jbander

Manonthestreet said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit thats the point, pressance is what has to go we ar e in 300 to 800 bases outside of our country ,depending how you count bases. The rest of the world 15 or 20. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Your source is as idiotic as you can get. Even the military denies most of this bullshit your trying to sell here. From your bullshit source. I'd advise anyone who is interested to look at the first joke page this guy gives as a source. The second is better but leave out the fact that we shouldn't be in 95% of the areas we have combat troops in now and with that taken care of , we are in fantastic shape. That's the whole point we shouldn't be there. It is not protecting this country it is only supporting corporate interest. There is no reason in the world that any Young American dies for any fucking corporate interest......
> This response from this nut with the ring in his nose should be looked at for it's insanity, look at what he is trying to sell and look at the facts
> 
> 
> 
> Didnt bother to read did ya.......yeah we could spend less in other areas......savings however would not cover this shortage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LLMMMaaaooo......deny all you want .......talking point trooper......still just your uninformed opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deny bullshit , I have all the facts on my side , Your want a military that goes out and kills and gets itself killed for corporations to make money, you being a dumb mindless fuck, you Don't look at shit and if you did you would be to dumb to understand anyway. , you're too busy trying to sell your hate and how you want to use our young and very best for gun fodder. You're just part of the hate party that's made up of blind ignorant fucks that want to have a few people killed, even out of our own, so you can get your rocks off. Your a waste of humanity and your hate party is made up of thousand off you pukes. and you and you God and Leader President Scum Bag have to go. And it will happen when this country see that people like you are ignorant bastards that don't have anything except hate to share with the rest of you pukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You havent posted any facts....only your uninformed opinion........when you have maintenance crews visiting museums to strip parts off exhibits ya might have a prob eh
Click to expand...

kiss off you empty headed puke , your a waste of time and bandwidth. You don't exist.


----------



## Manonthestreet

jbander said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didnt bother to read did ya.......yeah we could spend less in other areas......savings however would not cover this shortage
> 
> 
> 
> You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LLMMMaaaooo......deny all you want .......talking point trooper......still just your uninformed opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deny bullshit , I have all the facts on my side , Your want a military that goes out and kills and gets itself killed for corporations to make money, you being a dumb mindless fuck, you Don't look at shit and if you did you would be to dumb to understand anyway. , you're too busy trying to sell your hate and how you want to use our young and very best for gun fodder. You're just part of the hate party that's made up of blind ignorant fucks that want to have a few people killed, even out of our own, so you can get your rocks off. Your a waste of humanity and your hate party is made up of thousand off you pukes. and you and you God and Leader President Scum Bag have to go. And it will happen when this country see that people like you are ignorant bastards that don't have anything except hate to share with the rest of you pukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You havent posted any facts....only your uninformed opinion........when you have maintenance crews visiting museums to strip parts off exhibits ya might have a prob eh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> kiss off you empty headed puke , your a waste of time and bandwidth. You don't exist.
Click to expand...

Let me know when you get to some facts eh......


----------



## Manonthestreet

WASHINGTON: A massive maintenance backlog has idled 15 nuclear-powered attack submarines for a total of 177 months, and the Navy’s plan to mitigate the problem is jeopardized by budget gridlock, two House Armed Services Committee staffers told _Breaking Defense_. 15 Subs Kept Out of Service: 177 Months Of Drydock Backups


----------



## jbander

Manonthestreet said:


> WASHINGTON: A massive maintenance backlog has idled 15 nuclear-powered attack submarines for a total of 177 months, and the Navy’s plan to mitigate the problem is jeopardized by budget gridlock, two House Armed Services Committee staffers told _Breaking Defense_. 15 Subs Kept Out of Service: 177 Months Of Drydock Backups


Good it's a waste of money , this is cheaper and there's no real threat to this country anyway, take the corporation out of this scenario and we would have no military problem at all with half the money. You want to send these poor young people to get killed for the bottom line of corporations. Hell you don't give a shit about these young people or this country.You top the list of just another ignorant gun bubba, wanting to kill everyone.


----------



## Manonthestreet

jbander said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON: A massive maintenance backlog has idled 15 nuclear-powered attack submarines for a total of 177 months, and the Navy’s plan to mitigate the problem is jeopardized by budget gridlock, two House Armed Services Committee staffers told _Breaking Defense_. 15 Subs Kept Out of Service: 177 Months Of Drydock Backups
> 
> 
> 
> Good it's a waste of money , this is cheaper and there's no real threat to this country anyway, take the corporation out of this scenario and we would have no military problem at all with half the money. You want to send these poor young people to get killed for the bottom line of corporations. Hell you don't give a shit about these young people or this country.You top the list of just another ignorant gun bubba, wanting to kill everyone.
Click to expand...

You have no connection to reality do you......one absurdity after another


jbander said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON: A massive maintenance backlog has idled 15 nuclear-powered attack submarines for a total of 177 months, and the Navy’s plan to mitigate the problem is jeopardized by budget gridlock, two House Armed Services Committee staffers told _Breaking Defense_. 15 Subs Kept Out of Service: 177 Months Of Drydock Backups
> 
> 
> 
> Good it's a waste of money , this is cheaper and there's no real threat to this country anyway, take the corporation out of this scenario and we would have no military problem at all with half the money. You want to send these poor young people to get killed for the bottom line of corporations. Hell you don't give a shit about these young people or this country.You top the list of just another ignorant gun bubba, wanting to kill everyone.
Click to expand...

You have no connection to reality do you....just one absurdity after another as you try to deny the damage Obama did


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.



The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
Click to expand...


The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us

Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman.  We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies

By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure


----------



## jbander

Manonthestreet said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON: A massive maintenance backlog has idled 15 nuclear-powered attack submarines for a total of 177 months, and the Navy’s plan to mitigate the problem is jeopardized by budget gridlock, two House Armed Services Committee staffers told _Breaking Defense_. 15 Subs Kept Out of Service: 177 Months Of Drydock Backups
> 
> 
> 
> Good it's a waste of money , this is cheaper and there's no real threat to this country anyway, take the corporation out of this scenario and we would have no military problem at all with half the money. You want to send these poor young people to get killed for the bottom line of corporations. Hell you don't give a shit about these young people or this country.You top the list of just another ignorant gun bubba, wanting to kill everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no connection to reality do you......one absurdity after another
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON: A massive maintenance backlog has idled 15 nuclear-powered attack submarines for a total of 177 months, and the Navy’s plan to mitigate the problem is jeopardized by budget gridlock, two House Armed Services Committee staffers told _Breaking Defense_. 15 Subs Kept Out of Service: 177 Months Of Drydock Backups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good it's a waste of money , this is cheaper and there's no real threat to this country anyway, take the corporation out of this scenario and we would have no military problem at all with half the money. You want to send these poor young people to get killed for the bottom line of corporations. Hell you don't give a shit about these young people or this country.You top the list of just another ignorant gun bubba, wanting to kill everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no connection to reality do you....just one absurdity after another as you try to deny the damage Obama did
Click to expand...

 Gee where did that come from I never brought up Obama's name. Like I said they need the military budget should be  cut right in half . It would be more then what we need to protect our shores. I don't give a fuck about any corporate interest if I have to trade it for the lives of the young.


----------



## rightwinger

jbander said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON: A massive maintenance backlog has idled 15 nuclear-powered attack submarines for a total of 177 months, and the Navy’s plan to mitigate the problem is jeopardized by budget gridlock, two House Armed Services Committee staffers told _Breaking Defense_. 15 Subs Kept Out of Service: 177 Months Of Drydock Backups
> 
> 
> 
> Good it's a waste of money , this is cheaper and there's no real threat to this country anyway, take the corporation out of this scenario and we would have no military problem at all with half the money. You want to send these poor young people to get killed for the bottom line of corporations. Hell you don't give a shit about these young people or this country.You top the list of just another ignorant gun bubba, wanting to kill everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no connection to reality do you......one absurdity after another
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON: A massive maintenance backlog has idled 15 nuclear-powered attack submarines for a total of 177 months, and the Navy’s plan to mitigate the problem is jeopardized by budget gridlock, two House Armed Services Committee staffers told _Breaking Defense_. 15 Subs Kept Out of Service: 177 Months Of Drydock Backups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good it's a waste of money , this is cheaper and there's no real threat to this country anyway, take the corporation out of this scenario and we would have no military problem at all with half the money. You want to send these poor young people to get killed for the bottom line of corporations. Hell you don't give a shit about these young people or this country.You top the list of just another ignorant gun bubba, wanting to kill everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no connection to reality do you....just one absurdity after another as you try to deny the damage Obama did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee where did that come from I never brought up Obama's name. Like I said they need the military budget should be  cut right in half . It would be more then what we need to protect our shores. I don't give a fuck about any corporate interest if I have to trade it for the lives of the young.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with having global interests
But our use of our military has been, at best, hit or miss
We do some good and prop up friendly governments around the world

But we also wasted unnecessary lives in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan

We need to reassess our military priorities


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
Click to expand...

 Be real over half our budget is given to the military, You wanting a military to protect the corporate interest of this country with the lives of our young is insane. You seem to think very little of the people in our service. Tell me of our 200 plus wars show me more then a handful that needed to be fraught. One attack on our shores. There is way more wars that we simply murdered people then wars that had to be fought.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us
> 
> Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman.  We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies
> 
> By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure
Click to expand...


Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.


----------



## rightwinger

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be real over half our budget is given to the military, You wanting a military to protect the corporate interest of this country with the lives of our young is insane. You seem to think very little of the people in our service. Tell me of our 200 plus wars show me more then a handful that needed to be fraught. One attack on our shores. There is way more wars that we simply murdered people then wars that had to be fought.
Click to expand...

If the purpose of the government is to protect our people ....
We need to spend more on fighting gangs, the highest murder rate in the industrialized world, the opioid crisis

They are all more of a threat to the average American than some shithole country 13,000 miles away


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us
> 
> Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman.  We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies
> 
> By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.
Click to expand...

Well said

Let's protect our children. Use our resources to combat gang violence , fight domestic abuse, expand children's healthcare

Makes more sense than extending our military might on the other side of the globe


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us
> 
> Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman.  We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies
> 
> By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.
Click to expand...

 The only threat that I've seen to freedom is sitting in the president's chair , their president is a pile of shit. The military is there to protect this country. Maybe you could become the laughing stock of this thread by bringing up something like the Domino effect, some cute name  that can be used to call some non existing threat to our borders. that allows you to send out our children to die for corporations interests.


----------



## mudwhistle

jbander said:


> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.


We have to pay for all of the Democrat's wars.


----------



## mudwhistle

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us
> 
> Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman.  We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies
> 
> By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only threat that I've seen to freedom is sitting in the president's chair , their president is a pile of shit. The military is there to protect this country. Maybe you could become the laughing stock of this thread by bringing up something like the Domino effect, some cute name  that can be used to call some non existing threat to our borders. that allows you to send out our children to die for corporations interests.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the pile of shit left office last January.


----------



## jbander

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us
> 
> Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman.  We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies
> 
> By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well said
> 
> Let's protect our children. Use our resources to combat gang violence , fight domestic abuse, expand children's healthcare
> 
> Makes more sense than extending our military might on the other side of the globe
Click to expand...

 The military is for corporate interest as far as 90% of the right wing is concerned. If they don't realize that it is a fact then they are dumb. Thats their only excuse. You want to lead the world as far as corporate profits is concerned , pay for better education all free through college and beyond. We will lead the world economically for ever and will gain way more then the wasting of money on wars that are 100% lies , Like the Bush disaster.


----------



## jbander

rightwinger said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON: A massive maintenance backlog has idled 15 nuclear-powered attack submarines for a total of 177 months, and the Navy’s plan to mitigate the problem is jeopardized by budget gridlock, two House Armed Services Committee staffers told _Breaking Defense_. 15 Subs Kept Out of Service: 177 Months Of Drydock Backups
> 
> 
> 
> Good it's a waste of money , this is cheaper and there's no real threat to this country anyway, take the corporation out of this scenario and we would have no military problem at all with half the money. You want to send these poor young people to get killed for the bottom line of corporations. Hell you don't give a shit about these young people or this country.You top the list of just another ignorant gun bubba, wanting to kill everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no connection to reality do you......one absurdity after another
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON: A massive maintenance backlog has idled 15 nuclear-powered attack submarines for a total of 177 months, and the Navy’s plan to mitigate the problem is jeopardized by budget gridlock, two House Armed Services Committee staffers told _Breaking Defense_. 15 Subs Kept Out of Service: 177 Months Of Drydock Backups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good it's a waste of money , this is cheaper and there's no real threat to this country anyway, take the corporation out of this scenario and we would have no military problem at all with half the money. You want to send these poor young people to get killed for the bottom line of corporations. Hell you don't give a shit about these young people or this country.You top the list of just another ignorant gun bubba, wanting to kill everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no connection to reality do you....just one absurdity after another as you try to deny the damage Obama did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee where did that come from I never brought up Obama's name. Like I said they need the military budget should be  cut right in half . It would be more then what we need to protect our shores. I don't give a fuck about any corporate interest if I have to trade it for the lives of the young.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing wrong with having global interests
> But our use of our military has been, at best, hit or miss
> We do some good and prop up friendly governments around the world
> 
> But we also wasted unnecessary lives in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan
> 
> We need to reassess our military priorities
Click to expand...

 You want to know how bad this country has been as far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
   We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line.


----------



## rightwinger

mudwhistle said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> We have to pay for all of the Democrat's wars.
Click to expand...

Democrats voted against the invasion of Iraq

Cost us 5500 lives and $2 trillion


----------



## rightwinger

jbander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us
> 
> Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman.  We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies
> 
> By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well said
> 
> Let's protect our children. Use our resources to combat gang violence , fight domestic abuse, expand children's healthcare
> 
> Makes more sense than extending our military might on the other side of the globe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military is for corporate interest as far as 90% of the right wing is concerned. If they don't realize that it is a fact then they are dumb. Thats their only excuse. You want to lead the world as far as corporate profits is concerned , pay for better education all free through college and beyond. We will lead the world economically for ever and will gain way more then the wasting of money on wars that are 100% lies , Like the Bush disaster.
Click to expand...


We borrowed $2 trillion to pay for our invasions and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan
How did it make us safer?

Meanwhile, we have 8500 people murdered each year. More in one year than we lost in ten years of those wars. We could fight gang wars and opiod addiction which are a bigger threat to our nation
We could build modern infrastructure not patch the infrastructure we built in the 50s


----------



## jbander

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> We have to pay for all of the Democrat's wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats voted against the invasion of Iraq
> 
> Cost us 5500 lives and $2 trillion
Click to expand...

Those 5500 were murders. In the biggest lie in decades. The two winners in that war were Halliburton and Carlyle. sound familiar?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Where would you like to make cuts?
> In the contracts?
> 
> oops, not allowed, and if you did, UE goes up.
> closing ports and bases?  what would you do with the extra personnel?
> copy what that vile fuck Clinton did and just shit on our men and women?
> 
> 
> yea, that's what you want, isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its good to have a few bases close to trouble spots, but we have 800 bases in 70 countries, Britain, france and Russia have 30 bases between them. So yes you dam right, bases will be a good place to start. Their should be zero wars, or police actions or military bases that exist to protect the bottom line of any corporations. This country and our allies spent 3 out of every 4 dollars spent on the military for all countries around the world. It's bullshit to think there is a real threat to us or any of our allies. that we can't take care of.
> There is only one party that has voted against veteran programs and money and that is the hate party . the democrats will always vote for good Veterans programs. These veterans should get a ton of support more then they do now. The men in the military should have a large enough increase in pay to make it it a better choice for young people deciding to go in the service. There is only one party that shits on the men and women in the military and as veterans. Again your hate party.
> There is only one reason why the hate party supports military buildup and that is for their pocket books and they have stupid enough supporters that they can talk their puppets into believing we need it , we don't , in fact its close to insanity, doing it.
Click to expand...

 
800 bases in 700 countries?  If you knew anything about the topic you would know that those "bases" are sometimes offices on host country's military bases.  

One of those bases like those that often gets counted was a runway in the Egyptian desert near the Red Sea that consisted of the runway and a tent!  It was there so the Air Force could fly in replacement parts, supplies, and personnel to the ships patrolling the waters after the Gulf War.   Total personnel permanently assigned?  Zero.

I used to work at one of those "bases' in the Navy.  We had half of a floor in a 3-story building in an office park in Alabama.  Our entire command had 5 officers and about 30 enlisted personnel.  We had about another 20 people assigned to a joint facility at a nearby Air Force Station.  Guess how many other bases we had in the state?  Zero.

Army posts like Fort Knox have been stripped of every deployable combat unit.  Tank ranges have sat dormant for years since the tanks were all moved to other posts.  Great swaths of land on posts like Fort Hood stand empty where buildings once housed troops.  Base housing is now rented out to civilians at both of these Army posts because there are no military personnel that need them.  The piers at Mayport Naval Base that used to be full of ships now sit mostly empty except for the LCS class of ships that are so broken down they cannot move.  Those three are just the ones I have seen with my own two eyes during the past summer.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wacko right think that we should dump massive amounts of money into the military. The reason is , their controllers make tons off of war and military buildup. The last Iraq war was a complete lie and the two companies that made the most out of the war was Carlyle group and Halliburton. Follow the money, you people with your ring in your nose will believe anything your masters tell you. In the whole world this country and it's allies spend 3 out of every 4 dollars spent on the military. Ya you bet we should worry. I don't and anyone with a ounce of sense wouldn't either. 97% of the wars this country has been in had nothing at all about protecting this country, literally all of them were lies and most of them we were the aggressor against the defenceless. Or killing our young for some corporation, That is what the right wants for this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lie..the Chinese got the majority control of Iraq's oil contracts
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China Is Reaping Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom
> 
> *China Is Reaping Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom*
> *China Reaps Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom*
> 
> 551
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about. Why should I care about who makes the most money in the Iraq of 2017, my point has to do with who would gain the most making war, and I answered it for you, Carlyle (Bush) and Halliburton (Cheney) and they created the lie that put us into that war.
Click to expand...


Saddam Hussein created the lie that put us into that war.  you obviously are too young to remember or to stupid to learn about it!  I was there!  You probably were not.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> We have to pay for all of the Democrat's wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats voted against the invasion of Iraq
> 
> Cost us 5500 lives and $2 trillion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those 5500 were murders. In the biggest lie in decades. The two winners in that war were Halliburton and Carlyle. sound familiar?
Click to expand...


I guess you are too stupid to know that Halliburton was and is an oil services company, and Carlyle is a private equity company.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about entering the military? Talking about defense union  contractor  jobs, building fighter planes, bombs, missles, aircraft carriers and the like , ya know we use them and sell them to our allies .
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me were the hell you see any of what you ask about in my comment.  My Quote-"It doesn't get more pitiful then that answer, make the tools for politicians to hand out to the young to go to a war that is a lie. and watch them get killed and say it creates more jobs." There is zero reason to make the amount of weapons we make as far as our military is concerned , half that amount is about right . You commenting supported that nonsense  is ridiculous. We have had what 200 wars in our history maybe a half dozen at the most were justified.   All we needed is not going to war to make some fatcat money and for wars that are lies. How much weapontry did we need for those  6 wars. not much. Making weapons so someone can get a job is absolute lunacy. In this country if you make it ,some weird right winger will find a way to use it so we can make more to feed their pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of rant is that? Didn't you ever read history books...at the turn of the 20 th century the world was like 90% filled with dictators and the like at the turn of the 21st century they are democratic ..
> 
> And who led the way?
> 
> 
> The United States with her military and views..
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if that isn't a example of blind ignorance .tell me what the military did to make these countrie democratic. They followed our example and had nothing to do with us  running around killing the defenceless. There has been no country in history that has supported more military dictatorships then us. What a goofball. You tell me which countries in the world support our militarism around the world. Since they were all turned into democracy because of our military, tell me why they don't support our military actions. and there is no country in the world that is more hated then this us. These countries and people who hate us around the world  are wrong but you throw shit all over the world and dictate to other countries and if that's all they see , they will hate you every time.  There has been no president then the gum drop that is hated more by the rest of the world ,in our history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another rant? Again don't you read the history books or are you feed indoctrination?
> 
> God damn son once again America with her military might changed the world to democracy you ignorant fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't a complicated question I asked you a simple question, you said our military turned country's into democracy's , tell us a little about that , How did they do that. Which country by the way. If you don't respond and just shoot back the old I don't like you and the your dumb routine you are gone. your out of here.
Click to expand...


Afghanistan and Iraq are democracies.  You may disagree, but that is your ignorance showing again.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of rant is that? Didn't you ever read history books...at the turn of the 20 th century the world was like 90% filled with dictators and the like at the turn of the 21st century they are democratic ..
> 
> And who led the way?
> 
> 
> The United States with her military and views..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if that isn't a example of blind ignorance .tell me what the military did to make these countrie democratic. They followed our example and had nothing to do with us  running around killing the defenceless. There has been no country in history that has supported more military dictatorships then us. What a goofball. You tell me which countries in the world support our militarism around the world. Since they were all turned into democracy because of our military, tell me why they don't support our military actions. and there is no country in the world that is more hated then this us. These countries and people who hate us around the world  are wrong but you throw shit all over the world and dictate to other countries and if that's all they see , they will hate you every time.  There has been no president then the gum drop that is hated more by the rest of the world ,in our history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another rant? Again don't you read the history books or are you feed indoctrination?
> 
> God damn son once again America with her military might changed the world to democracy you ignorant fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't a complicated question I asked you a simple question, you said our military turned country's into democracy's , tell us a little about that , How did they do that. Which country by the way. If you don't respond and just shoot back the old I don't like you and the your dumb routine you are gone. your out of here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is this a threat you going to put me on ignore? Promises promises..
> 
> So now I have to re educate you after years of indoctrination by your liberal school teachers?
> 
> Here is an idea think for your self..and research the years between 1890s till today..
> 
> It was all about America and her military..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you to respond to the thread and that doesn't include you telling me you don't like me and I'm dumb. Why would I care what you think of me. it is a total waste of my time and anyone who is following this thread.Your Gone.
Click to expand...


His gone what?  Gone cannot belong to him.


----------



## rightwinger

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me were the hell you see any of what you ask about in my comment.  My Quote-"It doesn't get more pitiful then that answer, make the tools for politicians to hand out to the young to go to a war that is a lie. and watch them get killed and say it creates more jobs." There is zero reason to make the amount of weapons we make as far as our military is concerned , half that amount is about right . You commenting supported that nonsense  is ridiculous. We have had what 200 wars in our history maybe a half dozen at the most were justified.   All we needed is not going to war to make some fatcat money and for wars that are lies. How much weapontry did we need for those  6 wars. not much. Making weapons so someone can get a job is absolute lunacy. In this country if you make it ,some weird right winger will find a way to use it so we can make more to feed their pockets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of rant is that? Didn't you ever read history books...at the turn of the 20 th century the world was like 90% filled with dictators and the like at the turn of the 21st century they are democratic ..
> 
> And who led the way?
> 
> 
> The United States with her military and views..
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if that isn't a example of blind ignorance .tell me what the military did to make these countrie democratic. They followed our example and had nothing to do with us  running around killing the defenceless. There has been no country in history that has supported more military dictatorships then us. What a goofball. You tell me which countries in the world support our militarism around the world. Since they were all turned into democracy because of our military, tell me why they don't support our military actions. and there is no country in the world that is more hated then this us. These countries and people who hate us around the world  are wrong but you throw shit all over the world and dictate to other countries and if that's all they see , they will hate you every time.  There has been no president then the gum drop that is hated more by the rest of the world ,in our history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another rant? Again don't you read the history books or are you feed indoctrination?
> 
> God damn son once again America with her military might changed the world to democracy you ignorant fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't a complicated question I asked you a simple question, you said our military turned country's into democracy's , tell us a little about that , How did they do that. Which country by the way. If you don't respond and just shoot back the old I don't like you and the your dumb routine you are gone. your out of here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Afghanistan and Iraq are democracies.  You may disagree, but that is your ignorance showing again.
Click to expand...

Quasi-Democracies that rely on our troops to prop them up

Not worth the thousands of lives or trillions of dollars we spent


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost every branch of military is unready for anything other than minor ops. Try to  keep up
> 
> 
> 
> That has me rolling on the floor, you keep up. Your comment has zero connection to facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cant help it you are ignorant'''
> Today the Navy and Marine Corps are facing a fundamental choice: maintain current levels of forward presence and risk breaking the force or reduce presence and restore readiness through adequate training, maintenance, and time at home. This choice is driven by the supply of ready naval forces being too small to meet the demand from Combatant Commanders, as adjudicated by the Secretary of Defense. To close the gap, the Department of Defense (DoD) will need to grow the fleet and force, base more ships overseas, or pay to maintain a higher operating tempo. Deploying Beyond Their Means: America’s Navy and Marine Corps At a Tipping Point | RealClearDefense
> Air Force is short 1000 pilots
> Most of Naval Air cant fly due to lack of maintenance
> 
> Today, only about 1/3 of our BCTs, 1/4 of our Combat Aviation Brigades and half of our Division Headquarters are ready. Of the BCTs that are ready, only three could be called upon to fight tonight in the event of a crisis. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20170207/105530/HHRG-115-AS00-Wstate-AllynD-20170207.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit thats the point, pressance is what has to go we ar e in 300 to 800 bases outside of our country ,depending how you count bases. The rest of the world 15 or 20. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Your source is as idiotic as you can get. Even the military denies most of this bullshit your trying to sell here. From your bullshit source. I'd advise anyone who is interested to look at the first joke page this guy gives as a source. The second is better but leave out the fact that we shouldn't be in 95% of the areas we have combat troops in now and with that taken care of , we are in fantastic shape. That's the whole point we shouldn't be there. It is not protecting this country it is only supporting corporate interest. There is no reason in the world that any Young American dies for any fucking corporate interest......
> This response from this nut with the ring in his nose should be looked at for it's insanity, look at what he is trying to sell and look at the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didnt bother to read did ya.......yeah we could spend less in other areas......savings however would not cover this shortage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/
Click to expand...


The rest of the world has 20?  Where did you dig up that BS figure?

France has 12 foreign bases all by themselves!

Russia has 10 foreign bases.

That makes more than 20 right there Buckwheat!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Be real over half our budget is given to the military,* You wanting a military to protect the corporate interest of this country with the lives of our young is insane. You seem to think very little of the people in our service. Tell me of our 200 plus wars show me more then a handful that needed to be fraught. One attack on our shores. There is way more wars that we simply murdered people then wars that had to be fought.
Click to expand...


Your lie is in the red text.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us
> 
> Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman.  We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies
> 
> By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well said
> 
> Let's protect our children. Use our resources to combat gang violence , fight domestic abuse, expand children's healthcare
> 
> Makes more sense than extending our military might on the other side of the globe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military is for corporate interest as far as 90% of the right wing is concerned. If they don't realize that it is a fact then they are dumb. Thats their only excuse. You want to lead the world as far as corporate profits is concerned , pay for better education all free through college and beyond. We will lead the world economically for ever and will gain way more then the wasting of money on wars that are 100% lies , Like the Bush disaster.
Click to expand...


You are a prime example of how a college education would be wasted on someone like you.  You are dumber than a post and lie so often that you cannot string a fact together if your life depended on it.


----------



## rightwinger

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has me rolling on the floor, you keep up. Your comment has zero connection to facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Cant help it you are ignorant'''
> Today the Navy and Marine Corps are facing a fundamental choice: maintain current levels of forward presence and risk breaking the force or reduce presence and restore readiness through adequate training, maintenance, and time at home. This choice is driven by the supply of ready naval forces being too small to meet the demand from Combatant Commanders, as adjudicated by the Secretary of Defense. To close the gap, the Department of Defense (DoD) will need to grow the fleet and force, base more ships overseas, or pay to maintain a higher operating tempo. Deploying Beyond Their Means: America’s Navy and Marine Corps At a Tipping Point | RealClearDefense
> Air Force is short 1000 pilots
> Most of Naval Air cant fly due to lack of maintenance
> 
> Today, only about 1/3 of our BCTs, 1/4 of our Combat Aviation Brigades and half of our Division Headquarters are ready. Of the BCTs that are ready, only three could be called upon to fight tonight in the event of a crisis. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20170207/105530/HHRG-115-AS00-Wstate-AllynD-20170207.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit thats the point, pressance is what has to go we ar e in 300 to 800 bases outside of our country ,depending how you count bases. The rest of the world 15 or 20. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Your source is as idiotic as you can get. Even the military denies most of this bullshit your trying to sell here. From your bullshit source. I'd advise anyone who is interested to look at the first joke page this guy gives as a source. The second is better but leave out the fact that we shouldn't be in 95% of the areas we have combat troops in now and with that taken care of , we are in fantastic shape. That's the whole point we shouldn't be there. It is not protecting this country it is only supporting corporate interest. There is no reason in the world that any Young American dies for any fucking corporate interest......
> This response from this nut with the ring in his nose should be looked at for it's insanity, look at what he is trying to sell and look at the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didnt bother to read did ya.......yeah we could spend less in other areas......savings however would not cover this shortage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rest of the world has 20?  Where did you dig up that BS figure?
> 
> France has 12 foreign bases all by themselves!
> 
> Russia has 10 foreign bases.
> 
> That makes more than 20 right there Buckwheat!
Click to expand...

Whoop de freak'n do


----------



## rightwinger

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us
> 
> Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman.  We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies
> 
> By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well said
> 
> Let's protect our children. Use our resources to combat gang violence , fight domestic abuse, expand children's healthcare
> 
> Makes more sense than extending our military might on the other side of the globe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military is for corporate interest as far as 90% of the right wing is concerned. If they don't realize that it is a fact then they are dumb. Thats their only excuse. You want to lead the world as far as corporate profits is concerned , pay for better education all free through college and beyond. We will lead the world economically for ever and will gain way more then the wasting of money on wars that are 100% lies , Like the Bush disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of how a college education would be wasted on someone like you.  You are dumber than a post and lie so often that you cannot string a fact together if your life depended on it.
Click to expand...

Our military does not defend our borders. We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military

Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

rightwinger said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us
> 
> Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman.  We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies
> 
> By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well said
> 
> Let's protect our children. Use our resources to combat gang violence , fight domestic abuse, expand children's healthcare
> 
> Makes more sense than extending our military might on the other side of the globe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military is for corporate interest as far as 90% of the right wing is concerned. If they don't realize that it is a fact then they are dumb. Thats their only excuse. You want to lead the world as far as corporate profits is concerned , pay for better education all free through college and beyond. We will lead the world economically for ever and will gain way more then the wasting of money on wars that are 100% lies , Like the Bush disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of how a college education would be wasted on someone like you.  You are dumber than a post and lie so often that you cannot string a fact together if your life depended on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Our military does not defend our borders.* We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
Click to expand...


We have a Border Patrol.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

rightwinger said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cant help it you are ignorant'''
> Today the Navy and Marine Corps are facing a fundamental choice: maintain current levels of forward presence and risk breaking the force or reduce presence and restore readiness through adequate training, maintenance, and time at home. This choice is driven by the supply of ready naval forces being too small to meet the demand from Combatant Commanders, as adjudicated by the Secretary of Defense. To close the gap, the Department of Defense (DoD) will need to grow the fleet and force, base more ships overseas, or pay to maintain a higher operating tempo. Deploying Beyond Their Means: America’s Navy and Marine Corps At a Tipping Point | RealClearDefense
> Air Force is short 1000 pilots
> Most of Naval Air cant fly due to lack of maintenance
> 
> Today, only about 1/3 of our BCTs, 1/4 of our Combat Aviation Brigades and half of our Division Headquarters are ready. Of the BCTs that are ready, only three could be called upon to fight tonight in the event of a crisis. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20170207/105530/HHRG-115-AS00-Wstate-AllynD-20170207.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit thats the point, pressance is what has to go we ar e in 300 to 800 bases outside of our country ,depending how you count bases. The rest of the world 15 or 20. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Your source is as idiotic as you can get. Even the military denies most of this bullshit your trying to sell here. From your bullshit source. I'd advise anyone who is interested to look at the first joke page this guy gives as a source. The second is better but leave out the fact that we shouldn't be in 95% of the areas we have combat troops in now and with that taken care of , we are in fantastic shape. That's the whole point we shouldn't be there. It is not protecting this country it is only supporting corporate interest. There is no reason in the world that any Young American dies for any fucking corporate interest......
> This response from this nut with the ring in his nose should be looked at for it's insanity, look at what he is trying to sell and look at the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didnt bother to read did ya.......yeah we could spend less in other areas......savings however would not cover this shortage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rest of the world has 20?  Where did you dig up that BS figure?
> 
> France has 12 foreign bases all by themselves!
> 
> Russia has 10 foreign bases.
> 
> That makes more than 20 right there Buckwheat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whoop de freak'n do
Click to expand...


The claim was false.

Do you have something to add, or is that the extent of your vocabulary?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON: A massive maintenance backlog has idled 15 nuclear-powered attack submarines for a total of 177 months, and the Navy’s plan to mitigate the problem is jeopardized by budget gridlock, two House Armed Services Committee staffers told _Breaking Defense_. 15 Subs Kept Out of Service: 177 Months Of Drydock Backups
> 
> 
> 
> Good it's a waste of money , this is cheaper and there's no real threat to this country anyway, take the corporation out of this scenario and we would have no military problem at all with half the money. You want to send these poor young people to get killed for the bottom line of corporations. Hell you don't give a shit about these young people or this country.You top the list of just another ignorant gun bubba, wanting to kill everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no connection to reality do you......one absurdity after another
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON: A massive maintenance backlog has idled 15 nuclear-powered attack submarines for a total of 177 months, and the Navy’s plan to mitigate the problem is jeopardized by budget gridlock, two House Armed Services Committee staffers told _Breaking Defense_. 15 Subs Kept Out of Service: 177 Months Of Drydock Backups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good it's a waste of money , this is cheaper and there's no real threat to this country anyway, take the corporation out of this scenario and we would have no military problem at all with half the money. You want to send these poor young people to get killed for the bottom line of corporations. Hell you don't give a shit about these young people or this country.You top the list of just another ignorant gun bubba, wanting to kill everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no connection to reality do you....just one absurdity after another as you try to deny the damage Obama did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee where did that come from I never brought up Obama's name. Like I said they need the military budget should be  cut right in half . It would be more then what we need to protect our shores. I don't give a fuck about any corporate interest if I have to trade it for the lives of the young.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing wrong with having global interests
> But our use of our military has been, at best, hit or miss
> We do some good and prop up friendly governments around the world
> 
> But we also wasted unnecessary lives in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan
> 
> We need to reassess our military priorities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to know how bad this country has been as far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
> We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line.
Click to expand...


What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Lewdog said:


> So where is all the violence the Trump Supporting sites had warned about?





rightwinger said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us
> 
> Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman.  We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies
> 
> By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well said
> 
> Let's protect our children. Use our resources to combat gang violence , fight domestic abuse, expand children's healthcare
> 
> Makes more sense than extending our military might on the other side of the globe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military is for corporate interest as far as 90% of the right wing is concerned. If they don't realize that it is a fact then they are dumb. Thats their only excuse. You want to lead the world as far as corporate profits is concerned , pay for better education all free through college and beyond. We will lead the world economically for ever and will gain way more then the wasting of money on wars that are 100% lies , Like the Bush disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of how a college education would be wasted on someone like you.  You are dumber than a post and lie so often that you cannot string a fact together if your life depended on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our military does not defend our borders. We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
Click to expand...


Obama and Co. outlawed defending our borders; it was upsetting the illegal aliens.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

The way to protect against gang violence is to raise our children right and don't allow them to join gangs. Can't say that gangbangers killing each other is such a bad thing but someone needs to instruct them in marksmanship so we won't have to throw so much money away on their unpaid ER bills.


rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us
> 
> Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman.  We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies
> 
> By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well said
> 
> Let's protect our children. Use our resources to combat gang violence , fight domestic abuse, expand children's healthcare
> 
> Makes more sense than extending our military might on the other side of the globe
Click to expand...


The way to protect against gang violence is to raise our children right and don't allow them to join gangs. Can't say that gangbangers killing each other is such a bad thing but someone needs to instruct them in marksmanship so we won't have to throw so much money away on their unpaid ER bills.


----------



## Peach

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the fact that some of the housing, including where my daughter lives, was built in the 1960s and is slowly falling apart?
> 
> How about the fact that most of junior enlisted personnel qualify for SNAP?
> 
> How about the fact that our military is being stretched thin by deployments in Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and disaster relief in the Caribbean?
> 
> How about the fact that much of the equipment is being worn out due to the increased operating tempo?
> 
> How about the fact that lack of sleep caused by crew members on Navy ships has been cited as a cause of numerous accidents?
Click to expand...


You anticipated my post, less on hardware, more on service personnel. You find out real quick that some expect ROBOTS to give up life and serve, without pay, benefits or anything but SERVING.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Peach said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the fact that some of the housing, including where my daughter lives, was built in the 1960s and is slowly falling apart?
> 
> How about the fact that most of junior enlisted personnel qualify for SNAP?
> 
> How about the fact that our military is being stretched thin by deployments in Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and disaster relief in the Caribbean?
> 
> How about the fact that much of the equipment is being worn out due to the increased operating tempo?
> 
> How about the fact that lack of sleep caused by crew members on Navy ships has been cited as a cause of numerous accidents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You anticipated my post, less on hardware, more on service personnel. You find out real quick that some expect ROBOTS to give up life and serve, without pay, benefits or anything but SERVING.
Click to expand...


My daughter is a Transportation platoon leader.  She has several cargo handling trucks that are used to transport conex containers.  They carry their own systems to move these containers.  Exactly zero were operable because they spent a tour in Afghanistan and broke down once they returned,  There is almost no way to fix them without replacing the entire unit, as the Maintenance Platoon has tried for almost a year.  They loaded them onto trains and transported them halfway across the country and when they returned a few months ago, every one is broken down again.  That's many pieces of equipment that must be repaired of replaced before they deploy again.  There is no money allocated to do that.  They can load them on ships and send them over broken, but they still will not be fixed and that could get someone killed.


----------



## Peach

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the fact that some of the housing, including where my daughter lives, was built in the 1960s and is slowly falling apart?
> 
> How about the fact that most of junior enlisted personnel qualify for SNAP?
> 
> How about the fact that our military is being stretched thin by deployments in Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and disaster relief in the Caribbean?
> 
> How about the fact that much of the equipment is being worn out due to the increased operating tempo?
> 
> How about the fact that lack of sleep caused by crew members on Navy ships has been cited as a cause of numerous accidents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You anticipated my post, less on hardware, more on service personnel. You find out real quick that some expect ROBOTS to give up life and serve, without pay, benefits or anything but SERVING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My daughter is a Transportation platoon leader.  She has several cargo handling trucks that are used to transport conex containers.  They carry their own systems to move these containers.  Exactly zero were operable because they spent a tour in Afghanistan and broke down once they returned,  There is almost no way to fix them without replacing the entire unit, as the Maintenance Platoon has tried for almost a year.  They loaded them onto trains and transported them halfway across the country and when they returned a few months ago, every one is broken down again.  That's many pieces of equipment that must be repaired of replaced before they deploy again.  There is no money allocated to do that.  They can load them on ships and send them over broken, but they still will not be fixed and that could get someone killed.
Click to expand...


Then more on up keep, less on 'new' weaponry or an increase is required,  two long wars, in Afghanistan, and Iraq drained systems as well as cost lives. Neither helped the economy in the states. That was unusual. Another service member killed in Afghanistan today. We should have finished that one off before the Iraq disaster.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Peach said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the fact that some of the housing, including where my daughter lives, was built in the 1960s and is slowly falling apart?
> 
> How about the fact that most of junior enlisted personnel qualify for SNAP?
> 
> How about the fact that our military is being stretched thin by deployments in Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and disaster relief in the Caribbean?
> 
> How about the fact that much of the equipment is being worn out due to the increased operating tempo?
> 
> How about the fact that lack of sleep caused by crew members on Navy ships has been cited as a cause of numerous accidents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You anticipated my post, less on hardware, more on service personnel. You find out real quick that some expect ROBOTS to give up life and serve, without pay, benefits or anything but SERVING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My daughter is a Transportation platoon leader.  She has several cargo handling trucks that are used to transport conex containers.  They carry their own systems to move these containers.  Exactly zero were operable because they spent a tour in Afghanistan and broke down once they returned,  There is almost no way to fix them without replacing the entire unit, as the Maintenance Platoon has tried for almost a year.  They loaded them onto trains and transported them halfway across the country and when they returned a few months ago, every one is broken down again.  That's many pieces of equipment that must be repaired of replaced before they deploy again.  There is no money allocated to do that.  They can load them on ships and send them over broken, but they still will not be fixed and that could get someone killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then more on up keep, less on 'new' weaponry or an increase is required,  two long wars, in Afghanistan, and Iraq drained systems as well as cost lives. Neither helped the economy in the states. That was unusual. Another service member killed in Afghanistan today. We should have finished that one off before the Iraq disaster.
Click to expand...


The Afghanistan death was not combat related and occurred in a helicopter crash.  While that does not diminish his sacrifice, it shows how a much larger number of our deaths are not combat related than are.

.


----------



## jbander

Manonthestreet said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has me rolling on the floor, you keep up. Your comment has zero connection to facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Cant help it you are ignorant'''
> Today the Navy and Marine Corps are facing a fundamental choice: maintain current levels of forward presence and risk breaking the force or reduce presence and restore readiness through adequate training, maintenance, and time at home. This choice is driven by the supply of ready naval forces being too small to meet the demand from Combatant Commanders, as adjudicated by the Secretary of Defense. To close the gap, the Department of Defense (DoD) will need to grow the fleet and force, base more ships overseas, or pay to maintain a higher operating tempo. Deploying Beyond Their Means: America’s Navy and Marine Corps At a Tipping Point | RealClearDefense
> Air Force is short 1000 pilots
> Most of Naval Air cant fly due to lack of maintenance
> 
> Today, only about 1/3 of our BCTs, 1/4 of our Combat Aviation Brigades and half of our Division Headquarters are ready. Of the BCTs that are ready, only three could be called upon to fight tonight in the event of a crisis. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20170207/105530/HHRG-115-AS00-Wstate-AllynD-20170207.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit thats the point, pressance is what has to go we ar e in 300 to 800 bases outside of our country ,depending how you count bases. The rest of the world 15 or 20. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Your source is as idiotic as you can get. Even the military denies most of this bullshit your trying to sell here. From your bullshit source. I'd advise anyone who is interested to look at the first joke page this guy gives as a source. The second is better but leave out the fact that we shouldn't be in 95% of the areas we have combat troops in now and with that taken care of , we are in fantastic shape. That's the whole point we shouldn't be there. It is not protecting this country it is only supporting corporate interest. There is no reason in the world that any Young American dies for any fucking corporate interest......
> This response from this nut with the ring in his nose should be looked at for it's insanity, look at what he is trying to sell and look at the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didnt bother to read did ya.......yeah we could spend less in other areas......savings however would not cover this shortage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LLMMMaaaooo......deny all you want .......talking point trooper......still just your uninformed opinion
Click to expand...

ya you bet , it's your own reference that I'm responding out of. Your just another gun bubba that wants our young killed  dead  for the bottom line profits of corporation that would eat our children for their bottom line. How stupid do you have to be to sell out the young in this country and the country itself by having them get killed for some company you have invested in.  That is the description of the lowest kind of human being.


----------



## jbander

Manonthestreet said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/
> 
> 
> 
> LLMMMaaaooo......deny all you want .......talking point trooper......still just your uninformed opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deny bullshit , I have all the facts on my side , Your want a military that goes out and kills and gets itself killed for corporations to make money, you being a dumb mindless fuck, you Don't look at shit and if you did you would be to dumb to understand anyway. , you're too busy trying to sell your hate and how you want to use our young and very best for gun fodder. You're just part of the hate party that's made up of blind ignorant fucks that want to have a few people killed, even out of our own, so you can get your rocks off. Your a waste of humanity and your hate party is made up of thousand off you pukes. and you and you God and Leader President Scum Bag have to go. And it will happen when this country see that people like you are ignorant bastards that don't have anything except hate to share with the rest of you pukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You havent posted any facts....only your uninformed opinion........when you have maintenance crews visiting museums to strip parts off exhibits ya might have a prob eh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> kiss off you empty headed puke , your a waste of time and bandwidth. You don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me know when you get to some facts eh......
Click to expand...

 You think I owe people I hate a fact about anything. I can piss on you, spit on you , and throw you in a cesspool  but I don't have to do anything I don't want to with this lower form of life that  now makes up the hate party , with the crown prince of scum as their leader. The people who put him in office are barely above a animals, dog cat cow, hell I would rather see them in the ditch then to see a dead cat next to the road.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

jbander said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> LLMMMaaaooo......deny all you want .......talking point trooper......still just your uninformed opinion
> 
> 
> 
> Deny bullshit , I have all the facts on my side , Your want a military that goes out and kills and gets itself killed for corporations to make money, you being a dumb mindless fuck, you Don't look at shit and if you did you would be to dumb to understand anyway. , you're too busy trying to sell your hate and how you want to use our young and very best for gun fodder. You're just part of the hate party that's made up of blind ignorant fucks that want to have a few people killed, even out of our own, so you can get your rocks off. Your a waste of humanity and your hate party is made up of thousand off you pukes. and you and you God and Leader President Scum Bag have to go. And it will happen when this country see that people like you are ignorant bastards that don't have anything except hate to share with the rest of you pukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You havent posted any facts....only your uninformed opinion........when you have maintenance crews visiting museums to strip parts off exhibits ya might have a prob eh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> kiss off you empty headed puke , your a waste of time and bandwidth. You don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me know when you get to some facts eh......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think I owe people I hate a fact about anything. I can piss on you, spit on you , and throw you in a cesspool  but I don't have to do anything I don't want to with this lower form of life that  now makes up the hate party , with the crown prince of scum as their leader. The people who put him in office are barely above a animals, dog cat cow, hell I would rather see them in the ditch then to see a dead cat next to the road.
Click to expand...


I will waste no more time reading your insane rantings.  Please get help!


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
Click to expand...

 Bullshit The police are in charge of protecting the people, the military are charged with protecting our shores, That totally throws out 95% of the wars we have been in. WE have had our shore attacked one time in history, That one time is the only time they were needed to protect our shores. You have spen way to much of your life believing in the bullshit that is rattling around your head. Example Bush should be straight out charged with murder of 5000 American Hero's


----------



## jbander

mudwhistle said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us
> 
> Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman.  We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies
> 
> By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only threat that I've seen to freedom is sitting in the president's chair , their president is a pile of shit. The military is there to protect this country. Maybe you could become the laughing stock of this thread by bringing up something like the Domino effect, some cute name  that can be used to call some non existing threat to our borders. that allows you to send out our children to die for corporations interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but the pile of shit left office last January.
Click to expand...

 If you want to improve this forum ignore the stupidity that comes out of people like these brain dead, not responding to anything except that they hate you and think your a liar. That is about as interesting as stupidity  and as stupid as it gets. 
 They are a waste of time , they are just a waste period.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good it's a waste of money , this is cheaper and there's no real threat to this country anyway, take the corporation out of this scenario and we would have no military problem at all with half the money. You want to send these poor young people to get killed for the bottom line of corporations. Hell you don't give a shit about these young people or this country.You top the list of just another ignorant gun bubba, wanting to kill everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no connection to reality do you......one absurdity after another
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good it's a waste of money , this is cheaper and there's no real threat to this country anyway, take the corporation out of this scenario and we would have no military problem at all with half the money. You want to send these poor young people to get killed for the bottom line of corporations. Hell you don't give a shit about these young people or this country.You top the list of just another ignorant gun bubba, wanting to kill everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no connection to reality do you....just one absurdity after another as you try to deny the damage Obama did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee where did that come from I never brought up Obama's name. Like I said they need the military budget should be  cut right in half . It would be more then what we need to protect our shores. I don't give a fuck about any corporate interest if I have to trade it for the lives of the young.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing wrong with having global interests
> But our use of our military has been, at best, hit or miss
> We do some good and prop up friendly governments around the world
> 
> But we also wasted unnecessary lives in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan
> 
> We need to reassess our military priorities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to know how bad this country has been as far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
> We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
> WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?
Click to expand...

 This is as clear a example as can be seen on how stupid stupid can get. We have had two wars that we have been attacked, SO you admit then that we didn't have a reason in the world to be involved in the other 200 plus wars we have been in. The word is brain dead/


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is all the violence the Trump Supporting sites had warned about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well said
> 
> Let's protect our children. Use our resources to combat gang violence , fight domestic abuse, expand children's healthcare
> 
> Makes more sense than extending our military might on the other side of the globe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military is for corporate interest as far as 90% of the right wing is concerned. If they don't realize that it is a fact then they are dumb. Thats their only excuse. You want to lead the world as far as corporate profits is concerned , pay for better education all free through college and beyond. We will lead the world economically for ever and will gain way more then the wasting of money on wars that are 100% lies , Like the Bush disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of how a college education would be wasted on someone like you.  You are dumber than a post and lie so often that you cannot string a fact together if your life depended on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our military does not defend our borders. We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama and Co. outlawed defending our borders; it was upsetting the illegal aliens.
Click to expand...

 His IQ has literally dropped 10 points after every time he responds here.


----------



## Lewdog

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is all the violence the Trump Supporting sites had warned about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said
> 
> Let's protect our children. Use our resources to combat gang violence , fight domestic abuse, expand children's healthcare
> 
> Makes more sense than extending our military might on the other side of the globe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military is for corporate interest as far as 90% of the right wing is concerned. If they don't realize that it is a fact then they are dumb. Thats their only excuse. You want to lead the world as far as corporate profits is concerned , pay for better education all free through college and beyond. We will lead the world economically for ever and will gain way more then the wasting of money on wars that are 100% lies , Like the Bush disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of how a college education would be wasted on someone like you.  You are dumber than a post and lie so often that you cannot string a fact together if your life depended on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our military does not defend our borders. We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama and Co. outlawed defending our borders; it was upsetting the illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His IQ has literally dropped 10 points after every time he responds here.
Click to expand...



There is actually a name for why our military is so large and why we are in more countries than any other country in the world combined...

It's called the Truman Doctrine.  Look it up.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> The way to protect against gang violence is to raise our children right and don't allow them to join gangs. Can't say that gangbangers killing each other is such a bad thing but someone needs to instruct them in marksmanship so we won't have to throw so much money away on their unpaid ER bills.
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us
> 
> Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman.  We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies
> 
> By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well said
> 
> Let's protect our children. Use our resources to combat gang violence , fight domestic abuse, expand children's healthcare
> 
> Makes more sense than extending our military might on the other side of the globe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way to protect against gang violence is to raise our children right and don't allow them to join gangs. Can't say that gangbangers killing each other is such a bad thing but someone needs to instruct them in marksmanship so we won't have to throw so much money away on their unpaid ER bills.
Click to expand...

DA whoot we cin du is raise ur kid lik grama usted.


----------



## jbander

Lewdog said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is all the violence the Trump Supporting sites had warned about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military is for corporate interest as far as 90% of the right wing is concerned. If they don't realize that it is a fact then they are dumb. Thats their only excuse. You want to lead the world as far as corporate profits is concerned , pay for better education all free through college and beyond. We will lead the world economically for ever and will gain way more then the wasting of money on wars that are 100% lies , Like the Bush disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of how a college education would be wasted on someone like you.  You are dumber than a post and lie so often that you cannot string a fact together if your life depended on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our military does not defend our borders. We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama and Co. outlawed defending our borders; it was upsetting the illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His IQ has literally dropped 10 points after every time he responds here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is actually a name for why our military is so large and why we are in more countries than any other country in the world combined...
> 
> It's called the Truman Doctrine.  Look it up.
Click to expand...

 The origin of one of the stupidest policy in the history of this country, the Domino theory. What a laugh millions killed over something that was the Military industrial complex biggest friend and as always just another lie.  Carlyle and Halliburton where the last two big winners in the Bush lie till they die war. Every bit of it was 100% lie.


----------



## Lewdog

jbander said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is all the violence the Trump Supporting sites had warned about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of how a college education would be wasted on someone like you.  You are dumber than a post and lie so often that you cannot string a fact together if your life depended on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our military does not defend our borders. We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama and Co. outlawed defending our borders; it was upsetting the illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His IQ has literally dropped 10 points after every time he responds here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is actually a name for why our military is so large and why we are in more countries than any other country in the world combined...
> 
> It's called the Truman Doctrine.  Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The origin of one of the stupidest policy in the history of this country, the Domino theory. What a laugh millions killed over something that was the Military industrial complex biggest friend and as always just another lie.  Carlyle and Halliburton where the last two big winners in the Bush lie till they die war. Every bit of it was 100% lie.
Click to expand...



Are you saying what I posted was a lie?  Or that our country lies to us and other countries about our purpose for being so spread throughout the world?  Saying we are there for their protection and to spread democracy... when we are actually there just to protect the private assets of U.S. companies there?


----------



## rightwinger

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.
> 
> 
> 
> Well said
> 
> Let's protect our children. Use our resources to combat gang violence , fight domestic abuse, expand children's healthcare
> 
> Makes more sense than extending our military might on the other side of the globe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military is for corporate interest as far as 90% of the right wing is concerned. If they don't realize that it is a fact then they are dumb. Thats their only excuse. You want to lead the world as far as corporate profits is concerned , pay for better education all free through college and beyond. We will lead the world economically for ever and will gain way more then the wasting of money on wars that are 100% lies , Like the Bush disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of how a college education would be wasted on someone like you.  You are dumber than a post and lie so often that you cannot string a fact together if your life depended on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Our military does not defend our borders.* We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a Border Patrol.
Click to expand...

And they haven't seen an enemy invasion in 200 years


----------



## rightwinger

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit thats the point, pressance is what has to go we ar e in 300 to 800 bases outside of our country ,depending how you count bases. The rest of the world 15 or 20. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Your source is as idiotic as you can get. Even the military denies most of this bullshit your trying to sell here. From your bullshit source. I'd advise anyone who is interested to look at the first joke page this guy gives as a source. The second is better but leave out the fact that we shouldn't be in 95% of the areas we have combat troops in now and with that taken care of , we are in fantastic shape. That's the whole point we shouldn't be there. It is not protecting this country it is only supporting corporate interest. There is no reason in the world that any Young American dies for any fucking corporate interest......
> This response from this nut with the ring in his nose should be looked at for it's insanity, look at what he is trying to sell and look at the facts
> 
> 
> 
> Didnt bother to read did ya.......yeah we could spend less in other areas......savings however would not cover this shortage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rest of the world has 20?  Where did you dig up that BS figure?
> 
> France has 12 foreign bases all by themselves!
> 
> Russia has 10 foreign bases.
> 
> That makes more than 20 right there Buckwheat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whoop de freak'n do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claim was false.
> 
> Do you have something to add, or is that the extent of your vocabulary?
Click to expand...

You proved his point


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> The way to protect against gang violence is to raise our children right and don't allow them to join gangs. Can't say that gangbangers killing each other is such a bad thing but someone needs to instruct them in marksmanship so we won't have to throw so much money away on their unpaid ER bills.
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us
> 
> Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman.  We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies
> 
> By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well said
> 
> Let's protect our children. Use our resources to combat gang violence , fight domestic abuse, expand children's healthcare
> 
> Makes more sense than extending our military might on the other side of the globe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way to protect against gang violence is to raise our children right and don't allow them to join gangs. Can't say that gangbangers killing each other is such a bad thing but someone needs to instruct them in marksmanship so we won't have to throw so much money away on their unpaid ER bills.
Click to expand...

If the issue is the safety and security of our people, the solution is not fighting a war 14,000 miles away
There are more pressing threats to our citizens right here


----------



## Peach

Lewdog said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is all the violence the Trump Supporting sites had warned about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military is for corporate interest as far as 90% of the right wing is concerned. If they don't realize that it is a fact then they are dumb. Thats their only excuse. You want to lead the world as far as corporate profits is concerned , pay for better education all free through college and beyond. We will lead the world economically for ever and will gain way more then the wasting of money on wars that are 100% lies , Like the Bush disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of how a college education would be wasted on someone like you.  You are dumber than a post and lie so often that you cannot string a fact together if your life depended on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our military does not defend our borders. We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama and Co. outlawed defending our borders; it was upsetting the illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His IQ has literally dropped 10 points after every time he responds here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is actually a name for why our military is so large and why we are in more countries than any other country in the world combined...
> 
> It's called the Truman Doctrine.  Look it up.
Click to expand...


Civil War, WWI, and WWII.


----------



## jbander

Lewdog said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is all the violence the Trump Supporting sites had warned about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our military does not defend our borders. We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama and Co. outlawed defending our borders; it was upsetting the illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His IQ has literally dropped 10 points after every time he responds here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is actually a name for why our military is so large and why we are in more countries than any other country in the world combined...
> 
> It's called the Truman Doctrine.  Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The origin of one of the stupidest policy in the history of this country, the Domino theory. What a laugh millions killed over something that was the Military industrial complex biggest friend and as always just another lie.  Carlyle and Halliburton where the last two big winners in the Bush lie till they die war. Every bit of it was 100% lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying what I posted was a lie?  Or that our country lies to us and other countries about our purpose for being so spread throughout the world?  Saying we are there for their protection and to spread democracy... when we are actually there just to protect the private assets of U.S. companies there?
Click to expand...

Your post was not a lie, the lie is from our corporate America, that has to stop. There is not one bottom line issue that's worth one death of the young that are in our military, not one. They are simply using their deaths to make money.


----------



## rightwinger

jbander said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama and Co. outlawed defending our borders; it was upsetting the illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> His IQ has literally dropped 10 points after every time he responds here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is actually a name for why our military is so large and why we are in more countries than any other country in the world combined...
> 
> It's called the Truman Doctrine.  Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The origin of one of the stupidest policy in the history of this country, the Domino theory. What a laugh millions killed over something that was the Military industrial complex biggest friend and as always just another lie.  Carlyle and Halliburton where the last two big winners in the Bush lie till they die war. Every bit of it was 100% lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying what I posted was a lie?  Or that our country lies to us and other countries about our purpose for being so spread throughout the world?  Saying we are there for their protection and to spread democracy... when we are actually there just to protect the private assets of U.S. companies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post was not a lie, the lie is from our corporate America, that has to stop. There is not one bottom line issue that's worth one death of the young that are in our military, not one. They are simply using their deaths to make money.
Click to expand...


The lie is in wrapping our military involvement in patriotism, defending our freedom and liberty

It is more complex than that


----------



## jbander

Peach said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is all the violence the Trump Supporting sites had warned about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of how a college education would be wasted on someone like you.  You are dumber than a post and lie so often that you cannot string a fact together if your life depended on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our military does not defend our borders. We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama and Co. outlawed defending our borders; it was upsetting the illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His IQ has literally dropped 10 points after every time he responds here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is actually a name for why our military is so large and why we are in more countries than any other country in the world combined...
> 
> It's called the Truman Doctrine.  Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil War, WWI, and WWII.
Click to expand...

 Now if this is a list of wars we should have fought  , you have to throw in the war of 1812. If you mean countries that invaded us it only wwII and the War of 1812. pretty much all the rest where degrees of murder and nonsense.


----------



## Peach

jbander said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is all the violence the Trump Supporting sites had warned about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our military does not defend our borders. We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama and Co. outlawed defending our borders; it was upsetting the illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His IQ has literally dropped 10 points after every time he responds here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is actually a name for why our military is so large and why we are in more countries than any other country in the world combined...
> 
> It's called the Truman Doctrine.  Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil War, WWI, and WWII.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now if this is a list of wars we should have fought  , you have to throw in the war of 1812. If you mean countries that invaded us it only wwII and the War of 1812. pretty much all the rest where degrees of murder and nonsense.
Click to expand...


I meant we learned from this wars we needed more Defense.


----------



## rightwinger

jbander said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is all the violence the Trump Supporting sites had warned about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our military does not defend our borders. We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama and Co. outlawed defending our borders; it was upsetting the illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His IQ has literally dropped 10 points after every time he responds here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is actually a name for why our military is so large and why we are in more countries than any other country in the world combined...
> 
> It's called the Truman Doctrine.  Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil War, WWI, and WWII.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now if this is a list of wars we should have fought  , you have to throw in the war of 1812. If you mean countries that invaded us it only wwII and the War of 1812. pretty much all the rest where degrees of murder and nonsense.
Click to expand...

The War of 1812 was one of the most ridiculous wars we ever fought

Almost lost our country for no reason


----------



## jbander

109 wars and four that weren't lies or nonsense.


----------



## jbander

Peach said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama and Co. outlawed defending our borders; it was upsetting the illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> His IQ has literally dropped 10 points after every time he responds here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is actually a name for why our military is so large and why we are in more countries than any other country in the world combined...
> 
> It's called the Truman Doctrine.  Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil War, WWI, and WWII.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now if this is a list of wars we should have fought  , you have to throw in the war of 1812. If you mean countries that invaded us it only wwII and the War of 1812. pretty much all the rest where degrees of murder and nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant we learned from this wars we needed more Defense.
Click to expand...

 This country in no way needs more military , in fact we could hold power and protect our shore with half the money we spend now. We don't need massive amounts of weaponry to police the world and to make some fat slob sitting at a corporate desk richer. 
    WE could easily double the wages of the men and women that volunteered to protect our shores and have a real professional military.  
     You want economic power, take half the money to increase the education system in this country with free school right through any advanced degree that young people could obtain. That's economic power in a world market. Take the other half and pay of the debt or make it so we don't add to the debt.


----------



## jbander

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way to protect against gang violence is to raise our children right and don't allow them to join gangs. Can't say that gangbangers killing each other is such a bad thing but someone needs to instruct them in marksmanship so we won't have to throw so much money away on their unpaid ER bills.
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us
> 
> Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman.  We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies
> 
> By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well said
> 
> Let's protect our children. Use our resources to combat gang violence , fight domestic abuse, expand children's healthcare
> 
> Makes more sense than extending our military might on the other side of the globe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way to protect against gang violence is to raise our children right and don't allow them to join gangs. Can't say that gangbangers killing each other is such a bad thing but someone needs to instruct them in marksmanship so we won't have to throw so much money away on their unpaid ER bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the issue is the safety and security of our people, the solution is not fighting a war 14,000 miles away
> There are more pressing threats to our citizens right here
Click to expand...

 To boot a war that was 100% lie


----------



## Indeependent

rightwinger said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama and Co. outlawed defending our borders; it was upsetting the illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> His IQ has literally dropped 10 points after every time he responds here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is actually a name for why our military is so large and why we are in more countries than any other country in the world combined...
> 
> It's called the Truman Doctrine.  Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil War, WWI, and WWII.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now if this is a list of wars we should have fought  , you have to throw in the war of 1812. If you mean countries that invaded us it only wwII and the War of 1812. pretty much all the rest where degrees of murder and nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The War of 1812 was one of the most ridiculous wars we ever fought
> 
> Almost lost our country for no reason
Click to expand...

Due completely to sending letters by boat.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cant help it you are ignorant'''
> Today the Navy and Marine Corps are facing a fundamental choice: maintain current levels of forward presence and risk breaking the force or reduce presence and restore readiness through adequate training, maintenance, and time at home. This choice is driven by the supply of ready naval forces being too small to meet the demand from Combatant Commanders, as adjudicated by the Secretary of Defense. To close the gap, the Department of Defense (DoD) will need to grow the fleet and force, base more ships overseas, or pay to maintain a higher operating tempo. Deploying Beyond Their Means: America’s Navy and Marine Corps At a Tipping Point | RealClearDefense
> Air Force is short 1000 pilots
> Most of Naval Air cant fly due to lack of maintenance
> 
> Today, only about 1/3 of our BCTs, 1/4 of our Combat Aviation Brigades and half of our Division Headquarters are ready. Of the BCTs that are ready, only three could be called upon to fight tonight in the event of a crisis. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20170207/105530/HHRG-115-AS00-Wstate-AllynD-20170207.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit thats the point, pressance is what has to go we ar e in 300 to 800 bases outside of our country ,depending how you count bases. The rest of the world 15 or 20. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Your source is as idiotic as you can get. Even the military denies most of this bullshit your trying to sell here. From your bullshit source. I'd advise anyone who is interested to look at the first joke page this guy gives as a source. The second is better but leave out the fact that we shouldn't be in 95% of the areas we have combat troops in now and with that taken care of , we are in fantastic shape. That's the whole point we shouldn't be there. It is not protecting this country it is only supporting corporate interest. There is no reason in the world that any Young American dies for any fucking corporate interest......
> This response from this nut with the ring in his nose should be looked at for it's insanity, look at what he is trying to sell and look at the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didnt bother to read did ya.......yeah we could spend less in other areas......savings however would not cover this shortage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LLMMMaaaooo......deny all you want .......talking point trooper......still just your uninformed opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ya you bet , it's your own reference that I'm responding out of. Your just another gun bubba that wants our young killed  dead  for the bottom line profits of corporation that would eat our children for their bottom line. How stupid do you have to be to sell out the young in this country and the country itself by having them get killed for some company you have invested in.  That is the description of the lowest kind of human being.
Click to expand...


Idiotic. Nobody dies for anybodies bottom line. Stop insulting and slandering our troops. I doubt you know your own motives let alone anyone else's.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit thats the point, pressance is what has to go we ar e in 300 to 800 bases outside of our country ,depending how you count bases. The rest of the world 15 or 20. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Your source is as idiotic as you can get. Even the military denies most of this bullshit your trying to sell here. From your bullshit source. I'd advise anyone who is interested to look at the first joke page this guy gives as a source. The second is better but leave out the fact that we shouldn't be in 95% of the areas we have combat troops in now and with that taken care of , we are in fantastic shape. That's the whole point we shouldn't be there. It is not protecting this country it is only supporting corporate interest. There is no reason in the world that any Young American dies for any fucking corporate interest......
> This response from this nut with the ring in his nose should be looked at for it's insanity, look at what he is trying to sell and look at the facts
> 
> 
> 
> Didnt bother to read did ya.......yeah we could spend less in other areas......savings however would not cover this shortage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LLMMMaaaooo......deny all you want .......talking point trooper......still just your uninformed opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ya you bet , it's your own reference that I'm responding out of. Your just another gun bubba that wants our young killed  dead  for the bottom line profits of corporation that would eat our children for their bottom line. How stupid do you have to be to sell out the young in this country and the country itself by having them get killed for some company you have invested in.  That is the description of the lowest kind of human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiotic. Nobody dies for anybodies bottom line. Stop insulting and slandering our troops. I doubt you know your own motives let alone anyone else's.
Click to expand...


The troops enlist to defend our country. They trust their lives to the decisions being made by our President and Congress

Too often in the past, those lives have been sacrificed for spurious reasons not related to the defense of our country. The conflicts we have chosen to engage in have had more to do with politics and economics than defending our freedom


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said
> 
> Let's protect our children. Use our resources to combat gang violence , fight domestic abuse, expand children's healthcare
> 
> Makes more sense than extending our military might on the other side of the globe
> 
> 
> 
> The military is for corporate interest as far as 90% of the right wing is concerned. If they don't realize that it is a fact then they are dumb. Thats their only excuse. You want to lead the world as far as corporate profits is concerned , pay for better education all free through college and beyond. We will lead the world economically for ever and will gain way more then the wasting of money on wars that are 100% lies , Like the Bush disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of how a college education would be wasted on someone like you.  You are dumber than a post and lie so often that you cannot string a fact together if your life depended on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Our military does not defend our borders.* We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a Border Patrol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they haven't seen an enemy invasion in 200 years
Click to expand...


An invasion is currently continuing across our Southern border. 
Our military defends and asserts our national interests which is what it exists for. If our national interests don't coincide with yours it is you that are wrong. whining about it is good for a laugh but doesn't help anything.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military is for corporate interest as far as 90% of the right wing is concerned. If they don't realize that it is a fact then they are dumb. Thats their only excuse. You want to lead the world as far as corporate profits is concerned , pay for better education all free through college and beyond. We will lead the world economically for ever and will gain way more then the wasting of money on wars that are 100% lies , Like the Bush disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of how a college education would be wasted on someone like you.  You are dumber than a post and lie so often that you cannot string a fact together if your life depended on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Our military does not defend our borders.* We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a Border Patrol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they haven't seen an enemy invasion in 200 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An invasion is currently continuing across our Southern border.
> Our military defends and asserts our national interests which is what it exists for. If our national interests don't coincide with yours it is you that are wrong. whining about it is good for a laugh but doesn't help anything.
Click to expand...


Yea.....how often do invaders work for you at slave wages?

No, that is not how our nation works. My country right or wrong is the least patriotic thing you can say

It is a citizens responsibility to challenge national interests that unnecessarily jeopardize the lives of our troops


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is all the violence the Trump Supporting sites had warned about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our military does not defend our borders. We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama and Co. outlawed defending our borders; it was upsetting the illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His IQ has literally dropped 10 points after every time he responds here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is actually a name for why our military is so large and why we are in more countries than any other country in the world combined...
> 
> It's called the Truman Doctrine.  Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil War, WWI, and WWII.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now if this is a list of wars we should have fought  , you have to throw in the war of 1812. If you mean countries that invaded us it only wwII and the War of 1812. pretty much all the rest where degrees of murder and nonsense.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. Your arbitrary judgement of what wars we "should have" fought  is just silly. Wars in which we (including troops and diplomatic missions or nations we are allied with) are attacked certainly should be fought. And that includes most every war you've left out.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

“Why do you think this country needs more invested in the Military.”

I don’t.

‘The military’ is one enormous boondoggle, a waste of taxpayers’ money, and for the most part a pointless anachronism.

Much of ‘the military’ is configured to fight needless, often illegal, wars having nothing to do with ‘defending’ the country.

‘Defense’ spending needs to be drastically cut; that money can be better spent on education, training, and addressing infrastructure needs.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didnt bother to read did ya.......yeah we could spend less in other areas......savings however would not cover this shortage
> 
> 
> 
> You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LLMMMaaaooo......deny all you want .......talking point trooper......still just your uninformed opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ya you bet , it's your own reference that I'm responding out of. Your just another gun bubba that wants our young killed  dead  for the bottom line profits of corporation that would eat our children for their bottom line. How stupid do you have to be to sell out the young in this country and the country itself by having them get killed for some company you have invested in.  That is the description of the lowest kind of human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiotic. Nobody dies for anybodies bottom line. Stop insulting and slandering our troops. I doubt you know your own motives let alone anyone else's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The troops enlist to defend our country. They trust their lives to the decisions being made by our President and Congress
> 
> Too often in the past, those lives have been sacrificed for spurious reasons not related to the defense of our country. The conflicts we have chosen to engage in have had more to do with politics and economics than defending our freedom
Click to expand...

We’re currently involved in a pointless conflict we have chosen to engage in having solely to do with politics and economics, and nothing to do with defending our freedom.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama and Co. outlawed defending our borders; it was upsetting the illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> His IQ has literally dropped 10 points after every time he responds here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is actually a name for why our military is so large and why we are in more countries than any other country in the world combined...
> 
> It's called the Truman Doctrine.  Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil War, WWI, and WWII.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now if this is a list of wars we should have fought  , you have to throw in the war of 1812. If you mean countries that invaded us it only wwII and the War of 1812. pretty much all the rest where degrees of murder and nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Your arbitrary judgement of what wars we "should have" fought  is just silly. Wars in which we (including troops and diplomatic missions or nations we are allied with) are attacked certainly should be fought. And that includes most every war you've left out.
Click to expand...

No

War is not the proper solution for every military contact. 

The Civil War was unavoidable
Spanish American War was a bogus ruse for US imperialism
WWI was a massacre caused by long held European alliances and gripes
WWII was justified to fight tyranny
Korea was a Cold War excursion 
Vietnam was another exercise in a useless Cold War
Desert Storm was justified
Afghanistan was justified but poorly executed
Iraq was an unjustified disaster


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of how a college education would be wasted on someone like you.  You are dumber than a post and lie so often that you cannot string a fact together if your life depended on it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Our military does not defend our borders.* We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a Border Patrol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they haven't seen an enemy invasion in 200 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An invasion is currently continuing across our Southern border.
> Our military defends and asserts our national interests which is what it exists for. If our national interests don't coincide with yours it is you that are wrong. whining about it is good for a laugh but doesn't help anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea.....how often do invaders work for you at slave wages?
> 
> Yea.....how often do invaders work for you at slave wages?
> 
> Yea.....how often do invaders work for you at slave wages?
Click to expand...


_"Yea.....how often do invaders work for you at slave wages?"_
Usually.

_"No, that is not how our nation works. My country right or wrong is the least patriotic thing you can say"_
Bullshit. Your opinion may very well be wrong. If not it remains your country and it is your responsibility to change what is wrong; not the other way around. Ridiculous to think a majority of citizens are going to change their opinion just because you whine real loud.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Our military does not defend our borders.* We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Border Patrol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they haven't seen an enemy invasion in 200 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An invasion is currently continuing across our Southern border.
> Our military defends and asserts our national interests which is what it exists for. If our national interests don't coincide with yours it is you that are wrong. whining about it is good for a laugh but doesn't help anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea.....how often do invaders work for you at slave wages?
> 
> Yea.....how often do invaders work for you at slave wages?
> 
> Yea.....how often do invaders work for you at slave wages?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Yea.....how often do invaders work for you at slave wages?"_
> Usually.
> 
> _"No, that is not how our nation works. My country right or wrong is the least patriotic thing you can say"_
> Bullshit. Your opinion may very well be wrong. If not it remains your country and it is your responsibility to change what is wrong; not the other way around. Ridiculous to think a majority of citizens are going to change their opinion just because you whine real loud.
Click to expand...

Now you are getting the idea

Our government does not work in a vacuum. They are answerable to We the People......especially when they wrongly commit us to war


----------



## 9thIDdoc

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/
> 
> 
> 
> LLMMMaaaooo......deny all you want .......talking point trooper......still just your uninformed opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ya you bet , it's your own reference that I'm responding out of. Your just another gun bubba that wants our young killed  dead  for the bottom line profits of corporation that would eat our children for their bottom line. How stupid do you have to be to sell out the young in this country and the country itself by having them get killed for some company you have invested in.  That is the description of the lowest kind of human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiotic. Nobody dies for anybodies bottom line. Stop insulting and slandering our troops. I doubt you know your own motives let alone anyone else's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The troops enlist to defend our country. They trust their lives to the decisions being made by our President and Congress
> 
> Too often in the past, those lives have been sacrificed for spurious reasons not related to the defense of our country. The conflicts we have chosen to engage in have had more to do with politics and economics than defending our freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We’re currently involved in a pointless conflict we have chosen to engage in having solely to do with politics and economics, and nothing to do with defending our freedom.
Click to expand...


Totally untrue. We continue to have an enemy that has killed or maimed many of our citizen with numerous terror attacks and has shown no sign of quitting. Stopping our war on terror while that enemy still exists is nothing short of idiotic and suicidal.


----------



## rightwinger

Our military does what they are asked to do
Provide a global presence to extend our power and influence

We currently spend 46 cents of every military dollar in the world

There is no need for it. The threat is not there 

Time to push the burden on to EU, Japan and S Korea


----------



## 9thIDdoc

"There is no need for it. The threat is not there"

Yeah? Tell that to the folks at the WTC or the Boston marathon, 
Denial won't make the threat go away.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> "There is no need for it. The threat is not there"
> 
> Yeah? Tell that to the folks at the WTC or the Boston marathon,
> Denial won't make the threat go away.



Good point

We have the most powerful military in the history of mankind and we can't stop a couple guys with box cutters or a pressure cooker bomb

Throwing more money into an additional carrier task force will not make us safer


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There is no need for it. The threat is not there"
> 
> Yeah? Tell that to the folks at the WTC or the Boston marathon,
> Denial won't make the threat go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point
> 
> We have the most powerful military in the history of mankind and we can't stop a couple guys with box cutters or a pressure cooker bomb
> 
> Throwing more money into an additional carrier task force will not make us safer
Click to expand...


Certainly will if it kills them before they fly planes into our buildings planting explosive charges or tossing ICBMs with WMD our way. No terrorists=no terror.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There is no need for it. The threat is not there"
> 
> Yeah? Tell that to the folks at the WTC or the Boston marathon,
> Denial won't make the threat go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point
> 
> We have the most powerful military in the history of mankind and we can't stop a couple guys with box cutters or a pressure cooker bomb
> 
> Throwing more money into an additional carrier task force will not make us safer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly will if it kills them before they fly planes into our buildings planting explosive charges or tossing ICBMs with WMD our way. No terrorists=no terror.
Click to expand...

Such a dream world

How do you stop a crazed moron like shot up that church in Texas today?

Stealth bombers or an aircraft carrier


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Our military does what they are asked to do
> Provide a global presence to extend our power and influence
> 
> We currently spend 46 cents of every military dollar in the world
> 
> There is no need for it. The threat is not there
> 
> Time to push the burden on to EU, Japan and S Korea





Myopic.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our military does what they are asked to do
> Provide a global presence to extend our power and influence
> 
> We currently spend 46 cents of every military dollar in the world
> 
> There is no need for it. The threat is not there
> 
> Time to push the burden on to EU, Japan and S Korea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Myopic.
Click to expand...

Wrong


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our military does what they are asked to do
> Provide a global presence to extend our power and influence
> 
> We currently spend 46 cents of every military dollar in the world
> 
> There is no need for it. The threat is not there
> 
> Time to push the burden on to EU, Japan and S Korea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Myopic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong
Click to expand...




We are not in any part of the world to be nice. We are there to protect and advance our own national interests. Threats take more forms than the likes of you can comprehend.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our military does what they are asked to do
> Provide a global presence to extend our power and influence
> 
> We currently spend 46 cents of every military dollar in the world
> 
> There is no need for it. The threat is not there
> 
> Time to push the burden on to EU, Japan and S Korea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Myopic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not in any part of the world to be nice. We are there to protect and advance our own national interests. Threats take more forms than the likes of you can comprehend.
Click to expand...

Still wrong


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our military does what they are asked to do
> Provide a global presence to extend our power and influence
> 
> We currently spend 46 cents of every military dollar in the world
> 
> There is no need for it. The threat is not there
> 
> Time to push the burden on to EU, Japan and S Korea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Myopic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not in any part of the world to be nice. We are there to protect and advance our own national interests. Threats take more forms than the likes of you can comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still wrong
Click to expand...




Fortunately, those who know better make real decisions.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our military does what they are asked to do
> Provide a global presence to extend our power and influence
> 
> We currently spend 46 cents of every military dollar in the world
> 
> There is no need for it. The threat is not there
> 
> Time to push the burden on to EU, Japan and S Korea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Myopic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not in any part of the world to be nice. We are there to protect and advance our own national interests. Threats take more forms than the likes of you can comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, those who know better make real decisions.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, you are not one of them


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Myopic.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not in any part of the world to be nice. We are there to protect and advance our own national interests. Threats take more forms than the likes of you can comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, those who know better make real decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fortunately, you are not one of them
Click to expand...




I am not. Nor are you.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not in any part of the world to be nice. We are there to protect and advance our own national interests. Threats take more forms than the likes of you can comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, those who know better make real decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fortunately, you are not one of them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not. Nor are you.
Click to expand...

Wrong


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit thats the point, pressance is what has to go we ar e in 300 to 800 bases outside of our country ,depending how you count bases. The rest of the world 15 or 20. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Your source is as idiotic as you can get. Even the military denies most of this bullshit your trying to sell here. From your bullshit source. I'd advise anyone who is interested to look at the first joke page this guy gives as a source. The second is better but leave out the fact that we shouldn't be in 95% of the areas we have combat troops in now and with that taken care of , we are in fantastic shape. That's the whole point we shouldn't be there. It is not protecting this country it is only supporting corporate interest. There is no reason in the world that any Young American dies for any fucking corporate interest......
> This response from this nut with the ring in his nose should be looked at for it's insanity, look at what he is trying to sell and look at the facts
> 
> 
> 
> Didnt bother to read did ya.......yeah we could spend less in other areas......savings however would not cover this shortage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LLMMMaaaooo......deny all you want .......talking point trooper......still just your uninformed opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ya you bet , it's your own reference that I'm responding out of. Your just another gun bubba that wants our young killed  dead  for the bottom line profits of corporation that would eat our children for their bottom line. How stupid do you have to be to sell out the young in this country and the country itself by having them get killed for some company you have invested in.  That is the description of the lowest kind of human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiotic. Nobody dies for anybodies bottom line. Stop insulting and slandering our troops. I doubt you know your own motives let alone anyone else's.
Click to expand...

 Here you go the comment of the day from the haters in the hate party. How Naive , how ignorant, how blind,  Wonder what Eisenhower meant when he said ""In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."" Your just have no clue cowboy. -“The ease with which money
forgives bayonets and lies to justify the massacre with reasoned arguments” Does everyone see 9thlDdoc in  these words.  
     This guy  says I slandered the troops , which of course  is a insult to me. something in no way did I say. Nor would I ever.  SO we will play to, this guy is a old dude that's living in the past wearing his moth eaten military uniform that hasn't fit him in 30 years. Fighting the wars from his couch in his underwear and uniform jacket.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military is for corporate interest as far as 90% of the right wing is concerned. If they don't realize that it is a fact then they are dumb. Thats their only excuse. You want to lead the world as far as corporate profits is concerned , pay for better education all free through college and beyond. We will lead the world economically for ever and will gain way more then the wasting of money on wars that are 100% lies , Like the Bush disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of how a college education would be wasted on someone like you.  You are dumber than a post and lie so often that you cannot string a fact together if your life depended on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Our military does not defend our borders.* We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a Border Patrol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they haven't seen an enemy invasion in 200 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An invasion is currently continuing across our Southern border.
> Our military defends and asserts our national interests which is what it exists for. If our national interests don't coincide with yours it is you that are wrong. whining about it is good for a laugh but doesn't help anything.
Click to expand...

 The military does not defend our borders nor do the defend the people in this country , the police do, the military exist for one reason and that is to protect our borders from invasion. Not some clown calling migrant workers or drug smugglers a invasion.  These wackos have to be stuffed down so this government will not OK the deaths of our military young for the bottom line of some corporation. These Make believe gun bubbas playing military from their couch tell us it's Ok to have our young die for issues that have nothing to do with this countries freedom , borders or anything other then the interest of Big Business.  We have been in 117 wars , we have only been invaded twice and we also where in the two world wars beyond that , corporate America was sending out the troops as gun fodder. There been 4 wars that we belonged in and 103 that were total complete ignorant lies, many of them where simply murder by war.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Our military does not defend our borders.* We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Border Patrol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they haven't seen an enemy invasion in 200 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An invasion is currently continuing across our Southern border.
> Our military defends and asserts our national interests which is what it exists for. If our national interests don't coincide with yours it is you that are wrong. whining about it is good for a laugh but doesn't help anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea.....how often do invaders work for you at slave wages?
> 
> Yea.....how often do invaders work for you at slave wages?
> 
> Yea.....how often do invaders work for you at slave wages?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Yea.....how often do invaders work for you at slave wages?"_
> Usually.
> 
> _"No, that is not how our nation works. My country right or wrong is the least patriotic thing you can say"_
> Bullshit. Your opinion may very well be wrong. If not it remains your country and it is your responsibility to change what is wrong; not the other way around. Ridiculous to think a majority of citizens are going to change their opinion just because you whine real loud.
Click to expand...

 Ya you bet that's why the patriots in this country are putting everything into getting rid of President Scum Bag and his Bagettes. Those being the biggest threat and biggest enemy of this country.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> LLMMMaaaooo......deny all you want .......talking point trooper......still just your uninformed opinion
> 
> 
> 
> ya you bet , it's your own reference that I'm responding out of. Your just another gun bubba that wants our young killed  dead  for the bottom line profits of corporation that would eat our children for their bottom line. How stupid do you have to be to sell out the young in this country and the country itself by having them get killed for some company you have invested in.  That is the description of the lowest kind of human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiotic. Nobody dies for anybodies bottom line. Stop insulting and slandering our troops. I doubt you know your own motives let alone anyone else's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The troops enlist to defend our country. They trust their lives to the decisions being made by our President and Congress
> 
> Too often in the past, those lives have been sacrificed for spurious reasons not related to the defense of our country. The conflicts we have chosen to engage in have had more to do with politics and economics than defending our freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We’re currently involved in a pointless conflict we have chosen to engage in having solely to do with politics and economics, and nothing to do with defending our freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally untrue. We continue to have an enemy that has killed or maimed many of our citizen with numerous terror attacks and has shown no sign of quitting. Stopping our war on terror while that enemy still exists is nothing short of idiotic and suicidal.
Click to expand...

Ok bang bang. kill everyone.  There is no war on terror other in a rhetorical concept. Terror isn't a place a , terror comes from many directions. Terrorism is fighting against Ideas.  You also don't  get to define what terrorism is for this country, I would say that these right wing bubbas that have shootouts with the police are terrorist. So I don't nor do you get to define what terrorism is in this country.  but like I said you like the idea of our young getting killed in this country in wars. Sound familiar.


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not in any part of the world to be nice. We are there to protect and advance our own national interests. Threats take more forms than the likes of you can comprehend.
> 
> 
> 
> Still wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, those who know better make real decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fortunately, you are not one of them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not. Nor are you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong
Click to expand...




Oh, you make US foreign policy now?


----------



## Unkotare

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of how a college education would be wasted on someone like you.  You are dumber than a post and lie so often that you cannot string a fact together if your life depended on it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Our military does not defend our borders.* We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a Border Patrol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they haven't seen an enemy invasion in 200 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An invasion is currently continuing across our Southern border.
> Our military defends and asserts our national interests which is what it exists for. If our national interests don't coincide with yours it is you that are wrong. whining about it is good for a laugh but doesn't help anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military does not defend our borders nor do the defend the people in this country , the police do, the military exist for one reason and that is to protect our borders from invasion. Not some clown calling migrant workers or drug smugglers a invasion.  These wackos have to be stuffed down so this government will not OK the deaths of our military young for the bottom line of some corporation. These Make believe gun bubbas playing military from their couch tell us it's Ok to have our young die for issues that have nothing to do with this countries freedom , borders or anything other then the interest of Big Business.  We have been in 117 wars , we have only been invaded twice and we also where in the two world wars beyond that , corporate America was sending out the troops as gun fodder. There been 4 wars that we belonged in and 103 that were total complete ignorant lies, many of them where simply murder by war.
Click to expand...






The full lefty BULLSHIT that the OP intended all along, revealed at last.


----------



## rightwinger

The US spends 36 cents of every military dollar around the world. Look at the other countries....where is the threat?








What do we get for our $611 billion?  What do we give up?

Modern infrastructure (roads, water, sanitation, communications)
Healthcare
Education
R&D in energy, health, communications, transportation....money that is now invested in R&D for military purposes


----------



## rightwinger

Can anyone explain WHY we would need to spend more than that $611 billion on that chart?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There is no need for it. The threat is not there"
> 
> Yeah? Tell that to the folks at the WTC or the Boston marathon,
> Denial won't make the threat go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point
> 
> We have the most powerful military in the history of mankind and we can't stop a couple guys with box cutters or a pressure cooker bomb
> 
> Throwing more money into an additional carrier task force will not make us safer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly will if it kills them before they fly planes into our buildings planting explosive charges or tossing ICBMs with WMD our way. No terrorists=no terror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such a dream world
> 
> How do you stop a crazed moron like shot up that church in Texas today?
> 
> Stealth bombers or an aircraft carrier
Click to expand...


The police and armed citizens; not the job of the military as you well know and you are off topic.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There is no need for it. The threat is not there"
> 
> Yeah? Tell that to the folks at the WTC or the Boston marathon,
> Denial won't make the threat go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point
> 
> We have the most powerful military in the history of mankind and we can't stop a couple guys with box cutters or a pressure cooker bomb
> 
> Throwing more money into an additional carrier task force will not make us safer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly will if it kills them before they fly planes into our buildings planting explosive charges or tossing ICBMs with WMD our way. No terrorists=no terror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such a dream world
> 
> How do you stop a crazed moron like shot up that church in Texas today?
> 
> Stealth bombers or an aircraft carrier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The police and armed citizens; not the job of the military as you well know and you are off topic.
Click to expand...


Very true

So why do we need $600 billion a year on a military that does not keep us safe?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didnt bother to read did ya.......yeah we could spend less in other areas......savings however would not cover this shortage
> 
> 
> 
> You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LLMMMaaaooo......deny all you want .......talking point trooper......still just your uninformed opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ya you bet , it's your own reference that I'm responding out of. Your just another gun bubba that wants our young killed  dead  for the bottom line profits of corporation that would eat our children for their bottom line. How stupid do you have to be to sell out the young in this country and the country itself by having them get killed for some company you have invested in.  That is the description of the lowest kind of human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiotic. Nobody dies for anybodies bottom line. Stop insulting and slandering our troops. I doubt you know your own motives let alone anyone else's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you go the comment of the day from the haters in the hate party. How Naive , how ignorant, how blind,  Wonder what Eisenhower meant when he said ""In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."" Your just have no clue cowboy. -“The ease with which money
> forgives bayonets and lies to justify the massacre with reasoned arguments” Does everyone see 9thlDdoc in  these words.
> This guy  says I slandered the troops , which of course  is a insult to me. something in no way did I say. Nor would I ever.  SO we will play to, this guy is a old dude that's living in the past wearing his moth eaten military uniform that hasn't fit him in 30 years. Fighting the wars from his couch in his underwear and uniform jacket.
Click to expand...


Cute, but just another snowflake attempting to justify his own hatred slander and nastiness by attacking me and spouting totally irrelevant quotes.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't read what You use for reference. The government study was talking about keeping the same presence. Do you first know what that means. I doubt it. That is the point. the total point, We have 300 to 800 american bases outside of the us. Depending on how you count them. The rest of the world has close to 20 all together. That is what presence means and that is my point, you get rid of that presence around the world and you stick to what the military is suppose to do and that is protect our border and our country. No fucking wars like your trying to sell, trying to protect some corporate interest with the deaths of young Americans. If that is done and we stop with the Empire building , we need a military about half the freakin size it is now. Your the one , along with you hate party ,that want to use the young in our country for cannon fodder for someone's pocket book. Screw it. and screw all the people that thinks that is what our military should do. Sending our young to be slaughtered for some corporations bottom line is what the right wants for this country/
> 
> 
> 
> LLMMMaaaooo......deny all you want .......talking point trooper......still just your uninformed opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ya you bet , it's your own reference that I'm responding out of. Your just another gun bubba that wants our young killed  dead  for the bottom line profits of corporation that would eat our children for their bottom line. How stupid do you have to be to sell out the young in this country and the country itself by having them get killed for some company you have invested in.  That is the description of the lowest kind of human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiotic. Nobody dies for anybodies bottom line. Stop insulting and slandering our troops. I doubt you know your own motives let alone anyone else's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you go the comment of the day from the haters in the hate party. How Naive , how ignorant, how blind,  Wonder what Eisenhower meant when he said ""In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."" Your just have no clue cowboy. -“The ease with which money
> forgives bayonets and lies to justify the massacre with reasoned arguments” Does everyone see 9thlDdoc in  these words.
> This guy  says I slandered the troops , which of course  is a insult to me. something in no way did I say. Nor would I ever.  SO we will play to, this guy is a old dude that's living in the past wearing his moth eaten military uniform that hasn't fit him in 30 years. Fighting the wars from his couch in his underwear and uniform jacket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute, but just another snowflake attempting to justify his own hatred slander and nastiness by attacking me and spouting totally irrelevant quotes.
Click to expand...

Your a very small person and every time you respond your showing us why. You live totally in a fantasy world that doesn't in any way exist, I feel sorry for your hate. Its boundless.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There is no need for it. The threat is not there"
> 
> Yeah? Tell that to the folks at the WTC or the Boston marathon,
> Denial won't make the threat go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point
> 
> We have the most powerful military in the history of mankind and we can't stop a couple guys with box cutters or a pressure cooker bomb
> 
> Throwing more money into an additional carrier task force will not make us safer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly will if it kills them before they fly planes into our buildings planting explosive charges or tossing ICBMs with WMD our way. No terrorists=no terror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such a dream world
> 
> How do you stop a crazed moron like shot up that church in Texas today?
> 
> Stealth bombers or an aircraft carrier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The police and armed citizens; not the job of the military as you well know and you are off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> So why do we need $600 billion a year on a military that does not keep us safe?
Click to expand...


Obviously to support our Sons and Daughters who sacrifice much to keep us safe. I have no use for those who too miserly to pay them or for their tools of the trade necessary to keep both them and us alive and free. Especially while also giving away taxpayer money arms and ammunition to our enemies.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point
> 
> We have the most powerful military in the history of mankind and we can't stop a couple guys with box cutters or a pressure cooker bomb
> 
> Throwing more money into an additional carrier task force will not make us safer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly will if it kills them before they fly planes into our buildings planting explosive charges or tossing ICBMs with WMD our way. No terrorists=no terror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such a dream world
> 
> How do you stop a crazed moron like shot up that church in Texas today?
> 
> Stealth bombers or an aircraft carrier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The police and armed citizens; not the job of the military as you well know and you are off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> So why do we need $600 billion a year on a military that does not keep us safe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously to support our Sons and Daughters who sacrifice much to keep us safe. I have no use for those who too miserly to pay them or for their tools of the trade necessary to keep both them and us alive and free. Especially while also giving away taxpayer money arms and ammunition to our enemies.
Click to expand...


We do support them
They are the most powerful military in the history of mankind

The question is the existing threat and how do we need to define their mission in response to that threat

We are spending $600 billion a year on our military
What is the threat?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of how a college education would be wasted on someone like you.  You are dumber than a post and lie so often that you cannot string a fact together if your life depended on it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Our military does not defend our borders.* We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a Border Patrol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they haven't seen an enemy invasion in 200 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An invasion is currently continuing across our Southern border.
> Our military defends and asserts our national interests which is what it exists for. If our national interests don't coincide with yours it is you that are wrong. whining about it is good for a laugh but doesn't help anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military does not defend our borders nor do the defend the people in this country , the police do, the military exist for one reason and that is to protect our borders from invasion. Not some clown calling migrant workers or drug smugglers a invasion.  These wackos have to be stuffed down so this government will not OK the deaths of our military young for the bottom line of some corporation. These Make believe gun bubbas playing military from their couch tell us it's Ok to have our young die for issues that have nothing to do with this countries freedom , borders or anything other then the interest of Big Business.  We have been in 117 wars , we have only been invaded twice and we also where in the two world wars beyond that , corporate America was sending out the troops as gun fodder. There been 4 wars that we belonged in and 103 that were total complete ignorant lies, many of them where simply murder by war.
Click to expand...


Totally delusional without a trace of logic. Sad.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> LLMMMaaaooo......deny all you want .......talking point trooper......still just your uninformed opinion
> 
> 
> 
> ya you bet , it's your own reference that I'm responding out of. Your just another gun bubba that wants our young killed  dead  for the bottom line profits of corporation that would eat our children for their bottom line. How stupid do you have to be to sell out the young in this country and the country itself by having them get killed for some company you have invested in.  That is the description of the lowest kind of human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiotic. Nobody dies for anybodies bottom line. Stop insulting and slandering our troops. I doubt you know your own motives let alone anyone else's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you go the comment of the day from the haters in the hate party. How Naive , how ignorant, how blind,  Wonder what Eisenhower meant when he said ""In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."" Your just have no clue cowboy. -“The ease with which money
> forgives bayonets and lies to justify the massacre with reasoned arguments” Does everyone see 9thlDdoc in  these words.
> This guy  says I slandered the troops , which of course  is a insult to me. something in no way did I say. Nor would I ever.  SO we will play to, this guy is a old dude that's living in the past wearing his moth eaten military uniform that hasn't fit him in 30 years. Fighting the wars from his couch in his underwear and uniform jacket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute, but just another snowflake attempting to justify his own hatred slander and nastiness by attacking me and spouting totally irrelevant quotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your a very small person and every time you respond your showing us why. You live totally in a fantasy world that doesn't in any way exist, I feel sorry for your hate. Its boundless.
Click to expand...


At least I know how to spell "you're".


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point
> 
> We have the most powerful military in the history of mankind and we can't stop a couple guys with box cutters or a pressure cooker bomb
> 
> Throwing more money into an additional carrier task force will not make us safer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly will if it kills them before they fly planes into our buildings planting explosive charges or tossing ICBMs with WMD our way. No terrorists=no terror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such a dream world
> 
> How do you stop a crazed moron like shot up that church in Texas today?
> 
> Stealth bombers or an aircraft carrier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The police and armed citizens; not the job of the military as you well know and you are off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> So why do we need $600 billion a year on a military that does not keep us safe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously to support our Sons and Daughters who sacrifice much to keep us safe. I have no use for those who too miserly to pay them or for their tools of the trade necessary to keep both them and us alive and free. Especially while also giving away taxpayer money arms and ammunition to our enemies.
Click to expand...

Bull crap rhetoric, everyone here that apposes this military insanity said we would raise their wages and they would have all the equipment they need but that equipment won't have anything to police the world and fighting and dying for a corporation's bottom line. Try reading sometime.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> ya you bet , it's your own reference that I'm responding out of. Your just another gun bubba that wants our young killed  dead  for the bottom line profits of corporation that would eat our children for their bottom line. How stupid do you have to be to sell out the young in this country and the country itself by having them get killed for some company you have invested in.  That is the description of the lowest kind of human being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiotic. Nobody dies for anybodies bottom line. Stop insulting and slandering our troops. I doubt you know your own motives let alone anyone else's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you go the comment of the day from the haters in the hate party. How Naive , how ignorant, how blind,  Wonder what Eisenhower meant when he said ""In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."" Your just have no clue cowboy. -“The ease with which money
> forgives bayonets and lies to justify the massacre with reasoned arguments” Does everyone see 9thlDdoc in  these words.
> This guy  says I slandered the troops , which of course  is a insult to me. something in no way did I say. Nor would I ever.  SO we will play to, this guy is a old dude that's living in the past wearing his moth eaten military uniform that hasn't fit him in 30 years. Fighting the wars from his couch in his underwear and uniform jacket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute, but just another snowflake attempting to justify his own hatred slander and nastiness by attacking me and spouting totally irrelevant quotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your a very small person and every time you respond your showing us why. You live totally in a fantasy world that doesn't in any way exist, I feel sorry for your hate. Its boundless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least I know how to spell "you're".
Click to expand...

  I know I have you people in the corner when all you got is my bad spelling and the way I conjugate a verb. So glad to hear you feel like your being whipped here , because you are getting hammered.


----------



## rightwinger

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly will if it kills them before they fly planes into our buildings planting explosive charges or tossing ICBMs with WMD our way. No terrorists=no terror.
> 
> 
> 
> Such a dream world
> 
> How do you stop a crazed moron like shot up that church in Texas today?
> 
> Stealth bombers or an aircraft carrier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The police and armed citizens; not the job of the military as you well know and you are off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> So why do we need $600 billion a year on a military that does not keep us safe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously to support our Sons and Daughters who sacrifice much to keep us safe. I have no use for those who too miserly to pay them or for their tools of the trade necessary to keep both them and us alive and free. Especially while also giving away taxpayer money arms and ammunition to our enemies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull crap rhetoric, everyone here that apposes this military insanity said we would raise their wages and they would have all the equipment they need but that equipment won't have anything to police the world and fighting and dying for a corporation's bottom line. Try reading sometime.
Click to expand...


I would fully support reducing our troop strength and increasing benefits and facilities

We just don't need to defend the world


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Our military does not defend our borders.* We could defend our borders with ten percent of our existing military
> 
> Our military defends our global interests. Those interests are determined by corporate entities determined to protect their cash flow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Border Patrol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they haven't seen an enemy invasion in 200 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An invasion is currently continuing across our Southern border.
> Our military defends and asserts our national interests which is what it exists for. If our national interests don't coincide with yours it is you that are wrong. whining about it is good for a laugh but doesn't help anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military does not defend our borders nor do the defend the people in this country , the police do, the military exist for one reason and that is to protect our borders from invasion. Not some clown calling migrant workers or drug smugglers a invasion.  These wackos have to be stuffed down so this government will not OK the deaths of our military young for the bottom line of some corporation. These Make believe gun bubbas playing military from their couch tell us it's Ok to have our young die for issues that have nothing to do with this countries freedom , borders or anything other then the interest of Big Business.  We have been in 117 wars , we have only been invaded twice and we also where in the two world wars beyond that , corporate America was sending out the troops as gun fodder. There been 4 wars that we belonged in and 103 that were total complete ignorant lies, many of them where simply murder by war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally delusional without a trace of logic. Sad.
Click to expand...

 Ya I should have just one fact at a time, considering who I'm responding to. I have to make it not to complicated.  Gun Bubbas have ringing in their ears and brain so we will keep it easy.


----------



## jbander

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly will if it kills them before they fly planes into our buildings planting explosive charges or tossing ICBMs with WMD our way. No terrorists=no terror.
> 
> 
> 
> Such a dream world
> 
> How do you stop a crazed moron like shot up that church in Texas today?
> 
> Stealth bombers or an aircraft carrier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The police and armed citizens; not the job of the military as you well know and you are off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> So why do we need $600 billion a year on a military that does not keep us safe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously to support our Sons and Daughters who sacrifice much to keep us safe. I have no use for those who too miserly to pay them or for their tools of the trade necessary to keep both them and us alive and free. Especially while also giving away taxpayer money arms and ammunition to our enemies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do support them
> They are the most powerful military in the history of mankind
> 
> The question is the existing threat and how do we need to define their mission in response to that threat
> 
> We are spending $600 billion a year on our military
> What is the threat?
Click to expand...

God these people almost had a mental break down when Soviet Union Trickled to half what they were before . So what does the clown military do. They say we have to have a military that can fight two wars. Shit why not 10.


----------



## Natural Citizen

jbander said:


> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.




Increased funding gets printed out of thin air regardless.


----------



## rightwinger

Natural Citizen said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Increased funding gets printed out of thin air regardless.
Click to expand...


No, we have to pay it


----------



## rightwinger

jbander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such a dream world
> 
> How do you stop a crazed moron like shot up that church in Texas today?
> 
> Stealth bombers or an aircraft carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The police and armed citizens; not the job of the military as you well know and you are off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> So why do we need $600 billion a year on a military that does not keep us safe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously to support our Sons and Daughters who sacrifice much to keep us safe. I have no use for those who too miserly to pay them or for their tools of the trade necessary to keep both them and us alive and free. Especially while also giving away taxpayer money arms and ammunition to our enemies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do support them
> They are the most powerful military in the history of mankind
> 
> The question is the existing threat and how do we need to define their mission in response to that threat
> 
> We are spending $600 billion a year on our military
> What is the threat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God these people almost had a mental break down when Soviet Union Trickled to half what they were before . So what does the clown military do. They say we have to have a military that can fight two wars. Shit why not 10.
Click to expand...


There is no significant threat out there to justify $600 billion a year


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Untrue. Even if it were true you ignore the fact we must prepare ahead of time for threats that emerge in the future. Great plans and equipment in the pipeline cannot do the job.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> Untrue. Even if it were true you ignore the fact we must prepare ahead of time for threats that emerge in the future. Great plans and equipment in the pipeline cannot do the job.


Very true

But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S. 
We currently have forces and equipment well above any current or potential threat
We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. Even if it were true you ignore the fact we must prepare ahead of time for threats that emerge in the future. Great plans and equipment in the pipeline cannot do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S.
> We currently have forces and equipment well above any current or potential threat
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat
Click to expand...


_"But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S."_

You have absolutely no idea if that claim is true or not and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Beside the point in any case. Invasion is far from being the only threat our Nation faces and must be prepared to counter.9/11 was not an invasion. Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Foreign terrorists remain a threat. WMDs are a massive threat that could kill or maim every person in the continental United States within minutes  of being deployed no invasion required. By the time an actual invasion became a real threat there would be nothing and nobody left to oppose it. 
_
We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat.
_
Why would an ally help oppose a threat if we would not do the same for them? Are you aware that helping an ally might not involve any threat of the US being invaded? You can't have it both ways.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. Even if it were true you ignore the fact we must prepare ahead of time for threats that emerge in the future. Great plans and equipment in the pipeline cannot do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S.
> We currently have forces and equipment well above any current or potential threat
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S."_
> 
> You have absolutely no idea if that claim is true or not and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Beside the point in any case. Invasion is far from being the only threat our Nation faces and must be prepared to counter.9/11 was not an invasion. Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Foreign terrorists remain a threat. WMDs are a massive threat that could kill or maim every person in the continental United States within minutes  of being deployed no invasion required. By the time an actual invasion became a real threat there would be nothing and nobody left to oppose it.
> _
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat.
> _
> Why would an ally help oppose a threat if we would not do the same for them? Are you aware that helping an ally might not involve any threat of the US being invaded? You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

It absolutely is true
No country has the military or Naval capability to invade us. Period

An attack is not an invasion. We are more than capable of withstanding an attack 
Terrorism is a threat.....always will be
It is cheap and difficult to prevent
But $600 billion a year invested in the most powerful military in the history of mankind will not stop some guy with a pressure cooker bomb or rented truck


----------



## jbander

Natural Citizen said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Increased funding gets printed out of thin air regardless.
Click to expand...

 Lets say your correct, then why waste the money on something we in no way need more of. You want to make this country great, hand all that over to education. Just as long as it's not run by the scum bag's secretary of education at the time. 
   By the way there are multiple reasons to print money some of them great reasons. I don't think you understand that.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> Untrue. Even if it were true you ignore the fact we must prepare ahead of time for threats that emerge in the future. Great plans and equipment in the pipeline cannot do the job.


 Some wacked out Gun bubba , thinks he has even a clue about this. He doesn't,  WE in no way need the type of force this country has , if we just quit what we shouldn't be doing in the first place, policing the world and getting our young killed for a corporations bottom line. We need as little as half what we have now. Military gets a hell of a lot cheaper when almost all of it is spent on defense and not for attacking other country's for the sake of some fat guys pocket book. sitting at a desk getting fatter every day.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. Even if it were true you ignore the fact we must prepare ahead of time for threats that emerge in the future. Great plans and equipment in the pipeline cannot do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S.
> We currently have forces and equipment well above any current or potential threat
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S."_
> 
> You have absolutely no idea if that claim is true or not and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Beside the point in any case. Invasion is far from being the only threat our Nation faces and must be prepared to counter.9/11 was not an invasion. Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Foreign terrorists remain a threat. WMDs are a massive threat that could kill or maim every person in the continental United States within minutes  of being deployed no invasion required. By the time an actual invasion became a real threat there would be nothing and nobody left to oppose it.
> _
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat.
> _
> Why would an ally help oppose a threat if we would not do the same for them? Are you aware that helping an ally might not involve any threat of the US being invaded? You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely is true
> No country has the military or Naval capability to invade us. Period
> 
> An attack is not an invasion. We are more than capable of withstanding an attack
> Terrorism is a threat.....always will be
> It is cheap and difficult to prevent
> But $600 billion a year invested in the most powerful military in the history of mankind will not stop some guy with a pressure cooker bomb or rented truck
Click to expand...


_"An attack is not an invasion."
_
Which is exactly what I said. What part do you not understand? You are the one trying to claim that we are too strong for anyone to invade and that is strong enough. While I point out that invasion is but one of the things it is necessary to defend against. And that we must have allies who know  we will help them if they are attacked. Attacks happen much quicker and can well be more deadly than an invasion. Actually invasions are in fact a type of attack.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. Even if it were true you ignore the fact we must prepare ahead of time for threats that emerge in the future. Great plans and equipment in the pipeline cannot do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S.
> We currently have forces and equipment well above any current or potential threat
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S."_
> 
> You have absolutely no idea if that claim is true or not and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Beside the point in any case. Invasion is far from being the only threat our Nation faces and must be prepared to counter.9/11 was not an invasion. Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Foreign terrorists remain a threat. WMDs are a massive threat that could kill or maim every person in the continental United States within minutes  of being deployed no invasion required. By the time an actual invasion became a real threat there would be nothing and nobody left to oppose it.
> _
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat.
> _
> Why would an ally help oppose a threat if we would not do the same for them? Are you aware that helping an ally might not involve any threat of the US being invaded? You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

 He happens to be 100% right there is no one out there that can come close to dealing with just this country and if you include our allies , the whole rest of the world couldn't defeat us.  Sure someone could try to attack us. We would destroy their air force and navy in the first week. If they used it. 
  Someone attacks us with nuclear weapons and the world goes back to the dark ages but then the right would do the same if we let them. 
  Your comment is ridiculous , You have no clue. Just your bang bang blind attitude,


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. Even if it were true you ignore the fact we must prepare ahead of time for threats that emerge in the future. Great plans and equipment in the pipeline cannot do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S.
> We currently have forces and equipment well above any current or potential threat
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S."_
> 
> You have absolutely no idea if that claim is true or not and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Beside the point in any case. Invasion is far from being the only threat our Nation faces and must be prepared to counter.9/11 was not an invasion. Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Foreign terrorists remain a threat. WMDs are a massive threat that could kill or maim every person in the continental United States within minutes  of being deployed no invasion required. By the time an actual invasion became a real threat there would be nothing and nobody left to oppose it.
> _
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat.
> _
> Why would an ally help oppose a threat if we would not do the same for them? Are you aware that helping an ally might not involve any threat of the US being invaded? You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely is true
> No country has the military or Naval capability to invade us. Period
> 
> An attack is not an invasion. We are more than capable of withstanding an attack
> Terrorism is a threat.....always will be
> It is cheap and difficult to prevent
> But $600 billion a year invested in the most powerful military in the history of mankind will not stop some guy with a pressure cooker bomb or rented truck
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"An attack is not an invasion."
> _
> Which is exactly what I said. What part do you not understand? You are the one trying to claim that we are too strong for anyone to invade and that is strong enough. While I point out that invasion is but one of the things it is necessary to defend against. And that we must have allies who know  we will help them if they are attacked. Attacks happen much quicker and can well be more deadly than an invasion. Actually invasions are in fact a type of attack.
Click to expand...

 What a pile of shit, a attack is not a WHAT? You want to wast the lives of our young and transfer  as much of the wealth of this country to the 1% who control your mind. The word is mindless.


----------



## jbander

There is no country that would attack us or invade us. To a degree that we need more then half our budget wasted on your tools to get our young killed, so you can what? pound yourself on the chest.Of the over 100 wars we have been in, there has been 4 that we needed to be in, the rest where simply murder or corporate greed.


----------



## Spare_change

TNHarley said:


> we dont.
> We could probably use some "up dating" but with all the waste, im sure we could fit that in with current budgets.


All the waste? Just exactly what waste are you talking about?

Or, is this something "they" say all the time, and you're just repeating it?


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> There is no country that would attack us or invade us. To a degree that we need more then half our budget wasted on your tools to get our young killed, so you can what? pound yourself on the chest.Of the over 100 wars we have been in, there has been 4 that we needed to be in, the rest where simply murder or corporate greed.



Man, you're funny !!! Do you do this stand-up routine on Saturdays, too?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. Even if it were true you ignore the fact we must prepare ahead of time for threats that emerge in the future. Great plans and equipment in the pipeline cannot do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Some wacked out Gun bubba , thinks he has even a clue about this. He doesn't,  WE in no way need the type of force this country has , if we just quit what we shouldn't be doing in the first place, policing the world and getting our young killed for a corporations bottom line. We need as little as half what we have now. Military gets a hell of a lot cheaper when almost all of it is spent on defense and not for attacking other country's for the sake of some fat guys pocket book. sitting at a desk getting fatter every day.
Click to expand...


Like I said: Delusional. Or maybe just another America hater and enemy sympathizer. Probably has a degree in Modern Advanced Basket Weaving and thinks that makes him an expert in foreign relations.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. Even if it were true you ignore the fact we must prepare ahead of time for threats that emerge in the future. Great plans and equipment in the pipeline cannot do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Some wacked out Gun bubba , thinks he has even a clue about this. He doesn't,  WE in no way need the type of force this country has , if we just quit what we shouldn't be doing in the first place, policing the world and getting our young killed for a corporations bottom line. We need as little as half what we have now. Military gets a hell of a lot cheaper when almost all of it is spent on defense and not for attacking other country's for the sake of some fat guys pocket book. sitting at a desk getting fatter every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said: Delusional. Or maybe just another America hater and enemy sympathizer. Probably has a degree in Modern Advanced Basket Weaving and thinks that makes him an expert in foreign relations.
Click to expand...

 So all this clown has, after me roasting him, is a full load of stupid. You can't insult me I'm insult proof.Tell me just for interest ,why would I care what the enemy of my country thinks about me.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. Even if it were true you ignore the fact we must prepare ahead of time for threats that emerge in the future. Great plans and equipment in the pipeline cannot do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S.
> We currently have forces and equipment well above any current or potential threat
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S."_
> 
> You have absolutely no idea if that claim is true or not and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Beside the point in any case. Invasion is far from being the only threat our Nation faces and must be prepared to counter.9/11 was not an invasion. Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Foreign terrorists remain a threat. WMDs are a massive threat that could kill or maim every person in the continental United States within minutes  of being deployed no invasion required. By the time an actual invasion became a real threat there would be nothing and nobody left to oppose it.
> _
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat.
> _
> Why would an ally help oppose a threat if we would not do the same for them? Are you aware that helping an ally might not involve any threat of the US being invaded? You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He happens to be 100% right there is no one out there that can come close to dealing with just this country and if you include our allies , the whole rest of the world couldn't defeat us.  Sure someone could try to attack us. We would destroy their air force and navy in the first week. If they used it.
> Someone attacks us with nuclear weapons and the world goes back to the dark ages but then the right would do the same if we let them.
> Your comment is ridiculous , You have no clue. Just your bang bang blind attitude,
Click to expand...


I at least have considerable military and some combat experience. Why exactly should anyone believe you know everything there is to know about our and every other military in the world?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. Even if it were true you ignore the fact we must prepare ahead of time for threats that emerge in the future. Great plans and equipment in the pipeline cannot do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Some wacked out Gun bubba , thinks he has even a clue about this. He doesn't,  WE in no way need the type of force this country has , if we just quit what we shouldn't be doing in the first place, policing the world and getting our young killed for a corporations bottom line. We need as little as half what we have now. Military gets a hell of a lot cheaper when almost all of it is spent on defense and not for attacking other country's for the sake of some fat guys pocket book. sitting at a desk getting fatter every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said: Delusional. Or maybe just another America hater and enemy sympathizer. Probably has a degree in Modern Advanced Basket Weaving and thinks that makes him an expert in foreign relations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So all this clown has, after me roasting him, is a full load of stupid. You can't insult me I'm insult proof.Tell me just for interest ,why would I care what the enemy of my country thinks about me.
Click to expand...


Which country would that be?


----------



## Natural Citizen

jbander said:


> By the way there are multiple reasons to print money some of them great reasons. I don't think you understand that.



Really. Well, then, educate me, please, on the concept of printing money. I like to learn.


----------



## jbander

Natural Citizen said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way there are multiple reasons to print money some of them great reasons. I don't think you understand that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really. Well, then, educate me, please, on the concept of printing money. I like to learn.
Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised, you print money to increase it's supply, and then supply and demand dictates that interest will go down, which does multiple things,Lower interest rates stimulate business, they can borrow at a cheaper rate. it lowers the value of our currency. which then increases our ability to compete in a world market with out product, because they are cheaper in other parts of the world. It does the opposite for imports, it raises the price of imports. Printing money puts a stress on dollar as far as inflation is concerned but that can be watched closely as it was all during the Obama administration and obviously it wasn't a problem  but unwatched it can be.
        By the way government printing money is not quite generally printing money , it lowers the requirement that banks have to hold to borrow money. Which of course really means nothing when it is 3% generally and lowering it to 2% hardly secures the borrowed money anyway. 
     Obama wrote laws to stimulate business but with out demand business just held onto their gains (showing how stupid supply side economics is) So there is very little effect on the economy when the increased supply of money is held under the mattress. 
  It does many more things, some bad some good.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. Even if it were true you ignore the fact we must prepare ahead of time for threats that emerge in the future. Great plans and equipment in the pipeline cannot do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S.
> We currently have forces and equipment well above any current or potential threat
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S."_
> 
> You have absolutely no idea if that claim is true or not and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Beside the point in any case. Invasion is far from being the only threat our Nation faces and must be prepared to counter.9/11 was not an invasion. Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Foreign terrorists remain a threat. WMDs are a massive threat that could kill or maim every person in the continental United States within minutes  of being deployed no invasion required. By the time an actual invasion became a real threat there would be nothing and nobody left to oppose it.
> _
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat.
> _
> Why would an ally help oppose a threat if we would not do the same for them? Are you aware that helping an ally might not involve any threat of the US being invaded? You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He happens to be 100% right there is no one out there that can come close to dealing with just this country and if you include our allies , the whole rest of the world couldn't defeat us.  Sure someone could try to attack us. We would destroy their air force and navy in the first week. If they used it.
> Someone attacks us with nuclear weapons and the world goes back to the dark ages but then the right would do the same if we let them.
> Your comment is ridiculous , You have no clue. Just your bang bang blind attitude,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I at least have considerable military and some combat experience. Why exactly should anyone believe you know everything there is to know about our and every other military in the world?
Click to expand...

 Lets put it this way, if you have been in combat , and since we haven't had a war that was needed since WW II . you where put out there as gun fodder for some corporate interest or other acts of stupidity . So There are very few of the people  in the military that don't believe what they are being told but many of them do find out and have mental breakdowns when they realize that the things they had to do to stay alive weren't justifiable and there reason for doing it was a lie. If they find out that they were used this way by their country, how do you think they will react. 
    So your answer is simple, people ether believe what I say because they understand the reality of what I think and say or they believe a gun bubba who's out there wanting to increase our military strength and use our young as gun fodder for some corporate interest.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. Even if it were true you ignore the fact we must prepare ahead of time for threats that emerge in the future. Great plans and equipment in the pipeline cannot do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S.
> We currently have forces and equipment well above any current or potential threat
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S."_
> 
> You have absolutely no idea if that claim is true or not and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Beside the point in any case. Invasion is far from being the only threat our Nation faces and must be prepared to counter.9/11 was not an invasion. Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Foreign terrorists remain a threat. WMDs are a massive threat that could kill or maim every person in the continental United States within minutes  of being deployed no invasion required. By the time an actual invasion became a real threat there would be nothing and nobody left to oppose it.
> _
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat.
> _
> Why would an ally help oppose a threat if we would not do the same for them? Are you aware that helping an ally might not involve any threat of the US being invaded? You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely is true
> No country has the military or Naval capability to invade us. Period
> 
> An attack is not an invasion. We are more than capable of withstanding an attack
> Terrorism is a threat.....always will be
> It is cheap and difficult to prevent
> But $600 billion a year invested in the most powerful military in the history of mankind will not stop some guy with a pressure cooker bomb or rented truck
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"An attack is not an invasion."
> _
> Which is exactly what I said. What part do you not understand? You are the one trying to claim that we are too strong for anyone to invade and that is strong enough. While I point out that invasion is but one of the things it is necessary to defend against. And that we must have allies who know  we will help them if they are attacked. Attacks happen much quicker and can well be more deadly than an invasion. Actually invasions are in fact a type of attack.
Click to expand...

No matter how many hundreds of billions we spend, it will not stop a determined terrorist

That is our threat right now. 

Our military could be de scoped and redirected to the new threat


----------



## Natural Citizen

jbander said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way there are multiple reasons to print money some of them great reasons. I don't think you understand that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really. Well, then, educate me, please, on the concept of printing money. I like to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why am I not surprised, you print money to increase it's supply, and then supply and demand dictates that interest will go down, which does multiple things,Lower interest rates stimulate business, they can borrow at a cheaper rate. it lowers the value of our currency. which then increases our ability to compete in a world market with out product, because they are cheaper in other parts of the world. It does the opposite for imports, it raises the price of imports. Printing money puts a stress on dollar as far as inflation is concerned but that can be watched closely as it was all during the Obama administration and obviously it wasn't a problem  but unwatched it can be.
> By the way government printing money is not quite generally printing money , it lowers the requirement that banks have to hold to borrow money. Which of course really means nothing when it is 3% generally and lowering it to 2% hardly secures the borrowed money anyway.
> Obama wrote laws to stimulate business but with out demand business just held onto their gains (showing how stupid supply side economics is) So there is very little effect on the economy when the increased supply of money is held under the mattress.
> It does many more things, some bad some good.
Click to expand...


Your understanding of the Keynesian model on which our economic system is based is about as deep as a mud puddle, in my view. Respectfully.


----------



## jbander

Natural Citizen said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way there are multiple reasons to print money some of them great reasons. I don't think you understand that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really. Well, then, educate me, please, on the concept of printing money. I like to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why am I not surprised, you print money to increase it's supply, and then supply and demand dictates that interest will go down, which does multiple things,Lower interest rates stimulate business, they can borrow at a cheaper rate. it lowers the value of our currency. which then increases our ability to compete in a world market with out product, because they are cheaper in other parts of the world. It does the opposite for imports, it raises the price of imports. Printing money puts a stress on dollar as far as inflation is concerned but that can be watched closely as it was all during the Obama administration and obviously it wasn't a problem  but unwatched it can be.
> By the way government printing money is not quite generally printing money , it lowers the requirement that banks have to hold to borrow money. Which of course really means nothing when it is 3% generally and lowering it to 2% hardly secures the borrowed money anyway.
> Obama wrote laws to stimulate business but with out demand business just held onto their gains (showing how stupid supply side economics is) So there is very little effect on the economy when the increased supply of money is held under the mattress.
> It does many more things, some bad some good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your understanding of the Keynesian model on which our economic system is based is about as deep as a mud puddle, in my view. Respectfully.
Click to expand...

 Other then the fact that we don't  use Keynesian Economics.  We are under a supply side economic view and have been for years.   Even as stupid as it is. I always like to ask these supply siders what can they do in a down market with no demand.


----------



## Natural Citizen

jbander said:


> we don't  use Keynesian Economics.



Bull pucky.

The very fact that you do not know that demonstrates that you have no business discussing economics. And especially military and defense spending.

Go color.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. Even if it were true you ignore the fact we must prepare ahead of time for threats that emerge in the future. Great plans and equipment in the pipeline cannot do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S.
> We currently have forces and equipment well above any current or potential threat
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S."_
> 
> You have absolutely no idea if that claim is true or not and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Beside the point in any case. Invasion is far from being the only threat our Nation faces and must be prepared to counter.9/11 was not an invasion. Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Foreign terrorists remain a threat. WMDs are a massive threat that could kill or maim every person in the continental United States within minutes  of being deployed no invasion required. By the time an actual invasion became a real threat there would be nothing and nobody left to oppose it.
> _
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat.
> _
> Why would an ally help oppose a threat if we would not do the same for them? Are you aware that helping an ally might not involve any threat of the US being invaded? You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He happens to be 100% right there is no one out there that can come close to dealing with just this country and if you include our allies , the whole rest of the world couldn't defeat us.  Sure someone could try to attack us. We would destroy their air force and navy in the first week. If they used it.
> Someone attacks us with nuclear weapons and the world goes back to the dark ages but then the right would do the same if we let them.
> Your comment is ridiculous , You have no clue. Just your bang bang blind attitude,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I at least have considerable military and some combat experience. Why exactly should anyone believe you know everything there is to know about our and every other military in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets put it this way, if you have been in combat , and since we haven't had a war that was needed since WW II . you where put out there as gun fodder for some corporate interest or other acts of stupidity . So There are very few of the people  in the military that don't believe what they are being told but many of them do find out and have mental breakdowns when they realize that the things they had to do to stay alive weren't justifiable and there reason for doing it was a lie. If they find out that they were used this way by their country, how do you think they will react.
> So your answer is simple, people ether believe what I say because they understand the reality of what I think and say or they believe a gun bubba who's out there wanting to increase our military strength and use our young as gun fodder for some corporate interest.
Click to expand...



Right. So you are unable to provide even a tiny bit of evidence that you are anything other than a raving narcissist with delusions of omnipotence. Big surprise.


*narcissism*
 (när′sĭ-sĭz′əm)
_n._
*1. *Excessive preoccupation with or admiration of oneself.
*2. *A personality disorder characterized by an exaggerated sense of self-importance, need for admiration, and lack ofempathy. Also called _narcissistic personality disorder_.
*3. *Pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, considered in psychoanalytic theory tobe a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. Even if it were true you ignore the fact we must prepare ahead of time for threats that emerge in the future. Great plans and equipment in the pipeline cannot do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S.
> We currently have forces and equipment well above any current or potential threat
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S."_
> 
> You have absolutely no idea if that claim is true or not and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Beside the point in any case. Invasion is far from being the only threat our Nation faces and must be prepared to counter.9/11 was not an invasion. Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Foreign terrorists remain a threat. WMDs are a massive threat that could kill or maim every person in the continental United States within minutes  of being deployed no invasion required. By the time an actual invasion became a real threat there would be nothing and nobody left to oppose it.
> _
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat.
> _
> Why would an ally help oppose a threat if we would not do the same for them? Are you aware that helping an ally might not involve any threat of the US being invaded? You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely is true
> No country has the military or Naval capability to invade us. Period
> 
> An attack is not an invasion. We are more than capable of withstanding an attack
> Terrorism is a threat.....always will be
> It is cheap and difficult to prevent
> But $600 billion a year invested in the most powerful military in the history of mankind will not stop some guy with a pressure cooker bomb or rented truck
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"An attack is not an invasion."
> _
> Which is exactly what I said. What part do you not understand? You are the one trying to claim that we are too strong for anyone to invade and that is strong enough. While I point out that invasion is but one of the things it is necessary to defend against. And that we must have allies who know  we will help them if they are attacked. Attacks happen much quicker and can well be more deadly than an invasion. Actually invasions are in fact a type of attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter how many hundreds of billions we spend, it will not stop a determined terrorist
> 
> That is our threat right now.
> 
> Our military could be de scoped and redirected to the new threat
Click to expand...


Hate to break it to you but our military is tasked with defending against far more than any single threat. If we short them on people or the appropriate tools they and we will die.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S.
> We currently have forces and equipment well above any current or potential threat
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S."_
> 
> You have absolutely no idea if that claim is true or not and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Beside the point in any case. Invasion is far from being the only threat our Nation faces and must be prepared to counter.9/11 was not an invasion. Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Foreign terrorists remain a threat. WMDs are a massive threat that could kill or maim every person in the continental United States within minutes  of being deployed no invasion required. By the time an actual invasion became a real threat there would be nothing and nobody left to oppose it.
> _
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat.
> _
> Why would an ally help oppose a threat if we would not do the same for them? Are you aware that helping an ally might not involve any threat of the US being invaded? You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely is true
> No country has the military or Naval capability to invade us. Period
> 
> An attack is not an invasion. We are more than capable of withstanding an attack
> Terrorism is a threat.....always will be
> It is cheap and difficult to prevent
> But $600 billion a year invested in the most powerful military in the history of mankind will not stop some guy with a pressure cooker bomb or rented truck
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"An attack is not an invasion."
> _
> Which is exactly what I said. What part do you not understand? You are the one trying to claim that we are too strong for anyone to invade and that is strong enough. While I point out that invasion is but one of the things it is necessary to defend against. And that we must have allies who know  we will help them if they are attacked. Attacks happen much quicker and can well be more deadly than an invasion. Actually invasions are in fact a type of attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter how many hundreds of billions we spend, it will not stop a determined terrorist
> 
> That is our threat right now.
> 
> Our military could be de scoped and redirected to the new threat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you but our military is tasked with defending against far more than any single threat. If we short them on people or the appropriate tools they and we will die.
Click to expand...

Very true

But those old Cold War threats are long gone. But we spend more on our military today than at any time since WWII

Fear mongering is keeping our military budget alive


----------



## usmcstinger

I hate to brake t you that the US is facing threats all over the world.


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> ....
> 
> But those old Cold War threats are long gone. .....


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> But those old Cold War threats are long gone. .....
Click to expand...

Wrong


----------



## rightwinger

usmcstinger said:


> I hate to brake t you that the US is facing threats all over the world.


Name some and we can discuss what is needed to counter them


----------



## usmcstinger

I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.


----------



## jbander

Natural Citizen said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> we don't  use Keynesian Economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull pucky.
> 
> The very fact that you do not know that demonstrates that you have no business discussing economics. And especially military and defense spending.
> 
> Go color.
Click to expand...

What can a Guy do when the person your responding to is brain dead, it would have taken him 2 minutes to find out that he is wrong.  But instead he is going to try to bullshit his way through this..


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S.
> We currently have forces and equipment well above any current or potential threat
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S."_
> 
> You have absolutely no idea if that claim is true or not and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Beside the point in any case. Invasion is far from being the only threat our Nation faces and must be prepared to counter.9/11 was not an invasion. Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Foreign terrorists remain a threat. WMDs are a massive threat that could kill or maim every person in the continental United States within minutes  of being deployed no invasion required. By the time an actual invasion became a real threat there would be nothing and nobody left to oppose it.
> _
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat.
> _
> Why would an ally help oppose a threat if we would not do the same for them? Are you aware that helping an ally might not involve any threat of the US being invaded? You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He happens to be 100% right there is no one out there that can come close to dealing with just this country and if you include our allies , the whole rest of the world couldn't defeat us.  Sure someone could try to attack us. We would destroy their air force and navy in the first week. If they used it.
> Someone attacks us with nuclear weapons and the world goes back to the dark ages but then the right would do the same if we let them.
> Your comment is ridiculous , You have no clue. Just your bang bang blind attitude,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I at least have considerable military and some combat experience. Why exactly should anyone believe you know everything there is to know about our and every other military in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets put it this way, if you have been in combat , and since we haven't had a war that was needed since WW II . you where put out there as gun fodder for some corporate interest or other acts of stupidity . So There are very few of the people  in the military that don't believe what they are being told but many of them do find out and have mental breakdowns when they realize that the things they had to do to stay alive weren't justifiable and there reason for doing it was a lie. If they find out that they were used this way by their country, how do you think they will react.
> So your answer is simple, people ether believe what I say because they understand the reality of what I think and say or they believe a gun bubba who's out there wanting to increase our military strength and use our young as gun fodder for some corporate interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right. So you are unable to provide even a tiny bit of evidence that you are anything other than a raving narcissist with delusions of omnipotence. Big surprise.
> 
> 
> *narcissism*
> (när′sĭ-sĭz′əm)
> _n._
> *1. *Excessive preoccupation with or admiration of oneself.
> *2. *A personality disorder characterized by an exaggerated sense of self-importance, need for admiration, and lack ofempathy. Also called _narcissistic personality disorder_.
> *3. *Pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, considered in psychoanalytic theory tobe a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development.
Click to expand...

 Oh good God.


----------



## jbander

usmcstinger said:


> I hate to brake t you that the US is facing threats all over the world.


 Another bang bang guy. tell us about the threats to our borders or the people who live here .  If all you got is terrorist, as far as the military is concerned 10 dollars would get as much done as the 600 billion they get now/


----------



## jbander

usmcstinger said:


> I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.


  Good God , he thinks that you have to  go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.


----------



## jbander

usmcstinger said:


> I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.





9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S.
> We currently have forces and equipment well above any current or potential threat
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S."_
> 
> You have absolutely no idea if that claim is true or not and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Beside the point in any case. Invasion is far from being the only threat our Nation faces and must be prepared to counter.9/11 was not an invasion. Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Foreign terrorists remain a threat. WMDs are a massive threat that could kill or maim every person in the continental United States within minutes  of being deployed no invasion required. By the time an actual invasion became a real threat there would be nothing and nobody left to oppose it.
> _
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat.
> _
> Why would an ally help oppose a threat if we would not do the same for them? Are you aware that helping an ally might not involve any threat of the US being invaded? You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely is true
> No country has the military or Naval capability to invade us. Period
> 
> An attack is not an invasion. We are more than capable of withstanding an attack
> Terrorism is a threat.....always will be
> It is cheap and difficult to prevent
> But $600 billion a year invested in the most powerful military in the history of mankind will not stop some guy with a pressure cooker bomb or rented truck
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"An attack is not an invasion."
> _
> Which is exactly what I said. What part do you not understand? You are the one trying to claim that we are too strong for anyone to invade and that is strong enough. While I point out that invasion is but one of the things it is necessary to defend against. And that we must have allies who know  we will help them if they are attacked. Attacks happen much quicker and can well be more deadly than an invasion. Actually invasions are in fact a type of attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter how many hundreds of billions we spend, it will not stop a determined terrorist
> 
> That is our threat right now.
> 
> Our military could be de scoped and redirected to the new threat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you but our military is tasked with defending against far more than any single threat. If we short them on people or the appropriate tools they and we will die.
Click to expand...

 From the yes sir ,whatever you say mind of the robot that is required to be in the military. If you want to argue this Pre condition to be in the military . Tell me what happens when you tell your superiors you won't do what they tell you to do.  So they expect Robot minds and a lot of you people never dump that after the military. It couldn't be more  obvious in the crazy attitude of some ex military people.  They support everything they are told to support, any less and somehow it degrades the flag waving , greatest American attitude that they think they deserve.  I respect every person who goes in the service  even though I know they will be used as cannon fodder most of the time for the bottom line of some corporation. When these young people go in , they have the naive Idea that it's for God and Country, well it usually isn't in any way to be for God and the country doesn't need their deaths to protect the bottom line of some corporation. . The military is to protect the people within our shores and the borders of this country.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to brake t you that the US is facing threats all over the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Another bang bang guy. tell us about the threats to our borders or the people who live here .  If all you got is terrorist, as far as the military is concerned 10 dollars would get as much done as the 600 billion they get now/
Click to expand...

Pathetic.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.
> 
> 
> 
> Good God , he thinks that you have to  go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.
Click to expand...

Wow --- wipe off the drool, and say what you meant to say. This whole damn thing makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"But there is no threat of any nation invading the U.S."_
> 
> You have absolutely no idea if that claim is true or not and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Beside the point in any case. Invasion is far from being the only threat our Nation faces and must be prepared to counter.9/11 was not an invasion. Pearl Harbor was not an invasion. Foreign terrorists remain a threat. WMDs are a massive threat that could kill or maim every person in the continental United States within minutes  of being deployed no invasion required. By the time an actual invasion became a real threat there would be nothing and nobody left to oppose it.
> _
> We also have alliances capable of meeting any threat.
> _
> Why would an ally help oppose a threat if we would not do the same for them? Are you aware that helping an ally might not involve any threat of the US being invaded? You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely is true
> No country has the military or Naval capability to invade us. Period
> 
> An attack is not an invasion. We are more than capable of withstanding an attack
> Terrorism is a threat.....always will be
> It is cheap and difficult to prevent
> But $600 billion a year invested in the most powerful military in the history of mankind will not stop some guy with a pressure cooker bomb or rented truck
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"An attack is not an invasion."
> _
> Which is exactly what I said. What part do you not understand? You are the one trying to claim that we are too strong for anyone to invade and that is strong enough. While I point out that invasion is but one of the things it is necessary to defend against. And that we must have allies who know  we will help them if they are attacked. Attacks happen much quicker and can well be more deadly than an invasion. Actually invasions are in fact a type of attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter how many hundreds of billions we spend, it will not stop a determined terrorist
> 
> That is our threat right now.
> 
> Our military could be de scoped and redirected to the new threat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you but our military is tasked with defending against far more than any single threat. If we short them on people or the appropriate tools they and we will die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the yes sir ,whatever you say mind of the robot that is required to be in the military. If you want to argue this Pre condition to be in the military . Tell me what happens when you tell your superiors you won't do what they tell you to do.  So they expect Robot minds and a lot of you people never dump that after the military. It couldn't be more  obvious in the crazy attitude of some ex military people.  They support everything they are told to support, any less and somehow it degrades the flag waving , greatest American attitude that they think they deserve.  I respect every person who goes in the service  even though I know they will be used as cannon fodder most of the time for the bottom line of some corporation. When these young people go in , they have the naive Idea that it's for God and Country, well it usually isn't in any way to be for God and the country doesn't need their deaths to protect the bottom line of some corporation. . The military is to protect the people within our shores and the borders of this country.
Click to expand...

"I respect every person who goes in the service ..." "... even though they are mindless robots ..." " ... who aren't afraid to meet the threat on THEIR land instead of ours ..."

You got ANY idea how stupid you sound?


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It absolutely is true
> No country has the military or Naval capability to invade us. Period
> 
> An attack is not an invasion. We are more than capable of withstanding an attack
> Terrorism is a threat.....always will be
> It is cheap and difficult to prevent
> But $600 billion a year invested in the most powerful military in the history of mankind will not stop some guy with a pressure cooker bomb or rented truck
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"An attack is not an invasion."
> _
> Which is exactly what I said. What part do you not understand? You are the one trying to claim that we are too strong for anyone to invade and that is strong enough. While I point out that invasion is but one of the things it is necessary to defend against. And that we must have allies who know  we will help them if they are attacked. Attacks happen much quicker and can well be more deadly than an invasion. Actually invasions are in fact a type of attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter how many hundreds of billions we spend, it will not stop a determined terrorist
> 
> That is our threat right now.
> 
> Our military could be de scoped and redirected to the new threat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you but our military is tasked with defending against far more than any single threat. If we short them on people or the appropriate tools they and we will die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the yes sir ,whatever you say mind of the robot that is required to be in the military. If you want to argue this Pre condition to be in the military . Tell me what happens when you tell your superiors you won't do what they tell you to do.  So they expect Robot minds and a lot of you people never dump that after the military. It couldn't be more  obvious in the crazy attitude of some ex military people.  They support everything they are told to support, any less and somehow it degrades the flag waving , greatest American attitude that they think they deserve.  I respect every person who goes in the service  even though I know they will be used as cannon fodder most of the time for the bottom line of some corporation. When these young people go in , they have the naive Idea that it's for God and Country, well it usually isn't in any way to be for God and the country doesn't need their deaths to protect the bottom line of some corporation. . The military is to protect the people within our shores and the borders of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I respect every person who goes in the service ..." "... even though they are mindless robots ..." " ... who aren't afraid to meet the threat on THEIR land instead of ours ..."
> 
> You got ANY idea how stupid you sound?
Click to expand...

 Do you got any idea how much I care what you think. you people are amazing.  I respect every person that is in our country's military but if you come out spewing hate and saying they know it all because they were in the service, then your just another ass hole that was in the military at one time. You can always pick these clowns out in these forums , their name and the picture image they use with that name is always military oriented. 
   My complaint with these people that are in the military ,is using them for cannon fodder for the bottom line of some corporations. We have been in over 100 wars, only 4 of which we needed to be in and only 2 that attacked this country. The rest were straight out murder or sending our young as cannon fodder for some corporation or some macho idea about what this country is.


----------



## jbander

How stupid can the right be , coming on here and not responding to what I said but instead just calling me as many hateful names as they can come up with, is so much wasted bandwidth. Tell me why you think I would care what my enemy , the enemy of my country says about me.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> How stupid can the right be , coming on here and not responding to what I said but instead just calling me as many hateful names as they can come up with, is so much wasted bandwidth. Tell me why you think I would care what my enemy , the enemy of my country says about me.



You don't answer questions.
You spend most of your time name calling and otherwise disrespecting your fellow posters.
You expect us to believe your sick delusions just because you say we should.
You don't deserve a response.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> How stupid can the right be , coming on here and not responding to what I said but instead just calling me as many hateful names as they can come up with, is so much wasted bandwidth. Tell me why you think I would care what my enemy , the enemy of my country says about me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't answer questions.
> You spend most of your time name calling and otherwise disrespecting your fellow posters.
> You expect us to believe your sick delusions just because you say we should.
> You don't deserve a response.
Click to expand...

Hot  dog I don't give a flying fuc* what you think.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"An attack is not an invasion."
> _
> Which is exactly what I said. What part do you not understand? You are the one trying to claim that we are too strong for anyone to invade and that is strong enough. While I point out that invasion is but one of the things it is necessary to defend against. And that we must have allies who know  we will help them if they are attacked. Attacks happen much quicker and can well be more deadly than an invasion. Actually invasions are in fact a type of attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter how many hundreds of billions we spend, it will not stop a determined terrorist
> 
> That is our threat right now.
> 
> Our military could be de scoped and redirected to the new threat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you but our military is tasked with defending against far more than any single threat. If we short them on people or the appropriate tools they and we will die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the yes sir ,whatever you say mind of the robot that is required to be in the military. If you want to argue this Pre condition to be in the military . Tell me what happens when you tell your superiors you won't do what they tell you to do.  So they expect Robot minds and a lot of you people never dump that after the military. It couldn't be more  obvious in the crazy attitude of some ex military people.  They support everything they are told to support, any less and somehow it degrades the flag waving , greatest American attitude that they think they deserve.  I respect every person who goes in the service  even though I know they will be used as cannon fodder most of the time for the bottom line of some corporation. When these young people go in , they have the naive Idea that it's for God and Country, well it usually isn't in any way to be for God and the country doesn't need their deaths to protect the bottom line of some corporation. . The military is to protect the people within our shores and the borders of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I respect every person who goes in the service ..." "... even though they are mindless robots ..." " ... who aren't afraid to meet the threat on THEIR land instead of ours ..."
> 
> You got ANY idea how stupid you sound?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you got any idea how much I care what you think. you people are amazing.  I respect every person that is in our country's military but if you come out spewing hate and saying they know it all because they were in the service, then your just another ass hole that was in the military at one time. You can always pick these clowns out in these forums , their name and the picture image they use with that name is always military oriented.
> My complaint with these people that are in the military ,is using them for cannon fodder for the bottom line of some corporations. We have been in over 100 wars, only 4 of which we needed to be in and only 2 that attacked this country. The rest were straight out murder or sending our young as cannon fodder for some corporation or some macho idea about what this country is.
Click to expand...

Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.

If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.

Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.

You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many hundreds of billions we spend, it will not stop a determined terrorist
> 
> That is our threat right now.
> 
> Our military could be de scoped and redirected to the new threat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you but our military is tasked with defending against far more than any single threat. If we short them on people or the appropriate tools they and we will die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the yes sir ,whatever you say mind of the robot that is required to be in the military. If you want to argue this Pre condition to be in the military . Tell me what happens when you tell your superiors you won't do what they tell you to do.  So they expect Robot minds and a lot of you people never dump that after the military. It couldn't be more  obvious in the crazy attitude of some ex military people.  They support everything they are told to support, any less and somehow it degrades the flag waving , greatest American attitude that they think they deserve.  I respect every person who goes in the service  even though I know they will be used as cannon fodder most of the time for the bottom line of some corporation. When these young people go in , they have the naive Idea that it's for God and Country, well it usually isn't in any way to be for God and the country doesn't need their deaths to protect the bottom line of some corporation. . The military is to protect the people within our shores and the borders of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I respect every person who goes in the service ..." "... even though they are mindless robots ..." " ... who aren't afraid to meet the threat on THEIR land instead of ours ..."
> 
> You got ANY idea how stupid you sound?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you got any idea how much I care what you think. you people are amazing.  I respect every person that is in our country's military but if you come out spewing hate and saying they know it all because they were in the service, then your just another ass hole that was in the military at one time. You can always pick these clowns out in these forums , their name and the picture image they use with that name is always military oriented.
> My complaint with these people that are in the military ,is using them for cannon fodder for the bottom line of some corporations. We have been in over 100 wars, only 4 of which we needed to be in and only 2 that attacked this country. The rest were straight out murder or sending our young as cannon fodder for some corporation or some macho idea about what this country is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.
> 
> Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.
> 
> You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.
Click to expand...

 You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you but our military is tasked with defending against far more than any single threat. If we short them on people or the appropriate tools they and we will die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the yes sir ,whatever you say mind of the robot that is required to be in the military. If you want to argue this Pre condition to be in the military . Tell me what happens when you tell your superiors you won't do what they tell you to do.  So they expect Robot minds and a lot of you people never dump that after the military. It couldn't be more  obvious in the crazy attitude of some ex military people.  They support everything they are told to support, any less and somehow it degrades the flag waving , greatest American attitude that they think they deserve.  I respect every person who goes in the service  even though I know they will be used as cannon fodder most of the time for the bottom line of some corporation. When these young people go in , they have the naive Idea that it's for God and Country, well it usually isn't in any way to be for God and the country doesn't need their deaths to protect the bottom line of some corporation. . The military is to protect the people within our shores and the borders of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I respect every person who goes in the service ..." "... even though they are mindless robots ..." " ... who aren't afraid to meet the threat on THEIR land instead of ours ..."
> 
> You got ANY idea how stupid you sound?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you got any idea how much I care what you think. you people are amazing.  I respect every person that is in our country's military but if you come out spewing hate and saying they know it all because they were in the service, then your just another ass hole that was in the military at one time. You can always pick these clowns out in these forums , their name and the picture image they use with that name is always military oriented.
> My complaint with these people that are in the military ,is using them for cannon fodder for the bottom line of some corporations. We have been in over 100 wars, only 4 of which we needed to be in and only 2 that attacked this country. The rest were straight out murder or sending our young as cannon fodder for some corporation or some macho idea about what this country is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.
> 
> Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.
> 
> You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
Click to expand...


Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for. 

Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us. 

See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?

100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought. 

So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?

Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.


----------



## rightwinger

Spare_change said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the yes sir ,whatever you say mind of the robot that is required to be in the military. If you want to argue this Pre condition to be in the military . Tell me what happens when you tell your superiors you won't do what they tell you to do.  So they expect Robot minds and a lot of you people never dump that after the military. It couldn't be more  obvious in the crazy attitude of some ex military people.  They support everything they are told to support, any less and somehow it degrades the flag waving , greatest American attitude that they think they deserve.  I respect every person who goes in the service  even though I know they will be used as cannon fodder most of the time for the bottom line of some corporation. When these young people go in , they have the naive Idea that it's for God and Country, well it usually isn't in any way to be for God and the country doesn't need their deaths to protect the bottom line of some corporation. . The military is to protect the people within our shores and the borders of this country.
> 
> 
> 
> "I respect every person who goes in the service ..." "... even though they are mindless robots ..." " ... who aren't afraid to meet the threat on THEIR land instead of ours ..."
> 
> You got ANY idea how stupid you sound?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you got any idea how much I care what you think. you people are amazing.  I respect every person that is in our country's military but if you come out spewing hate and saying they know it all because they were in the service, then your just another ass hole that was in the military at one time. You can always pick these clowns out in these forums , their name and the picture image they use with that name is always military oriented.
> My complaint with these people that are in the military ,is using them for cannon fodder for the bottom line of some corporations. We have been in over 100 wars, only 4 of which we needed to be in and only 2 that attacked this country. The rest were straight out murder or sending our young as cannon fodder for some corporation or some macho idea about what this country is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.
> 
> Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.
> 
> You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
Click to expand...


OK ...so lets fight terrorism

Do we need to spend $600 billion a year to fight elusive terrorists?
Do we need 10 supercarrier task forces to scare away terrorists
Are terrorists intimidated by the F35 fighter?
How many nuclear bombs does it take to fight a terrorist?

We can fight the terrorist threat with a fraction of our current military budget. For the rest of it, there is hardly a threat to warrant spending more than the next eight countries combined (six are our allies) to combat it

China?  China is a major trade partner. Why do we want to fight them?  China spends most of its military budget keeping 1.5 billion people in line. They are not a significant threat to us


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the yes sir ,whatever you say mind of the robot that is required to be in the military. If you want to argue this Pre condition to be in the military . Tell me what happens when you tell your superiors you won't do what they tell you to do.  So they expect Robot minds and a lot of you people never dump that after the military. It couldn't be more  obvious in the crazy attitude of some ex military people.  They support everything they are told to support, any less and somehow it degrades the flag waving , greatest American attitude that they think they deserve.  I respect every person who goes in the service  even though I know they will be used as cannon fodder most of the time for the bottom line of some corporation. When these young people go in , they have the naive Idea that it's for God and Country, well it usually isn't in any way to be for God and the country doesn't need their deaths to protect the bottom line of some corporation. . The military is to protect the people within our shores and the borders of this country.
> 
> 
> 
> "I respect every person who goes in the service ..." "... even though they are mindless robots ..." " ... who aren't afraid to meet the threat on THEIR land instead of ours ..."
> 
> You got ANY idea how stupid you sound?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you got any idea how much I care what you think. you people are amazing.  I respect every person that is in our country's military but if you come out spewing hate and saying they know it all because they were in the service, then your just another ass hole that was in the military at one time. You can always pick these clowns out in these forums , their name and the picture image they use with that name is always military oriented.
> My complaint with these people that are in the military ,is using them for cannon fodder for the bottom line of some corporations. We have been in over 100 wars, only 4 of which we needed to be in and only 2 that attacked this country. The rest were straight out murder or sending our young as cannon fodder for some corporation or some macho idea about what this country is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.
> 
> Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.
> 
> You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
Click to expand...

 I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
  Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.


----------



## jbander

rightwinger said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I respect every person who goes in the service ..." "... even though they are mindless robots ..." " ... who aren't afraid to meet the threat on THEIR land instead of ours ..."
> 
> You got ANY idea how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you got any idea how much I care what you think. you people are amazing.  I respect every person that is in our country's military but if you come out spewing hate and saying they know it all because they were in the service, then your just another ass hole that was in the military at one time. You can always pick these clowns out in these forums , their name and the picture image they use with that name is always military oriented.
> My complaint with these people that are in the military ,is using them for cannon fodder for the bottom line of some corporations. We have been in over 100 wars, only 4 of which we needed to be in and only 2 that attacked this country. The rest were straight out murder or sending our young as cannon fodder for some corporation or some macho idea about what this country is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.
> 
> Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.
> 
> You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK ...so lets fight terrorism
> 
> Do we need to spend $600 billion a year to fight elusive terrorists?
> Do we need 10 supercarrier task forces to scare away terrorists
> Are terrorists intimidated by the F35 fighter?
> How many nuclear bombs does it take to fight a terrorist?
> 
> We can fight the terrorist threat with a fraction of our current military budget. For the rest of it, there is hardly a threat to warrant spending more than the next eight countries combined (six are our allies) to combat it
> 
> China?  China is a major trade partner. Why do we want to fight them?  China spends most of its military budget keeping 1.5 billion people in line. They are not a significant threat to us
Click to expand...

 These people are straight out stupid , they are told to think this way , so they do, what a group of blind idiots, The right just loves their guns and other weapons.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I respect every person who goes in the service ..." "... even though they are mindless robots ..." " ... who aren't afraid to meet the threat on THEIR land instead of ours ..."
> 
> You got ANY idea how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you got any idea how much I care what you think. you people are amazing.  I respect every person that is in our country's military but if you come out spewing hate and saying they know it all because they were in the service, then your just another ass hole that was in the military at one time. You can always pick these clowns out in these forums , their name and the picture image they use with that name is always military oriented.
> My complaint with these people that are in the military ,is using them for cannon fodder for the bottom line of some corporations. We have been in over 100 wars, only 4 of which we needed to be in and only 2 that attacked this country. The rest were straight out murder or sending our young as cannon fodder for some corporation or some macho idea about what this country is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.
> 
> Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.
> 
> You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
Click to expand...


List them? I would rather see some evidence that you have the slightest clue what war is.
I would also rather know why you think anyone needs to justify anything to you. Especially when you've proven over and over that you are simply not intelligent enough to understand what you're told.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you got any idea how much I care what you think. you people are amazing.  I respect every person that is in our country's military but if you come out spewing hate and saying they know it all because they were in the service, then your just another ass hole that was in the military at one time. You can always pick these clowns out in these forums , their name and the picture image they use with that name is always military oriented.
> My complaint with these people that are in the military ,is using them for cannon fodder for the bottom line of some corporations. We have been in over 100 wars, only 4 of which we needed to be in and only 2 that attacked this country. The rest were straight out murder or sending our young as cannon fodder for some corporation or some macho idea about what this country is.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.
> 
> Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.
> 
> You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> List them? I would rather see some evidence that you have the slightest clue what war is.
> I would also rather know why you think anyone needs to justify anything to you. Especially when you've proven over and over that you are simply not intelligent enough to understand what you're told.
Click to expand...

Kiss off you loser. Do you think anyone here believes you. You simply can't answer the question. It's always nice and enjoyable when I can make you haters admit they have no clue what their talking about. This is all the proof that is need ed. Loser.


----------



## Spare_change

rightwinger said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I respect every person who goes in the service ..." "... even though they are mindless robots ..." " ... who aren't afraid to meet the threat on THEIR land instead of ours ..."
> 
> You got ANY idea how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you got any idea how much I care what you think. you people are amazing.  I respect every person that is in our country's military but if you come out spewing hate and saying they know it all because they were in the service, then your just another ass hole that was in the military at one time. You can always pick these clowns out in these forums , their name and the picture image they use with that name is always military oriented.
> My complaint with these people that are in the military ,is using them for cannon fodder for the bottom line of some corporations. We have been in over 100 wars, only 4 of which we needed to be in and only 2 that attacked this country. The rest were straight out murder or sending our young as cannon fodder for some corporation or some macho idea about what this country is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.
> 
> Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.
> 
> You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK ...so lets fight terrorism
> 
> Do we need to spend $600 billion a year to fight elusive terrorists?
> Do we need 10 supercarrier task forces to scare away terrorists
> Are terrorists intimidated by the F35 fighter?
> How many nuclear bombs does it take to fight a terrorist?
> 
> We can fight the terrorist threat with a fraction of our current military budget. For the rest of it, there is hardly a threat to warrant spending more than the next eight countries combined (six are our allies) to combat it
> 
> China?  China is a major trade partner. Why do we want to fight them?  China spends most of its military budget keeping 1.5 billion people in line. They are not a significant threat to us
Click to expand...

Frankly, it's obvious you don't even know what you're talking about.

You agree we should fight terrorists, right? That would be in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Philippines, Indonesia, half of Africa, etc., etc., etc. You agree with that, right?

How about North Korea? Do you think we need to project force in that area? You agree with that, right?

The Fulda Gap? What do you think? The gateway to Russian attack into Europe? You think we should be there? Or, do you suggest that we ignore our NATO agreement, and back out and let them fall to Russia, just like Crimea did?

Speaking of treaties - SEATO? Let them fall under China? South China Sea? Turn it over to the Chinese, so no trade ships can pass thru there? Our agreements with Australia? Israel? 

See - what you say sounds pretty ----- but when you look at it thru real-world glasses, it just doesn't work.

Now - money. You agree that we are unable to put in place the numbers of troops (cannon fodder, if you will) that other countries can, right? We are unwilling to sacrifice our children to stand these necessary posts, right? So, the only we can maintain a strategic and tactical advantage is to stay ahead of the enemy technologically, right? You agree with that, right? Or, would you prefer to send our troops into harm's way outnumbered AND outgunned?

You can't have it both ways - you can't agree to these confrontations, and cut funding that gives our troops an advantage. You agree, right?

Now, if you want to discuss particular weapon systems - or deployments - we can do it. But, let's stop painting everything with the liberal broad brush and talk specifics.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I respect every person who goes in the service ..." "... even though they are mindless robots ..." " ... who aren't afraid to meet the threat on THEIR land instead of ours ..."
> 
> You got ANY idea how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you got any idea how much I care what you think. you people are amazing.  I respect every person that is in our country's military but if you come out spewing hate and saying they know it all because they were in the service, then your just another ass hole that was in the military at one time. You can always pick these clowns out in these forums , their name and the picture image they use with that name is always military oriented.
> My complaint with these people that are in the military ,is using them for cannon fodder for the bottom line of some corporations. We have been in over 100 wars, only 4 of which we needed to be in and only 2 that attacked this country. The rest were straight out murder or sending our young as cannon fodder for some corporation or some macho idea about what this country is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.
> 
> Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.
> 
> You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
Click to expand...

You talk such childish bullshit.

You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those

As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?

You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at ----- 

*Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
*Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*

Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up. 

So, we wait for:

1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.

I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.


----------



## rightwinger

Spare_change said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you got any idea how much I care what you think. you people are amazing.  I respect every person that is in our country's military but if you come out spewing hate and saying they know it all because they were in the service, then your just another ass hole that was in the military at one time. You can always pick these clowns out in these forums , their name and the picture image they use with that name is always military oriented.
> My complaint with these people that are in the military ,is using them for cannon fodder for the bottom line of some corporations. We have been in over 100 wars, only 4 of which we needed to be in and only 2 that attacked this country. The rest were straight out murder or sending our young as cannon fodder for some corporation or some macho idea about what this country is.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.
> 
> Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.
> 
> You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
Click to expand...


It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services

Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
Do we need our current troop strength?
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you got any idea how much I care what you think. you people are amazing.  I respect every person that is in our country's military but if you come out spewing hate and saying they know it all because they were in the service, then your just another ass hole that was in the military at one time. You can always pick these clowns out in these forums , their name and the picture image they use with that name is always military oriented.
> My complaint with these people that are in the military ,is using them for cannon fodder for the bottom line of some corporations. We have been in over 100 wars, only 4 of which we needed to be in and only 2 that attacked this country. The rest were straight out murder or sending our young as cannon fodder for some corporation or some macho idea about what this country is.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.
> 
> Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.
> 
> You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
Click to expand...




Spare_change said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you got any idea how much I care what you think. you people are amazing.  I respect every person that is in our country's military but if you come out spewing hate and saying they know it all because they were in the service, then your just another ass hole that was in the military at one time. You can always pick these clowns out in these forums , their name and the picture image they use with that name is always military oriented.
> My complaint with these people that are in the military ,is using them for cannon fodder for the bottom line of some corporations. We have been in over 100 wars, only 4 of which we needed to be in and only 2 that attacked this country. The rest were straight out murder or sending our young as cannon fodder for some corporation or some macho idea about what this country is.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.
> 
> Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.
> 
> You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
Click to expand...

 TI simply asked him a question, and backed this bullshitter right back into a corner, this is a very reasonable question considering the bullshit he's trying to sell here  MY COMMENT "You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought. . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog." He is totally unable to do this so he is trying to sell his bullshit that the reason he can't answer is because of me, Two stupid long drawn out reply's and nothing but bullshit. This guy has no clue.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.
> 
> Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.
> 
> You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
> Do we need our current troop strength?
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
Click to expand...


A better question is what makes you think you can better determine the needs of our military than those trained and paid to do that very job?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.
> 
> Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.
> 
> You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.
> 
> Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.
> 
> You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TI simply asked him a question, and backed this bullshitter right back into a corner, this is a very reasonable question considering the bullshit he's trying to sell here  MY COMMENT "You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought. . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog." He is totally unable to do this so he is trying to sell his bullshit that the reason he can't answer is because of me, Two stupid long drawn out reply's and nothing but bullshit. This guy has no clue.
Click to expand...


You don't answer reasonable questions; so why would anyone answer yours (even if you knew any).
And when someone does do you the courtesy of answering your idiotic questions you invariably simply discount the explanation as "bullshit" without the first clue as to the warped thinking (if any) on the matter. In short you argue like a retarded 2nd grader.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
> Do we need our current troop strength?
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A better question is what makes you think you can better determine the needs of our military than those trained and paid to do that very job?
Click to expand...

Because I am a world renowned message board poster

That gives me the right to question what I don't agree with

Right now, I don't agree with paying for the U.S. to be the worlds policeman


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TI simply asked him a question, and backed this bullshitter right back into a corner, this is a very reasonable question considering the bullshit he's trying to sell here  MY COMMENT "You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought. . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog." He is totally unable to do this so he is trying to sell his bullshit that the reason he can't answer is because of me, Two stupid long drawn out reply's and nothing but bullshit. This guy has no clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't answer reasonable questions; so why would anyone answer yours (even if you knew any).
> And when someone does do you the courtesy of answering your idiotic questions you invariably simply discount the explanation as "bullshit" without the first clue as to the warped thinking (if any) on the matter. In short you argue like a retarded 2nd grader.
Click to expand...

THIS guy is 100% bullshit and can't back up a thing he says."I simply asked him a question, and backed this bullshitter right back into a corner, this is a very reasonable question considering the bullshit he's trying to sell here MY COMMENT "You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought. . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog." He is totally unable to do this so he is trying to sell his bullshit that the reason he can't answer is because of me, Two stupid long drawn out reply's and nothing but bullshit. This guy has no clue."


----------



## jbander

These people are brain dead when it comes to justifying this ridiculous 600 billion a year spent on the military. There is one reason why the controllers of the hate party want this , It's because they get the money , what maybe 90% goes into the top golden few's pocket.  And their puppet party members  jumps and does little tricks when their controllers tell them how to think.


----------



## rightwinger

jbander said:


> These people are brain dead when it comes to justifying this ridiculous 600 billion a year spent on the military. There is one reason why the controllers of the hate party want this , It's because they get the money , what maybe 90% goes into the top golden few's pocket.  And their puppet party members  jumps and does little tricks when their controllers tell them how to think.



They inflate imaginary threats to justify a military budget larger than the next eight largest militaries


----------



## jbander

rightwinger said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are brain dead when it comes to justifying this ridiculous 600 billion a year spent on the military. There is one reason why the controllers of the hate party want this , It's because they get the money , what maybe 90% goes into the top golden few's pocket.  And their puppet party members  jumps and does little tricks when their controllers tell them how to think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They inflate imaginary threats to justify a military budget larger than the next eight largest militaries
Click to expand...

 That and commies behind every bush and terrorist around every corner, they are so easily played that these robot minds can be told anything and boy is it apparent when they open their mouth or respond in a forum like this.  Brain dead nonsense.


----------



## jbander

That's not the complete story , the complete story is The US and It's allies are by far the center of technology in the world  and add the fact that this group pays about 3 out of every 4 dollars in the world  on this worlds military spending. These goofballs are nuts thinking more is needed. . That Guaranties that with our Allies we could take on every country in the world and kick their asses ten time over. Again totally brain dead.


----------



## rightwinger

jbander said:


> That's not the complete story , the complete story is The US and It's allies are by far the center of technology in the world  and add the fact that this group pays about 3 out of every 4 dollars in the world  on this worlds military spending. These goofballs are nuts thinking more is needed. . That Guaranties that with our Allies we could take on every country in the world and kick their asses ten time over. Again totally brain dead.


That is the key...our allies
We have a lot of them and they have powerful militaries

Why are we obligated to defend areas in the EUs area of influence?
Why do we defend areas best served by Japan and S Korea?

Russia and China are not allies. They are on their own


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Gosh, wonder why these guys couldn't be bothered to speak up when the Obama administration was "misplacing" billions and giving it to enemy nations along with weapons to use against us and our allies while at the same time being too cheap to provide reasonable security for our diplomats.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> Gosh, wonder why these guys couldn't be bothered to speak up when the Obama administration was "misplacing" billions and giving it to enemy nations along with weapons to use against us and our allies while at the same time being too cheap to provide reasonable security for our diplomats.


Deflection noted


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> Gosh, wonder why these guys couldn't be bothered to speak up when the Obama administration was "misplacing" billions and giving it to enemy nations along with weapons to use against us and our allies while at the same time being too cheap to provide reasonable security for our diplomats.


 Because it is just another brain dead lie. that's why. That's all you have is lies. Shit you wouldn't even recognize the truth if it was tattooed on your forehead.
    BY the way were's your response , you said you had all the answers this simple one seemed to throw you big timer. To much bullshit, thats the problem------This is what happened everyone, 
I simply asked brain dead a question, and backed this bullshitter right back into a corner, this is a very reasonable question considering the bullshit he's trying to sell here MY COMMENT "You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought. . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog." He is totally unable to do this so he is trying to sell his bullshit that the reason he can't answer is because of me, Two stupid long drawn out reply's and nothing but bullshit. This guy has no clue.


----------



## Spare_change

rightwinger said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.
> 
> Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.
> 
> You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
> Do we need our current troop strength?
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
Click to expand...


Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? *YES*
Do we need our current troop strength? *NO - WE NEED MORE*
Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? *NO* - 
Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? *NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN*
Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? *YES*
Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? *YES*

Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
What makes us special?
*
Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements. 

Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.
> 
> Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.
> 
> You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you hate military veterans who spout what you called "hate", I don't like ignorant little piss ants who have no experience in the real world, who believe that the world ends at the tips of their fingers, that they know everything  about everything, and don't need to learn anything, but feel somehow entitled to lecture people about things of which they are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> If you know any of those, please tell them I said that.
> 
> Now, as for your absolute stupidity claiming that the military is nothing but "cannon fodder" for corporations, I can think of nothing more naive, inane, and unrealistic. Your absolute ignorance of the threats in our world today make you a danger to yourself, to me, and to our country. You are the classical egotist, so comfortable in your myopic little view of the world, that you have no understanding of what the real world looks like. Further, to call veterans murderers on a blog, using a right  protected by those "murderers", is the ultimate in hubris and childish inanity. Your ignorance IS the enemy of this country, and if left unchallenged, will be the cause of your death.
> 
> You need to get out of the basement - see what the real world is like and ............ grow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TI simply asked him a question, and backed this bullshitter right back into a corner, this is a very reasonable question considering the bullshit he's trying to sell here  MY COMMENT "You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought. . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog." He is totally unable to do this so he is trying to sell his bullshit that the reason he can't answer is because of me, Two stupid long drawn out reply's and nothing but bullshit. This guy has no clue.
Click to expand...

Your personal attack, coupled with your non-responsiveness, is duly noted.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Spare_change said:


> *
> Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*



Well, how are we gonna pay for it?


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> These people are brain dead when it comes to justifying this ridiculous 600 billion a year spent on the military. There is one reason why the controllers of the hate party want this , It's because they get the money , what maybe 90% goes into the top golden few's pocket.  And their puppet party members  jumps and does little tricks when their controllers tell them how to think.


What moronic drivel.


----------



## Spare_change

Natural Citizen said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, how are we gonna pay for it?
Click to expand...


Your choices are simple - you can pay it now, or you can pay it later. 

It is nonsensical and naive to believe that we can lower our military posture without enhancing the goals of our enemies. As we saw in the mid-70s (thank you, Carter) and late 90s (thank you, Clinton), degradation of our military capabilities emboldened our enemies world wide. We were attacked - and we were forced to rebuild our military so we could respond. 

Like all things, we need to prioritize our spending. What's more important? The Dept of Education or national security? What's more important? The Agriculture Department or national security? 

I hope you realize that we spend almost twice our defense budget on Medicare and healthcare ($1.04 TRILLION in 2016). Is that more important than national security? Do we need to change the enrollment requirements in order to better manage limited dollars? Do we have people on our healthcare rolls that should be responsible for their own healthcare? 

Frankly, you've been sold a bill of goods ---- consider this: Mandatory government spending in 2016 was $4.1 trillion. Discretionary spending, including defense spending, was $1.15 trillion. Total budget was $4.25 trillion. Defense spending  was only 14.5% of the budget. 

Defense spending is an obvious target for the ignorant - they don't have to understand what the money is being spent on. They just have to know they hate war, and we shouldn't have to spend money preparing for something we hate. In the meantime, the real theft goes ignored in mandatory spending.

As an aside, let me remind you that we are geographically unique. We go - literally - from sea to shining sea. That means we have significantly more land to protect, and two oceans to guard. We are an international country - we deal with countries all over the world. Our assets need to be protected, no matter where they go. People ask why we need "hundreds" of bases world wide - the answer is simple. It is cheaper to pre-position them there, than it is to keep them here and deploy them when needed. 

Back to your question - how do we pay for it? 

We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, wonder why these guys couldn't be bothered to speak up when the Obama administration was "misplacing" billions and giving it to enemy nations along with weapons to use against us and our allies while at the same time being too cheap to provide reasonable security for our diplomats.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is just another brain dead lie. that's why. That's all you have is lies. Shit you wouldn't even recognize the truth if it was tattooed on your forehead.
> BY the way were's your response , you said you had all the answers this simple one seemed to throw you big timer. To much bullshit, thats the problem------This is what happened everyone,
> I simply asked brain dead a question, and backed this bullshitter right back into a corner, this is a very reasonable question considering the bullshit he's trying to sell here MY COMMENT "You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought. . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog." He is totally unable to do this so he is trying to sell his bullshit that the reason he can't answer is because of me, Two stupid long drawn out reply's and nothing but bullshit. This guy has no clue.
Click to expand...


What part of:
_You don't answer reasonable questions; so why would anyone answer yours (even if you knew any)?
And when someone does do you the courtesy of answering your idiotic questions you invariably simply discount the explanation as "bullshit" without the first clue as to the warped thinking (if any) on the matter. In short you argue like a retarded 2nd grader._
did you fail to understand? Try answering some of the many questions you have ignored.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> That's not the complete story , the complete story is The US and It's allies are by far the center of technology in the world  and add the fact that this group pays about 3 out of every 4 dollars in the world  on this worlds military spending. These goofballs are nuts thinking more is needed. . That Guaranties that with our Allies we could take on every country in the world and kick their asses ten time over. Again totally brain dead.


Speaking of brain dead .....

Our Allies are only our allies while it is convenient for them.

Further, there are very little technological advances that aren't based on US R&D.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Spare_change said:


> We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.



Well, wait a minute. When you say government benefits, I have to remind you that the federal government doesn't produce anything. Therefore, the federal government doesn't have anything. So, where are they going to get the money from? That's what I'm asking. We're almost 21 trillion dollars in debt at the time of this communication with over 900 bases in 130 countries.


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
> Do we need our current troop strength?
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? *YES*
> Do we need our current troop strength? *NO - WE NEED MORE*
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? *NO* -
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? *NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN*
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? *YES*
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? *YES*
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> *
> Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> 
> Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
Click to expand...

 Whats this guys name , what ever it is its the new word for stupid. Global reach has me laughing on the floor.


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the complete story , the complete story is The US and It's allies are by far the center of technology in the world  and add the fact that this group pays about 3 out of every 4 dollars in the world  on this worlds military spending. These goofballs are nuts thinking more is needed. . That Guaranties that with our Allies we could take on every country in the world and kick their asses ten time over. Again totally brain dead.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of brain dead .....
> 
> Our Allies are only our allies while it is convenient for them.
> 
> Further, there are very little technological advances that aren't based on US R&D.
Click to expand...

 The US and any Allie that would come to our defense, or support us , would be able  to take on the rest of the worlds military and we would win easily. The leaders of the hate party needs these stupid suckers to do as they are told because the whole profit in increasing the size of the military is all theirs.


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are brain dead when it comes to justifying this ridiculous 600 billion a year spent on the military. There is one reason why the controllers of the hate party want this , It's because they get the money , what maybe 90% goes into the top golden few's pocket.  And their puppet party members  jumps and does little tricks when their controllers tell them how to think.
> 
> 
> 
> What moronic drivel.
Click to expand...

Ya I guess your right but it still is 100% true.


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, how are we gonna pay for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your choices are simple - you can pay it now, or you can pay it later.
> 
> It is nonsensical and naive to believe that we can lower our military posture without enhancing the goals of our enemies. As we saw in the mid-70s (thank you, Carter) and late 90s (thank you, Clinton), degradation of our military capabilities emboldened our enemies world wide. We were attacked - and we were forced to rebuild our military so we could respond.
> 
> Like all things, we need to prioritize our spending. What's more important? The Dept of Education or national security? What's more important? The Agriculture Department or national security?
> 
> I hope you realize that we spend almost twice our defense budget on Medicare and healthcare ($1.04 TRILLION in 2016). Is that more important than national security? Do we need to change the enrollment requirements in order to better manage limited dollars? Do we have people on our healthcare rolls that should be responsible for their own healthcare?
> 
> Frankly, you've been sold a bill of goods ---- consider this: Mandatory government spending in 2016 was $4.1 trillion. Discretionary spending, including defense spending, was $1.15 trillion. Total budget was $4.25 trillion. Defense spending  was only 14.5% of the budget.
> 
> Defense spending is an obvious target for the ignorant - they don't have to understand what the money is being spent on. They just have to know they hate war, and we shouldn't have to spend money preparing for something we hate. In the meantime, the real theft goes ignored in mandatory spending.
> 
> As an aside, let me remind you that we are geographically unique. We go - literally - from sea to shining sea. That means we have significantly more land to protect, and two oceans to guard. We are an international country - we deal with countries all over the world. Our assets need to be protected, no matter where they go. People ask why we need "hundreds" of bases world wide - the answer is simple. It is cheaper to pre-position them there, than it is to keep them here and deploy them when needed.
> 
> Back to your question - how do we pay for it?
> 
> We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.
Click to expand...

 Your points are straight out stupid, we have been in over 100 wars , we have been attacked only twice WWII and the war of 1812. and we had to fight WWI and the civil war. Ok give us a reason for any of the other over 100 Wars. Then we can judge to see if you really have anything to say on this and it is my opinion you will look just as stupid after this challenge then you did before this challenge,


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, wonder why these guys couldn't be bothered to speak up when the Obama administration was "misplacing" billions and giving it to enemy nations along with weapons to use against us and our allies while at the same time being too cheap to provide reasonable security for our diplomats.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is just another brain dead lie. that's why. That's all you have is lies. Shit you wouldn't even recognize the truth if it was tattooed on your forehead.
> BY the way were's your response , you said you had all the answers this simple one seemed to throw you big timer. To much bullshit, thats the problem------This is what happened everyone,
> I simply asked brain dead a question, and backed this bullshitter right back into a corner, this is a very reasonable question considering the bullshit he's trying to sell here MY COMMENT "You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought. . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog." He is totally unable to do this so he is trying to sell his bullshit that the reason he can't answer is because of me, Two stupid long drawn out reply's and nothing but bullshit. This guy has no clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of:
> _You don't answer reasonable questions; so why would anyone answer yours (even if you knew any)?
> And when someone does do you the courtesy of answering your idiotic questions you invariably simply discount the explanation as "bullshit" without the first clue as to the warped thinking (if any) on the matter. In short you argue like a retarded 2nd grader._
> did you fail to understand? Try answering some of the many questions you have ignored.
Click to expand...

 Brain dead can't come up with a answer to a simple challenge I gave him. This was the challenge 
This is what happened everyone,
I simply asked brain dead a question, and backed this bullshitter right back into a corner, this is a very reasonable question considering the bullshit he's trying to sell here MY COMMENT "You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought. . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog." He is totally unable to do this so he is trying to sell his bullshit that the reason he can't answer is because of me, Two stupid long drawn out reply's and nothing but bullshit. This guy has no clue.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, wonder why these guys couldn't be bothered to speak up when the Obama administration was "misplacing" billions and giving it to enemy nations along with weapons to use against us and our allies while at the same time being too cheap to provide reasonable security for our diplomats.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is just another brain dead lie. that's why. That's all you have is lies. Shit you wouldn't even recognize the truth if it was tattooed on your forehead.
> BY the way were's your response , you said you had all the answers this simple one seemed to throw you big timer. To much bullshit, thats the problem------This is what happened everyone,
> I simply asked brain dead a question, and backed this bullshitter right back into a corner, this is a very reasonable question considering the bullshit he's trying to sell here MY COMMENT "You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought. . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog." He is totally unable to do this so he is trying to sell his bullshit that the reason he can't answer is because of me, Two stupid long drawn out reply's and nothing but bullshit. This guy has no clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of:
> _You don't answer reasonable questions; so why would anyone answer yours (even if you knew any)?
> And when someone does do you the courtesy of answering your idiotic questions you invariably simply discount the explanation as "bullshit" without the first clue as to the warped thinking (if any) on the matter. In short you argue like a retarded 2nd grader._
> did you fail to understand? Try answering some of the many questions you have ignored.
Click to expand...

  Want to see what a lying piece of shit this guy is, He never asked me one question before I put it to him about coming up with something to justify the 100 wars other the WWI WWII CIVIL WAR and the war of 1812 That I think were the only wars that were justified .  A reason for us to be in any of them except the four that I listed to justify sending our young to get killed. For stupidity or
 corporate interest.  
    They first remark or question that he asked was after my post challenging him. Its all their in post 170. This will be fun him trying to lie his way out of this one.


----------



## rightwinger

Spare_change said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought.  . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
> Do we need our current troop strength?
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? *YES*
> Do we need our current troop strength? *NO - WE NEED MORE*
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? *NO* -
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? *NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN*
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? *YES*
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? *YES*
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> *
> Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> 
> Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
Click to expand...


*Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements. 
*
This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?

We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs

Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?

Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?

I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load


----------



## rightwinger

Natural Citizen said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, wait a minute. When you say government benefits, I have to remind you that the federal government doesn't produce anything. Therefore, the federal government doesn't have anything. So, where are they going to get the money from? That's what I'm asking. We're almost 21 trillion dollars in debt at the time of this communication with over 900 bases in 130 countries.
Click to expand...


The government is We the People


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, wonder why these guys couldn't be bothered to speak up when the Obama administration was "misplacing" billions and giving it to enemy nations along with weapons to use against us and our allies while at the same time being too cheap to provide reasonable security for our diplomats.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is just another brain dead lie. that's why. That's all you have is lies. Shit you wouldn't even recognize the truth if it was tattooed on your forehead.
> BY the way were's your response , you said you had all the answers this simple one seemed to throw you big timer. To much bullshit, thats the problem------This is what happened everyone,
> I simply asked brain dead a question, and backed this bullshitter right back into a corner, this is a very reasonable question considering the bullshit he's trying to sell here MY COMMENT "You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought. . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog." He is totally unable to do this so he is trying to sell his bullshit that the reason he can't answer is because of me, Two stupid long drawn out reply's and nothing but bullshit. This guy has no clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of:
> _You don't answer reasonable questions; so why would anyone answer yours (even if you knew any)?
> And when someone does do you the courtesy of answering your idiotic questions you invariably simply discount the explanation as "bullshit" without the first clue as to the warped thinking (if any) on the matter. In short you argue like a retarded 2nd grader._
> did you fail to understand? Try answering some of the many questions you have ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Want to see what a lying piece of shit this guy is, He never asked me one question before I put it to him about coming up with something to justify the 100 wars other the WWI WWII CIVIL WAR and the war of 1812 That I think were the only wars that were justified .  A reason for us to be in any of them except the four that I listed to justify sending our young to get killed. For stupidity or
> corporate interest.
> They first remark or question that he asked was after my post challenging him. Its all their in post 170. This will be fun him trying to lie his way out of this one.
Click to expand...


Cute. I would assure the necessary money was spent to equip our soldiers with what they need to stay alive and complete their missions. You wouldn't. You are the one placing money over lives.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, wonder why these guys couldn't be bothered to speak up when the Obama administration was "misplacing" billions and giving it to enemy nations along with weapons to use against us and our allies while at the same time being too cheap to provide reasonable security for our diplomats.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is just another brain dead lie. that's why. That's all you have is lies. Shit you wouldn't even recognize the truth if it was tattooed on your forehead.
> BY the way were's your response , you said you had all the answers this simple one seemed to throw you big timer. To much bullshit, thats the problem------This is what happened everyone,
> I simply asked brain dead a question, and backed this bullshitter right back into a corner, this is a very reasonable question considering the bullshit he's trying to sell here MY COMMENT "You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought. . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog." He is totally unable to do this so he is trying to sell his bullshit that the reason he can't answer is because of me, Two stupid long drawn out reply's and nothing but bullshit. This guy has no clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of:
> _You don't answer reasonable questions; so why would anyone answer yours (even if you knew any)?
> And when someone does do you the courtesy of answering your idiotic questions you invariably simply discount the explanation as "bullshit" without the first clue as to the warped thinking (if any) on the matter. In short you argue like a retarded 2nd grader._
> did you fail to understand? Try answering some of the many questions you have ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Want to see what a lying piece of shit this guy is, He never asked me one question before I put it to him about coming up with something to justify the 100 wars other the WWI WWII CIVIL WAR and the war of 1812 That I think were the only wars that were justified .  A reason for us to be in any of them except the four that I listed to justify sending our young to get killed. For stupidity or
> corporate interest.
> They first remark or question that he asked was after my post challenging him. Its all their in post 170. This will be fun him trying to lie his way out of this one.
Click to expand...


The "lying piece of shit" would be you. You challenge or ask me anything in 170.
On the contrary* I* asked *you:*

"What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?"

I'm still waiting for answers.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, wonder why these guys couldn't be bothered to speak up when the Obama administration was "misplacing" billions and giving it to enemy nations along with weapons to use against us and our allies while at the same time being too cheap to provide reasonable security for our diplomats.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is just another brain dead lie. that's why. That's all you have is lies. Shit you wouldn't even recognize the truth if it was tattooed on your forehead.
> BY the way were's your response , you said you had all the answers this simple one seemed to throw you big timer. To much bullshit, thats the problem------This is what happened everyone,
> I simply asked brain dead a question, and backed this bullshitter right back into a corner, this is a very reasonable question considering the bullshit he's trying to sell here MY COMMENT "You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought. . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog." He is totally unable to do this so he is trying to sell his bullshit that the reason he can't answer is because of me, Two stupid long drawn out reply's and nothing but bullshit. This guy has no clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of:
> _You don't answer reasonable questions; so why would anyone answer yours (even if you knew any)?
> And when someone does do you the courtesy of answering your idiotic questions you invariably simply discount the explanation as "bullshit" without the first clue as to the warped thinking (if any) on the matter. In short you argue like a retarded 2nd grader._
> did you fail to understand? Try answering some of the many questions you have ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Want to see what a lying piece of shit this guy is, He never asked me one question before I put it to him about coming up with something to justify the 100 wars other the WWI WWII CIVIL WAR and the war of 1812 That I think were the only wars that were justified .  A reason for us to be in any of them except the four that I listed to justify sending our young to get killed. For stupidity or
> corporate interest.
> They first remark or question that he asked was after my post challenging him. Its all their in post 170. This will be fun him trying to lie his way out of this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute. I would assure the necessary money was spent to equip our soldiers with what they need to stay alive and complete their missions. You wouldn't. You are the one placing money over lives.
Click to expand...

 That would be 100% wrong and just more brain dead wackiness, I've made that totally clear here, that I would increase their wages and give them anything they need. That of course  doesn't mean anything  that doesn't have anything to do with protecting our borders and people , That includes zero stupidity to sell out our youth and country because of any corporations anything .


----------



## Spare_change

Natural Citizen said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, wait a minute. When you say government benefits, I have to remind you that the federal government doesn't produce anything. Therefore, the federal government doesn't have anything. So, where are they going to get the money from? That's what I'm asking. We're almost 21 trillion dollars in debt at the time of this communication with over 900 bases in 130 countries.
Click to expand...

... and the answer remains the same.

We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars. We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.

However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".

The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
> Do we need our current troop strength?
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? *YES*
> Do we need our current troop strength? *NO - WE NEED MORE*
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? *NO* -
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? *NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN*
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? *YES*
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? *YES*
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> *
> Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> 
> Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats this guys name , what ever it is its the new word for stupid. Global reach has me laughing on the floor.
Click to expand...


Your inane comment is humorous  - but, as usual, carries no intellectual weight. 

Come back when you have something concrete to discuss.


----------



## rightwinger

Spare_change said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, wait a minute. When you say government benefits, I have to remind you that the federal government doesn't produce anything. Therefore, the federal government doesn't have anything. So, where are they going to get the money from? That's what I'm asking. We're almost 21 trillion dollars in debt at the time of this communication with over 900 bases in 130 countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... and the answer remains the same.
> 
> We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars. We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.
> 
> However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".
> 
> The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.
Click to expand...


Which begs the question

Why do we still have military bases in Germany?


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the complete story , the complete story is The US and It's allies are by far the center of technology in the world  and add the fact that this group pays about 3 out of every 4 dollars in the world  on this worlds military spending. These goofballs are nuts thinking more is needed. . That Guaranties that with our Allies we could take on every country in the world and kick their asses ten time over. Again totally brain dead.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of brain dead .....
> 
> Our Allies are only our allies while it is convenient for them.
> 
> Further, there are very little technological advances that aren't based on US R&D.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US and any Allie that would come to our defense, or support us , would be able  to take on the rest of the worlds military and we would win easily. The leaders of the hate party needs these stupid suckers to do as they are told because the whole profit in increasing the size of the military is all theirs.
Click to expand...

Once again, you make grandiose, though false, statement hat reek of ignorance and lack of an understanding of the real world.

Hurry up ---- you're going to be late for your 7th grade English class.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, wonder why these guys couldn't be bothered to speak up when the Obama administration was "misplacing" billions and giving it to enemy nations along with weapons to use against us and our allies while at the same time being too cheap to provide reasonable security for our diplomats.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is just another brain dead lie. that's why. That's all you have is lies. Shit you wouldn't even recognize the truth if it was tattooed on your forehead.
> BY the way were's your response , you said you had all the answers this simple one seemed to throw you big timer. To much bullshit, thats the problem------This is what happened everyone,
> I simply asked brain dead a question, and backed this bullshitter right back into a corner, this is a very reasonable question considering the bullshit he's trying to sell here MY COMMENT "You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought. . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog." He is totally unable to do this so he is trying to sell his bullshit that the reason he can't answer is because of me, Two stupid long drawn out reply's and nothing but bullshit. This guy has no clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of:
> _You don't answer reasonable questions; so why would anyone answer yours (even if you knew any)?
> And when someone does do you the courtesy of answering your idiotic questions you invariably simply discount the explanation as "bullshit" without the first clue as to the warped thinking (if any) on the matter. In short you argue like a retarded 2nd grader._
> did you fail to understand? Try answering some of the many questions you have ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Want to see what a lying piece of shit this guy is, He never asked me one question before I put it to him about coming up with something to justify the 100 wars other the WWI WWII CIVIL WAR and the war of 1812 That I think were the only wars that were justified .  A reason for us to be in any of them except the four that I listed to justify sending our young to get killed. For stupidity or
> corporate interest.
> They first remark or question that he asked was after my post challenging him. Its all their in post 170. This will be fun him trying to lie his way out of this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "lying piece of shit" would be you. You challenge or ask me anything in 170.
> On the contrary* I* asked *you:*
> 
> "What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
> WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?"
> 
> I'm still waiting for answers.
Click to expand...

 Don't let brain dead bullshit you, He said  This remark after I put it to him in the first case Obviously since he is responding to this"You want to know how bad this country has been as far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line."  So I asked him first obviously before he had asked one question of me. This guy is a liar and the biggest bullshitter here. Don't let sleazes like this off the hook , keep hammering the truth on these losers till they fricken disappear.


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> 
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
> Do we need our current troop strength?
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? *YES*
> Do we need our current troop strength? *NO - WE NEED MORE*
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? *NO* -
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? *NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN*
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? *YES*
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? *YES*
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> *
> Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> 
> Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats this guys name , what ever it is its the new word for stupid. Global reach has me laughing on the floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inane comment is humorous  - but, as usual, carries no intellectual weight.
> 
> Come back when you have something concrete to discuss.
Click to expand...

 These people who would sell out the youth in this country and this country itself are puppets responding to their Gods and leaders trying to sell lies and trying to sell us out. Much like their God Scum Bag.


----------



## Spare_change

rightwinger said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your insular lack of world knowledge ensures that anything I say won't mean anything to you. If I have to explain, it only means two things: 1) you are geopolitically and historically ignorant, and 2) you ain't worth fighting a war for.
> 
> Tell me something ---- WHY did we have to fight WWI. You admit that we HAD to fight that. Why? We weren't attacked. The Civil War? Why did we HAVE to fight that? Why didn't we just let the South secede? They were no threat to us.
> 
> See? You can justify some things - because it is politically expedient for you to do so. The same applies for the nonsense about wars we didn't HAVE to fight .... you claim that simply because it is politically expedient for you to do so. You conveniently want to confine the "reason" for war to a very myopic point of view - whether we are under direct attack or threat. You do not consider what would have been the impact if we had NOT fought those "wars" - you conveniently forget the impact on those we have promised to protect. You want us to use them - and then desert them when they need us in return. I can think of nothing more selfish. You care not that people die, and we have the ability to stop it. You just want to let them die - as long as your cowardly ass isn't involved, right?
> 
> 100 wars? You don't even know what WAR is, much less how many there were. Mayhaps you can give us a list of those 96 "wars" we shouldn't have fought.
> 
> So, let's not fight terrorism - let if flourish. Let it sweep over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Let them get stronger - let them capture wealth, resources, and slaves. It's not our fight, right? Then, when they bring those resources to our shores - when an army backed by the might, economies, and resources of the rest of the world, we can watch them sweep thru our country, too. Then, will you be willing to take up arms, or will you just turn your daughters over to them, and stand meekly by?
> 
> Frankly, your ignorance and your lack of humanity is disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
> Do we need our current troop strength?
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? *YES*
> Do we need our current troop strength? *NO - WE NEED MORE*
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? *NO* -
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? *NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN*
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? *YES*
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? *YES*
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> *
> Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> 
> Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> *
> This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?
> 
> We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs
> 
> Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?
> 
> Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?
> 
> I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load
Click to expand...


I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then. 

The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth. 

The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet. 

You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?

The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?

The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.

We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell  me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.

So --- "world's policeman"? Please.


----------



## rightwinger

Spare_change said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> 
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
> Do we need our current troop strength?
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? *YES*
> Do we need our current troop strength? *NO - WE NEED MORE*
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? *NO* -
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? *NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN*
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? *YES*
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? *YES*
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> *
> Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> 
> Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> *
> This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?
> 
> We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs
> 
> Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?
> 
> Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?
> 
> I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.
> 
> The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.
> 
> The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.
> 
> You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?
> 
> The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?
> 
> The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.
> 
> We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell  me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.
> 
> So --- "world's policeman"? Please.
Click to expand...


Now we are getting to the truth

It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?

Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?


----------



## Spare_change

rightwinger said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, wait a minute. When you say government benefits, I have to remind you that the federal government doesn't produce anything. Therefore, the federal government doesn't have anything. So, where are they going to get the money from? That's what I'm asking. We're almost 21 trillion dollars in debt at the time of this communication with over 900 bases in 130 countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... and the answer remains the same.
> 
> We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars. We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.
> 
> However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".
> 
> The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which begs the question
> 
> Why do we still have military bases in Germany?
Click to expand...

Now you ask a fair question - why do we still have military bases in Germany?

For a moment, let's put aside our NATO commitment. Let's not talk about our promise to the people of Europe.

Instead, let's just talk about the direct military impact of those bases in Germany. There is an area in Germany called the Fulda Gap. It is the most geographically appropriate launching point of a Soviet incursion into Europe. Closing that door greatly complicates any attempt to attack Europe. Conversely, it is our most advantageous ground access point should we decide to invade Russia. So, the Soviets keep that door closed, as well. They commit troops and we commit troops - if we have a tank battalion there, they have to put a tank battalion there in response. If they have a tank battalion there, we have to put one there in response.

Sounds like a stand-off, doesn't it? EXCEPT - as you've pointed out, we spend about 14% of our federal expenditures on defense. Russia, on the other hand, spends about 21% on theirs - an unsustainable rate of expenditure. If you recall, Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative forced Russia to increase defense spending beyond its breaking point - and directly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The same will hold true for the Putin regime. He will eventually go broke, spend too much trying to keep up, and be overthrown. Russia will go through another democratic evolution, and move closer to individual rights. 

Now, back to NATO - we gave our word, we keep our word. Our support of NATO ensures the fealty of European countries - and just as importantly - European markets. Why do suppose it is that we don't have a military base in France, but so many in Germany?

Placing our troops in Germany - or anywhere else - is intrinsically cheaper than housing them in the US and sending them to the hot-spot of the day. What's the cost of a 50,000 acre military base in Germany compared to a 50,000 acre military base in California or South Carolina? What's the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in South Korea compared to those same 100,000 in Nevada?


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked this clown a simple question, I told him there has only been 4 wars in over 100 wars this country has been in, that were justifiable. So I asked him to justify the rest, backed this half thinker right into a corner so he comes out with this embarrassing none answer.  He thinks some how spending more the the 600 billion we spend now is needed because of Terrorism and to top off the display said he is the all knowing on this subject.
> Does anyone else think I can't supply the list of wars that we have been in, and will you admit your stupidity after I list them for you.
> 
> 
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
> Do we need our current troop strength?
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? *YES*
> Do we need our current troop strength? *NO - WE NEED MORE*
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? *NO* -
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? *NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN*
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? *YES*
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? *YES*
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> *
> Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> 
> Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> *
> This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?
> 
> We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs
> 
> Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?
> 
> Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?
> 
> I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.
> 
> The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.
> 
> The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.
> 
> You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?
> 
> The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?
> 
> The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.
> 
> We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell  me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.
> 
> So --- "world's policeman"? Please.
Click to expand...

 My my He just doesn't get it. The military is protect us not some corporate interest but us, our bodies not what we want and it exist to protect our borders. How simple can this be, it is a lot of work having to deal with these brain dead.
    Anyone who is trying to sell this bullshit is selling out this country and our young ,  nothing more. Simply put them on ignore if they can't understand a principle as simple as this. 
 I will ask brain dead one question , what were the two companies that gained the most by Bushes Liars war.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, how are we gonna pay for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your choices are simple - you can pay it now, or you can pay it later.
> 
> It is nonsensical and naive to believe that we can lower our military posture without enhancing the goals of our enemies. As we saw in the mid-70s (thank you, Carter) and late 90s (thank you, Clinton), degradation of our military capabilities emboldened our enemies world wide. We were attacked - and we were forced to rebuild our military so we could respond.
> 
> Like all things, we need to prioritize our spending. What's more important? The Dept of Education or national security? What's more important? The Agriculture Department or national security?
> 
> I hope you realize that we spend almost twice our defense budget on Medicare and healthcare ($1.04 TRILLION in 2016). Is that more important than national security? Do we need to change the enrollment requirements in order to better manage limited dollars? Do we have people on our healthcare rolls that should be responsible for their own healthcare?
> 
> Frankly, you've been sold a bill of goods ---- consider this: Mandatory government spending in 2016 was $4.1 trillion. Discretionary spending, including defense spending, was $1.15 trillion. Total budget was $4.25 trillion. Defense spending  was only 14.5% of the budget.
> 
> Defense spending is an obvious target for the ignorant - they don't have to understand what the money is being spent on. They just have to know they hate war, and we shouldn't have to spend money preparing for something we hate. In the meantime, the real theft goes ignored in mandatory spending.
> 
> As an aside, let me remind you that we are geographically unique. We go - literally - from sea to shining sea. That means we have significantly more land to protect, and two oceans to guard. We are an international country - we deal with countries all over the world. Our assets need to be protected, no matter where they go. People ask why we need "hundreds" of bases world wide - the answer is simple. It is cheaper to pre-position them there, than it is to keep them here and deploy them when needed.
> 
> Back to your question - how do we pay for it?
> 
> We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your points are straight out stupid, we have been in over 100 wars , we have been attacked only twice WWII and the war of 1812. and we had to fight WWI and the civil war. Ok give us a reason for any of the other over 100 Wars. Then we can judge to see if you really have anything to say on this and it is my opinion you will look just as stupid after this challenge then you did before this challenge,
Click to expand...

See what I mean?

You throw around this 100 wars --- claiming that only four of them were justified.

I specifically asked you to:

1) Explain to us why the 4 were justified, and
2) Tell us why the other 96 were not (I even gave you a chance to show off all your knowledge by asking you to list those 96)

You have been non-responsive - either list it all, with your explanation, or shut the hell up about something you can't prove.


----------



## Spare_change

rightwinger said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
> Do we need our current troop strength?
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? *YES*
> Do we need our current troop strength? *NO - WE NEED MORE*
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? *NO* -
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? *NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN*
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? *YES*
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? *YES*
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> *
> Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> 
> Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> *
> This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?
> 
> We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs
> 
> Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?
> 
> Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?
> 
> I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.
> 
> The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.
> 
> The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.
> 
> You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?
> 
> The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?
> 
> The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.
> 
> We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell  me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.
> 
> So --- "world's policeman"? Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to the truth
> 
> It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?
> 
> Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?
Click to expand...


I would suggest that you are positing the proverbial strawman .... taking one fact and conflating it to mean something else.

"Corporate interests" ----- are you telling me that you consider your life to be a "corporate interest"?

It is your life, and your lifestyle, that is being protected. Today, you pay $11 for a shirt at WalMart - tomorrow, you want to pay $45 for the same shirt? Are you willing to sacrifice your lifestyle? Are you willing to lose your house because you lost your job because China took over Japan, and your company no longer has customers in Japan and South Korea?

Do you really want to be all snug in your nice little home, knowing that there are, literally, millions out there sleeping in the gutters because you were unwilling to support a military that would have prevented the tyrant from sucking off all the money in their country?

I have had the chance to visit 38 countries - throughout my military and professional career. I have seen, first hand, what people like Chavez, Saddam Hussein, and others can do to their "countrymen". I believe in the responsibility of the US to provide assistance to others, to ensure the protection of human rights, and to provide balance to the world. If you want to call that the "world's policeman", then give me a badge - I'm all in.

I'm not going to bore you with horror stories about the slums of Rio, the refugee camps, or the specter of gulags and concentration camps. I'm only going to tell you that if I can prevent even one of those, I'm all in. At the risk of public ridicule (in this day's twisted sense of values), it is the Christian thing to do.


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, wait a minute. When you say government benefits, I have to remind you that the federal government doesn't produce anything. Therefore, the federal government doesn't have anything. So, where are they going to get the money from? That's what I'm asking. We're almost 21 trillion dollars in debt at the time of this communication with over 900 bases in 130 countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... and the answer remains the same.
> 
> We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars. We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.
> 
> However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".
> 
> The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which begs the question
> 
> Why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you ask a fair question - why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> For a moment, let's put aside our NATO commitment. Let's not talk about our promise to the people of Europe.
> 
> Instead, let's just talk about the direct military impact of those bases in Germany. There is an area in Germany called the Fulda Gap. It is the most geographically appropriate launching point of a Soviet incursion into Europe. Closing that door greatly complicates any attempt to attack Europe. Conversely, it is our most advantageous ground access point should we decide to invade Russia. So, the Soviets keep that door closed, as well. They commit troops and we commit troops - if we have a tank battalion there, they have to put a tank battalion there in response. If they have a tank battalion there, we have to put one there in response.
> 
> Sounds like a stand-off, doesn't it? EXCEPT - as you've pointed out, we spend about 14% of our federal expenditures on defense. Russia, on the other hand, spends about 21% on theirs - an unsustainable rate of expenditure. If you recall, Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative forced Russia to increase defense spending beyond its breaking point - and directly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> 
> The same will hold true for the Putin regime. He will eventually go broke, spend too much trying to keep up, and be overthrown. Russia will go through another democratic evolution, and move closer to individual rights.
> 
> Now, back to NATO - we gave our word, we keep our word. Our support of NATO ensures the fealty of European countries - and just as importantly - European markets. Why do suppose it is that we don't have a military base in France, but so many in Germany?
> 
> Placing our troops in Germany - or anywhere else - is intrinsically cheaper than housing them in the US and sending them to the hot-spot of the day. What's the cost of a 50,000 acre military base in Germany compared to a 50,000 acre military base in California or South Carolina? What's the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in South Korea compared to those same 100,000 in Nevada?
Click to expand...

 I get the chance to define stupid. I always like to do that. Especially when I can do it against the brain dead. Russia spends 70 billion a year on it's military. France, Britain, German, Italy ,Spain and Poland, spend 200 billion a year. 
    Now Russia would have to realize that in a matter of days another 1 trillion in military would start to be thrown at them. 
    So brain dead becomes the new world for stupid. You just have to laugh at their nonsense


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
> Do we need our current troop strength?
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? *YES*
> Do we need our current troop strength? *NO - WE NEED MORE*
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? *NO* -
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? *NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN*
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? *YES*
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? *YES*
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> *
> Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> 
> Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> *
> This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?
> 
> We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs
> 
> Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?
> 
> Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?
> 
> I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.
> 
> The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.
> 
> The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.
> 
> You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?
> 
> The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?
> 
> The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.
> 
> We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell  me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.
> 
> So --- "world's policeman"? Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My my He just doesn't get it. The military is protect us not some corporate interest but us, our bodies not what we want and it exist to protect our borders. How simple can this be, it is a lot of work having to deal with these brain dead.
> Anyone who is trying to sell this bullshit is selling out this country and our young ,  nothing more. Simply put them on ignore if they can't understand a principle as simple as this.
> I will ask brain dead one question , what were the two companies that gained the most by Bushes Liars war.
Click to expand...

Ignorance abounds.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, wait a minute. When you say government benefits, I have to remind you that the federal government doesn't produce anything. Therefore, the federal government doesn't have anything. So, where are they going to get the money from? That's what I'm asking. We're almost 21 trillion dollars in debt at the time of this communication with over 900 bases in 130 countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... and the answer remains the same.
> 
> We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars. We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.
> 
> However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".
> 
> The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which begs the question
> 
> Why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you ask a fair question - why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> For a moment, let's put aside our NATO commitment. Let's not talk about our promise to the people of Europe.
> 
> Instead, let's just talk about the direct military impact of those bases in Germany. There is an area in Germany called the Fulda Gap. It is the most geographically appropriate launching point of a Soviet incursion into Europe. Closing that door greatly complicates any attempt to attack Europe. Conversely, it is our most advantageous ground access point should we decide to invade Russia. So, the Soviets keep that door closed, as well. They commit troops and we commit troops - if we have a tank battalion there, they have to put a tank battalion there in response. If they have a tank battalion there, we have to put one there in response.
> 
> Sounds like a stand-off, doesn't it? EXCEPT - as you've pointed out, we spend about 14% of our federal expenditures on defense. Russia, on the other hand, spends about 21% on theirs - an unsustainable rate of expenditure. If you recall, Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative forced Russia to increase defense spending beyond its breaking point - and directly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> 
> The same will hold true for the Putin regime. He will eventually go broke, spend too much trying to keep up, and be overthrown. Russia will go through another democratic evolution, and move closer to individual rights.
> 
> Now, back to NATO - we gave our word, we keep our word. Our support of NATO ensures the fealty of European countries - and just as importantly - European markets. Why do suppose it is that we don't have a military base in France, but so many in Germany?
> 
> Placing our troops in Germany - or anywhere else - is intrinsically cheaper than housing them in the US and sending them to the hot-spot of the day. What's the cost of a 50,000 acre military base in Germany compared to a 50,000 acre military base in California or South Carolina? What's the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in South Korea compared to those same 100,000 in Nevada?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the chance to define stupid. I always like to do that. Especially when I can do it against the brain dead. Russia spends 70 billion a year on it's military. France, Britain, German, Italy ,Spain and Poland, spend 200 billion a year.
> Now Russia would have to realize that in a matter of days another 1 trillion in military would start to be thrown at them.
> So brain dead becomes the new world for stupid. You just have to laugh at their nonsense
Click to expand...

Waiting.

Waiting.

Waiting.

Waiting.


----------



## rightwinger

Spare_change said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
> Do we need our current troop strength?
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? *YES*
> Do we need our current troop strength? *NO - WE NEED MORE*
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? *NO* -
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? *NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN*
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? *YES*
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? *YES*
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> *
> Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> 
> Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> *
> This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?
> 
> We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs
> 
> Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?
> 
> Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?
> 
> I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.
> 
> The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.
> 
> The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.
> 
> You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?
> 
> The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?
> 
> The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.
> 
> We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell  me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.
> 
> So --- "world's policeman"? Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to the truth
> 
> It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?
> 
> Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suggest that you are positing the proverbial strawman .... taking one fact and conflating it to mean something else.
> 
> "Corporate interests" ----- are you telling me that you consider your life to be a "corporate interest"?
> 
> It is your life, and your lifestyle, that is being protected. Today, you pay $11 for a shirt at WalMart - tomorrow, you want to pay $45 for the same shirt? Are you willing to sacrifice your lifestyle? Are you willing to lose your house because you lost your job because China took over Japan, and your company no longer has customers in Japan and South Korea?
> 
> Do you really want to be all snug in your nice little home, knowing that there are, literally, millions out there sleeping in the gutters because you were unwilling to support a military that would have prevented the tyrant from sucking off all the money in their country?
> 
> I have had the chance to visit 38 countries - throughout my military and professional career. I have seen, first hand, what people like Chavez, Saddam Hussein, and others can do to their "countrymen". I believe in the responsibility of the US to provide assistance to others, to ensure the protection of human rights, and to provide balance to the world. If you want to call that the "world's policeman", then give me a badge - I'm all in.
> 
> I'm not going to bore you with horror stories about the slums of Rio, the refugee camps, or the specter of gulags and concentration camps. I'm only going to tell you that if I can prevent even one of those, I'm all in. At the risk of public ridicule (in this day's twisted sense of values), it is the Christian thing to do.
Click to expand...


See...the thing is
The US of A is not the only country with global corporate interests

All of those bad guys and despots are also impacting the EU, UK, Japan, S Korea and every other "good guy" on the planet.

Yet, we are the only ones who need to maintain military bases around the world to keep the peace

Nothing wrong with the US being good guys and protecting the planet
But it comes at a price. Namely making sacrifices on the home front while we prop up some puppet dictator in South America.


----------



## rightwinger

Spare_change said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, wait a minute. When you say government benefits, I have to remind you that the federal government doesn't produce anything. Therefore, the federal government doesn't have anything. So, where are they going to get the money from? That's what I'm asking. We're almost 21 trillion dollars in debt at the time of this communication with over 900 bases in 130 countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... and the answer remains the same.
> 
> We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars. We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.
> 
> However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".
> 
> The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which begs the question
> 
> Why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you ask a fair question - why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> For a moment, let's put aside our NATO commitment. Let's not talk about our promise to the people of Europe.
> 
> Instead, let's just talk about the direct military impact of those bases in Germany. There is an area in Germany called the Fulda Gap. It is the most geographically appropriate launching point of a Soviet incursion into Europe. Closing that door greatly complicates any attempt to attack Europe. Conversely, it is our most advantageous ground access point should we decide to invade Russia. So, the Soviets keep that door closed, as well. They commit troops and we commit troops - if we have a tank battalion there, they have to put a tank battalion there in response. If they have a tank battalion there, we have to put one there in response.
> 
> Sounds like a stand-off, doesn't it? EXCEPT - as you've pointed out, we spend about 14% of our federal expenditures on defense. Russia, on the other hand, spends about 21% on theirs - an unsustainable rate of expenditure. If you recall, Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative forced Russia to increase defense spending beyond its breaking point - and directly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> 
> The same will hold true for the Putin regime. He will eventually go broke, spend too much trying to keep up, and be overthrown. Russia will go through another democratic evolution, and move closer to individual rights.
> 
> Now, back to NATO - we gave our word, we keep our word. Our support of NATO ensures the fealty of European countries - and just as importantly - European markets. Why do suppose it is that we don't have a military base in France, but so many in Germany?
> 
> Placing our troops in Germany - or anywhere else - is intrinsically cheaper than housing them in the US and sending them to the hot-spot of the day. What's the cost of a 50,000 acre military base in Germany compared to a 50,000 acre military base in California or South Carolina? What's the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in South Korea compared to those same 100,000 in Nevada?
Click to expand...


Yes, the old Cold War Fulda Gap horror stories

We overbuilt our military presence for 40 years trying to protect that gap. Turned out the Soviet Union was not the threat our military built them up to be.
Russia is even less


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, how are we gonna pay for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your choices are simple - you can pay it now, or you can pay it later.
> 
> It is nonsensical and naive to believe that we can lower our military posture without enhancing the goals of our enemies. As we saw in the mid-70s (thank you, Carter) and late 90s (thank you, Clinton), degradation of our military capabilities emboldened our enemies world wide. We were attacked - and we were forced to rebuild our military so we could respond.
> 
> Like all things, we need to prioritize our spending. What's more important? The Dept of Education or national security? What's more important? The Agriculture Department or national security?
> 
> I hope you realize that we spend almost twice our defense budget on Medicare and healthcare ($1.04 TRILLION in 2016). Is that more important than national security? Do we need to change the enrollment requirements in order to better manage limited dollars? Do we have people on our healthcare rolls that should be responsible for their own healthcare?
> 
> Frankly, you've been sold a bill of goods ---- consider this: Mandatory government spending in 2016 was $4.1 trillion. Discretionary spending, including defense spending, was $1.15 trillion. Total budget was $4.25 trillion. Defense spending  was only 14.5% of the budget.
> 
> Defense spending is an obvious target for the ignorant - they don't have to understand what the money is being spent on. They just have to know they hate war, and we shouldn't have to spend money preparing for something we hate. In the meantime, the real theft goes ignored in mandatory spending.
> 
> As an aside, let me remind you that we are geographically unique. We go - literally - from sea to shining sea. That means we have significantly more land to protect, and two oceans to guard. We are an international country - we deal with countries all over the world. Our assets need to be protected, no matter where they go. People ask why we need "hundreds" of bases world wide - the answer is simple. It is cheaper to pre-position them there, than it is to keep them here and deploy them when needed.
> 
> Back to your question - how do we pay for it?
> 
> We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your points are straight out stupid, we have been in over 100 wars , we have been attacked only twice WWII and the war of 1812. and we had to fight WWI and the civil war. Ok give us a reason for any of the other over 100 Wars. Then we can judge to see if you really have anything to say on this and it is my opinion you will look just as stupid after this challenge then you did before this challenge,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I mean?
> 
> You throw around this 100 wars --- claiming that only four of them were justified.
> 
> I specifically asked you to:
> 
> 1) Explain to us why the 4 were justified, and
> 2) Tell us why the other 96 were not (I even gave you a chance to show off all your knowledge by asking you to list those 96)
> 
> You have been non-responsive - either list it all, with your explanation, or shut the hell up about something you can't prove.
Click to expand...

 Why would I even consider doing that I asked him and all he did was bail on the question by saying that I had to answer something first, that's not the game , I made a idiot out of him by putting him in the corner with the rest of the brain dead. and he can't respond.  That's the story . he sells himself as all knowing on this subject so  I asked him to enlighten us. I think everyone here knows he just a blowhard and can't back up what he says . It is a little stupid and revealing when someone comes and supports his bullshit, when it couldn't be clearer that hes trying to bullshit his way out a guest ion that he can't answer. I guess all liars stick together. Its kind of like stupid supporting stupid.


----------



## Spare_change

rightwinger said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? *YES*
> Do we need our current troop strength? *NO - WE NEED MORE*
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? *NO* -
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? *NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN*
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? *YES*
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? *YES*
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> *
> Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> 
> Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> *
> This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?
> 
> We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs
> 
> Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?
> 
> Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?
> 
> I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.
> 
> The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.
> 
> The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.
> 
> You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?
> 
> The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?
> 
> The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.
> 
> We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell  me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.
> 
> So --- "world's policeman"? Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to the truth
> 
> It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?
> 
> Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suggest that you are positing the proverbial strawman .... taking one fact and conflating it to mean something else.
> 
> "Corporate interests" ----- are you telling me that you consider your life to be a "corporate interest"?
> 
> It is your life, and your lifestyle, that is being protected. Today, you pay $11 for a shirt at WalMart - tomorrow, you want to pay $45 for the same shirt? Are you willing to sacrifice your lifestyle? Are you willing to lose your house because you lost your job because China took over Japan, and your company no longer has customers in Japan and South Korea?
> 
> Do you really want to be all snug in your nice little home, knowing that there are, literally, millions out there sleeping in the gutters because you were unwilling to support a military that would have prevented the tyrant from sucking off all the money in their country?
> 
> I have had the chance to visit 38 countries - throughout my military and professional career. I have seen, first hand, what people like Chavez, Saddam Hussein, and others can do to their "countrymen". I believe in the responsibility of the US to provide assistance to others, to ensure the protection of human rights, and to provide balance to the world. If you want to call that the "world's policeman", then give me a badge - I'm all in.
> 
> I'm not going to bore you with horror stories about the slums of Rio, the refugee camps, or the specter of gulags and concentration camps. I'm only going to tell you that if I can prevent even one of those, I'm all in. At the risk of public ridicule (in this day's twisted sense of values), it is the Christian thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See...the thing is
> The US of A is not the only country with global corporate interests
> 
> All of those bad guys and despots are also impacting the EU, UK, Japan, S Korea and every other "good guy" on the planet.
> 
> Yet, we are the only ones who need to maintain military bases around the world to keep the peace
> 
> Nothing wrong with the US being good guys and protecting the planet
> But it comes at a price. Namely making sacrifices on the home front while we prop up some puppet dictator in South America.
Click to expand...

Everything costs something.

You only have to decide whether you are willing to pay the price ...

How many Somali girls are you willing to sacrifice for that new stretch of road?

How many Iraqi refugees die so we can buy a bigger TV?

How many girls get raped in Pakistan so you can get a new car?

What's a steak worth? Three dead babies.

Everything costs something.

_BTW - off the top of my head, I can think of 13 countries that maintain military facilities outside their borders. Just sayin' ... _


----------



## Spare_change

rightwinger said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, wait a minute. When you say government benefits, I have to remind you that the federal government doesn't produce anything. Therefore, the federal government doesn't have anything. So, where are they going to get the money from? That's what I'm asking. We're almost 21 trillion dollars in debt at the time of this communication with over 900 bases in 130 countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... and the answer remains the same.
> 
> We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars. We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.
> 
> However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".
> 
> The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which begs the question
> 
> Why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you ask a fair question - why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> For a moment, let's put aside our NATO commitment. Let's not talk about our promise to the people of Europe.
> 
> Instead, let's just talk about the direct military impact of those bases in Germany. There is an area in Germany called the Fulda Gap. It is the most geographically appropriate launching point of a Soviet incursion into Europe. Closing that door greatly complicates any attempt to attack Europe. Conversely, it is our most advantageous ground access point should we decide to invade Russia. So, the Soviets keep that door closed, as well. They commit troops and we commit troops - if we have a tank battalion there, they have to put a tank battalion there in response. If they have a tank battalion there, we have to put one there in response.
> 
> Sounds like a stand-off, doesn't it? EXCEPT - as you've pointed out, we spend about 14% of our federal expenditures on defense. Russia, on the other hand, spends about 21% on theirs - an unsustainable rate of expenditure. If you recall, Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative forced Russia to increase defense spending beyond its breaking point - and directly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> 
> The same will hold true for the Putin regime. He will eventually go broke, spend too much trying to keep up, and be overthrown. Russia will go through another democratic evolution, and move closer to individual rights.
> 
> Now, back to NATO - we gave our word, we keep our word. Our support of NATO ensures the fealty of European countries - and just as importantly - European markets. Why do suppose it is that we don't have a military base in France, but so many in Germany?
> 
> Placing our troops in Germany - or anywhere else - is intrinsically cheaper than housing them in the US and sending them to the hot-spot of the day. What's the cost of a 50,000 acre military base in Germany compared to a 50,000 acre military base in California or South Carolina? What's the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in South Korea compared to those same 100,000 in Nevada?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the old Cold War Fulda Gap horror stories
> 
> We overbuilt our military presence for 40 years trying to protect that gap. Turned out the Soviet Union was not the threat our military built them up to be.
> Russia is even less
Click to expand...


That was merely an example of direct confrontation - I could have done the same in Korea, for example.

But, let me ask you --- if we open the door, do you seriously believe Russia wouldn't come thru?


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, how are we gonna pay for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your choices are simple - you can pay it now, or you can pay it later.
> 
> It is nonsensical and naive to believe that we can lower our military posture without enhancing the goals of our enemies. As we saw in the mid-70s (thank you, Carter) and late 90s (thank you, Clinton), degradation of our military capabilities emboldened our enemies world wide. We were attacked - and we were forced to rebuild our military so we could respond.
> 
> Like all things, we need to prioritize our spending. What's more important? The Dept of Education or national security? What's more important? The Agriculture Department or national security?
> 
> I hope you realize that we spend almost twice our defense budget on Medicare and healthcare ($1.04 TRILLION in 2016). Is that more important than national security? Do we need to change the enrollment requirements in order to better manage limited dollars? Do we have people on our healthcare rolls that should be responsible for their own healthcare?
> 
> Frankly, you've been sold a bill of goods ---- consider this: Mandatory government spending in 2016 was $4.1 trillion. Discretionary spending, including defense spending, was $1.15 trillion. Total budget was $4.25 trillion. Defense spending  was only 14.5% of the budget.
> 
> Defense spending is an obvious target for the ignorant - they don't have to understand what the money is being spent on. They just have to know they hate war, and we shouldn't have to spend money preparing for something we hate. In the meantime, the real theft goes ignored in mandatory spending.
> 
> As an aside, let me remind you that we are geographically unique. We go - literally - from sea to shining sea. That means we have significantly more land to protect, and two oceans to guard. We are an international country - we deal with countries all over the world. Our assets need to be protected, no matter where they go. People ask why we need "hundreds" of bases world wide - the answer is simple. It is cheaper to pre-position them there, than it is to keep them here and deploy them when needed.
> 
> Back to your question - how do we pay for it?
> 
> We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your points are straight out stupid, we have been in over 100 wars , we have been attacked only twice WWII and the war of 1812. and we had to fight WWI and the civil war. Ok give us a reason for any of the other over 100 Wars. Then we can judge to see if you really have anything to say on this and it is my opinion you will look just as stupid after this challenge then you did before this challenge,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I mean?
> 
> You throw around this 100 wars --- claiming that only four of them were justified.
> 
> I specifically asked you to:
> 
> 1) Explain to us why the 4 were justified, and
> 2) Tell us why the other 96 were not (I even gave you a chance to show off all your knowledge by asking you to list those 96)
> 
> You have been non-responsive - either list it all, with your explanation, or shut the hell up about something you can't prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I even consider doing that I asked him and all he did was bail on the question by saying that I had to answer something first, that's not the game , I made a idiot out of him by putting him in the corner with the rest of the brain dead. and he can't respond.  That's the story . he sells himself as all knowing on this subject so  I asked him to enlighten us. I think everyone here knows he just a blowhard and can't back up what he says . It is a little stupid and revealing when someone comes and supports his bullshit, when it couldn't be clearer that hes trying to bullshit his way out a guest ion that he can't answer. I guess all liars stick together. Its kind of like stupid supporting stupid.
Click to expand...




jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, how are we gonna pay for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your choices are simple - you can pay it now, or you can pay it later.
> 
> It is nonsensical and naive to believe that we can lower our military posture without enhancing the goals of our enemies. As we saw in the mid-70s (thank you, Carter) and late 90s (thank you, Clinton), degradation of our military capabilities emboldened our enemies world wide. We were attacked - and we were forced to rebuild our military so we could respond.
> 
> Like all things, we need to prioritize our spending. What's more important? The Dept of Education or national security? What's more important? The Agriculture Department or national security?
> 
> I hope you realize that we spend almost twice our defense budget on Medicare and healthcare ($1.04 TRILLION in 2016). Is that more important than national security? Do we need to change the enrollment requirements in order to better manage limited dollars? Do we have people on our healthcare rolls that should be responsible for their own healthcare?
> 
> Frankly, you've been sold a bill of goods ---- consider this: Mandatory government spending in 2016 was $4.1 trillion. Discretionary spending, including defense spending, was $1.15 trillion. Total budget was $4.25 trillion. Defense spending  was only 14.5% of the budget.
> 
> Defense spending is an obvious target for the ignorant - they don't have to understand what the money is being spent on. They just have to know they hate war, and we shouldn't have to spend money preparing for something we hate. In the meantime, the real theft goes ignored in mandatory spending.
> 
> As an aside, let me remind you that we are geographically unique. We go - literally - from sea to shining sea. That means we have significantly more land to protect, and two oceans to guard. We are an international country - we deal with countries all over the world. Our assets need to be protected, no matter where they go. People ask why we need "hundreds" of bases world wide - the answer is simple. It is cheaper to pre-position them there, than it is to keep them here and deploy them when needed.
> 
> Back to your question - how do we pay for it?
> 
> We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your points are straight out stupid, we have been in over 100 wars , we have been attacked only twice WWII and the war of 1812. and we had to fight WWI and the civil war. Ok give us a reason for any of the other over 100 Wars. Then we can judge to see if you really have anything to say on this and it is my opinion you will look just as stupid after this challenge then you did before this challenge,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I mean?
> 
> You throw around this 100 wars --- claiming that only four of them were justified.
> 
> I specifically asked you to:
> 
> 1) Explain to us why the 4 were justified, and
> 2) Tell us why the other 96 were not (I even gave you a chance to show off all your knowledge by asking you to list those 96)
> 
> You have been non-responsive - either list it all, with your explanation, or shut the hell up about something you can't prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I even consider doing that I asked him and all he did was bail on the question by saying that I had to answer something first, that's not the game , I made a idiot out of him by putting him in the corner with the rest of the brain dead. and he can't respond.  That's the story . he sells himself as all knowing on this subject so  I asked him to enlighten us. I think everyone here knows he just a blowhard and can't back up what he says . It is a little stupid and revealing when someone comes and supports his bullshit, when it couldn't be clearer that hes trying to bullshit his way out a guest ion that he can't answer. I guess all liars stick together. Its kind of like stupid supporting stupid.
Click to expand...


Why would you do it? Because I asked you to - and I'm a nice guy. (Stop the stupid personal attacks --- it just makes you look petty and childish)

Another reason - to establish your credibility - right now, you have NONE.


----------



## rightwinger

Spare_change said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> *
> This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?
> 
> We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs
> 
> Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?
> 
> Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?
> 
> I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.
> 
> The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.
> 
> The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.
> 
> You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?
> 
> The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?
> 
> The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.
> 
> We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell  me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.
> 
> So --- "world's policeman"? Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to the truth
> 
> It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?
> 
> Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suggest that you are positing the proverbial strawman .... taking one fact and conflating it to mean something else.
> 
> "Corporate interests" ----- are you telling me that you consider your life to be a "corporate interest"?
> 
> It is your life, and your lifestyle, that is being protected. Today, you pay $11 for a shirt at WalMart - tomorrow, you want to pay $45 for the same shirt? Are you willing to sacrifice your lifestyle? Are you willing to lose your house because you lost your job because China took over Japan, and your company no longer has customers in Japan and South Korea?
> 
> Do you really want to be all snug in your nice little home, knowing that there are, literally, millions out there sleeping in the gutters because you were unwilling to support a military that would have prevented the tyrant from sucking off all the money in their country?
> 
> I have had the chance to visit 38 countries - throughout my military and professional career. I have seen, first hand, what people like Chavez, Saddam Hussein, and others can do to their "countrymen". I believe in the responsibility of the US to provide assistance to others, to ensure the protection of human rights, and to provide balance to the world. If you want to call that the "world's policeman", then give me a badge - I'm all in.
> 
> I'm not going to bore you with horror stories about the slums of Rio, the refugee camps, or the specter of gulags and concentration camps. I'm only going to tell you that if I can prevent even one of those, I'm all in. At the risk of public ridicule (in this day's twisted sense of values), it is the Christian thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See...the thing is
> The US of A is not the only country with global corporate interests
> 
> All of those bad guys and despots are also impacting the EU, UK, Japan, S Korea and every other "good guy" on the planet.
> 
> Yet, we are the only ones who need to maintain military bases around the world to keep the peace
> 
> Nothing wrong with the US being good guys and protecting the planet
> But it comes at a price. Namely making sacrifices on the home front while we prop up some puppet dictator in South America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything costs something.
> 
> You only have to decide whether you are willing to pay the price ...
> 
> How many Somali girls are you willing to sacrifice for that new stretch of road?
> 
> How many Iraqi refugees die so we can buy a bigger TV?
> 
> How many girls get raped in Pakistan so you can get a new car?
> 
> What's a steak worth? Three dead babies.
> 
> Everything costs something.
> 
> _BTW - off the top of my head, I can think of 13 countries that maintain military facilities outside their borders. Just sayin' ... _
Click to expand...


Agree totally

With $700 billion a year going to our military, it becomes a question of priorities
I have spent 40 years buying equipment for the DoD and know how expensive it is and how it saves lives. We have the best military in the history of mankind

But at what costs?

Like you posted, our military has done some great things and done great humanitarian work. We have also made horrific blunders that cost needless lives and wasted trillions of dollars that could have been better spent at home

I saw the arguments over healthcare and how we cannot afford it. This at the same time we were engaged in two needless wars costing two trillion dollars


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, wonder why these guys couldn't be bothered to speak up when the Obama administration was "misplacing" billions and giving it to enemy nations along with weapons to use against us and our allies while at the same time being too cheap to provide reasonable security for our diplomats.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is just another brain dead lie. that's why. That's all you have is lies. Shit you wouldn't even recognize the truth if it was tattooed on your forehead.
> BY the way were's your response , you said you had all the answers this simple one seemed to throw you big timer. To much bullshit, thats the problem------This is what happened everyone,
> I simply asked brain dead a question, and backed this bullshitter right back into a corner, this is a very reasonable question considering the bullshit he's trying to sell here MY COMMENT "You people are so ignorant. we have been in over 100 wars, we have only been attacked twice wwII and the war of 1812.. WWII AND WWI, the war of 1812 and the civil war had to be fought. . Tell me how any of the other wars were necessary. WE are waiting hot dog." He is totally unable to do this so he is trying to sell his bullshit that the reason he can't answer is because of me, Two stupid long drawn out reply's and nothing but bullshit. This guy has no clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of:
> _You don't answer reasonable questions; so why would anyone answer yours (even if you knew any)?
> And when someone does do you the courtesy of answering your idiotic questions you invariably simply discount the explanation as "bullshit" without the first clue as to the warped thinking (if any) on the matter. In short you argue like a retarded 2nd grader._
> did you fail to understand? Try answering some of the many questions you have ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Want to see what a lying piece of shit this guy is, He never asked me one question before I put it to him about coming up with something to justify the 100 wars other the WWI WWII CIVIL WAR and the war of 1812 That I think were the only wars that were justified .  A reason for us to be in any of them except the four that I listed to justify sending our young to get killed. For stupidity or
> corporate interest.
> They first remark or question that he asked was after my post challenging him. Its all their in post 170. This will be fun him trying to lie his way out of this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "lying piece of shit" would be you. You challenge or ask me anything in 170.
> On the contrary* I* asked *you:*
> 
> "What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
> WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?"
> 
> I'm still waiting for answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't let brain dead bullshit you, He said  This remark after I put it to him in the first case Obviously since he is responding to this"You want to know how bad this country has been as far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
> We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line."  So I asked him first obviously before he had asked one question of me. This guy is a liar and the biggest bullshitter here. Don't let sleazes like this off the hook , keep hammering the truth on these losers till they fricken disappear.
Click to expand...


You stated: _" Its all their in post 170." _and that was a lie. So where exactly do you claim you asked your idiotic question?
And why still no attempt to answer mine? Too ignorant to attempt such? 
You claim this Country has fought hundreds of wars. Untrue
You claim we fight wars to benefit some corporate bottom line. Untrue.
You claim to know what wars have been "necessary". Obviously untrue.
Are you unable or simply unwilling to defend the idiotic positions you've taken in this thread? Can you give us any reason what-so-ever why anyone should think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk such childish bullshit.
> 
> You claim only 4 wars were "necessary" - and now you can't defend your position. List the other 96 and tell us why they weren't necessary ---- I'll debate that with you. Hell, you can't even defend the 4 you CLAIM were necessary - and you know I'll agree with you about those
> 
> As for the rest of your childish little attack, I don't claim to be all knowing [sic] on the subject, but I can damn well guarantee that I know more than you. Twenty years military, 4 years in the Pentagon Planning Office, and 3 years in WHCA (White House Communications Agency) guarantees that I have a stronger foundation, and a more profound understanding, than you. Why don't you tell us all about YOUR experience?
> 
> You ask about $600 billion, but do not have a single clue what that money is spent for. Well, I'll give you targets to shoot at -----
> 
> *Components* *Funding* *Change, 2012 to 2013*
> Operations and maintenance $258.277 billion -9.9%
> Military Personnel $153.531 billion -3.0%
> Procurement $97.757 billion -17.4%
> Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $63.347 billion -12.1%
> Military Construction $8.069 billion -29.0%
> Family Housing $1.483 billion -12.2%
> Other Miscellaneous Costs $2.775 billion -59.5%
> Atomic energy defense activities $17.424 billion -4.8%
> Defense-related activities $7.433 billion -3.8%
> *Total Spending* *$610.096 billion* *-10.5%*
> 
> Which ones of those do you suggest we get rid of? If you like, I'll be happy to explain each of those line items you object to. You've whined, you've spouted, and you've attacked ---- now, it's time to put up or shut up.
> 
> So, we wait for:
> 
> 1) Your list of 96 "unnecessary wars" with an explanation about why they are unnecessary
> 2) Your recommendations on what line items we should cut, with an explanation of why, and what we will do to backfill the resultant gap.
> 
> I suspect we are going to be waiting a long, long time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
> Do we need our current troop strength?
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? *YES*
> Do we need our current troop strength? *NO - WE NEED MORE*
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? *NO* -
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? *NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN*
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? *YES*
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? *YES*
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> *
> Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> 
> Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> *
> This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?
> 
> We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs
> 
> Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?
> 
> Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?
> 
> I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.
> 
> The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.
> 
> The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.
> 
> You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?
> 
> The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?
> 
> The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.
> 
> We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell  me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.
> 
> So --- "world's policeman"? Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to the truth
> 
> It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?
> 
> Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?
Click to expand...


You don't know the difference between National and corporate interests?


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a question of "getting rid of" but giving a new look at the mission of our services
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world?
> Do we need our current troop strength?
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships?
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one?
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads?
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world?
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? *YES*
> Do we need our current troop strength? *NO - WE NEED MORE*
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? *NO* -
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? *NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN*
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? *YES*
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? *YES*
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> *
> Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> 
> Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> *
> This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?
> 
> We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs
> 
> Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?
> 
> Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?
> 
> I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.
> 
> The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.
> 
> The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.
> 
> You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?
> 
> The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?
> 
> The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.
> 
> We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell  me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.
> 
> So --- "world's policeman"? Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to the truth
> 
> It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?
> 
> Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the difference between National and corporate interests?
Click to expand...


That, my friend, is the question

There is no difference


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Being the number one superpower in the world is expensive. Deal with it.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to sacrifice "nice-to-have" government benefits in order to fund the primary mission of the government - our national security. We have to halt the government over-reach that ensures that our budgets will always fall short of our expenditures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, wait a minute. When you say government benefits, I have to remind you that the federal government doesn't produce anything. Therefore, the federal government doesn't have anything. So, where are they going to get the money from? That's what I'm asking. We're almost 21 trillion dollars in debt at the time of this communication with over 900 bases in 130 countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... and the answer remains the same.
> 
> We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars. We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.
> 
> However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".
> 
> The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which begs the question
> 
> Why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you ask a fair question - why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> For a moment, let's put aside our NATO commitment. Let's not talk about our promise to the people of Europe.
> 
> Instead, let's just talk about the direct military impact of those bases in Germany. There is an area in Germany called the Fulda Gap. It is the most geographically appropriate launching point of a Soviet incursion into Europe. Closing that door greatly complicates any attempt to attack Europe. Conversely, it is our most advantageous ground access point should we decide to invade Russia. So, the Soviets keep that door closed, as well. They commit troops and we commit troops - if we have a tank battalion there, they have to put a tank battalion there in response. If they have a tank battalion there, we have to put one there in response.
> 
> Sounds like a stand-off, doesn't it? EXCEPT - as you've pointed out, we spend about 14% of our federal expenditures on defense. Russia, on the other hand, spends about 21% on theirs - an unsustainable rate of expenditure. If you recall, Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative forced Russia to increase defense spending beyond its breaking point - and directly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> 
> The same will hold true for the Putin regime. He will eventually go broke, spend too much trying to keep up, and be overthrown. Russia will go through another democratic evolution, and move closer to individual rights.
> 
> Now, back to NATO - we gave our word, we keep our word. Our support of NATO ensures the fealty of European countries - and just as importantly - European markets. Why do suppose it is that we don't have a military base in France, but so many in Germany?
> 
> Placing our troops in Germany - or anywhere else - is intrinsically cheaper than housing them in the US and sending them to the hot-spot of the day. What's the cost of a 50,000 acre military base in Germany compared to a 50,000 acre military base in California or South Carolina? What's the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in South Korea compared to those same 100,000 in Nevada?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the chance to define stupid. I always like to do that. Especially when I can do it against the brain dead. Russia spends 70 billion a year on it's military. France, Britain, German, Italy ,Spain and Poland, spend 200 billion a year.
> Now Russia would have to realize that in a matter of days another 1 trillion in military would start to be thrown at them.
> So brain dead becomes the new world for stupid. You just have to laugh at their nonsense
Click to expand...




rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we need ten active Army Divisions deployed around the world? *YES*
> Do we need our current troop strength? *NO - WE NEED MORE*
> Can we redefine our Navy's mission to cut down on the number of active ships? *NO* -
> Do we need 11 supercarrier task forces when no other nation has more than one? *NO - WE NEED FOURTEEN*
> Do we need 3000 functioning nuclear warheads? *YES*
> Do we need the hundreds of bases around the world? *YES*
> 
> Other nations get by without spending $600 billion on Defense
> What makes us special?
> *
> Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> 
> Pick a question - I'll be glad to provide you a detailed analysis of why I answered as I did.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> *
> This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?
> 
> We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs
> 
> Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?
> 
> Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?
> 
> I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.
> 
> The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.
> 
> The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.
> 
> You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?
> 
> The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?
> 
> The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.
> 
> We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell  me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.
> 
> So --- "world's policeman"? Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to the truth
> 
> It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?
> 
> Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the difference between National and corporate interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That, my friend, is the question
> 
> There is no difference
Click to expand...


Sez you. Most of us know better.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> Being the number one superpower in the world is expensive. Deal with it.



$700 billion a year

We would still be the number one superpower in the world at $300 billion a year


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> *
> This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?
> 
> We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs
> 
> Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?
> 
> Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?
> 
> I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.
> 
> The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.
> 
> The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.
> 
> You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?
> 
> The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?
> 
> The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.
> 
> We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell  me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.
> 
> So --- "world's policeman"? Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to the truth
> 
> It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?
> 
> Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suggest that you are positing the proverbial strawman .... taking one fact and conflating it to mean something else.
> 
> "Corporate interests" ----- are you telling me that you consider your life to be a "corporate interest"?
> 
> It is your life, and your lifestyle, that is being protected. Today, you pay $11 for a shirt at WalMart - tomorrow, you want to pay $45 for the same shirt? Are you willing to sacrifice your lifestyle? Are you willing to lose your house because you lost your job because China took over Japan, and your company no longer has customers in Japan and South Korea?
> 
> Do you really want to be all snug in your nice little home, knowing that there are, literally, millions out there sleeping in the gutters because you were unwilling to support a military that would have prevented the tyrant from sucking off all the money in their country?
> 
> I have had the chance to visit 38 countries - throughout my military and professional career. I have seen, first hand, what people like Chavez, Saddam Hussein, and others can do to their "countrymen". I believe in the responsibility of the US to provide assistance to others, to ensure the protection of human rights, and to provide balance to the world. If you want to call that the "world's policeman", then give me a badge - I'm all in.
> 
> I'm not going to bore you with horror stories about the slums of Rio, the refugee camps, or the specter of gulags and concentration camps. I'm only going to tell you that if I can prevent even one of those, I'm all in. At the risk of public ridicule (in this day's twisted sense of values), it is the Christian thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See...the thing is
> The US of A is not the only country with global corporate interests
> 
> All of those bad guys and despots are also impacting the EU, UK, Japan, S Korea and every other "good guy" on the planet.
> 
> Yet, we are the only ones who need to maintain military bases around the world to keep the peace
> 
> Nothing wrong with the US being good guys and protecting the planet
> But it comes at a price. Namely making sacrifices on the home front while we prop up some puppet dictator in South America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything costs something.
> 
> You only have to decide whether you are willing to pay the price ...
> 
> How many Somali girls are you willing to sacrifice for that new stretch of road?
> 
> How many Iraqi refugees die so we can buy a bigger TV?
> 
> How many girls get raped in Pakistan so you can get a new car?
> 
> What's a steak worth? Three dead babies.
> 
> Everything costs something.
> 
> _BTW - off the top of my head, I can think of 13 countries that maintain military facilities outside their borders. Just sayin' ... _
Click to expand...

 Here's the ultimate comedy act, he's talking about people that him and his hate party percieve as being dirt. This bullshitter will go anywhere to prove something , he is made of the same scum that his president Scum Bag is made of.


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, wait a minute. When you say government benefits, I have to remind you that the federal government doesn't produce anything. Therefore, the federal government doesn't have anything. So, where are they going to get the money from? That's what I'm asking. We're almost 21 trillion dollars in debt at the time of this communication with over 900 bases in 130 countries.
> 
> 
> 
> ... and the answer remains the same.
> 
> We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars. We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.
> 
> However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".
> 
> The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which begs the question
> 
> Why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you ask a fair question - why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> For a moment, let's put aside our NATO commitment. Let's not talk about our promise to the people of Europe.
> 
> Instead, let's just talk about the direct military impact of those bases in Germany. There is an area in Germany called the Fulda Gap. It is the most geographically appropriate launching point of a Soviet incursion into Europe. Closing that door greatly complicates any attempt to attack Europe. Conversely, it is our most advantageous ground access point should we decide to invade Russia. So, the Soviets keep that door closed, as well. They commit troops and we commit troops - if we have a tank battalion there, they have to put a tank battalion there in response. If they have a tank battalion there, we have to put one there in response.
> 
> Sounds like a stand-off, doesn't it? EXCEPT - as you've pointed out, we spend about 14% of our federal expenditures on defense. Russia, on the other hand, spends about 21% on theirs - an unsustainable rate of expenditure. If you recall, Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative forced Russia to increase defense spending beyond its breaking point - and directly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> 
> The same will hold true for the Putin regime. He will eventually go broke, spend too much trying to keep up, and be overthrown. Russia will go through another democratic evolution, and move closer to individual rights.
> 
> Now, back to NATO - we gave our word, we keep our word. Our support of NATO ensures the fealty of European countries - and just as importantly - European markets. Why do suppose it is that we don't have a military base in France, but so many in Germany?
> 
> Placing our troops in Germany - or anywhere else - is intrinsically cheaper than housing them in the US and sending them to the hot-spot of the day. What's the cost of a 50,000 acre military base in Germany compared to a 50,000 acre military base in California or South Carolina? What's the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in South Korea compared to those same 100,000 in Nevada?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the old Cold War Fulda Gap horror stories
> 
> We overbuilt our military presence for 40 years trying to protect that gap. Turned out the Soviet Union was not the threat our military built them up to be.
> Russia is even less
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was merely an example of direct confrontation - I could have done the same in Korea, for example.
> 
> But, let me ask you --- if we open the door, do you seriously believe Russia wouldn't come thru?
Click to expand...

 Ya as a Allie . Russia's Scum bag is exactly made of the same stuff our scum bag is made of , they will both be gone Our Scum bag faster then their scum bag,


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, wait a minute. When you say government benefits, I have to remind you that the federal government doesn't produce anything. Therefore, the federal government doesn't have anything. So, where are they going to get the money from? That's what I'm asking. We're almost 21 trillion dollars in debt at the time of this communication with over 900 bases in 130 countries.
> 
> 
> 
> ... and the answer remains the same.
> 
> We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars. We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.
> 
> However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".
> 
> The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which begs the question
> 
> Why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you ask a fair question - why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> For a moment, let's put aside our NATO commitment. Let's not talk about our promise to the people of Europe.
> 
> Instead, let's just talk about the direct military impact of those bases in Germany. There is an area in Germany called the Fulda Gap. It is the most geographically appropriate launching point of a Soviet incursion into Europe. Closing that door greatly complicates any attempt to attack Europe. Conversely, it is our most advantageous ground access point should we decide to invade Russia. So, the Soviets keep that door closed, as well. They commit troops and we commit troops - if we have a tank battalion there, they have to put a tank battalion there in response. If they have a tank battalion there, we have to put one there in response.
> 
> Sounds like a stand-off, doesn't it? EXCEPT - as you've pointed out, we spend about 14% of our federal expenditures on defense. Russia, on the other hand, spends about 21% on theirs - an unsustainable rate of expenditure. If you recall, Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative forced Russia to increase defense spending beyond its breaking point - and directly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> 
> The same will hold true for the Putin regime. He will eventually go broke, spend too much trying to keep up, and be overthrown. Russia will go through another democratic evolution, and move closer to individual rights.
> 
> Now, back to NATO - we gave our word, we keep our word. Our support of NATO ensures the fealty of European countries - and just as importantly - European markets. Why do suppose it is that we don't have a military base in France, but so many in Germany?
> 
> Placing our troops in Germany - or anywhere else - is intrinsically cheaper than housing them in the US and sending them to the hot-spot of the day. What's the cost of a 50,000 acre military base in Germany compared to a 50,000 acre military base in California or South Carolina? What's the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in South Korea compared to those same 100,000 in Nevada?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the chance to define stupid. I always like to do that. Especially when I can do it against the brain dead. Russia spends 70 billion a year on it's military. France, Britain, German, Italy ,Spain and Poland, spend 200 billion a year.
> Now Russia would have to realize that in a matter of days another 1 trillion in military would start to be thrown at them.
> So brain dead becomes the new world for stupid. You just have to laugh at their nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> Waiting.
Click to expand...

Beautiful now I buried this clown also, , There is not way he can sell his bullshit with these facts screwing his brain to pieces, I get the chance to define stupid. I always like to do that. Especially when I can do it against the brain dead. Russia spends 70 billion a year on it's military. France, Britain, German, Italy ,Spain and Poland, spend 200 billion a year. 
Now Russia would have to realize that in a matter of days another 1 trillion in military would start to be thrown at them. 
So brain dead becomes the new world for stupid. You just have to laugh at their nonsense


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, wait a minute. When you say government benefits, I have to remind you that the federal government doesn't produce anything. Therefore, the federal government doesn't have anything. So, where are they going to get the money from? That's what I'm asking. We're almost 21 trillion dollars in debt at the time of this communication with over 900 bases in 130 countries.
> 
> 
> 
> ... and the answer remains the same.
> 
> We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars. We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.
> 
> However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".
> 
> The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which begs the question
> 
> Why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you ask a fair question - why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> For a moment, let's put aside our NATO commitment. Let's not talk about our promise to the people of Europe.
> 
> Instead, let's just talk about the direct military impact of those bases in Germany. There is an area in Germany called the Fulda Gap. It is the most geographically appropriate launching point of a Soviet incursion into Europe. Closing that door greatly complicates any attempt to attack Europe. Conversely, it is our most advantageous ground access point should we decide to invade Russia. So, the Soviets keep that door closed, as well. They commit troops and we commit troops - if we have a tank battalion there, they have to put a tank battalion there in response. If they have a tank battalion there, we have to put one there in response.
> 
> Sounds like a stand-off, doesn't it? EXCEPT - as you've pointed out, we spend about 14% of our federal expenditures on defense. Russia, on the other hand, spends about 21% on theirs - an unsustainable rate of expenditure. If you recall, Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative forced Russia to increase defense spending beyond its breaking point - and directly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> 
> The same will hold true for the Putin regime. He will eventually go broke, spend too much trying to keep up, and be overthrown. Russia will go through another democratic evolution, and move closer to individual rights.
> 
> Now, back to NATO - we gave our word, we keep our word. Our support of NATO ensures the fealty of European countries - and just as importantly - European markets. Why do suppose it is that we don't have a military base in France, but so many in Germany?
> 
> Placing our troops in Germany - or anywhere else - is intrinsically cheaper than housing them in the US and sending them to the hot-spot of the day. What's the cost of a 50,000 acre military base in Germany compared to a 50,000 acre military base in California or South Carolina? What's the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in South Korea compared to those same 100,000 in Nevada?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the chance to define stupid. I always like to do that. Especially when I can do it against the brain dead. Russia spends 70 billion a year on it's military. France, Britain, German, Italy ,Spain and Poland, spend 200 billion a year.
> Now Russia would have to realize that in a matter of days another 1 trillion in military would start to be thrown at them.
> So brain dead becomes the new world for stupid. You just have to laugh at their nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.
> *
> This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?
> 
> We give up improving our collapsing infrastructure, modern mass transportation, education opportunities, healthcare....all things that other nations get to invest in because we have their backs
> 
> Collectively, the EU is as large economically as the US. Why are they not assuming more of that policeman's role? Why are we invested in their defense?
> 
> Japan and S Korea have almost half of our economy. Why are we defending them and why don't they assume a larger role in Asia?
> 
> I'm not saying end our international involvement but to start to share the load
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.
> 
> The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.
> 
> The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.
> 
> You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?
> 
> The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?
> 
> The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.
> 
> We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell  me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.
> 
> So --- "world's policeman"? Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to the truth
> 
> It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?
> 
> Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the difference between National and corporate interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That, my friend, is the question
> 
> There is no difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sez you. Most of us know better.
Click to expand...

now he's getting down to his best argument, may I quote him "sez You" ROTFL


----------



## jbander

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being the number one superpower in the world is expensive. Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $700 billion a year
> 
> We would still be the number one superpower in the world at $300 billion a year
Click to expand...

 Hell we could get by with 100 billion. for the next 20 years until we got rid of the junk that is such a waste of money now.  Our technology and 30 billion more then Russia spends and our closest Allies that spend 200 billion a year,Russia isn't in the same ballpark.It just a laugh to think that they are.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being the number one superpower in the world is expensive. Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $700 billion a year
> 
> We would still be the number one superpower in the world at $300 billion a year
Click to expand...


And you would still bitch that we were spending too much.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and the answer remains the same.
> 
> We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars. We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.
> 
> However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".
> 
> The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which begs the question
> 
> Why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you ask a fair question - why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> For a moment, let's put aside our NATO commitment. Let's not talk about our promise to the people of Europe.
> 
> Instead, let's just talk about the direct military impact of those bases in Germany. There is an area in Germany called the Fulda Gap. It is the most geographically appropriate launching point of a Soviet incursion into Europe. Closing that door greatly complicates any attempt to attack Europe. Conversely, it is our most advantageous ground access point should we decide to invade Russia. So, the Soviets keep that door closed, as well. They commit troops and we commit troops - if we have a tank battalion there, they have to put a tank battalion there in response. If they have a tank battalion there, we have to put one there in response.
> 
> Sounds like a stand-off, doesn't it? EXCEPT - as you've pointed out, we spend about 14% of our federal expenditures on defense. Russia, on the other hand, spends about 21% on theirs - an unsustainable rate of expenditure. If you recall, Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative forced Russia to increase defense spending beyond its breaking point - and directly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> 
> The same will hold true for the Putin regime. He will eventually go broke, spend too much trying to keep up, and be overthrown. Russia will go through another democratic evolution, and move closer to individual rights.
> 
> Now, back to NATO - we gave our word, we keep our word. Our support of NATO ensures the fealty of European countries - and just as importantly - European markets. Why do suppose it is that we don't have a military base in France, but so many in Germany?
> 
> Placing our troops in Germany - or anywhere else - is intrinsically cheaper than housing them in the US and sending them to the hot-spot of the day. What's the cost of a 50,000 acre military base in Germany compared to a 50,000 acre military base in California or South Carolina? What's the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in South Korea compared to those same 100,000 in Nevada?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the chance to define stupid. I always like to do that. Especially when I can do it against the brain dead. Russia spends 70 billion a year on it's military. France, Britain, German, Italy ,Spain and Poland, spend 200 billion a year.
> Now Russia would have to realize that in a matter of days another 1 trillion in military would start to be thrown at them.
> So brain dead becomes the new world for stupid. You just have to laugh at their nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard this same tired, old, "world's policeman" argument for the past 50 years - it carries no more validity today than it did then.
> 
> The US is not the "world's policeman" - that is a simplistic, naive, and frankly, silly bromide used to avoid actually looking at issues in depth.
> 
> The US acts in its own best interest - period. That is why we are involved in the Middle East (terrorism, oil, ally support) and not involved in Somalia, for example. There is nothing to be gained in Somalia. That's why we are involved in NATO (reduce the threat of Communist takeover, treaties, etc.) and not involved in Tibet.
> 
> You ask why we defend South Korea or Japan - key economic partners in Asia. Silly question, don't you think? We are supposed to place our allies - and our customers - at risk of being subsumed by China? Can we afford to have the South China Sea transportation routes controlled by an opposing country?
> 
> The EU? You conveniently try to lump all the countries in the EU into a single military entity, when we know that is intrinsically false. We belong to NATO - and have committed to helping restrain aggressive regimes in Europe. If we were to abdicate our responsibility, the attacks would begin within a week, and Europe would be absorbed in a matter of months. Then, we would be facing a force of almost unlimited resources. Doesn't it make sense to limit the size and resources of our adversaries?
> 
> The list goes on --- why do we covet the Philippines, hardly the bastion of democracy, political might, and fiscal opportunity? Because of its location - and its concordant ability to control shipping lanes.
> 
> We have made commitments, treaties, and agreements to protect ourselves - not them. Close down our economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and all of Europe, and tell  me what happens to our economy. Tell me about the jobs lost (we produce those goods). Tell me about the skyrocketing costs of goods in the US because we didn't keep those low-cost labor countries available to us.
> 
> So --- "world's policeman"? Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to the truth
> 
> It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?
> 
> Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the difference between National and corporate interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That, my friend, is the question
> 
> There is no difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sez you. Most of us know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now he's getting down to his best argument, may I quote him "sez You" ROTFL
Click to expand...


You stated: _" Its all their in post 170." _and that was a lie. So where exactly do you claim you asked your idiotic question?
And why still no attempt to answer mine? Too ignorant to attempt such? 
You claim this Country has fought hundreds of wars. Untrue
You claim we fight wars to benefit some corporate bottom line. Untrue.
You claim to know what wars have been "necessary". Obviously untrue.
Are you unable or simply unwilling to defend the idiotic positions you've taken in this thread? Can you give us any reason what-so-ever why anyone should think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?


----------



## MikeK

I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.  

Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Spare_change said:


> ... and the answer remains the same.
> 
> We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars.



So, rob the tax payers then? Print the money and monetize the debt with an inflation tax? Do you know what happens when you do that? I'll tell you what happens. You continue to debase the dollar and you continue to wipe out the poor, middle class, and senior citizens. That's what.



Spare_change said:


> We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.



Your wars are unconstitutional. It is illegal aggression. It is iIlegal occupation. When's the last time congress actually made a declaration of war like the constitution states we do? And, again, the federal government doesn't have any funds. The federal government does not produce anything. So, how can it 'have' anything? We're 21 trillion dollars in debt.

And I don't want to trim down of the government programs. I want to end them gradually.



Spare_change said:


> However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".



Actually, we have more than 900 bases. I'm the only one being honest in our dicussion. There's nothing misleading about it. Nothing. Why don't we mind out own god damned business? Ever think of that? We're the ones who are invading and illegally occupying nations abroad. And no declaration of war against any of these nations as the consitution demands. We're blowing up bridges abroad just to turn around and rob the taxpayers to rebuild what was just blown up. We're building embassys abroud that are bigger than the vatican. It's waste. How many foreign bases do we have on our own borders? I don't see any. Do you?



Spare_change said:


> The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.



Bull pucky. It's taxpayer dollars and it's waste.

Bring our troops home and build bases here. That's defense spending. Hell, I'd have more bases here than we do abroad.

What many so called 'conservatives' tend to forget is that there is a difference between military spending and defense spending. And so called 'conservatives' tend to forget that we're broke. They don't understand that each time we print money which is backed by nothing at all and turn around and monetize that debt at the expense of the taxpayer via inflation tax, that we're wiping out the midddle class and poor Americans as well as seniors. And it's devaluing our dollar. Right now the dollar is worth 4 cents compared to 1950. And it's only going to get worse. Eventually it'll crash. Guaranteed. Which is why we're seeing other nations creating such things as the asian and brics banks.

And I'll tell you something about oil, too. I saw you mention that somewhere. Any real conservative who understands conservatism and actually sticks to his principles would conserve natural resources, too.  Let the price of oil rise to its natural price so we can move onto cleaner means.  But do you know why we don't do that? Wars. That's why. Oil is an excuse to continually print money and rob the taxpayers to create the illusion of covering the debt and justify the emperialism abroad. Bring the troops home, build bases here, and let oil rise to its natural price so we can move on to something else a little more 'conservative.'


----------



## rightwinger

jbander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being the number one superpower in the world is expensive. Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $700 billion a year
> 
> We would still be the number one superpower in the world at $300 billion a year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell we could get by with 100 billion. for the next 20 years until we got rid of the junk that is such a waste of money now.  Our technology and 30 billion more then Russia spends and our closest Allies that spend 200 billion a year,Russia isn't in the same ballpark.It just a laugh to think that they are.
Click to expand...

In terms of defending our shores, we could get by on $100 billion

The other $600 billion is defending corporate interests


----------



## rightwinger

MikeK said:


> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.


We have soldiers who want to be there instead of those forced to be there


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being the number one superpower in the world is expensive. Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $700 billion a year
> 
> We would still be the number one superpower in the world at $300 billion a year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you would still bitch that we were spending too much.
Click to expand...


I'm OK with us being the most powerful military

I just question why we need to be three times the most powerful


----------



## MikeK

rightwinger said:


> We have soldiers who want to be there instead of those forced to be there


If they _want_ to be there they are psychologically defective.  They are _paid_ to be there, which is the definition of a mercenary army.


----------



## rightwinger

MikeK said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have soldiers who want to be there instead of those forced to be there
> 
> 
> 
> If they _want_ to be there they are psychologically defective.  They are _paid_ to be there, which is the definition of a mercenary army.
Click to expand...


What makes someone who volunteers to serve his country psychologically defective?


----------



## Natural Citizen

rightwinger said:


> I just question why we need to be three times the most powerful



They're establishing an economic occupation for when the military occupation has ended. They're establishing bases for the interests of Exxon Mobil and British Petroleum.


----------



## rightwinger

Natural Citizen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just question why we need to be three times the most powerful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're establishing an economic occupation for when the military occupation has ended. They're establishing bases for the interests of Exxon Mobil and British Petroleum.
Click to expand...

You are a total moron


----------



## Natural Citizen

And thank your lucky stars the TPP didn't pass. Because then you'd have had a sitting president with unlimited, unchecked, power and you would have had private international courts where western nations could actually sue foreign nations for objecting to us setting up camp in their country and pillaging their natural resources in the interests of private companies who have a revolving door with the federal government.


----------



## Natural Citizen

rightwinger said:


> You are a total moron



I'm correct.  That's what I am.


----------



## rightwinger

Natural Citizen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a total moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm correct.  That's what I am.
Click to expand...

No, seriously
Read some of your posts

You are a moron


----------



## 9thIDdoc

MikeK said:


> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.



Wrong. No Nation can claim to be free while having slave armies. If the cause is just and the pay and benefits amount to more than slave wages conscription is not needed. It only becomes "necessary" when people, like some on here, demand the military give them something for next to nothing.


----------



## sakinago

jbander said:


> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.



More money just thrown at it noooo, but I would like to cut some programs and add to programs that really really matter. Like the f-22 program that should have never been stopped. There’s really nothing more important than air superiority in modern day warfare.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

The thread is a fine example of the foolishness of American tightwads. Not that long ago we weren't actively fighting anybody so people demanded we cut military spending to the bone and past. Many bases were closed and many of our best service people were discharged. Recruits and privates are cheaper by the head than career soldiers and heaven forbid they be allowed to hang around long enough to retire. Aircraft, naval vessels, tanks, and armored vehicles can be expensive and require trained people to maintain. So we scraped or mothballed  the vessels and planes and literally dumped many thousands of costly tanks and vehicles into the ocean. 
And then we had the ME go hot and we suddenly needed those things that we had just thrown away. We didn't have enough warm bodies and and we certainly didn't have the experienced troops to train and lead them. We lost more than a few of our sons and daughters because of that bit of civilian foolishness. A shame that some folks just can't seem to learn from our mistakes.


----------



## Spare_change

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being the number one superpower in the world is expensive. Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $700 billion a year
> 
> We would still be the number one superpower in the world at $300 billion a year
Click to expand...

If you were a "buyer" for DoD, you would know that isn't even remotely true.What's the cost of a single soldier? A single Humvee? A single fighter aircraft?


----------



## Spare_change

MikeK said:


> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.


Someone once told me that you can't appreciate an item, until you had to pay for it.

We have whole generations who have not had to "pay" for what they have. They can't appreciate their freedoms - they just take them for granted. They can't appreciate America because they've never been anywhere else (well, except Cancun for Christmas break). 

I agree --- though, I admit i would take it further. I believe that every man or woman (or whatever else is out there these days) should be required to serve a 2 year commitment to service. It doesn't have to be military - it can be as a garbage man, or a street sweeper, or paperwork filer, or whatever. One of those years, however, must be spent out of country. Then, and only then, will they appreciate the gifts they have been given.


----------



## MikeK

9thIDdoc said:


> Wrong. No Nation can claim to be free while having slave armies. If the cause is just and the pay and benefits amount to more than slave wages conscription is not needed. It only becomes "necessary" when people, like some on here, demand the military give them something for next to nothing.


Nonsense.  This Nation did very well with a conscript army for quite some time -- including the WW-II years.  In fact we would have done a lot better if we had conscripted more before that war, because we would have had sufficient manpower to have short-stopped the Japanese in the Pacific.  But it took us so long to conscript and train new recruits that the Japanese had time to dig in on Saipan, Tinian, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.  

And I never heard any G.I. who was drafted refer to his service as "slavery."  That is a reference conceived by some draft-dodging punks who also like to say, _"Thank you for your service --"_ which is short and sneaky for, _"Better you than me."_


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which begs the question
> 
> Why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> 
> 
> Now you ask a fair question - why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> For a moment, let's put aside our NATO commitment. Let's not talk about our promise to the people of Europe.
> 
> Instead, let's just talk about the direct military impact of those bases in Germany. There is an area in Germany called the Fulda Gap. It is the most geographically appropriate launching point of a Soviet incursion into Europe. Closing that door greatly complicates any attempt to attack Europe. Conversely, it is our most advantageous ground access point should we decide to invade Russia. So, the Soviets keep that door closed, as well. They commit troops and we commit troops - if we have a tank battalion there, they have to put a tank battalion there in response. If they have a tank battalion there, we have to put one there in response.
> 
> Sounds like a stand-off, doesn't it? EXCEPT - as you've pointed out, we spend about 14% of our federal expenditures on defense. Russia, on the other hand, spends about 21% on theirs - an unsustainable rate of expenditure. If you recall, Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative forced Russia to increase defense spending beyond its breaking point - and directly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> 
> The same will hold true for the Putin regime. He will eventually go broke, spend too much trying to keep up, and be overthrown. Russia will go through another democratic evolution, and move closer to individual rights.
> 
> Now, back to NATO - we gave our word, we keep our word. Our support of NATO ensures the fealty of European countries - and just as importantly - European markets. Why do suppose it is that we don't have a military base in France, but so many in Germany?
> 
> Placing our troops in Germany - or anywhere else - is intrinsically cheaper than housing them in the US and sending them to the hot-spot of the day. What's the cost of a 50,000 acre military base in Germany compared to a 50,000 acre military base in California or South Carolina? What's the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in South Korea compared to those same 100,000 in Nevada?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the chance to define stupid. I always like to do that. Especially when I can do it against the brain dead. Russia spends 70 billion a year on it's military. France, Britain, German, Italy ,Spain and Poland, spend 200 billion a year.
> Now Russia would have to realize that in a matter of days another 1 trillion in military would start to be thrown at them.
> So brain dead becomes the new world for stupid. You just have to laugh at their nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to the truth
> 
> It has nothing to do with humanitarian peacekeeping and everything to do with protecting global corporate interests. We are spending $700 billion a year to protect those corporate interests......So why are we cutting corporate income taxes?
> 
> Should a soldier give up his life to protect corporate interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the difference between National and corporate interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That, my friend, is the question
> 
> There is no difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sez you. Most of us know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now he's getting down to his best argument, may I quote him "sez You" ROTFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stated: _" Its all their in post 170." _and that was a lie. So where exactly do you claim you asked your idiotic question?
> And why still no attempt to answer mine? Too ignorant to attempt such?
> You claim this Country has fought hundreds of wars. Untrue
> You claim we fight wars to benefit some corporate bottom line. Untrue.
> You claim to know what wars have been "necessary". Obviously untrue.
> Are you unable or simply unwilling to defend the idiotic positions you've taken in this thread? Can you give us any reason what-so-ever why anyone should think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?
Click to expand...

Because you a lower form of humanity , no one owes you any answer to your question. especially that fact that you never asked a question for me to respond to, but I did ask you a question didn't I , I put you in your place and your trying to hide in the corner and trying to bullshit your way out of it, The point I want to make has been made completely anyway , your are just another lying bullshitter that supports and type a hate you can come up with, just like your hate party. By the way if anyone is interested simply go to post 170 , that's his first question to me because he couldn't handle my comment he is responding to. and he has bull shitted his  way through this thread . Again go to post 170 it is all their.


----------



## Spare_change

Natural Citizen said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and the answer remains the same.
> 
> We need to re-prioritize our use of available tax dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, rob the tax payers then? Print the money and monetize the debt with an inflation tax? Do you know what happens when you do that? I'll tell you what happens. You continue to debase the dollar and you continue to wipe out the poor, middle class, and senior citizens. That's what.
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to cut spending in unnecessary, and un-Constitutional, government programs, trim down ALL government agencies (to include DoD), and more effectively use the limited funds we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wars are unconstitutional. It is illegal aggression. It is iIlegal occupation. When's the last time congress actually made a declaration of war like the constitution states we do? And, again, the federal government doesn't have any funds. The federal government does not produce anything. So, how can it 'have' anything? We're 21 trillion dollars in debt.
> 
> And I don't want to trim down of the government programs. I want to end them gradually.
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I find your "over 900 bases in 130 countries" to be a bit disingenuous ... you intentionally paint a picture that is, at best, misleading. For example, there are 37 military installations in Germany - a shocking figure, right? The truth is much more mundane ... four of those are remoted housing areas for military personnel (not connected physically to a nearby facility, thus counted as a separate "base" - six of those are training areas, with little or no military personnel, used to conduct maneuvers - again, separate, thus counted as a separate "base", 11 of them are pre-positioned supply facilities, again separate. Then, along the eastern border are a series of observation posts and forward operating sites, each counted as a separate "base". The reality is that there aren't 37 "bases" in Germany - there are actually only 5 with remoted mission units. Even totally automated radar facilities - because they are separated - count as "bases".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we have more than 900 bases. I'm the only one being honest in our dicussion. There's nothing misleading about it. Nothing. Why don't we mind out own god damned business? Ever think of that? We're the ones who are invading and illegally occupying nations abroad. And no declaration of war against any of these nations as the consitution demands. We're blowing up bridges abroad just to turn around and rob the taxpayers to rebuild what was just blown up. We're building embassys abroud that are bigger than the vatican. It's waste. How many foreign bases do we have on our own borders? I don't see any. Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> The list also includes about 150 sites that are actually closed ... but the US lease has not run out on them (most bases are leased for 99 years from foreign countries). So, technically, they are "installations" belonging to the US - they just don't cost us anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull pucky. It's taxpayer dollars and it's waste.
> 
> Bring our troops home and build bases here. That's defense spending. Hell, I'd have more bases here than we do abroad.
> 
> What many so called 'conservatives' tend to forget is that there is a difference between military spending and defense spending. And so called 'conservatives' tend to forget that we're broke. They don't understand that each time we print money which is backed by nothing at all and turn around and monetize that debt at the expense of the taxpayer via inflation tax, that we're wiping out the midddle class and poor Americans as well as seniors. And it's devaluing our dollar. Right now the dollar is worth 4 cents compared to 1950. And it's only going to get worse. Eventually it'll crash. Guaranteed. Which is why we're seeing other nations creating such things as the asian and brics banks.
> 
> And I'll tell you something about oil, too. I saw you mention that somewhere. Any real conservative who understands conservatism and actually sticks to his principles would conserve natural resources, too.  Let the price of oil rise to its natural price so we can move onto cleaner means.  But do you know why we don't do that? Wars. That's why. Oil is an excuse to continually print money and rob the taxpayers to create the illusion of covering the debt and justify the emperialism abroad. Bring the troops home, build bases here, and let oil rise to its natural price so we can move on to something else a little more 'conservative.'
Click to expand...

You intentionally choose to misinterpret what I said. I said "... *reprioritize* our available tax dollars ... ". Where are your priorities? I never once proposed "printing money" so you can throw away that whole argument. I proposed we used the dollars we have smarter ... 

You have attacked the wrong side of the problem - the problem isn't where do we get the money, but rather what do we do with the money we have. I agree with your commentary about printing money - I don't believe in it, either. But, that has nothing to do with the tactical or strategic necessity of a strong military. That's only an argument about how you pay for it. I suggest we close the Department of Labor, Department of Education, and the EPA and use that money to fund the military. I suggest that we give back control of education to the local communities, eliminate federal subsidies, and use that money for defense spending. I suggest that we eliminate other programs (I got a whole list of them) that exceed the authority of the federal government, keep those tax dollars, and use them to fund whatever the hell we need to. Would you rather pay an Iowa corn farmer to NOT grow corn or buy a satellite to monitor the movements of people intent on killing you?

Your argument about the "legality" of our "wars" is nebulous and undefined. You can say that since Congress hasn't declared war, they are illegal. I can say that since Congress hasn't declared war, they aren't really wars, are they? Call them by any name you wish --- military incursions, defense maneuvers --- call them whatever name you like. But, judge them on the basis of their goals and their results - not on some nebulous and arbitrary label.

You want us to "mind our own god damned business". Is it our business to ensure that the shipping lanes in the South China Sea are open for trade? Is it our business to ensure that Somalian pirates are prevented from confiscating US ships? Is it out business to keep the Suez and Panama Canals open? Is it our business to ensure that our customers are not being overrun by tyrants and thieves? Is it our business to assist Pakistan to try to control the growth of terrorist havens? Is it our business to assist the Philippines to put down the terrorist uprising in their country so that we can maintain our strategic position in the Pacific? Generalizations like "mind our god damned business" sound really good - but mean nothing when subjected to the light of the truth.

I suppose if the Russians were to attack and conquer Canada, you would propose that we not assist them, despite the fact that it would mean they are sitting on our doorstep.


----------



## MikeK

rightwinger said:


> What makes someone who volunteers to serve his country psychologically defective?


I didn't say that.  I said that those who _want_ to endure boot camp or basic training and the subsequent years of being rousted at 5AM, shoveling shit, saluting, living in a barracks with fifty others, running around with a 40 pound pack on your back, crawling through mud, etc. etc. are psychologically defective.   And if you disagree, then you are nuts, too.  

Serving your country is one thing.  Enjoying it is quite another.  So join the Marines and see what I mean.


----------



## jbander

MikeK said:


> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.


 well for the last many wars we have sent these poor young people out to murder for the bottom line of corporation and when they come back and start to realize the truth and that truth takes away every justification for doing what they had to do to stay alive in these wars.  WE don't have to go any further then simply ask who were the two companies that gained the most from the war in Iraq.


----------



## Spare_change

rightwinger said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.
> 
> 
> 
> We have soldiers who want to be there instead of those forced to be there
Click to expand...

That's not true ... soldiers don't WANT to be there. Nobody wants to be in a god forsaken place like Afghanistan, serving as a target for every piss ant with a rifle. 

They are there because they understand their country NEEDS them to be there. At least, they have the courage to protect you - since most couldn't care less what happens to you.


----------



## jbander

MikeK said:


> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.


 What this country should do is double the pay of the people in the military. That's how a professional military comes about.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you ask a fair question - why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> For a moment, let's put aside our NATO commitment. Let's not talk about our promise to the people of Europe.
> 
> Instead, let's just talk about the direct military impact of those bases in Germany. There is an area in Germany called the Fulda Gap. It is the most geographically appropriate launching point of a Soviet incursion into Europe. Closing that door greatly complicates any attempt to attack Europe. Conversely, it is our most advantageous ground access point should we decide to invade Russia. So, the Soviets keep that door closed, as well. They commit troops and we commit troops - if we have a tank battalion there, they have to put a tank battalion there in response. If they have a tank battalion there, we have to put one there in response.
> 
> Sounds like a stand-off, doesn't it? EXCEPT - as you've pointed out, we spend about 14% of our federal expenditures on defense. Russia, on the other hand, spends about 21% on theirs - an unsustainable rate of expenditure. If you recall, Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative forced Russia to increase defense spending beyond its breaking point - and directly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> 
> The same will hold true for the Putin regime. He will eventually go broke, spend too much trying to keep up, and be overthrown. Russia will go through another democratic evolution, and move closer to individual rights.
> 
> Now, back to NATO - we gave our word, we keep our word. Our support of NATO ensures the fealty of European countries - and just as importantly - European markets. Why do suppose it is that we don't have a military base in France, but so many in Germany?
> 
> Placing our troops in Germany - or anywhere else - is intrinsically cheaper than housing them in the US and sending them to the hot-spot of the day. What's the cost of a 50,000 acre military base in Germany compared to a 50,000 acre military base in California or South Carolina? What's the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in South Korea compared to those same 100,000 in Nevada?
> 
> 
> 
> I get the chance to define stupid. I always like to do that. Especially when I can do it against the brain dead. Russia spends 70 billion a year on it's military. France, Britain, German, Italy ,Spain and Poland, spend 200 billion a year.
> Now Russia would have to realize that in a matter of days another 1 trillion in military would start to be thrown at them.
> So brain dead becomes the new world for stupid. You just have to laugh at their nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know the difference between National and corporate interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That, my friend, is the question
> 
> There is no difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sez you. Most of us know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now he's getting down to his best argument, may I quote him "sez You" ROTFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stated: _" Its all their in post 170." _and that was a lie. So where exactly do you claim you asked your idiotic question?
> And why still no attempt to answer mine? Too ignorant to attempt such?
> You claim this Country has fought hundreds of wars. Untrue
> You claim we fight wars to benefit some corporate bottom line. Untrue.
> You claim to know what wars have been "necessary". Obviously untrue.
> Are you unable or simply unwilling to defend the idiotic positions you've taken in this thread? Can you give us any reason what-so-ever why anyone should think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you a lower form of humanity , no one owes you any answer to your question. especially that fact that you never asked a question for me to respond to, but I did ask you a question didn't I , I put you in your place and your trying to hide in the corner and trying to bullshit your way out of it, The point I want to make has been made completely anyway , your are just another lying bullshitter that supports and type a hate you can come up with, just like your hate party. By the way if anyone is interested simply go to post 170 , that's his first question to me because he couldn't handle my comment he is responding to. and he has bull shitted his  way through this thread . Again go to post 170 it is all their.
Click to expand...

I asked you a question - in fact,I asked you three. And, you have refused to respond. Kettle - meet pot.


----------



## jbander

rightwinger said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.
> 
> 
> 
> We have soldiers who want to be there instead of those forced to be there
Click to expand...

 A conscripted army is a peoples army , what a pile of shit that is. Try paying them instead.  Forcing people to fight in wars that are lies doesn't in any way make that a people s army.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.
> 
> 
> 
> well for the last many wars we have sent these poor young people out to murder for the bottom line of corporation and when they come back and start to realize the truth and that truth takes away every justification for doing what they had to do to stay alive in these wars.  WE don't have to go any further then simply ask who were the two companies that gained the most from the war in Iraq.
Click to expand...

I will defend to the death your right to say incredibly stupid things .......

... but, I got to tell you --- you are definitely pushing the limit.


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get the chance to define stupid. I always like to do that. Especially when I can do it against the brain dead. Russia spends 70 billion a year on it's military. France, Britain, German, Italy ,Spain and Poland, spend 200 billion a year.
> Now Russia would have to realize that in a matter of days another 1 trillion in military would start to be thrown at them.
> So brain dead becomes the new world for stupid. You just have to laugh at their nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That, my friend, is the question
> 
> There is no difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sez you. Most of us know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now he's getting down to his best argument, may I quote him "sez You" ROTFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stated: _" Its all their in post 170." _and that was a lie. So where exactly do you claim you asked your idiotic question?
> And why still no attempt to answer mine? Too ignorant to attempt such?
> You claim this Country has fought hundreds of wars. Untrue
> You claim we fight wars to benefit some corporate bottom line. Untrue.
> You claim to know what wars have been "necessary". Obviously untrue.
> Are you unable or simply unwilling to defend the idiotic positions you've taken in this thread? Can you give us any reason what-so-ever why anyone should think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you a lower form of humanity , no one owes you any answer to your question. especially that fact that you never asked a question for me to respond to, but I did ask you a question didn't I , I put you in your place and your trying to hide in the corner and trying to bullshit your way out of it, The point I want to make has been made completely anyway , your are just another lying bullshitter that supports and type a hate you can come up with, just like your hate party. By the way if anyone is interested simply go to post 170 , that's his first question to me because he couldn't handle my comment he is responding to. and he has bull shitted his  way through this thread . Again go to post 170 it is all their.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you a question - in fact,I asked you three. And, you have refused to respond. Kettle - meet pot.
Click to expand...

 I really care little what  some scum ball in here asks me a question and I can only laugh when they think somehow I should have to respond. Shit I'me thinking about dumping , two of the brain dead in here.  Not much interested in what they say anymore they have contributed nothing nothing nothing.  I here to lecture you now on how stupid you haters are and that your the biggest threat to this country and we have to get rid of you.  You sold out this country for hatred that makes you awful low in my book.


----------



## MikeK

Spare_change said:


> I will defend to the death your right to say incredibly stupid things .......
> 
> ... but, I got to tell you --- you are definitely pushing the limit.


Really?  Then you tell us why we sacrificed 58,000 American lives in Vietnam, and why George H.W. Bush saw fit to double-cross Saddam Hussein and intervene in Hussein's righteous invasion of Kuwait?  And tell us why George W. Bush saw fit to then invade an already defeated and militarily impotent Iraq.

Here's a little hint:


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.
> 
> 
> 
> well for the last many wars we have sent these poor young people out to murder for the bottom line of corporation and when they come back and start to realize the truth and that truth takes away every justification for doing what they had to do to stay alive in these wars.  WE don't have to go any further then simply ask who were the two companies that gained the most from the war in Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will defend to the death your right to say incredibly stupid things .......
> 
> ... but, I got to tell you --- you are definitely pushing the limit.
Click to expand...

 Ya that's what hate will do. supporting the deaths of the American young for the sake of the bottom line of some corporation , that is pitiful/


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. No Nation can claim to be free while having slave armies. If the cause is just and the pay and benefits amount to more than slave wages conscription is not needed. It only becomes "necessary" when people, like some on here, demand the military give them something for next to nothing.
Click to expand...

Anyone know what this crap means.


----------



## jbander

MikeK said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. No Nation can claim to be free while having slave armies. If the cause is just and the pay and benefits amount to more than slave wages conscription is not needed. It only becomes "necessary" when people, like some on here, demand the military give them something for next to nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  This Nation did very well with a conscript army for quite some time -- including the WW-II years.  In fact we would have done a lot better if we had conscripted more before that war, because we would have had sufficient manpower to have short-stopped the Japanese in the Pacific.  But it took us so long to conscript and train new recruits that the Japanese had time to dig in on Saipan, Tinian, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.
> 
> And I never heard any G.I. who was drafted refer to his service as "slavery."  That is a reference conceived by some draft-dodging punks who also like to say, _"Thank you for your service --"_ which is short and sneaky for, _"Better you than me."_
Click to expand...

 we beat them to a pulp and nothing has changed, we and our allies could take on the rest of the world and we would bury them. You gun bubbas are a joke. One of the brain dead here said we had to stay in Germany  because it was the rout that Russia would used to take on the world. Ya you bet Russia spend 70 billion a year on the military. Just the main allies we have in Europe spends 200 billion  a year and the Russians would know that in hours, countries that had spent over a trillion more a year would be using them for target practice. I mean how stupid can these gun Bubbas be.  Their controllers tell them how to think and what to think and they continue backing a bigger military, even when You have to be close to brain dead to support that stupidity.


----------



## jbander

sakinago said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More money just thrown at it noooo, but I would like to cut some programs and add to programs that really really matter. Like the f-22 program that should have never been stopped. There’s really nothing more important than air superiority in modern day warfare.
Click to expand...

 The F-22 program in no way was stopped it was completed in fact many years ago, they starting using them in 2005 I think and we have just short of 200 of them now.  WE need no more if our potential enemy's have none or just a few. If we had to make more no country could make them faster then this country. So no I don't see it.  You are right ,They are a great plane.


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.
> 
> 
> 
> We have soldiers who want to be there instead of those forced to be there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not true ... soldiers don't WANT to be there. Nobody wants to be in a god forsaken place like Afghanistan, serving as a target for every piss ant with a rifle.
> 
> They are there because they understand their country NEEDS them to be there. At least, they have the courage to protect you - since most couldn't care less what happens to you.
Click to expand...

 Ya but the kick in the ass is when these poor suckers find out it was a lie and that everything they did to protect themselves there was way closer to murder then protecting this country . Again this can be simply explained by what two company's made the most money from these wars.


----------



## Slyhunter

What is the point of having an Army if you never use it.
I was in Clinton's peace time Army.  Superiors made me feel worthless because we weren't in any real wars. I got to hoping for a war so I could prove how good I was at my job.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sez you. Most of us know better.
> 
> 
> 
> now he's getting down to his best argument, may I quote him "sez You" ROTFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stated: _" Its all their in post 170." _and that was a lie. So where exactly do you claim you asked your idiotic question?
> And why still no attempt to answer mine? Too ignorant to attempt such?
> You claim this Country has fought hundreds of wars. Untrue
> You claim we fight wars to benefit some corporate bottom line. Untrue.
> You claim to know what wars have been "necessary". Obviously untrue.
> Are you unable or simply unwilling to defend the idiotic positions you've taken in this thread? Can you give us any reason what-so-ever why anyone should think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you a lower form of humanity , no one owes you any answer to your question. especially that fact that you never asked a question for me to respond to, but I did ask you a question didn't I , I put you in your place and your trying to hide in the corner and trying to bullshit your way out of it, The point I want to make has been made completely anyway , your are just another lying bullshitter that supports and type a hate you can come up with, just like your hate party. By the way if anyone is interested simply go to post 170 , that's his first question to me because he couldn't handle my comment he is responding to. and he has bull shitted his  way through this thread . Again go to post 170 it is all their.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you a question - in fact,I asked you three. And, you have refused to respond. Kettle - meet pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I really care little what  some scum ball in here asks me a question and I can only laugh when they think somehow I should have to respond. Shit I'me thinking about dumping , two of the brain dead in here.  Not much interested in what they say anymore they have contributed nothing nothing nothing.  I here to lecture you now on how stupid you haters are and that your the biggest threat to this country and we have to get rid of you.  You sold out this country for hatred that makes you awful low in my book.
Click to expand...

Damn --- English isn't your native language?? This post is a wreck ... but then, what can we expect from someone who storms in here, makes grandiose pronouncements, and then can't, or won't, back them up?


----------



## Spare_change

MikeK said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will defend to the death your right to say incredibly stupid things .......
> 
> ... but, I got to tell you --- you are definitely pushing the limit.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then you tell us why we sacrificed 58,000 American lives in Vietnam, and why George H.W. Bush saw fit to double-cross Saddam Hussein and intervene in Hussein's righteous invasion of Kuwait?  And tell us why George W. Bush saw fit to then invade an already defeated and militarily impotent Iraq.
> 
> Here's a little hint:
Click to expand...


I rest my case.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.
> 
> 
> 
> We have soldiers who want to be there instead of those forced to be there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not true ... soldiers don't WANT to be there. Nobody wants to be in a god forsaken place like Afghanistan, serving as a target for every piss ant with a rifle.
> 
> They are there because they understand their country NEEDS them to be there. At least, they have the courage to protect you - since most couldn't care less what happens to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya but the kick in the ass is when these poor suckers find out it was a lie and that everything they did to protect themselves there was way closer to murder then protecting this country . Again this can be simply explained by what two company's made the most money from these wars.
Click to expand...


You really say stupid shit, you know that?


I suspect you don't ..... that's sad.


----------



## rightwinger

Spare_change said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.
> 
> 
> 
> We have soldiers who want to be there instead of those forced to be there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not true ... soldiers don't WANT to be there. Nobody wants to be in a god forsaken place like Afghanistan, serving as a target for every piss ant with a rifle.
> 
> They are there because they understand their country NEEDS them to be there. At least, they have the courage to protect you - since most couldn't care less what happens to you.
Click to expand...


I was speaking of ...want to be in the military


----------



## 9thIDdoc

MikeK said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. No Nation can claim to be free while having slave armies. If the cause is just and the pay and benefits amount to more than slave wages conscription is not needed. It only becomes "necessary" when people, like some on here, demand the military give them something for next to nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  This Nation did very well with a conscript army for quite some time -- including the WW-II years.  In fact we would have done a lot better if we had conscripted more before that war, because we would have had sufficient manpower to have short-stopped the Japanese in the Pacific.  But it took us so long to conscript and train new recruits that the Japanese had time to dig in on Saipan, Tinian, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.
> 
> And I never heard any G.I. who was drafted refer to his service as "slavery."  That is a reference conceived by some draft-dodging punks who also like to say, _"Thank you for your service --"_ which is short and sneaky for, _"Better you than me."_
Click to expand...


Then you obviously haven't talked to many drafted GIs. I was one and served with many more.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you ask a fair question - why do we still have military bases in Germany?
> 
> For a moment, let's put aside our NATO commitment. Let's not talk about our promise to the people of Europe.
> 
> Instead, let's just talk about the direct military impact of those bases in Germany. There is an area in Germany called the Fulda Gap. It is the most geographically appropriate launching point of a Soviet incursion into Europe. Closing that door greatly complicates any attempt to attack Europe. Conversely, it is our most advantageous ground access point should we decide to invade Russia. So, the Soviets keep that door closed, as well. They commit troops and we commit troops - if we have a tank battalion there, they have to put a tank battalion there in response. If they have a tank battalion there, we have to put one there in response.
> 
> Sounds like a stand-off, doesn't it? EXCEPT - as you've pointed out, we spend about 14% of our federal expenditures on defense. Russia, on the other hand, spends about 21% on theirs - an unsustainable rate of expenditure. If you recall, Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative forced Russia to increase defense spending beyond its breaking point - and directly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> 
> The same will hold true for the Putin regime. He will eventually go broke, spend too much trying to keep up, and be overthrown. Russia will go through another democratic evolution, and move closer to individual rights.
> 
> Now, back to NATO - we gave our word, we keep our word. Our support of NATO ensures the fealty of European countries - and just as importantly - European markets. Why do suppose it is that we don't have a military base in France, but so many in Germany?
> 
> Placing our troops in Germany - or anywhere else - is intrinsically cheaper than housing them in the US and sending them to the hot-spot of the day. What's the cost of a 50,000 acre military base in Germany compared to a 50,000 acre military base in California or South Carolina? What's the cost of maintaining 100,000 troops in South Korea compared to those same 100,000 in Nevada?
> 
> 
> 
> I get the chance to define stupid. I always like to do that. Especially when I can do it against the brain dead. Russia spends 70 billion a year on it's military. France, Britain, German, Italy ,Spain and Poland, spend 200 billion a year.
> Now Russia would have to realize that in a matter of days another 1 trillion in military would start to be thrown at them.
> So brain dead becomes the new world for stupid. You just have to laugh at their nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know the difference between National and corporate interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That, my friend, is the question
> 
> There is no difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sez you. Most of us know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now he's getting down to his best argument, may I quote him "sez You" ROTFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stated: _" Its all their in post 170." _and that was a lie. So where exactly do you claim you asked your idiotic question?
> And why still no attempt to answer mine? Too ignorant to attempt such?
> You claim this Country has fought hundreds of wars. Untrue
> You claim we fight wars to benefit some corporate bottom line. Untrue.
> You claim to know what wars have been "necessary". Obviously untrue.
> Are you unable or simply unwilling to defend the idiotic positions you've taken in this thread? Can you give us any reason what-so-ever why anyone should think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you a lower form of humanity , no one owes you any answer to your question. especially that fact that you never asked a question for me to respond to, but I did ask you a question didn't I , I put you in your place and your trying to hide in the corner and trying to bullshit your way out of it, The point I want to make has been made completely anyway , your are just another lying bullshitter that supports and type a hate you can come up with, just like your hate party. By the way if anyone is interested simply go to post 170 , that's his first question to me because he couldn't handle my comment he is responding to. and he has bull shitted his  way through this thread . Again go to post 170 it is all their.
Click to expand...


I suppose you think that when you are called on a lie the best thing to do is to keep telling more and more. Post 170:

*What exactly makes you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?*

I asked you 3 questions (which you refuse to address) and you asked me none. 
*
*


----------



## harmonica

we will be destroyed by taxation/debt/too many workers not enough jobs/outsourcing/less manufacturing/immigration/etc long before by any conventional military attacks


----------



## rightwinger

Our biggest threat is from a cyber attack from a room full of geeks ten thousand miles away


----------



## harmonica

mhansen2 said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> I see your point, but what areas of military spending would you cut back?
> 
> I remember back in the 1960s, black groups at Cape Canaveral protesting the manned space program for spending money needed for civil improvement.  They, too, had a point, but most of the country, including me, wanted to go to the Moon.
Click to expand...

isn't that a little different--NASA wasn't considered a military program, although some military personnel were involved?
I would say the moon programs did waste $$$...the US could've utilized that money more efficiently to develop space technology without sending men to the moon


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.
> 
> 
> 
> Someone once told me that you can't appreciate an item, until you had to pay for it.
> 
> We have whole generations who have not had to "pay" for what they have. They can't appreciate their freedoms - they just take them for granted. They can't appreciate America because they've never been anywhere else (well, except Cancun for Christmas break).
> 
> I agree --- though, I admit i would take it further. I believe that every man or woman (or whatever else is out there these days) should be required to serve a 2 year commitment to service. It doesn't have to be military - it can be as a garbage man, or a street sweeper, or paperwork filer, or whatever. One of those years, however, must be spent out of country. Then, and only then, will they appreciate the gifts they have been given.
Click to expand...

Do you think anyone here cares what some dingbat that wants to use our youth used as cannon fodder. Just another bang bang gun Bubba


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> now he's getting down to his best argument, may I quote him "sez You" ROTFL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You stated: _" Its all their in post 170." _and that was a lie. So where exactly do you claim you asked your idiotic question?
> And why still no attempt to answer mine? Too ignorant to attempt such?
> You claim this Country has fought hundreds of wars. Untrue
> You claim we fight wars to benefit some corporate bottom line. Untrue.
> You claim to know what wars have been "necessary". Obviously untrue.
> Are you unable or simply unwilling to defend the idiotic positions you've taken in this thread? Can you give us any reason what-so-ever why anyone should think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you a lower form of humanity , no one owes you any answer to your question. especially that fact that you never asked a question for me to respond to, but I did ask you a question didn't I , I put you in your place and your trying to hide in the corner and trying to bullshit your way out of it, The point I want to make has been made completely anyway , your are just another lying bullshitter that supports and type a hate you can come up with, just like your hate party. By the way if anyone is interested simply go to post 170 , that's his first question to me because he couldn't handle my comment he is responding to. and he has bull shitted his  way through this thread . Again go to post 170 it is all their.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you a question - in fact,I asked you three. And, you have refused to respond. Kettle - meet pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I really care little what  some scum ball in here asks me a question and I can only laugh when they think somehow I should have to respond. Shit I'me thinking about dumping , two of the brain dead in here.  Not much interested in what they say anymore they have contributed nothing nothing nothing.  I here to lecture you now on how stupid you haters are and that your the biggest threat to this country and we have to get rid of you.  You sold out this country for hatred that makes you awful low in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn --- English isn't your native language?? This post is a wreck ... but then, what can we expect from someone who storms in here, makes grandiose pronouncements, and then can't, or won't, back them up?
Click to expand...

 When I'm able to grind some scum ball into the dirt were he belongs , I know I've beat them when all they have is my bad spelling and the way I conjugate a verb.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. No Nation can claim to be free while having slave armies. If the cause is just and the pay and benefits amount to more than slave wages conscription is not needed. It only becomes "necessary" when people, like some on here, demand the military give them something for next to nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  This Nation did very well with a conscript army for quite some time -- including the WW-II years.  In fact we would have done a lot better if we had conscripted more before that war, because we would have had sufficient manpower to have short-stopped the Japanese in the Pacific.  But it took us so long to conscript and train new recruits that the Japanese had time to dig in on Saipan, Tinian, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.
> 
> And I never heard any G.I. who was drafted refer to his service as "slavery."  That is a reference conceived by some draft-dodging punks who also like to say, _"Thank you for your service --"_ which is short and sneaky for, _"Better you than me."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you obviously haven't talked to many drafted GIs. I was one and served with many more.
Click to expand...

It gets old watching gun bubbas who still live in the past,  they think they have a message for today. Look at this goofballs Shoulder patch he uses as his avatar. People who have done nothing with their life, do things like this. So they are stuck in the joke of all jokes the domino theory and giving us ridiculous comments about the military budget.


----------



## jbander

harmonica said:


> we will be destroyed by taxation/debt/too many workers not enough jobs/outsourcing/less manufacturing/immigration/etc long before by any conventional military attacks


 Don't you think you have to pay taxes in the wealthiest country in the world, Maybe you could tell us how the national debt can destroy us, the government itself is is holding the debt, so do you expect them to demand payment. Outsources is the easiest one to solve, any company that wants to leave with their whole business or their headquarters should simply have this market ,the biggest market in the world, taken away from these pigs. Do you think any company would or could leave then. Immigration is a net gain for this country , it always has been. These immigrants created the wealthiest most powerful country in the world. Tell me who the hell gets unreasonable taxes in this country. The answer is not in your tax rate, it's the amount that you really pay, hell many businesses pay nothing.


----------



## jbander

rightwinger said:


> Our biggest threat is from a cyber attack from a room full of geeks ten thousand miles away


Our biggest threat is having a foreign government destroy our election process and then having half the country selling out their country by OKing it. Or trying to make it go away with lies. Those people would become traitors for money and hatred.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get the chance to define stupid. I always like to do that. Especially when I can do it against the brain dead. Russia spends 70 billion a year on it's military. France, Britain, German, Italy ,Spain and Poland, spend 200 billion a year.
> Now Russia would have to realize that in a matter of days another 1 trillion in military would start to be thrown at them.
> So brain dead becomes the new world for stupid. You just have to laugh at their nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That, my friend, is the question
> 
> There is no difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sez you. Most of us know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now he's getting down to his best argument, may I quote him "sez You" ROTFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stated: _" Its all their in post 170." _and that was a lie. So where exactly do you claim you asked your idiotic question?
> And why still no attempt to answer mine? Too ignorant to attempt such?
> You claim this Country has fought hundreds of wars. Untrue
> You claim we fight wars to benefit some corporate bottom line. Untrue.
> You claim to know what wars have been "necessary". Obviously untrue.
> Are you unable or simply unwilling to defend the idiotic positions you've taken in this thread? Can you give us any reason what-so-ever why anyone should think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you a lower form of humanity , no one owes you any answer to your question. especially that fact that you never asked a question for me to respond to, but I did ask you a question didn't I , I put you in your place and your trying to hide in the corner and trying to bullshit your way out of it, The point I want to make has been made completely anyway , your are just another lying bullshitter that supports and type a hate you can come up with, just like your hate party. By the way if anyone is interested simply go to post 170 , that's his first question to me because he couldn't handle my comment he is responding to. and he has bull shitted his  way through this thread . Again go to post 170 it is all their.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose you think that when you are called on a lie the best thing to do is to keep telling more and more. Post 170:
> 
> *What exactly makes you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
> WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?*
> 
> I asked you 3 questions (which you refuse to address) and you asked me none.
Click to expand...

Folks simply go to response 170 and you will see that The point he is responding to is me asking him a question that he was unable to answer, so like all the other scum bags in this group , he answered a question with a question, thinking it lets him off the hook. Small brains do that all the time.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sez you. Most of us know better.
> 
> 
> 
> now he's getting down to his best argument, may I quote him "sez You" ROTFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stated: _" Its all their in post 170." _and that was a lie. So where exactly do you claim you asked your idiotic question?
> And why still no attempt to answer mine? Too ignorant to attempt such?
> You claim this Country has fought hundreds of wars. Untrue
> You claim we fight wars to benefit some corporate bottom line. Untrue.
> You claim to know what wars have been "necessary". Obviously untrue.
> Are you unable or simply unwilling to defend the idiotic positions you've taken in this thread? Can you give us any reason what-so-ever why anyone should think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you a lower form of humanity , no one owes you any answer to your question. especially that fact that you never asked a question for me to respond to, but I did ask you a question didn't I , I put you in your place and your trying to hide in the corner and trying to bullshit your way out of it, The point I want to make has been made completely anyway , your are just another lying bullshitter that supports and type a hate you can come up with, just like your hate party. By the way if anyone is interested simply go to post 170 , that's his first question to me because he couldn't handle my comment he is responding to. and he has bull shitted his  way through this thread . Again go to post 170 it is all their.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose you think that when you are called on a lie the best thing to do is to keep telling more and more. Post 170:
> 
> *What exactly makes you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
> WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?*
> 
> I asked you 3 questions (which you refuse to address) and you asked me none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Folks simply go to response 170 and you will see that The point he is responding to is me asking him a question that he was unable to answer, so like all the other scum bags in this group , he answered a question with a question, thinking it lets him off the hook. Small brains do that all the time.
Click to expand...


You still haven't shown where you asked me that question because that was just another of your fantasy-world delusions.
Nor have you answered my questions or attempted any of the ridiculous points you've tried to make. Just another delusional snowflake.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You stated: _" Its all their in post 170." _and that was a lie. So where exactly do you claim you asked your idiotic question?
> And why still no attempt to answer mine? Too ignorant to attempt such?
> You claim this Country has fought hundreds of wars. Untrue
> You claim we fight wars to benefit some corporate bottom line. Untrue.
> You claim to know what wars have been "necessary". Obviously untrue.
> Are you unable or simply unwilling to defend the idiotic positions you've taken in this thread? Can you give us any reason what-so-ever why anyone should think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> Because you a lower form of humanity , no one owes you any answer to your question. especially that fact that you never asked a question for me to respond to, but I did ask you a question didn't I , I put you in your place and your trying to hide in the corner and trying to bullshit your way out of it, The point I want to make has been made completely anyway , your are just another lying bullshitter that supports and type a hate you can come up with, just like your hate party. By the way if anyone is interested simply go to post 170 , that's his first question to me because he couldn't handle my comment he is responding to. and he has bull shitted his  way through this thread . Again go to post 170 it is all their.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you a question - in fact,I asked you three. And, you have refused to respond. Kettle - meet pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I really care little what  some scum ball in here asks me a question and I can only laugh when they think somehow I should have to respond. Shit I'me thinking about dumping , two of the brain dead in here.  Not much interested in what they say anymore they have contributed nothing nothing nothing.  I here to lecture you now on how stupid you haters are and that your the biggest threat to this country and we have to get rid of you.  You sold out this country for hatred that makes you awful low in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn --- English isn't your native language?? This post is a wreck ... but then, what can we expect from someone who storms in here, makes grandiose pronouncements, and then can't, or won't, back them up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When I'm able to grind some scum ball into the dirt were he belongs , I know I've beat them when all they have is my bad spelling and the way I conjugate a verb.
Click to expand...

When all you can present is a convoluted string of nonsensical words, it would suggest that you are incapable of coherent thought, and should be disregarded.

Maybe you should try to enlighten us on exactly what you were TRYING to say .... if you can.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sez you. Most of us know better.
> 
> 
> 
> now he's getting down to his best argument, may I quote him "sez You" ROTFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stated: _" Its all their in post 170." _and that was a lie. So where exactly do you claim you asked your idiotic question?
> And why still no attempt to answer mine? Too ignorant to attempt such?
> You claim this Country has fought hundreds of wars. Untrue
> You claim we fight wars to benefit some corporate bottom line. Untrue.
> You claim to know what wars have been "necessary". Obviously untrue.
> Are you unable or simply unwilling to defend the idiotic positions you've taken in this thread? Can you give us any reason what-so-ever why anyone should think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you a lower form of humanity , no one owes you any answer to your question. especially that fact that you never asked a question for me to respond to, but I did ask you a question didn't I , I put you in your place and your trying to hide in the corner and trying to bullshit your way out of it, The point I want to make has been made completely anyway , your are just another lying bullshitter that supports and type a hate you can come up with, just like your hate party. By the way if anyone is interested simply go to post 170 , that's his first question to me because he couldn't handle my comment he is responding to. and he has bull shitted his  way through this thread . Again go to post 170 it is all their.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose you think that when you are called on a lie the best thing to do is to keep telling more and more. Post 170:
> 
> *What exactly makes you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
> WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?*
> 
> I asked you 3 questions (which you refuse to address) and you asked me none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Folks simply go to response 170 and you will see that The point he is responding to is me asking him a question that he was unable to answer, so like all the other scum bags in this group , he answered a question with a question, thinking it lets him off the hook. Small brains do that all the time.
Click to expand...


I went to the infamous post 170 --- it says:

*"What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?"
*
To date, you have not addressed those questions ---- and you somehow think this reflects badly on HIM????

Get a grip.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.
> 
> 
> 
> Someone once told me that you can't appreciate an item, until you had to pay for it.
> 
> We have whole generations who have not had to "pay" for what they have. They can't appreciate their freedoms - they just take them for granted. They can't appreciate America because they've never been anywhere else (well, except Cancun for Christmas break).
> 
> I agree --- though, I admit i would take it further. I believe that every man or woman (or whatever else is out there these days) should be required to serve a 2 year commitment to service. It doesn't have to be military - it can be as a garbage man, or a street sweeper, or paperwork filer, or whatever. One of those years, however, must be spent out of country. Then, and only then, will they appreciate the gifts they have been given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think anyone here cares what some dingbat that wants to use our youth used as cannon fodder. Just another bang bang gun Bubba
Click to expand...

*"Rule 3a. When lacking a substantive, coherent, or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster."*


----------



## Markle

jbander said:


> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.



Pearl Harbor


----------



## sakinago

jbander said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More money just thrown at it noooo, but I would like to cut some programs and add to programs that really really matter. Like the f-22 program that should have never been stopped. There’s really nothing more important than air superiority in modern day warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The F-22 program in no way was stopped it was completed in fact many years ago, they starting using them in 2005 I think and we have just short of 200 of them now.  WE need no more if our potential enemy's have none or just a few. If we had to make more no country could make them faster then this country. So no I don't see it.  You are right ,They are a great plane.
Click to expand...

No it was stopped prematurely, I know we have F22s but we were supposed to have a lot more. And if I remember correctly we have maybe 150 of these, and only 2/3s for active military. On top of that we drastically cut our air power under Obama, not just in the case of the F22s. Like I said air power is nothing to mess with. You spend that money, that’s the shit that actually wins wars. And if you have enough air power to show that you can dominate any sky in the world...that’s a lot cheaper than actual war. But now we’ve limited our AirPower, China’s j-20 looks like it could be the best plane in the sky, our f35 program is flailing (trump did not help with that) and now China and Russia are getting pretty bold.


----------



## rightwinger

Markle said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor
Click to expand...

Remember the Maine!


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you a lower form of humanity , no one owes you any answer to your question. especially that fact that you never asked a question for me to respond to, but I did ask you a question didn't I , I put you in your place and your trying to hide in the corner and trying to bullshit your way out of it, The point I want to make has been made completely anyway , your are just another lying bullshitter that supports and type a hate you can come up with, just like your hate party. By the way if anyone is interested simply go to post 170 , that's his first question to me because he couldn't handle my comment he is responding to. and he has bull shitted his  way through this thread . Again go to post 170 it is all their.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you a question - in fact,I asked you three. And, you have refused to respond. Kettle - meet pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I really care little what  some scum ball in here asks me a question and I can only laugh when they think somehow I should have to respond. Shit I'me thinking about dumping , two of the brain dead in here.  Not much interested in what they say anymore they have contributed nothing nothing nothing.  I here to lecture you now on how stupid you haters are and that your the biggest threat to this country and we have to get rid of you.  You sold out this country for hatred that makes you awful low in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn --- English isn't your native language?? This post is a wreck ... but then, what can we expect from someone who storms in here, makes grandiose pronouncements, and then can't, or won't, back them up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When I'm able to grind some scum ball into the dirt were he belongs , I know I've beat them when all they have is my bad spelling and the way I conjugate a verb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When all you can present is a convoluted string of nonsensical words, it would suggest that you are incapable of coherent thought, and should be disregarded.
> 
> Maybe you should try to enlighten us on exactly what you were TRYING to say .... if you can.
Click to expand...

I'l do that for you, kiss my ass. Yahoo!!!!!!!!


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.
> 
> 
> 
> Someone once told me that you can't appreciate an item, until you had to pay for it.
> 
> We have whole generations who have not had to "pay" for what they have. They can't appreciate their freedoms - they just take them for granted. They can't appreciate America because they've never been anywhere else (well, except Cancun for Christmas break).
> 
> I agree --- though, I admit i would take it further. I believe that every man or woman (or whatever else is out there these days) should be required to serve a 2 year commitment to service. It doesn't have to be military - it can be as a garbage man, or a street sweeper, or paperwork filer, or whatever. One of those years, however, must be spent out of country. Then, and only then, will they appreciate the gifts they have been given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think anyone here cares what some dingbat that wants to use our youth used as cannon fodder. Just another bang bang gun Bubba
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Rule 3a. When lacking a substantive, coherent, or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster."*
Click to expand...

Yahoo your scum -yahoo and can't read "
My post  your scum partner is responding to "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line.
AND THIS IS BRAIN DEADS ANSWER" What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?"
 Give me your telephone number and I'll call you up and read it to you. Just because I'm that kind of guy. By the Way Yahoo your scum!!!!!!!!

  This is a test now, Who asked a question  first Yahoo?????????


----------



## jbander

sakinago said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More money just thrown at it noooo, but I would like to cut some programs and add to programs that really really matter. Like the f-22 program that should have never been stopped. There’s really nothing more important than air superiority in modern day warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The F-22 program in no way was stopped it was completed in fact many years ago, they starting using them in 2005 I think and we have just short of 200 of them now.  WE need no more if our potential enemy's have none or just a few. If we had to make more no country could make them faster then this country. So no I don't see it.  You are right ,They are a great plane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it was stopped prematurely, I know we have F22s but we were supposed to have a lot more. And if I remember correctly we have maybe 150 of these, and only 2/3s for active military. On top of that we drastically cut our air power under Obama, not just in the case of the F22s. Like I said air power is nothing to mess with. You spend that money, that’s the shit that actually wins wars. And if you have enough air power to show that you can dominate any sky in the world...that’s a lot cheaper than actual war. But now we’ve limited our AirPower, China’s j-20 looks like it could be the best plane in the sky, our f35 program is flailing (trump did not help with that) and now China and Russia are getting pretty bold.
Click to expand...

I mean come on now we have been at war 214 years of the 235 years we have existed as a country. We don't need a real reason to go to war as the over 100 wars we have been in proves. Any old corporate lie or goofball lie is enough. The handfulwes of wars that needed to be fought are one thing but all the rest are bullshit. Thing we shouldn't have done , things that weren't justifiable, things that were strictly for corporations bottom line.
   195 F-22 were built 187 put into service and during the competition to build these, their price went right through the ceiling. 150 million apiece.   so when the f-35 came into existence it was by far a more versatile fighter and the final price will be close to 85 million per example. Their projected number will be 2,663. So no I don't in any way see that as pulling the plug on the f-22 for some budgetary bullshit that your trying to sell here.  . The whole thing was a fighter program F-22 f-35 , 
  If you really are interested . instead of looking at the numbers that possibly opponents have look into the number breakdown, Our f-15 and f-16 will be viable and over powering of most of the fighters these other country have for many years. Then I would ask you why we should build any military weapon type, that no other country has or have in their numbers now. So China has a couple of stealth fighters and Russia has 10 prototypes. su-57. Iran claims to have one but it is said to be a mock-up for photo shoots. 
  I'll explain the scenario of anyone in the world that we possibly would have a war with. During the first Iraq war Iraq lost 4000 tanks. The American Abrams lost 18 in number ,12 to friendly fire and  If I remember 3 because we blew them up ourselves, I don't think one American was killed in the tank core.
  The British Challenger 1 , not one was lost and they took our 300 Iraqi tanks. This tell just about all the story , there is little deviation between countries. This country and half our Allies could take on the rest of the world in total and we would win quite Easily. 
    All you supporters of a bigger military are being sold bullshit by the ton. Check into what Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex.
  Any money above what the spend now is 100% waste. The military has one mission to protect our country, that means our borders and the population that live in those borders nothing else.  WE could cut our budget in half and still be able to do anything needed to do what the military should be used for.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.
> 
> 
> 
> Someone once told me that you can't appreciate an item, until you had to pay for it.
> 
> We have whole generations who have not had to "pay" for what they have. They can't appreciate their freedoms - they just take them for granted. They can't appreciate America because they've never been anywhere else (well, except Cancun for Christmas break).
> 
> I agree --- though, I admit i would take it further. I believe that every man or woman (or whatever else is out there these days) should be required to serve a 2 year commitment to service. It doesn't have to be military - it can be as a garbage man, or a street sweeper, or paperwork filer, or whatever. One of those years, however, must be spent out of country. Then, and only then, will they appreciate the gifts they have been given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think anyone here cares what some dingbat that wants to use our youth used as cannon fodder. Just another bang bang gun Bubba
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Rule 3a. When lacking a substantive, coherent, or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yahoo your scum -yahoo and can't read "
> My post  your scum partner is responding to "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
> We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line.
> AND THIS IS BRAIN DEADS ANSWER" What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
> WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?"
> Give me your telephone number and I'll call you up and read it to you. Just because I'm that kind of guy. By the Way Yahoo your scum!!!!!!!!
> 
> This is a test now, Who asked a question  first Yahoo?????????
Click to expand...

... and you have been asked 10 times to produce this mythical "endless list of wars" --- and you have yet to produce one.

As for the rest of your pedantic and childish personal attacks, I can only think of a single response ....

fuck off.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More money just thrown at it noooo, but I would like to cut some programs and add to programs that really really matter. Like the f-22 program that should have never been stopped. There’s really nothing more important than air superiority in modern day warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The F-22 program in no way was stopped it was completed in fact many years ago, they starting using them in 2005 I think and we have just short of 200 of them now.  WE need no more if our potential enemy's have none or just a few. If we had to make more no country could make them faster then this country. So no I don't see it.  You are right ,They are a great plane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it was stopped prematurely, I know we have F22s but we were supposed to have a lot more. And if I remember correctly we have maybe 150 of these, and only 2/3s for active military. On top of that we drastically cut our air power under Obama, not just in the case of the F22s. Like I said air power is nothing to mess with. You spend that money, that’s the shit that actually wins wars. And if you have enough air power to show that you can dominate any sky in the world...that’s a lot cheaper than actual war. But now we’ve limited our AirPower, China’s j-20 looks like it could be the best plane in the sky, our f35 program is flailing (trump did not help with that) and now China and Russia are getting pretty bold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean come on now we have been at war 214 years of the 235 years we have existed as a country. We don't need a real reason to go to war as the over 100 wars we have been in proves. Any old corporate lie or goofball lie is enough. The handfulwes of wars that needed to be fought are one thing but all the rest are bullshit. Thing we shouldn't have done , things that weren't justifiable, things that were strictly for corporations bottom line.
> 195 F-22 were built 187 put into service and during the competition to build these, their price went right through the ceiling. 150 million apiece.   so when the f-35 came into existence it was by far a more versatile fighter and the final price will be close to 85 million per example. Their projected number will be 2,663. So no I don't in any way see that as pulling the plug on the f-22 for some budgetary bullshit that your trying to sell here.  . The whole thing was a fighter program F-22 f-35 ,
> If you really are interested . instead of looking at the numbers that possibly opponents have look into the number breakdown, Our f-15 and f-16 will be viable and over powering of most of the fighters these other country have for many years. Then I would ask you why we should build any military weapon type, that no other country has or have in their numbers now. So China has a couple of stealth fighters and Russia has 10 prototypes. su-57. Iran claims to have one but it is said to be a mock-up for photo shoots.
> I'll explain the scenario of anyone in the world that we possibly would have a war with. During the first Iraq war Iraq lost 4000 tanks. The American Abrams lost 18 in number ,12 to friendly fire and  If I remember 3 because we blew them up ourselves, I don't think one American was killed in the tank core.
> The British Challenger 1 , not one was lost and they took our 300 Iraqi tanks. This tell just about all the story , there is little deviation between countries. This country and half our Allies could take on the rest of the world in total and we would win quite Easily.
> All you supporters of a bigger military are being sold bullshit by the ton. Check into what Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex.
> Any money above what the spend now is 100% waste. The military has one mission to protect our country, that means our borders and the population that live in those borders nothing else.  WE could cut our budget in half and still be able to do anything needed to do what the military should be used for.
Click to expand...

At first, your ignorance was cute ...

then, it was silly ....

then, it became annoying ...

and, now, it's embarrassing .... that our country could produce somebody who knows absolutely nothing about which they are trying to posture themselves as an expert.

You ARE an embarrassment.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.
> 
> 
> 
> Someone once told me that you can't appreciate an item, until you had to pay for it.
> 
> We have whole generations who have not had to "pay" for what they have. They can't appreciate their freedoms - they just take them for granted. They can't appreciate America because they've never been anywhere else (well, except Cancun for Christmas break).
> 
> I agree --- though, I admit i would take it further. I believe that every man or woman (or whatever else is out there these days) should be required to serve a 2 year commitment to service. It doesn't have to be military - it can be as a garbage man, or a street sweeper, or paperwork filer, or whatever. One of those years, however, must be spent out of country. Then, and only then, will they appreciate the gifts they have been given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think anyone here cares what some dingbat that wants to use our youth used as cannon fodder. Just another bang bang gun Bubba
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Rule 3a. When lacking a substantive, coherent, or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yahoo your scum -yahoo and can't read "
> My post  your scum partner is responding to "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
> We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line.
> AND THIS IS BRAIN DEADS ANSWER" What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
> WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?"
> Give me your telephone number and I'll call you up and read it to you. Just because I'm that kind of guy. By the Way Yahoo your scum!!!!!!!!
> 
> This is a test now, Who asked a question  first Yahoo?????????
Click to expand...


1. Dumbass, "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in." and "_We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation._" are not *questions*. In English they are known as *statements*. More accurately they are known as lies because we have not been in "hundreds of wars" and we've never wasted _"one life on the bottom line of some corporation"._
2. _"If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line."_ only becomes a question if I think  lives should be lost for a corporations bottom and I obviously do not.
3. The above non-questions were not made in post #170 as you have repeatedly claimed.
4. I know of no reason to believe the above non-questions were addressed to me.

What I do know is that you continually refuse to answer questions or defend positions you have taken. Nor have you given any reason to believe you are anything but clueless on the subjects you attempt to address.


----------



## rightwinger

Useless wars

Spanish American War: Remember the Maine was an accident blamed on Spain

WWI: Lusitania was carrying ordinance and brought us into a senseless war

Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin was a ruse made up to get us into the war

Iraq: WMDs ?  My ass


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> Useless wars
> 
> Spanish American War: Remember the Maine was an accident blamed on Spain
> 
> WWI: Lusitania was carrying ordinance and brought us into a senseless war
> 
> Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin was a ruse made up to get us into the war
> 
> Iraq: WMDs ?  My ass



Just because you don't know them doesn't mean good reasons didn't exist. Our wars have taken us from being a tiny backwater colony to being the world's preeminent superpower. I admit to being pleased about that.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Useless wars
> 
> Spanish American War: Remember the Maine was an accident blamed on Spain
> 
> WWI: Lusitania was carrying ordinance and brought us into a senseless war
> 
> Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin was a ruse made up to get us into the war
> 
> Iraq: WMDs ?  My ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know them doesn't mean good reasons didn't exist. Our wars have taken us from being a tiny backwater colony to being the world's preeminent superpower. I admit to being pleased about that.
Click to expand...


What made us a superpower is everyone was destroyed in WWII while our Homefront was untouched 

We were untouched for the same reason we do not bother to defend our homeland now. Huge oceans and friendly neighbors


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this Country needs to restore military induction -- _the draft._  America was a better, and a _safer,_ place when the majority of its male citizens (its _men_) were trained soldiers, both active and inactive.  Also, military training had a very constructive effect on our young men.  Most importantly, we had a massive pool of trained former soldiers who could be called up and fielded within weeks rather than the months it would take (during a national emergency) to call up and train raw recruits with no military experience.  This inactive reserve pool would substantially enhance our status as a military power.
> 
> Our current military is best described as mercenary, which is a government's army.  A conscripted army is a Peoples' army.
> 
> 
> 
> Someone once told me that you can't appreciate an item, until you had to pay for it.
> 
> We have whole generations who have not had to "pay" for what they have. They can't appreciate their freedoms - they just take them for granted. They can't appreciate America because they've never been anywhere else (well, except Cancun for Christmas break).
> 
> I agree --- though, I admit i would take it further. I believe that every man or woman (or whatever else is out there these days) should be required to serve a 2 year commitment to service. It doesn't have to be military - it can be as a garbage man, or a street sweeper, or paperwork filer, or whatever. One of those years, however, must be spent out of country. Then, and only then, will they appreciate the gifts they have been given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think anyone here cares what some dingbat that wants to use our youth used as cannon fodder. Just another bang bang gun Bubba
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Rule 3a. When lacking a substantive, coherent, or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yahoo your scum -yahoo and can't read "
> My post  your scum partner is responding to "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
> We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line.
> AND THIS IS BRAIN DEADS ANSWER" What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
> WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?"
> Give me your telephone number and I'll call you up and read it to you. Just because I'm that kind of guy. By the Way Yahoo your scum!!!!!!!!
> 
> This is a test now, Who asked a question  first Yahoo?????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Dumbass, "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in." and "_We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation._" are not *questions*. In English they are known as *statements*. More accurately they are known as lies because we have not been in "hundreds of wars" and we've never wasted _"one life on the bottom line of some corporation"._
> 2. _"If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line."_ only becomes a question if I think  lives should be lost for a corporations bottom and I obviously do not.
> 3. The above non-questions were not made in post #170 as you have repeatedly claimed.
> 4. I know of no reason to believe the above non-questions were addressed to me.
> 
> What I do know is that you continually refuse to answer questions or defend positions you have taken. Nor have you given any reason to believe you are anything but clueless on the subjects you attempt to address.
Click to expand...

 Anyone who is interest simply go to comment 170 and see if the comment and the response are there, he says they are not. but he says a lot of bullshit.


----------



## jbander

Spare_change said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More money just thrown at it noooo, but I would like to cut some programs and add to programs that really really matter. Like the f-22 program that should have never been stopped. There’s really nothing more important than air superiority in modern day warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The F-22 program in no way was stopped it was completed in fact many years ago, they starting using them in 2005 I think and we have just short of 200 of them now.  WE need no more if our potential enemy's have none or just a few. If we had to make more no country could make them faster then this country. So no I don't see it.  You are right ,They are a great plane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it was stopped prematurely, I know we have F22s but we were supposed to have a lot more. And if I remember correctly we have maybe 150 of these, and only 2/3s for active military. On top of that we drastically cut our air power under Obama, not just in the case of the F22s. Like I said air power is nothing to mess with. You spend that money, that’s the shit that actually wins wars. And if you have enough air power to show that you can dominate any sky in the world...that’s a lot cheaper than actual war. But now we’ve limited our AirPower, China’s j-20 looks like it could be the best plane in the sky, our f35 program is flailing (trump did not help with that) and now China and Russia are getting pretty bold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean come on now we have been at war 214 years of the 235 years we have existed as a country. We don't need a real reason to go to war as the over 100 wars we have been in proves. Any old corporate lie or goofball lie is enough. The handfulwes of wars that needed to be fought are one thing but all the rest are bullshit. Thing we shouldn't have done , things that weren't justifiable, things that were strictly for corporations bottom line.
> 195 F-22 were built 187 put into service and during the competition to build these, their price went right through the ceiling. 150 million apiece.   so when the f-35 came into existence it was by far a more versatile fighter and the final price will be close to 85 million per example. Their projected number will be 2,663. So no I don't in any way see that as pulling the plug on the f-22 for some budgetary bullshit that your trying to sell here.  . The whole thing was a fighter program F-22 f-35 ,
> If you really are interested . instead of looking at the numbers that possibly opponents have look into the number breakdown, Our f-15 and f-16 will be viable and over powering of most of the fighters these other country have for many years. Then I would ask you why we should build any military weapon type, that no other country has or have in their numbers now. So China has a couple of stealth fighters and Russia has 10 prototypes. su-57. Iran claims to have one but it is said to be a mock-up for photo shoots.
> I'll explain the scenario of anyone in the world that we possibly would have a war with. During the first Iraq war Iraq lost 4000 tanks. The American Abrams lost 18 in number ,12 to friendly fire and  If I remember 3 because we blew them up ourselves, I don't think one American was killed in the tank core.
> The British Challenger 1 , not one was lost and they took our 300 Iraqi tanks. This tell just about all the story , there is little deviation between countries. This country and half our Allies could take on the rest of the world in total and we would win quite Easily.
> All you supporters of a bigger military are being sold bullshit by the ton. Check into what Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex.
> Any money above what the spend now is 100% waste. The military has one mission to protect our country, that means our borders and the population that live in those borders nothing else.  WE could cut our budget in half and still be able to do anything needed to do what the military should be used for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At first, your ignorance was cute ...
> 
> then, it was silly ....
> 
> then, it became annoying ...
> 
> and, now, it's embarrassing .... that our country could produce somebody who knows absolutely nothing about which they are trying to posture themselves as an expert.
> 
> You ARE an embarrassment.
Click to expand...

 HE must not of even read the comment. The numbers are complete and very concise. He says they are not so , let him say which numbers are wrong.


----------



## jbander

rightwinger said:


> Useless wars
> 
> Spanish American War: Remember the Maine was an accident blamed on Spain
> 
> WWI: Lusitania was carrying ordinance and brought us into a senseless war
> 
> Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin was a ruse made up to get us into the war
> 
> Iraq: WMDs ?  My ass


every single Indian war was murder.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Useless wars
> 
> Spanish American War: Remember the Maine was an accident blamed on Spain
> 
> WWI: Lusitania was carrying ordinance and brought us into a senseless war
> 
> Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin was a ruse made up to get us into the war
> 
> Iraq: WMDs ?  My ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know them doesn't mean good reasons didn't exist. Our wars have taken us from being a tiny backwater colony to being the world's preeminent superpower. I admit to being pleased about that.
Click to expand...

 I do know what the reasons were , it is you that don't or your simply not  looking at anything other then someone waving flag and spouting gun bubba uni-talk from their masters.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Useless wars
> 
> Spanish American War: Remember the Maine was an accident blamed on Spain
> 
> WWI: Lusitania was carrying ordinance and brought us into a senseless war
> 
> Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin was a ruse made up to get us into the war
> 
> Iraq: WMDs ?  My ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know them doesn't mean good reasons didn't exist. Our wars have taken us from being a tiny backwater colony to being the world's preeminent superpower. I admit to being pleased about that.
Click to expand...

No immigrants have made this country what it is. and your hate group wants to get rid of or stop them from coming here, either by the colors of their skin or their religion. Very constitutional.


----------



## DrLove

jbander said:


> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.



I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris. 

The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone once told me that you can't appreciate an item, until you had to pay for it.
> 
> We have whole generations who have not had to "pay" for what they have. They can't appreciate their freedoms - they just take them for granted. They can't appreciate America because they've never been anywhere else (well, except Cancun for Christmas break).
> 
> I agree --- though, I admit i would take it further. I believe that every man or woman (or whatever else is out there these days) should be required to serve a 2 year commitment to service. It doesn't have to be military - it can be as a garbage man, or a street sweeper, or paperwork filer, or whatever. One of those years, however, must be spent out of country. Then, and only then, will they appreciate the gifts they have been given.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think anyone here cares what some dingbat that wants to use our youth used as cannon fodder. Just another bang bang gun Bubba
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Rule 3a. When lacking a substantive, coherent, or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yahoo your scum -yahoo and can't read "
> My post  your scum partner is responding to "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
> We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line.
> AND THIS IS BRAIN DEADS ANSWER" What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
> WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?"
> Give me your telephone number and I'll call you up and read it to you. Just because I'm that kind of guy. By the Way Yahoo your scum!!!!!!!!
> 
> This is a test now, Who asked a question  first Yahoo?????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Dumbass, "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in." and "_We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation._" are not *questions*. In English they are known as *statements*. More accurately they are known as lies because we have not been in "hundreds of wars" and we've never wasted _"one life on the bottom line of some corporation"._
> 2. _"If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line."_ only becomes a question if I think  lives should be lost for a corporations bottom and I obviously do not.
> 3. The above non-questions were not made in post #170 as you have repeatedly claimed.
> 4. I know of no reason to believe the above non-questions were addressed to me.
> 
> What I do know is that you continually refuse to answer questions or defend positions you have taken. Nor have you given any reason to believe you are anything but clueless on the subjects you attempt to address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who is interest simply go to comment 170 and see if the comment and the response are there, he says they are not. but he says a lot of bullshit.
Click to expand...


A bald-faced lie. In #170 he did not ask a question. or make a comment. Or write adamn thing. I alone asked questions in #170; he wrote nothing at all. I wrote it and I have quoted it twice as proof. Once again here is #170:

_*What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?*_


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Useless wars
> 
> Spanish American War: Remember the Maine was an accident blamed on Spain
> 
> WWI: Lusitania was carrying ordinance and brought us into a senseless war
> 
> Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin was a ruse made up to get us into the war
> 
> Iraq: WMDs ?  My ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know them doesn't mean good reasons didn't exist. Our wars have taken us from being a tiny backwater colony to being the world's preeminent superpower. I admit to being pleased about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do know what the reasons were , it is you that don't or your simply not  looking at anything other then someone waving flag and spouting gun bubba uni-talk from their masters.
Click to expand...


You don't know shit as you've well and truly proven throughout this thread.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think anyone here cares what some dingbat that wants to use our youth used as cannon fodder. Just another bang bang gun Bubba
> 
> 
> 
> *"Rule 3a. When lacking a substantive, coherent, or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yahoo your scum -yahoo and can't read "
> My post  your scum partner is responding to "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
> We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line.
> AND THIS IS BRAIN DEADS ANSWER" What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
> WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?"
> Give me your telephone number and I'll call you up and read it to you. Just because I'm that kind of guy. By the Way Yahoo your scum!!!!!!!!
> 
> This is a test now, Who asked a question  first Yahoo?????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Dumbass, "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in." and "_We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation._" are not *questions*. In English they are known as *statements*. More accurately they are known as lies because we have not been in "hundreds of wars" and we've never wasted _"one life on the bottom line of some corporation"._
> 2. _"If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line."_ only becomes a question if I think  lives should be lost for a corporations bottom and I obviously do not.
> 3. The above non-questions were not made in post #170 as you have repeatedly claimed.
> 4. I know of no reason to believe the above non-questions were addressed to me.
> 
> What I do know is that you continually refuse to answer questions or defend positions you have taken. Nor have you given any reason to believe you are anything but clueless on the subjects you attempt to address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who is interest simply go to comment 170 and see if the comment and the response are there, he says they are not. but he says a lot of bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A bald-faced lie. In #170 he did not ask a question. or make a comment. Or write adamn thing. I alone asked questions in #170; he wrote nothing at all. I wrote it and I have quoted it twice as proof. Once again here is #170:
> 
> _*What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
> WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?*_
Click to expand...

 OK everyone knows that your responding to something , some other comment, the comment that you your self added when you pushed the QUOTE button, on the options at the bottom of every comment here." This is my comment that your responding to "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line."  This is clearly seen by anyone who is interested, in post 170. There is no way you can billshit your way out of this , you can't change the facts, you can't change the truth.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Useless wars
> 
> Spanish American War: Remember the Maine was an accident blamed on Spain
> 
> WWI: Lusitania was carrying ordinance and brought us into a senseless war
> 
> Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin was a ruse made up to get us into the war
> 
> Iraq: WMDs ?  My ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know them doesn't mean good reasons didn't exist. Our wars have taken us from being a tiny backwater colony to being the world's preeminent superpower. I admit to being pleased about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do know what the reasons were , it is you that don't or your simply not  looking at anything other then someone waving flag and spouting gun bubba uni-talk from their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know shit as you've well and truly proven throughout this thread.
Click to expand...

 These profound statements , his last statement here, come from people who get upset because someone buries them and backs them into a corner in the great debate on these forums. He has admitted his failure. Just in the old round about backward way that hate party members  admit their failure


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Useless wars
> 
> Spanish American War: Remember the Maine was an accident blamed on Spain
> 
> WWI: Lusitania was carrying ordinance and brought us into a senseless war
> 
> Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin was a ruse made up to get us into the war
> 
> Iraq: WMDs ?  My ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know them doesn't mean good reasons didn't exist. Our wars have taken us from being a tiny backwater colony to being the world's preeminent superpower. I admit to being pleased about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What made us a superpower is everyone was destroyed in WWII while our Homefront was untouched
> 
> We were untouched for the same reason we do not bother to defend our homeland now. Huge oceans and friendly neighbors
Click to expand...


WWII was a war and it did advance our status.
The oceans stopped being much defense in themselves because of technology. ICBMs and bombers as well as naval missiles could wipe out any nation on Earth within a matter of minutes or hours and they would work  just as well for our enemies as they would for us. The importance of oceans these days centers around the high-tech and very expensive navy we have on and under them. Takes way more than chump change.


----------



## jbander

DrLove said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
Click to expand...

 Most of the weapons that we have now are for aggression and in no way part of protecting our borders. Just the blind ignorant believe the sales line that politicians use to put massive amounts of money  into the golden fews hands, building military weapons.  AS far as to be in par with the potential enemy's of this country. We would need 11, 10 for Russia one for china and the rest off our allies have way more then that number, so  we would need none and let our NATO allies play in this game for a while.


----------



## sakinago

jbander said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More money just thrown at it noooo, but I would like to cut some programs and add to programs that really really matter. Like the f-22 program that should have never been stopped. There’s really nothing more important than air superiority in modern day warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The F-22 program in no way was stopped it was completed in fact many years ago, they starting using them in 2005 I think and we have just short of 200 of them now.  WE need no more if our potential enemy's have none or just a few. If we had to make more no country could make them faster then this country. So no I don't see it.  You are right ,They are a great plane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it was stopped prematurely, I know we have F22s but we were supposed to have a lot more. And if I remember correctly we have maybe 150 of these, and only 2/3s for active military. On top of that we drastically cut our air power under Obama, not just in the case of the F22s. Like I said air power is nothing to mess with. You spend that money, that’s the shit that actually wins wars. And if you have enough air power to show that you can dominate any sky in the world...that’s a lot cheaper than actual war. But now we’ve limited our AirPower, China’s j-20 looks like it could be the best plane in the sky, our f35 program is flailing (trump did not help with that) and now China and Russia are getting pretty bold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean come on now we have been at war 214 years of the 235 years we have existed as a country. We don't need a real reason to go to war as the over 100 wars we have been in proves. Any old corporate lie or goofball lie is enough. The handfulwes of wars that needed to be fought are one thing but all the rest are bullshit. Thing we shouldn't have done , things that weren't justifiable, things that were strictly for corporations bottom line.
> 195 F-22 were built 187 put into service and during the competition to build these, their price went right through the ceiling. 150 million apiece.   so when the f-35 came into existence it was by far a more versatile fighter and the final price will be close to 85 million per example. Their projected number will be 2,663. So no I don't in any way see that as pulling the plug on the f-22 for some budgetary bullshit that your trying to sell here.  . The whole thing was a fighter program F-22 f-35 ,
> If you really are interested . instead of looking at the numbers that possibly opponents have look into the number breakdown, Our f-15 and f-16 will be viable and over powering of most of the fighters these other country have for many years. Then I would ask you why we should build any military weapon type, that no other country has or have in their numbers now. So China has a couple of stealth fighters and Russia has 10 prototypes. su-57. Iran claims to have one but it is said to be a mock-up for photo shoots.
> I'll explain the scenario of anyone in the world that we possibly would have a war with. During the first Iraq war Iraq lost 4000 tanks. The American Abrams lost 18 in number ,12 to friendly fire and  If I remember 3 because we blew them up ourselves, I don't think one American was killed in the tank core.
> The British Challenger 1 , not one was lost and they took our 300 Iraqi tanks. This tell just about all the story , there is little deviation between countries. This country and half our Allies could take on the rest of the world in total and we would win quite Easily.
> All you supporters of a bigger military are being sold bullshit by the ton. Check into what Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex.
> Any money above what the spend now is 100% waste. The military has one mission to protect our country, that means our borders and the population that live in those borders nothing else.  WE could cut our budget in half and still be able to do anything needed to do what the military should be used for.
Click to expand...

Never said I was for a bigger military spending, I’m saying ditch or drastically cut back on ineffective programs (plenty of them), and put more money into programs that actually work, like the f22. And let’s talk about this bogus claim of America has been at war for 220 years, just a stupid claim, it counts pretty much any tiny skirmish with Indians, the bannana wars, the Cold War, etc. just a dumb dumb stat. I agree that we shouldn’t be fighting wars like we have been in Afghanistan and that certainly needs to change, and I’m very well aware of Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex speech and happen to agree with him. 

THE f35 DOESNT WORK. It cannot climb or turn anywhere close to what’s necessary, and isn’t even a safe plane to fly. Are they cheaper yea, but if they don’t fix the hundreds of problems plaguing the program...you might as well be wasting 85 million over 2000 times. VS the f22 that is so much better than any other plane out there (outside of the j-20) it scores something like a 1/20 K/D ratio, which is incredible. So an F22 is essientially worth 20 f15s which are still great planes, and I’m all for spending money to upgrade and make them even better. And I can’t stress enough the importance of air superiority, and how much cheaper (since you only want to look at numbers with out using secondary level thinking) it is to have air superiority...like the f22 provides. So do you still really want more f35s?  If they can get the f35 working I’m all for that, would love to have a stealth fighter that can take off from a carrier and take off vertically but it isn’t. I don’t think we should ditch it, but it’s probably wiser to just repurpose some f22, to take off from carriers...gonna be a lot cheaper than the billions were pouring into a plane that doesn’t work. 

And your whole point on the tanks in desert storm is adding to my point...they were so much better than Iraqi tanks that were quite modern, that it’s immensly cheaper (and life saving) in the long run to have much better equipment (by the way we also had air superiority in desert storm which helped a good bit). And they were so much better because we spent the money to make them that much better, money that the left was complaining about spending just as much back then as they do today. 

Now China and Russia are both putting the pedal to the metal on war tech, and are making very good progress doing so...yea it sucks that the US spends as much as it does, but the US (despite how much we want to complain about it) is a far better force in the world than say Russia and China would be once they become superpowers. And they only become superpowers once we take our foot off the pedal, and no longer are one...which is def their goal. The US had stabilized and brought so much peace to the world, it’s absolutely ridiculous. 
Why the World Is Not Falling Apart
The Sum of Our Fears | IPS
War used to plague humanity, it was one of the biggest killers, not anymore...

And we as a society and humanity in general have benighted immensely from the technology that “war” or preparing for war brings us. Cell phones, GPS, computers, internet, microwaves, medicine (our biggest breakthroughs in medicine are thanks to wars), flight, space flight, energy, etc. just hundreds of thousands of pieces of tech that has brought humanity out of the mud, as well as out from under the boot of oppression, is all thanks to war and we take a lot of it for granted. So to say “we’re just wasting money on the military,” is ridiculous...


----------



## sakinago

DrLove said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
Click to expand...

We still definitely still need tanks...we happen to still use tanks a lot...not a lot of things can be killed with a drone. Just a terribly short sighted statement. And it’s not so much about doing the actual killing, it’s more about the deterrence with our immense ability to kill bad actors out there (plenty of them) who have wet dreams about a world in which the US military doesn’t exist, and they can have their way with the rest of the world.


----------



## rightwinger

DrLove said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
Click to expand...

Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks

A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender

Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack


----------



## DrLove




----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Rule 3a. When lacking a substantive, coherent, or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster."*
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo your scum -yahoo and can't read "
> My post  your scum partner is responding to "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
> We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line.
> AND THIS IS BRAIN DEADS ANSWER" What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
> WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?"
> Give me your telephone number and I'll call you up and read it to you. Just because I'm that kind of guy. By the Way Yahoo your scum!!!!!!!!
> 
> This is a test now, Who asked a question  first Yahoo?????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Dumbass, "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in." and "_We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation._" are not *questions*. In English they are known as *statements*. More accurately they are known as lies because we have not been in "hundreds of wars" and we've never wasted _"one life on the bottom line of some corporation"._
> 2. _"If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line."_ only becomes a question if I think  lives should be lost for a corporations bottom and I obviously do not.
> 3. The above non-questions were not made in post #170 as you have repeatedly claimed.
> 4. I know of no reason to believe the above non-questions were addressed to me.
> 
> What I do know is that you continually refuse to answer questions or defend positions you have taken. Nor have you given any reason to believe you are anything but clueless on the subjects you attempt to address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who is interest simply go to comment 170 and see if the comment and the response are there, he says they are not. but he says a lot of bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A bald-faced lie. In #170 he did not ask a question. or make a comment. Or write adamn thing. I alone asked questions in #170; he wrote nothing at all. I wrote it and I have quoted it twice as proof. Once again here is #170:
> 
> _*What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
> WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK everyone knows that your responding to something , some other comment, the comment that you your self added when you pushed the QUOTE button on the options on the bottom of every comment here." This is my comment that your responding to "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
> We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line."  This is clearly seen by anyone who is interested, in post 170. There is no way you can billshit your way out of this , you can't change the facts, you can't change the truth.
Click to expand...


Maybe I was addressing your comment but I certainly was not failing to answer a question you asked me which is what you claimed. Nor have I failed to address your idiotic comments. You are the one attempting to disguise the fact that you are unable to answer questions or defend your positions by your use of bullshit and lies.


----------



## sakinago

rightwinger said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
Click to expand...

Someone watches too many movies...


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Useless wars
> 
> Spanish American War: Remember the Maine was an accident blamed on Spain
> 
> WWI: Lusitania was carrying ordinance and brought us into a senseless war
> 
> Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin was a ruse made up to get us into the war
> 
> Iraq: WMDs ?  My ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know them doesn't mean good reasons didn't exist. Our wars have taken us from being a tiny backwater colony to being the world's preeminent superpower. I admit to being pleased about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What made us a superpower is everyone was destroyed in WWII while our Homefront was untouched
> 
> We were untouched for the same reason we do not bother to defend our homeland now. Huge oceans and friendly neighbors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WWII was a war and it did advance our status.
> The oceans stopped being much defense in themselves because of technology. ICBMs and bombers as well as naval missiles could wipe out any nation on Earth within a matter of minutes or hours and they would work  just as well for our enemies as they would for us. The importance of oceans these days centers around the high-tech and very expensive navy we have on and under them. Takes way more than chump change.
Click to expand...

Bullshit , this from the mind of a confused gun Bubba. We could get by with way way less military , since much of it for policing the world and making the fatted rich fatter and not for protecting our borders.  
  Years back it was very apparent that we didn't need anything close to the military numbers we had. So they came up with this goofball idea saying we need enough military so that can fight two wars at once, hell why not 3 or 10 or 50. 
    Now again it is looking that we need only a shadow of what we have now ,so now the hate party needs enough weapons to be able to fight in two wars and a intergalactic war. They say they are out there and they intercepted a communication  saying they were planning a attack any day now.  I got that inside information from 9thLDdoc and we have to believe him because he has been so accurate here.


----------



## rightwinger

sakinago said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More money just thrown at it noooo, but I would like to cut some programs and add to programs that really really matter. Like the f-22 program that should have never been stopped. There’s really nothing more important than air superiority in modern day warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The F-22 program in no way was stopped it was completed in fact many years ago, they starting using them in 2005 I think and we have just short of 200 of them now.  WE need no more if our potential enemy's have none or just a few. If we had to make more no country could make them faster then this country. So no I don't see it.  You are right ,They are a great plane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it was stopped prematurely, I know we have F22s but we were supposed to have a lot more. And if I remember correctly we have maybe 150 of these, and only 2/3s for active military. On top of that we drastically cut our air power under Obama, not just in the case of the F22s. Like I said air power is nothing to mess with. You spend that money, that’s the shit that actually wins wars. And if you have enough air power to show that you can dominate any sky in the world...that’s a lot cheaper than actual war. But now we’ve limited our AirPower, China’s j-20 looks like it could be the best plane in the sky, our f35 program is flailing (trump did not help with that) and now China and Russia are getting pretty bold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean come on now we have been at war 214 years of the 235 years we have existed as a country. We don't need a real reason to go to war as the over 100 wars we have been in proves. Any old corporate lie or goofball lie is enough. The handfulwes of wars that needed to be fought are one thing but all the rest are bullshit. Thing we shouldn't have done , things that weren't justifiable, things that were strictly for corporations bottom line.
> 195 F-22 were built 187 put into service and during the competition to build these, their price went right through the ceiling. 150 million apiece.   so when the f-35 came into existence it was by far a more versatile fighter and the final price will be close to 85 million per example. Their projected number will be 2,663. So no I don't in any way see that as pulling the plug on the f-22 for some budgetary bullshit that your trying to sell here.  . The whole thing was a fighter program F-22 f-35 ,
> If you really are interested . instead of looking at the numbers that possibly opponents have look into the number breakdown, Our f-15 and f-16 will be viable and over powering of most of the fighters these other country have for many years. Then I would ask you why we should build any military weapon type, that no other country has or have in their numbers now. So China has a couple of stealth fighters and Russia has 10 prototypes. su-57. Iran claims to have one but it is said to be a mock-up for photo shoots.
> I'll explain the scenario of anyone in the world that we possibly would have a war with. During the first Iraq war Iraq lost 4000 tanks. The American Abrams lost 18 in number ,12 to friendly fire and  If I remember 3 because we blew them up ourselves, I don't think one American was killed in the tank core.
> The British Challenger 1 , not one was lost and they took our 300 Iraqi tanks. This tell just about all the story , there is little deviation between countries. This country and half our Allies could take on the rest of the world in total and we would win quite Easily.
> All you supporters of a bigger military are being sold bullshit by the ton. Check into what Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex.
> Any money above what the spend now is 100% waste. The military has one mission to protect our country, that means our borders and the population that live in those borders nothing else.  WE could cut our budget in half and still be able to do anything needed to do what the military should be used for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said I was for a bigger military spending, I’m saying ditch or drastically cut back on ineffective programs (plenty of them), and put more money into programs that actually work, like the f22. And let’s talk about this bogus claim of America has been at war for 220 years, just a stupid claim, it counts pretty much any tiny skirmish with Indians, the bannana wars, the Cold War, etc. just a dumb dumb stat. I agree that we shouldn’t be fighting wars like we have been in Afghanistan and that certainly needs to change, and I’m very well aware of Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex speech and happen to agree with him.
> 
> THE f35 DOESNT WORK. It cannot climb or turn anywhere close to what’s necessary, and isn’t even a safe plane to fly. Are they cheaper yea, but if they don’t fix the hundreds of problems plaguing the program...you might as well be wasting 85 million over 2000 times. VS the f22 that is so much better than any other plane out there (outside of the j-20) it scores something like a 1/20 K/D ratio, which is incredible. So an F22 is essientially worth 20 f15s which are still great planes, and I’m all for spending money to upgrade and make them even better. And I can’t stress enough the importance of air superiority, and how much cheaper (since you only want to look at numbers with out using secondary level thinking) it is to have air superiority...like the f22 provides. So do you still really want more f35s?  If they can get the f35 working I’m all for that, would love to have a stealth fighter that can take off from a carrier and take off vertically but it isn’t. I don’t think we should ditch it, but it’s probably wiser to just repurpose some f22, to take off from carriers...gonna be a lot cheaper than the billions were pouring into a plane that doesn’t work.
> 
> And your whole point on the tanks in desert storm is adding to my point...they were so much better than Iraqi tanks that were quite modern, that it’s immensly cheaper (and life saving) in the long run to have much better equipment (by the way we also had air superiority in desert storm which helped a good bit). And they were so much better because we spent the money to make them that much better, money that the left was complaining about spending just as much back then as they do today.
> 
> Now China and Russia are both putting the pedal to the metal on war tech, and are making very good progress doing so...yea it sucks that the US spends as much as it does, but the US (despite how much we want to complain about it) is a far better force in the world than say Russia and China would be once they become superpowers. And they only become superpowers once we take our foot off the pedal, and no longer are one...which is def their goal. The US had stabilized and brought so much peace to the world, it’s absolutely ridiculous.
> Why the World Is Not Falling Apart
> The Sum of Our Fears | IPS
> War used to plague humanity, it was one of the biggest killers, not anymore...
> 
> And we as a society and humanity in general have benighted immensely from the technology that “war” or preparing for war brings us. Cell phones, GPS, computers, internet, microwaves, medicine (our biggest breakthroughs in medicine are thanks to wars), flight, space flight, energy, etc. just hundreds of thousands of pieces of tech that has brought humanity out of the mud, as well as out from under the boot of oppression, is all thanks to war and we take a lot of it for granted. So to say “we’re just wasting money on the military,” is ridiculous...
Click to expand...

Manned fighter aircraft are obsolete

A drone, without having to accommodate the safety of a pilot can fly faster and does not have to make concessions to G forces
You can also be more aggressive with a drone because you do not have to be concerned about the safety of the pilot


----------



## jbander

sakinago said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone watches too many movies...
Click to expand...

 actually I have no doubt that it could happen but I also saw it in a movie I watched. So your both right.


----------



## rightwinger

sakinago said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone watches too many movies...
Click to expand...

It is already happening
What happens when a major corporation gets hacked and they are threatened with having their records destroyed?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
Click to expand...


Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.


----------



## jbander

rightwinger said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> More money just thrown at it noooo, but I would like to cut some programs and add to programs that really really matter. Like the f-22 program that should have never been stopped. There’s really nothing more important than air superiority in modern day warfare.
> 
> 
> 
> The F-22 program in no way was stopped it was completed in fact many years ago, they starting using them in 2005 I think and we have just short of 200 of them now.  WE need no more if our potential enemy's have none or just a few. If we had to make more no country could make them faster then this country. So no I don't see it.  You are right ,They are a great plane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it was stopped prematurely, I know we have F22s but we were supposed to have a lot more. And if I remember correctly we have maybe 150 of these, and only 2/3s for active military. On top of that we drastically cut our air power under Obama, not just in the case of the F22s. Like I said air power is nothing to mess with. You spend that money, that’s the shit that actually wins wars. And if you have enough air power to show that you can dominate any sky in the world...that’s a lot cheaper than actual war. But now we’ve limited our AirPower, China’s j-20 looks like it could be the best plane in the sky, our f35 program is flailing (trump did not help with that) and now China and Russia are getting pretty bold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean come on now we have been at war 214 years of the 235 years we have existed as a country. We don't need a real reason to go to war as the over 100 wars we have been in proves. Any old corporate lie or goofball lie is enough. The handfulwes of wars that needed to be fought are one thing but all the rest are bullshit. Thing we shouldn't have done , things that weren't justifiable, things that were strictly for corporations bottom line.
> 195 F-22 were built 187 put into service and during the competition to build these, their price went right through the ceiling. 150 million apiece.   so when the f-35 came into existence it was by far a more versatile fighter and the final price will be close to 85 million per example. Their projected number will be 2,663. So no I don't in any way see that as pulling the plug on the f-22 for some budgetary bullshit that your trying to sell here.  . The whole thing was a fighter program F-22 f-35 ,
> If you really are interested . instead of looking at the numbers that possibly opponents have look into the number breakdown, Our f-15 and f-16 will be viable and over powering of most of the fighters these other country have for many years. Then I would ask you why we should build any military weapon type, that no other country has or have in their numbers now. So China has a couple of stealth fighters and Russia has 10 prototypes. su-57. Iran claims to have one but it is said to be a mock-up for photo shoots.
> I'll explain the scenario of anyone in the world that we possibly would have a war with. During the first Iraq war Iraq lost 4000 tanks. The American Abrams lost 18 in number ,12 to friendly fire and  If I remember 3 because we blew them up ourselves, I don't think one American was killed in the tank core.
> The British Challenger 1 , not one was lost and they took our 300 Iraqi tanks. This tell just about all the story , there is little deviation between countries. This country and half our Allies could take on the rest of the world in total and we would win quite Easily.
> All you supporters of a bigger military are being sold bullshit by the ton. Check into what Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex.
> Any money above what the spend now is 100% waste. The military has one mission to protect our country, that means our borders and the population that live in those borders nothing else.  WE could cut our budget in half and still be able to do anything needed to do what the military should be used for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said I was for a bigger military spending, I’m saying ditch or drastically cut back on ineffective programs (plenty of them), and put more money into programs that actually work, like the f22. And let’s talk about this bogus claim of America has been at war for 220 years, just a stupid claim, it counts pretty much any tiny skirmish with Indians, the bannana wars, the Cold War, etc. just a dumb dumb stat. I agree that we shouldn’t be fighting wars like we have been in Afghanistan and that certainly needs to change, and I’m very well aware of Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex speech and happen to agree with him.
> 
> THE f35 DOESNT WORK. It cannot climb or turn anywhere close to what’s necessary, and isn’t even a safe plane to fly. Are they cheaper yea, but if they don’t fix the hundreds of problems plaguing the program...you might as well be wasting 85 million over 2000 times. VS the f22 that is so much better than any other plane out there (outside of the j-20) it scores something like a 1/20 K/D ratio, which is incredible. So an F22 is essientially worth 20 f15s which are still great planes, and I’m all for spending money to upgrade and make them even better. And I can’t stress enough the importance of air superiority, and how much cheaper (since you only want to look at numbers with out using secondary level thinking) it is to have air superiority...like the f22 provides. So do you still really want more f35s?  If they can get the f35 working I’m all for that, would love to have a stealth fighter that can take off from a carrier and take off vertically but it isn’t. I don’t think we should ditch it, but it’s probably wiser to just repurpose some f22, to take off from carriers...gonna be a lot cheaper than the billions were pouring into a plane that doesn’t work.
> 
> And your whole point on the tanks in desert storm is adding to my point...they were so much better than Iraqi tanks that were quite modern, that it’s immensly cheaper (and life saving) in the long run to have much better equipment (by the way we also had air superiority in desert storm which helped a good bit). And they were so much better because we spent the money to make them that much better, money that the left was complaining about spending just as much back then as they do today.
> 
> Now China and Russia are both putting the pedal to the metal on war tech, and are making very good progress doing so...yea it sucks that the US spends as much as it does, but the US (despite how much we want to complain about it) is a far better force in the world than say Russia and China would be once they become superpowers. And they only become superpowers once we take our foot off the pedal, and no longer are one...which is def their goal. The US had stabilized and brought so much peace to the world, it’s absolutely ridiculous.
> Why the World Is Not Falling Apart
> The Sum of Our Fears | IPS
> War used to plague humanity, it was one of the biggest killers, not anymore...
> 
> And we as a society and humanity in general have benighted immensely from the technology that “war” or preparing for war brings us. Cell phones, GPS, computers, internet, microwaves, medicine (our biggest breakthroughs in medicine are thanks to wars), flight, space flight, energy, etc. just hundreds of thousands of pieces of tech that has brought humanity out of the mud, as well as out from under the boot of oppression, is all thanks to war and we take a lot of it for granted. So to say “we’re just wasting money on the military,” is ridiculous...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Manned fighter aircraft are obsolete
> 
> A drone, without having to accommodate the safety of a pilot can fly faster and does not have to make concessions to G forces
> You can also be more aggressive with a drone because you do not have to be concerned about the safety of the pilot
Click to expand...

 Yup the next group of fighters will be as you say. but now what is important is that we can see them before they can see us and we lead the world in that factor.


----------



## DrLove

9thIDdoc said:


> Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.



Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.
Click to expand...

so maybe you can enlighten us over any part of military weapons that we are lacking or that other weaponry we have has made obsolete. Apples for apples from this country to any potential war opponent.


----------



## jbander

DrLove said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.
Click to expand...

yup on the last part.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Useless wars
> 
> Spanish American War: Remember the Maine was an accident blamed on Spain
> 
> WWI: Lusitania was carrying ordinance and brought us into a senseless war
> 
> Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin was a ruse made up to get us into the war
> 
> Iraq: WMDs ?  My ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know them doesn't mean good reasons didn't exist. Our wars have taken us from being a tiny backwater colony to being the world's preeminent superpower. I admit to being pleased about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What made us a superpower is everyone was destroyed in WWII while our Homefront was untouched
> 
> We were untouched for the same reason we do not bother to defend our homeland now. Huge oceans and friendly neighbors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WWII was a war and it did advance our status.
> The oceans stopped being much defense in themselves because of technology. ICBMs and bombers as well as naval missiles could wipe out any nation on Earth within a matter of minutes or hours and they would work  just as well for our enemies as they would for us. The importance of oceans these days centers around the high-tech and very expensive navy we have on and under them. Takes way more than chump change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit , this from the mind of a confused gun Bubba. We could get by with way way less military , since much of it for policing the world and making the fatted rich fatter and not for protecting our borders.
> Years back it was very apparent that we didn't need anything close to the military numbers we had. So they came up with this goofball idea saying we need enough military so that can fight two wars at once, hell why not 3 or 10 or 50.
> Now again it is looking that we need only a shadow of what we have now ,so now the hate party needs enough weapons to be able to fight in two wars and a intergalactic war. They say they are out there and they intercepted a communication  saying they were planning a attack any day now.  I got that inside information from 9thLDdoc and we have to believe him because he has been so accurate here.
Click to expand...


Same old bullshit over and over without the first shed of evidence to back it up.
Fact is our idiotic downsizing came back to bite us in the ass big-time when things got hot in the ME. 
Wonder how many wars you think we fought during WWII.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo your scum -yahoo and can't read "
> My post  your scum partner is responding to "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
> We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line.
> AND THIS IS BRAIN DEADS ANSWER" What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
> WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?"
> Give me your telephone number and I'll call you up and read it to you. Just because I'm that kind of guy. By the Way Yahoo your scum!!!!!!!!
> 
> This is a test now, Who asked a question  first Yahoo?????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Dumbass, "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in." and "_We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation._" are not *questions*. In English they are known as *statements*. More accurately they are known as lies because we have not been in "hundreds of wars" and we've never wasted _"one life on the bottom line of some corporation"._
> 2. _"If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line."_ only becomes a question if I think  lives should be lost for a corporations bottom and I obviously do not.
> 3. The above non-questions were not made in post #170 as you have repeatedly claimed.
> 4. I know of no reason to believe the above non-questions were addressed to me.
> 
> What I do know is that you continually refuse to answer questions or defend positions you have taken. Nor have you given any reason to believe you are anything but clueless on the subjects you attempt to address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who is interest simply go to comment 170 and see if the comment and the response are there, he says they are not. but he says a lot of bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A bald-faced lie. In #170 he did not ask a question. or make a comment. Or write adamn thing. I alone asked questions in #170; he wrote nothing at all. I wrote it and I have quoted it twice as proof. Once again here is #170:
> 
> _*What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
> WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK everyone knows that your responding to something , some other comment, the comment that you your self added when you pushed the QUOTE button on the options on the bottom of every comment here." This is my comment that your responding to "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
> We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line."  This is clearly seen by anyone who is interested, in post 170. There is no way you can billshit your way out of this , you can't change the facts, you can't change the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe I was addressing your comment but I certainly was not failing to answer a question you asked me which is what you claimed. Nor have I failed to address your idiotic comments. You are the one attempting to disguise the fact that you are unable to answer questions or defend your positions by your use of bullshit and lies.
Click to expand...

 Good point, so answer my question to you that was first and I will be glad to answer any one question you have "
"far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line." " That's it show us what you got.


----------



## sakinago

rightwinger said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> More money just thrown at it noooo, but I would like to cut some programs and add to programs that really really matter. Like the f-22 program that should have never been stopped. There’s really nothing more important than air superiority in modern day warfare.
> 
> 
> 
> The F-22 program in no way was stopped it was completed in fact many years ago, they starting using them in 2005 I think and we have just short of 200 of them now.  WE need no more if our potential enemy's have none or just a few. If we had to make more no country could make them faster then this country. So no I don't see it.  You are right ,They are a great plane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it was stopped prematurely, I know we have F22s but we were supposed to have a lot more. And if I remember correctly we have maybe 150 of these, and only 2/3s for active military. On top of that we drastically cut our air power under Obama, not just in the case of the F22s. Like I said air power is nothing to mess with. You spend that money, that’s the shit that actually wins wars. And if you have enough air power to show that you can dominate any sky in the world...that’s a lot cheaper than actual war. But now we’ve limited our AirPower, China’s j-20 looks like it could be the best plane in the sky, our f35 program is flailing (trump did not help with that) and now China and Russia are getting pretty bold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean come on now we have been at war 214 years of the 235 years we have existed as a country. We don't need a real reason to go to war as the over 100 wars we have been in proves. Any old corporate lie or goofball lie is enough. The handfulwes of wars that needed to be fought are one thing but all the rest are bullshit. Thing we shouldn't have done , things that weren't justifiable, things that were strictly for corporations bottom line.
> 195 F-22 were built 187 put into service and during the competition to build these, their price went right through the ceiling. 150 million apiece.   so when the f-35 came into existence it was by far a more versatile fighter and the final price will be close to 85 million per example. Their projected number will be 2,663. So no I don't in any way see that as pulling the plug on the f-22 for some budgetary bullshit that your trying to sell here.  . The whole thing was a fighter program F-22 f-35 ,
> If you really are interested . instead of looking at the numbers that possibly opponents have look into the number breakdown, Our f-15 and f-16 will be viable and over powering of most of the fighters these other country have for many years. Then I would ask you why we should build any military weapon type, that no other country has or have in their numbers now. So China has a couple of stealth fighters and Russia has 10 prototypes. su-57. Iran claims to have one but it is said to be a mock-up for photo shoots.
> I'll explain the scenario of anyone in the world that we possibly would have a war with. During the first Iraq war Iraq lost 4000 tanks. The American Abrams lost 18 in number ,12 to friendly fire and  If I remember 3 because we blew them up ourselves, I don't think one American was killed in the tank core.
> The British Challenger 1 , not one was lost and they took our 300 Iraqi tanks. This tell just about all the story , there is little deviation between countries. This country and half our Allies could take on the rest of the world in total and we would win quite Easily.
> All you supporters of a bigger military are being sold bullshit by the ton. Check into what Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex.
> Any money above what the spend now is 100% waste. The military has one mission to protect our country, that means our borders and the population that live in those borders nothing else.  WE could cut our budget in half and still be able to do anything needed to do what the military should be used for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said I was for a bigger military spending, I’m saying ditch or drastically cut back on ineffective programs (plenty of them), and put more money into programs that actually work, like the f22. And let’s talk about this bogus claim of America has been at war for 220 years, just a stupid claim, it counts pretty much any tiny skirmish with Indians, the bannana wars, the Cold War, etc. just a dumb dumb stat. I agree that we shouldn’t be fighting wars like we have been in Afghanistan and that certainly needs to change, and I’m very well aware of Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex speech and happen to agree with him.
> 
> THE f35 DOESNT WORK. It cannot climb or turn anywhere close to what’s necessary, and isn’t even a safe plane to fly. Are they cheaper yea, but if they don’t fix the hundreds of problems plaguing the program...you might as well be wasting 85 million over 2000 times. VS the f22 that is so much better than any other plane out there (outside of the j-20) it scores something like a 1/20 K/D ratio, which is incredible. So an F22 is essientially worth 20 f15s which are still great planes, and I’m all for spending money to upgrade and make them even better. And I can’t stress enough the importance of air superiority, and how much cheaper (since you only want to look at numbers with out using secondary level thinking) it is to have air superiority...like the f22 provides. So do you still really want more f35s?  If they can get the f35 working I’m all for that, would love to have a stealth fighter that can take off from a carrier and take off vertically but it isn’t. I don’t think we should ditch it, but it’s probably wiser to just repurpose some f22, to take off from carriers...gonna be a lot cheaper than the billions were pouring into a plane that doesn’t work.
> 
> And your whole point on the tanks in desert storm is adding to my point...they were so much better than Iraqi tanks that were quite modern, that it’s immensly cheaper (and life saving) in the long run to have much better equipment (by the way we also had air superiority in desert storm which helped a good bit). And they were so much better because we spent the money to make them that much better, money that the left was complaining about spending just as much back then as they do today.
> 
> Now China and Russia are both putting the pedal to the metal on war tech, and are making very good progress doing so...yea it sucks that the US spends as much as it does, but the US (despite how much we want to complain about it) is a far better force in the world than say Russia and China would be once they become superpowers. And they only become superpowers once we take our foot off the pedal, and no longer are one...which is def their goal. The US had stabilized and brought so much peace to the world, it’s absolutely ridiculous.
> Why the World Is Not Falling Apart
> The Sum of Our Fears | IPS
> War used to plague humanity, it was one of the biggest killers, not anymore...
> 
> And we as a society and humanity in general have benighted immensely from the technology that “war” or preparing for war brings us. Cell phones, GPS, computers, internet, microwaves, medicine (our biggest breakthroughs in medicine are thanks to wars), flight, space flight, energy, etc. just hundreds of thousands of pieces of tech that has brought humanity out of the mud, as well as out from under the boot of oppression, is all thanks to war and we take a lot of it for granted. So to say “we’re just wasting money on the military,” is ridiculous...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Manned fighter aircraft are obsolete
> 
> A drone, without having to accommodate the safety of a pilot can fly faster and does not have to make concessions to G forces
> You can also be more aggressive with a drone because you do not have to be concerned about the safety of the pilot
Click to expand...

Human pilot or remote/AI pilot aside...you still need to build better planes than them...which is where the large majority of cost lies. And AI piloting isn’t there yet so we’re still gonna have to spend money to train pilots, less pilots sure. But still.


----------



## sakinago

jbander said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone watches too many movies...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually I have no doubt that it could happen but I also saw it in a movie I watched. So your both right.
Click to expand...

They could cause chaos sure (not to the degree y’all are imagining)...but it needs to be anonymous, so you can’t really fight war that way. Since the country could say stop hacking us or we’ll bomb you, and you can’t do anything about it since you got rid of most of your military, and traded it for hackers.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

DrLove said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.
Click to expand...


All I can say is that history has proven otherwise quite conclusively.
What ground wars do you think we've started?


----------



## sakinago

rightwinger said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone watches too many movies...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is already happening
> What happens when a major corporation gets hacked and they are threatened with having their records destroyed?
Click to expand...

Well they’d have to make demands of some sort, so if it’s say China doing it, we say fuck you, we’ll start dropping kinetic strikes from the sky that you can’t defend against....that’s what would happen. Which is why you still need a military...guns still beat computers. You aren’t thinking this all the way through...which is why I said you were very short sighted. On top of that cyber security, cloud computing, and a jillion of other factors make your scenario outlandishly unlikely. As of now hackers are pretty much limited to stealing identity’s, stealing information, and perhaps framing people...it can cause chaos sure, but that’s the best they got. They can’t hold a country hostage.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Dumbass, "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in." and "_We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation._" are not *questions*. In English they are known as *statements*. More accurately they are known as lies because we have not been in "hundreds of wars" and we've never wasted _"one life on the bottom line of some corporation"._
> 2. _"If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line."_ only becomes a question if I think  lives should be lost for a corporations bottom and I obviously do not.
> 3. The above non-questions were not made in post #170 as you have repeatedly claimed.
> 4. I know of no reason to believe the above non-questions were addressed to me.
> 
> What I do know is that you continually refuse to answer questions or defend positions you have taken. Nor have you given any reason to believe you are anything but clueless on the subjects you attempt to address.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who is interest simply go to comment 170 and see if the comment and the response are there, he says they are not. but he says a lot of bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A bald-faced lie. In #170 he did not ask a question. or make a comment. Or write adamn thing. I alone asked questions in #170; he wrote nothing at all. I wrote it and I have quoted it twice as proof. Once again here is #170:
> 
> _*What exactly make you think you are an authority on (or are even capable of understanding) what wars "we" should fight.
> WTF is "we"? And how exactly do you think we can avoid fighting when we are attacked?*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK everyone knows that your responding to something , some other comment, the comment that you your self added when you pushed the QUOTE button on the options on the bottom of every comment here." This is my comment that your responding to "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
> We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line."  This is clearly seen by anyone who is interested, in post 170. There is no way you can billshit your way out of this , you can't change the facts, you can't change the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe I was addressing your comment but I certainly was not failing to answer a question you asked me which is what you claimed. Nor have I failed to address your idiotic comments. You are the one attempting to disguise the fact that you are unable to answer questions or defend your positions by your use of bullshit and lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point, so answer my question to you that was first and I will be glad to answer any one question you have "
> "far as wars are concerned simply look at the endless list of wars we have been in and I bet you can't come up with a handful out of those hundreds of wars that we needed to be in.
> We have interests around the world, but we can't dictate with our military and we can't waste one life on the bottom line of some corporation. If you think we should tell me how many lives are you willing to waste for any corporation's bottom line." " That's it show us what you got.
Click to expand...


Again.
A comment is not a question.
You did not ask me any questions.
I have already responded to your comments at least twice.
I bet you cannot prove we have ever been in an "unnecessary" war. If far better minds than yours hadn't deemed them necessary we would not have become involved.
How exactly does someone die for a corporate bottom line (that-by the way-is an example of an actual question)?


----------



## usmcstinger

jbander said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.
> 
> 
> 
> Good God , he thinks that you have to  go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.
Click to expand...


----------



## Spare_change

rightwinger said:


> Useless wars
> 
> Spanish American War: Remember the Maine was an accident blamed on Spain
> 
> WWI: Lusitania was carrying ordinance and brought us into a senseless war
> 
> Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin was a ruse made up to get us into the war
> 
> Iraq: WMDs ?  My ass


LMAO !!!!

Seriously? This is it?


----------



## Spare_change

DrLove said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
Click to expand...

Sorry - it just doesn't work that way.

You can't own the land until you walk on the land.


----------



## Spare_change

rightwinger said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
Click to expand...

That's simply not true --- and anyone who pushes this nonsense has no real understanding of the global confrontation.

How's that cyber thing working against N. Korea? How about how we are holding NK hostage by our sanctions.

Cyber "attacks" will be but a single component in a multi-faceted war. Hacking a financial system doesn't stop tanks or aircraft. In fact, dysfunctional economic systems are the prime cause of wars - not a tool to stop them.


----------



## Spare_change

jbander said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone watches too many movies...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually I have no doubt that it could happen but I also saw it in a movie I watched. So your both right.
Click to expand...

Let me guess .....

Looney Toons, right?


----------



## Spare_change

DrLove said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.
Click to expand...

I believe you don't know what the hell you're talking about.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I can say is that history has proven otherwise quite conclusively.
> What ground wars do you think we've started?
Click to expand...

Iraq and Afghanistan


----------



## rightwinger

Spare_change said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's simply not true --- and anyone who pushes this nonsense has no real understanding of the global confrontation.
> 
> How's that cyber thing working against N. Korea? How about how we are holding NK hostage by our sanctions.
> 
> Cyber "attacks" will be but a single component in a multi-faceted war. Hacking a financial system doesn't stop tanks or aircraft. In fact, dysfunctional economic systems are the prime cause of wars - not a tool to stop them.
Click to expand...

North Korea is a great example

A tiny military that has no chance of winning a ground war
But they are heavily invested in their cyber program. Their best minds are working on inflicting cyber attacks. They can't beat us with their army but they can beat us if they can penetrate


----------



## sakinago

rightwinger said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's simply not true --- and anyone who pushes this nonsense has no real understanding of the global confrontation.
> 
> How's that cyber thing working against N. Korea? How about how we are holding NK hostage by our sanctions.
> 
> Cyber "attacks" will be but a single component in a multi-faceted war. Hacking a financial system doesn't stop tanks or aircraft. In fact, dysfunctional economic systems are the prime cause of wars - not a tool to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> North Korea is a great example
> 
> A tiny military that has no chance of winning a ground war
> But they are heavily invested in their cyber program. Their best minds are working on inflicting cyber attacks. They can't beat us with their army but they can beat us if they can penetrate
Click to expand...

That’s a terrible example....they can barely host the internet. What makes NK dangerous isn’t their retarded cyber program, it’s the fact they can wipe out Seoul, a city of 10 million, in an hour with conventional mobile artillery. We can shoot down nukes, we can’t stop shells.


----------



## rightwinger

sakinago said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's simply not true --- and anyone who pushes this nonsense has no real understanding of the global confrontation.
> 
> How's that cyber thing working against N. Korea? How about how we are holding NK hostage by our sanctions.
> 
> Cyber "attacks" will be but a single component in a multi-faceted war. Hacking a financial system doesn't stop tanks or aircraft. In fact, dysfunctional economic systems are the prime cause of wars - not a tool to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> North Korea is a great example
> 
> A tiny military that has no chance of winning a ground war
> But they are heavily invested in their cyber program. Their best minds are working on inflicting cyber attacks. They can't beat us with their army but they can beat us if they can penetrate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a terrible example....they can barely host the internet. What makes NK dangerous isn’t their retarded cyber program, it’s the fact they can wipe out Seoul, a city of 10 million, in an hour with conventional mobile artillery. We can shoot down nukes, we can’t stop shells.
Click to expand...

Actually, North Korea has a very advanced cyber program and is investing heavily


----------



## sakinago

rightwinger said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
> 
> 
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's simply not true --- and anyone who pushes this nonsense has no real understanding of the global confrontation.
> 
> How's that cyber thing working against N. Korea? How about how we are holding NK hostage by our sanctions.
> 
> Cyber "attacks" will be but a single component in a multi-faceted war. Hacking a financial system doesn't stop tanks or aircraft. In fact, dysfunctional economic systems are the prime cause of wars - not a tool to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> North Korea is a great example
> 
> A tiny military that has no chance of winning a ground war
> But they are heavily invested in their cyber program. Their best minds are working on inflicting cyber attacks. They can't beat us with their army but they can beat us if they can penetrate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a terrible example....they can barely host the internet. What makes NK dangerous isn’t their retarded cyber program, it’s the fact they can wipe out Seoul, a city of 10 million, in an hour with conventional mobile artillery. We can shoot down nukes, we can’t stop shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, North Korea has a very advanced cyber program and is investing heavily
Click to expand...

Oh boy, they really showed us using bots to tie up broadband....and guessing the email passwords of Sony executives....Again you watch too many movies. Hacking isn’t basement nerds using algorithms to crack into mainframes, it’s guessing passwords, and using bot nets for things like tying up broadband or other tasks, and sending out malware in mass to get more bots.


----------



## Weatherman2020

jbander said:


> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.


Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.

Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray


----------



## jbander

sakinago said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone watches too many movies...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually I have no doubt that it could happen but I also saw it in a movie I watched. So your both right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They could cause chaos sure (not to the degree y’all are imagining)...but it needs to be anonymous, so you can’t really fight war that way. Since the country could say stop hacking us or we’ll bomb you, and you can’t do anything about it since you got rid of most of your military, and traded it for hackers.
Click to expand...

 Your being ridiculous , no one is saying  to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are  a little confused.  You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says.  My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer  than I'm willing to discuss politics.


----------



## MikeK

jbander said:


> No immigrants have made this country what it is. and your hate group wants to get rid of or stop them from coming here, either by the colors of their skin or their religion. Very constitutional.


You're right.  Immigrants have made this Country grow: White, European and Scandinavian, primarily Christian immigrants.  That compatibility has been and remains critical.  Start tampering with that chemistry and it could bring America down.  

If America needs immigrants -- start bringing in White Europeans!  There is no good reason to depart from the proven formula.  I have no problem with properly vetted Mexicans, either.  They are hard-working, familial, Christian people.  

Don't forget the Crusades.  There was a reason for them and that reason hasn't changed.


----------



## jbander

sakinago said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone watches too many movies...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is already happening
> What happens when a major corporation gets hacked and they are threatened with having their records destroyed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well they’d have to make demands of some sort, so if it’s say China doing it, we say fuck you, we’ll start dropping kinetic strikes from the sky that you can’t defend against....that’s what would happen. Which is why you still need a military...guns still beat computers. You aren’t thinking this all the way through...which is why I said you were very short sighted. On top of that cyber security, cloud computing, and a jillion of other factors make your scenario outlandishly unlikely. As of now hackers are pretty much limited to stealing identity’s, stealing information, and perhaps framing people...it can cause chaos sure, but that’s the best they got. They can’t hold a country hostage.
Click to expand...

Again no one is saying trade the military for computers, taking it there is ridiculous.


----------



## sakinago

jbander said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
> 
> 
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone watches too many movies...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually I have no doubt that it could happen but I also saw it in a movie I watched. So your both right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They could cause chaos sure (not to the degree y’all are imagining)...but it needs to be anonymous, so you can’t really fight war that way. Since the country could say stop hacking us or we’ll bomb you, and you can’t do anything about it since you got rid of most of your military, and traded it for hackers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your being ridiculous , no one is saying  to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are  a little confused.  You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says.  My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer  than I'm willing to discuss politics.
Click to expand...

Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...



This ^^^^^^


----------



## DrLove

sakinago said:


> [QUOTE="jNot according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is *superior military tech* in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having *superior tech* and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.



There are key words in your post - _*Superior Tech*_

Ground forces and ground strength do NOT represent superior tech. They represent the interests of the military industrial complex. Still waiting to hear which wars we've won quickly with such since WWII. They have only enriched the MIC and we've literally lost every GD one of them.

In my mind, superior tech is a great thing - not more of the same ol' madness.


----------



## DrLove

sakinago said:


> That’s a terrible example....they can barely host the internet. What makes NK dangerous isn’t their retarded cyber program, it’s the fact they can wipe out Seoul, a city of 10 million, in an hour with conventional mobile artillery. We can shoot down nukes, we can’t stop shells.



Our ability to shoot down nukes is questionable. It would appear to be somewhere in the 50% range - So back to your SUPERIOR TECH point - THAT is where we need to spend money. And you're wrong about cyber - NK is quite advanced in that regard. We MUST bring ourselves up to the level of Russia and China in particular.


----------



## DrLove

Spare_change said:


> I believe you don't know what the hell you're talking about.



Cool, what a great rebuttal!


----------



## DrLove

Spare_change said:


> Sorry - it just doesn't work that way.
> 
> You can't own the land until you walk on the land.



Well you go on and advocate more failed ground invasions, _"regime change"_ and the blood and treasure we've invested in such since WWII with VERY little to show for it.

Cooler, more visionary heads will hopefully prevail or we're all fucked.


----------



## DrLove

9thIDdoc said:


> All I can say is that history has proven otherwise quite conclusively.
> What ground wars do you think we've started?



Are you serious?

Let's start with that awesome 2 trillion dollar failed social experiment in Iraq based on a buttload of lies and intel failures.


----------



## DrLove

MikeK said:


> You're right.  Immigrants have made this Country grow: White, European and Scandinavian, primarily Christian immigrants.  That compatibility has been and remains critical.  Start tampering with that chemistry and it could bring America down.
> 
> If America needs immigrants -- start bringing in White Europeans!  There is no good reason to depart from the proven formula.
> 
> Don't forget the Crusades.  There was a reason for them and that reason hasn't changed.



Oh fuck - the Bannonites, Klansman, Nazis, white nationalists & ethnic purists have arrived.

Pass


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I can say is that history has proven otherwise quite conclusively.
> What ground wars do you think we've started?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iraq and Afghanistan
Click to expand...


Iraq started the war when it invaded Kuwait and threatened SA.
The Taliban attacked us to make Afghanistan a target.  9/11. You may have heard of it.


----------



## DrLove

9thIDdoc said:


> Iraq started the war when it invaded Kuwait and threatened SA.
> The Taliban attacked us to make Afghanistan a target.  9/11. You may have heard of it.



Oh for the love of GOD. Kuwait was Poppy Bush's war and he was smart enough to know that taking our Saddam with at least three warring factions would be disastrous.

Quit prophetic - Sadly, the Idiot Son listened to a _"Higher Father"_. Sad excuse for the ground invasion man


----------



## MikeK

9thIDdoc said:


> Iraq started the war when it invaded Kuwait and threatened SA.
> 
> The Taliban attacked us to make Afghanistan a target.  9/11. You may have heard of it.


What war did Iraq start?

You are ignoring some very important facts, beginning with Iraq having been a very loyal and useful ally of the U.S. during our conflict with Iran.  Next, Hussein's cause for hostility toward Kuwait was the revelation that Kuwait had been diagonally drilling into Iraq's oil field for several years.  Outright theft.

But Hussein didn't make a move against Kuwait until he first brought the theft to the attention of U.S. Ambassador, April Glaspie, asking if the U.S. had any opposition to his intention to attack Kuwait.  Glaspie conferred with the Secretary of State.  She then informed Hussein that the U.S. had no interest in that intention.

In cooperation with Saudi Arabia, George H.W. Bush had double-crossed Hussein with that notification because he waited until Hussein invaded Kuwait and then attacked the Iraqi Army, brutally destroying it.  This was done because Hussein's next move after occupying Kuwait was likely to be Saudi Arabia -- which was on *intimately friendly terms with the Bush dynasty.*

What H.W. Bush did to Iraq was wrong.  What W. Bush did was doubly wrong.  The loss of so many American lives in both actions is a goddam shame.  What the Bush crime family has done in the Middle East is the most egregious war crime in modern history.  There is no way to justify any of it.

If H.W. Bush had cooperated with Hussein, instead of double-crossing him to protect the Saudi Royal Family we would be in the cat-bird seat today, paying .35 a gallon for Premium gas and we would not be involved in any active hostilities in the Middle East.  Our friend and ally Saddam Hussein would be taking care of all of that.


----------



## Markle

rightwinger said:


> What made us a superpower is everyone was destroyed in WWII while our Homefront was untouched
> 
> We were untouched for the same reason we do not bother to defend our homeland now. Huge oceans and friendly neighbors



Close to 400 ships were sunk off our East Coast in WW-II by German Submarines.  Nearly 60 ships were sunk in the Gulf of Mexico also by German Submarines with one sunk in the mouth of the Mississippi River.  That was with the diesel and battery run submarines of the day.

Today China is producing modern nuclear submarines at an alarming rate and they patrol off our coasts daily.  These are boats equipped with nuclear missiles.  Thanks to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton they also control the ports at both ends of the Panama Canal.  China also has rockets that can kill satellites.

Think those oceans mean anything today?


----------



## Markle

DrLove said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
Click to expand...








Why not just give our keys to China now and save all the time, money, and trouble?


----------



## DrLove

Markle said:


> Why not just give our keys to China now and save all the time, money, and trouble?



Not a good idea. Thanks to Donald John's chronic idiocy, China has already surpassed US as the most powerful country on Earth.


----------



## Markle

rightwinger said:


> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack



But we're not in the future and we must still fight wars on the ground and door to door.

ISIS, al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, none of which have submarines, missiles, fighters or bombers.  They all remain threats today unless you haven't noticed.  President Donald Trump has a stunning job of destroying ISIS but the job is not done.


----------



## sakinago

DrLove said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="jNot according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is *superior military tech* in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having *superior tech* and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are key words in your post - _*Superior Tech*_
> 
> Ground forces and ground strength do NOT represent superior tech. They represent the interests of the military industrial complex. Still waiting to here which wars we've won quickly with such since WWII. They have only enriched the MIC and we've literally lost every GD one of them.
> 
> In my mind, superior tech is a great thing - not more of the same ol' madness.
Click to expand...

You don’t know what you’re talking about if you think that we can bomb every problem with a drone...doesn’t work like that. It helps in terrorism sure...but that’s against a guy with an AK, and even then they resort to hiding in a cave or amongst civilian populations. And you still need the ability to take and hold terrirtory, which you can’t do from the sky. But what we’re really talking about is how to counter is submersible battleships, point defense systems, mobile artillary, extreme long range air to air missals, long range highly mobile ship killers, and stealth tech.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

DrLove said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="jNot according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is *superior military tech* in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having *superior tech* and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are key words in your post - _*Superior Tech*_
> 
> Ground forces and ground strength do NOT represent superior tech. They represent the interests of the military industrial complex. Still waiting to hear which wars we've won quickly with such since WWII. They have only enriched the MIC and we've literally lost every GD one of them.
> 
> In my mind, superior tech is a great thing - not more of the same ol' madness.
Click to expand...


Untrue and a serious display of ignorance.
Superior technology enabled us to stage two of the quickest and most successful invasions in history in Iraq.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

MikeK said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq started the war when it invaded Kuwait and threatened SA.
> 
> The Taliban attacked us to make Afghanistan a target.  9/11. You may have heard of it.
> 
> 
> 
> What war did Iraq start?
> 
> You are ignoring some very important facts, beginning with Iraq having been a very loyal and useful ally of the U.S. during our conflict with Iran.  Next, Hussein's cause for hostility toward Kuwait was the revelation that Kuwait had been diagonally drilling into Iraq's oil field for several years.  Outright theft.
> 
> But Hussein didn't make a move against Kuwait until he first brought the theft to the attention of U.S. Ambassador, April Glaspie, asking if the U.S. had any opposition to his intention to attack Kuwait.  Glaspie conferred with the Secretary of State.  She then informed Hussein that the U.S. had no interest in that intention.
> 
> In cooperation with Saudi Arabia, George H.W. Bush had double-crossed Hussein with that notification because he waited until Hussein invaded Kuwait and then attacked the Iraqi Army, brutally destroying it.  This was done because Hussein's next move after occupying Kuwait was likely to be Saudi Arabia -- which was on *intimately friendly terms with the Bush dynasty.*
> 
> What H.W. Bush did to Iraq was wrong.  What W. Bush did was doubly wrong.  The loss of so many American lives in both actions is a goddam shame.  What the Bush crime family has done in the Middle East is the most egregious war crime in modern history.  There is no way to justify any of it.
> 
> If H.W. Bush had cooperated with Hussein, instead of double-crossing him to protect the Saudi Royal Family we would be in the cat-bird seat today, paying .35 a gallon for Premium gas and we would not be involved in any active hostilities in the Middle East.  Our friend and ally Saddam Hussein would be taking care of all of that.
Click to expand...


Wrong I am correctly ignoring unimportant facts and extremely lame excuses for one of the biggest asshos the world has ever seen.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I can say is that history has proven otherwise quite conclusively.
> What ground wars do you think we've started?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iraq and Afghanistan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq started the war when it invaded Kuwait and threatened SA.
> The Taliban attacked us to make Afghanistan a target.  9/11. You may have heard of it.
Click to expand...


Iraq had long since left Kuwait
The Taliban never attacked us.....that was AlQaida

Both wars were unprovoked


----------



## rightwinger

Markle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we're not in the future and we must still fight wars on the ground and door to door.
> 
> ISIS, al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, none of which have submarines, missiles, fighters or bombers.  They all remain threats today unless you haven't noticed.  President Donald Trump has a stunning job of destroying ISIS but the job is not done.
Click to expand...

They are threats of small scale attacks

They need to be kept in perspective


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I can say is that history has proven otherwise quite conclusively.
> What ground wars do you think we've started?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iraq and Afghanistan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq started the war when it invaded Kuwait and threatened SA.
> The Taliban attacked us to make Afghanistan a target.  9/11. You may have heard of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq had long since left Kuwait
> The Taliban never attacked us.....that was AlQaida
> 
> Both wars were unprovoked
Click to expand...


We went to war in Iraq because because Iraq had attacked and occupied Kuwait. We went back into Iraq because Iraq refused to honor the ceasefire that resulting in our leaving  leaving the first time. 
You think there is any important difference between Islamic terrorist groups? I don't.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we're not in the future and we must still fight wars on the ground and door to door.
> 
> ISIS, al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, none of which have submarines, missiles, fighters or bombers.  They all remain threats today unless you haven't noticed.  President Donald Trump has a stunning job of destroying ISIS but the job is not done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are threats of small scale attacks
> 
> They need to be kept in perspective
Click to expand...


You consider 9/11 small scale?


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is that history has proven otherwise quite conclusively.
> What ground wars do you think we've started?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iraq and Afghanistan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq started the war when it invaded Kuwait and threatened SA.
> The Taliban attacked us to make Afghanistan a target.  9/11. You may have heard of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq had long since left Kuwait
> The Taliban never attacked us.....that was AlQaida
> 
> Both wars were unprovoked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We went to war in Iraq because because Iraq had attacked and occupied Kuwait. We went back into Iraq because Iraq refused to honor the ceasefire that resulting in our leaving  leaving the first time.
> You think there is any important difference between Islamic terrorist groups? I don't.
Click to expand...

We had contained Iraq for ten years. 

We invaded because of an exaggerated threat claim from the Bush administration

We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we're not in the future and we must still fight wars on the ground and door to door.
> 
> ISIS, al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, none of which have submarines, missiles, fighters or bombers.  They all remain threats today unless you haven't noticed.  President Donald Trump has a stunning job of destroying ISIS but the job is not done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are threats of small scale attacks
> 
> They need to be kept in perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You consider 9/11 small scale?
Click to expand...


Not as large as the 8000 we lost retaliating


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we're not in the future and we must still fight wars on the ground and door to door.
> 
> ISIS, al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, none of which have submarines, missiles, fighters or bombers.  They all remain threats today unless you haven't noticed.  President Donald Trump has a stunning job of destroying ISIS but the job is not done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are threats of small scale attacks
> 
> They need to be kept in perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You consider 9/11 small scale?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as large as the 8000 we lost retaliating
Click to expand...


Neither we nor they are anywhere near done with the war on terror yet nor should we be.


----------



## DrLove

9thIDdoc said:


> Not as large as the 8000 we lost retaliating



Neither we nor they are anywhere near done with the war on terror yet nor should we be.[/QUOTE]

*AARP* member

*Armed
And
Really
Pissed*

I too am an AARP Member - armed and quite POd that we've surrendered our governance to a Gaggle of Birthers, Baggers & Blowhards -

YOU amongst


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I can say is that history has proven otherwise quite conclusively.
> What ground wars do you think we've started?
Click to expand...

 Take out us stepping into some others countries business, there are few that needed to be fought, everything from Korea on has been stupidity , bogus , lies usuall


MikeK said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> No immigrants have made this country what it is. and your hate group wants to get rid of or stop them from coming here, either by the colors of their skin or their religion. Very constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  Immigrants have made this Country grow: White, European and Scandinavian, primarily Christian immigrants.  That compatibility has been and remains critical.  Start tampering with that chemistry and it could bring America down.
> 
> If America needs immigrants -- start bringing in White Europeans!  There is no good reason to depart from the proven formula.  I have no problem with properly vetted Mexicans, either.  They are hard-working, familial, Christian people.
> 
> Don't forget the Crusades.  There was a reason for them and that reason hasn't changed.
Click to expand...

Ya you fucking bigot pile of shit, you are the lowest form of humanity and your in the right spot belonging to the hate party and I'm sure that pile of shit you have for a president is right up your bigoted scum bag asshole.


----------



## MikeK

9thIDdoc said:


> We went to war in Iraq because because Iraq had attacked and occupied Kuwait.


What we "went to" in Iraq was not a _war_ in the accepted sense of the word.  What we did was invade a nation which we'd already betrayed and double-crossed by deliberate deception as to our concern over Hussein's actions re: Kuwait's theft of Iraqi oil.  With Saudi Arabia's interests secretly in mind, and having told Hussein we were not concerned with his actions against Kuwait, H.W. Bush waited until the Iraqi Army entered and secured Kuwait, he then evicted the Iraqis and in an action which is considered an infamous display of unlawful military action (look it up) he ordered the retreating Iraqi Army, which consisted mainly of poorly trained, virtually defenseless conscripts, _slaughtered_ on what has been named the _"Highway of Death."_



> We went back into Iraq because Iraq refused to honor the ceasefire that resulting in our leaving  leaving the first time.


What do you mean by, "We went _back_ into Iraq?"  All we did was chase what was left of the Iraqi Army back to Iraq after mercilessly and unnecessarily slaughtering them on "Highway of Death."  But we didn't inhabit Iraq then.  W. Bush went into (invaded) and occupied Iraq only after fabricating the _"Weapons of Mass Destruction"_ lies.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.  If you actually served in the Middle East I suggest you are just one more ignorant, misused _grunt_ who swallowed every lump of deceitful bullshit served to you by the likes of W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, et al.  You just don't want to know that you were duped into participating in one of the most egregious war-crimes in modern military history -- but you do your best to attach some level of glory to it.  

If you'd care to research the facts leading to our present predicament, and the shameful waste of life and resources leading up to it, you will find that we have methodically created the terrorism we're dealing with today.


----------



## jbander

usmcstinger said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.
> 
> 
> 
> Good God , he thinks that you have to  go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Weatherman2020 said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.
> 
> Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray
Click to expand...

 Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.


sakinago said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> 
> 
> Someone watches too many movies...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually I have no doubt that it could happen but I also saw it in a movie I watched. So your both right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They could cause chaos sure (not to the degree y’all are imagining)...but it needs to be anonymous, so you can’t really fight war that way. Since the country could say stop hacking us or we’ll bomb you, and you can’t do anything about it since you got rid of most of your military, and traded it for hackers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your being ridiculous , no one is saying  to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are  a little confused.  You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says.  My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer  than I'm willing to discuss politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.
Click to expand...

 IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart.  it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding. 
     You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value.  Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.


----------



## Markle

rightwinger said:


> Iraq had long since left Kuwait
> The Taliban never attacked us.....that was AlQaida
> 
> Both wars were unprovoked



Just living in your fantasy world, aren't you?


----------



## jbander

Weatherman2020 said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.
> 
> Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray
Click to expand...

 Your just another dumb ass hole , I work for Open Doors for youth and Family promise and I have led a emotion anonymous group  for 17 year all as a volunteer. I work with the poor three days a week and what I know is that you just another dumb fuck that hasn't a clue what they are talking about , your a loser thatsTrying to use the poor as the reason that your a loser. You can't though your a loser without the help of anyone else.


----------



## jbander

DrLove said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  Immigrants have made this Country grow: White, European and Scandinavian, primarily Christian immigrants.  That compatibility has been and remains critical.  Start tampering with that chemistry and it could bring America down.
> 
> If America needs immigrants -- start bringing in White Europeans!  There is no good reason to depart from the proven formula.
> 
> Don't forget the Crusades.  There was a reason for them and that reason hasn't changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh fuck - the Bannonites, Klansman, Nazis, white nationalists & ethnic purists have arrived.
> 
> Pass
Click to expand...

 There has been no time in our history when a elected president was supported by the white supremacists , the Nazi party and the KKK. Until now , they should be proud of themselves.


----------



## Markle

rightwinger said:


> We had contained Iraq for ten years.
> 
> We invaded because of an exaggerated threat claim from the Bush administration



"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
*- President Clinton in 1998* “

[…], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”* 
- President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union 
*
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." 
*- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 *.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." 
- *President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.*

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis *nuclear,* chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”

“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”
*- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998*


"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." 
- *Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State
*
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
*- Madeline Albright, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State
*
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." 
*- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 " 

Update: September 8, 2005* *- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser* was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them..

[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
*- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 *.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- *Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 *.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- *Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 *.


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- *Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002*

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- *Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 *.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- *Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002*.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- *Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002* .

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
- *Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002*.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- *Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 *.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- *Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002*.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- *Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002*. 

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
*- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 
*
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
*- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002* 

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
*- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 .*

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
*- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003*"  (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
*- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003*

"Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.

"There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.
Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)


He [President Clinton] praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or . . . we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."

*Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found

"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.*

*-  Former President Clinton *Wednesday, April 16, 2003*

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."*

*- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010 
*
How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going?  How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President?  Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities.  Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="jNot according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is *superior military tech* in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having *superior tech* and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are key words in your post - _*Superior Tech*_
> 
> Ground forces and ground strength do NOT represent superior tech. They represent the interests of the military industrial complex. Still waiting to hear which wars we've won quickly with such since WWII. They have only enriched the MIC and we've literally lost every GD one of them.
> 
> In my mind, superior tech is a great thing - not more of the same ol' madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Untrue and a serious display of ignorance.
> Superior technology enabled us to stage two of the quickest and most successful invasions in history in Iraq.
Click to expand...

 Ya I know about that, Bush the baby killer on the aircraft carrier Proclaiming we had won the war just like your trying to sell here. I have a simple question how long have we been fighting there now. Idiot


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is that history has proven otherwise quite conclusively.
> What ground wars do you think we've started?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iraq and Afghanistan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq started the war when it invaded Kuwait and threatened SA.
> The Taliban attacked us to make Afghanistan a target.  9/11. You may have heard of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq had long since left Kuwait
> The Taliban never attacked us.....that was AlQaida
> 
> Both wars were unprovoked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We went to war in Iraq because because Iraq had attacked and occupied Kuwait. We went back into Iraq because Iraq refused to honor the ceasefire that resulting in our leaving  leaving the first time.
> You think there is any important difference between Islamic terrorist groups? I don't.
Click to expand...

 Everyone who wants to look at why the half wit Bush went to war in Iraq look up "Code name curve ball"  Everything you need to know about why we went there will be addressed there . and I guaranty that it will show what a lame brain this clown is/


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks
> 
> A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender
> 
> Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we're not in the future and we must still fight wars on the ground and door to door.
> 
> ISIS, al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, none of which have submarines, missiles, fighters or bombers.  They all remain threats today unless you haven't noticed.  President Donald Trump has a stunning job of destroying ISIS but the job is not done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are threats of small scale attacks
> 
> They need to be kept in perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You consider 9/11 small scale?
Click to expand...

 NO but Bush the baby killer murdered 5000 American heroes for a lie , a lie I may add, He and his vice president made a fortune on.


----------



## jbander

Markle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had contained Iraq for ten years.
> 
> We invaded because of an exaggerated threat claim from the Bush administration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
> *- President Clinton in 1998* “
> 
> […], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”*
> - President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union
> *
> "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
> *- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 *.
> 
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
> - *President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.*
> 
> “Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis *nuclear,* chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
> 
> “Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”
> 
> “Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”
> *- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998*
> 
> 
> "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
> - *Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State
> *
> "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
> *- Madeline Albright, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State
> *
> "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
> *- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "
> 
> Update: September 8, 2005* *- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser* was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them..
> 
> [W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
> *- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 *.
> 
> "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
> - *Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 *.
> 
> "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
> - *Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 *.
> 
> 
> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
> - *Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002*
> 
> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
> - *Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 *.
> 
> "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
> - *Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002*.
> 
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
> - *Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002* .
> 
> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
> - *Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002*.
> 
> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
> - *Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 *.
> 
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
> - *Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002*.
> 
> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
> - *Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002*.
> 
> "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
> *- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
> *
> "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
> *- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002*
> 
> “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
> *- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 .*
> 
> "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
> *- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003*"  (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)
> 
> I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
> *- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003*
> 
> "Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.
> 
> "There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.
> Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)
> 
> 
> He [President Clinton] praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or . . . we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."
> 
> *Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found
> 
> "I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.*
> 
> *-  Former President Clinton *Wednesday, April 16, 2003
> *
> "Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."*
> 
> *- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010
> *
> How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going?  How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President?  Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities.  Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.
Click to expand...

 Boy that's a long list of nothing. The only thing that most of your list and also me, I may add did wrong , was believing the lie, one of the biggest lie in our history That our President at the time created for his own personal gain and Cheney's personal gain. 
  Weapons of mass destruction didn'yt exist when we went there exactly as we were told but I know dam well in the past that they had them  because Reagan gave them thousands of tons of these nerve gasses and sent them people to teach them how to make it , While Iraq was Fighting Iran. So you ignorant bastards, Iraq got the ones they used in Iran  and  that we were afraid of them having    from Reagan.  Possibly the worst president this country has had.
  I'll repeat myself ,Simply look up Code name Curve ball he was Bushes Iraq insider that they listened to. That this massive big lie was created from. And I will also guaranty that it will prove what a idiot this guy is also.


----------



## jbander

DrLove said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not as large as the 8000 we lost retaliating
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither we nor they are anywhere near done with the war on terror yet nor should we be.
Click to expand...


*AARP* member

*Armed
And
Really
Pissed*

I too am an AARP Member - armed and quite POd that we've surrendered our governance to a Gaggle of Birthers, Baggers & Blowhards -

YOU amongst[/QUOTE] The anthem of a Gun Bubba, threaten the world with your silly guns , I will guaranty that you have a better chance of shooting yourself in the ass then use it to protect yourselve


----------



## MikeK

jbander said:


> There has been no time in our history when a elected president was supported by the white supremacists , the Nazi party and the KKK. Until now , they should be proud of themselves.


There is a reason for that perception.  White Americans, not Nazi, not KKK, or "supremacists."  Just ordinary White Americans have become increasingly conscious of an evolving threat


----------



## rightwinger

Markle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq had long since left Kuwait
> The Taliban never attacked us.....that was AlQaida
> 
> Both wars were unprovoked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just living in your fantasy world, aren't you?
Click to expand...


From someone who deals with alternative facts


----------



## rightwinger

Markle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had contained Iraq for ten years.
> 
> We invaded because of an exaggerated threat claim from the Bush administration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
> *- President Clinton in 1998* “
> 
> […], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”*
> - President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union
> *
> "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
> *- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 *.
> 
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
> - *President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.*
> 
> “Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis *nuclear,* chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
> 
> “Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”
> 
> “Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”
> *- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998*
> 
> 
> "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
> - *Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State
> *
> "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
> *- Madeline Albright, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State
> *
> "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
> *- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "
> 
> Update: September 8, 2005* *- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser* was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them..
> 
> [W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
> *- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 *.
> 
> "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
> - *Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 *.
> 
> "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
> - *Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 *.
> 
> 
> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
> - *Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002*
> 
> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
> - *Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 *.
> 
> "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
> - *Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002*.
> 
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
> - *Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002* .
> 
> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
> - *Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002*.
> 
> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
> - *Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 *.
> 
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
> - *Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002*.
> 
> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
> - *Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002*.
> 
> "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
> *- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
> *
> "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
> *- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002*
> 
> “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
> *- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 .*
> 
> "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
> *- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003*"  (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)
> 
> I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
> *- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003*
> 
> "Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.
> 
> "There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.
> Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)
> 
> 
> He [President Clinton] praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or . . . we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."
> 
> *Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found
> 
> "I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.*
> 
> *-  Former President Clinton *Wednesday, April 16, 2003
> *
> "Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."*
> 
> *- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010
> *
> How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going?  How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President?  Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities.  Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.
Click to expand...

Every one of them based on doctored information provided by Bush

Why didn't you provide Obama's quote
It was quite eloquent


----------



## mudwhistle

jbander said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us
> 
> Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman.  We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies
> 
> By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only threat that I've seen to freedom is sitting in the president's chair , their president is a pile of shit. The military is there to protect this country. Maybe you could become the laughing stock of this thread by bringing up something like the Domino effect, some cute name  that can be used to call some non existing threat to our borders. that allows you to send out our children to die for corporations interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but the pile of shit left office last January.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to improve this forum ignore the stupidity that comes out of people like these brain dead, not responding to anything except that they hate you and think your a liar. That is about as interesting as stupidity  and as stupid as it gets.
> They are a waste of time , they are just a waste period.
Click to expand...

Actually, most of your posts are a waste of time....as is this thread. 

It's obvious why you want to have a strong military, but you're such a fucking idiot you forgot to take heed to history.


----------



## sakinago

jbander said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.
> 
> 
> 
> Good God , he thinks that you have to  go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.
> 
> Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone watches too many movies...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually I have no doubt that it could happen but I also saw it in a movie I watched. So your both right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They could cause chaos sure (not to the degree y’all are imagining)...but it needs to be anonymous, so you can’t really fight war that way. Since the country could say stop hacking us or we’ll bomb you, and you can’t do anything about it since you got rid of most of your military, and traded it for hackers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your being ridiculous , no one is saying  to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are  a little confused.  You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says.  My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer  than I'm willing to discuss politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart.  it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
> You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value.  Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.
Click to expand...

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.

And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.


----------



## sakinago

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="jNot according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is *superior military tech* in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having *superior tech* and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are key words in your post - _*Superior Tech*_
> 
> Ground forces and ground strength do NOT represent superior tech. They represent the interests of the military industrial complex. Still waiting to hear which wars we've won quickly with such since WWII. They have only enriched the MIC and we've literally lost every GD one of them.
> 
> In my mind, superior tech is a great thing - not more of the same ol' madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Untrue and a serious display of ignorance.
> Superior technology enabled us to stage two of the quickest and most successful invasions in history in Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya I know about that, Bush the baby killer on the aircraft carrier Proclaiming we had won the war just like your trying to sell here. I have a simple question how long have we been fighting there now. Idiot
Click to expand...

Oh god, this is the moment when you know the person in this kind of debate, doesn’t have jack shit. That was a speech given, for the carrier, that did accomplish its mission, and was going back home. Not a declaration of winning the war...this was painfully obvious, but no one actually listened to the speech, they just read the misleading headlines that “bush declared mission accomplished,” that leave out the whole part that it was mission accomplished for the carrier crew...on the very same carrier that the speech was directed to.


----------



## rightwinger

The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile

Take you out long before you can see it


----------



## sakinago

rightwinger said:


> The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile
> 
> Take you out long before you can see it


And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.

What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.


----------



## jbander

MikeK said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been no time in our history when a elected president was supported by the white supremacists , the Nazi party and the KKK. Until now , they should be proud of themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason for that perception.  White Americans, not Nazi, not KKK, or "supremacists."  Just ordinary White Americans have become increasingly conscious of an evolving threat
Click to expand...

 To repeat myself ,this is the first time in history that a president was supported by the Nazi Party , the KKK and the white supremacist.  The other were simply haters who loved the hate that was spewing from scum Bags mouth. . 
  During the election for the hate part candidate nomination of Scum Bag, he said the foulest ugliest cruel ,evil, hateful, deprived  things and even his competition in the hate party saw that and tried to out scum a scum bag with their own scum from their mouth but that was totally worthless trying to out scum the the king of scum. They would say something hateful and ugly and he would simply puke a higher level of hate out and the hate party just supported him more and more. The more hate spewed out of scum Bag the more you haters supported him.


----------



## jbander

mudwhistle said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us
> 
> Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman.  We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies
> 
> By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only threat that I've seen to freedom is sitting in the president's chair , their president is a pile of shit. The military is there to protect this country. Maybe you could become the laughing stock of this thread by bringing up something like the Domino effect, some cute name  that can be used to call some non existing threat to our borders. that allows you to send out our children to die for corporations interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but the pile of shit left office last January.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to improve this forum ignore the stupidity that comes out of people like these brain dead, not responding to anything except that they hate you and think your a liar. That is about as interesting as stupidity  and as stupid as it gets.
> They are a waste of time , they are just a waste period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, most of your posts are a waste of time....as is this thread.
> 
> It's obvious why you want to have a strong military, but you're such a fucking idiot you forgot to take heed to history.
Click to expand...

 Ya there is no way that history tells the story other then the thousand of our young that have been killed for the bottom line of some corporations, nothing more.
   This is you first comment here. It says nothing , it's just a insult , so if you have nothing what kind of person comments like that, someone from the hate party.
      By the way, just as a point of interest, why would i care what the enemy of my country thinks about me, in fact the uglier they get is proof positive that I'm on the right track.


----------



## Slash

Honestly I think we are just fine where we are.  We are up from our strength in the Clinton Bush era.  We are the only military Superpower left.


----------



## Slash

Honestly I think we are just fine where we are.  We are up from our strength in the Clinton Bush era.


sakinago said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.
> 
> 
> 
> Good God , he thinks that you have to  go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.
> 
> Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually I have no doubt that it could happen but I also saw it in a movie I watched. So your both right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They could cause chaos sure (not to the degree y’all are imagining)...but it needs to be anonymous, so you can’t really fight war that way. Since the country could say stop hacking us or we’ll bomb you, and you can’t do anything about it since you got rid of most of your military, and traded it for hackers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your being ridiculous , no one is saying  to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are  a little confused.  You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says.  My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer  than I'm willing to discuss politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart.  it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
> You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value.  Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
> Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
> Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
> Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
> Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
> Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.
> 
> And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.
Click to expand...


You are using old news there for your position.  The P-51 early on was at a severe disadvantage due to a lower powered engine initially.  It became arguably the best fighter the US or the world has ever had.  

Yes the F35 in early testing struggled in air to air combat.   Pilots didn't know how to fly it, and the engineers didn't know how to set it up for them.   So they retrained.  Pilots learned new things.  Engineers learned pilots wanted the nanny controls taken off and let them really push it. 

A few months ago the US military held their annual Red Flag training evolution.  In air to air combat vs. our legacy fighters, our F16/18's with the best trained pilots in the world in them, the F-35 had a 20:1 kill:loss rate.   20:1 vs. the best thing out there.  That's absolutely insane. 

A former A-10 pilot who'd moved to the F35 was talking after that event that he took out 5 straight SAM sites within 15 minutes and and him and his wingman were never even targeted.   

How crazy is that?  We have a plane that against the worlds best air defenses and fighter pilots slips in and just lays devastation and slips out and nobody has a clue where it was.  

The pilots were talking about how mission after mission in the exercise they'd keep coming back saying "I can't believe we just did that".  

The Navy's Northern Lightning war games came out the same way.  I think two quotes by two pilots summed that up well  

F-35 pilot. "I couldn't ask for anything better. It's like fighting somebody with their hands tied behind their backs."

Opponent pilot "We just can't see them like they can see us. It can feel like you are out there with a blindfold on."






People talk about gun kills.  Remind me what the rate of missile to gun kills in air combat has been the past couple decades.  It's like saying todays infantry isn't as good as our Civil War soldiers in the use of Bayonettes.  

Off of Syria a couple of F-22's were scrambled to scare off some russian jets operating kinda close to US operations.   They didn't know what to do.  Usually they would show up and the bad guys would either engage and play some cat and mouse, or turn and run.  These guys did nothing, absolutely nothing.  The pilots had to close to line of sight range to let them know they were there.  

That's the difference we have now in our air superiority.  We can't even get them to see us when we want them to.  And the the next best weapons in the US are defenseless against them.


----------



## jbander

sakinago said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.
> 
> 
> 
> Good God , he thinks that you have to  go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.
> 
> Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually I have no doubt that it could happen but I also saw it in a movie I watched. So your both right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They could cause chaos sure (not to the degree y’all are imagining)...but it needs to be anonymous, so you can’t really fight war that way. Since the country could say stop hacking us or we’ll bomb you, and you can’t do anything about it since you got rid of most of your military, and traded it for hackers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your being ridiculous , no one is saying  to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are  a little confused.  You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says.  My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer  than I'm willing to discuss politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart.  it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
> You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value.  Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
> Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
> Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
> Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
> Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
> Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.
> 
> And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.
Click to expand...

 So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! *CDI Combat Critique:* Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-*Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited. 
    Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
    Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension  weapon. *


----------



## jbander

sakinago said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="jNot according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is *superior military tech* in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having *superior tech* and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are key words in your post - _*Superior Tech*_
> 
> Ground forces and ground strength do NOT represent superior tech. They represent the interests of the military industrial complex. Still waiting to hear which wars we've won quickly with such since WWII. They have only enriched the MIC and we've literally lost every GD one of them.
> 
> In my mind, superior tech is a great thing - not more of the same ol' madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Untrue and a serious display of ignorance.
> Superior technology enabled us to stage two of the quickest and most successful invasions in history in Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya I know about that, Bush the baby killer on the aircraft carrier Proclaiming we had won the war just like your trying to sell here. I have a simple question how long have we been fighting there now. Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh god, this is the moment when you know the person in this kind of debate, doesn’t have jack shit. That was a speech given, for the carrier, that did accomplish its mission, and was going back home. Not a declaration of winning the war...this was painfully obvious, but no one actually listened to the speech, they just read the misleading headlines that “bush declared mission accomplished,” that leave out the whole part that it was mission accomplished for the carrier crew...on the very same carrier that the speech was directed to.
Click to expand...

 Fine that shows how little you know about this, considering there was more deaths by both the military and civilian after the Bush the baby killers "mission accomplished " sign. What you say the sign meant is only a opinion. Just like my opinion of what the sign meant is. I love you know it all speech written by your masters. You hear them constantly on these sights. Mono minds being totally controlled.


----------



## jbander

rightwinger said:


> The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile
> 
> Take you out long before you can see it


 The F-22 can see way farther then the F-35 and has the extended range weapons to use at those distances . The trouble is There is no way we can get by with a one dimensional system. We need the F-35 for its across the board multiple capabilities.


----------



## Desperado

The US needs more investment in its military because we are the world's police/
We have been in a constant state of active war since the 90's with no end in sight.
Our men and machines are getting old and worn and need replacing.
The only thing that will change this is our foreign policy and at this time that seems unlikely.


----------



## sakinago

Slash said:


> Honestly I think we are just fine where we are.  We are up from our strength in the Clinton Bush era.
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.
> 
> 
> 
> Good God , he thinks that you have to  go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.
> 
> Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> They could cause chaos sure (not to the degree y’all are imagining)...but it needs to be anonymous, so you can’t really fight war that way. Since the country could say stop hacking us or we’ll bomb you, and you can’t do anything about it since you got rid of most of your military, and traded it for hackers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your being ridiculous , no one is saying  to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are  a little confused.  You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says.  My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer  than I'm willing to discuss politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart.  it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
> You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value.  Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
> Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
> Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
> Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
> Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
> Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.
> 
> And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are using old news there for your position.  The P-51 early on was at a severe disadvantage due to a lower powered engine initially.  It became arguably the best fighter the US or the world has ever had.
> 
> Yes the F35 in early testing struggled in air to air combat.   Pilots didn't know how to fly it, and the engineers didn't know how to set it up for them.   So they retrained.  Pilots learned new things.  Engineers learned pilots wanted the nanny controls taken off and let them really push it.
> 
> A few months ago the US military held their annual Red Flag training evolution.  In air to air combat vs. our legacy fighters, our F16/18's with the best trained pilots in the world in them, the F-35 had a 20:1 kill:loss rate.   20:1 vs. the best thing out there.  That's absolutely insane.
> 
> A former A-10 pilot who'd moved to the F35 was talking after that event that he took out 5 straight SAM sites within 15 minutes and and him and his wingman were never even targeted.
> 
> How crazy is that?  We have a plane that against the worlds best air defenses and fighter pilots slips in and just lays devastation and slips out and nobody has a clue where it was.
> 
> The pilots were talking about how mission after mission in the exercise they'd keep coming back saying "I can't believe we just did that".
> 
> The Navy's Northern Lightning war games came out the same way.  I think two quotes by two pilots summed that up well
> 
> F-35 pilot. "I couldn't ask for anything better. It's like fighting somebody with their hands tied behind their backs."
> 
> Opponent pilot "We just can't see them like they can see us. It can feel like you are out there with a blindfold on."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People talk about gun kills.  Remind me what the rate of missile to gun kills in air combat has been the past couple decades.  It's like saying todays infantry isn't as good as our Civil War soldiers in the use of Bayonettes.
> 
> Off of Syria a couple of F-22's were scrambled to scare off some russian jets operating kinda close to US operations.   They didn't know what to do.  Usually they would show up and the bad guys would either engage and play some cat and mouse, or turn and run.  These guys did nothing, absolutely nothing.  The pilots had to close to line of sight range to let them know they were there.
> 
> That's the difference we have now in our air superiority.  We can't even get them to see us when we want them to.  And the the next best weapons in the US are defenseless against them.
Click to expand...

Ok these are old SAMs, not updated for stealth fighters, sure they’ll be just fine against a country like Libya...but it’s almost common knowledge you can still pick up stealth with infrared sensors, and infrared is getting more powerful by the day. You still need a jet that can climb, turn and run when it has too. I have a feeling this red flag training was more publicity stunt, than actual test. If it were an actual test, they’d use 4th gens with infrared sensors, that can spot up to 70km, less than radar sure, but still better than nothing. It just seems very advantageous that the f35 was seeing major problem after major problem, was criticized by trump, trump became president, told them to cut the budget for it, they remove an entire engine...and that somehow fixed the energy problems with the f35??? Doesn’t make sense. Flight isn’t a situation where you can do addition by subtraction of an engine providing energy....seems like a publicity stunt just like the navies new lasers shooting and setting plywood on fire and everyone clapping.


----------



## Slash

jbander said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.
> 
> 
> 
> Good God , he thinks that you have to  go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.
> 
> Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> They could cause chaos sure (not to the degree y’all are imagining)...but it needs to be anonymous, so you can’t really fight war that way. Since the country could say stop hacking us or we’ll bomb you, and you can’t do anything about it since you got rid of most of your military, and traded it for hackers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your being ridiculous , no one is saying  to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are  a little confused.  You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says.  My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer  than I'm willing to discuss politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart.  it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
> You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value.  Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
> Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
> Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
> Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
> Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
> Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.
> 
> And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! *CDI Combat Critique:* Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-*Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
> Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
> Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension  weapon. *
Click to expand...


Of course everyone doesn't love it.  People are always gonna be pissed about it.  

CDI likes the old school, they like the bayonett.  I'm not sure what info they are privy too. I can't find anything to see that they have any of the classified information on the capabilities of the F-22.  Their reasons for hating the F22 was that it couldn't manouver, can't outnumber the enemy, and couldn't pull off quick shots like some other planes.  

Talk about Kill to loss I believe in Northern Edge, it was 144:0 kill to loss in that training exercise.   Yeah, it's probably not the best plane to engage line of sight and use it's guns.  got it.  

*The odd thing was you are really saying we aren't using the F22 in action? * Remind me, what was the jet that intercepted an Iranian F4 in March of 2013?  What jet was dropping hundreds of 1000lb bombs in Syria?  What jet is flying sorties as part of Inherent Resolve?  

Are you sticking with your point there?  because that's just a lie.   

Yes they weren't getting a lot of air time.  It's a high cost air superiority fighter.  That's it's top role.  Please explain to me the strength of ISIS and Al Qaeda's air power.   We aren't using the best of our smart weapons because we don't need them against an army using small arms and technicals.  

We haven't used our Nuclear Missile Subs in any wars lately.   Doesn't mean they are worthless.  They are probably the #1 weapon in our military!!   But they haven't fought the war they are designed to win.  We haven't used our Sub Hunters either.   Maybe they are worthless.  Or maybe Afghanistan and Iraq's navies don't have submarines.


----------



## jbander

sakinago said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile
> 
> Take you out long before you can see it
> 
> 
> 
> And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.
> 
> What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.
Click to expand...

not true at all. For it to have the cababilaty to shoot down 18 super hornets it would mean having a full load of


sakinago said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile
> 
> Take you out long before you can see it
> 
> 
> 
> And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.
> 
> What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.
Click to expand...

 Ok you step up the stupid really quick , when people know everything, like you do ,what everyone else says is a lie. but you don't know what your talking about really, I'll quote you---"the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets," So to do that you would have a complete load of Aim-9 no other configuration will get you to 18 kills. Aims accuracy is limited, it's range is short and it is a Infrared weapon. So if they were within the range of the F-22 aim-9 then of course the aim 9 would be just as effective on the F-35's aim-9, plus the stealth means nothing in the f-22 at that range  considering the aim-9 is almost all infrared  stealth isn't worth didly squat when using infra red.


----------



## Slash

sakinago said:


> Ok these are old SAMs, not updated for stealth fighters, sure they’ll be just fine against a country like Libya...but it’s almost common knowledge you can still pick up stealth with infrared sensors, and infrared is getting more powerful by the day. You still need a jet that can climb, turn and run when it has too. I have a feeling this red flag training was more publicity stunt, than actual test. If it were an actual test, they’d use 4th gens with infrared sensors, that can spot up to 70km, less than radar sure, but still better than nothing. It just seems very advantageous that the f35 was seeing major problem after major problem, was criticized by trump, trump became president, told them to cut the budget for it, they remove an entire engine...and that somehow fixed the energy problems with the f35??? Doesn’t make sense. Flight isn’t a situation where you can do addition by subtraction of an engine providing energy....seems like a publicity stunt just like the navies new lasers shooting and setting plywood on fire and everyone clapping.




Which ones were old equipment?  Red flag see's the top aircraft of multiple nations.  Northern Lighting had the EA18 Growlers in the air and Sentinal systems on the ground.   Russia has those S400 systems all over Syria and in April after our cruise missile attacks hit and Russia was upset, the only planes we were sending in were the F22's and according to pilots they weren't getting noticed.   And that S400 is a pretty solid piece of hardware.   

I'm just curious what you mean there because it sounds like again you are making things up.  What out of date SAM's were in use?  


Also I've been in quite a few military exercises.   They are run by the military not politicians.  We didn't lose to make some DOD exec or politician happy, I would really like to hear what you think may have been done if you are making that assertation because it seems way way out there.


----------



## Slash

jbander said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile
> 
> Take you out long before you can see it
> 
> 
> 
> And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.
> 
> What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true at all. For it to have the cababilaty to shoot down 18 super hornets it would mean having a full load of
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile
> 
> Take you out long before you can see it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.
> 
> What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok you step up the stupid really quick , when people know everything, like you do ,what everyone else says is a lie. but you don't know what your talking about really, I'll quote you---"the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets," So to do that you would have a complete load of Aim-9 no other configuration will get you to 18 kills. Aims accuracy is limited, it's range is short and it is a Infrared weapon. So if they were within the range of the F-22 aim-9 then of course the aim 9 would be just as effective on the F-35's aim-9, plus the stealth means nothing in the f-22 at that range  considering the aim-9 is almost all infrared  stealth isn't worth didly squat when using infra red.
Click to expand...


Never mind kid.  You got caught in a lie, you got upset that you got caught in a lie, tried to start another lie to divert attention and now you want to do the personal name calling thing.  Enjoy your day.  I don't really care to play the 4 year old name calling game.


----------



## sakinago

jbander said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.
> 
> 
> 
> Good God , he thinks that you have to  go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.
> 
> Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> They could cause chaos sure (not to the degree y’all are imagining)...but it needs to be anonymous, so you can’t really fight war that way. Since the country could say stop hacking us or we’ll bomb you, and you can’t do anything about it since you got rid of most of your military, and traded it for hackers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your being ridiculous , no one is saying  to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are  a little confused.  You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says.  My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer  than I'm willing to discuss politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart.  it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
> You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value.  Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
> Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
> Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
> Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
> Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
> Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.
> 
> And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! *CDI Combat Critique:* Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-*Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
> Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
> Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension  weapon. *
Click to expand...

Again the detractors of the f22 main concern is cost, not performance. And the f35 is 90% based off of the f22, so taking that into consideration, they are crashing and burning when all they had to do was improve on the best air system ever created...A lot of R&D that went into the f22, the F35 is piggy backing off of, and the f35 is still the most expensive weapon system ever created. I also never said dump the f35, I clearly said until the f35 fixes their bugs, we definitely should not be putting all our eggs into the f35 basket, like we’re doing now. We should restart the f22 program. Perhaps even make a carrier launcable f22. We need a plane with power, and the only thing that makes the f35 more “versatile” is the vertical take off, and carrier take off versions...because it was designed that way, off of the f22. It’s supposed to be an upgrade, air to air, it blows in comparison. If it gets picked up by infrared SAM, it’s going to be shot down. It lacks power. It’s trying to use stealth to cover that up. Where gonna come to a moment where superior tech isn’t saving it, but hurting it, just like the missels early in the Vietnam war. We rellied too much on tech vs tactics that were thought to obsolete, and lost way too many superior planes to inferior ones.


----------



## jbander

Slash said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good God , he thinks that you have to  go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.
> 
> Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your being ridiculous , no one is saying  to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are  a little confused.  You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says.  My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer  than I'm willing to discuss politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart.  it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
> You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value.  Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
> Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
> Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
> Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
> Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
> Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.
> 
> And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! *CDI Combat Critique:* Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-*Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
> Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
> Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension  weapon. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course everyone doesn't love it.  People are always gonna be pissed about it.
> 
> CDI likes the old school, they like the bayonett.  I'm not sure what info they are privy too. I can't find anything to see that they have any of the classified information on the capabilities of the F-22.  Their reasons for hating the F22 was that it couldn't manouver, can't outnumber the enemy, and couldn't pull off quick shots like some other planes.
> 
> Talk about Kill to loss I believe in Northern Edge, it was 144:0 kill to loss in that training exercise.   Yeah, it's probably not the best plane to engage line of sight and use it's guns.  got it.
> 
> *The odd thing was you are really saying we aren't using the F22 in action? * Remind me, what was the jet that intercepted an Iranian F4 in March of 2013?  What jet was dropping hundreds of 1000lb bombs in Syria?  What jet is flying sorties as part of Inherent Resolve?
> 
> Are you sticking with your point there?  because that's just a lie.
> 
> Yes they weren't getting a lot of air time.  It's a high cost air superiority fighter.  That's it's top role.  Please explain to me the strength of ISIS and Al Qaeda's air power.   We aren't using the best of our smart weapons because we don't need them against an army using small arms and technicals.
> 
> We haven't used our Nuclear Missile Subs in any wars lately.   Doesn't mean they are worthless.  They are probably the #1 weapon in our military!!   But they haven't fought the war they are designed to win.  We haven't used our Sub Hunters either.   Maybe they are worthless.  Or maybe Afghanistan and Iraq's navies don't have submarines.
Click to expand...

 You people , . OK I am a liar . It wasn't a mistake because it can't be, can it.
    lets look at what you say, first the F-22 is a air superiority  fighter. It's only contact was with a Iranian fighter that was going in the direction of a  Predator spy plane. A F-22 pulled along side and told them to go in another direction. Not one bullet was fired.  Whoopy ding but are you considering that a war. Expert. and again is Syria a war, we are bombing  terrorist groups their just like many other country's  where we do the same thing . So are they all wars then,if it is . then They are using a air superiority fighter dropping bombs with no enemy planes in the sky. Do you know what a air superiority fighter means. Expert.


----------



## Slash

jbander said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.
> 
> Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray
> 
> 
> 
> Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart.  it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
> You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value.  Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
> Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
> Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
> Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
> Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
> Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.
> 
> And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! *CDI Combat Critique:* Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-*Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
> Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
> Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension  weapon. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course everyone doesn't love it.  People are always gonna be pissed about it.
> 
> CDI likes the old school, they like the bayonett.  I'm not sure what info they are privy too. I can't find anything to see that they have any of the classified information on the capabilities of the F-22.  Their reasons for hating the F22 was that it couldn't manouver, can't outnumber the enemy, and couldn't pull off quick shots like some other planes.
> 
> Talk about Kill to loss I believe in Northern Edge, it was 144:0 kill to loss in that training exercise.   Yeah, it's probably not the best plane to engage line of sight and use it's guns.  got it.
> 
> *The odd thing was you are really saying we aren't using the F22 in action? * Remind me, what was the jet that intercepted an Iranian F4 in March of 2013?  What jet was dropping hundreds of 1000lb bombs in Syria?  What jet is flying sorties as part of Inherent Resolve?
> 
> Are you sticking with your point there?  because that's just a lie.
> 
> Yes they weren't getting a lot of air time.  It's a high cost air superiority fighter.  That's it's top role.  Please explain to me the strength of ISIS and Al Qaeda's air power.   We aren't using the best of our smart weapons because we don't need them against an army using small arms and technicals.
> 
> We haven't used our Nuclear Missile Subs in any wars lately.   Doesn't mean they are worthless.  They are probably the #1 weapon in our military!!   But they haven't fought the war they are designed to win.  We haven't used our Sub Hunters either.   Maybe they are worthless.  Or maybe Afghanistan and Iraq's navies don't have submarines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people , . OK I am a liar . It wasn't a mistake because it can't be, can it.
> lets look at what you say, first the F-22 is a air superiority  fighter. It's only contact was with a Iranian fighter that was going in the direction of a  Predator spy plane. A F-22 pulled along side and told them to go in another direction. Not one bullet was fired.  Whoopy ding but are you considering that a war. Expert. and again is Syria a war, we are bombing  terrorist groups their just like many other country's  where we do the same thing . So are they all wars then,if it is . then They are using a air superiority fighter dropping bombs with no enemy planes in the sky. Do you know what a air superiority fighter means. Expert.
Click to expand...


Yes, I'd consider that when a plane is dropping hundreds of thousands of lbs of bombs on an enemy combatant... THAT IS A WAR.  You can name it a "police operation" like Vietnam or whatever little word games you want.  If we are in an armed conflict, that's what matters.  Quit the little name game, ok.

Look, you like the name calling.  You've tried a couple times to lie to make your position.  I called you out on that and it upset you.  

Yes we are using an air superiority fighter in other roles that it can handle.  It's something we've done through history.  The Tomcat was used in that role at points as well.  Same with the F-15.  "Not a pound for air to ground" was the mantra on the F-15 design, it was 100% air to air at the start.  But we've evolved both of those planes and the F22 for secondary ground attack capability.  I thought this was pretty common knowledge here, and not sure why it seems so upsetting to you.

I'm not an expert here.  But if you are going to name call and make up your own stories not based in reality and question simple things like this, I'm sorry I have no desire to debate that.


----------



## jbander

sakinago said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good God , he thinks that you have to  go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.
> 
> Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your being ridiculous , no one is saying  to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are  a little confused.  You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says.  My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer  than I'm willing to discuss politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart.  it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
> You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value.  Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
> Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
> Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
> Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
> Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
> Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.
> 
> And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! *CDI Combat Critique:* Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-*Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
> Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
> Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension  weapon. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again the detractors of the f22 main concern is cost, not performance. And the f35 is 90% based off of the f22, so taking that into consideration, they are crashing and burning when all they had to do was improve on the best air system ever created...A lot of R&D that went into the f22, the F35 is piggy backing off of, and the f35 is still the most expensive weapon system ever created. I also never said dump the f35, I clearly said until the f35 fixes their bugs, we definitely should not be putting all our eggs into the f35 basket, like we’re doing now. We should restart the f22 program. Perhaps even make a carrier launcable f22. We need a plane with power, and the only thing that makes the f35 more “versatile” is the vertical take off, and carrier take off versions...because it was designed that way, off of the f22. It’s supposed to be an upgrade, air to air, it blows in comparison. If it gets picked up by infrared SAM, it’s going to be shot down. It lacks power. It’s trying to use stealth to cover that up. Where gonna come to a moment where superior tech isn’t saving it, but hurting it, just like the missels early in the Vietnam war. We rellied too much on tech vs tactics that were thought to obsolete, and lost way too many superior planes to inferior ones.
Click to expand...

Fine and I'm more then happy that they went with the F-35 , the F-22 is one dimensional and we also need a multi dimensional aircraft or different planes for each job that needs to be done. and yes I will take two F-35 over one f-22 as far as cost is concerned.I would also point out that there is no other active stealth fighters in the world at this point.


----------



## jbander

Slash said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.
> IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart.  it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
> You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value.  Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
> Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
> Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
> Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
> Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
> Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.
> 
> And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! *CDI Combat Critique:* Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-*Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
> Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
> Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension  weapon. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course everyone doesn't love it.  People are always gonna be pissed about it.
> 
> CDI likes the old school, they like the bayonett.  I'm not sure what info they are privy too. I can't find anything to see that they have any of the classified information on the capabilities of the F-22.  Their reasons for hating the F22 was that it couldn't manouver, can't outnumber the enemy, and couldn't pull off quick shots like some other planes.
> 
> Talk about Kill to loss I believe in Northern Edge, it was 144:0 kill to loss in that training exercise.   Yeah, it's probably not the best plane to engage line of sight and use it's guns.  got it.
> 
> *The odd thing was you are really saying we aren't using the F22 in action? * Remind me, what was the jet that intercepted an Iranian F4 in March of 2013?  What jet was dropping hundreds of 1000lb bombs in Syria?  What jet is flying sorties as part of Inherent Resolve?
> 
> Are you sticking with your point there?  because that's just a lie.
> 
> Yes they weren't getting a lot of air time.  It's a high cost air superiority fighter.  That's it's top role.  Please explain to me the strength of ISIS and Al Qaeda's air power.   We aren't using the best of our smart weapons because we don't need them against an army using small arms and technicals.
> 
> We haven't used our Nuclear Missile Subs in any wars lately.   Doesn't mean they are worthless.  They are probably the #1 weapon in our military!!   But they haven't fought the war they are designed to win.  We haven't used our Sub Hunters either.   Maybe they are worthless.  Or maybe Afghanistan and Iraq's navies don't have submarines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people , . OK I am a liar . It wasn't a mistake because it can't be, can it.
> lets look at what you say, first the F-22 is a air superiority  fighter. It's only contact was with a Iranian fighter that was going in the direction of a  Predator spy plane. A F-22 pulled along side and told them to go in another direction. Not one bullet was fired.  Whoopy ding but are you considering that a war. Expert. and again is Syria a war, we are bombing  terrorist groups their just like many other country's  where we do the same thing . So are they all wars then,if it is . then They are using a air superiority fighter dropping bombs with no enemy planes in the sky. Do you know what a air superiority fighter means. Expert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'd consider that when a plane is dropping hundreds of thousands of lbs of bombs on an enemy combatant... THAT IS A WAR.  You can name it a "police operation" like Vietnam or whatever little word games you want.  If we are in an armed conflict, that's what matters.  Quit the little name game, ok.
> 
> Look, you like the name calling.  You've tried a couple times to lie to make your position.  I called you out on that and it upset you.
> 
> Yes we are using an air superiority fighter in other roles that it can handle.  It's something we've done through history.  The Tomcat was used in that role at points as well.  Same with the F-15.  "Not a pound for air to ground" was the mantra on the F-15 design, it was 100% air to air at the start.  But we've evolved both of those planes and the F22 for secondary ground attack capability.  I thought this was pretty common knowledge here, and not sure why it seems so upsetting to you.
> 
> I'm not an expert here.  But if you are going to name call and make up your own stories not based in reality and question simple things like this, I'm sorry I have no desire to debate that.
Click to expand...

 Dam then ,we are at war with Pakistan, Yeman and Syria. and were where in a war with Lebanon ,Somalia, Bosnia Saudi Arabia Sudan  and Kosovo. Thanks for telling us , I bet there isn't one other person here that knows we are at or were at war with these countries.


----------



## jbander

Slash said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.
> IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart.  it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
> You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value.  Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
> Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
> Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
> Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
> Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
> Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.
> 
> And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! *CDI Combat Critique:* Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-*Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
> Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
> Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension  weapon. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course everyone doesn't love it.  People are always gonna be pissed about it.
> 
> CDI likes the old school, they like the bayonett.  I'm not sure what info they are privy too. I can't find anything to see that they have any of the classified information on the capabilities of the F-22.  Their reasons for hating the F22 was that it couldn't manouver, can't outnumber the enemy, and couldn't pull off quick shots like some other planes.
> 
> Talk about Kill to loss I believe in Northern Edge, it was 144:0 kill to loss in that training exercise.   Yeah, it's probably not the best plane to engage line of sight and use it's guns.  got it.
> 
> *The odd thing was you are really saying we aren't using the F22 in action? * Remind me, what was the jet that intercepted an Iranian F4 in March of 2013?  What jet was dropping hundreds of 1000lb bombs in Syria?  What jet is flying sorties as part of Inherent Resolve?
> 
> Are you sticking with your point there?  because that's just a lie.
> 
> Yes they weren't getting a lot of air time.  It's a high cost air superiority fighter.  That's it's top role.  Please explain to me the strength of ISIS and Al Qaeda's air power.   We aren't using the best of our smart weapons because we don't need them against an army using small arms and technicals.
> 
> We haven't used our Nuclear Missile Subs in any wars lately.   Doesn't mean they are worthless.  They are probably the #1 weapon in our military!!   But they haven't fought the war they are designed to win.  We haven't used our Sub Hunters either.   Maybe they are worthless.  Or maybe Afghanistan and Iraq's navies don't have submarines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people , . OK I am a liar . It wasn't a mistake because it can't be, can it.
> lets look at what you say, first the F-22 is a air superiority  fighter. It's only contact was with a Iranian fighter that was going in the direction of a  Predator spy plane. A F-22 pulled along side and told them to go in another direction. Not one bullet was fired.  Whoopy ding but are you considering that a war. Expert. and again is Syria a war, we are bombing  terrorist groups their just like many other country's  where we do the same thing . So are they all wars then,if it is . then They are using a air superiority fighter dropping bombs with no enemy planes in the sky. Do you know what a air superiority fighter means. Expert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'd consider that when a plane is dropping hundreds of thousands of lbs of bombs on an enemy combatant... THAT IS A WAR.  You can name it a "police operation" like Vietnam or whatever little word games you want.  If we are in an armed conflict, that's what matters.  Quit the little name game, ok.
> 
> Look, you like the name calling.  You've tried a couple times to lie to make your position.  I called you out on that and it upset you.
> 
> Yes we are using an air superiority fighter in other roles that it can handle.  It's something we've done through history.  The Tomcat was used in that role at points as well.  Same with the F-15.  "Not a pound for air to ground" was the mantra on the F-15 design, it was 100% air to air at the start.  But we've evolved both of those planes and the F22 for secondary ground attack capability.  I thought this was pretty common knowledge here, and not sure why it seems so upsetting to you.
> 
> I'm not an expert here.  But if you are going to name call and make up your own stories not based in reality and question simple things like this, I'm sorry I have no desire to debate that.
Click to expand...

Hell I don't care what you think you are or how you act , to me your just another Rube that's trying to say they know it all, Your ridiculous.


----------



## jbander

Slash said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile
> 
> Take you out long before you can see it
> 
> 
> 
> And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.
> 
> What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true at all. For it to have the cababilaty to shoot down 18 super hornets it would mean having a full load of
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile
> 
> Take you out long before you can see it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.
> 
> What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok you step up the stupid really quick , when people know everything, like you do ,what everyone else says is a lie. but you don't know what your talking about really, I'll quote you---"the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets," So to do that you would have a complete load of Aim-9 no other configuration will get you to 18 kills. Aims accuracy is limited, it's range is short and it is a Infrared weapon. So if they were within the range of the F-22 aim-9 then of course the aim 9 would be just as effective on the F-35's aim-9, plus the stealth means nothing in the f-22 at that range  considering the aim-9 is almost all infrared  stealth isn't worth didly squat when using infra red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never mind kid.  You got caught in a lie, you got upset that you got caught in a lie, tried to start another lie to divert attention and now you want to do the personal name calling thing.  Enjoy your day.  I don't really care to play the 4 year old name calling game.
Click to expand...

I'll quote you---"the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets," So to do that you would have a complete load of Aim-9 no other configuration will get you to 18 kills. Aims accuracy is limited, it's range is short and it is a Infrared weapon. So if they were within the range of the F-22 aim-9 then of course the aim 9 would be just as effective on the F-35's aim-9, plus the stealth means nothing in the f-22 at that range considering the aim-9 is almost all infrared stealth isn't worth didly squat when using infra red.


----------



## Slash

jbander said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.
> 
> Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray
> 
> 
> 
> Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart.  it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
> You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value.  Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
> Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
> Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
> Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
> Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
> Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.
> 
> And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! *CDI Combat Critique:* Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-*Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
> Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
> Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension  weapon. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again the detractors of the f22 main concern is cost, not performance. And the f35 is 90% based off of the f22, so taking that into consideration, they are crashing and burning when all they had to do was improve on the best air system ever created...A lot of R&D that went into the f22, the F35 is piggy backing off of, and the f35 is still the most expensive weapon system ever created. I also never said dump the f35, I clearly said until the f35 fixes their bugs, we definitely should not be putting all our eggs into the f35 basket, like we’re doing now. We should restart the f22 program. Perhaps even make a carrier launcable f22. We need a plane with power, and the only thing that makes the f35 more “versatile” is the vertical take off, and carrier take off versions...because it was designed that way, off of the f22. It’s supposed to be an upgrade, air to air, it blows in comparison. If it gets picked up by infrared SAM, it’s going to be shot down. It lacks power. It’s trying to use stealth to cover that up. Where gonna come to a moment where superior tech isn’t saving it, but hurting it, just like the missels early in the Vietnam war. We rellied too much on tech vs tactics that were thought to obsolete, and lost way too many superior planes to inferior ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine and I'm more then happy that they went with the F-35 , the F-22 is one dimensional and we also need a multi dimensional aircraft or different planes for each job that needs to be done. and yes I will take two F-35 over one f-22 as far as cost is concerned.I would also point out that there is no other active stealth fighters in the world at this point.
Click to expand...


All right.  Sorry, I'll assume you didn't intentionally say it hadn't been in combat.   My bad there.  

But you are asking about the two planes.   From what I've read, here's the bit.

The F-22 has it's role and need.  As do the Legacy fighters. We can't build 1000 F-22's but we need a very strong tip to that spear.  

Remember these planes are quite a bit different.  While the F35 is built to have air superiority, the F-22 takes that to another level.  F-35 is winning vs. legacy fighters 20:1.   F-22 is more like 150:1 when it is in those.  

Think of the F-22 as the F-35 built 25% better for air to air, 50% worse for everything else.  They put a MUCH more expensive and much more powerful radar in the F-22 for finding enemy planes.  They made it 25% faster, gave it 25% more range, 25% higher ceiling, made it 25% harder to detect.  

It's built better to be an interceptor.  It's built better to loiter for longer periods to provide continuous air defense.  It has the ability to fly above mach without afterburners, giving it a much better range at high speed. 

Think of it like the F-16 and F-15.   In air to air all things being equal the F15 would clobber the F-16.  (F-15 is something like 110 kills no losses in real air to air combat).   But the F-16 (before the strike eagles) was built to take on multiple roles.  It was built to operate off of forward bases.  It was built to be less expensive than the F-15 and cost less to upkeep.  2 similar but different key roles.  

The F-22 has a much more specialized role.  But a very key role as well.  Probably (hopefully) will never be needed to do what it really is built for, which is win a war vs. China or Russia.  

Think of them like 2 cars.   The F-35 is a BMW M-5.   It's pretty quick, it will get you and your family around in comfort, does relatively ok on gas mileage.   The F-22 is a McLaren MP4   It's uncomfortable, you don't want to drive it more than a couple hours at a time.   But while the M-5 isn't going to disappoint you at the track, it's not going to hold a candle to that McLaren.  

One of the biggest part of these planes is the advanced computer systems in them.  That's where the other legacy fighters and support ships and such come into play.  They can engage multiple targets on a 360 deg range.  One use for them is they never have to open their weapons bays.  They just slip in, pinpoint targets and let others from the back put long range weapons on target.  So one F-35 or F-22 might take out 20 enemy planes without ever firing a shot, letting SAM's or other beyond line of sight missiles do the dirty work and letting them stay hidden.  It's one major cost savings, we can still keep older fighters relevant, using them as the 22/35's long range weapons.


----------



## Slash

jbander said:


> Hell I don't care what you think you are or how you act , to me your just another Rube that's trying to say they know it all, Your ridiculous.



No, I am saying I don't know it all.  But you are saying things that are patently false.   And come on bro.  Quit with the name calling.  We aren't in 1st grade.


----------



## sakinago

Slash said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok these are old SAMs, not updated for stealth fighters, sure they’ll be just fine against a country like Libya...but it’s almost common knowledge you can still pick up stealth with infrared sensors, and infrared is getting more powerful by the day. You still need a jet that can climb, turn and run when it has too. I have a feeling this red flag training was more publicity stunt, than actual test. If it were an actual test, they’d use 4th gens with infrared sensors, that can spot up to 70km, less than radar sure, but still better than nothing. It just seems very advantageous that the f35 was seeing major problem after major problem, was criticized by trump, trump became president, told them to cut the budget for it, they remove an entire engine...and that somehow fixed the energy problems with the f35??? Doesn’t make sense. Flight isn’t a situation where you can do addition by subtraction of an engine providing energy....seems like a publicity stunt just like the navies new lasers shooting and setting plywood on fire and everyone clapping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones were old equipment?  Red flag see's the top aircraft of multiple nations.  Northern Lighting had the EA18 Growlers in the air and Sentinal systems on the ground.   Russia has those S400 systems all over Syria and in April after our cruise missile attacks hit and Russia was upset, the only planes we were sending in were the F22's and according to pilots they weren't getting noticed.   And that S400 is a pretty solid piece of hardware.
> 
> I'm just curious what you mean there because it sounds like again you are making things up.  What out of date SAM's were in use?
> 
> 
> Also I've been in quite a few military exercises.   They are run by the military not politicians.  We didn't lose to make some DOD exec or politician happy, I would really like to hear what you think may have been done if you are making that assertation because it seems way way out there.
Click to expand...

Infrared sensors are the cards being played close to chest. They weren’t years ago vs the typhoon, when the typhoon said “oh I can see you.” Stealth was gonna be stealth for only so long. It’ll work fine against guys like Iran or NK, but you need more than stealth, you still need a balls to the wall plane, that is the f22, sadly not the f35. I want the f35 to work, but if stealth tech is rendered close to useless by big players like China and Russia, and the plane severely lacks power to stand and actually fight...then it’s a waste of 85 million. It’s all based on you can’t see me, and I don’t need to be fast or maneuverable, but infrared throws a wrench into that. 

And sadly there’s been plenty of politics that’s been creeping into the military over the past few administrations. Lasers shooting at cardboard was seen as a successful test...


----------



## Slash

sakinago said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok these are old SAMs, not updated for stealth fighters, sure they’ll be just fine against a country like Libya...but it’s almost common knowledge you can still pick up stealth with infrared sensors, and infrared is getting more powerful by the day. You still need a jet that can climb, turn and run when it has too. I have a feeling this red flag training was more publicity stunt, than actual test. If it were an actual test, they’d use 4th gens with infrared sensors, that can spot up to 70km, less than radar sure, but still better than nothing. It just seems very advantageous that the f35 was seeing major problem after major problem, was criticized by trump, trump became president, told them to cut the budget for it, they remove an entire engine...and that somehow fixed the energy problems with the f35??? Doesn’t make sense. Flight isn’t a situation where you can do addition by subtraction of an engine providing energy....seems like a publicity stunt just like the navies new lasers shooting and setting plywood on fire and everyone clapping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones were old equipment?  Red flag see's the top aircraft of multiple nations.  Northern Lighting had the EA18 Growlers in the air and Sentinal systems on the ground.   Russia has those S400 systems all over Syria and in April after our cruise missile attacks hit and Russia was upset, the only planes we were sending in were the F22's and according to pilots they weren't getting noticed.   And that S400 is a pretty solid piece of hardware.
> 
> I'm just curious what you mean there because it sounds like again you are making things up.  What out of date SAM's were in use?
> 
> 
> Also I've been in quite a few military exercises.   They are run by the military not politicians.  We didn't lose to make some DOD exec or politician happy, I would really like to hear what you think may have been done if you are making that assertation because it seems way way out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Infrared sensors are the cards being played close to chest. They weren’t years ago vs the typhoon, when the typhoon said “oh I can see you.” Stealth was gonna be stealth for only so long. It’ll work fine against guys like Iran or NK, but you need more than stealth, you still need a balls to the wall plane, that is the f22, sadly not the f35. I want the f35 to work, but if stealth tech is rendered close to useless by big players like China and Russia, and the plane severely lacks power to stand and actually fight...then it’s a waste of 85 million. It’s all based on you can’t see me, and I don’t need to be fast or maneuverable, but infrared throws a wrench into that.
> 
> And sadly there’s been plenty of politics that’s been creeping into the military over the past few administrations. Lasers shooting at cardboard was seen as a successful test...
Click to expand...


Lasers at cardboard was a huge step forward for the military/DARPA.  I believe that has already stepped into laser destroying a drone and laser destroying a boat engine.  With weapons hitting hypersonic speeds, a defense system that can operate at the speed of light is pretty important in my opinion.  If we have weapons too fast for the sea sparrows and R2D2's on ships, that's the future right there.  Plus the cost savings.   I mean if we can use a $10 laser burst to take out a drone instead of a multimillion dollar missile, go for it.  

I agree infrared is huge.   And the design of those jets show how far they've come.  F-35 has something like the equivalent of 30,000 hp, and an infrared signature a fraction of a UH-60 with 425 shaft horsepower.   It's insane the tech that goes into those, baffles and coatings and all sorts of classified stuff.   Now of course IR in use is close range, low azimuth (small field of view to see through) It struggles more in day, humidity, etc.  

The big part to counter that is the avionics and situational awareness of the stealth planes.  Sure the enemy is out there looking through a straw for them.  But they are like a shark smelling that drop of blood from miles away.  Just because they might be spotted at closer distances, that doesn't mean that the F-35/22 would not have the ability to avoid or engage first.


----------



## sakinago

jbander said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile
> 
> Take you out long before you can see it
> 
> 
> 
> And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.
> 
> What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true at all. For it to have the cababilaty to shoot down 18 super hornets it would mean having a full load of
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile
> 
> Take you out long before you can see it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.
> 
> What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok you step up the stupid really quick , when people know everything, like you do ,what everyone else says is a lie. but you don't know what your talking about really, I'll quote you---"the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets," So to do that you would have a complete load of Aim-9 no other configuration will get you to 18 kills. Aims accuracy is limited, it's range is short and it is a Infrared weapon. So if they were within the range of the F-22 aim-9 then of course the aim 9 would be just as effective on the F-35's aim-9, plus the stealth means nothing in the f-22 at that range  considering the aim-9 is almost all infrared  stealth isn't worth didly squat when using infra red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never mind kid.  You got caught in a lie, you got upset that you got caught in a lie, tried to start another lie to divert attention and now you want to do the personal name calling thing.  Enjoy your day.  I don't really care to play the 4 year old name calling game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll quote you---"the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets," So to do that you would have a complete load of Aim-9 no other configuration will get you to 18 kills. Aims accuracy is limited, it's range is short and it is a Infrared weapon. So if they were within the range of the F-22 aim-9 then of course the aim 9 would be just as effective on the F-35's aim-9, plus the stealth means nothing in the f-22 at that range considering the aim-9 is almost all infrared stealth isn't worth didly squat when using infra red.
Click to expand...

A. I said that
B. You got that ass backwards. No the f22 wouldn’t need the Sidewinder, although it’ll work fine, but it’s picking up targets on radar, since non stealth shows up on radar. I’m talking about sensing the targets, you can’t shoot at what you can’t see, and cannot tell your missile to go after. We’re now upgrading all our 4th gen fighters with infrared SENSORS, because while the range isn’t as good as radar, it can pick up stealth targets. This is what I’m saying, the f35 is underpowered. The f22 isn’t. The f35 relies on stealth to cover up for the fact that it is underpowered. Which is fine going up against flankers from Iran, but you could put infrared sensors on a much older/cheaper phantom and it’d easily rival f35  (as long as it got in range with the shorter range infrared sensor). Now if we’re talking about the f35 going up against the j-20 (that will have infrared sensors)...that’s a waste of 85 million dollars. You could put sirens and ping the location of an f22, and it would still hold its own just fine against any 4th gen fighter out there. It’s designed to be an air superiority plane, to better at pretty much everything, and oh by the way it’s stealth too. The f35 is not designed to be a fighter, it’s more spy plane than fighter. And once it’s no longer stealthy, it’s pretty much useless. This is why I suspect (and know) the other 4th gen planes going up against the f35 didn’t have infrared, like they should have. F35 will be usable, just as long as the air is clear (where the f22 comes in) and is flying high enough (as long as we don’t keep making better and better IR sensors to replace radar, which we and everyone else are working on). This is why I’m saying we really really should not throw our eggs into the f35 basket. We already know stealth can be beaten.


----------



## sakinago

Slash said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.
> IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart.  it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
> You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value.  Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
> Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
> Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
> Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
> Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
> Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.
> 
> And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! *CDI Combat Critique:* Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-*Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
> Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
> Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension  weapon. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again the detractors of the f22 main concern is cost, not performance. And the f35 is 90% based off of the f22, so taking that into consideration, they are crashing and burning when all they had to do was improve on the best air system ever created...A lot of R&D that went into the f22, the F35 is piggy backing off of, and the f35 is still the most expensive weapon system ever created. I also never said dump the f35, I clearly said until the f35 fixes their bugs, we definitely should not be putting all our eggs into the f35 basket, like we’re doing now. We should restart the f22 program. Perhaps even make a carrier launcable f22. We need a plane with power, and the only thing that makes the f35 more “versatile” is the vertical take off, and carrier take off versions...because it was designed that way, off of the f22. It’s supposed to be an upgrade, air to air, it blows in comparison. If it gets picked up by infrared SAM, it’s going to be shot down. It lacks power. It’s trying to use stealth to cover that up. Where gonna come to a moment where superior tech isn’t saving it, but hurting it, just like the missels early in the Vietnam war. We rellied too much on tech vs tactics that were thought to obsolete, and lost way too many superior planes to inferior ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine and I'm more then happy that they went with the F-35 , the F-22 is one dimensional and we also need a multi dimensional aircraft or different planes for each job that needs to be done. and yes I will take two F-35 over one f-22 as far as cost is concerned.I would also point out that there is no other active stealth fighters in the world at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All right.  Sorry, I'll assume you didn't intentionally say it hadn't been in combat.   My bad there.
> 
> But you are asking about the two planes.   From what I've read, here's the bit.
> 
> The F-22 has it's role and need.  As do the Legacy fighters. We can't build 1000 F-22's but we need a very strong tip to that spear.
> 
> Remember these planes are quite a bit different.  While the F35 is built to have air superiority, the F-22 takes that to another level.  F-35 is winning vs. legacy fighters 20:1.   F-22 is more like 150:1 when it is in those.
> 
> Think of the F-22 as the F-35 built 25% better for air to air, 50% worse for everything else.  They put a MUCH more expensive and much more powerful radar in the F-22 for finding enemy planes.  They made it 25% faster, gave it 25% more range, 25% higher ceiling, made it 25% harder to detect.
> 
> It's built better to be an interceptor.  It's built better to loiter for longer periods to provide continuous air defense.  It has the ability to fly above mach without afterburners, giving it a much better range at high speed.
> 
> Think of it like the F-16 and F-15.   In air to air all things being equal the F15 would clobber the F-16.  (F-15 is something like 110 kills no losses in real air to air combat).   But the F-16 (before the strike eagles) was built to take on multiple roles.  It was built to operate off of forward bases.  It was built to be less expensive than the F-15 and cost less to upkeep.  2 similar but different key roles.
> 
> The F-22 has a much more specialized role.  But a very key role as well.  Probably (hopefully) will never be needed to do what it really is built for, which is win a war vs. China or Russia.
> 
> Think of them like 2 cars.   The F-35 is a BMW M-5.   It's pretty quick, it will get you and your family around in comfort, does relatively ok on gas mileage.   The F-22 is a McLaren MP4   It's uncomfortable, you don't want to drive it more than a couple hours at a time.   But while the M-5 isn't going to disappoint you at the track, it's not going to hold a candle to that McLaren.
> 
> One of the biggest part of these planes is the advanced computer systems in them.  That's where the other legacy fighters and support ships and such come into play.  They can engage multiple targets on a 360 deg range.  One use for them is they never have to open their weapons bays.  They just slip in, pinpoint targets and let others from the back put long range weapons on target.  So one F-35 or F-22 might take out 20 enemy planes without ever firing a shot, letting SAM's or other beyond line of sight missiles do the dirty work and letting them stay hidden.  It's one major cost savings, we can still keep older fighters relevant, using them as the 22/35's long range weapons.
Click to expand...

This is what I’m trying to explain to him...but we now have to remember that stealth isnt so stealthy anymore, and the f35 being so underpowered compared to 4th gens makes it very vulnerable in the future, if not present day. It’s only a matter of short time till infrared sensors get better and better, may not have a longer range than radar, but plenty long enough for a 4th gen fighter to take out the f35 without much trouble, or even to develop SAMs that can take out the f35 that wouldn’t be able to run like the f22. Take away the stealth on the f22, it’s still a great plane and can stand up to the best out there.


----------



## sakinago

Slash said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok these are old SAMs, not updated for stealth fighters, sure they’ll be just fine against a country like Libya...but it’s almost common knowledge you can still pick up stealth with infrared sensors, and infrared is getting more powerful by the day. You still need a jet that can climb, turn and run when it has too. I have a feeling this red flag training was more publicity stunt, than actual test. If it were an actual test, they’d use 4th gens with infrared sensors, that can spot up to 70km, less than radar sure, but still better than nothing. It just seems very advantageous that the f35 was seeing major problem after major problem, was criticized by trump, trump became president, told them to cut the budget for it, they remove an entire engine...and that somehow fixed the energy problems with the f35??? Doesn’t make sense. Flight isn’t a situation where you can do addition by subtraction of an engine providing energy....seems like a publicity stunt just like the navies new lasers shooting and setting plywood on fire and everyone clapping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones were old equipment?  Red flag see's the top aircraft of multiple nations.  Northern Lighting had the EA18 Growlers in the air and Sentinal systems on the ground.   Russia has those S400 systems all over Syria and in April after our cruise missile attacks hit and Russia was upset, the only planes we were sending in were the F22's and according to pilots they weren't getting noticed.   And that S400 is a pretty solid piece of hardware.
> 
> I'm just curious what you mean there because it sounds like again you are making things up.  What out of date SAM's were in use?
> 
> 
> Also I've been in quite a few military exercises.   They are run by the military not politicians.  We didn't lose to make some DOD exec or politician happy, I would really like to hear what you think may have been done if you are making that assertation because it seems way way out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Infrared sensors are the cards being played close to chest. They weren’t years ago vs the typhoon, when the typhoon said “oh I can see you.” Stealth was gonna be stealth for only so long. It’ll work fine against guys like Iran or NK, but you need more than stealth, you still need a balls to the wall plane, that is the f22, sadly not the f35. I want the f35 to work, but if stealth tech is rendered close to useless by big players like China and Russia, and the plane severely lacks power to stand and actually fight...then it’s a waste of 85 million. It’s all based on you can’t see me, and I don’t need to be fast or maneuverable, but infrared throws a wrench into that.
> 
> And sadly there’s been plenty of politics that’s been creeping into the military over the past few administrations. Lasers shooting at cardboard was seen as a successful test...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lasers at cardboard was a huge step forward for the military/DARPA.  I believe that has already stepped into laser destroying a drone and laser destroying a boat engine.  With weapons hitting hypersonic speeds, a defense system that can operate at the speed of light is pretty important in my opinion.  If we have weapons too fast for the sea sparrows and R2D2's on ships, that's the future right there.  Plus the cost savings.   I mean if we can use a $10 laser burst to take out a drone instead of a multimillion dollar missile, go for it.
> 
> I agree infrared is huge.   And the design of those jets show how far they've come.  F-35 has something like the equivalent of 30,000 hp, and an infrared signature a fraction of a UH-60 with 425 shaft horsepower.   It's insane the tech that goes into those, baffles and coatings and all sorts of classified stuff.   Now of course IR in use is close range, low azimuth (small field of view to see through) It struggles more in day, humidity, etc.
> 
> The big part to counter that is the avionics and situational awareness of the stealth planes.  Sure the enemy is out there looking through a straw for them.  But they are like a shark smelling that drop of blood from miles away.  Just because they might be spotted at closer distances, that doesn't mean that the F-35/22 would not have the ability to avoid or engage first.
Click to expand...

My whole point was lasers aren’t battle ready, like the they made it seem, that was a big ole propaganda project. Lasers aren’t close to being ready, and the energy needed to power an actually effective laser at this point makes it not worth it. And to be honest the rail gun going Mach 7 is fast enough to counter hypersonic weapons, and is way more practical and versatile than a pretty much strictly defensive laser. A defensive laser that really is only going to be effective against drones you can buy online. Lasers are also pretty easy to develop shielding against. You can’t however shield against straight up super high level kinetic energy. A rail gun does use a good bit of energy as well...but it performs. Not only can it blast targets out of the sky, but extends artillary range to 200 miles. It’s also very cheap....but rail guns aren’t all that exciting to the general public (that don’t really know what a rail gun is), lasers are. I’m excited about the rail gun, and am realistic when it comes to lasers. There’s plenty of counters to the laser, not really any conceivable ones to the rail gun, especially a rail gun with air burst, then it doesn’t even have to be as accurate as the laser, get it within 50 feet, it’ll do the rest.


----------



## jbander

Slash said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.
> IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart.  it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
> You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value.  Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
> Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
> Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
> Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
> Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
> Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.
> 
> And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! *CDI Combat Critique:* Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-*Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
> Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
> Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension  weapon. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again the detractors of the f22 main concern is cost, not performance. And the f35 is 90% based off of the f22, so taking that into consideration, they are crashing and burning when all they had to do was improve on the best air system ever created...A lot of R&D that went into the f22, the F35 is piggy backing off of, and the f35 is still the most expensive weapon system ever created. I also never said dump the f35, I clearly said until the f35 fixes their bugs, we definitely should not be putting all our eggs into the f35 basket, like we’re doing now. We should restart the f22 program. Perhaps even make a carrier launcable f22. We need a plane with power, and the only thing that makes the f35 more “versatile” is the vertical take off, and carrier take off versions...because it was designed that way, off of the f22. It’s supposed to be an upgrade, air to air, it blows in comparison. If it gets picked up by infrared SAM, it’s going to be shot down. It lacks power. It’s trying to use stealth to cover that up. Where gonna come to a moment where superior tech isn’t saving it, but hurting it, just like the missels early in the Vietnam war. We rellied too much on tech vs tactics that were thought to obsolete, and lost way too many superior planes to inferior ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine and I'm more then happy that they went with the F-35 , the F-22 is one dimensional and we also need a multi dimensional aircraft or different planes for each job that needs to be done. and yes I will take two F-35 over one f-22 as far as cost is concerned.I would also point out that there is no other active stealth fighters in the world at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All right.  Sorry, I'll assume you didn't intentionally say it hadn't been in combat.   My bad there.
> 
> But you are asking about the two planes.   From what I've read, here's the bit.
> 
> The F-22 has it's role and need.  As do the Legacy fighters. We can't build 1000 F-22's but we need a very strong tip to that spear.
> 
> Remember these planes are quite a bit different.  While the F35 is built to have air superiority, the F-22 takes that to another level.  F-35 is winning vs. legacy fighters 20:1.   F-22 is more like 150:1 when it is in those.
> 
> Think of the F-22 as the F-35 built 25% better for air to air, 50% worse for everything else.  They put a MUCH more expensive and much more powerful radar in the F-22 for finding enemy planes.  They made it 25% faster, gave it 25% more range, 25% higher ceiling, made it 25% harder to detect.
> 
> It's built better to be an interceptor.  It's built better to loiter for longer periods to provide continuous air defense.  It has the ability to fly above mach without afterburners, giving it a much better range at high speed.
> 
> Think of it like the F-16 and F-15.   In air to air all things being equal the F15 would clobber the F-16.  (F-15 is something like 110 kills no losses in real air to air combat).   But the F-16 (before the strike eagles) was built to take on multiple roles.  It was built to operate off of forward bases.  It was built to be less expensive than the F-15 and cost less to upkeep.  2 similar but different key roles.
> 
> The F-22 has a much more specialized role.  But a very key role as well.  Probably (hopefully) will never be needed to do what it really is built for, which is win a war vs. China or Russia.
> 
> Think of them like 2 cars.   The F-35 is a BMW M-5.   It's pretty quick, it will get you and your family around in comfort, does relatively ok on gas mileage.   The F-22 is a McLaren MP4   It's uncomfortable, you don't want to drive it more than a couple hours at a time.   But while the M-5 isn't going to disappoint you at the track, it's not going to hold a candle to that McLaren.
> 
> One of the biggest part of these planes is the advanced computer systems in them.  That's where the other legacy fighters and support ships and such come into play.  They can engage multiple targets on a 360 deg range.  One use for them is they never have to open their weapons bays.  They just slip in, pinpoint targets and let others from the back put long range weapons on target.  So one F-35 or F-22 might take out 20 enemy planes without ever firing a shot, letting SAM's or other beyond line of sight missiles do the dirty work and letting them stay hidden.  It's one major cost savings, we can still keep older fighters relevant, using them as the 22/35's long range weapons.
Click to expand...

 They are two totally different planes, the F-22 is Better in speed, love the speed without the after burner, Altitude, range of their radar system and I believe even though it has comparable payload, I believe that even though they run the same system , the F-22 has weapons with extended range. to go along with it radar. The advantage of the F-35 is you get close to two planes for the price of one F-22 and their working cost is half what the working cost are with the F-22. The thrust vectoring in the f-22 and it's heavier wing load capacity for the F-22 Can only be used in a conventional dog fight . And if this pane is at that point it totally missed what it was designed for. I like both planes a lot but at this point I'll take the two F-35's over the one f-22. The real point in all this is not comparing numbers with any other country as far as all weaponry is concerned , its the massive arsenal with way higher numbers of newer way better equipment  and training.


----------



## jbander

sakinago said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile
> 
> Take you out long before you can see it
> 
> 
> 
> And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.
> 
> What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true at all. For it to have the cababilaty to shoot down 18 super hornets it would mean having a full load of
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile
> 
> Take you out long before you can see it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.
> 
> What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok you step up the stupid really quick , when people know everything, like you do ,what everyone else says is a lie. but you don't know what your talking about really, I'll quote you---"the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets," So to do that you would have a complete load of Aim-9 no other configuration will get you to 18 kills. Aims accuracy is limited, it's range is short and it is a Infrared weapon. So if they were within the range of the F-22 aim-9 then of course the aim 9 would be just as effective on the F-35's aim-9, plus the stealth means nothing in the f-22 at that range  considering the aim-9 is almost all infrared  stealth isn't worth didly squat when using infra red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never mind kid.  You got caught in a lie, you got upset that you got caught in a lie, tried to start another lie to divert attention and now you want to do the personal name calling thing.  Enjoy your day.  I don't really care to play the 4 year old name calling game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll quote you---"the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets," So to do that you would have a complete load of Aim-9 no other configuration will get you to 18 kills. Aims accuracy is limited, it's range is short and it is a Infrared weapon. So if they were within the range of the F-22 aim-9 then of course the aim 9 would be just as effective on the F-35's aim-9, plus the stealth means nothing in the f-22 at that range considering the aim-9 is almost all infrared stealth isn't worth didly squat when using infra red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A. I said that
> B. You got that ass backwards. No the f22 wouldn’t need the Sidewinder, although it’ll work fine, but it’s picking up targets on radar, since non stealth shows up on radar. I’m talking about sensing the targets, you can’t shoot at what you can’t see, and cannot tell your missile to go after. We’re now upgrading all our 4th gen fighters with infrared SENSORS, because while the range isn’t as good as radar, it can pick up stealth targets. This is what I’m saying, the f35 is underpowered. The f22 isn’t. The f35 relies on stealth to cover up for the fact that it is underpowered. Which is fine going up against flankers from Iran, but you could put infrared sensors on a much older/cheaper phantom and it’d easily rival f35  (as long as it got in range with the shorter range infrared sensor). Now if we’re talking about the f35 going up against the j-20 (that will have infrared sensors)...that’s a waste of 85 million dollars. You could put sirens and ping the location of an f22, and it would still hold its own just fine against any 4th gen fighter out there. It’s designed to be an air superiority plane, to better at pretty much everything, and oh by the way it’s stealth too. The f35 is not designed to be a fighter, it’s more spy plane than fighter. And once it’s no longer stealthy, it’s pretty much useless. This is why I suspect (and know) the other 4th gen planes going up against the f35 didn’t have infrared, like they should have. F35 will be usable, just as long as the air is clear (where the f22 comes in) and is flying high enough (as long as we don’t keep making better and better IR sensors to replace radar, which we and everyone else are working on). This is why I’m saying we really really should not throw our eggs into the f35 basket. We already know stealth can be beaten.
Click to expand...

 Don't try to sell  crap here, you said that The F-22 could take on 8 f-18 super  hornets" YOUR QUOTE-"the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets," "
       Now read closely the only way the F-22 can take on 8 super hornets. as you say. is when their total payload was all Aim -9 nothing else, that is the only configuration that would be capable to do what you said. OK do you understand that. If you do then I'lll add that the aim-9 is a short distance weapon that is Infrared. So it would be very close to the F-18, do you understand that, so the stealth on the f-22 means nothing at visual contact with weapon other then a radar guided missile.  The F-18 has a good chance of winning this scenario. Because the F-18 has a higher wing load then the F-22  and  the F-22  doesn't use a Helmet Mounted Symbology System. and 3,4,5 hornest will handle a F-22


----------



## sakinago

jbander said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
> Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
> Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
> Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
> Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
> Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.
> 
> And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.
> 
> 
> 
> So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! *CDI Combat Critique:* Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-*Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
> Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
> Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension  weapon. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again the detractors of the f22 main concern is cost, not performance. And the f35 is 90% based off of the f22, so taking that into consideration, they are crashing and burning when all they had to do was improve on the best air system ever created...A lot of R&D that went into the f22, the F35 is piggy backing off of, and the f35 is still the most expensive weapon system ever created. I also never said dump the f35, I clearly said until the f35 fixes their bugs, we definitely should not be putting all our eggs into the f35 basket, like we’re doing now. We should restart the f22 program. Perhaps even make a carrier launcable f22. We need a plane with power, and the only thing that makes the f35 more “versatile” is the vertical take off, and carrier take off versions...because it was designed that way, off of the f22. It’s supposed to be an upgrade, air to air, it blows in comparison. If it gets picked up by infrared SAM, it’s going to be shot down. It lacks power. It’s trying to use stealth to cover that up. Where gonna come to a moment where superior tech isn’t saving it, but hurting it, just like the missels early in the Vietnam war. We rellied too much on tech vs tactics that were thought to obsolete, and lost way too many superior planes to inferior ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine and I'm more then happy that they went with the F-35 , the F-22 is one dimensional and we also need a multi dimensional aircraft or different planes for each job that needs to be done. and yes I will take two F-35 over one f-22 as far as cost is concerned.I would also point out that there is no other active stealth fighters in the world at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All right.  Sorry, I'll assume you didn't intentionally say it hadn't been in combat.   My bad there.
> 
> But you are asking about the two planes.   From what I've read, here's the bit.
> 
> The F-22 has it's role and need.  As do the Legacy fighters. We can't build 1000 F-22's but we need a very strong tip to that spear.
> 
> Remember these planes are quite a bit different.  While the F35 is built to have air superiority, the F-22 takes that to another level.  F-35 is winning vs. legacy fighters 20:1.   F-22 is more like 150:1 when it is in those.
> 
> Think of the F-22 as the F-35 built 25% better for air to air, 50% worse for everything else.  They put a MUCH more expensive and much more powerful radar in the F-22 for finding enemy planes.  They made it 25% faster, gave it 25% more range, 25% higher ceiling, made it 25% harder to detect.
> 
> It's built better to be an interceptor.  It's built better to loiter for longer periods to provide continuous air defense.  It has the ability to fly above mach without afterburners, giving it a much better range at high speed.
> 
> Think of it like the F-16 and F-15.   In air to air all things being equal the F15 would clobber the F-16.  (F-15 is something like 110 kills no losses in real air to air combat).   But the F-16 (before the strike eagles) was built to take on multiple roles.  It was built to operate off of forward bases.  It was built to be less expensive than the F-15 and cost less to upkeep.  2 similar but different key roles.
> 
> The F-22 has a much more specialized role.  But a very key role as well.  Probably (hopefully) will never be needed to do what it really is built for, which is win a war vs. China or Russia.
> 
> Think of them like 2 cars.   The F-35 is a BMW M-5.   It's pretty quick, it will get you and your family around in comfort, does relatively ok on gas mileage.   The F-22 is a McLaren MP4   It's uncomfortable, you don't want to drive it more than a couple hours at a time.   But while the M-5 isn't going to disappoint you at the track, it's not going to hold a candle to that McLaren.
> 
> One of the biggest part of these planes is the advanced computer systems in them.  That's where the other legacy fighters and support ships and such come into play.  They can engage multiple targets on a 360 deg range.  One use for them is they never have to open their weapons bays.  They just slip in, pinpoint targets and let others from the back put long range weapons on target.  So one F-35 or F-22 might take out 20 enemy planes without ever firing a shot, letting SAM's or other beyond line of sight missiles do the dirty work and letting them stay hidden.  It's one major cost savings, we can still keep older fighters relevant, using them as the 22/35's long range weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are two totally different planes, the F-22 is Better in speed, love the speed without the after burner, Altitude, range of their radar system and I believe even though it has comparable payload, I believe that even though they run the same system , the F-22 has weapons with extended range. to go along with it radar. The advantage of the F-35 is you get close to two planes for the price of one F-22 and their working cost is half what the working cost are with the F-22. The thrust vectoring in the f-22 and it's heavier wing load capacity for the F-22 Can only be used in a conventional dog fight . And if this pane is at that point it totally missed what it was designed for. I like both planes a lot but at this point I'll take the two F-35's over the one f-22. The real point in all this is not comparing numbers with any other country as far as all weaponry is concerned , its the massive arsenal with way higher numbers of newer way better equipment  and training.
Click to expand...

And that’s what the f22 was designed to do, as the first stealth fighter created a couple decades before any other country. But there’s no reason to not repurpose it for other roles. My whole problem with the f35 is that it’s severely underpowered compared to 4th gens. And it uses stealth to mask that problem...the problem is stealth is already being countered, and the counter stealth tech is only going to get better. When it does, the f35 becomes a sitting duck, thus a waste of 85 million. F22 without stealth still outperforms all other 4th gens. What I’m saying is, we should at the very least definitely make more f22s, and should heavily consider pivoting it to JS-Type plane, with at the very least carrier launch capability. If in 5 years stealth is rendered useless by more tech savvy countries the f22 is still useable, the f35 is screwed, and is a waste of 2000 planes at 85 million a pop.


----------



## jbander

sakinago said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! *CDI Combat Critique:* Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-*Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
> Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
> Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension  weapon. *
> 
> 
> 
> Again the detractors of the f22 main concern is cost, not performance. And the f35 is 90% based off of the f22, so taking that into consideration, they are crashing and burning when all they had to do was improve on the best air system ever created...A lot of R&D that went into the f22, the F35 is piggy backing off of, and the f35 is still the most expensive weapon system ever created. I also never said dump the f35, I clearly said until the f35 fixes their bugs, we definitely should not be putting all our eggs into the f35 basket, like we’re doing now. We should restart the f22 program. Perhaps even make a carrier launcable f22. We need a plane with power, and the only thing that makes the f35 more “versatile” is the vertical take off, and carrier take off versions...because it was designed that way, off of the f22. It’s supposed to be an upgrade, air to air, it blows in comparison. If it gets picked up by infrared SAM, it’s going to be shot down. It lacks power. It’s trying to use stealth to cover that up. Where gonna come to a moment where superior tech isn’t saving it, but hurting it, just like the missels early in the Vietnam war. We rellied too much on tech vs tactics that were thought to obsolete, and lost way too many superior planes to inferior ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine and I'm more then happy that they went with the F-35 , the F-22 is one dimensional and we also need a multi dimensional aircraft or different planes for each job that needs to be done. and yes I will take two F-35 over one f-22 as far as cost is concerned.I would also point out that there is no other active stealth fighters in the world at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All right.  Sorry, I'll assume you didn't intentionally say it hadn't been in combat.   My bad there.
> 
> But you are asking about the two planes.   From what I've read, here's the bit.
> 
> The F-22 has it's role and need.  As do the Legacy fighters. We can't build 1000 F-22's but we need a very strong tip to that spear.
> 
> Remember these planes are quite a bit different.  While the F35 is built to have air superiority, the F-22 takes that to another level.  F-35 is winning vs. legacy fighters 20:1.   F-22 is more like 150:1 when it is in those.
> 
> Think of the F-22 as the F-35 built 25% better for air to air, 50% worse for everything else.  They put a MUCH more expensive and much more powerful radar in the F-22 for finding enemy planes.  They made it 25% faster, gave it 25% more range, 25% higher ceiling, made it 25% harder to detect.
> 
> It's built better to be an interceptor.  It's built better to loiter for longer periods to provide continuous air defense.  It has the ability to fly above mach without afterburners, giving it a much better range at high speed.
> 
> Think of it like the F-16 and F-15.   In air to air all things being equal the F15 would clobber the F-16.  (F-15 is something like 110 kills no losses in real air to air combat).   But the F-16 (before the strike eagles) was built to take on multiple roles.  It was built to operate off of forward bases.  It was built to be less expensive than the F-15 and cost less to upkeep.  2 similar but different key roles.
> 
> The F-22 has a much more specialized role.  But a very key role as well.  Probably (hopefully) will never be needed to do what it really is built for, which is win a war vs. China or Russia.
> 
> Think of them like 2 cars.   The F-35 is a BMW M-5.   It's pretty quick, it will get you and your family around in comfort, does relatively ok on gas mileage.   The F-22 is a McLaren MP4   It's uncomfortable, you don't want to drive it more than a couple hours at a time.   But while the M-5 isn't going to disappoint you at the track, it's not going to hold a candle to that McLaren.
> 
> One of the biggest part of these planes is the advanced computer systems in them.  That's where the other legacy fighters and support ships and such come into play.  They can engage multiple targets on a 360 deg range.  One use for them is they never have to open their weapons bays.  They just slip in, pinpoint targets and let others from the back put long range weapons on target.  So one F-35 or F-22 might take out 20 enemy planes without ever firing a shot, letting SAM's or other beyond line of sight missiles do the dirty work and letting them stay hidden.  It's one major cost savings, we can still keep older fighters relevant, using them as the 22/35's long range weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are two totally different planes, the F-22 is Better in speed, love the speed without the after burner, Altitude, range of their radar system and I believe even though it has comparable payload, I believe that even though they run the same system , the F-22 has weapons with extended range. to go along with it radar. The advantage of the F-35 is you get close to two planes for the price of one F-22 and their working cost is half what the working cost are with the F-22. The thrust vectoring in the f-22 and it's heavier wing load capacity for the F-22 Can only be used in a conventional dog fight . And if this pane is at that point it totally missed what it was designed for. I like both planes a lot but at this point I'll take the two F-35's over the one f-22. The real point in all this is not comparing numbers with any other country as far as all weaponry is concerned , its the massive arsenal with way higher numbers of newer way better equipment  and training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that’s what the f22 was designed to do, as the first stealth fighter created a couple decades before any other country. But there’s no reason to not repurpose it for other roles. My whole problem with the f35 is that it’s severely underpowered compared to 4th gens. And it uses stealth to mask that problem...the problem is stealth is already being countered, and the counter stealth tech is only going to get better. When it does, the f35 becomes a sitting duck, thus a waste of 85 million. F22 without stealth still outperforms all other 4th gens. What I’m saying is, we should at the very least definitely make more f22s, and should heavily consider pivoting it to JS-Type plane, with at the very least carrier launch capability. If in 5 years stealth is rendered useless by more tech savvy countries the f22 is still useable, the f35 is screwed, and is a waste of 2000 planes at 85 million a pop.
Click to expand...

 You can't make your case with bullshit, Stealth in no way will be dead of 5 years.  Hell in five years Russia and China will have  less Stealth aircraft  then we do and will still be  15 years behind us in technology at the closest. ,  You don't seem to get this we have 187 active F-22 no one else has any.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

MikeK said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> We went to war in Iraq because because Iraq had attacked and occupied Kuwait.
> 
> 
> 
> What we "went to" in Iraq was not a _war_ in the accepted sense of the word.  What we did was invade a nation which we'd already betrayed and double-crossed by deliberate deception as to our concern over Hussein's actions re: Kuwait's theft of Iraqi oil.  With Saudi Arabia's interests secretly in mind, and having told Hussein we were not concerned with his actions against Kuwait, H.W. Bush waited until the Iraqi Army entered and secured Kuwait, he then evicted the Iraqis and in an action which is considered an infamous display of unlawful military action (look it up) he ordered the retreating Iraqi Army, which consisted mainly of poorly trained, virtually defenseless conscripts, _slaughtered_ on what has been named the _"Highway of Death."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We went back into Iraq because Iraq refused to honor the ceasefire that resulting in our leaving  leaving the first time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean by, "We went _back_ into Iraq?"  All we did was chase what was left of the Iraqi Army back to Iraq after mercilessly and unnecessarily slaughtering them on "Highway of Death."  But we didn't inhabit Iraq then.  W. Bush went into (invaded) and occupied Iraq only after fabricating the _"Weapons of Mass Destruction"_ lies.
> 
> You really have no idea what you are talking about.  If you actually served in the Middle East I suggest you are just one more ignorant, misused _grunt_ who swallowed every lump of deceitful bullshit served to you by the likes of W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, et al.  You just don't want to know that you were duped into participating in one of the most egregious war-crimes in modern military history -- but you do your best to attach some level of glory to it.
> 
> If you'd care to research the facts leading to our present predicament, and the shameful waste of life and resources leading up to it, you will find that we have methodically created the terrorism we're dealing with today.
Click to expand...


I find it almost impossible to understand how anyone could so debase themselves by spouting, on a public forum, such a litany of lies propaganda and fantasy history in a pathetic effort to defend one of the most evil and bloodthirsty regimes in world history. 
Saddam overran Kuwait because he wanted to steal it's oil fields and port. Necked unabashed aggression and Imperialism. Of course he was also seriously into rape and pillage.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> We went to war in Iraq because because Iraq had attacked and occupied Kuwait.
> 
> 
> 
> What we "went to" in Iraq was not a _war_ in the accepted sense of the word.  What we did was invade a nation which we'd already betrayed and double-crossed by deliberate deception as to our concern over Hussein's actions re: Kuwait's theft of Iraqi oil.  With Saudi Arabia's interests secretly in mind, and having told Hussein we were not concerned with his actions against Kuwait, H.W. Bush waited until the Iraqi Army entered and secured Kuwait, he then evicted the Iraqis and in an action which is considered an infamous display of unlawful military action (look it up) he ordered the retreating Iraqi Army, which consisted mainly of poorly trained, virtually defenseless conscripts, _slaughtered_ on what has been named the _"Highway of Death."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We went back into Iraq because Iraq refused to honor the ceasefire that resulting in our leaving  leaving the first time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean by, "We went _back_ into Iraq?"  All we did was chase what was left of the Iraqi Army back to Iraq after mercilessly and unnecessarily slaughtering them on "Highway of Death."  But we didn't inhabit Iraq then.  W. Bush went into (invaded) and occupied Iraq only after fabricating the _"Weapons of Mass Destruction"_ lies.
> 
> You really have no idea what you are talking about.  If you actually served in the Middle East I suggest you are just one more ignorant, misused _grunt_ who swallowed every lump of deceitful bullshit served to you by the likes of W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, et al.  You just don't want to know that you were duped into participating in one of the most egregious war-crimes in modern military history -- but you do your best to attach some level of glory to it.
> 
> If you'd care to research the facts leading to our present predicament, and the shameful waste of life and resources leading up to it, you will find that we have methodically created the terrorism we're dealing with today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it almost impossible to understand how anyone could so debase themselves by spouting, on a public forum, such a litany of lies propaganda and fantasy history in a pathetic effort to defend one of the most evil and bloodthirsty regimes in world history.
> Saddam overran Kuwait because he wanted to steal it's oil fields and port. Necked unabashed aggression and Imperialism. Of course he was also seriously into rape and pillage.
Click to expand...

 This guy is straight out stupid , you want to know how stupid , look up "code name curve ball" associated with the Iraq war . You will see that as usual this worthless commenter  is selling bullshit.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> We went to war in Iraq because because Iraq had attacked and occupied Kuwait.
> 
> 
> 
> What we "went to" in Iraq was not a _war_ in the accepted sense of the word.  What we did was invade a nation which we'd already betrayed and double-crossed by deliberate deception as to our concern over Hussein's actions re: Kuwait's theft of Iraqi oil.  With Saudi Arabia's interests secretly in mind, and having told Hussein we were not concerned with his actions against Kuwait, H.W. Bush waited until the Iraqi Army entered and secured Kuwait, he then evicted the Iraqis and in an action which is considered an infamous display of unlawful military action (look it up) he ordered the retreating Iraqi Army, which consisted mainly of poorly trained, virtually defenseless conscripts, _slaughtered_ on what has been named the _"Highway of Death."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We went back into Iraq because Iraq refused to honor the ceasefire that resulting in our leaving  leaving the first time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean by, "We went _back_ into Iraq?"  All we did was chase what was left of the Iraqi Army back to Iraq after mercilessly and unnecessarily slaughtering them on "Highway of Death."  But we didn't inhabit Iraq then.  W. Bush went into (invaded) and occupied Iraq only after fabricating the _"Weapons of Mass Destruction"_ lies.
> 
> You really have no idea what you are talking about.  If you actually served in the Middle East I suggest you are just one more ignorant, misused _grunt_ who swallowed every lump of deceitful bullshit served to you by the likes of W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, et al.  You just don't want to know that you were duped into participating in one of the most egregious war-crimes in modern military history -- but you do your best to attach some level of glory to it.
> 
> If you'd care to research the facts leading to our present predicament, and the shameful waste of life and resources leading up to it, you will find that we have methodically created the terrorism we're dealing with today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it almost impossible to understand how anyone could so debase themselves by spouting, on a public forum, such a litany of lies propaganda and fantasy history in a pathetic effort to defend one of the most evil and bloodthirsty regimes in world history.
> Saddam overran Kuwait because he wanted to steal it's oil fields and port. Necked unabashed aggression and Imperialism. Of course he was also seriously into rape and pillage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This guy is straight out stupid , you want to know how stupid , look up "code name curve ball" associated with the Iraq war . You will see that as usual this worthless commenter  is selling bullshit.
Click to expand...


Ahhh yes, once again talking shit without evidence or support. No link. Big surprise.


----------



## MikeK

jbander said:


> This guy is straight out stupid , you want to know how stupid , look up "code name curve ball" associated with the Iraq war . You will see that as usual this worthless commenter  is selling bullshit.


The fact that this _"9thIDdoc"_ nitwit feels the need to introduce himself with a military avatar says all we need to know about him.  If his military service is all he has going for him it follows that the last thing he wants to hear is the truth about it.  He needs to believe Saddam Hussein was the worst person in the world and what he helped do to him was nothing but glorious.  

So telling this jerk-off the truth about the Bush dynasty's destruction of Iraq is like telling a retarded ten year-old there is no Santa Claus.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> We went to war in Iraq because because Iraq had attacked and occupied Kuwait.
> 
> 
> 
> What we "went to" in Iraq was not a _war_ in the accepted sense of the word.  What we did was invade a nation which we'd already betrayed and double-crossed by deliberate deception as to our concern over Hussein's actions re: Kuwait's theft of Iraqi oil.  With Saudi Arabia's interests secretly in mind, and having told Hussein we were not concerned with his actions against Kuwait, H.W. Bush waited until the Iraqi Army entered and secured Kuwait, he then evicted the Iraqis and in an action which is considered an infamous display of unlawful military action (look it up) he ordered the retreating Iraqi Army, which consisted mainly of poorly trained, virtually defenseless conscripts, _slaughtered_ on what has been named the _"Highway of Death."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We went back into Iraq because Iraq refused to honor the ceasefire that resulting in our leaving  leaving the first time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean by, "We went _back_ into Iraq?"  All we did was chase what was left of the Iraqi Army back to Iraq after mercilessly and unnecessarily slaughtering them on "Highway of Death."  But we didn't inhabit Iraq then.  W. Bush went into (invaded) and occupied Iraq only after fabricating the _"Weapons of Mass Destruction"_ lies.
> 
> You really have no idea what you are talking about.  If you actually served in the Middle East I suggest you are just one more ignorant, misused _grunt_ who swallowed every lump of deceitful bullshit served to you by the likes of W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, et al.  You just don't want to know that you were duped into participating in one of the most egregious war-crimes in modern military history -- but you do your best to attach some level of glory to it.
> 
> If you'd care to research the facts leading to our present predicament, and the shameful waste of life and resources leading up to it, you will find that we have methodically created the terrorism we're dealing with today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it almost impossible to understand how anyone could so debase themselves by spouting, on a public forum, such a litany of lies propaganda and fantasy history in a pathetic effort to defend one of the most evil and bloodthirsty regimes in world history.
> Saddam overran Kuwait because he wanted to steal it's oil fields and port. Necked unabashed aggression and Imperialism. Of course he was also seriously into rape and pillage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This guy is straight out stupid , you want to know how stupid , look up "code name curve ball" associated with the Iraq war . You will see that as usual this worthless commenter  is selling bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh yes, once again talking shit without evidence or support. No link. Big surprise.
Click to expand...

Hey brain dead , you want me to pick the source for you , I can but you will get a broader chose if you pick the source yourself.    Brain dead people don't know that though. I ran"code name curve ball" in three search engines just to explain to everyone how stupid you are. I got  over a million hits in all three.  For the people that are one step above brain dead , look it up yourself, you will get a amazing broad view of stupidity and the lies that Bush the baby killer used to get us into the liars war. Where he Murdered 5000 American heroes


----------



## rightwinger

MikeK said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy is straight out stupid , you want to know how stupid , look up "code name curve ball" associated with the Iraq war . You will see that as usual this worthless commenter  is selling bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this _"9thIDdoc"_ nitwit feels the need to introduce himself with a military avatar says all we need to know about him.  If his military service is all he has going for him it follows that the last thing he wants to hear is the truth about it.  He needs to believe Saddam Hussein was the worst person in the world and what he helped do to him was nothing but glorious.
> 
> So telling this jerk-off the truth about the Bush dynasty's destruction of Iraq is like telling a retarded ten year-old there is no Santa Claus.
Click to expand...

It's a classic double down on killing soldiers

Vietnam was the high point

We can't admit we made a mistake. That would mean soldiers died in vain. So the patriotic thing to do is keep sending in more soldiers so that hopefully, a victory will vindicate your mistake


----------



## 9thIDdoc

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> We went to war in Iraq because because Iraq had attacked and occupied Kuwait.
> 
> 
> 
> What we "went to" in Iraq was not a _war_ in the accepted sense of the word.  What we did was invade a nation which we'd already betrayed and double-crossed by deliberate deception as to our concern over Hussein's actions re: Kuwait's theft of Iraqi oil.  With Saudi Arabia's interests secretly in mind, and having told Hussein we were not concerned with his actions against Kuwait, H.W. Bush waited until the Iraqi Army entered and secured Kuwait, he then evicted the Iraqis and in an action which is considered an infamous display of unlawful military action (look it up) he ordered the retreating Iraqi Army, which consisted mainly of poorly trained, virtually defenseless conscripts, _slaughtered_ on what has been named the _"Highway of Death."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We went back into Iraq because Iraq refused to honor the ceasefire that resulting in our leaving  leaving the first time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean by, "We went _back_ into Iraq?"  All we did was chase what was left of the Iraqi Army back to Iraq after mercilessly and unnecessarily slaughtering them on "Highway of Death."  But we didn't inhabit Iraq then.  W. Bush went into (invaded) and occupied Iraq only after fabricating the _"Weapons of Mass Destruction"_ lies.
> 
> You really have no idea what you are talking about.  If you actually served in the Middle East I suggest you are just one more ignorant, misused _grunt_ who swallowed every lump of deceitful bullshit served to you by the likes of W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, et al.  You just don't want to know that you were duped into participating in one of the most egregious war-crimes in modern military history -- but you do your best to attach some level of glory to it.
> 
> If you'd care to research the facts leading to our present predicament, and the shameful waste of life and resources leading up to it, you will find that we have methodically created the terrorism we're dealing with today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it almost impossible to understand how anyone could so debase themselves by spouting, on a public forum, such a litany of lies propaganda and fantasy history in a pathetic effort to defend one of the most evil and bloodthirsty regimes in world history.
> Saddam overran Kuwait because he wanted to steal it's oil fields and port. Necked unabashed aggression and Imperialism. Of course he was also seriously into rape and pillage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This guy is straight out stupid , you want to know how stupid , look up "code name curve ball" associated with the Iraq war . You will see that as usual this worthless commenter  is selling bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh yes, once again talking shit without evidence or support. No link. Big surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey brain dead , you want me to pick the source for you , I can but you will get a broader chose if you pick the source yourself.    Brain dead people don't know that though. I ran"code name curve ball" in three search engines just to explain to everyone how stupid you are. I got  over a million hits in all three.  For the people that are one step above brain dead , look it up yourself, you will get a amazing broad view of stupidity and the lies that Bush the baby killer used to get us into the liars war. Where he Murdered 5000 American heroes
Click to expand...


Really? Dam shame you aren't intelligent enough to bring any evidence or support to this forum.


----------



## MikeK

MikeK said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy is straight out stupid , you want to know how stupid , look up "code name curve ball" associated with the Iraq war . You will see that as usual this worthless commenter  is selling bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this _"9thIDdoc"_ nitwit feels the need to introduce himself with a military avatar says all we need to know about him.  If his military service is all he has going for him it follows that the last thing he wants to hear is the truth about it.  He needs to believe Saddam Hussein was the worst person in the world and what he helped do to him was nothing but glorious.
> 
> So telling this jerk-off the truth about the Bush dynasty's destruction of Iraq is like telling a retarded ten year-old there is no Santa Claus.
Click to expand...


----------



## MikeK

jbander said:


> ]Hey brain dead , you want me to pick the source for you , I can but you will get a broader chose if you pick the source yourself.    Brain dead people don't know that though. I ran"code name curve ball" in three search engines just to explain to everyone how stupid you are. I got  over a million hits in all three.  For the people that are one step above brain dead , look it up yourself, you will get a amazing broad view of stupidity and the lies that Bush the baby killer used to get us into the liars war. Where he Murdered 5000 American heroes


Not to mention the thousands of innocent Iraqis, both military and civilian, including innocent women and their infants, babies asleep in their cribs, when we bombed Baghdad.  We've been paying for that earned hatred ever since, every time an American is killed in the Middle East.  The relatives and lovers of those dead soldiers have another holiday time to mourn them, thanks to Bush 1&2, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and others who conspired to create the _WMD_ lie.  

Saddam Hussein had only one enemy who was justifiably fearful of him. 












And we took care of that.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

MikeK said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy is straight out stupid , you want to know how stupid , look up "code name curve ball" associated with the Iraq war . You will see that as usual this worthless commenter  is selling bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this _"9thIDdoc"_ nitwit feels the need to introduce himself with a military avatar says all we need to know about him.  If his military service is all he has going for him it follows that the last thing he wants to hear is the truth about it.  He needs to believe Saddam Hussein was the worst person in the world and what he helped do to him was nothing but glorious.
> 
> So telling this jerk-off the truth about the Bush dynasty's destruction of Iraq is like telling a retarded ten year-old there is no Santa Claus.
Click to expand...


Gosh, does that mean you feel the need to introduce yourself with your name and that's supposed to impress us?
Fact of the matter is that I am indeed proud of my service to my country my fellow Americans and most especially my fellow soldiers. I have had the balls to stand up and do the right thing. I take it as a given that your jeers disrespect and slander are used to disguise the fact of your craven cowardice.
I served in Vietnam as a Combat Medic with a Mech. Infantry Bn. People are alive today because I was there for them. Or their father. Or their grandfather. I have made a difference. How about you?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

DrLove said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand it either. *A conventional military is not how wars will be fought in the future. *We could close at least half our bases and stop making tanks and ground crap such as that. Also cut it with the Trumpian interventionist, warmongering bluster and hubris.
> 
> The only thing areas that need additional money are covert ops, drones, and much better cyber intel. Do all that, and we could cut the bloated military budget in half and be far safer than we are now.
Click to expand...



Many people said the same thing in 1945.  They were just as wrong then as you are now.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

DrLove said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.
Click to expand...



...and then you woke up and realized that everything you wrote is BULLSHIT.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

MikeK said:


> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]Hey brain dead , you want me to pick the source for you , I can but you will get a broader chose if you pick the source yourself.    Brain dead people don't know that though. I ran"code name curve ball" in three search engines just to explain to everyone how stupid you are. I got  over a million hits in all three.  For the people that are one step above brain dead , look it up yourself, you will get a amazing broad view of stupidity and the lies that Bush the baby killer used to get us into the liars war. Where he Murdered 5000 American heroes
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the thousands of innocent Iraqis, both military and civilian, including innocent women and their infants, babies asleep in their cribs, when we bombed Baghdad.  We've been paying for that earned hatred ever since, every time an American is killed in the Middle East.  The relatives and lovers of those dead soldiers have another holiday time to mourn them, thanks to Bush 1&2, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and others who conspired to create the _WMD_ lie.
> 
> Saddam Hussein had only one enemy who was justifiably fearful of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we took care of that.
Click to expand...


More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress. And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries. Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

DrLove said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="jNot according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is *superior military tech* in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having *superior tech* and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are key words in your post - _*Superior Tech*_
> 
> Ground forces and ground strength do NOT represent superior tech. They represent the interests of the military industrial complex. Still waiting to hear which wars we've won quickly with such since WWII. They have only enriched the MIC and we've literally lost every GD one of them.
> 
> In my mind, superior tech is a great thing - not more of the same ol' madness.
Click to expand...


Gulf War 1992.
Ground war was 100 hours.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

DrLove said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is that history has proven otherwise quite conclusively.
> What ground wars do you think we've started?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> Let's start with that awesome 2 trillion dollar failed social experiment in Iraq based on a buttload of lies and intel failures.
Click to expand...


That war lasted about a month, start to finish.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

DrLove said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not just give our keys to China now and save all the time, money, and trouble?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a good idea. Thanks to Donald John's chronic idiocy, China has already surpassed US as the most powerful country on Earth.
Click to expand...


You are hilarious!  Have you thought about taking your act on the road and never coming back?


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy is straight out stupid , you want to know how stupid , look up "code name curve ball" associated with the Iraq war . You will see that as usual this worthless commenter  is selling bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this _"9thIDdoc"_ nitwit feels the need to introduce himself with a military avatar says all we need to know about him.  If his military service is all he has going for him it follows that the last thing he wants to hear is the truth about it.  He needs to believe Saddam Hussein was the worst person in the world and what he helped do to him was nothing but glorious.
> 
> So telling this jerk-off the truth about the Bush dynasty's destruction of Iraq is like telling a retarded ten year-old there is no Santa Claus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosh, does that mean you feel the need to introduce yourself with your name and that's supposed to impress us?
> Fact of the matter is that I am indeed proud of my service to my country my fellow Americans and most especially my fellow soldiers. I have had the balls to stand up and do the right thing. I take it as a given that your jeers disrespect and slander are used to disguise the fact of your craven cowardice.
> I served in Vietnam as a Combat Medic with a Mech. Infantry Bn. People are alive today because I was there for them. Or their father. Or their grandfather. I have made a difference. How about you?
Click to expand...

 That's the whole sum of your life , you missed as lot but when your brain dead you think that you can't do no wrong.  Shit I all but forgot the Vietnam war other then feeling sorry for the men that went their and had to kill people who were trying to throw a military tyrant out as the leader of the country. If I was in a neutral country I would have supported the people you were sent their to kill. For a person who has so little in their lives that they use the Vietnam war of their hi-point is pitiful , very very sad.  Its like All the wars that are started for the corporate bottom line of some company. These nieve Kids get drafted or sign up to go to a war like  the last wars  we have been involved with, all in fact since wwII are lies. These kids come back and find out the truth and then they lose their justifications of the many ugly things they did there to stay alive. Then I deal with them in my Emotional anonymous group. They suffer for the rest of their lives. They have been killed inside.  So I would advise you to continue to hide from the truth , and the massive lie your war was.


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]Hey brain dead , you want me to pick the source for you , I can but you will get a broader chose if you pick the source yourself.    Brain dead people don't know that though. I ran"code name curve ball" in three search engines just to explain to everyone how stupid you are. I got  over a million hits in all three.  For the people that are one step above brain dead , look it up yourself, you will get a amazing broad view of stupidity and the lies that Bush the baby killer used to get us into the liars war. Where he Murdered 5000 American heroes
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the thousands of innocent Iraqis, both military and civilian, including innocent women and their infants, babies asleep in their cribs, when we bombed Baghdad.  We've been paying for that earned hatred ever since, every time an American is killed in the Middle East.  The relatives and lovers of those dead soldiers have another holiday time to mourn them, thanks to Bush 1&2, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and others who conspired to create the _WMD_ lie.
> 
> Saddam Hussein had only one enemy who was justifiably fearful of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we took care of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress. And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries. Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".
Click to expand...

 Idiot , if we didn't go, tell me which country would have, Your stupid. Brain dead stupid.


----------



## MikeK

9thIDdoc said:


> More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress.


The invasion of Iraq was popular with the majority of Americans because the majority of Americans are inclined to believe anything spoon-fed to them by government via the mainstream media.  They are not inclined to believe a President and his cabinet is capable of egregious criminal conspiracy.



> And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries.


Saddam Hussein's Iraq was an aggressively powerful force in the Middle East.  Didn't you know that?  Many other Middle-East nations benefited from Iraq's demise -- especially Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Didn't you know that either? 

Were you really in the Middle East?  If so, why don't you know these things? 



> Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".


If it wasn't Bush, then who else labored and lied long and hard to initiate that unlawful invasion?


----------



## rightwinger

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is that history has proven otherwise quite conclusively.
> What ground wars do you think we've started?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> Let's start with that awesome 2 trillion dollar failed social experiment in Iraq based on a buttload of lies and intel failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That war lasted about a month, start to finish.
Click to expand...

Mission accomplished


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jbander said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]Hey brain dead , you want me to pick the source for you , I can but you will get a broader chose if you pick the source yourself.    Brain dead people don't know that though. I ran"code name curve ball" in three search engines just to explain to everyone how stupid you are. I got  over a million hits in all three.  For the people that are one step above brain dead , look it up yourself, you will get a amazing broad view of stupidity and the lies that Bush the baby killer used to get us into the liars war. Where he Murdered 5000 American heroes
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the thousands of innocent Iraqis, both military and civilian, including innocent women and their infants, babies asleep in their cribs, when we bombed Baghdad.  We've been paying for that earned hatred ever since, every time an American is killed in the Middle East.  The relatives and lovers of those dead soldiers have another holiday time to mourn them, thanks to Bush 1&2, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and others who conspired to create the _WMD_ lie.
> 
> Saddam Hussein had only one enemy who was justifiably fearful of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we took care of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress. And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries. Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".
Click to expand...


Some "Coalition of the willing"

Where was Germany, France, Italy, Canada?

They knew better


----------



## DrLove

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Many people said the same thing in 1945.  They were just as wrong then as you are now.



Sorry - do a little research and tell us how many ground wars we've won in the past 60-70 years.

The only winner was the Military Industrial Complex


----------



## DrLove

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> That war lasted about a month, start to finish.



This post ^ ^ ^ was so nice - I had to read it twice 

Well Tory - it's official, you've lost your mind ...

Timeline of the Iraq War - Wikipedia


----------



## jbander

MikeK said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> The invasion of Iraq was popular with the majority of Americans because the majority of Americans are inclined to believe anything spoon-fed to them by government via the mainstream media.  They are not inclined to believe a President and his cabinet is capable of egregious criminal conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saddam Hussein's Iraq was an aggressively powerful force in the Middle East.  Didn't you know that?  Many other Middle-East nations benefited from Iraq's demise -- especially Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Didn't you know that either?
> 
> Were you really in the Middle East?  If so, why don't you know these things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it wasn't Bush, then who else labored and lied long and hard to initiate that unlawful invasion?
Click to expand...

Well said


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

DrLove said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> That war lasted about a month, start to finish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post ^ ^ ^ was so nice - I had to read it twice
> 
> Well Tory - it's official, you've lost your mind ...
> 
> Timeline of the Iraq War - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


You really would be funny if you were not so pathetically stupid.

The actual war, where troops were in combat with the Iraqi military lasted a little more  than a month.

March 20 - May 1, 2003.

The remainder of the "combat" was part of the occupation, not a war.

If things were so bad, why did President Bush visit Baghdad in November 2003?

As to your pathetic "codpiece" photo, you obviously have never worn a parachute or the harness that attaches you to an ejection seat.  Only ignorant boobs would get a laugh out of that.  So that is why you thought it was funny!

You are just pissed off that both Clinton and Obama never strapped themselves at the controls of a jet.


----------



## Dr Grump

9thIDdoc said:


> [
> More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress. And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries. Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".



A couple of things:

It was only popular because people believed the hype. Some of us did not.
A lot of coalition members leaders - the UK and Australia come to mind - were lucky they didn't lose their seats. Blair suffered terribly in the election after the invasion. Australia's John Howard only survived the next election due to his economic policies. If the only election issue had been Australia's involvement in the Iraq War he would have lost in a landslide.

It was absolutely Bush's war. Note, he was asked to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs. He refused. Gee, I wonder why...


----------



## 9thIDdoc

MikeK said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> The invasion of Iraq was popular with the majority of Americans because the majority of Americans are inclined to believe anything spoon-fed to them by government via the mainstream media.  They are not inclined to believe a President and his cabinet is capable of egregious criminal conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saddam Hussein's Iraq was an aggressively powerful force in the Middle East.  Didn't you know that?  Many other Middle-East nations benefited from Iraq's demise -- especially Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Didn't you know that either?
> 
> Were you really in the Middle East?  If so, why don't you know these things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it wasn't Bush, then who else labored and lied long and hard to initiate that unlawful invasion?
Click to expand...


_"The invasion of Iraq was popular with the majority of Americans because the majority of Americans are inclined to believe anything spoon-fed to them by government via the mainstream media.  They are not inclined to believe a President and his cabinet is capable of egregious criminal conspiracy."_

If that were true Ms Clinton would be President.

_"If it wasn't Bush, then who else labored and lied long and hard to initiate that unlawful invasion?"_

That would be your hero Saddam when he agreed to the cease fire. Which invasion are you calling "unlawful"?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Dr Grump said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress. And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries. Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things:
> 
> It was only popular because people believed the hype. Some of us did not.
> A lot of coalition members leaders - the UK and Australia come to mind - were lucky they didn't lose their seats. Blair suffered terribly in the election after the invasion. Australia's John Howard only survived the next election due to his economic policies. If the only election issue had been Australia's involvement in the Iraq War he would have lost in a landslide.
> 
> It was absolutely Bush's war. Note, he was asked to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs. He refused. Gee, I wonder why...
Click to expand...


Why would you appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs?

We all know (or you should know) why there were no WMDs found.


----------



## DrLove

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> You really would be funny if you were not so pathetically stupid.
> 
> The actual war, where troops were in combat with the Iraqi military lasted a little more  than a month.
> 
> March 20 - May 1, 2003.
> 
> The remainder of the "combat" was part of the occupation, not a war.
> 
> If things were so bad, why did President Bush visit Baghdad in November 2003?
> 
> As to your pathetic "codpiece" photo, you obviously have never worn a parachute or the harness that attaches you to an ejection seat.  Only ignorant boobs would get a laugh out of that.  So that is why you thought it was funny!
> 
> You are just pissed off that both Clinton and Obama never strapped themselves at the controls of a jet.



Bla Fucking LAAA~!! Grow the fuck up and edjumukate yaself


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

DrLove said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really would be funny if you were not so pathetically stupid.
> 
> The actual war, where troops were in combat with the Iraqi military lasted a little more  than a month.
> 
> March 20 - May 1, 2003.
> 
> The remainder of the "combat" was part of the occupation, not a war.
> 
> If things were so bad, why did President Bush visit Baghdad in November 2003?
> 
> As to your pathetic "codpiece" photo, you obviously have never worn a parachute or the harness that attaches you to an ejection seat.  Only ignorant boobs would get a laugh out of that.  So that is why you thought it was funny!
> 
> You are just pissed off that both Clinton and Obama never strapped themselves at the controls of a jet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bla Fucking LAAA~!! Grow the fuck up and edjumukate yaself
Click to expand...


How many wars did you participate in?

You have no answers, just attacks on me personally, especially when I show you how ignorant you are!


----------



## DrLove

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> How many wars did you participate in?
> 
> You have no answers, just attacks on me personally, especially when I show you how ignorant you are!



False narrative - you FAIL

If you did actually serve (and I take you at your word) then you're REALLY OLD and have no fuking CLUE at this point.

However, thank you for your service


----------



## rightwinger

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> That war lasted about a month, start to finish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post ^ ^ ^ was so nice - I had to read it twice
> 
> Well Tory - it's official, you've lost your mind ...
> 
> Timeline of the Iraq War - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really would be funny if you were not so pathetically stupid.
> 
> The actual war, where troops were in combat with the Iraqi military lasted a little more  than a month.
> 
> March 20 - May 1, 2003.
> 
> The remainder of the "combat" was part of the occupation, not a war.
> 
> If things were so bad, why did President Bush visit Baghdad in November 2003?
> 
> As to your pathetic "codpiece" photo, you obviously have never worn a parachute or the harness that attaches you to an ejection seat.  Only ignorant boobs would get a laugh out of that.  So that is why you thought it was funny!
> 
> You are just pissed off that both Clinton and Obama never strapped themselves at the controls of a jet.
Click to expand...

Oh yes...."mission accomplished"
We only lost 4000 soldiers after Bush had declared victory

Why Iraq was such a blunder


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Dr Grump said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress. And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries. Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things:
> 
> It was only popular because people believed the hype. Some of us did not.
> A lot of coalition members leaders - the UK and Australia come to mind - were lucky they didn't lose their seats. Blair suffered terribly in the election after the invasion. Australia's John Howard only survived the next election due to his economic policies. If the only election issue had been Australia's involvement in the Iraq War he would have lost in a landslide.
> 
> It was absolutely Bush's war. Note, he was asked to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs. He refused. Gee, I wonder why...
Click to expand...


There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

DrLove said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many wars did you participate in?
> 
> You have no answers, just attacks on me personally, especially when I show you how ignorant you are!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False narrative - you FAIL
> 
> If you did actually serve (and I take you at your word) then you're REALLY OLD and have no fuking CLUE at this point.
> 
> However, thank you for your service
Click to expand...


I served from 1978-1994 on active duty and then from 1994-2001 in the reserves.
I served on two guided missile cruisers, a destroyer tender, an aircraft carrier, a ballistic missile submarine, and an amphibious assault carrier.  I was both officer and enlisted.  I am a qualified submariner and surface warfare officer.    I was the Boat Group Commander for the invasion of Haiti.  I conducted counter-narcotics operations with the Coast Guard in the Caribbean. I ran the enlisted side of a recruiting district which put about 6000 recruits into the Navy.  Since 2007, I have served as a volunteer role-player and opposition force at the Army's urban combat center, training various military units in urban combat, most of which are special operations troops.  My son served in the US Army as an infantry sergeant in Afghanistan.  My daughter is a transportation platoon leader with the 3rd Cavalry Regiment.

I don't think you will find too many people with those qualifications.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress. And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries. Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things:
> 
> It was only popular because people believed the hype. Some of us did not.
> A lot of coalition members leaders - the UK and Australia come to mind - were lucky they didn't lose their seats. Blair suffered terribly in the election after the invasion. Australia's John Howard only survived the next election due to his economic policies. If the only election issue had been Australia's involvement in the Iraq War he would have lost in a landslide.
> 
> It was absolutely Bush's war. Note, he was asked to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs. He refused. Gee, I wonder why...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
> I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
> The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
> Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.
Click to expand...

Hans Blix, the head UN inspector said he was making progress and would show whether there  were WMDs if he had more time. The UN, whose resolution Bush referenced urged no invasion
Bush pulled the trigger before it could be proven there were no WMDs
What was his urgency?
It cost 6000 American and 100,000 Iraqi casualties


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> The invasion of Iraq was popular with the majority of Americans because the majority of Americans are inclined to believe anything spoon-fed to them by government via the mainstream media.  They are not inclined to believe a President and his cabinet is capable of egregious criminal conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saddam Hussein's Iraq was an aggressively powerful force in the Middle East.  Didn't you know that?  Many other Middle-East nations benefited from Iraq's demise -- especially Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Didn't you know that either?
> 
> Were you really in the Middle East?  If so, why don't you know these things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it wasn't Bush, then who else labored and lied long and hard to initiate that unlawful invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"The invasion of Iraq was popular with the majority of Americans because the majority of Americans are inclined to believe anything spoon-fed to them by government via the mainstream media.  They are not inclined to believe a President and his cabinet is capable of egregious criminal conspiracy."_
> 
> If that were true Ms Clinton would be President.
> 
> _"If it wasn't Bush, then who else labored and lied long and hard to initiate that unlawful invasion?"_
> 
> That would be your hero Saddam when he agreed to the cease fire. Which invasion are you calling "unlawful"?
Click to expand...

Nonsense


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress. And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries. Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things:
> 
> It was only popular because people believed the hype. Some of us did not.
> A lot of coalition members leaders - the UK and Australia come to mind - were lucky they didn't lose their seats. Blair suffered terribly in the election after the invasion. Australia's John Howard only survived the next election due to his economic policies. If the only election issue had been Australia's involvement in the Iraq War he would have lost in a landslide.
> 
> It was absolutely Bush's war. Note, he was asked to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs. He refused. Gee, I wonder why...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
> I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
> The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
> Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.
Click to expand...

 Goofball made up Nonsense


----------



## jbander

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress. And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries. Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things:
> 
> It was only popular because people believed the hype. Some of us did not.
> A lot of coalition members leaders - the UK and Australia come to mind - were lucky they didn't lose their seats. Blair suffered terribly in the election after the invasion. Australia's John Howard only survived the next election due to his economic policies. If the only election issue had been Australia's involvement in the Iraq War he would have lost in a landslide.
> 
> It was absolutely Bush's war. Note, he was asked to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs. He refused. Gee, I wonder why...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
> I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
> The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
> Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hans Blix, the head UN inspector said he was making progress and would show whether there  were WMDs if he had more time. The UN, whose resolution Bush referenced urged no invasion
> Bush pulled the trigger before it could be proven there were no WMDs
> What was his urgency?
> It cost 6000 American and 100,000 Iraqi casualties
Click to expand...

 I think he asked for a week or 10 days. Bush the baby killer murdered 5000 American heroes. and made a fortune from it. As did his pile of shit Vice pule.


----------



## rightwinger

jbander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress. And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries. Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things:
> 
> It was only popular because people believed the hype. Some of us did not.
> A lot of coalition members leaders - the UK and Australia come to mind - were lucky they didn't lose their seats. Blair suffered terribly in the election after the invasion. Australia's John Howard only survived the next election due to his economic policies. If the only election issue had been Australia's involvement in the Iraq War he would have lost in a landslide.
> 
> It was absolutely Bush's war. Note, he was asked to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs. He refused. Gee, I wonder why...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
> I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
> The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
> Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hans Blix, the head UN inspector said he was making progress and would show whether there  were WMDs if he had more time. The UN, whose resolution Bush referenced urged no invasion
> Bush pulled the trigger before it could be proven there were no WMDs
> What was his urgency?
> It cost 6000 American and 100,000 Iraqi casualties
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he asked for a week or 10 days. Bush the baby killer murdered 5000 American heroes. and made a fortune from it. As did his pile of shit Vice pule.
Click to expand...

Bush knew Blix was going to claim there was no WMDs and needed to attack before the recommendation was given

There was NO RUSH to invade immediately. Saddam had been contained for ten years


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress. And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries. Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things:
> 
> It was only popular because people believed the hype. Some of us did not.
> A lot of coalition members leaders - the UK and Australia come to mind - were lucky they didn't lose their seats. Blair suffered terribly in the election after the invasion. Australia's John Howard only survived the next election due to his economic policies. If the only election issue had been Australia's involvement in the Iraq War he would have lost in a landslide.
> 
> It was absolutely Bush's war. Note, he was asked to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs. He refused. Gee, I wonder why...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
> I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
> The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
> Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hans Blix, the head UN inspector said he was making progress and would show whether there  were WMDs if he had more time. The UN, whose resolution Bush referenced urged no invasion
> Bush pulled the trigger before it could be proven there were no WMDs
> What was his urgency?
> It cost 6000 American and 100,000 Iraqi casualties
Click to expand...


Saddam had been playing the UN for 10 yrs. without sign of ever complying. That certainly couldn't be considered rushing.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress. And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries. Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things:
> 
> It was only popular because people believed the hype. Some of us did not.
> A lot of coalition members leaders - the UK and Australia come to mind - were lucky they didn't lose their seats. Blair suffered terribly in the election after the invasion. Australia's John Howard only survived the next election due to his economic policies. If the only election issue had been Australia's involvement in the Iraq War he would have lost in a landslide.
> 
> It was absolutely Bush's war. Note, he was asked to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs. He refused. Gee, I wonder why...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
> I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
> The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
> Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hans Blix, the head UN inspector said he was making progress and would show whether there  were WMDs if he had more time. The UN, whose resolution Bush referenced urged no invasion
> Bush pulled the trigger before it could be proven there were no WMDs
> What was his urgency?
> It cost 6000 American and 100,000 Iraqi casualties
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saddam had been playing the UN for 10 yrs. without sign of ever complying. That certainly couldn't be considered rushing.
Click to expand...

Saddam was not a threat
The UN urged U.S. Not to invade

Bush did it anyway


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress. And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries. Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things:
> 
> It was only popular because people believed the hype. Some of us did not.
> A lot of coalition members leaders - the UK and Australia come to mind - were lucky they didn't lose their seats. Blair suffered terribly in the election after the invasion. Australia's John Howard only survived the next election due to his economic policies. If the only election issue had been Australia's involvement in the Iraq War he would have lost in a landslide.
> 
> It was absolutely Bush's war. Note, he was asked to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs. He refused. Gee, I wonder why...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
> I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
> The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
> Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hans Blix, the head UN inspector said he was making progress and would show whether there  were WMDs if he had more time. The UN, whose resolution Bush referenced urged no invasion
> Bush pulled the trigger before it could be proven there were no WMDs
> What was his urgency?
> It cost 6000 American and 100,000 Iraqi casualties
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saddam had been playing the UN for 10 yrs. without sign of ever complying. That certainly couldn't be considered rushing.
Click to expand...

 Total nonsense.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Tommy 








I WENT into a public 'ouse to get a pint o' beer, 
The publican 'e up an' sez, " We serve no red-coats here." 
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die, 
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I: 
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' " Tommy, go away " ; 
But it's " Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play, 
O it's " Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play. 

I went into a theatre as sober as could be, 
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me; 
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls, 
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls! 
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' " Tommy, wait outside ";
But it's " Special train for Atkins " when the trooper's on the tide
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide, 
O it's " Special train for Atkins " when the trooper's on the tide. 

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap. 
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit. 
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll, 
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too, 
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you; 
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints, 
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints; 
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, fall be'ind," 
But it's " Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind, 
O it's " Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all: 
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational. 
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace. 
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Chuck him out, the brute! "
But it's " Saviour of 'is country " when the guns begin to shoot; 
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; 
An 'Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress. And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries. Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things:
> 
> It was only popular because people believed the hype. Some of us did not.
> A lot of coalition members leaders - the UK and Australia come to mind - were lucky they didn't lose their seats. Blair suffered terribly in the election after the invasion. Australia's John Howard only survived the next election due to his economic policies. If the only election issue had been Australia's involvement in the Iraq War he would have lost in a landslide.
> 
> It was absolutely Bush's war. Note, he was asked to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs. He refused. Gee, I wonder why...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
> I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
> The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
> Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hans Blix, the head UN inspector said he was making progress and would show whether there  were WMDs if he had more time. The UN, whose resolution Bush referenced urged no invasion
> Bush pulled the trigger before it could be proven there were no WMDs
> What was his urgency?
> It cost 6000 American and 100,000 Iraqi casualties
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saddam had been playing the UN for 10 yrs. without sign of ever complying. That certainly couldn't be considered rushing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saddam was not a threat
> The UN urged U.S. Not to invade
> 
> Bush did it anyway
Click to expand...


Wrong.
And it wasn't Bush it was America.


----------



## Dr Grump

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> [
> 
> Why would you appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs?
> 
> We all know (or you should know) why there were no WMDs found.



I'm not talking the conspiracy theorists reasons for no WMDs. I'm talking the actual reason....


----------



## 9thIDdoc




----------



## Dr Grump

9thIDdoc said:


> There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
> I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
> The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
> Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.



That is a typical conservative mantra of not caring about others. However, you are wrong. The UK and Australia paid their own way. And you care so little, you invoke their involvement to (wrongly) enhance your POV.

I was anti-war from the beginning for the same reasons that everybody else was. There was no proof. And Blix said he needed more time. Bush and his cabal - Wolfowitz, Cheney etc - wanted the war. They got it. It is theirs to own.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things:
> 
> It was only popular because people believed the hype. Some of us did not.
> A lot of coalition members leaders - the UK and Australia come to mind - were lucky they didn't lose their seats. Blair suffered terribly in the election after the invasion. Australia's John Howard only survived the next election due to his economic policies. If the only election issue had been Australia's involvement in the Iraq War he would have lost in a landslide.
> 
> It was absolutely Bush's war. Note, he was asked to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs. He refused. Gee, I wonder why...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
> I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
> The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
> Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hans Blix, the head UN inspector said he was making progress and would show whether there  were WMDs if he had more time. The UN, whose resolution Bush referenced urged no invasion
> Bush pulled the trigger before it could be proven there were no WMDs
> What was his urgency?
> It cost 6000 American and 100,000 Iraqi casualties
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saddam had been playing the UN for 10 yrs. without sign of ever complying. That certainly couldn't be considered rushing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saddam was not a threat
> The UN urged U.S. Not to invade
> 
> Bush did it anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> And it wasn't Bush it was America.
Click to expand...

Bush was the decider
HE pulled the trigger

6000 Americans died unnecessarily


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


>


Where were your parents?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Dr Grump said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Why would you appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs?
> 
> We all know (or you should know) why there were no WMDs found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking the conspiracy theorists reasons for no WMDs. I'm talking the actual reason....
Click to expand...


There were no WMDs because Saddam created the fiction of having them to keep Iran and the other countries in the area from challenging him.  His henchman created false inventories and leaked information to make everyone truly believe he had them.


----------



## rightwinger

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Why would you appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs?
> 
> We all know (or you should know) why there were no WMDs found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking the conspiracy theorists reasons for no WMDs. I'm talking the actual reason....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were no WMDs because Saddam created the fiction of having them to keep Iran and the other countries in the area from challenging him.  His henchman created false inventories and leaked information to make everyone truly believe he had them.
Click to expand...

Who bought into the lie?  Bush?

The UN said they were checking and asked for more time. Bush attacked before Hans Blix exposed his WMD myth


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
> I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
> The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
> Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.
> 
> 
> 
> Hans Blix, the head UN inspector said he was making progress and would show whether there  were WMDs if he had more time. The UN, whose resolution Bush referenced urged no invasion
> Bush pulled the trigger before it could be proven there were no WMDs
> What was his urgency?
> It cost 6000 American and 100,000 Iraqi casualties
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saddam had been playing the UN for 10 yrs. without sign of ever complying. That certainly couldn't be considered rushing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saddam was not a threat
> The UN urged U.S. Not to invade
> 
> Bush did it anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> And it wasn't Bush it was America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush was the decider
> HE pulled the trigger
> 
> 6000 Americans died unnecessarily
Click to expand...


Yes, Bush decided. And it was the correct decision.
And you just disrespected dead Americans unnecessarily.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hans Blix, the head UN inspector said he was making progress and would show whether there  were WMDs if he had more time. The UN, whose resolution Bush referenced urged no invasion
> Bush pulled the trigger before it could be proven there were no WMDs
> What was his urgency?
> It cost 6000 American and 100,000 Iraqi casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam had been playing the UN for 10 yrs. without sign of ever complying. That certainly couldn't be considered rushing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saddam was not a threat
> The UN urged U.S. Not to invade
> 
> Bush did it anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> And it wasn't Bush it was America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush was the decider
> HE pulled the trigger
> 
> 6000 Americans died unnecessarily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Bush decided. And it was the correct decision.
> And you just disrespected dead Americans unnecessarily.
Click to expand...

Bush disrespected them

Soldiers trust the commander in chief with their lives
That trust was betrayed


----------



## Dr Grump

9thIDdoc said:


> Yes, Bush decided. And it was the correct decision.
> And you just disrespected dead Americans unnecessarily.



No, it was not the correct decision.
No, he did not disrespect anybody.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Dr Grump said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Bush decided. And it was the correct decision.
> And you just disrespected dead Americans unnecessarily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not the correct decision.
> No, he did not disrespect anybody.
Click to expand...


You have the right to be wrong.  Just be sure you don't abuse it!


----------



## jbander

9thIDdoc said:


>


OK hero


----------



## usmcstinger

jbander said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam had been playing the UN for 10 yrs. without sign of ever complying. That certainly couldn't be considered rushing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saddam was not a threat
> The UN urged U.S. Not to invade
> 
> Bush did it anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> And it wasn't Bush it was America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush was the decider
> HE pulled the trigger
> 
> 6000 Americans died unnecessarily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Bush decided. And it was the correct decision.
> And you just disrespected dead Americans unnecessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush disrespected them
> 
> Soldiers trust the commander in chief with their lives
> That trust was betrayed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK hero
Click to expand...


Disrespecting Combat Veterans makes you the lowest of the low.


----------

