# Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level



## Jroc

Liberaltopia downsizing our military? Chuck Hagel is simply Obama's stodge



> *
> Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will reportedly propose a Pentagon budget that will shrink the U.S. Army to its smallest number since 1940* and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets.
> 
> The New York Times reported late Sunday that Hagel's proposal, which will be released to lawmakers and the public on Monday, will call for a reduction in size of the military that will leave it capable of waging war, but unable to carry out protracted occupations of foreign territory, as in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> Under Hagel's plan, the number of troops in the Army will drop to between 440,000 and 450,000, a reduction of at least 120,000 soldiers from its post-Sept.11 peak.
> 
> Officials told the Times that Hagel's plan has been endorsed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and protects funding for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. It also calls for the Navy to maintain all eleven of its aircraft carriers currently in operation. However, the budget proposal mandates the elimination of the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft,



Proposed budget will reportedly shrink Army to pre-WWII numbers | Fox News


----------



## KNB

Do you want American soldiers to occupy foreign countries where they are constantly a target?


----------



## Jroc

KNB said:


> Do you want American soldiers to occupy foreign countries where they are constantly a target?



No I want to be the most powerful military in the world always..understand?


----------



## Katzndogz

obama has made America loved in the world.   We don't need a military at all except for expected domestic uprisings by conservatives.


----------



## rightwinger

How big a military do we need?

Do we need a Military that is larger than the next ten forces combined?  Do we need a Navy that protects the world? Has new technology made many of the ground pounders obsolete?  Same goes with our aircraft


----------



## Plasmaball

Lol.....silly neocon.


----------



## Jroc

Better to be feared than loved....Obama is niether


----------



## KNB

Jroc said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want American soldiers to occupy foreign countries where they are constantly a target?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I want to be the most powerful military in the world always..understand?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how powerful your military is.  The US won't win in Afghanistan because the CIA trained the jihad in guerrilla warfare.  It was called *Operation Cyclone*.  The Mujaheddin were specifically trained in how to fight a more powerful military over a long period of time.  You've now spent $2b/wk for over ten years trying to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan and the US still hasn't won yet.  This doesn't tell you anything?


----------



## hangover

Whine and bitch about spending, then when it's cut whine and bitch. See cons don't want less spending, they just want to fuck the poor and elderly.


----------



## Jroc

KNB said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want American soldiers to occupy foreign countries where they are constantly a target?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I want to be the most powerful military in the world always..understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter how powerful your military is.  The US won't win in Afghanistan because the CIA trained the jihad in guerrilla warfare.  It was called *Operation Cyclone*.  The Mujaheddin were specifically trained in how to fight a more powerful military over a long period of time.  You've now spent $2b/wk for over ten years trying to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan and the US still hasn't won yet.  This doesn't tell you anything?
Click to expand...


it's a philosophy understand? that's the problem with some people, they can't see the big picture. "Winning the hearts and minds' screwed um that's not my philosophy at all.


----------



## rightwinger

A pre WWII Army is a completely different animal from todays modernized force. A 1940 Army was labor intensive and relied heavily on infantry. 
Todays Army is highly mechanized and computerized. Makes it much more efficient. To assume that if we have the same manpower as 1940 we have the same military strength is ridiculous. 
We have to look at the proposed mission of a Modern Army and how many troops we need to execute that mission


----------



## Jroc

hangover said:


> Whine and bitch about spending, then when it's cut whine and bitch. See cons don't want less spending, they just want to fuck the poor and elderly.



Military spending is the job of the federal government idiot. All this social spending isnt


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whine and bitch about spending, then when it's cut whine and bitch. See cons don't want less spending, they just want to fuck the poor and elderly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military spending is the job of the federal government idiot. All this social spending isnt
Click to expand...


Oh yes...Guns and Butter


----------



## Samson

Jroc said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want American soldiers to occupy foreign countries where they are constantly a target?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I want to be the most powerful military in the world always..understand?
Click to expand...


OK, what if we cut it by half and are still most powerful: Then you'd agree.


----------



## Samson

Jroc said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whine and bitch about spending, then when it's cut whine and bitch. See cons don't want less spending, they just want to fuck the poor and elderly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military spending is the job of the federal government idiot. All this social spending isnt
Click to expand...


I thought Proecting the Nation was the job of the Federal Government.



Now I understand: "Military Spending" is actually the goal here.........


----------



## Indeependent

Either the "experts" have a pretty good idea of what we need or we need a new team of "experts".


----------



## Samson

rightwinger said:


> A pre WWII Army is a completely different animal from todays modernized force. A 1940 Army was labor intensive and relied heavily on infantry.
> Todays Army is highly mechanized and computerized. Makes it much more efficient. To assume that if we have the same manpower as 1940 we have the same military strength is ridiculous.
> We have to look at the proposed mission of a Modern Army and how many troops we need to execute that mission



Indeed, but otherwise how will we find federal employment for thousands of undereducated minority dykes?



They cannot all be mail carriers, you know.


----------



## Indeependent

Samson said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> A pre WWII Army is a completely different animal from todays modernized force. A 1940 Army was labor intensive and relied heavily on infantry.
> Todays Army is highly mechanized and computerized. Makes it much more efficient. To assume that if we have the same manpower as 1940 we have the same military strength is ridiculous.
> We have to look at the proposed mission of a Modern Army and how many troops we need to execute that mission
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, but otherwise how will we find federal employment for thousands of undereducated minority dykes?
> 
> 
> 
> They cannot all be mail carriers, you know.
Click to expand...


That's for a whole separate thread.


----------



## Edgetho

hangover said:


> Whine and bitch about spending, then when it's cut whine and bitch. See cons don't want less spending, they just want to fuck the poor and elderly.



Yeah, because scumbags like you got so much we want....


----------



## Edgetho

Samson said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whine and bitch about spending, then when it's cut whine and bitch. See cons don't want less spending, they just want to fuck the poor and elderly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military spending is the job of the federal government idiot. All this social spending isnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought Proecting the Nation was the job of the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I understand: "Military Spending" is actually the goal here.........
Click to expand...


No, that is totally, conceptually and factually wrong.

It is PRECISELY what the Founding Fathers feared the most....  An overwhelmingly burdensome centralized government that used the excuse of 'protection'.

The only Constitutionally mandated job of the Federal Government is to protect us from Foreign Invasion.

Period.


----------



## Samson

Indeependent said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> A pre WWII Army is a completely different animal from todays modernized force. A 1940 Army was labor intensive and relied heavily on infantry.
> Todays Army is highly mechanized and computerized. Makes it much more efficient. To assume that if we have the same manpower as 1940 we have the same military strength is ridiculous.
> We have to look at the proposed mission of a Modern Army and how many troops we need to execute that mission
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, but otherwise how will we find federal employment for thousands of undereducated minority dykes?
> 
> 
> 
> They cannot all be mail carriers, you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's for a whole separate thread.
Click to expand...




I thought we were discussing the mission of the Modern Army, and troops needed?


----------



## rightwinger

As a nation, we have to examine our priorities

Do we need a military that is stronger than the next ten nations combined when eight of those nations are already our allies?  What is our threat?

Would we be better off by:

Paying down $17 Trillion in debt
Investing in infrastructure...At Home
Ensuring basic healthcare
Making secondary education more affordable


----------



## Samson

Edgetho said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military spending is the job of the federal government idiot. All this social spending isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Proecting the Nation was the job of the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I understand: "Military Spending" is actually the goal here.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is totally, conceptually and factually wrong.
> 
> It is PRECISELY what the Founding Fathers feared the most....  An overwhelmingly burdensome centralized government that used the excuse of 'protection'.
> 
> The only Constitutionally mandated job of the Federal Government is to protect us from Foreign Invasion.
> 
> Period.
Click to expand...


----------



## Samson

rightwinger said:


> As a nation, we have to examine our priorities
> 
> Do we need a military that is stronger than the next ten nations combined when eight of those nations are already our allies?  What is our threat?
> 
> Would we be better off by:
> 
> Paying down $17 Trillion in debt
> Investing in infrastructure...At Home
> Ensuring basic healthcare
> Making secondary education more affordable



I see you've decided that employing thousands of undereducated minority dykes is no longer a priority.


----------



## Indeependent

Samson said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a nation, we have to examine our priorities
> 
> Do we need a military that is stronger than the next ten nations combined when eight of those nations are already our allies?  What is our threat?
> 
> Would we be better off by:
> 
> Paying down $17 Trillion in debt
> Investing in infrastructure...At Home
> Ensuring basic healthcare
> Making secondary education more affordable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you've decided that employing thousands of undereducated minority dykes is no longer a priority.
Click to expand...


That's inferred from reality.
The question is...what's the Mission Statement?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

A-10s are among the better attack/ground support aircraft in our inventory, unless they're being replaced with something to fill that void, given how cheap they are and effective, it sounds ill-advised.

Shrinking the Army though is a good idea. Future wars dont rely on massive armies or fleets but electronic/cyber warfare. And given our poor-performance is Iraq and Afganistan if tightening our belts and putting money where it actually does us some good, I'm all for it.

Should drastically cut-back our nuclear forces too. If nuclear weapons aren't ever going to be used since future nuclear aggressors are more likely to be rogue states and terrorists, the need for ICBMs and bomber delivery systems has come and gone. Submarine-launched remains the best possible nuclear deterrent. 

Should redirect those nuclear funds into planetary defense research for deflecting/destroying incoming asteroids. As well as set some aside for planetary defense against 'other/unknown threats.' May never encounter aliens, but if we do, and if they're hostile (like we are) a little forethought might go a long way.


----------



## Edgetho

Samson said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Proecting the Nation was the job of the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I understand: "Military Spending" is actually the goal here.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is totally, conceptually and factually wrong.
> 
> It is PRECISELY what the Founding Fathers feared the most....  An overwhelmingly burdensome centralized government that used the excuse of 'protection'.
> 
> The only Constitutionally mandated job of the Federal Government is to protect us from Foreign Invasion.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Oh.

Never mind


----------



## Samson

Indeependent said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a nation, we have to examine our priorities
> 
> Do we need a military that is stronger than the next ten nations combined when eight of those nations are already our allies?  What is our threat?
> 
> Would we be better off by:
> 
> Paying down $17 Trillion in debt
> Investing in infrastructure...At Home
> Ensuring basic healthcare
> Making secondary education more affordable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you've decided that employing thousands of undereducated minority dykes is no longer a priority.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's inferred from reality.
> The question is...what's the Mission Statement?
Click to expand...


US Military Objective is to now rebuild, using undereducated minority dyke labor, civilian population centers that have suffered destruction at the hands of man and/or nature.

Happy now?

Oh wait, and these rebuilt centers will help protect the US from being invaded...


----------



## Samson

Delta4Embassy said:


> As well as set some aside for planetary defense against 'other/unknown threats.' May never encounter aliens, but if we do, and if they're hostile (like we are) a little forethought might go a long way.






Bravo.

Always good to hear a word from the Planetary Defense against Alien Invasion section of the audience.


----------



## rightwinger

Samson said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you've decided that employing thousands of undereducated minority dykes is no longer a priority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's inferred from reality.
> The question is...what's the Mission Statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> US Military Objective is to now rebuild, using undereducated minority dyke labor, civilian population centers that have suffered destruction at the hands of man and/or nature.
> 
> Happy now?
> 
> Oh wait, and these rebuilt centers will help protect the US from being invaded...
Click to expand...


This is the third time you have tried that "minority dyke" troll. Nobody seems to be biting. Time to stop beating a dead horse?


----------



## High_Gravity

I don't know, I think our Military needs more people. The people I know that are still in the Military are extremely over worked.


----------



## Katzndogz

Hagel just said that the entire fleet of attack jets and helicopters will be scrapped.


----------



## rightwinger

Katzndogz said:


> Hagel just said that the entire fleet of attack jets and helicopters will be scrapped.



I thought he just said A-10s and U-2s


----------



## JakeStarkey

Pulling the fangs and emptying the venom of the neo-cons is good for America.

Less than 1/2 of the budget now will provide for an excellent naval and air shield that can project our power throughout the world as well as provide an outstanding ground force.

If the Jrocs oppose it, you know the policy is the right thing.


----------



## hangover

Jroc said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whine and bitch about spending, then when it's cut whine and bitch. See cons don't want less spending, they just want to fuck the poor and elderly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military spending is the job of the federal government idiot. All this social spending isnt
Click to expand...


For fascist war mongers, the war machine is what it's all about. But for a civilized society, we take care of our people.


----------



## rightwinger

JakeStarkey said:


> Pulling the fangs and emptying the venom of the neo-cons is good for America.
> 
> Less than 1/2 of the budget now will provide for an excellent naval and air shield that can project our power throughout the world as well as provide an outstanding ground force.
> 
> If the Jrocs oppose it, you know the policy is the right thing.



We can move military spending to other sectors....Energy, medical research, infrastructure

The jobs will still be there


----------



## williepete

Hagel just announced the A-10 got the ax.

The ugly old gal served well, long and hard.


----------



## skye

" By the time Hagel is done, horses and bayonets will be all thats left. "


and  


"This is Obamas America being carried out under the supervision of Irans Secretary of Defense."


and



"Here is the magic liberal formula in all its tawdry glory; smash the military, expand the welfare state. No guns, just food stamps. No jets, just Green Energy windmills. No soldiers, just welfare cases."


It's all too sad and  revolting!


Hagel to Call for Shrinking Army to Smallest Size in 75 Years | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## Samson

JakeStarkey said:


> Pulling the fangs and emptying the venom of the neo-cons is good for America..



Why?

Because it worked so well in Germany after WW I ?


----------



## Samson

rightwinger said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's inferred from reality.
> The question is...what's the Mission Statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US Military Objective is to now rebuild, using undereducated minority dyke labor, civilian population centers that have suffered destruction at the hands of man and/or nature.
> 
> Happy now?
> 
> Oh wait, and these rebuilt centers will help protect the US from being invaded...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the third time you have tried that "minority dyke" troll. Nobody seems to be biting. Time to stop beating a dead horse?
Click to expand...


Are you calling Minority Dykes dead horses?


----------



## Victory67

We need just as many soldiers as neccessary for the security of the USA and our interests.  Not one more.

The military isn't a jobs program.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Jroc said:


> Liberaltopia downsizing our military? Chuck Hagel is simply Obama's stodge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will reportedly propose a Pentagon budget that will shrink the U.S. Army to its smallest number since 1940* and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets.
> 
> The New York Times reported late Sunday that Hagel's proposal, which will be released to lawmakers and the public on Monday, will call for a reduction in size of the military that will leave it capable of waging war, but unable to carry out protracted occupations of foreign territory, as in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> Under Hagel's plan, the number of troops in the Army will drop to between 440,000 and 450,000, a reduction of at least 120,000 soldiers from its post-Sept.11 peak.
> 
> Officials told the Times that Hagel's plan has been endorsed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and protects funding for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. It also calls for the Navy to maintain all eleven of its aircraft carriers currently in operation. However, the budget proposal mandates the elimination of the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proposed budget will reportedly shrink Army to pre-WWII numbers | Fox News
Click to expand...


hmm

It's past time to cut the size of the military, but these aren't the best cuts.

no A-10s?  That seems ignorant, since they are anti-tank/bunker jet that we have.


----------



## Two Thumbs

"We are repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new technologies, new centers of power, and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable, and in some instances more threatening to the United States," Hagel said at a press conference at the Pentagon. 


This is a man that knows his history.  He knows we were not ready for WW2, so he plans on making us unready, even when he clearly knows it's a bad idea, based on what he said there


----------



## Two Thumbs

Other characteristics of the budget will likely draw further ire from veterans groups and members of Congress. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Hagel would recommend a limit on military pay raises, higher fees for health-care benefits, less generous housing allowances, and a one-year freeze on raises for top military brass. 


all while congress gets an automatic raise every year.


mmm, reminds me why I hated dems while I served


----------



## Two Thumbs

Does anyone know if they plan on closing foreign bases?

protecting other countries costs us a LOT


----------



## Two Thumbs

High_Gravity said:


> I don't know, I think our Military needs more people. The people I know that are still in the Military are extremely over worked.



The only way we were ever fully manned was to take riders with us.  even with them, we were still port and starboard with drill tossed in just for kicks


----------



## GibsonSG

'Bout fucking time. Pull the troops out of, but not limited to: South Korea, Germany, Japan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and then cut the army down to a proper size.


----------



## Lovebears65

This has been Obamas plan from the beginning. He hates the military and he has not been afraid to say it.. HE wants our POLICE to be the military here .. This is very dangerous for him to cut our troops..   This makes us very vulnerable .. Pentagon Set to Slash Military to Pre-World War II Levels - NBC News

Another article Obama wanting to militarize the Police 


7 Ways The Obama Administration Has Accelerated Police Militarization


----------



## HenryBHough

We don't need armed forces.

Everybody in the world loves us.

It's been that way since January, 2009.

Hasn't it?


----------



## Katzndogz

To obama, from his point of view, the world loves us.  He has pacified Iran with his honeyed words and he has President Putin hiding under the bed.  

We don't need a military with obama, the lions bow to his name.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Lovebears65 said:


> This has been Obamas plan from the beginning. He hates the military and he has not been afraid to say it.. HE wants our POLICE to be the military here .. This is very dangerous for him to cut our troops..   This makes us very vulnerable .. Pentagon Set to Slash Military to Pre-World War II Levels - NBC News
> 
> Another article Obama wanting to militarize the Police
> 
> 
> 7 Ways The Obama Administration Has Accelerated Police Militarization



I favor cutting ALL government spending. Military spending included.


----------



## bendog

W was for cutting personnel until he decide to invade some camel shite place.

Troops cost money.  If you really want to argue we lack sufficient boots to kill terrorists or to vaporize N. Korea or Iran ..... whatever.


----------



## Sallow

Lovebears65 said:


> This has been Obamas plan from the beginning. He hates the military and he has not been afraid to say it.. HE wants our POLICE to be the military here .. This is very dangerous for him to cut our troops..   This makes us very vulnerable .. Pentagon Set to Slash Military to Pre-World War II Levels - NBC News
> 
> Another article Obama wanting to militarize the Police
> 
> 
> 7 Ways The Obama Administration Has Accelerated Police Militarization



Oh so you guys aren't serious about cutting the debt.

And the police were "militarized" well before Obama came in.

What do you think SWAT is all about.


----------



## nodoginnafight

I'm wondering why - in the financial situation we are in - we can cut military pensions but we give MORE money than asked for on some military contracts ??????

Maybe the rank and file don't line campaign coffers enough and contractors do ?????


----------



## Desperado

In the Pre WW2 Army, all support roles were filled by military personnel.  Today these jobs are done by civilian contractors. So even with the cuts we will still have more fighting men than the Pre WW2 Army.


----------



## Plasmaball

Yawn...typical big government worshiper that is the op


----------



## buckeye45_73

Sallow said:


> Lovebears65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been Obamas plan from the beginning. He hates the military and he has not been afraid to say it.. HE wants our POLICE to be the military here .. This is very dangerous for him to cut our troops..   This makes us very vulnerable .. Pentagon Set to Slash Military to Pre-World War II Levels - NBC News
> 
> Another article Obama wanting to militarize the Police
> 
> 
> 7 Ways The Obama Administration Has Accelerated Police Militarization
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so you guys aren't serious about cutting the debt.
> 
> And the police were "militarized" well before Obama came in.
> 
> What do you think SWAT is all about.
Click to expand...


Swalloooooow....nah wed rather crush executive departments and phony regulation agencies.....you know the ones that want to monitor news rooms


----------



## Mojo2

This is a dangerous, dangerous decision.

Nuclear responses are made more necessary and more likely if our ability to fight two major wars simultaneously as well as a smaller military conflict can't be handled by this smaller Army size with conventional weapons.


----------



## Rocko

No need for the military. Al Qaeda has been decimated.


----------



## nodoginnafight

There is a lot of waste in the military.

Cut It!


----------



## Mojo2

nodoginnafight said:


> Lovebears65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been Obamas plan from the beginning. He hates the military and he has not been afraid to say it.. HE wants our POLICE to be the military here .. This is very dangerous for him to cut our troops..   This makes us very vulnerable .. Pentagon Set to Slash Military to Pre-World War II Levels - NBC News
> 
> Another article Obama wanting to militarize the Police
> 
> 
> 7 Ways The Obama Administration Has Accelerated Police Militarization
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I favor cutting ALL government spending. Military spending included.
Click to expand...




Are they still teaching American History and Government in schools where you grew up?

The very first and unquestioned reason for having a Federal government is to provide for the common defense.

You failed your first and most basic test.

Go home.

Study.

Return when you know shit from Shinola.

TYVM.

Here's a tutorial for you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLZ2MTsNcMU]Shit vs Shinola - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mojo2

nodoginnafight said:


> There is a lot of waste in the military.
> 
> Cut It!



I think you know less about this matter than you should for making such casual statements.


----------



## RoadVirus

nodoginnafight said:


> There is a lot of waste in the military.
> 
> Cut It!



Hagel (under Obama's orders) doesn't want to just cut it, he wants to *GUT* it!


----------



## Mojo2

Rocko said:


> No need for the military. Al Qaeda has been decimated.



It is said that we tend to try prepare to fight the most previous war when our enemies are thinking of a different way to challenge us.

You would remove from the enemy any reason to try challenging us in a new manner.

You want to make us vulnerable to the OLD threats.

The enemy would certainly appreciate your attitude.


----------



## Victory67

450,000 army soldiers is more than enough.  We will still have lots of Marines.


----------



## The T

RoadVirus said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of waste in the military.
> 
> Cut It!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hagel (under Obama's orders) doesn't want to just cut it, he wants to *GUT* it!
Click to expand...

The Statists haven't learned a damned thing from history. What has happened every time we have cut back forces?  WE are always left with our pants down around our ankles when the shit hits the fan. Hagel is playing a dangerous game...AGAIN.


----------



## Gracie

Not a good idea. But I am sure China and NK will be thrilled.


----------



## g5000

We are not under any kind of existential threat such as we were during the Cold War.  It is impossible to justify our Defense budget, even when adjusted for inflation, being higher than it was during that entire period.


----------



## BlindBoo

Two words.

Sequestration.

Okay.

Sources: DoD 5-year spending plan $115 billion over budget caps, ignores sequestration | Military Times | militarytimes.com


----------



## The T

HenryBHough said:


> We don't need armed forces.
> 
> Everybody in the world loves us.
> 
> It's been that way since January, 2009.
> 
> Hasn't it?


57% say Obama and the US aren't respected in the world...so HELL? Cut the military and open the door to attack/invasion...

 Hagel and Obama are playing a very dangerous game.


----------



## g5000

The T said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need armed forces.
> 
> Everybody in the world loves us.
> 
> It's been that way since January, 2009.
> 
> Hasn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 57% say Obama and the US aren't respected in the world...so HELL? Cut the military and open the door to attack/invasion...
> 
> Hagel and Obama are playing a very dangerous game.
Click to expand...




What country would be capable of invading us?


----------



## The T

If ANYTHING? WELFARE, domestic spending should be CUT to the bone.


----------



## deltex1

Mojo2 said:


> This is a dangerous, dangerous decision.
> 
> Nuclear responses are made more necessary and more likely if our ability to fight two major wars simultaneously as well as a smaller military conflict can't be handled by this smaller Army size with conventional weapons.



This could be a positive outcome.  We have proven that boots on the ground with conventional weapons is a failed strategy...especially when ROE tie those boots in knots.  A policy of well placed nukes announced to the world could be just what is needed.


----------



## g5000

We had about 480,000 US soldiers in 1998.  Nobody invaded.

We now stand around 560,000.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down.  Demobilization is SOP for post-war periods.


----------



## g5000

The T said:


> If ANYTHING? WELFARE, domestic spending should be CUT to the bone.



*cough*



g5000 said:


> 1. Return Defense spending to pre-9/11 levels.  We are currently spending at levels not seen since WWII.  More than during the Cold War when we actually faced an existential threat.  Even a lot more than during Reagan's huge defense buildup.
> 
> 2. Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70 and index to 9 percent of the population going forward.  We are living longer, we should be working longer.
> 
> 3. Ban all tax expenditures.  Over $1.2 trillion a year is being spent on them.  That is nearly the same as our federal deficit.
> 
> With these three simple solutions, we would not only balance the budget, we would have several trillions of dollars of surplus cash over the next decade with which to not only pay down the debt, but to also lower everyone's tax rates.


----------



## deltex1

g5000 said:


> We had about 480,000 US soldiers in 1998.  Nobody invaded.
> 
> We now stand around 560,000.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down.  Demobilization is SOP for post-war periods.



We are in the same war we were in in 1998...bubba didn't realize it then and Obabble doesn't realize it now.


----------



## rightwinger

Our fighting force is much more efficient and we don't have the threat we had in the 40s


----------



## Rocko

Mojo2 said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for the military. Al Qaeda has been decimated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is said that we tend to try prepare to fight the most previous war when our enemies are thinking of a different way to challenge us.
> 
> You would remove from the enemy any reason to try challenging us in a new manner.
> 
> You want to make us vulnerable to the OLD threats.
> 
> The enemy would certainly appreciate your attitude.
Click to expand...


I was being facetious. Obama said it...remember? [MENTION=45791]Mojo2[/MENTION]


----------



## g5000

deltex1 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had about 480,000 US soldiers in 1998.  Nobody invaded.
> 
> We now stand around 560,000.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down.  Demobilization is SOP for post-war periods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are in the same war we were in in 1998...bubba didn't realize it then and Obabble doesn't realize it now.
Click to expand...


We were not under any kind of existential threat.

The federal debt has now become our biggest threat to national survival.


----------



## The T

g5000 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> If ANYTHING? WELFARE, domestic spending should be CUT to the bone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *cough*
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Return Defense spending to pre-9/11 levels. We are currently spending at levels not seen since WWII. More than during the Cold War when we actually faced an existential threat. Even a lot more than during Reagan's huge defense buildup.
> 
> 2. Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70 and index to 9 percent of the population going forward. We are living longer, we should be working longer.
> 
> 3. Ban all tax expenditures. Over $1.2 trillion a year is being spent on them. That is nearly the same as our federal deficit.
> 
> With these three simple solutions, we would not only balance the budget, we would have several trillions of dollars of surplus cash over the next decade with which to not only pay down the debt, but to also lower everyone's tax rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Have a cold? Cough away from me. BYE.


----------



## BlindBoo

deltex1 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had about 480,000 US soldiers in 1998.  Nobody invaded.
> 
> We now stand around 560,000.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down.  Demobilization is SOP for post-war periods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are in the same war we were in in 1998...bubba didn't realize it then and Obabble doesn't realize it now.
Click to expand...


Sorry but it was Bush and his cronies that didn't understand the threat, despite multiple warnings.  They were pushing for Star Wars as the only way to deal with rogue nations who wanted to strike at us.  Of course that was pre-9-11.


----------



## Ropey

Lovebears65 said:


> This has been Obamas plan from the beginning. He hates the military and he has not been afraid to say it.. HE wants our POLICE to be the military here .. This is very dangerous for him to cut our troops..   This makes us very vulnerable .. Pentagon Set to Slash Military to Pre-World War II Levels - NBC News
> 
> Another article Obama wanting to militarize the Police
> 
> 
> 7 Ways The Obama Administration Has Accelerated Police Militarization



This was his plan and he detailed it quite early on and no one listened to it because they liked his rhetoric.

What he's doing will last a lot longer than what he said. 







He's leading from behind because he's placed the US behind him... since he thinks that the US needs to be fundamentally changed (transformed to leading from behind).

[ame=http://youtu.be/KrefKCaV8m4]Obama: "Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America" Long Version - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Political Junky

Hagel wants a smaller but better prepared military.

Leaner and meaner, if you will.


----------



## Ropey

Hagel wants the US to step back. Obama does as well.  Both have made that clear even if they have washed this little bit of consumptive media.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Close 2/3rds of the bases
Cut the military by 150k troops
and use more drones that are overall cheaper to do the job.

= winning.


----------



## Ropey

Yes, OK, leaving the arena(s) is winning.

Bugging out is really winning, then.

In those terms, Germany won WWI & WWII.


----------



## Ropey

Oh, but it's all peaceful now.


----------



## ScienceRocks

With drones and long range missiles. Do we really need bases in every country to kill terrorist?


----------



## Ropey

It's not only terrorism that's at issue.  Terrorism is a tactic. Countries follow tactics.


----------



## Katzndogz

If you look at it from the point of view of a leftist, we don't need a military, just obama.   He has destroyed al quaeda, Iran has knuckled under, President Putin is hiding under the bed and China is counting the pennies we let them have.

In reality, we will start out any conflict brought to us vastly outnumbered with no attack aircraft at all and a miniscule navy.


----------



## deltex1

g5000 said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had about 480,000 US soldiers in 1998.  Nobody invaded.
> 
> We now stand around 560,000.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down.  Demobilization is SOP for post-war periods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are in the same war we were in in 1998...bubba didn't realize it then and Obabble doesn't realize it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were not under any kind of existential threat.
> 
> The federal debt has now become our biggest threat to national survival.
Click to expand...


What did 911 cost us?  The federal debt is not caused by military spending.


----------



## The T

Katzndogz said:


> If you look at it from the point of view of a leftist, we don't need a military, just obama. He has destroyed al quaeda, Iran has knuckled under, President Putin is hiding under the bed and China is counting the pennies we let them have.
> 
> In reality, we will start out any conflict brought to us vastly outnumbered with no attack aircraft at all and a miniscule navy.


And it's just what they want. They feel GUILTY we are where we are...so they have to knock us DOWN a few notches for EQUAL OUTCOME...or so they think.


----------



## g5000

The T said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> If ANYTHING? WELFARE, domestic spending should be CUT to the bone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *cough*
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Return Defense spending to pre-9/11 levels. We are currently spending at levels not seen since WWII. More than during the Cold War when we actually faced an existential threat. Even a lot more than during Reagan's huge defense buildup.
> 
> 2. Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70 and index to 9 percent of the population going forward. We are living longer, we should be working longer.
> 
> 3. Ban all tax expenditures. Over $1.2 trillion a year is being spent on them. That is nearly the same as our federal deficit.
> 
> With these three simple solutions, we would not only balance the budget, we would have several trillions of dollars of surplus cash over the next decade with which to not only pay down the debt, but to also lower everyone's tax rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have a cold? Cough away from me. BYE.
Click to expand...


You said cutting the Army would leave  us open to invasion, but still have not said who would be capable of invading us.


----------



## Sallow

buckeye45_73 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lovebears65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been Obamas plan from the beginning. He hates the military and he has not been afraid to say it.. HE wants our POLICE to be the military here .. This is very dangerous for him to cut our troops..   This makes us very vulnerable .. Pentagon Set to Slash Military to Pre-World War II Levels - NBC News
> 
> Another article Obama wanting to militarize the Police
> 
> 
> 7 Ways The Obama Administration Has Accelerated Police Militarization
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so you guys aren't serious about cutting the debt.
> 
> And the police were "militarized" well before Obama came in.
> 
> What do you think SWAT is all about.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Swalloooooow....nah wed rather crush executive departments and phony regulation agencies.....you know the ones that want to monitor news rooms
Click to expand...


You swallow?

That's impressive. But no. I don't need your skillz sonny boy.

And when did "nah" wed "rather"?

Was it televised?


----------



## deltex1

BlindBoo said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had about 480,000 US soldiers in 1998.  Nobody invaded.
> 
> We now stand around 560,000.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down.  Demobilization is SOP for post-war periods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are in the same war we were in in 1998...bubba didn't realize it then and Obabble doesn't realize it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but it was Bush and his cronies that didn't understand the threat, despite multiple warnings.  They were pushing for Star Wars as the only way to deal with rogue nations who wanted to strike at us.  Of course that was pre-9-11.
Click to expand...


Bin laden came on the scene in 2001...?


----------



## Sallow

deltex1 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are in the same war we were in in 1998...bubba didn't realize it then and Obabble doesn't realize it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were not under any kind of existential threat.
> 
> The federal debt has now become our biggest threat to national survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did 911 cost us?  The federal debt is not caused by military spending.
Click to expand...


Dunno.

But spending 700 billion dollars a year didn't stop a small group of Saudis from making a mess of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.


----------



## Sallow

deltex1 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are in the same war we were in in 1998...bubba didn't realize it then and Obabble doesn't realize it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it was Bush and his cronies that didn't understand the threat, despite multiple warnings.  They were pushing for Star Wars as the only way to deal with rogue nations who wanted to strike at us.  Of course that was pre-9-11.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bin laden came on the scene in 2001...?
Click to expand...


Naw.

He's "Bin" around since Reagan was giving him moula and CIA training.

Good stuff.

He called him a "Founding Father".

Guess he "found" New York and Washington.


----------



## g5000

deltex1 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are in the same war we were in in 1998...bubba didn't realize it then and Obabble doesn't realize it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were not under any kind of existential threat.
> 
> The federal debt has now become our biggest threat to national survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did 911 cost us?  The federal debt is not caused by military spending.
Click to expand...




Wow!  That is such an insanely stupid comment.

I guess all that hardware and personnel are free, eh?


----------



## Lovebears65

g5000 said:


> We are not under any kind of existential threat such as we were during the Cold War.  It is impossible to justify our Defense budget, even when adjusted for inflation, being higher than it was during that entire period.



are you high..  Muslim terrorist are just waiting for this to happen.  so now they can plan more attacks


----------



## g5000




----------



## g5000

Lovebears65 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not under any kind of existential threat such as we were during the Cold War.  It is impossible to justify our Defense budget, even when adjusted for inflation, being higher than it was during that entire period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you high..  Muslim terrorist are just waiting for this to happen.  so now they can plan more attacks
Click to expand...


How are the extra 100,000 Army men going to stop a terrorist from blowing up a bus in Kansas?


----------



## ScienceRocks

We need to refocus more towards r@D and keeping our lead in tech. This is what makes us stand out on this planet military wise.


----------



## Sallow

g5000 said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were not under any kind of existential threat.
> 
> The federal debt has now become our biggest threat to national survival.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did 911 cost us?  The federal debt is not caused by military spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  That is such an insanely stupid comment.
> 
> I guess all that hardware and personnel are free, eh?
Click to expand...


It comes from a magic pot of gold protected by this guy..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLCX_GGepKs]I need me gold - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## The T

Matthew said:


> We need to refocus more towards r@D and keeping our lead in tech. This is what makes us stand out on this planet military wise.


YOU need more r@D for more ways the Government can hold your hand through life. It's *R&D you dumbass. *Your Government education serves you well.


----------



## TemplarKormac

BlindBoo said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had about 480,000 US soldiers in 1998.  Nobody invaded.
> 
> We now stand around 560,000.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down.  Demobilization is SOP for post-war periods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are in the same war we were in in 1998...bubba didn't realize it then and Obabble doesn't realize it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but it was Bush and his cronies that didn't understand the threat, despite multiple warnings.  *They were pushing for Star Wars as the only way to deal with rogue nations who wanted to strike at us. * Of course that was pre-9-11.
Click to expand...


Actually SDI had no basis in reality. Reagan believed in it, but everyone around him didn't. But the good thing about that was the Soviets didn't know it had no roots in fact. It was SDI that brought Mikhail Gorbachev and the USSR to their knees. It had them all running scared.


----------



## The T

TemplarKormac said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are in the same war we were in in 1998...bubba didn't realize it then and Obabble doesn't realize it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it was Bush and his cronies that didn't understand the threat, despite multiple warnings. *They were pushing for Star Wars as the only way to deal with rogue nations who wanted to strike at us. *Of course that was pre-9-11.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually SDI had no basis in reality. Reagan believed in it, but everyone around him didn't. But the good thing about that was the Soviets didn't know it had no roots in fact. It was SDI that brought Mikhail Gorbachev and the USSR to their knees. It had them all running scared.
Click to expand...

But now closer to reality...


----------



## ScienceRocks

The T said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to refocus more towards r@D and keeping our lead in tech. This is what makes us stand out on this planet military wise.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU need more r@D for more ways the Government can hold your hand through life. It's *R&D you dumbass. *Your Government education serves you well.
Click to expand...


LOL,

If it wasn't for R&D our military would look like Russia's during the early part of wwI. You're a clueless fuck.


----------



## occupied

I was in the Army during Reagan's massive peacetime buildup, few things are worse for morale than knowing for a fact that all you do is for nothing more than to keep contractors in fat contracts. troops need more than useless busywork to feel as if they are not wasting their time away from family, keeping large numbers in uniform is a waste for them as well as taxpayers.


----------



## ScienceRocks

R&D and advancements are also what makes China respectable militarily over what it was 40 years ago.


----------



## Ropey

China's military is laughable. It has a credible missile defense and it's nuclear potentials some of which are quite suspect as to status. 

It's landbound.


----------



## The T

Matthew said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to refocus more towards r@D and keeping our lead in tech. This is what makes us stand out on this planet military wise.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU need more r@D for more ways the Government can hold your hand through life. It's *R&D you dumbass. *Your Government education serves you well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL,
> 
> If it wasn't for R&D our military would look like Russia's during the early part of wwI. You're a clueless fuck.
Click to expand...

Really? And Russia didn't have WHAT? And OUR own Government wouldn't have achieved what they did without WHAT?

 God, you're dense!


----------



## ScienceRocks

Ropey said:


> China's military is laughable. It has a credible missile defense and it's nuclear potentials some of which are quite suspect as to status.
> 
> It's landbound.



And you wonder where most of that 700 billion/year are directed towards to make us the super power we're? R&D and a well to stay in the lead over the rest of the world. 

When I was a Bush Republican this use to be generally accepted.


----------



## Sallow

TemplarKormac said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are in the same war we were in in 1998...bubba didn't realize it then and Obabble doesn't realize it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it was Bush and his cronies that didn't understand the threat, despite multiple warnings.  *They were pushing for Star Wars as the only way to deal with rogue nations who wanted to strike at us. * Of course that was pre-9-11.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually SDI had no basis in reality. Reagan believed in it, but everyone around him didn't. But the good thing about that was the Soviets didn't know it had no roots in fact. It was SDI that brought* Mikhail Gorbachev and the USSR to their knees.* It had them all running scared.
Click to expand...


No it isn't.

Gorbachev was a moderate that wanted to jettison Communism.


----------



## Ropey

China is landbound. In a war it can not even build it's own fighter/bomber aircraft engines. Resources in a time of war also limits China.

Russia? Now that's another story, which is why China buys it's military jets from them.  Russia doesn't trust China which is why the factories are in Russia since China was caught red-handed with Russian jet engine specifications when Russia did allow factories to be built in China. 



> China has designed nuclear missiles and blasted astronauts into space, but one vital technology remains out of reach. Despite decades of research and development, China has so far failed to build a reliable, high performance jet engine.



Unable to copy it, China tries building own jet engine | Reuters


----------



## ScienceRocks

Personally I wouldn't cut the military as I believe there's real threats like China, Russia and nations like Iran. Where I disagree is when it comes to protecting the world from its self. Why?

I am all for more investing in r&d and having the best military. FOR OUR DEFENSE.


----------



## Desperado

Matthew said:


> Close 2/3rds of the bases
> Cut the military by 150k troops
> and use more drones that are overall cheaper to do the job.
> 
> = winning.



Close 2/3rds of the bases, starting with overseas bases first.  
Europe, Korea and Japan can start defending themselves. Need to get them off the gravy train.



> The size of the U.S. force in Germany is expected to drop in the coming year as the Army plans to deactivate one brigade combat team next year and possibly reduce the force even further with a cut of around 2,500 soldiers. Currently, the U.S. has 48,000 active-duty personnel in Germany at a cost of $4 billion for basing and support.
> 
> The amount does not include military personnel costs of $3.9 billion.


Report: US footing greater bill for overseas bases


----------



## Katzndogz

g5000 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *cough*
> 
> 
> 
> Have a cold? Cough away from me. BYE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said cutting the Army would leave  us open to invasion, but still have not said who would be capable of invading us.
Click to expand...


If it keeps going the way it is going, anyone with a mind to.  Especially if we eliminate our defenses.  Do you really think all we need is a Coast Guard?  Our military will be down to where it was in 1940.  Did we not have an attack on American territory in 1944?   Was there an immediate response to that attack?   Were we capable of an immediate response to that attack? 

Now if the left succeeds in disarming the nation, some kind of invasion would be that much more likely.  At least in 1944 the Japanese emperor disregarded an invasion because of armed Americans behind every blade of grass.  This time, obama is importing terrorists to build cells within the US as fast as the planes can bring them here.


----------



## francoHFW

We don't need to spend as much as the rest of the world COMBINED....

i SAW FOX GOING ON ABOUT CUTTING TO pre-WW II LEVEL- ok NOW THE LSM IS SAYING THAT LOL. TODAY, CUT FROM 550K TO 450 K. -Pre WW II, 100K. Lying PPM, cowardly LSM, shytty media.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Defending America = keep it the best
Defending the world = cut it to the bone

You did say you wanted to cut, slash and fuck? right?


----------



## ScienceRocks

I am talking about spending 400 billion/year on our military. The good news is most of that will be used to improve it instead of paying to maintain bases overseas.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Cut that military shit and restore decency and fiscal sanity to this country.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it was Bush and his cronies that didn't understand the threat, despite multiple warnings.  *They were pushing for Star Wars as the only way to deal with rogue nations who wanted to strike at us. * Of course that was pre-9-11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually SDI had no basis in reality. Reagan believed in it, but everyone around him didn't. But the good thing about that was the Soviets didn't know it had no roots in fact. It was SDI that brought* Mikhail Gorbachev and the USSR to their knees.* It had them all running scared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> Gorbachev was a moderate that wanted to jettison Communism.
Click to expand...


BS. Until 1991 he belonged to the Communist Party where he served as General Secretary.


----------



## francoHFW

Try and remain calm, hater dupes. This not going back to pre WW II, 1OOK and no tanks or machine guns...thanks to isolationist Pubs. No help to the French. argh


----------



## francoHFW

Gorby wanted openness and democracy- communism can't survive it. We're lucky Reagan's bluster and ugly Americanism didn't bring back the hardliners- and we only had to triple the debt, ruin our nonrich and infrastructure, and ruin OUR reputaion via Iraq, AFGHAN, eL sALVADOR, nIC ETC ETC. wHAT A DEMENTED FOOL...


----------



## Political Junky

deltex1 said:


> What did 911 cost us?  The federal debt is not caused by military spending.



What?


----------



## Jroc

Samson said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whine and bitch about spending, then when it's cut whine and bitch. See cons don't want less spending, they just want to fuck the poor and elderly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military spending is the job of the federal government idiot. All this social spending isnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought Proecting the Nation was the job of the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I understand: "Military Spending" is actually the goal here.........
Click to expand...


one in the same genus


----------



## Jroc

Delta4Embassy said:


> A-10s are among the better attack/ground support aircraft in our inventory, unless they're being replaced with something to fill that void, given how cheap they are and effective, it sounds ill-advised.
> 
> Shrinking the Army though is a good idea. Future wars dont rely on massive armies or fleets but electronic/cyber warfare. And given our poor-performance is Iraq and Afganistan if tightening our belts and putting money where it actually does us some good, I'm all for it.
> 
> Should drastically cut-back our nuclear forces too. If nuclear weapons aren't ever going to be used since future nuclear aggressors are more likely to be rogue states and terrorists, the need for ICBMs and bomber delivery systems has come and gone. Submarine-launched remains the best possible nuclear deterrent.
> 
> *Should redirect those nuclear funds into planetary defense research for deflecting/destroying incoming asteroids. As well as set some aside for planetary defense against 'other/unknown threats.' May never encounter aliens, but if we do, and if they're hostile (like we are) a little forethought might go a long way*.




Dude you've been watching too many Sci-Fi movies step back into reality man


----------



## Jroc

Two Thumbs said:


> "We are repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new technologies, new centers of power, and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable, and in some instances more threatening to the United States," Hagel said at a press conference at the Pentagon.
> 
> 
> This is a man that knows his history.  He knows we were not ready for WW2, so he plans on making us unready, even when he clearly knows it's a bad idea, based on what he said there



Hagal is the dumbest Secretary of Defense in American history. Obama surly knows a how to pick um.


----------



## Jroc

Two Thumbs said:


> Does anyone know if they plan on closing foreign bases?
> 
> protecting other countries costs us a LOT



I don't have a problem with closing some bases and letting Japan and Europe cover more of their own expenses


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We are repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new technologies, new centers of power, and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable, and in some instances more threatening to the United States," Hagel said at a press conference at the Pentagon.
> 
> 
> This is a man that knows his history.  He knows we were not ready for WW2, so he plans on making us unready, even when he clearly knows it's a bad idea, based on what he said there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hagal is the dumbest Secretary of Defense in American history. Obama surly knows a how to pick um.
Click to expand...


Hagar is just stating the obvious


----------



## Jroc

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We are repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new technologies, new centers of power, and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable, and in some instances more threatening to the United States," Hagel said at a press conference at the Pentagon.
> 
> 
> This is a man that knows his history.  He knows we were not ready for WW2, so he plans on making us unready, even when he clearly knows it's a bad idea, based on what he said there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hagal is the dumbest Secretary of Defense in American history. Obama surly knows a how to pick um.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hagar is just stating the obvious
Click to expand...



And it's obvious he isn't too bright


----------



## JakeStarkey

Samson said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pulling the fangs and emptying the venom of the neo-cons is good for America..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Because it worked so well in Germany after WW I ?
Click to expand...


Because the war mongers took charge because the people could not control them?  We aren't Germany of post WWI.

Your mistake is a false derivative analogy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Desperado said:


> In the Pre WW2 Army, all support roles were filled by military personnel.  Today these jobs are done by civilian contractors. So even with the cuts we will still have more fighting men than the Pre WW2 Army.



Get rid of the civilian contractors in military service support.  The military could hve won the peace in Iraq if it had supervised the rebuilding of Iraq with coalition forces and Iraqi labor (paid a decent wage so they would invest in the new Iraq) rather than the hideously costly civilian contract services.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military spending is the job of the federal government idiot. All this social spending isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Proecting the Nation was the job of the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I understand: "Military Spending" is actually the goal here.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> one in the same genus
Click to expand...


You are wrong on the one and want to spend too much on the other.

Your time is over, neo-con.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hagal is the dumbest Secretary of Defense in American history. Obama surly knows a how to pick um.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hagar is just stating the obvious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it's obvious he isn't too bright
Click to expand...


Hagal is an Einstein compared to you, Jroc.


----------



## Samson

JakeStarkey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pulling the fangs and emptying the venom of the neo-cons is good for America..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Because it worked so well in Germany after WW I ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the war mongers took charge because the people could not control them?  We aren't Germany of post WWI.
> 
> Your mistake is a false derivative analogy.
Click to expand...


Ok, then why would "pulling fangs" of "neo-cons" be particulary "good for America?"



That's OK Jake, I actually don't expect you to support your opinion with a logical arguement.


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hagal is the dumbest Secretary of Defense in American history. Obama surly knows a how to pick um.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hagar is just stating the obvious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it's obvious he isn't too bright
Click to expand...


The worldwide threat no longer justifies the size of our military

Doesn't take a genius to figure out


----------



## Samson

Jroc said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military spending is the job of the federal government idiot. All this social spending isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Proecting the Nation was the job of the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I understand: "Military Spending" is actually the goal here.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> one in the same genus
Click to expand...




"Genus?"

"One in the same class or group of any kind?"

So you are saying, using as obscure language as possible, that Protecting the Nation means Military Spending, which is obvious.

What is NOT obvious, is how MORE Military Spending Protects a Nation BETTER. On our planet there's something called diminishing returns. This means that when you double your expenditures year-over-year, you may only experience a marginal return for the investment. Eventually, the return becomes infintessimal, and the expenditure is worthless.


----------



## Samson

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hagar is just stating the obvious
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it's obvious he isn't too bright
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The worldwide threat no longer justifies the size of our military
> 
> Doesn't take a genius to figure out
Click to expand...


Ironically, pre WWII, the worldwide threat was huge.....


And we won....

In 5 years.


----------



## Jroc

Samson said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Proecting the Nation was the job of the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I understand: "Military Spending" is actually the goal here.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one in the same genus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Genus?"
> 
> "One in the same class or group of any kind?"
> 
> So you are saying, using as obscure language as possible, that Protecting the Nation means Military Spending, which is obvious.
> 
> What is NOT obvious, is how MORE Military Spending Protects a Nation BETTER. On our planet there's something called diminishing returns. This means that when you double your expenditures year-over-year, you may only experience a marginal return for the investment. Eventually, the return becomes infintessimal, and the expenditure is worthless.
Click to expand...

Developing, producing, and deploying, new technology costs money and it's well worth it Having the most advance military in the world is well worth the money spent.


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> one in the same genus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Genus?"
> 
> "One in the same class or group of any kind?"
> 
> So you are saying, using as obscure language as possible, that Protecting the Nation means Military Spending, which is obvious.
> 
> What is NOT obvious, is how MORE Military Spending Protects a Nation BETTER. On our planet there's something called diminishing returns. This means that when you double your expenditures year-over-year, you may only experience a marginal return for the investment. Eventually, the return becomes infintessimal, and the expenditure is worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Developing, producing, and deploying, new technology costs money and it's well worth it Having the most advance military in the world is well worth the money spent.
Click to expand...


Is it?   Absent a threat

While we have a $17 trillion debt, crumbling infrastructure and working Americans crying for healthcare and affordable education?


----------



## SmedlyButler

This has been mentioned in this thread but a picture is sometimes worth a thousand words 
they say.

Does the U.S. have to continually re-mortgage the country to remain the World's cop?


----------



## Samson

Jroc said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> one in the same genus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Genus?"
> 
> "One in the same class or group of any kind?"
> 
> So you are saying, using as obscure language as possible, that Protecting the Nation means Military Spending, which is obvious.
> 
> What is NOT obvious, is how MORE Military Spending Protects a Nation BETTER. On our planet there's something called diminishing returns. This means that when you double your expenditures year-over-year, you may only experience a marginal return for the investment. Eventually, the return becomes infintessimal, and the expenditure is worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Developing, producing, and deploying, new technology costs money and it's well worth it Having the most advance military in the world is well worth the money spent.
Click to expand...


Apparently, my attempt to explain diminishing returns has introduced a notion so alien to your world, it is impossible for you to grasp.



Happily, our democracy will not depend only upon this narrow, More is Better, POV.


----------



## Jroc

SmedlyButler said:


> This has been mentioned in this thread but a picture is sometimes worth a thousand words
> they say.
> 
> Does the U.S. have to continually re-mortgage the country to remain the World's cop?



Bullshit China and Russia don't report accurately what they spend. and I've already said Europe and Japan need to step it up we cant pay for their defense.


----------



## rightwinger

SmedlyButler said:


> This has been mentioned in this thread but a picture is sometimes worth a thousand words
> they say.
> 
> Does the U.S. have to continually re-mortgage the country to remain the World's cop?



Also...eight out of the ten  are trusted allies

Where is our threat?


----------



## eagle1462010

It is amazing how the Liberals go bat shit crazy over cuts to the military.  You only hear them talking about spending cuts and the debt when we talk about these types of cuts.

Quite frankly I wonder if they get that tingling sensation in their legs when this happens...........

Riddle me this.............Which President recently caused cuts to the Commissaries used by the military in the U.S.................They are now closed on Sundays thanks to the Sequester deal that was the brain child of this President.  He spends his butt off but can't think of anything else to cut but services to the troops themselves............

Which President also caused their co-pays to go up................

Which President wouldn't give the cost of living raises to the retirees.....................


I believe cuts are needed everywhere.  Not just in the military. And the across the board buts just on the numbers is utter BS.  There are plenty of other areas to cut instead of operational troops.  While they have instigated a Freeze on hiring Civilian employees, why didn't they start there instead of actual troops....................

Recently the GAO released 200 Billion in wasteful spending..........Yet we have a Gov't that would rather shut down Commissaries on Sundays to save 1.4 BILLION a year, than look at this other wasteful spending instead.

Frankly, you Liberals Disgust me.


----------



## Samson

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Genus?"
> 
> "One in the same class or group of any kind?"
> 
> So you are saying, using as obscure language as possible, that Protecting the Nation means Military Spending, which is obvious.
> 
> What is NOT obvious, is how MORE Military Spending Protects a Nation BETTER. On our planet there's something called diminishing returns. This means that when you double your expenditures year-over-year, you may only experience a marginal return for the investment. Eventually, the return becomes infintessimal, and the expenditure is worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> Developing, producing, and deploying, new technology costs money and it's well worth it Having the most advance military in the world is well worth the money spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?   Absent a threat
> 
> While we have a $17 trillion debt, crumbling infrastructure and working Americans crying for healthcare and affordable education?
Click to expand...


Let's imagine there was a threat. Germany and Japan. Global War.

Even with our primitive pre-WW II military, and tiny defense budget, we still were victorious.


----------



## RandomVariable

The #1 greatest threat to National Security/National Interests is our non-existant foreign policy.


----------



## Jroc

Samson said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Genus?"
> 
> "One in the same class or group of any kind?"
> 
> So you are saying, using as obscure language as possible, that Protecting the Nation means Military Spending, which is obvious.
> 
> What is NOT obvious, is how MORE Military Spending Protects a Nation BETTER. On our planet there's something called diminishing returns. This means that when you double your expenditures year-over-year, you may only experience a marginal return for the investment. Eventually, the return becomes infintessimal, and the expenditure is worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> Developing, producing, and deploying, new technology costs money and it's well worth it Having the most advance military in the world is well worth the money spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, my attempt to explain diminishing returns has introduced a notion so alien to your world, it is impossible for you to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> Happily, our democracy will not depend only upon this narrow, More is Better, POV.
Click to expand...

 
I'm sure there is lot of waste and duplication that can be cut. Other than that? You'll haft to be more specific on what is to be considered a diminishing return


----------



## Moonglow

eagle1462010 said:


> It is amazing how the Liberals go bat shit crazy over cuts to the military.  You only hear them talking about spending cuts and the debt when we talk about these types of cuts.
> 
> Quite frankly I wonder if they get that tingling sensation in their legs when this happens...........
> 
> Riddle me this.............Which President recently caused cuts to the Commissaries used by the military in the U.S.................They are now closed on Sundays thanks to the Sequester deal that was the brain child of this President.  He spends his butt off but can't think of anything else to cut but services to the troops themselves............
> 
> Which President also caused their co-pays to go up................
> 
> Which President wouldn't give the cost of living raises to the retirees.....................
> 
> 
> I believe cuts are needed everywhere.  Not just in the military. And the across the board buts just on the numbers is utter BS.  There are plenty of other areas to cut instead of operational troops.  While they have instigated a Freeze on hiring Civilian employees, why didn't they start there instead of actual troops....................
> 
> Recently the GAO released 200 Billion in wasteful spending..........Yet we have a Gov't that would rather shut down Commissaries on Sundays to save 1.4 BILLION a year, than look at this other wasteful spending instead.
> 
> Frankly, you Liberals Disgust me.



start your own thread then....go out on the branch..


----------



## Moonglow

The military wants to cut personnel costs so they can afford the weapons development branch.


----------



## SmedlyButler

"Man is not free unless government is limited.Ronald Reagan"

Impossible to achieve I think with the "defense" spending you seem to favor.

And I think the Libertarians on this board will second this, the Founders were not much enamoured with a large standing Army.


----------



## Dante

Jroc said:


> ...



starting with a military man Our Documents - President George Washington's Farewell Address (1796)

and another military man Eisenhower's Military-Industry Complex Warning, 50 Years Later : NPR


Bush and Rumsfeld (pre 911)  In the George W. Bush administration, Donald Rumsfeld continued a policy that sought to exploit information technology to replace the human component in war. Had it not been for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Army would have gone down to fewer than eight divisions. 

Dick Cheney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from 2012 Doyle McManus: The brass agrees with Obama's call to shrink the military - Los Angeles Times

President Obama has called a halt to the decade-long rise in defense spending that began after Sept. 11, and has proposed shrinking the Army and Marine Corps by about 14%.

Congressional Republicans (not to mention Mitt Romney) say that would be disastrous and that it could jeopardize American troops abroad.

But the military brass has stood behind Obama &#8212; literally. When the president announced his proposals, the Joint Chiefs of Staff lined up behind him in the Pentagon's briefing room. There has been no audible dissent from the officer corps.


----------



## Samson

eagle1462010 said:


> It is amazing how the Liberals go bat shit crazy over cuts to the military.  You only hear them talking about spending cuts and the debt when we talk about these types of cuts.
> ......
> Frankly, you Liberals Disgust me.



Liberals like Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby?



> Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said Monday that Hagel consulted closely with the military service chiefs on how to balance defense and budget-saving requirements. "He has worked hard with the services to ensure that we continue to stand for the defense of our national interests -- that whatever budget priorities we establish, we do so in keeping with our defense strategy and with a strong commitment to the men and women in uniform and to their families, Kirby said.​




Liberals like the Joint Chiefs of Staff?



> Officials told the Times that Hagel's plan has been endorsed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.​


----------



## JakeStarkey

Samson said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Because it worked so well in Germany after WW I ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the war mongers took charge because the people could not control them?  We aren't Germany of post WWI.
> 
> Your mistake is a false derivative analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, then why would "pulling fangs" of "neo-cons" be particulary "good for America?"
> 
> 
> 
> That's OK Jake, I actually don't expect you to support your opinion with a logical arguement.
Click to expand...


That's OK Samson because you can't comprehend an objective argument.

13 years of war have not brought peace.

We need to stand the generals and admirals and the industries down, so we don't waste anymore of our treasure.

We can easily defend our interests at 50% of what we are spending with an effective naval and air power that can shield America and project power and punishment anywhere in the word, as well as an exceptional ground force.


----------



## RandomVariable

eagle1462010 said:


> It is amazing how the Liberals go bat shit crazy over cuts to the military.  You only hear them talking about spending cuts and the debt when we talk about these types of cuts.
> 
> Quite frankly I wonder if they get that tingling sensation in their legs when this happens...........
> 
> Riddle me this.............Which President recently caused cuts to the Commissaries used by the military in the U.S.................They are now closed on Sundays thanks to the Sequester deal that was the brain child of this President.  He spends his butt off but can't think of anything else to cut but services to the troops themselves............
> 
> Which President also caused their co-pays to go up................
> 
> Which President wouldn't give the cost of living raises to the retirees.....................
> 
> 
> I believe cuts are needed everywhere.  Not just in the military. And the across the board buts just on the numbers is utter BS.  There are plenty of other areas to cut instead of operational troops.  While they have instigated a Freeze on hiring Civilian employees, why didn't they start there instead of actual troops....................
> 
> Recently the GAO released 200 Billion in wasteful spending..........Yet we have a Gov't that would rather shut down Commissaries on Sundays to save 1.4 BILLION a year, than look at this other wasteful spending instead.
> 
> Frankly, you Liberals Disgust me.



Don't even attempt to bring up sequester. I watched every one of the Republicans on the Senate Armed Forces committee give a sweet little speech that they were disappointed that the sequester was going into affect and then they turned and walked right out the door. Those Senators right there could have done something to stop the sequester and they turned their backs on the armed forces and walked out so don't give me any "Obama's sequester" because when it came down to the line the Republicans did it to the military, not the Democrats.


----------



## Moonglow

The president does not set all the rules in the military....


----------



## eagle1462010

DoD budget seeks cuts in BAH, commissary, Tricare benefits | Navy Times | navytimes.com

Some highlights of the Defense Departments budget proposal for fiscal 2015 include the *first-ever rollback in Basic Allowance for Housing*; a military pay raise that would match last years* 1 percent hike, the lowest in the volunteer era*; massive cuts to commissary subsidies; and *potentially increased health care fees for both active-duty families and retirees.*

On housing allowances, Hagel said the Pentagon will slow the growth until BAH covers only about 95 percent of estimated rental costs, with troops paying the other 5 percent out of pocket. In addition, the monthly BAH check provided to about 1 million service members will be cut further by eliminating the stipend for renters insurance that for years has been a key component in calculating BAH.

Next years pay raise for troops would be 1 percent, the same as this year. Those are the lowest pay raises since the end of the draft in 1973 and fall below estimated growth in average private-sector wages in recent years.

The Defense Department aims to* slash $1 billion from the $1.4 billion commissary subsidy*. Pentagon officials insist that no commissaries will be closed but acknowledge that prices will likely rise on many items as local facilities absorb the reduced subsidies.

Changes are also coming to Tricare. *We will ask retirees and some active-duty family members to pay a little more in their deductibles and co-pays,* Hagel said. Officials have not provided specific details.


----------



## SmedlyButler

Maybe I'm too cynical but sometimes it seems that the guys who favor the largest military spending are also the guys who like most to play keyboard tough-guy. Vicarious bully syndrome? VBS, I think I just made up a new acronym, like we need another one.


----------



## eagle1462010

RandomVariable said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing how the Liberals go bat shit crazy over cuts to the military.  You only hear them talking about spending cuts and the debt when we talk about these types of cuts.
> 
> Quite frankly I wonder if they get that tingling sensation in their legs when this happens...........
> 
> Riddle me this.............Which President recently caused cuts to the Commissaries used by the military in the U.S.................They are now closed on Sundays thanks to the Sequester deal that was the brain child of this President.  He spends his butt off but can't think of anything else to cut but services to the troops themselves............
> 
> Which President also caused their co-pays to go up................
> 
> Which President wouldn't give the cost of living raises to the retirees.....................
> 
> 
> I believe cuts are needed everywhere.  Not just in the military. And the across the board buts just on the numbers is utter BS.  There are plenty of other areas to cut instead of operational troops.  While they have instigated a Freeze on hiring Civilian employees, why didn't they start there instead of actual troops....................
> 
> Recently the GAO released 200 Billion in wasteful spending..........Yet we have a Gov't that would rather shut down Commissaries on Sundays to save 1.4 BILLION a year, than look at this other wasteful spending instead.
> 
> Frankly, you Liberals Disgust me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't even attempt to bring up sequester. I watched every one of the Republicans on the Senate Armed Forces committee give a sweet little speech that they were disappointed that the sequester was going into affect and then they turned and walked right out the door. Those Senators right there could have done something to stop the sequester and they turned their backs on the armed forces and walked out so don't give me any "Obama's sequester" because when it came down to the line the Republicans did it to the military, not the Democrats.
Click to expand...


BS.  That was Obama's plan.  He stated that other cuts would be found to avoid the sequester cuts.  He also said that he would not ask for more taxes instead.

And as usual HE LIED...............  

They cut the commissaries back then to the point of shutting down the commissaries stateside on Sundays.....................

And now they propose to cut 1 BILLION of 1.4 BILLION to them now.  This is a basic service to the military, and it's total BS...........

Perhaps one day you sorry jokers will look at the waste and fraud spending that could be cut instead of cutting basic services of those who put their butts on the line for this country.


----------



## Samson

Jroc said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Developing, producing, and deploying, new technology costs money and it's well worth it Having the most advance military in the world is well worth the money spent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, my attempt to explain diminishing returns has introduced a notion so alien to your world, it is impossible for you to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> Happily, our democracy will not depend only upon this narrow, More is Better, POV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure there is lot of waste and duplication that can be cut. Other than that? You'll haft to be more specific on what is to be considered a diminishing return
Click to expand...


How about we just read the article?

All the following are ways to reduce our investment in diminishing returns:


a limit on military pay raises, 
higher fees for health-care benefits, 
less generous housing allowances, and 
a one-year freeze on raises for top military brass.


----------



## Samson

SmedlyButler said:


> Maybe I'm too cynical but sometimes it seems that the guys who favor the largest military spending are also the guys who like most to play keyboard tough-guy. Vicarious bully syndrome? VBS, I think I just made up a new acronym, like we need another one.



*Shut the Fuck up!!*




Just kidding.


----------



## Samson

JakeStarkey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the war mongers took charge because the people could not control them?  We aren't Germany of post WWI.
> 
> Your mistake is a false derivative analogy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, then why would "pulling fangs" of "neo-cons" be particulary "good for America?"
> 
> 
> 
> That's OK Jake, I actually don't expect you to support your opinion with a logical arguement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's OK Samson because you can't comprehend an objective argument.
> 
> 13 years of war have not brought peace.
> 
> We need to stand the generals and admirals and the industries down, so we don't waste anymore of our treasure.
> 
> We can easily defend our interests at 50% of what we are spending with an effective naval and air power that can shield America and project power and punishment anywhere in the word, as well as an exceptional ground force.
Click to expand...


Well, I can certainly see you've expended an impressive volume of your existing mental resources considering the subject.

No Doubt Secretary Hagel will be calling you any minute.


----------



## Jroc

SmedlyButler said:


> Maybe I'm too cynical but sometimes it seems that the guys who favor the largest military spending are also the guys who like most to play keyboard tough-guy. Vicarious bully syndrome? VBS, I think I just made up a new acronym, like we need another one.



Well that post was totally useless...thanks for the contribution


----------



## eagle1462010

SmedlyButler said:


> Maybe I'm too cynical but sometimes it seems that the guys who favor the largest military spending are also the guys who like most to play keyboard tough-guy. Vicarious bully syndrome? VBS, I think I just made up a new acronym, like we need another one.



Standard straw man quote.  It's boring.

I served 10 years.  You don't cut the basic services portion.  That shouldn't even be on the table.  

Secondly, in what other areas do the Dems want to cut..............................

NOTHING................

So cry me a river.  Many times I've shown were the military could be cut without the consequences of what is about to occur.  Like paying thousands to replace circuit boards for a $50 part because of violating the patent or something like that while I was in the service.  We'd spend 7k on a board for a dang $20 resister.  Not to mention going hard dollar on contracts to build ships, planes, and etc.   Again, I've seen this with my own eyes on how builders will bill the Gov't over and over again for the same dang spaces on ships.


----------



## Moonglow

eagle1462010 said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing how the Liberals go bat shit crazy over cuts to the military.  You only hear them talking about spending cuts and the debt when we talk about these types of cuts.
> 
> Quite frankly I wonder if they get that tingling sensation in their legs when this happens...........
> 
> Riddle me this.............Which President recently caused cuts to the Commissaries used by the military in the U.S.................They are now closed on Sundays thanks to the Sequester deal that was the brain child of this President.  He spends his butt off but can't think of anything else to cut but services to the troops themselves............
> 
> Which President also caused their co-pays to go up................
> 
> Which President wouldn't give the cost of living raises to the retirees.....................
> 
> 
> I believe cuts are needed everywhere.  Not just in the military. And the across the board buts just on the numbers is utter BS.  There are plenty of other areas to cut instead of operational troops.  While they have instigated a Freeze on hiring Civilian employees, why didn't they start there instead of actual troops....................
> 
> Recently the GAO released 200 Billion in wasteful spending..........Yet we have a Gov't that would rather shut down Commissaries on Sundays to save 1.4 BILLION a year, than look at this other wasteful spending instead.
> 
> Frankly, you Liberals Disgust me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't even attempt to bring up sequester. I watched every one of the Republicans on the Senate Armed Forces committee give a sweet little speech that they were disappointed that the sequester was going into affect and then they turned and walked right out the door. Those Senators right there could have done something to stop the sequester and they turned their backs on the armed forces and walked out so don't give me any "Obama's sequester" because when it came down to the line the Republicans did it to the military, not the Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS.  That was Obama's plan.  He stated that other cuts would be found to avoid the sequester cuts.  He also said that he would not ask for more taxes instead.
> 
> And as usual HE LIED...............
> 
> They cut the commissaries back then to the point of shutting down the commissaries stateside on Sundays.....................
> 
> And now they propose to cut 1 BILLION of 1.4 BILLION to them now.  This is a basic service to the military, and it's total BS...........
> 
> Perhaps one day you sorry jokers will look at the waste and fraud spending that could be cut instead of cutting basic services of those who put their butts on the line for this country.
Click to expand...


Reagan cut military services and the GI bill when I was in..


----------



## RandomVariable

eagle1462010 said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing how the Liberals go bat shit crazy over cuts to the military.  You only hear them talking about spending cuts and the debt when we talk about these types of cuts.
> 
> Quite frankly I wonder if they get that tingling sensation in their legs when this happens...........
> 
> Riddle me this.............Which President recently caused cuts to the Commissaries used by the military in the U.S.................They are now closed on Sundays thanks to the Sequester deal that was the brain child of this President.  He spends his butt off but can't think of anything else to cut but services to the troops themselves............
> 
> Which President also caused their co-pays to go up................
> 
> Which President wouldn't give the cost of living raises to the retirees.....................
> 
> 
> I believe cuts are needed everywhere.  Not just in the military. And the across the board buts just on the numbers is utter BS.  There are plenty of other areas to cut instead of operational troops.  While they have instigated a Freeze on hiring Civilian employees, why didn't they start there instead of actual troops....................
> 
> Recently the GAO released 200 Billion in wasteful spending..........Yet we have a Gov't that would rather shut down Commissaries on Sundays to save 1.4 BILLION a year, than look at this other wasteful spending instead.
> 
> Frankly, you Liberals Disgust me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't even attempt to bring up sequester. I watched every one of the Republicans on the Senate Armed Forces committee give a sweet little speech that they were disappointed that the sequester was going into affect and then they turned and walked right out the door. Those Senators right there could have done something to stop the sequester and they turned their backs on the armed forces and walked out so don't give me any "Obama's sequester" because when it came down to the line the Republicans did it to the military, not the Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS.  That was Obama's plan.  He stated that other cuts would be found to avoid the sequester cuts.  He also said that he would not ask for more taxes instead.
> 
> And as usual HE LIED...............
> 
> They cut the commissaries back then to the point of shutting down the commissaries stateside on Sundays.....................
> 
> And now they propose to cut 1 BILLION of 1.4 BILLION to them now.  This is a basic service to the military, and it's total BS...........
> 
> Perhaps one day you sorry jokers will look at the waste and fraud spending that could be cut instead of cutting basic services of those who put their butts on the line for this country.
Click to expand...


So those hours and hours and hours of hearings and testimony and documents read is nothing compared to your "it was Obama's plan." Republicans could have stopped sequester from hitting our defense department and IC and they walked away. F 'em.


----------



## Moonglow

eagle1462010 said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm too cynical but sometimes it seems that the guys who favor the largest military spending are also the guys who like most to play keyboard tough-guy. Vicarious bully syndrome? VBS, I think I just made up a new acronym, like we need another one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard straw man quote.  It's boring.
> 
> I served 10 years.  You don't cut the basic services portion.  That shouldn't even be on the table.
> 
> Secondly, in what other areas do the Dems want to cut..............................
> 
> NOTHING................
> 
> So cry me a river.  Many times I've shown were the military could be cut without the consequences of what is about to occur.  Like paying thousands to replace circuit boards for a $50 part because of violating the patent or something like that while I was in the service.  We'd spend 7k on a board for a dang $20 resister.  Not to mention going hard dollar on contracts to build ships, planes, and etc.   Again, I've seen this with my own eyes on how builders will bill the Gov't over and over again for the same dang spaces on ships.
Click to expand...


They started that during Reagan, we were taught to soldier and replace components, but at the regular duty station we were told to toss the boards, rather than repair.


----------



## eagle1462010

Moonglow said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't even attempt to bring up sequester. I watched every one of the Republicans on the Senate Armed Forces committee give a sweet little speech that they were disappointed that the sequester was going into affect and then they turned and walked right out the door. Those Senators right there could have done something to stop the sequester and they turned their backs on the armed forces and walked out so don't give me any "Obama's sequester" because when it came down to the line the Republicans did it to the military, not the Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS.  That was Obama's plan.  He stated that other cuts would be found to avoid the sequester cuts.  He also said that he would not ask for more taxes instead.
> 
> And as usual HE LIED...............
> 
> They cut the commissaries back then to the point of shutting down the commissaries stateside on Sundays.....................
> 
> And now they propose to cut 1 BILLION of 1.4 BILLION to them now.  This is a basic service to the military, and it's total BS...........
> 
> Perhaps one day you sorry jokers will look at the waste and fraud spending that could be cut instead of cutting basic services of those who put their butts on the line for this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan cut military services and the GI bill when I was in..
Click to expand...


I served under Reagan.  I remember the pay increases.  I also remember I served on Rust Buckets that we desperately needing to be replaced.  The first ship I served on hadn't had an overhaul in 10 years and was literally falling apart.  

All of the Presidents after Reagan benefited from the upgrade to the military.  People in the military were also getting food stamps back then.....Real great huh............


----------



## eagle1462010

Moonglow said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm too cynical but sometimes it seems that the guys who favor the largest military spending are also the guys who like most to play keyboard tough-guy. Vicarious bully syndrome? VBS, I think I just made up a new acronym, like we need another one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard straw man quote.  It's boring.
> 
> I served 10 years.  You don't cut the basic services portion.  That shouldn't even be on the table.
> 
> Secondly, in what other areas do the Dems want to cut..............................
> 
> NOTHING................
> 
> So cry me a river.  Many times I've shown were the military could be cut without the consequences of what is about to occur.  Like paying thousands to replace circuit boards for a $50 part because of violating the patent or something like that while I was in the service.  We'd spend 7k on a board for a dang $20 resister.  Not to mention going hard dollar on contracts to build ships, planes, and etc.   Again, I've seen this with my own eyes on how builders will bill the Gov't over and over again for the same dang spaces on ships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They started that during Reagan, we were taught to soldier and replace components, but at the regular duty station we were told to toss the boards, rather than repair.
Click to expand...


I repaired them anyway.  To hell with the rules.  I wasn't going to spend 7k for a new board for $25 in parts.  But the rule applied and you know it, and probably still applies today.

I helped build Navy ships after getting out, and the way the contracts are worded they are allowed to charge for the same job over and over again.  In another yard we jacked up prices to USNS ships using the same parts on commercial vessels at a 4th of the cost.  The Gov't allows this BS.


----------



## eagle1462010

RandomVariable said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't even attempt to bring up sequester. I watched every one of the Republicans on the Senate Armed Forces committee give a sweet little speech that they were disappointed that the sequester was going into affect and then they turned and walked right out the door. Those Senators right there could have done something to stop the sequester and they turned their backs on the armed forces and walked out so don't give me any "Obama's sequester" because when it came down to the line the Republicans did it to the military, not the Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS.  That was Obama's plan.  He stated that other cuts would be found to avoid the sequester cuts.  He also said that he would not ask for more taxes instead.
> 
> And as usual HE LIED...............
> 
> They cut the commissaries back then to the point of shutting down the commissaries stateside on Sundays.....................
> 
> And now they propose to cut 1 BILLION of 1.4 BILLION to them now.  This is a basic service to the military, and it's total BS...........
> 
> Perhaps one day you sorry jokers will look at the waste and fraud spending that could be cut instead of cutting basic services of those who put their butts on the line for this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So those hours and hours and hours of hearings and testimony and documents read is nothing compared to your "it was Obama's plan." Republicans could have stopped sequester from hitting our defense department and IC and they walked away. F 'em.
Click to expand...


BS..........Your side wanted Taxes in return.  The original deal was to find alternate cuts with no tax increases as substitution.  Your side lied, PERIOD.  

Your side wants to cut the military but refuses to cut anywhere else.


----------



## RandomVariable

Moonglow said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm too cynical but sometimes it seems that the guys who favor the largest military spending are also the guys who like most to play keyboard tough-guy. Vicarious bully syndrome? VBS, I think I just made up a new acronym, like we need another one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard straw man quote.  It's boring.
> 
> I served 10 years.  You don't cut the basic services portion.  That shouldn't even be on the table.
> 
> Secondly, in what other areas do the Dems want to cut..............................
> 
> NOTHING................
> 
> So cry me a river.  Many times I've shown were the military could be cut without the consequences of what is about to occur.  Like paying thousands to replace circuit boards for a $50 part because of violating the patent or something like that while I was in the service.  We'd spend 7k on a board for a dang $20 resister.  Not to mention going hard dollar on contracts to build ships, planes, and etc.   Again, I've seen this with my own eyes on how builders will bill the Gov't over and over again for the same dang spaces on ships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They started that during Reagan, we were taught to soldier and replace components, but at the regular duty station we were told to toss the boards, rather than repair.
Click to expand...


There is the Defense Department and then there are defense contractors. They don't necessarily have the same priorities.


----------



## eagle1462010

> Coburn to Congress: Look in the mirror for the cause of waste - FederalNewsRadio.com
> 
> "The problem is us," he said. "We are not acting on the information we have."
> 
> GAO found last April that agencies spent $95 billion on 162 areas of duplication across government, including 679 renewable energy programs from 23 different agencies that costs $15 billion to run.
> 
> Coburn even praised President Barack Obama for including many of the programs GAO highlighted in his budget request. But he said Congress continues to ignore the overlap.
> 
> The White House tried to address program duplication in 2012 with an 11-agency pilotto compare similar programs and determine if they can be merged. The Office of Management and Budget used the pilot to create a governmentwide inventory of programs, which it published on Performance.gov in May.
> 
> On top of the GAO report, Coburn also released his annual waste book last month that highlighted about 100 projects worth about $30 billion.



Year after year these reports come out and are completely ignored.  Yet we'll wipe out the commissary budgets for our troops.

Some people simply don't have their priorities in order.


----------



## Moonglow

eagle1462010 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS.  That was Obama's plan.  He stated that other cuts would be found to avoid the sequester cuts.  He also said that he would not ask for more taxes instead.
> 
> And as usual HE LIED...............
> 
> They cut the commissaries back then to the point of shutting down the commissaries stateside on Sundays.....................
> 
> And now they propose to cut 1 BILLION of 1.4 BILLION to them now.  This is a basic service to the military, and it's total BS...........
> 
> Perhaps one day you sorry jokers will look at the waste and fraud spending that could be cut instead of cutting basic services of those who put their butts on the line for this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan cut military services and the GI bill when I was in..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I served under Reagan.  I remember the pay increases.  I also remember I served on Rust Buckets that we desperately needing to be replaced.  The first ship I served on hadn't had an overhaul in 10 years and was literally falling apart.
> 
> All of the Presidents after Reagan benefited from the upgrade to the military.  People in the military were also getting food stamps back then.....Real great huh............
Click to expand...


We couldn't get shelf stocked parts to repair the TOW missile system..

I didn't get foodstamps.It depends on what state you apply in. I made too much. 875 a month to support a wife and two kids...Texas said I earned 50 bucks to much to qualify. So I moonlighted..


----------



## SmedlyButler

The Military usually has the last say in the cuts when budgetary reality calls for reduction. Hopefully, (and I think this is basically what the Joint Chiefs are saying) the assymetrical battle field and small or non-state threat will be met with a smaller but smarter, faster, more maneuverable, adaptative Force. The Littoral Combat Ship is a good example of this philosophy. It's the Navies answer to the modern battlefield threat of shallower, closer to shore swarm type craft used by pirate-type or small state actors.[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p038a3oGaAc]Independence (Littoral Combat Ship) LCS-2 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Moonglow

RandomVariable said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standard straw man quote.  It's boring.
> 
> I served 10 years.  You don't cut the basic services portion.  That shouldn't even be on the table.
> 
> Secondly, in what other areas do the Dems want to cut..............................
> 
> NOTHING................
> 
> So cry me a river.  Many times I've shown were the military could be cut without the consequences of what is about to occur.  Like paying thousands to replace circuit boards for a $50 part because of violating the patent or something like that while I was in the service.  We'd spend 7k on a board for a dang $20 resister.  Not to mention going hard dollar on contracts to build ships, planes, and etc.   Again, I've seen this with my own eyes on how builders will bill the Gov't over and over again for the same dang spaces on ships.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They started that during Reagan, we were taught to soldier and replace components, but at the regular duty station we were told to toss the boards, rather than repair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is the Defense Department and then there are defense contractors. They don't necessarily have the same priorities.
Click to expand...


When I got out I work as an electronic tech for industries. We were able to replace parts, but later on the manufactures of the electronic circuit boards would conceal the values of the components to keep us from knowing what to replace..and didn't want to give us schematics to work with.


----------



## RandomVariable

eagle1462010 said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS.  That was Obama's plan.  He stated that other cuts would be found to avoid the sequester cuts.  He also said that he would not ask for more taxes instead.
> 
> And as usual HE LIED...............
> 
> They cut the commissaries back then to the point of shutting down the commissaries stateside on Sundays.....................
> 
> And now they propose to cut 1 BILLION of 1.4 BILLION to them now.  This is a basic service to the military, and it's total BS...........
> 
> Perhaps one day you sorry jokers will look at the waste and fraud spending that could be cut instead of cutting basic services of those who put their butts on the line for this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So those hours and hours and hours of hearings and testimony and documents read is nothing compared to your "it was Obama's plan." Republicans could have stopped sequester from hitting our defense department and IC and they walked away. F 'em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS..........Your side wanted Taxes in return.  The original deal was to find alternate cuts with no tax increases as substitution.  Your side lied, PERIOD.
> 
> Your side wants to cut the military but refuses to cut anywhere else.
Click to expand...


They did the exact same thing the did with the unemployment insurance extension benefits. First it was a pay for. That was offered. So next it was revenue neutral. That was offered. Then they wanted something else. Finally they just said, "Well, we just are not going to vote for it no matter what although we are not going to exactly say that." They have done it over and over and no one will call them on it. What they don't want they walk away from. They walked away from avoiding the sequestration and I watched it on live TV, C-SPAN to be exact.


----------



## SmedlyButler

Jroc said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm too cynical but sometimes it seems that the guys who favor the largest military spending are also the guys who like most to play keyboard tough-guy. Vicarious bully syndrome? VBS, I think I just made up a new acronym, like we need another one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that post was totally useless...thanks for the contribution
Click to expand...


That was meant for a particular poster. Misdirected, sorry. I realize it says nothing substantive to add to the OP.


----------



## Dante

eagle1462010 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS.  That was Obama's plan.  He stated that other cuts would be found to avoid the sequester cuts.  He also said that he would not ask for more taxes instead.
> 
> And as usual HE LIED...............
> 
> They cut the commissaries back then to the point of shutting down the commissaries stateside on Sundays.....................
> 
> And now they propose to cut 1 BILLION of 1.4 BILLION to them now.  This is a basic service to the military, and it's total BS...........
> 
> Perhaps one day you sorry jokers will look at the waste and fraud spending that could be cut instead of cutting basic services of those who put their butts on the line for this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan cut military services and the GI bill when I was in..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I served under Reagan.  I remember the pay increases.  I also remember I served on Rust Buckets that we desperately needing to be replaced.  The first ship I served on hadn't had an overhaul in 10 years and was literally falling apart.
> 
> All of the Presidents after Reagan benefited from the upgrade to the military.  People in the military were also getting food stamps back then.....Real great huh............
Click to expand...

A military man started things rolling, not Reagan:

Jimmy Carter: Federal Civilian and Military Pay Increases Announcement on the President's Proposal.

Jimmy Carter love him or hate him:  http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1125.pdf


----------



## RandomVariable

Moonglow said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> They started that during Reagan, we were taught to soldier and replace components, but at the regular duty station we were told to toss the boards, rather than repair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is the Defense Department and then there are defense contractors. They don't necessarily have the same priorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I got out I work as an electronic tech for industries. We were able to replace parts, but later on the manufactures of the electronic circuit boards would conceal the values of the components to keep us from knowing what to replace..and didn't want to give us schematics to work with.
Click to expand...


When I was working for one of the big defense contractors we had to bill all our hours. The project I was suppose to be on hadn't actually started yet so I had to bill something. They always said use the Minuteman missile system. That must have been the most expensive piece of hardware the military history.


----------



## SmedlyButler

moonglow said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> reagan cut military services and the gi bill when i was in..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i served under reagan.  I remember the pay increases.  I also remember i served on rust buckets that we desperately needing to be replaced.  The first ship i served on hadn't had an overhaul in 10 years and was literally falling apart.
> 
> All of the presidents after reagan benefited from the upgrade to the military.  People in the military were also getting food stamps back then.....real great huh............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we couldn't get shelf stocked parts to repair the tow missile system..
> 
> I didn't get foodstamps.it depends on what state you apply in. I made too much. 875 a month to support a wife and two kids...texas said i earned 50 bucks to much to qualify. So i moonlighted..
Click to expand...


*thanks*


----------



## eagle1462010

SmedlyButler said:


> The Military usually has the last say in the cuts when budgetary reality calls for reduction. Hopefully, (and I think this is basically what the Joint Chiefs are saying) the assymetrical battle field and small or non-state threat will be met with a smaller but smarter, faster, more maneuverable, adaptative Force. The Littoral Combat Ship is a good example of this philosophy. It's the Navies answer to the modern battlefield threat of shallower, closer to shore swarm type craft used by pirate-type or small state actors.Independence (Littoral Combat Ship) LCS-2 - YouTube



It is built in Mobile Alabama at Austall shipyard.............It's built out of aluminum.......double hull.........

One problem with Aluminum.  Don't use it too much in colder waters due to contraction of the aluminum, especially on the welds........You can't even weld on aluminum in cold weather without preheating the surface.........

We have a blue water Navy, and these short range ships are not designed for that purpose.  They should actually be in the Coast Guard for coastal patrol functions.

Just not in Alaska as the dang welds may break.  Another problem.  Electrolosis will pit the hell out of Aluminum...........A whole hell of a lot more than steel.  I've seen one of Austal's fast ferry's out of the water........Hull pitted due to current going to the Hull.  We repaired that by getting the grounds to the hull off the power systems.


----------



## RandomVariable

Dante said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan cut military services and the GI bill when I was in..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I served under Reagan.  I remember the pay increases.  I also remember I served on Rust Buckets that we desperately needing to be replaced.  The first ship I served on hadn't had an overhaul in 10 years and was literally falling apart.
> 
> All of the Presidents after Reagan benefited from the upgrade to the military.  People in the military were also getting food stamps back then.....Real great huh............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A military man started things rolling, not Reagan:
> 
> Jimmy Carter: Federal Civilian and Military Pay Increases Announcement on the President's Proposal.
> 
> Jimmy Carter love him or hate him:  http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1125.pdf
Click to expand...


Carter is a very misunderstood President when it comes to military matters. He was not quite the dove some make him out to be.


----------



## Moonglow

I was amazed that PT boats were made of plywood..


----------



## eagle1462010

Galvanic corrosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

US Navy Littoral Combat Ship Independence[edit]
Serious galvanic corrosion has been reported on the latest US Navy attack littoral combat vessel the USS Independence caused by steel water jet propulsion systems attached to an aluminium hull. Without electrical isolation between the steel and aluminium, the aluminium hull acts as an anode to the stainless steel, resulting in aggressive galvanic corrosion.[7]


----------



## RandomVariable

SmedlyButler said:


> moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i served under reagan.  I remember the pay increases.  I also remember i served on rust buckets that we desperately needing to be replaced.  The first ship i served on hadn't had an overhaul in 10 years and was literally falling apart.
> 
> All of the presidents after reagan benefited from the upgrade to the military.  People in the military were also getting food stamps back then.....real great huh............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we couldn't get shelf stocked parts to repair the tow missile system..
> 
> I didn't get foodstamps.it depends on what state you apply in. I made too much. 875 a month to support a wife and two kids...texas said i earned 50 bucks to much to qualify. So i moonlighted..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *thanks*
Click to expand...


Same here.


----------



## eagle1462010

Yep.  Aluminum Hull Navy ships..........That's really what we need............

I've seen the damage on these type of boats myself and it doesn't even take that much current going through the Hull.


----------



## Moonglow

eagle1462010 said:


> Yep.  Aluminum Hull Navy ships..........That's really what we need............
> 
> I've seen the damage on these type of boats myself and it doesn't even take that much current going through the Hull.



improper grounding?


----------



## Moonglow

RandomVariable said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> we couldn't get shelf stocked parts to repair the tow missile system..
> 
> I didn't get foodstamps.it depends on what state you apply in. I made too much. 875 a month to support a wife and two kids...texas said i earned 50 bucks to much to qualify. So i moonlighted..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *thanks*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same here.
Click to expand...


same back at ya!


----------



## SmedlyButler

problems you point out. Interesting. Also the limitations of the "blue water" Navy in shallower water are exactlly what these craft are designed to supplement.


----------



## RandomVariable

Hope this isn't straying too much. If anyone wants to read some very forward thinking material on possible futures of the military the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College has some amazing articles. Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) | US Army War College Hagel's thinking probably aligns almost exactly with the thinking from here.


----------



## Moonglow

When do you think their iron-man suit will be finished?


----------



## SmedlyButler

Jroc said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm too cynical but sometimes it seems that the guys who favor the largest military spending are also the guys who like most to play keyboard tough-guy. Vicarious bully syndrome? VBS, I think I just made up a new acronym, like we need another one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that post was totally useless...thanks for the contribution
Click to expand...


That "Look at your signature post" was meant for you. Another misdirection. Shit.


----------



## eagle1462010

Moonglow said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Aluminum Hull Navy ships..........That's really what we need............
> 
> I've seen the damage on these type of boats myself and it doesn't even take that much current going through the Hull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> improper grounding?
Click to expand...


The ground is the ocean.  All electrical nuetrals must be completely isolated.  Even the small transformers in standard start stop buckets in MCC's must be cut and isolated.  Capacitive start run motors can even cause electrolosis ........I found a cap on a motor causing pitting on a hull on a oil field supply vessels..........

Electrical stray current is a hull killer in aluminum....

In steel construction ships we use Cathotic Protection systems which is different.  We actually put a voltage on the hull to prevent corrosion at very low currents.  Using what is called Saturable Reactors to provide the voltage.


----------



## whitehall

Do they have the balls to get rid of the babes? Does it make sense to put women in combat roles when there ain't a single babe who can pass the simplest P.T. test? Why turn Army units into sexual dramas when there is no compelling need for it and they are thinking of downsizing?


----------



## eagle1462010

http://www.corrintec-marine.com/document_1/corrintec-fastferries.pdf

A little info on anti-corrosion for these vessels............

Austals built a Fast Ferry for New York at the same place building for the U.S. Navy.  The buyer rejected the boat because of problems with the Ferry.  I was working at another yard and we pulled it out of the water for repairs.

The Hull was pitted from bow to stern.  I'm not kidding.

They didn't have a clue on how to isolate the electrical on that Ferry.  We isolated and made repairs on the Hull.

These are the same dolts building the U.S. Navy vessels now, which make it no surprise to me that this happened on the Independence.


----------



## SmedlyButler

eagle1462010 said:


> http://www.corrintec-marine.com/document_1/corrintec-fastferries.pdf
> 
> A little info on anti-corrosion for these vessels............
> 
> Austals built a Fast Ferry for New York at the same place building for the U.S. Navy.  The buyer rejected the boat because of problems with the Ferry.  I was working at another yard and we pulled it out of the water for repairs.
> 
> The Hull was pitted from bow to stern.  I'm not kidding.
> 
> They didn't have a clue on how to isolate the electrical on that Ferry.  We isolated and made repairs on the Hull.
> 
> These are the same dolts building the U.S. Navy vessels now, which make it no surprise to me that this happened on the Independence.



*It says here they dropped the "Cathodic Protection System" to save money.*

And don't try to blame this on a liberal...we were off doing our arts and crafts


..."Independences corrosion is concentrated in her water jets  shipboard versions of airplane engines  where steel impeller housings come in contact with the surrounding aluminum structure. Electrical charges possibly originating in the ships combat systems apparently sparked the electrolysis.

Its not clear why Austal and the Navy didnt see this coming. Austal has built hundreds of aluminum ferries for civilian customers. The Navy, for its part, has operated mixed aluminum-and-steel warships in the past.

But Independence  the Navys first triple-hull combatant  could be a special case for both the builder and the operator. For all Austals chops building civilian ferries, the Australian company is new to the warship business. Austal set up shop near Mobile in 1999. Today, the shipyard has contracts to build 10 LCS, plus several catamaran transports for the Navy.

From the Navys point of view, Independence and the other Littoral Combat Ships are unique. As in, uniquely cheap. Each vessel is supposed to cost just $400 million, compared to more than a billion bucks for a larger, all-steel Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.

Lots of things  major weapons, for one  have been left off the LCS in order to keep the price down.* The list of deleted items includes something called a Cathodic Protection System, which is designed to prevent electrolysis.*

Independence will get the protection system installed at the first opportunity, and future LCSs will include it from the beginning, according to Pritchett.


----------



## SmedlyButler

RandomVariable said:


> Hope this isn't straying too much. If anyone wants to read some very forward thinking material on possible futures of the military the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College has some amazing articles. Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) | US Army War College Hagel's thinking probably aligns almost exactly with the thinking from here.



They better do a lot more short term thinking.


----------



## Mojo2

Rocko said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for the military. Al Qaeda has been decimated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is said that we tend to try prepare to fight the most previous war when our enemies are thinking of a different way to challenge us.
> 
> You would remove from the enemy any reason to try challenging us in a new manner.
> 
> You want to make us vulnerable to the OLD threats.
> 
> The enemy would certainly appreciate your attitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was being facetious. Obama said it...remember? [MENTION=45791]Mojo2[/MENTION]
Click to expand...


Sorry, Rocko. 

You da man!


----------



## eagle1462010

SmedlyButler said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.corrintec-marine.com/document_1/corrintec-fastferries.pdf
> 
> A little info on anti-corrosion for these vessels............
> 
> Austals built a Fast Ferry for New York at the same place building for the U.S. Navy.  The buyer rejected the boat because of problems with the Ferry.  I was working at another yard and we pulled it out of the water for repairs.
> 
> The Hull was pitted from bow to stern.  I'm not kidding.
> 
> They didn't have a clue on how to isolate the electrical on that Ferry.  We isolated and made repairs on the Hull.
> 
> These are the same dolts building the U.S. Navy vessels now, which make it no surprise to me that this happened on the Independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It says here they dropped the "Cathodic Protection System" to save money.*
> 
> And don't try to blame this on a liberal...we were off doing our arts and crafts
> 
> 
> ..."Independences corrosion is concentrated in her water jets  shipboard versions of airplane engines  where steel impeller housings come in contact with the surrounding aluminum structure. Electrical charges possibly originating in the ships combat systems apparently sparked the electrolysis.
> 
> Its not clear why Austal and the Navy didnt see this coming. Austal has built hundreds of aluminum ferries for civilian customers. The Navy, for its part, has operated mixed aluminum-and-steel warships in the past.
> 
> But Independence  the Navys first triple-hull combatant  could be a special case for both the builder and the operator. For all Austals chops building civilian ferries, the Australian company is new to the warship business. Austal set up shop near Mobile in 1999. Today, the shipyard has contracts to build 10 LCS, plus several catamaran transports for the Navy.
> 
> From the Navys point of view, Independence and the other Littoral Combat Ships are unique. As in, uniquely cheap. Each vessel is supposed to cost just $400 million, compared to more than a billion bucks for a larger, all-steel Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.
> 
> Lots of things  major weapons, for one  have been left off the LCS in order to keep the price down.* The list of deleted items includes something called a Cathodic Protection System, which is designed to prevent electrolysis.*
> 
> Independence will get the protection system installed at the first opportunity, and future LCSs will include it from the beginning, according to Pritchett.
Click to expand...


It is pure incompetence which is normal unfortunately.  Anyone around ships who wouldn't put it in the original plan, irregardless of price, should be scratching their unemployed butts.

It also doesn't address the aluminum in cold weather applications and potential weld cracks as a result.

Austals built the Ferry at the same yard before they even got a Navy Contract, and while it saves them money in the short run will it serve it's purpose in it's limited capacity or lifespan.......

I simply don't like aluminum hulls because of the severe potential problems they can have, and while cheaper it would be better to stick with proven reliable steel hulls.


----------



## eagle1462010

> Electrical charges possibly originating in the ship&#8217;s combat systems apparently sparked the electrolysis.



This statement presents another problem.  Some electronics are grounded by design and are used on Navy Ships, especially in Combat systems areas.................Which cause current to go in to the hull in an environment that shouldn't have any current to the hull from any electrical systems other than Cathotic protection.

We had that problem while I served primarily with ground detection systems from electronic components from combat systems and electronic spaces.  We were forced to put in filters to the ground detection systems to eliminate these grounds from electronic equipment.

You would have to take a very close look at the grounding on electronic equipment to find alternatives to this problem.  I've been there and done that.


----------



## eagle1462010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Aquila_(PHM-4)

Cheaper............Faster..............less crew..............and would serve the purpose of coastal patrol functions............

I'd rather have the blue water Navy ships over these aluminum puddle jumpers.  If we want something fast for coastal that packs a punch, we had them in the past.


----------



## Mr. President

We need to get rid of all these civilian contractors who are making double and triple what soldiers are making for doing the same jobs "ie cook, maintenance, logistics"  If they let the Army do it's job and not civilians we would be more cost efficient and tactically proficient.


----------



## RandallFlagg

HenryBHough said:


> We don't need armed forces.
> 
> Everybody in the world loves us.
> 
> It's been that way since January, 2009.
> 
> Hasn't it?




I have seen this same EXACT thing happen several times in my 69 years on this planet. Some liberal democrat decides that we should cut military spending and we lose all of our experienced NCO's and Officers. We lose the best and the brightest and we lose our readiness. 

Then, a republican is elected (because America understands that well armed is well defended) and the process begins all over again - rebuild the mess that the damned democrats left behind.

I said when Hagel became SOD that he was a clown and he is proving himself as such, God damn him and every liberal democrat in the United States.


----------



## Steven_R

There are tons of areas that the DoD can trim the fat from without touching warfighting capabilities. Appropriations for the various services just pisses away money on stupid projects like developing a dozen different uniforms that serve no other point than keeping up with the Joneses. Beyond that, the way the budgetary process is laid out, if a commander doesn't use their entire budget for the year they lose money for the next year, so it is in their interest to spend and throw away all kinds of money just to keep money coming in. We have more admirals than we have ships and more paper pusher types than trigger pullers. Surely some of them can be cut. And then there are the do nothing jobs on the civilian side of the DoD that can be cut. Retired E9s that get a job built specifically for them and then just sit around drinking coffee all day.


----------



## SayMyName

It will be for the best. The fight is really at home. Afterall, they managed to take two planes within our own country and take them into the towers. There is much more, but this colors the reality enough.

It has always been at home. Now for the people to become wise enough to demand this attention from their leaders.


----------



## Stephanie

The Transformation is almost compete....God help us all

SNIP:
GUTTING THE U.S. MILITARY 

receive columns by email 
 As the Obama Decline brings American prosperity and might to ever-lower depths, we now hear that the administration has decided to reduce the size of U.S. armed forces to pre-World War II levels. 

If was, of course, precisely those levels that led to World War II. 

The great lesson of that horrific war  that American weakness leads to global instability  has either been forgotten or is being replicated. In the name of cutting budgets, an administration that has doubled our national debt chooses now to endanger both our national security and the world order. 

The same White House that expands welfare spending and unilaterally increases wages on federal contracts has said that the Pentagon must face new spending cuts. Free cheese for the entitled masses, but no national defense for the homeland whose sapped prosperity is picking up the tab for that cheese. 

An administration whose domestic security agencies have ordered more than 700 million rounds of non-military ammunition cannot find the money to adequately fund the military which points its guns outward at our enemies instead of inward toward our citizenry. 

And now we hear of pre-World War II levels, and a generation only recently in its grave groans that its grandchildren could be duped into ignoring a lesson so dearly learned. In the wake of that global war, the takeaway was that a too-small American military encouraged and invited the growth of evil regimes in Japan, German and Italy. 

Our weakness invited attack, and millions died as a result, on far-flung battlefields and in hellish camps. Pearl Harbor happened not just because the Japanese were evil and aggressive, but because the Americans were weak and unprepared. 

Hitler marched not just because of a rising Reich, but because of a declining West. 

In the vacuum of world power, tyrants and butchers invariably rise. 

And Obama is declaring the end of the Pax Americana. For almost 70 year, general peace has prevailed in the world not because of the harmony of man, but because of the strength of America. For two generations, the blood thirsty impulse to empire and conquest has been suppressed by the fear of American might. 

And just as Russia is newly resurgent and China is militaristically ambitious  and the world wonders about the reach of murderous Islam  the White House has decided to further gut the armed forces of the United States of America. 

Armed forces, by the way, which this same White House has spent the last five years underfunding and overextending. We have broken our military by deploying it and redeploying it into the fools errand of Obama-rules-of-engagement Afghanistan. These five years have created Americas longest war and left us with a barely functional military. 

We retreated from Iraq and we are about to retreat from Afghanistan. We have accomplished nothing on the ground and we have weakened security back at home. We have demonstrated that we are a paper tiger. 

We have acquiesced to an Iranian nuclear program, we have reduced our own strategic weapons and capabilities, we are played like fools by a mental defective in North Korea. 

And in response, we are going to cut our military by 20 percent. 

To the lowest levels in 74 years. 

ALL of it here
bob lonsberry dot com


----------



## Brain357

Lovebears65 said:


> This has been Obamas plan from the beginning. He hates the military and he has not been afraid to say it.. HE wants our POLICE to be the military here .. This is very dangerous for him to cut our troops..   This makes us very vulnerable .. Pentagon Set to Slash Military to Pre-World War II Levels - NBC News
> 
> Another article Obama wanting to militarize the Police
> 
> 
> 7 Ways The Obama Administration Has Accelerated Police Militarization



Vulnerable to who?


----------



## Wildman

Matthew said:


> We need to refocus more towards r@D and keeping our lead in tech. This is what makes us stand out on this planet military wise.



please......, it's R*&*D !! not "AT" (@)

what we really need is some way to curb the libertraitors from forcing our country to slip into their utopia of *COMMUNISM !!*


----------



## Theowl32

Here are some areas they could probably cut, but these would not appeal to the retarded libtard constituency. So, instead of making cuts that would not weaken our country in a significant way, they instead placate the morons on the left. 

You morons on the left can still claim that military cut backs were not a significant contributor to 911. Hell, we all know that 99% of you are still truthers and have Fahrenheit 911 in your video library.  Now, go ahead and pat yourselves on your stupid liberal heads and remind yourselves how smart you are. 

Now, here are some areas that could be cut, but it would not make the left wing morons happy. 


*$76 Million To Round Up Wild Horses  - $76,000,000*
The Department of Interior spends $76 million each year rounding up wild-horses that roam on public land. The Bureau of Land Management&#8217;s (BLM) wild horse program reportedly captured 40,000 horses over the past four years. Half of the program&#8217;s budget is being spent to maintain more than 46,000 horses and burros in temporary corrals and privately owned pastures. As a result of this program, more wild horses are living in captivity than in the wild.


Source: U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, &#8220;Letter to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell,&#8221; Office of Senator Tom Coburn, 4/30/13



*$7.8 Million On Department Of Interior Conferences  - $7,800,000*
In 2012, the Department spent about $7.8 million hosting or sending participants to 32 conferences, each of which cost more than $100,000.


Source: U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, &#8220;Letter to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell,&#8221; Office of Senator Tom Coburn, 4/30/13


*$11 Million On Luxury Private Jets For DOJ Political Appointees  - $11,000,000*
Political appointees at the DOJ also use millions of taxpayer dollars for personal travel. According to the Government Accountability Office, both the attorney general and FBI director spent more than $11 million on luxury private jets for nonmission trips from 2007 through 2011. The attorney general took more than 28 percent of these flights for personal reasons.


Source: Chairman Bob Goodlatte, &#8220;Excessive waste at Department of Justice,&#8221; Politico, 4/10/13


*$165 Million Unused Prison  - $165,000,000*
Despite the clear disapproval from Congress last year, the DOJ purchased an unused prison in Illinois. The department spent $165 million to purchase this prison, even though the Bureau of Prisons already had four brand-new federal prisons sitting empty and waiting to be put to use.


Source: Chairman Bob Goodlatte, &#8220;Excessive waste at Department of Justice,&#8221; Politico, 4/10/13


*Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards, EPA  - $1,500,100,000*

This action announces how the EPA proposes to address the reviews of the new source performance standards for volatile organic compound and sulfur dioxide emissions from natural gas processing plants. We are proposing to add to the source category list any oil and gas operation not covered by the current listing. This action also includes proposed amendments to the existing new source performance standards for volatile organic compounds from natural gas processing plants and proposed standards for operations that are not covered by the existing new source performance standards. In addition, this action proposes how the EPA will address the residual risk and technology review conducted for the oil and natural gas production and natural gas transmission and storage national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. This action further proposes standards for emission sources within these two source categories that are not currently addressed, as well as amendments to improve aspects of these national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants related to applicability and implementation. Finally, this action addresses provisions in these new source performance standards and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction.


Source: Federal Register


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^The morons on the left sure love that one..........


*Black liquor tax loophole  - $268,000,000*
Pulp and paper companies could reap a $268 million tax break by asserting an industrial waste byproduct of the wood-pulping process &#8211; referred to as &#8220;black liquor&#8221; &#8211; is actually an alternative fuel.


Source: Wastebook 2012, Office of Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)


If you want more of the list of places they could cut spending, here is the list. 

2013 Waste List


This Saul Alinsky disciple is taking the country into a nosedive in order to utterly destroy all remnants of capitalism. Destroy the middle class, and the fed gets all of the power. Of course placate the lower class by buying them off with their free rations. 

To these piles of steaming commie shit, the ends always justify the means.........

From Saul Alinsky 

*Of Means and Ends [Forget  moral or ethical considerations]*


"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24



"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive &#8212; but real &#8212; allies of the Haves&#8230;. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be...." pp.25-26


"The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means...." p.29


"The seventh rule... is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics...." p.34


"The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.... It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time... Who, and how many will support the action?... If weapons are needed, then are appropriate d weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly..." p.36

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
----------------------------------------------


We are in trouble folks. They own almost all aspects of education and streams of information, or disinformation. 

The media, entertainment, education, etc etc etc. 

Half of them, even when they know they are wrong, are too gutless to go against their peers. 

We, the ones who see and know what is happening, are marginalized and looked at as buffoons.


----------



## nodoginnafight

The T said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of waste in the military.
> 
> Cut It!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hagel (under Obama's orders) doesn't want to just cut it, he wants to *GUT* it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Statists haven't learned a damned thing from history. What has happened every time we have cut back forces?  WE are always left with our pants down around our ankles when the shit hits the fan. Hagel is playing a dangerous game...AGAIN.
Click to expand...


B.S.
Are you seriously trying to argue that the U.S. military is not bloated by the same waste and corruption that infects every other government department?

This is EXACTLY why we will never get any serious spending cuts. People whine for cuts and then whine when cuts are proposed.

Defense contractors get MORE budgeted than they ask for. Pensions for grunts get cut. WHY? Because defense contractors kickback a hefty part of what they get into campaign contributions.

But you all just keep on frothing and foaming your hyper-partisan rhetoric - you virtually guarantee that nothing meaningful will EVER happen. I am disgusted by the ignorance of the hyper-partisans. When the U.S. goes belly up - we will all have YOU to thank.


----------



## bendog

Gore is probably a pretty miserable excuse for a human being, but here it is some 15 years down the road, and we're debating cutting conventional forces that could defeat a conventional army and stage a military occupation, so that we could spend our resources on technology, and maintain a massive retaliatory response capability, and train special forces to target specific hostile groups.


----------



## Theowl32

nodoginnafight said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> B.S.
> Are you seriously trying to argue that the U.S. military is not bloated by the same waste and corruption that infects every other government department?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, interestingly enough, you left wingers never chant for cuts in other government departments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, why don't you give us some areas other than military that should/could be cut that would not threaten the democratic voting base, considering this is a very important election year.
> 
> You do not think they are appeasing their voting base?
> 
> 
> Does any liberal have any ounce of an ability to think for themselves?
Click to expand...


----------



## nodoginnafight

> Yet, interestingly enough, you left wingers never chant for cuts in other government departments.



Get up to speed there - I've called for cuts in EVERY government department and make proposals yesterday to curtail SNAP fraud.

So go ahead and invent an imaginary person to argue with - cause this REAL guy has already kicked your ass.


----------



## Theowl32

nodoginnafight said:


> Yet, interestingly enough, you left wingers never chant for cuts in other government departments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get up to speed there - I've called for cuts in EVERY government department and make proposals yesterday to curtail SNAP fraud.
> 
> So go ahead and invent an imaginary person to argue with - cause this REAL guy has already kicked your ass.
Click to expand...


Oh, so you are that unusual liberal that thinks we should cut back on welfare benefits like food stamps?

Sorry if I missed that one. 

A lot of that going around your liberal friends in this election year?

Or, are you denying that there is a problem with this? Can you guess why the democrats are not touching this? Hint: election year.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Theowl32 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, interestingly enough, you left wingers never chant for cuts in other government departments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get up to speed there - I've called for cuts in EVERY government department and make proposals yesterday to curtail SNAP fraud.
> 
> So go ahead and invent an imaginary person to argue with - cause this REAL guy has already kicked your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so you are that unusual liberal that thinks we should cut back on welfare benefits like food stamps?
> 
> Sorry if I missed that one.
> 
> A lot of that going around your liberal friends in this election year?
> 
> Or, are you denying that there is a problem with this? Can you guess why the democrats are not touching this? Hint: election year.
Click to expand...


I posted yesterday - on this same thread (nice attention span there) that showering the community with benefits in the hopes that enough of that money will eventually reach the people who really need it is irresponsible and must stop.

I hold some positions that might be considered liberal and I hold some positions that may be considered conservative - just like the vast majority of Americans.

Not addicted to any one flavor of kool-aid like so many here.

So if you want to talk about *issues* seriously, I'm game. If you just want to hurl labels at people that you obviously know nothing about - knock yourself out - I'll pass.


----------



## Theowl32

nodoginnafight said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get up to speed there - I've called for cuts in EVERY government department and make proposals yesterday to curtail SNAP fraud.
> 
> So go ahead and invent an imaginary person to argue with - cause this REAL guy has already kicked your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you are that unusual liberal that thinks we should cut back on welfare benefits like food stamps?
> 
> Sorry if I missed that one.
> 
> A lot of that going around your liberal friends in this election year?
> 
> Or, are you denying that there is a problem with this? Can you guess why the democrats are not touching this? Hint: election year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted yesterday - on this same thread (nice attention span there) that showering the community with benefits in the hopes that enough of that money will eventually reach the people who really need it is irresponsible and must stop.
> 
> I hold some positions that might be considered liberal and I hold some positions that may be considered conservative - just like the vast majority of Americans.
> 
> Not addicted to any one flavor of kool-aid like so many here.
> 
> So if you want to talk about *issues* seriously, I'm game. If you just want to hurl labels at people that you obviously know nothing about - knock yourself out - I'll pass.
Click to expand...


Are you still denying that democrats (politicians) placate their base with public announcements about cutting military spending. Not just cutting, but announcing that they will be bringing it back to pre WWII levels?

Yes, I will label certain people and I will label those that make up that base. 

You do not think any politician (establishment republicans or democrats) would ever come out and say there is way too much being spent on these entitlement type programs like food stamps do you?

Why do you suppose that is?

Here are the facts in regards to that. Not including the list of utter wasteful spending I provided. 







You really think cutting the military in such a way in this day and age is really smart? Now are there areas that can be cut? Sure. Just like everywhere. 

However, they will not budge on those other areas of overt spending. Most of which are paying off various lobbyists. 

This will never change.


----------



## Spoonman

SmedlyButler said:


> This has been mentioned in this thread but a picture is sometimes worth a thousand words
> they say.
> 
> Does the U.S. have to continually re-mortgage the country to remain the World's cop?



a picture is a picture. it doesn't mean the information is accurate.  China and Russia both spend a hell of a lot more than is represente there.


----------



## nodoginnafight

> Are you still denying that democrats (politicians) placate their base with public announcements about cutting military spending. Not just cutting, but announcing that they will be bringing it back to pre WWII levels?



I've never made a single comment on that at all.
So why would you lie and say "are you STILL...." when I've never done it a single time.


----------



## rightwinger

Spoonman said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been mentioned in this thread but a picture is sometimes worth a thousand words
> they say.
> 
> Does the U.S. have to continually re-mortgage the country to remain the World's cop?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a picture is a picture. it doesn't mean the information is accurate.  China and Russia both spend a hell of a lot more than is represente there.
Click to expand...


Based on which study?


----------



## hangover

skye said:


> " By the time Hagel is done, horses and bayonets will be all that&#8217;s left. "
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> "This is Obama&#8217;s America being carried out under the supervision of Iran&#8217;s Secretary of Defense."
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> "Here is the magic liberal formula in all its tawdry glory; smash the military, expand the welfare state. No guns, just food stamps. No jets, just Green Energy windmills. No soldiers, just welfare cases."
> 
> 
> It's all too sad and  revolting!
> 
> 
> Hagel to Call for Shrinking Army to Smallest Size in 75 Years | FrontPage Magazine



Hey thanks for showing all the viewers how out of touch with reality the cons are. Here's a clue...invest $2 trillion a year on the war machine, odds are you're going to have war. A war based economy needs war to keep the economy going. Without war, all those bullets and bombs don't get used up. Then you have to lay off all those war machine contractors. That's a real stupid ideology.

And being the world dictator has proven too expensive. Iraq proved it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Samson said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, then why would "pulling fangs" of "neo-cons" be particulary "good for America?"
> 
> 
> 
> That's OK Jake, I actually don't expect you to support your opinion with a logical arguement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's OK Samson because you can't comprehend an objective argument.
> 
> 13 years of war have not brought peace.
> 
> We need to stand the generals and admirals and the industries down, so we don't waste anymore of our treasure.
> 
> We can easily defend our interests at 50% of what we are spending with an effective naval and air power that can shield America and project power and punishment anywhere in the word, as well as an exceptional ground force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I can certainly see you've expended an impressive volume of your existing mental resources considering the subject.
> 
> No Doubt Secretary Hagel will be calling you any minute.
Click to expand...


Sam, I get you don't like the idea.  So what?

Hagel gave the reasons: I support them.

You can't rebut them other than "I don't like it."


----------



## Theowl32

nodoginnafight said:


> Are you still denying that democrats (politicians) placate their base with public announcements about cutting military spending. Not just cutting, but announcing that they will be bringing it back to pre WWII levels?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never made a single comment on that at all.
> So why would you lie and say "are you STILL...." when I've never done it a single time.
Click to expand...


So, you are still denying democrats placate their base by publicly announcing massive cuts in the military. 

You not commenting on this, is your way of avoiding it. Therefore, it is denial. 

What is the reason why the democrats would not publicly announce cuts in food stamps? You think there is too much spending on food stamps? You do right?

You see the spending on food stamps?

What specific areas you think ought to be cut back as far as federal spending? What were your areas?


----------



## ScienceRocks

I would just close 60% of the oversea's bases. Less then 400 billion per year is insane as we need a powerful military for our defense.


----------



## Brain357

Matthew said:


> I would just close 60% of the oversea's bases. Less then 400 billion per year is insane as we need a powerful military for our defense.



Who you expecting to attack us?


----------



## nodoginnafight

> So, you are still denying democrats placate their base by publicly announcing massive cuts in the military.
> 
> You not commenting on this, is your way of avoiding it. Therefore, it is denial.



What an idiot - it never came up in ANY of my posts.

If this is all you got to defend your lying and your absurd assumptions?


----------



## High_Gravity

All these cuts and reductions to the Military just leaves even more work for the people already there, trust me folks in the service are already over worked. This isn't a good idea especially if we are supposed to be fighting a war.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Matthew said:


> I would just close 60% of the oversea's bases. Less then 400 billion per year is insane as we need a powerful military for our defense.



I agree that we need a powerful military - especially in these times.
But I believe that can be achieved with far less than we are pouring into military spending now.


----------



## longknife

Having totally ignored all the political male bovine excrement posted here, these are my comments on the SUBJECT of the thread:

There are many ways to cut military spending without making the drastic cutbacks this political hack is proposing.   

We have a massive DOD administrative infrastructure that must and should be pared down. I know the general rule is that it takes 4 people to support one soldier/sailor in the field. So, why has it become so bloated?

The DOD has a huge amount of civilian employees who are either unresponsive to or unaccountable to the appointed leadership of the departments - remember, generals receive their ranks as recommended by the president and APPROVED BY CONGRESS. The first step is to revise the Civil Service regulations to make it easier to remove/fire employees who are not doing their jobs. [I could go on about that for pages!]  

Stop the duplications within the five uniformed branches.

As but one example; why not place ALL pilots in one branch of service - separating them only by the functions they perform. Let's make all special operators ONE group under a Special Operations Command for all the branches, united as one and only separated into mission requirements. Why do we need separate Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard helicopter pilots?

So, without all the political crap, why don't we discuss it this way?


----------



## Desperado

Matthew said:


> I would just close 60% of the oversea's bases. Less then 400 billion per year is insane as we need a powerful military for our defense.



According to the Department of Defenses 2010 Base Structure Report, as of 2009, the US military  maintained *662 foreign sites in 38 countries around the world*.

Worse yet are the apparently deliberate omissions from the tally. Scan the Department of Defenses 2010 Base Structure Report for sites in Afghanistan, writes Turse.  Go ahead, read through all 206 pages. You wont find a mention of them, not a citation, not a single reference, not an inkling that the United States has even one base in Afghanistan, let alone more than 400.

Military mystery: How many bases does the US have around the world, anyway? | Occasional Planet


----------



## regent

For the military-industrial complex, wars and almost-wars are a bonanza. I wonder how many of those contracts are let with a war emergency in mind and in the negotiations? 
Some of those countries have been killing each other since the begining of time and our sending  troops to stop them only gives them more targets.
How come Belgium isn't carrying its load to make the world safe for democracy?


----------



## nodoginnafight

longknife said:


> Having totally ignored all the political male bovine excrement posted here, these are my comments on the SUBJECT of the thread:
> 
> There are many ways to cut military spending without making the drastic cutbacks this political hack is proposing.
> 
> We have a massive DOD administrative infrastructure that must and should be pared down. I know the general rule is that it takes 4 people to support one soldier/sailor in the field. So, why has it become so bloated?
> 
> The DOD has a huge amount of civilian employees who are either unresponsive to or unaccountable to the appointed leadership of the departments - remember, generals receive their ranks as recommended by the president and APPROVED BY CONGRESS. The first step is to revise the Civil Service regulations to make it easier to remove/fire employees who are not doing their jobs. [I could go on about that for pages!]
> 
> Stop the duplications within the five uniformed branches.
> 
> As but one example; why not place ALL pilots in one branch of service - separating them only by the functions they perform. Let's make all special operators ONE group under a Special Operations Command for all the branches, united as one and only separated into mission requirements. Why do we need separate Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard helicopter pilots?
> 
> So, without all the political crap, why don't we discuss it this way?



I especially agree with your take on civil service. And not just in the military. It is the bureaucrat's job to protect his job and his budget. Tell him/her to trim their budget and they do not trim fat, they cut out meat in order to inflict suffering on as many as possible so that those people will yell and scream and beg us to restore the budget.

Any bureaucrat who cannot maintain current programs with at least 5% less money is an incompetent and should be fired immediately imho.


----------



## Brain357

nodoginnafight said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would just close 60% of the oversea's bases. Less then 400 billion per year is insane as we need a powerful military for our defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that we need a powerful military - especially in these times.
> But I believe that can be achieved with far less than we are pouring into military spending now.
Click to expand...


What about these times requires a vast and expensive military?  I think we are the only ones causing wars.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Brain357 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would just close 60% of the oversea's bases. Less then 400 billion per year is insane as we need a powerful military for our defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that we need a powerful military - especially in these times.
> But I believe that can be achieved with far less than we are pouring into military spending now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about these times requires a vast and expensive military?  I think we are the only ones causing wars.
Click to expand...


I disagree to an extent.

I agree in that a huge military/industrial complex (I don't like using that "hippy" term, but what the heck) tempts us to see solutions in military terms. It's the overwhelmingly powerful tool that we have right here handy, so we tend to want to use it. It's a great tool to have in the toolbag, but it isn't the right tool for every job.

HOWEVER - we live in a very unstable world and we aren't the cause of all that instability. But we should be well prepared. That actually deters any folks who might be thinking of something less than friendly.

Just MHO.


----------



## Katzndogz

We have to give up unnecessary things like national defense so people could follow their passions.


----------



## Brain357

nodoginnafight said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that we need a powerful military - especially in these times.
> But I believe that can be achieved with far less than we are pouring into military spending now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about these times requires a vast and expensive military?  I think we are the only ones causing wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree to an extent.
> 
> I agree in that a huge military/industrial complex (I don't like using that "hippy" term, but what the heck) tempts us to see solutions in military terms. It's the overwhelmingly powerful tool that we have right here handy, so we tend to want to use it. It's a great tool to have in the toolbag, but it isn't the right tool for every job.
> 
> HOWEVER - we live in a very unstable world and we aren't the cause of all that instability. But we should be well prepared. That actually deters any folks who might be thinking of something less than friendly.
> 
> Just MHO.
Click to expand...


I can't think of a single country that could attack us...  Even if we cut spending in half wed be spending far more than anyone else.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Brain357 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about these times requires a vast and expensive military?  I think we are the only ones causing wars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree to an extent.
> 
> I agree in that a huge military/industrial complex (I don't like using that "hippy" term, but what the heck) tempts us to see solutions in military terms. It's the overwhelmingly powerful tool that we have right here handy, so we tend to want to use it. It's a great tool to have in the toolbag, but it isn't the right tool for every job.
> 
> HOWEVER - we live in a very unstable world and we aren't the cause of all that instability. But we should be well prepared. That actually deters any folks who might be thinking of something less than friendly.
> 
> Just MHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't think of a single country that could attack us...  Even if we cut spending in half wed be spending far more than anyone else.
Click to expand...


There are many different types of attack. Do I think an invasion of U.S. shores is even remotely likely? No. But I would still like to have enough muscle to deter other types of attacks. If zealots know that their attack is going to cause a world of hurt to rain down on them, they are far less likely to attack.

I don't know enough to say 50% - but I agree in that I believe we can protect ourselves for a lot less than we are spending now.


----------



## Ringel05

Hagel has a major uphill battle.  He's talking about closing bases, cutting troop numbers, retiring the A-10, etc.  
This means jobs will go bye-bye including civilian businesses that support and cater to the military and it's personnel.  Some towns rely on those bases for their very existence.  There are a lot of Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle who will fight this tooth and nail.


----------



## Brain357

nodoginnafight said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree to an extent.
> 
> I agree in that a huge military/industrial complex (I don't like using that "hippy" term, but what the heck) tempts us to see solutions in military terms. It's the overwhelmingly powerful tool that we have right here handy, so we tend to want to use it. It's a great tool to have in the toolbag, but it isn't the right tool for every job.
> 
> HOWEVER - we live in a very unstable world and we aren't the cause of all that instability. But we should be well prepared. That actually deters any folks who might be thinking of something less than friendly.
> 
> Just MHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't think of a single country that could attack us...  Even if we cut spending in half wed be spending far more than anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many different types of attack. Do I think an invasion of U.S. shores is even remotely likely? No. But I would still like to have enough muscle to deter other types of attacks. If zealots know that their attack is going to cause a world of hurt to rain down on them, they are far less likely to attack.
> 
> I don't know enough to say 50% - but I agree in that I believe we can protect ourselves for a lot less than we are spending now.
Click to expand...


All we need is our nuclear arms for that kind of deterant.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Ringel05 said:


> Hagel has a major uphill battle.  He's talking about closing bases, cutting troop numbers, retiring the A-10, etc.
> This means jobs will go bye-bye including civilian businesses that support and cater to the military and it's personnel.  Some towns rely on those bases for their very existence.  There are a lot of Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle who will fight this tooth and nail.



The extent of the proposed cuts aside, You have hit upon some of the biggest hurdles to cutting ANY government spending.

(Of course campaign contributions from defense contractors are also a huge factor imho)

No one ever said cutting government spending is going to be completely painless. It is going to hurt some - and all the partisans are going to try to make sure it is the other guys who hurt rather than their guys.

I hate to imagine what we are going to leave to our grandchildren - all because we lacked the courage and the work ethic necessary to get our fiscal house in order.


----------



## Unkotare

HenryBHough said:


> We don't need armed forces.
> 
> Everybody in the world loves us.
> 
> It's been that way since January, 2009.
> 
> Hasn't it?




This mistake, maybe more than all the other ill-considered things obama has done to our country, may in the end prove the most disastrous.


----------



## hangover

HenryBHough said:


> We don't need armed forces.
> 
> Everybody in the world loves us.
> 
> It's been that way since January, 2009.
> 
> Hasn't it?



If the right wingers would quit trying to be the world dictator, and just used the military to defend THIS country instead of invading other countries, the military could be cut in half.

But cons want a war based economy that gives us perpetual war. With that kind of economy, we get war or recession. THAT is why McCain wants to invade Syria, the Ukraine, Egypt, and Iran.


----------



## Unkotare

hangover said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need armed forces.
> 
> Everybody in the world loves us.
> 
> It's been that way since January, 2009.
> 
> Hasn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the right wingers would quit trying to be the world dictator, and just used the military to defend THIS country instead of invading other countries, the military could be cut in half.
> 
> But cons want a war based economy that gives us perpetual war. With that kind of economy, we get war or recession. THAT is why McCain wants to invade Syria, the Ukraine, Egypt, and Iran.
Click to expand...





Do you get anything out of being such a mindless, hyper-partisan hack all the time? Your every post can be predicted beforehand. What's the point? Have you ever even tried thinking instead of 'playing a role'?


----------



## nodoginnafight

hangover said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need armed forces.
> 
> Everybody in the world loves us.
> 
> It's been that way since January, 2009.
> 
> Hasn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the right wingers would quit trying to be the world dictator, and just used the military to defend THIS country instead of invading other countries, the military could be cut in half.
> 
> But cons want a war based economy that gives us perpetual war. With that kind of economy, we get war or recession. THAT is why McCain wants to invade Syria, the Ukraine, Egypt, and Iran.
Click to expand...


Yes, of course their are war profiteers. Always have been - always will be. It's not really a partisan thing.

I'm not entirely opposed to responding to calls for help from those around the world who are being bullied. But we can only afford to do what we can afford. I don't know about "cut in half" but I agree that we can get the job done on a lot less.


----------



## Ringel05

nodoginnafight said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hagel has a major uphill battle.  He's talking about closing bases, cutting troop numbers, retiring the A-10, etc.
> This means jobs will go bye-bye including civilian businesses that support and cater to the military and it's personnel.  Some towns rely on those bases for their very existence.  There are a lot of Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle who will fight this tooth and nail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extent of the proposed cuts aside, You have hit upon some of the biggest hurdles to cutting ANY government spending.
> 
> (Of course campaign contributions from defense contractors are also a huge factor imho)
> 
> No one ever said cutting government spending is going to be completely painless. It is going to hurt some - and all the partisans are going to try to make sure it is the other guys who hurt rather than their guys.
> 
> I hate to imagine what we are going to leave to our grandchildren - all because we lacked the courage and the work ethic necessary to get our fiscal house in order.
Click to expand...


I agree but then that raises the specter of trade offs.  What's the ripple effect?  How many more people end up on government assistance (though for some it will be short term)?  Is this the right time for this move?  What will be our cost when we have to rebuild?  (And eventually we will).  Will it heavily outweigh our current savings ratio?
The primary issue I think needs addressing is the (often) quadruple and quintuple built in redundancy inherent in our government, not the simple real checks but the obvious overkill.  That would probably free up a third of our national budget which could then be partially applied where those checks are weak or non-existent. 
People resist change in almost every aspect of life especially if the change is (or perceived to be) financially negative.  Part of each state's representatives job is to bring home and keep the bacon for their constituents, it's part of the process so cutting spending that affects their state will meet with heavy resistance.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Ringel05 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hagel has a major uphill battle.  He's talking about closing bases, cutting troop numbers, retiring the A-10, etc.
> This means jobs will go bye-bye including civilian businesses that support and cater to the military and it's personnel.  Some towns rely on those bases for their very existence.  There are a lot of Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle who will fight this tooth and nail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extent of the proposed cuts aside, You have hit upon some of the biggest hurdles to cutting ANY government spending.
> 
> (Of course campaign contributions from defense contractors are also a huge factor imho)
> 
> No one ever said cutting government spending is going to be completely painless. It is going to hurt some - and all the partisans are going to try to make sure it is the other guys who hurt rather than their guys.
> 
> I hate to imagine what we are going to leave to our grandchildren - all because we lacked the courage and the work ethic necessary to get our fiscal house in order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree but then that raises the specter of trade offs.  What's the ripple effect?  How many more people end up on government assistance (though for some it will be short term)?  Is this the right time for this move?  What will be our cost when we have to rebuild?  (And eventually we will).  Will it heavily outweigh our current savings ratio?
> The primary issue I think needs addressing is the (often) quadruple and quintuple built in redundancy inherent in our government, not the simple real checks but the obvious overkill.  That would probably free up a third of our national budget which could then be partially applied where those checks are weak or non-existent.
> People resist change in almost every aspect of life especially if the change is (or perceived to be) financially negative.  Part of each state's representatives job is to bring home and keep the bacon for their constituents, it's part of the process so cutting spending that affects their state will meet with heavy resistance.
Click to expand...


We might cause higher unemployment when we take a lot of borrowed money out of the economy. I can almost guarantee that it WILL be financially negative for a whole lot of people.

But what are the consequences if we don't?

That scares me more.


----------



## BlindBoo

deltex1 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are in the same war we were in in 1998...bubba didn't realize it then and Obabble doesn't realize it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it was Bush and his cronies that didn't understand the threat, despite multiple warnings.  They were pushing for Star Wars as the only way to deal with rogue nations who wanted to strike at us.  Of course that was pre-9-11.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bin laden came on the scene in 2001...?
Click to expand...


That's right, bin Laden was not on President Bushes radar.


----------



## Unkotare

Do you people think that free and open trade has largely thrived since the 50s just because everyone decided to be nice? Do some of you myopic morons not notice where China is directing its build up of naval power and presence? It's possible to look beyond the end of your own nose, you know.


----------



## Mr. President

PLUS Obama the "hater of wars" has opened up deployment regions in Africa, South East Asia, and South America.   Gee I'm glad he is getting us out of Afghanistan and cutting the troop numbers now that they won't have anything to do...


----------



## hangover

Unkotare said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need armed forces.
> 
> Everybody in the world loves us.
> 
> It's been that way since January, 2009.
> 
> Hasn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the right wingers would quit trying to be the world dictator, and just used the military to defend THIS country instead of invading other countries, the military could be cut in half.
> 
> But cons want a war based economy that gives us perpetual war. With that kind of economy, we get war or recession. THAT is why McCain wants to invade Syria, the Ukraine, Egypt, and Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get anything out of being such a mindless, hyper-partisan hack all the time? Your every post can be predicted beforehand. What's the point? Have you ever even tried thinking instead of 'playing a role'?
Click to expand...


Whine about cutting spending, when whine when spending is cut, then whine when your war mongering is exposed. Poor baby.


----------



## Synthaholic

HenryBHough said:


> We don't need armed forces.
> 
> Everybody in the world loves us.
> 
> It's been that way since January, 2009.
> 
> Hasn't it?


Thanks for another retard thread!


----------



## ScienceRocks

I propose brining 60% of all troops outside of America home and cutting to 400 billion/year.

Maybe investing some of the 250 billion into science, infrastructure, and r&d? Sounds like a plan.


----------



## Synthaholic

Ringel05 said:


> Hagel has a major uphill battle.  He's talking about closing bases, cutting troop numbers, retiring the A-10, etc.
> This means jobs will go bye-bye including civilian businesses that support and cater to the military and it's personnel.  Some towns rely on those bases for their very existence.  There are a lot of Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle who will fight this tooth and nail.



Which just further proves that the military has become a government works program.

But wait a minute...I thought the government didn't create jobs???


----------



## Ringel05

nodoginnafight said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The extent of the proposed cuts aside, You have hit upon some of the biggest hurdles to cutting ANY government spending.
> 
> (Of course campaign contributions from defense contractors are also a huge factor imho)
> 
> No one ever said cutting government spending is going to be completely painless. It is going to hurt some - and all the partisans are going to try to make sure it is the other guys who hurt rather than their guys.
> 
> I hate to imagine what we are going to leave to our grandchildren - all because we lacked the courage and the work ethic necessary to get our fiscal house in order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree but then that raises the specter of trade offs.  What's the ripple effect?  How many more people end up on government assistance (though for some it will be short term)?  Is this the right time for this move?  What will be our cost when we have to rebuild?  (And eventually we will).  Will it heavily outweigh our current savings ratio?
> The primary issue I think needs addressing is the (often) quadruple and quintuple built in redundancy inherent in our government, not the simple real checks but the obvious overkill.  That would probably free up a third of our national budget which could then be partially applied where those checks are weak or non-existent.
> People resist change in almost every aspect of life especially if the change is (or perceived to be) financially negative.  Part of each state's representatives job is to bring home and keep the bacon for their constituents, it's part of the process so cutting spending that affects their state will meet with heavy resistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We might cause higher unemployment when we take a lot of borrowed money out of the economy. I can almost guarantee that it WILL be financially negative for a whole lot of people.
> 
> But what are the consequences if we don't?
> 
> That scares me more.
Click to expand...

My problem with the whole process is politicians generally can't see past the next election.  Traditionally the Dems focus on cutting the military and the Pubs focus on cutting social services, almost always for political capital to use in their campaigns.  Neither side seems willing to address the waste that occurs across the board in all areas of government.  After the end of the "Cold War" both Bush I then Clinton started and accelerated the intel and military cuts that left us relying on our allies, a very short sighted approach that had dire and expensive consequences.  
Yes, I agree that spending has to be curtailed but I know (been dealing with the government for decades) that if the true waste across the board is addressed the cuts could be just as great.  Of course that will also create some short term economic/employment issues but it could strengthen all of the governments activities in everything they do in the long run.  Don't think that will ever happen, partisan politics won't allow it.


----------



## Ringel05

Synthaholic said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hagel has a major uphill battle.  He's talking about closing bases, cutting troop numbers, retiring the A-10, etc.
> This means jobs will go bye-bye including civilian businesses that support and cater to the military and it's personnel.  Some towns rely on those bases for their very existence.  There are a lot of Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle who will fight this tooth and nail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which just further proves that the military has become a government works program.
> 
> But wait a minute...I thought the government didn't create jobs???
Click to expand...


Uuummmmm, kinda generalizing just a bit..... aren't we......  Missed the part about towns (local businesses) that cater to the military personnel as well as the civilian population.......


----------



## nodoginnafight

Generation after generation of Americans have made sacrifices for this nation.
I hate to think that THIS generation is incapable of making sacrifices to get our fiscal house in order.
Our out-of-control debt will destroy this nation eventually - if we don't do something.
Do we have the will and the backbone to make sacrifices? 

It's not just military spending that is out of control.

We can't turn it all around overnight. It took a long time for us to dig the hole we are in this deep. It's going to take a long time to dig our way out. But for right now, IS ONE FRIGGIN' BALANCED BUDGET TOO MUCH TO ASK?


----------



## ScienceRocks

Cutting the defending the world bull shit is the first good step  Gutting our science and infrastructure that would probably lead to decrease in economic growth is just a bad idea.


----------



## Unkotare

hangover said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the right wingers would quit trying to be the world dictator, and just used the military to defend THIS country instead of invading other countries, the military could be cut in half.
> 
> But cons want a war based economy that gives us perpetual war. With that kind of economy, we get war or recession. THAT is why McCain wants to invade Syria, the Ukraine, Egypt, and Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get anything out of being such a mindless, hyper-partisan hack all the time? Your every post can be predicted beforehand. What's the point? Have you ever even tried thinking instead of 'playing a role'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whine about cutting spending, when whine when spending is cut, then whine when your war mongering is exposed. Poor baby.
Click to expand...



This is what I mean. What do you get out of being such a mindless hack? Anything? Do you get some thrill out of lying about my position as long as you can feel 'left' enough? Actually thinking can be fun too, you know. You should try it sometime. 

Regarding your lies: I have never advocated cutting military spending. It is a very, very bad idea and our economic woes cannot be resolved that way in any case. "War mongering" is obviously empty hyperbole that you may feel free to shove back up your ass from whence you pulled it.


----------



## Moonglow

nodoginnafight said:


> Generation after generation of Americans have made sacrifices for this nation.
> I hate to think that THIS generation is incapable of making sacrifices to get our fiscal house in order.
> Our out-of-control debt will destroy this nation eventually - if we don't do something.
> Do we have the will and the backbone to make sacrifices?
> 
> It's not just military spending that is out of control.
> 
> We can't turn it all around overnight. It took a long time for us to dig the hole we are in this deep. It's going to take a long time to dig our way out. But for right now, IS ONE FRIGGIN' BALANCED BUDGET TOO MUCH TO ASK?



It's not traditional at the federal level..they should have put it in the Constitution..


----------



## Moonglow

Even Reagan got shit for closing US military bases ....


----------



## Ringel05

Synthaholic said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hagel has a major uphill battle.  He's talking about closing bases, cutting troop numbers, retiring the A-10, etc.
> This means jobs will go bye-bye including civilian businesses that support and cater to the military and it's personnel.  Some towns rely on those bases for their very existence.  There are a lot of Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle who will fight this tooth and nail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which just further proves that the military has become a government works program.
> 
> But wait a minute...I thought the government didn't create jobs???
Click to expand...


Oh and thanks for proving my point about partisan politics.....


----------



## Katzndogz

When republicans think about spending cuts, they mean things like not allowing Nancy Pelosi being able to use the air force as her private taxi service.  When democrats think about spending cuts, they mean things like not having an air force.


----------



## Ringel05

nodoginnafight said:


> Generation after generation of Americans have made sacrifices for this nation.
> I hate to think that THIS generation is incapable of making sacrifices to get our fiscal house in order.
> Our out-of-control debt will destroy this nation eventually - if we don't do something.
> Do we have the will and the backbone to make sacrifices?
> 
> It's not just military spending that is out of control.
> 
> We can't turn it all around overnight. It took a long time for us to dig the hole we are in this deep. It's going to take a long time to dig our way out. But for right now, IS ONE FRIGGIN' BALANCED BUDGET TOO MUCH TO ASK?



Unfortunately, in this age of entitlements, I'm afraid it is.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Moonglow said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Generation after generation of Americans have made sacrifices for this nation.
> I hate to think that THIS generation is incapable of making sacrifices to get our fiscal house in order.
> Our out-of-control debt will destroy this nation eventually - if we don't do something.
> Do we have the will and the backbone to make sacrifices?
> 
> It's not just military spending that is out of control.
> 
> We can't turn it all around overnight. It took a long time for us to dig the hole we are in this deep. It's going to take a long time to dig our way out. But for right now, IS ONE FRIGGIN' BALANCED BUDGET TOO MUCH TO ASK?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not traditional at the federal level..they should have put it in the Constitution..
Click to expand...


Well, they were borrowing money at the time to fund the military that WAS defending us from foreign attacks.

And a little bit of temporary shortfall is not the end of the world by any means imho. But we've turn it into a steady thing. Folks think a balanced budget is draconian and punitive and just unreasonable now.


----------



## Moonglow

Katzndogz said:


> When republicans think about spending cuts, they mean things like not allowing Nancy Pelosi being able to use the air force as her private taxi service.  When democrats think about spending cuts, they mean things like not having an air force.



They're all wingnut supporters..


----------



## Moonglow

nodoginnafight said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Generation after generation of Americans have made sacrifices for this nation.
> I hate to think that THIS generation is incapable of making sacrifices to get our fiscal house in order.
> Our out-of-control debt will destroy this nation eventually - if we don't do something.
> Do we have the will and the backbone to make sacrifices?
> 
> It's not just military spending that is out of control.
> 
> We can't turn it all around overnight. It took a long time for us to dig the hole we are in this deep. It's going to take a long time to dig our way out. But for right now, IS ONE FRIGGIN' BALANCED BUDGET TOO MUCH TO ASK?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not traditional at the federal level..they should have put it in the Constitution..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, they were borrowing money at the time to fund the military that WAS defending us from foreign attacks.
> 
> And a little bit of temporary shortfall is not the end of the world by any means imho. But we've turn it into a steady thing. Folks think a balanced budget is draconian and punitive and just unreasonable now.
Click to expand...


I don't. They can set up a saving fund for emergencies, like war, natural disasters etc. Just like states.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Jroc said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if they plan on closing foreign bases?
> 
> protecting other countries costs us a LOT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with closing some bases and letting Japan and Europe cover more of their own expenses
Click to expand...


And those people can be transferred state side to replace over paid contractors.

we lose a lot of money paying contractors to do jobs we could do ourselves


----------



## Ringel05

Katzndogz said:


> When republicans think about spending cuts, they mean things like not allowing Nancy Pelosi being able to use the air force as her private taxi service.  When democrats think about spending cuts, they mean things like not having an air force.



If only that were true....... Thank you also for proving my point about partisan politics.....


----------



## nodoginnafight

Moonglow said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not traditional at the federal level..they should have put it in the Constitution..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, they were borrowing money at the time to fund the military that WAS defending us from foreign attacks.
> 
> And a little bit of temporary shortfall is not the end of the world by any means imho. But we've turn it into a steady thing. Folks think a balanced budget is draconian and punitive and just unreasonable now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't. They can set up a saving fund for emergencies, like war, natural disasters etc. Just like states.
Click to expand...


I can go for that. And I can even go for a little temporary debt to deal with real emergencies. (I don't count natural disasters in this category because we KNOW they are going to happen. We don't know where or the exact nature of the emergency, but we KNOW they are going to happen).


----------



## Two Thumbs

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hagar is just stating the obvious
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it's obvious he isn't too bright
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hagal is an Einstein compared to you, Jroc.
Click to expand...


the dismantlement of the military back to the point where we could not respond to a major conflict is smart, brilliant even, since it's clear that that idea is horrible beyond reason, but the idea of making us vulnerable is the clear intention.


----------



## rightwinger

Two Thumbs said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it's obvious he isn't too bright
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hagal is an Einstein compared to you, Jroc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the dismantlement of the military back to the point where we could not respond to a major conflict is smart, brilliant even, since it's clear that that idea is horrible beyond reason, but the idea of making us vulnerable is the clear intention.
Click to expand...


Which conflict would you have us prepare for?


----------



## hangover

Ringel05 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree but then that raises the specter of trade offs.  What's the ripple effect?  How many more people end up on government assistance (though for some it will be short term)?  Is this the right time for this move?  What will be our cost when we have to rebuild?  (And eventually we will).  Will it heavily outweigh our current savings ratio?
> The primary issue I think needs addressing is the (often) quadruple and quintuple built in redundancy inherent in our government, not the simple real checks but the obvious overkill.  That would probably free up a third of our national budget which could then be partially applied where those checks are weak or non-existent.
> People resist change in almost every aspect of life especially if the change is (or perceived to be) financially negative.  Part of each state's representatives job is to bring home and keep the bacon for their constituents, it's part of the process so cutting spending that affects their state will meet with heavy resistance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We might cause higher unemployment when we take a lot of borrowed money out of the economy. I can almost guarantee that it WILL be financially negative for a whole lot of people.
> 
> But what are the consequences if we don't?
> 
> That scares me more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My problem with the whole process is politicians generally can't see past the next election.  Traditionally the Dems focus on cutting the military and the Pubs focus on cutting social services, almost always for political capital to use in their campaigns.  Neither side seems willing to address the waste that occurs across the board in all areas of government.  After the end of the "Cold War" both Bush I then Clinton started and accelerated the intel and military cuts that left us relying on our allies, a very short sighted approach that had dire and expensive consequences.
> Yes, I agree that spending has to be curtailed but I know (been dealing with the government for decades) that if the true waste across the board is addressed the cuts could be just as great.  Of course that will also create some short term economic/employment issues but it could strengthen all of the governments activities in everything they do in the long run.  Don't think that will ever happen, partisan politics won't allow it.
Click to expand...

We don't have any "allies" we can count on. They all learned better from Iraq. They all count on us for foreign aid. We buy the only friends we have. Even the United Nations counts on us for 75% of its funds. The U.N. doesn't protect other countries, they expect us to do it. The U.S. is the biggest chump in the world.


----------



## Two Thumbs

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hagal is an Einstein compared to you, Jroc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the dismantlement of the military back to the point where we could not respond to a major conflict is smart, brilliant even, since it's clear that that idea is horrible beyond reason, but the idea of making us vulnerable is the clear intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which conflict would you have us prepare for?
Click to expand...


a possible large scale world war

The oceans are no longer barriers, we should be prepared at all times, rather than, once again, play catch up.


----------



## hangover

Unkotare said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get anything out of being such a mindless, hyper-partisan hack all the time? Your every post can be predicted beforehand. What's the point? Have you ever even tried thinking instead of 'playing a role'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whine about cutting spending, when whine when spending is cut, then whine when your war mongering is exposed. Poor baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I mean. What do you get out of being such a mindless hack? Anything? Do you get some thrill out of lying about my position as long as you can feel 'left' enough? Actually thinking can be fun too, you know. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Regarding your lies: I have never advocated cutting military spending. It is a very, very bad idea and our economic woes cannot be resolved that way in any case. "War mongering" is obviously empty hyperbole that you may feel free to shove back up your ass from whence you pulled it.
Click to expand...


Well duh. Cons only want to cut spending for the elderly(SS), the EPA, education, and health care. Military spending is YOUR sacred cow, war monger.


----------



## Ringel05

nodoginnafight said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, they were borrowing money at the time to fund the military that WAS defending us from foreign attacks.
> 
> And a little bit of temporary shortfall is not the end of the world by any means imho. But we've turn it into a steady thing. Folks think a balanced budget is draconian and punitive and just unreasonable now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't. They can set up a saving fund for emergencies, like war, natural disasters etc. Just like states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can go for that. And I can even go for a little temporary debt to deal with real emergencies. (I don't count natural disasters in this category because we KNOW they are going to happen. We don't know where or the exact nature of the emergency, but we KNOW they are going to happen).
Click to expand...


I'd go with that also but unfortunately I'm a realist, politicians wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to use that money elsewhere.  
Whomever is the president: "We need to balance the budget before the next election!"
Aide: "Well sir we have all those untapped moneys in the emergency fund."
Pres: "We can't touch that."
Aide:  "We'll get Senator so-and-so to pass an emergency bill allowing us to use it"
Pres: "What emergency?"
Aide: "I'll call Dustin Hoffman, he did that Wag the Dog film."
Pres: "Make it happen."


----------



## Ringel05

hangover said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> We might cause higher unemployment when we take a lot of borrowed money out of the economy. I can almost guarantee that it WILL be financially negative for a whole lot of people.
> 
> But what are the consequences if we don't?
> 
> That scares me more.
> 
> 
> 
> My problem with the whole process is politicians generally can't see past the next election.  Traditionally the Dems focus on cutting the military and the Pubs focus on cutting social services, almost always for political capital to use in their campaigns.  Neither side seems willing to address the waste that occurs across the board in all areas of government.  After the end of the "Cold War" both Bush I then Clinton started and accelerated the intel and military cuts that left us relying on our allies, a very short sighted approach that had dire and expensive consequences.
> Yes, I agree that spending has to be curtailed but I know (been dealing with the government for decades) that if the true waste across the board is addressed the cuts could be just as great.  Of course that will also create some short term economic/employment issues but it could strengthen all of the governments activities in everything they do in the long run.  Don't think that will ever happen, partisan politics won't allow it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have any "allies" we can count on. They all learned better from Iraq. They all count on us for foreign aid. We buy the only friends we have. Even the United Nations counts on us for 75% of its funds. The U.N. doesn't protect other countries, they expect us to do it. The U.S. is the biggest chump in the world.
Click to expand...







Keep swingin' Sparky.


----------



## Moonglow

Foreign aid does come to the USA.


----------



## rightwinger

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> the dismantlement of the military back to the point where we could not respond to a major conflict is smart, brilliant even, since it's clear that that idea is horrible beyond reason, but the idea of making us vulnerable is the clear intention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which conflict would you have us prepare for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a possible large scale world war
> 
> The oceans are no longer barriers, we should be prepared at all times, rather than, once again, play catch up.
Click to expand...


With whom?

Where is our threat?


----------



## Nosmo King

The "cuts" Secretary Hagel has in mind are actually a 20,000 troop INCREASE under law.  Due to sequestration, the budget could only support a military with 400,000 troops.

Because congress is completely dysfunctional, we got sequestration.  Hagel is adding troops based on current law.


----------



## Two Thumbs

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which conflict would you have us prepare for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a possible large scale world war
> 
> The oceans are no longer barriers, we should be prepared at all times, rather than, once again, play catch up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With whom?
> 
> Where is our threat?
Click to expand...


are you pulling my chain or do you really not know?


----------



## Darkwind

If they are going to do this, then they should be forced to use the money not spent on the security of your children and grandchildren, on paying down the debt.


Not a dime should go to any other program.


----------



## Darkwind

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> a possible large scale world war
> 
> The oceans are no longer barriers, we should be prepared at all times, rather than, once again, play catch up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With whom?
> 
> Where is our threat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you pulling my chain or do you really not know?
Click to expand...

He really doesn't.  He thinks security and peace comes from speaking nice words and not offending people but supports taking guns way from every day citizens because they're crazy and can't be trusted.


----------



## rightwinger

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> a possible large scale world war
> 
> The oceans are no longer barriers, we should be prepared at all times, rather than, once again, play catch up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With whom?
> 
> Where is our threat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you pulling my chain or do you really not know?
Click to expand...


Actually, I don't

Who are the bad guys and why are we going to fight them?


----------



## rightwinger

Darkwind said:


> If they are going to do this, then they should be forced to use the money not spent on the security of your children and grandchildren, on paying down the debt.
> 
> 
> Not a dime should go to any other program.



I'm good with that

We could quickly knock a couple trillion off the debt


----------



## Moonglow

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> With whom?
> 
> Where is our threat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you pulling my chain or do you really not know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't
> 
> Who are the bad guys and why are we going to fight them?
Click to expand...


Islamic terrorist in submarines and B-1 bombers...


----------



## Two Thumbs

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> With whom?
> 
> Where is our threat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you pulling my chain or do you really not know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't
> 
> Who are the bad guys and why are we going to fight them?
Click to expand...


Global Firepower - 2014 World Military Strength Ranking

USA, active duty 1.4 mill
        reserves 851k
Russia, active duty 766k
            reserves 2.5 mill
China, active duty 2.3 mill
          reserves 2.3 mill


If you think that neither of those countries would never war with us, you're as gullible as the people pre-WW2.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Moonglow said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you pulling my chain or do you really not know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't
> 
> Who are the bad guys and why are we going to fight them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Islamic terrorist in submarines and B-1 bombers...
Click to expand...


considering they flew jets into the Twin Towers...


----------



## Mojo2

HenryBHough said:


> We don't need armed forces.
> 
> Everybody in the world loves us.
> 
> It's been that way since January, 2009.
> 
> Hasn't it?



_Ladies and Gents: You might want to bookmark this post because it can be used as proof that Rush Limbaugh is a gifted political analyst who was able to accurately predict Obama's intent even before he was elected in 2008. Your opponents will have to recognize the strength of Rush's opinions and judgments._



> This is what Obama wants to do. Folks, in his distorted, perverted mind, Obama doesn't want to just equalize the United States. It's not just about spreading the wealth domestically. This guy has, I fear, as his number one desire to tear down the greatness of this country so that we are not better than any other nation. I think that is his aim.



http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2...al_industry_your_energy_prices_will_skyrocket

Rush Limbaugh Show
November 3, 2012

The Day Before Election Day


----------



## SmedlyButler

It goes beyond incompetence. Some random quotes;

"Late last year Times Battlefield blog commented, The Navys new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is not only staggeringly overpriced and chronically unreliable but  even if it were to work perfectly  cannot match the combat power of similar sized foreign warships costing only a fraction as much.

"Gilmores new report stands by the 2011 assessment, though it sands down the rough edges. LCS is not expected to be survivable, it finds, in that it is not expected to maintain mission capability after taking a significant hit in a hostile combat environment. Additionally, Gilmore discloses that the Navy has knowledge gaps related to the vulnerability of an aluminum ship structure to weapon-induced blast and fire damage, but that it wont conduct tests for those vulnerabilities until later this year or next year."

"the Navy will be deploying the USS Freedom before knowing if the so-called Littoral Combat Ship can survive, um, combat. And what the Navy does know about the ship isnt encouraging: Among other problems, its guns dont work right"

".If the LCS in its maximum configuration ran into even a Skjold-class patrol boat in the littorals or open sea it wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in Hades".

Don't the sailors deserve better from Navy planners? The more I look into this the more maddening it becomes. Talk about "bureaucratic" boondoggles. Yet the Navy seems resigned to redefining the platforms mission to match its capabilities. This defies all design-build logic, stands it on it's head actually.

"Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert cited the Littoral Combat Ship... as (a) critical new ship program... essential to the services future surface warfare strategy.

Weve got to integrate and embrace these new ships that are coming in and make them work and make them part of the scheme of the equation,

Fuck.


----------



## Plasmaball

Funny if this was samsung letting go of workers due to technology making things more streamlined the people here would praise free market sighting tough shit for those workers...The military isn't a welfare system.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Oh my - folks are using fear tactics in order to "scare up some support" for irresponsible spending.

What a novel approach.


----------



## Ringel05

nodoginnafight said:


> Oh my - folks are using fear tactics in order to "scare up some support" for irresponsible spending.
> 
> What a novel approach.



Whatdaya expect?  It being a "political" messageboard and all........   99.9% of selling/defending politics is fear tactics.


----------



## Desperado

Moonglow said:


> Foreign aid does come to the USA.


Not going to let you get away with that statement.
Do you have  any links to back up that statement?


----------



## usmcstinger

Evidently the Obama Administration Has Not Learned From History

A weak military sends a signal that  emboldens our enemies as well as telling our allies we won't be able help them.
A strong Standing Military sends a strong message to the World.

When ever we have reduced the size our Armed Forces, we have had to hurriedly build it up again.


----------



## KNB

With a budget pushing close to a trillion dollars per year, the US military is the most advanced, most destructive fighting force in history.  And some guys in caves have fought us to a standstill.

If the US cuts the DoD budget in half, the US would still spend more on its military than Russia and China combined.


----------



## rightwinger

usmcstinger said:


> Evidently the Obama Administration Has Not Learned From History
> 
> A weak military sends a signal that  emboldens our enemies as well as telling our allies we won't be able help them.
> A strong Standing Military sends a strong message to the World.
> 
> When ever we have reduced the size our Armed Forces, we have had to hurriedly build it up again.



We have a military stronger than the next ten nations combined. How is it weak if we are only as strong as the next eight?


----------



## RoadVirus

g5000 said:


> We are not under any kind of existential threat such as we were during the Cold War.



-China's starting to pick fights with it's neighbors while boosting it's military capability
-The midget of North Korea issues threats of war every other week
-Al-Queda-linked groups are still causing chaos everywhere while conntinuing to plot attacks on the US

But hey...don't worry be happy, right?


----------



## rightwinger

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you pulling my chain or do you really not know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't
> 
> Who are the bad guys and why are we going to fight them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Global Firepower - 2014 World Military Strength Ranking
> 
> USA, active duty 1.4 mill
> reserves 851k
> Russia, active duty 766k
> reserves 2.5 mill
> China, active duty 2.3 mill
> reserves 2.3 mill
> 
> 
> If you think that neither of those countries would never war with us, you're as gullible as the people pre-WW2.
Click to expand...


Counting bodies is so 20th century. They are just targets unless you can put them exactly where you need them. We are not going to invade either China or Russia and they are not going to invade us


----------



## Samson

Two Thumbs said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't
> 
> Who are the bad guys and why are we going to fight them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islamic terrorist in submarines and B-1 bombers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> considering they flew jets into the Twin Towers...
Click to expand...





Yeah.....How large was the Army at the time?


----------



## Samson

JakeStarkey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's OK Samson because you can't comprehend an objective argument.
> 
> 13 years of war have not brought peace.
> 
> We need to stand the generals and admirals and the industries down, so we don't waste anymore of our treasure.
> 
> We can easily defend our interests at 50% of what we are spending with an effective naval and air power that can shield America and project power and punishment anywhere in the word, as well as an exceptional ground force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can certainly see you've expended an impressive volume of your existing mental resources considering the subject.
> 
> No Doubt Secretary Hagel will be calling you any minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sam, I get you don't like the idea.  So what?
> 
> Hagel gave the reasons: I support them.
> 
> You can't rebut them other than "I don't like it."
Click to expand...


No, I can simply read them, something you apparently have yet to accomplish: Hagel says nothing about us being able to, "defend our interests at 50% of what we are spending."


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Obama has his Food Stamp Army


----------



## RoadVirus

nodoginnafight said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hagel (under Obama's orders) doesn't want to just cut it, he wants to *GUT* it!
> 
> 
> 
> The Statists haven't learned a damned thing from history. What has happened every time we have cut back forces?  WE are always left with our pants down around our ankles when the shit hits the fan. Hagel is playing a dangerous game...AGAIN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> B.S.
> Are you seriously trying to argue that the U.S. military is not bloated by the same waste and corruption that infects every other government department?
> 
> This is EXACTLY why we will never get any serious spending cuts. People whine for cuts and then whine when cuts are proposed.
Click to expand...


Cutting the military is fine, but do it right! Don't go hacking away like a machete-wielding psychopath.


----------



## Samson

usmcstinger said:


> Evidently the Obama Administration Has Not Learned From History
> 
> A weak military sends a signal that  emboldens our enemies as well as telling our allies we won't be able help them.
> A strong Standing Military sends a strong message to the World.
> 
> When ever we have reduced the size our Armed Forces, we have had to hurriedly build it up again.



Yeah I get it, "Weak = BAAaaAAD; Strong = GOOooOOD"

More is Better.

The World is Simple.

Interesting though, that the US has always been able to muster and defeat its enemies, despite having a "reduced-sized Armed Forces." Based on this perspective, Learning From History, then we should continue to deflate military strength until it is absolutely necessary.


----------



## nodoginnafight

RoadVirus said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Statists haven't learned a damned thing from history. What has happened every time we have cut back forces?  WE are always left with our pants down around our ankles when the shit hits the fan. Hagel is playing a dangerous game...AGAIN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B.S.
> Are you seriously trying to argue that the U.S. military is not bloated by the same waste and corruption that infects every other government department?
> 
> This is EXACTLY why we will never get any serious spending cuts. People whine for cuts and then whine when cuts are proposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cutting the military is fine, but do it right! Don't go hacking away like a machete-wielding psychopath.
Click to expand...


I can live with this.
There is some common ground to be found among the vast majority of us. Let's not let the hyper-partisan zealots knock us off course.


----------



## RoadVirus

Ringel05 said:


> Hagel has a major uphill battle.  He's talking about closing bases, cutting troop numbers, retiring the A-10, etc.



The A-10 has at least 2 more decades of service left in it and works with no problem. But he wants to keep the budget blackhole that is the F-35 program. Makes no sense.


----------



## RoadVirus

Unkotare said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need armed forces.
> 
> Everybody in the world loves us.
> 
> It's been that way since January, 2009.
> 
> Hasn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This mistake, maybe more than all the other ill-considered things obama has done to our country, may in the end prove the most disastrous.
Click to expand...


Obama wants us weak. Hes already accomplished that socially and economically. Now hes turning his sights to doing it militarily.


----------



## RoadVirus

KNB said:


> With a budget pushing close to a trillion dollars per year, the US military is the most advanced, most destructive fighting force in history.  *And some guys in caves have fought us to a standstill.*.



That's because the Dickhead in Chief tied the hands of our military with pansyass ROE.


----------



## JWBooth

SmedlyButler said:


> It goes beyond incompetence. Some random quotes;
> 
> "Late last year Times Battlefield blog commented, The Navys new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is not only staggeringly overpriced and chronically unreliable but  even if it were to work perfectly  cannot match the combat power of similar sized foreign warships costing only a fraction as much.
> 
> "Gilmores new report stands by the 2011 assessment, though it sands down the rough edges. LCS is not expected to be survivable, it finds, in that it is not expected to maintain mission capability after taking a significant hit in a hostile combat environment. Additionally, Gilmore discloses that the Navy has knowledge gaps related to the vulnerability of an aluminum ship structure to weapon-induced blast and fire damage, but that it wont conduct tests for those vulnerabilities until later this year or next year."
> 
> "the Navy will be deploying the USS Freedom before knowing if the so-called Littoral Combat Ship can survive, um, combat. And what the Navy does know about the ship isnt encouraging: Among other problems, its guns dont work right"
> 
> ".If the LCS in its maximum configuration ran into even a Skjold-class patrol boat in the littorals or open sea it wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in Hades".
> 
> Don't the sailors deserve better from Navy planners? The more I look into this the more maddening it becomes. Talk about "bureaucratic" boondoggles. Yet the Navy seems resigned to redefining the platforms mission to match its capabilities. This defies all design-build logic, stands it on it's head actually.
> 
> "Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert cited the Littoral Combat Ship... as (a) critical new ship program... essential to the services future surface warfare strategy.
> 
> Weve got to integrate and embrace these new ships that are coming in and make them work and make them part of the scheme of the equation,
> 
> Fuck.


The six ship Pegasus program made more sense for this purpose.


----------



## zed42

What is sad is that there are those that fail to remember history are doomed to repeat the mistakes.  What some of you fail to realize is that the plan is not to just reduce the manning level of the military, but it is more than that. The following is copied from: not allowed to post link yet.  However I copied the below from a Breibart article titled Hagel's Deep Cuts for Military Announced. 



> The cuts are expected to include the removal of the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack jets, reduce the U.S. Army from 490,000 troops to between 440,000 to 450,000, impose a one-year freeze on the salaries of general and flag officers; limit the increase of basic pay for military personnel to 1 percent, retard the growth of tax-free housing allowances for military personnel, and reduce the $1.4 billion direct subsidy which is given to military commissaries in order to lower the prices for soldiers. Eleven navy cruisers will be sent into reduced operating status. Some military retirees will see an increase in health insurance deductibles and co-pays.



Those that would consider making the military a career look at this as a direct threat. If  the careerist, the backbone of the military, perceives this as an indication of future actions aimed at them and their families and walk it will have major consequences on the readiness and effectiveness of the military.  Placing ships in reduced operating status puts a heavier burden on the remaining men and equipment, and slashes the training that would be lost.  This action sounds small, but nothing says that the cuts will not continue.  Obama has 2 more years and nothing says that his replacement sees the military in the same light.  I would suggest that those that see no problem with reducing the military take a very very close look at the policies just after WWII and the horrendous impact on the military when the Korean War started.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Theowl32 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> B.S.
> Are you seriously trying to argue that the U.S. military is not bloated by the same waste and corruption that infects every other government department?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, interestingly enough, you left wingers never chant for cuts in other government departments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, why don't you give us some areas other than military that should/could be cut that would not threaten the democratic voting base, considering this is a very important election year.
> 
> You do not think they are appeasing their voting base?
> 
> 
> Does any liberal have any ounce of an ability to think for themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. They do not. Spending on entitlements has risen (and will continue to rise) dramatically. Hagel will cut the military and Papa Doc Obama will take that money and give it to the lay a bouts. It really IS that simple. A nation of slaves.
> 
> The "fundamental transformation" will be complete.
Click to expand...


----------



## The T

RoadVirus said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Statists haven't learned a damned thing from history. What has happened every time we have cut back forces? WE are always left with our pants down around our ankles when the shit hits the fan. Hagel is playing a dangerous game...AGAIN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B.S.
> Are you seriously trying to argue that the U.S. military is not bloated by the same waste and corruption that infects every other government department?
> 
> This is EXACTLY why we will never get any serious spending cuts. People whine for cuts and then whine when cuts are proposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cutting the military is fine, but do it right! Don't go hacking away like a machete-wielding psychopath.
Click to expand...

You make damned sure you can handle almost ANY contingency that might arise, and continually train to meet them all. Again? Hagel and Obama are playing a very dangerous game with the fate of this Republic and the people.


----------



## The T

nodoginnafight said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hagel (under Obama's orders) doesn't want to just cut it, he wants to *GUT* it!
> 
> 
> 
> The Statists haven't learned a damned thing from history. What has happened every time we have cut back forces? WE are always left with our pants down around our ankles when the shit hits the fan. Hagel is playing a dangerous game...AGAIN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> B.S.
> Are you seriously trying to argue that the U.S. military is not bloated by the same waste and corruption that infects every other government department?
> 
> This is EXACTLY why we will never get any serious spending cuts. People whine for cuts and then whine when cuts are proposed.
> 
> Defense contractors get MORE budgeted than they ask for. Pensions for grunts get cut. WHY? Because defense contractors kickback a hefty part of what they get into campaign contributions.
> 
> But you all just keep on frothing and foaming your hyper-partisan rhetoric - you virtually guarantee that nothing meaningful will EVER happen. I am disgusted by the ignorance of the hyper-partisans. When the U.S. goes belly up - we will all have YOU to thank.
Click to expand...

You watchdog what you're spending...is there fraud waste abuse? SURE, However...but from what I read? This is being done willy-nilly when there are other areas of the Government that could stand MORE watchdogging like DOMESTIC programs that overlap and copy that of other programs.

 And stow that hyper-partisan shit* boy*, I don't belong to ANY party.


----------



## Pheonixops

HenryBHough said:


> We don't need armed forces.
> 
> Everybody in the world loves us.
> 
> It's been that way since January, 2009.
> 
> Hasn't it?



Do you know what the plan entails and the time frame in which it is supposed to be executed?


----------



## Antares

None of this is "Hagel's" plan, he isn't intelligent enough to put two sentences together.
This is all Obama


----------



## Interpol

America spends more on defense (offense, really) than the next 13 countries combined. 

The Pentagon's plan was to reduce active-duty military from a wartime peak of 570,000 to 490,000 anyway; the new proposal is to bring it down to between 440-450k. 

Seems logical to me. The last 12 years have proven that it isn't how much might we exercise, but how intelligently we do so. The last decade has also proven that our technology affords us the capability of making these sensible cuts. 

What's galling is how the neo-cons and their supporters are actually calling for more spending. Always more spending. They're an insult to our collective intelligence, which says we should probably no longer have 150,000 troops scattered still between Germany, the Koreas and Japan. The Cold War is over. We're retaining bases all across the world and will still be able to be the world's police. 

The military budget is at $711 billion. Surely we can bring it back down to pre-9/11 levels of about $525 billion. The savings would make up about a third of our current deficit, which has shrunk 4 years in a row.


----------



## The T

Antares said:


> None of this is "Hagel's" plan, he isn't intelligent enough to put two sentences together.
> This is all Obama


True...and Obama thought he was smart by nominating a Statist Repubican...Hagel is all too happy to carry it out.


----------



## Antares

The T said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this is "Hagel's" plan, he isn't intelligent enough to put two sentences together.
> This is all Obama
> 
> 
> 
> True...and Obama thought he was smart by nominating a Statist Repubican...Hagel is all too happy to carry it out.
Click to expand...


Yup, I am in Nebraska...he bailed just before we threw him out.


----------



## Plasmaball

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> the dismantlement of the military back to the point where we could not respond to a major conflict is smart, brilliant even, since it's clear that that idea is horrible beyond reason, but the idea of making us vulnerable is the clear intention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which conflict would you have us prepare for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a possible large scale world war
> 
> The oceans are no longer barriers, we should be prepared at all times, rather than, once again, play catch up.
Click to expand...


11 carriers isnt enough, besides the point they are not reducing fleet size.Man you guys mus hate Rumsfeld who wanted a lighter faster military.


----------



## Plasmaball

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you pulling my chain or do you really not know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't
> 
> Who are the bad guys and why are we going to fight them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Global Firepower - 2014 World Military Strength Ranking
> 
> USA, active duty 1.4 mill
> reserves 851k
> Russia, active duty 766k
> reserves 2.5 mill
> China, active duty 2.3 mill
> reserves 2.3 mill
> 
> 
> If you think that neither of those countries would never war with us, you're as gullible as the people pre-WW2.
Click to expand...


lol.....ohes noes..3rd rate armies for the fail.


----------



## eagle1462010

> Aluminum Armor
> 
> Aluminum is much lighter than steel and relatively strong.  Since it doesn't rust, it seems like the ideal metal for ships.  However, no one uses aluminum for fighting ships because it can catch fire when hit, which produces intense heat that cannot be extinguished with water orHMS Sheffield regular fire extinguishers.  In fact, aluminum is so volatile that powdered aluminum is a prime component in rocket fuel.  The US Air Force 15,000 BLU-82B bomb contains 12,600 pounds of low-cost GSX slurry (ammonium nitrate, aluminum powder, and polystyrene).  The British built a few frigates with aluminum in the 1970s.  During the Falklands war, one of these ships, the HMS Sheffield, was hit by a single Exocet anti-ship missile.  The damage was not fatal since the missile failed to explode, but its rocket fuel torched the Sheffield's aluminum hull, which ignited and burned until it sank.  In contrast, the steel hull frigate USS Stark was hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles in 1988 and survived.
> 
> Another disadvantage is that aluminum is less resistant to damage.  A heavy machine gun round, rocket, or land mine striking a steel hull makes a small hole. However, cast aluminum shatters like plate glass.  Hits cause large holes as hundreds of aluminum fragments blast forward causing casualties.
> 
> The US Army learned this when it tested early versions of the aluminum Bradley infantry fighting vehicle.  In the Bradley tests, small RPG explosions caused only minor damage, but ignited the aluminum body and caused most vehicles to literally burn to the ground.  Even worse, burning aluminum produces deadly fumes which instantly kill anyone inside. Only after heavy criticism and actual live-fire tests did changes occur. (see "The Pentagon Wars", by J. Burton, pp. 136-193) A steel armor coat was added and "spall liners" were installed inside to catch fragments.  The latest model of the Bradley has an all-steel body.



This is what we refer to as a Class Delta Fire.  Aluminum's ignition temperature is much much lower than steel.  Once metal burns it is self sustaining and it CANNOT BE PUT OUT.  It must be cut out and thrown over.

While some reports the aluminum fires on the HMS Sheffield disclaim the data on aluminum stating the superstructure was of steel, they later went away from aluminum in their Navy.

Aluminum has too many problems.  I'm now stating another problem and that is specifically low ignition temps causing a Class Delta Fire.  Once that occurs you are done. 

As stated in the above article, the Stark took 2 hits and survived...


----------



## Two Thumbs

wow, gullible repeaters of history.


This time when we shrink the military and do away with readiness, no one will ever attack us.  It'll work this time, b/c we say so.


----------



## rightwinger

Two Thumbs said:


> wow, gullible repeaters of history.
> 
> 
> This time when we shrink the military and do away with readiness, no one will ever attack us.  It'll work this time, b/c we say so.



Oh no!

If we reduce our forces to where they are only as powerful as the next eight nations combined, we are sure to lose


----------



## eagle1462010

Quite a while back I posted about the cuts to the commissaries, Tri-Care, and cost of living increases for Active military and retirees...........I haven't seen much talk about why they PURPOSELY target these basic benefits for those who served, and those who serve now.

This is utter BS areas of cuts.  It's one thing to cut forces, but NOT BASIC services of those not cut.

I also posted the report of wasteful spending...........Duplicate programs that could save much more money than what is going on now.  Why the refusal to make cuts in other areas of Gov't.............

Perhaps it is because the left gets their rocks off or tingling sensations in their legs every time they hear the military is getting cut..............Perhaps brain damage.

We live in a modern World.  You can be across the world in a day.  Which is why we should maintain a 2 front capable military, which we don't really have today.  It takes a lot of time to train military in today's complex military systems.........You can't do it over night, and we should be very careful to not cut too deep.  The World is a very dangerous place, and those who ignore it are fools.......


----------



## JWBooth

eagle1462010 said:


> Aluminum Armor
> 
> Aluminum is much lighter than steel and relatively strong.  Since it doesn't rust, it seems like the ideal metal for ships.  However, no one uses aluminum for fighting ships because it can catch fire when hit, which produces intense heat that cannot be extinguished with water orHMS Sheffield regular fire extinguishers.  In fact, aluminum is so volatile that powdered aluminum is a prime component in rocket fuel.  The US Air Force 15,000 BLU-82B bomb contains 12,600 pounds of low-cost GSX slurry (ammonium nitrate, aluminum powder, and polystyrene).  The British built a few frigates with aluminum in the 1970s.  During the Falklands war, one of these ships, the HMS Sheffield, was hit by a single Exocet anti-ship missile.  The damage was not fatal since the missile failed to explode, but its rocket fuel torched the Sheffield's aluminum hull, which ignited and burned until it sank.  In contrast, the steel hull frigate USS Stark was hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles in 1988 and survived.
> 
> Another disadvantage is that aluminum is less resistant to damage.  A heavy machine gun round, rocket, or land mine striking a steel hull makes a small hole. However, cast aluminum shatters like plate glass.  Hits cause large holes as hundreds of aluminum fragments blast forward causing casualties.
> 
> The US Army learned this when it tested early versions of the aluminum Bradley infantry fighting vehicle.  In the Bradley tests, small RPG explosions caused only minor damage, but ignited the aluminum body and caused most vehicles to literally burn to the ground.  Even worse, burning aluminum produces deadly fumes which instantly kill anyone inside. Only after heavy criticism and actual live-fire tests did changes occur. (see "The Pentagon Wars", by J. Burton, pp. 136-193) A steel armor coat was added and "spall liners" were installed inside to catch fragments.  The latest model of the Bradley has an all-steel body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what we refer to as a Class Delta Fire.  Aluminum's ignition temperature is much much lower than steel.  Once metal burns it is self sustaining and it CANNOT BE PUT OUT.  It must be cut out and thrown over.
> 
> While some reports the aluminum fires on the HMS Sheffield disclaim the data on aluminum stating the superstructure was of steel, they later went away from aluminum in their Navy.
> 
> Aluminum has too many problems.  I'm now stating another problem and that is specifically low ignition temps causing a Class Delta Fire.  Once that occurs you are done.
> 
> As stated in the above article, the Stark took 2 hits and survived...
Click to expand...

Superstructures of USN destroyers/ DDGs, cruisers, frigates are aluminum


----------



## eagle1462010

JWBooth said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aluminum Armor
> 
> Aluminum is much lighter than steel and relatively strong.  Since it doesn't rust, it seems like the ideal metal for ships.  However, no one uses aluminum for fighting ships because it can catch fire when hit, which produces intense heat that cannot be extinguished with water orHMS Sheffield regular fire extinguishers.  In fact, aluminum is so volatile that powdered aluminum is a prime component in rocket fuel.  The US Air Force 15,000 BLU-82B bomb contains 12,600 pounds of low-cost GSX slurry (ammonium nitrate, aluminum powder, and polystyrene).  The British built a few frigates with aluminum in the 1970s.  During the Falklands war, one of these ships, the HMS Sheffield, was hit by a single Exocet anti-ship missile.  The damage was not fatal since the missile failed to explode, but its rocket fuel torched the Sheffield's aluminum hull, which ignited and burned until it sank.  In contrast, the steel hull frigate USS Stark was hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles in 1988 and survived.
> 
> Another disadvantage is that aluminum is less resistant to damage.  A heavy machine gun round, rocket, or land mine striking a steel hull makes a small hole. However, cast aluminum shatters like plate glass.  Hits cause large holes as hundreds of aluminum fragments blast forward causing casualties.
> 
> The US Army learned this when it tested early versions of the aluminum Bradley infantry fighting vehicle.  In the Bradley tests, small RPG explosions caused only minor damage, but ignited the aluminum body and caused most vehicles to literally burn to the ground.  Even worse, burning aluminum produces deadly fumes which instantly kill anyone inside. Only after heavy criticism and actual live-fire tests did changes occur. (see "The Pentagon Wars", by J. Burton, pp. 136-193) A steel armor coat was added and "spall liners" were installed inside to catch fragments.  The latest model of the Bradley has an all-steel body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what we refer to as a Class Delta Fire.  Aluminum's ignition temperature is much much lower than steel.  Once metal burns it is self sustaining and it CANNOT BE PUT OUT.  It must be cut out and thrown over.
> 
> While some reports the aluminum fires on the HMS Sheffield disclaim the data on aluminum stating the superstructure was of steel, they later went away from aluminum in their Navy.
> 
> Aluminum has too many problems.  I'm now stating another problem and that is specifically low ignition temps causing a Class Delta Fire.  Once that occurs you are done.
> 
> As stated in the above article, the Stark took 2 hits and survived...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Superstructures of USN destroyers/ DDGs, cruisers, frigates are aluminum
Click to expand...


They haven't had the test of a major fire their at temps that cause a Class Delta Fire.  I don't like aluminum in combat ships, and I've seen what happens all aluminum hull boats.  Hell I helped build them for a while and have repaired some of the problems with them.

I'll never accept that using it is a good thing.


----------



## eagle1462010

> Cracks plague Ticonderoga-class cruisers | Navy Times | navytimes.com
> 
> * Rather, it's an issue that is plaguing all 22 cruisers in service: cracks in the aluminum superstructure.*
> 
> The problem, according to the Naval Sea Systems Command, *is the aluminum alloy used in the superstructure of the cruisers, which have steel hulls.*
> 
> "There have been various degrees of crack repair on every CG [guided-missile cruiser] in the past year," said Chris Johnson, a NAVSEA spokesman in Washington. "The decking is the most prevalent cracking area due to exposure to elevated temperatures caused by solar absorption and exhaust temperatures."
> 
> *More than 3,000 cracks* have been found so far across the entire Ticonderoga class, which originally numbered 27 ships. Twenty-two of the ships remain in service, and Port Royal, commissioned in 1994, is the newest.
> 
> Their superstructures are made of aluminum alloy 5456, a material used on numerous U.S. warships since 1958. The alloy, according to NAVSEA, relies on approximately 5 percent magnesium as an alloying element to develop strength. Over time, the magnesium leaches out of the material and forms a film, susceptible to stress-corrosion cracking in a marine environment.



Again, I show the data that the aluminum is a problem.............


----------



## Synthaholic

Ringel05 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hagel has a major uphill battle.  He's talking about closing bases, cutting troop numbers, retiring the A-10, etc.
> This means jobs will go bye-bye including civilian businesses that support and cater to the military and it's personnel.  Some towns rely on those bases for their very existence.  There are a lot of Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle who will fight this tooth and nail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which just further proves that the military has become a government works program.
> 
> But wait a minute...I thought the government didn't create jobs???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uuummmmm, kinda generalizing just a bit..... aren't we......  Missed the part about towns (local businesses) that cater to the military personnel as well as the civilian population.......
Click to expand...


Yes.  That's the government, by virtue of it's expanding size, creating jobs in places where there wouldn't be jobs otherwise.

And likewise, cutting government eliminates jobs, whether it's in those particular government offices, or the printers, restaurants, audio-visual, delivery, document management, document disposal, computer sales and service, etc., etc. which service those government jobs in that community.  And that can be a branch of the EPA, or it could be a redundant military base.  Still government.


----------



## Synthaholic

Ringel05 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hagel has a major uphill battle.  He's talking about closing bases, cutting troop numbers, retiring the A-10, etc.
> This means jobs will go bye-bye including civilian businesses that support and cater to the military and it's personnel.  Some towns rely on those bases for their very existence.  There are a lot of Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle who will fight this tooth and nail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which just further proves that the military has become a government works program.
> 
> But wait a minute...I thought the government didn't create jobs???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh and thanks for proving my point about partisan politics.....
Click to expand...

I never let an opportunity pass to remind people of why policy matters.

Exposing Right-Wing talking points is part of that.

Partisanship is not a bad thing, as long as both sides are able to honestly recognize facts.  When you start denying or ignoring facts, that's when partisanship becomes twisted and bad for the country.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Antares said:


> None of this is "Hagel's" plan, he isn't intelligent enough to put two sentences together.
> This is all Obama





Couldn't agree more. It ISN'T Hagel's plan - the man doesn't have enough sense to pour piss out of a boot - it IS strictly Papa Doc's plan to take the money from the military and give it to the trash that lives off of the government. All part of the plan for the enslavement of our country.

Consider this - when finished, our Army will be the size of Turkey's Army.  TURKEY'S ARMY!!!!


Just let that sink in for a minute. And to all you pussies out there that claim we can fight a war with technology - just shut the hell up. Until you have a man, with a rifle on the ground - there will NEVER be an end to the "enemy"

Get your heads out of your collective asses.


----------



## Ringel05

Synthaholic said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which just further proves that the military has become a government works program.
> 
> But wait a minute...I thought the government didn't create jobs???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and thanks for proving my point about partisan politics.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never let an opportunity pass to remind people of why policy matters.
> 
> Exposing Right-Wing talking points is part of that.
> 
> Partisanship is not a bad thing, as long as both sides are able to honestly recognize facts.  When you start denying or ignoring facts, that's when partisanship becomes twisted and bad for the country.
Click to expand...


And who's there to expose left-wing talking points.......  Don't fool yourself, partisanship is not honestly recognizing facts, any other attempt at justifying it is nothing less than pure rationalization.


----------



## Nosmo King

RandallFlagg said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this is "Hagel's" plan, he isn't intelligent enough to put two sentences together.
> This is all Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more. It ISN'T Hagel's plan - the man doesn't have enough sense to pour piss out of a boot - it IS strictly Papa Doc's plan to take the money from the military and give it to the trash that lives off of the government. All part of the plan for the enslavement of our country.
> 
> Consider this - when finished, our Army will be the size of Turkey's Army.  TURKEY'S ARMY!!!!
> 
> 
> Just let that sink in for a minute. And to all you pussies out there that claim we can fight a war with technology - just shut the hell up. Until you have a man, with a rifle on the ground - there will NEVER be an end to the "enemy"
> 
> Get your heads out of your collective asses.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting about sequestration!  If the congress wasn't so damn dysfunctional and ideologically driven rather than driven to serve, we would not HAVE to reduce our military, then increase it under the Hagel plan.

After the sequestration cuts are in effect, the budget provides for a military consisting of 400,000 troops.  Hagel's plan calls for an INCREASE of 20,000!

Blame congress and their inability to govern for the problem, as you see it.

I, for one, am sick and tired of underwriting the security of our economic competitors like Japan and Korea and Latin America.  They don't spend as big a percentage of their budget on defense as we do.  So that capital can be spent on infrastructure, putting them to work and earning wealth, or given back to them as tax breaks.


----------



## Ringel05

Synthaholic said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which just further proves that the military has become a government works program.
> 
> But wait a minute...I thought the government didn't create jobs???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uuummmmm, kinda generalizing just a bit..... aren't we......  Missed the part about towns (local businesses) that cater to the military personnel as well as the civilian population.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That's the government, by virtue of it's expanding size, creating jobs in places where there wouldn't be jobs otherwise.
> 
> And likewise, cutting government eliminates jobs, whether it's in those particular government offices, or the printers, restaurants, audio-visual, delivery, document management, document disposal, computer sales and service, etc., etc. which service those government jobs in that community.  And that can be a branch of the EPA, or it could be a redundant military base.  Still government.
Click to expand...


The problem with that argument is most of those entrepreneurs will, by virtue of their nature, find other outlets that are not necessarily "government" related.  
The employees will look for work that is not necessarily "government" related when those jobs are no longer available.  So your argument is technically a null point because people create these jobs, not the government or necessarily a government presence.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Nosmo King said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this is "Hagel's" plan, he isn't intelligent enough to put two sentences together.
> This is all Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more. It ISN'T Hagel's plan - the man doesn't have enough sense to pour piss out of a boot - it IS strictly Papa Doc's plan to take the money from the military and give it to the trash that lives off of the government. All part of the plan for the enslavement of our country.
> 
> Consider this - when finished, our Army will be the size of Turkey's Army.  TURKEY'S ARMY!!!!
> 
> 
> Just let that sink in for a minute. And to all you pussies out there that claim we can fight a war with technology - just shut the hell up. Until you have a man, with a rifle on the ground - there will NEVER be an end to the "enemy"
> 
> Get your heads out of your collective asses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're forgetting about sequestration!  If the congress wasn't so damn dysfunctional and ideologically driven rather than driven to serve, we would not HAVE to reduce our military, then increase it under the Hagel plan.
> 
> After the sequestration cuts are in effect, the budget provides for a military consisting of 400,000 troops.  Hagel's plan calls for an INCREASE of 20,000!
> 
> Blame congress and their inability to govern for the problem, as you see it.
> 
> I, for one, am sick and tired of underwriting the security of our economic competitors like Japan and Korea and Latin America.  They don't spend as big a percentage of their budget on defense as we do. * So that capital can be spent on infrastructure, putting them to work and earning wealth, or given back to them as tax breaks.*
Click to expand...





Why is it that the left ALWAYS calls Congress "dysfunctional"? Why do you suppose that is?  CONGRESS IS SUPPOSED TO BE DYSFUNCTIONAL!!!! That was ALWAYS the entire point of the three separate powers. Apparently, though now, it has been determined that the President should just "wave his pen" and everything works. That goes against everything this country was founded upon.

Granted, Congress as of late, has been dragging it's feet in a terrible way (thanks Democrats and especially Harry Reid) but again - that is the JOB of Congress. 

Is there fat that can be cut? absolutely! I have no doubt whatsoever. However, to then, take whatever savings that are realized from the dismantling the military and give it to use for domestic spending is lunacy. Spending more and more and more on food stamps, unemployment "benefits: for people that haven't now worked in a couple of years is madness. Pure madness.

Eventually, the money will run out. What do we do then?  Tax breaks!?!?! With Papa Doc in power!?!?!?!  What the HELL happened to the 860 BILLION dollars ALREADY spent on "infrastructure"!?!?!?


----------



## Nosmo King

RandallFlagg said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more. It ISN'T Hagel's plan - the man doesn't have enough sense to pour piss out of a boot - it IS strictly Papa Doc's plan to take the money from the military and give it to the trash that lives off of the government. All part of the plan for the enslavement of our country.
> 
> Consider this - when finished, our Army will be the size of Turkey's Army.  TURKEY'S ARMY!!!!
> 
> 
> Just let that sink in for a minute. And to all you pussies out there that claim we can fight a war with technology - just shut the hell up. Until you have a man, with a rifle on the ground - there will NEVER be an end to the "enemy"
> 
> Get your heads out of your collective asses.
> 
> 
> 
> You're forgetting about sequestration!  If the congress wasn't so damn dysfunctional and ideologically driven rather than driven to serve, we would not HAVE to reduce our military, then increase it under the Hagel plan.
> 
> After the sequestration cuts are in effect, the budget provides for a military consisting of 400,000 troops.  Hagel's plan calls for an INCREASE of 20,000!
> 
> Blame congress and their inability to govern for the problem, as you see it.
> 
> I, for one, am sick and tired of underwriting the security of our economic competitors like Japan and Korea and Latin America.  They don't spend as big a percentage of their budget on defense as we do. * So that capital can be spent on infrastructure, putting them to work and earning wealth, or given back to them as tax breaks.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the left ALWAYS calls Congress "dysfunctional"? Why do you suppose that is?  CONGRESS IS SUPPOSED TO BE DYSFUNCTIONAL!!!! That was ALWAYS the entire point of the three separate powers. Apparently, though now, it has been determined that the President should just "wave his pen" and everything works. That goes against everything this country was founded upon.
> 
> Granted, Congress as of late, has been dragging it's feet in a terrible way (thanks Democrats and especially Harry Reid) but again - that is the JOB of Congress.
> 
> Is there fat that can be cut? absolutely! I have no doubt whatsoever. However, to then, take whatever savings that are realized from the dismantling the military and give it to use for domestic spending is lunacy. Spending more and more and more on food stamps, unemployment "benefits: for people that haven't now worked in a couple of years is madness. Pure madness.
> 
> Eventually, the money will run out. What do we do then?  Tax breaks!?!?! With Papa Doc in power!?!?!?!  What the HELL happened to the 860 BILLION dollars ALREADY spent on "infrastructure"!?!?!?
Click to expand...

Congress is supposed to serve the people of the United States.

And as much as you would love to step on e necks of the poor and sneer, the handouts in pork to defense contractors could fund school lunch programs for generations.


----------



## Interpol

This is not "Chuck Hagel's plan". What an ignorant thread title. 

This is the Obama administration's plan based on recommendations made by the Pentagon. And Chuck Hagel is for it. I respect Chuck Hagel more than most Republicans. 

The plan is to bring active-duty military to about 450,000 from the 570,000 it's at currently. 

It was expanded because we fought two really long wars simultaneously. 

450,000 is fine. We're leaving wartime and entering back into peacetime. That's how it should work. But the neo-cons and their supporters insist on more welfare for the military even though we already spend more than the next 13 countries combined. 

Current military budget is $711 billion. Should come back down by about $200 billion a year, which was where it was at pre-9/11. 

Wars are fought differently now. It isn't the size of your active-duty force that matters; it's who's got the best toys, and we got 'em all.


----------



## HenryBHough

Remember, Obama cleaned out all the upper echelons of the military, apparently according whether they felt their obligation was to the nation or just to Him personally.  So, from the leavings, you expected what?


----------



## RandallFlagg

Nosmo King said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're forgetting about sequestration!  If the congress wasn't so damn dysfunctional and ideologically driven rather than driven to serve, we would not HAVE to reduce our military, then increase it under the Hagel plan.
> 
> After the sequestration cuts are in effect, the budget provides for a military consisting of 400,000 troops.  Hagel's plan calls for an INCREASE of 20,000!
> 
> Blame congress and their inability to govern for the problem, as you see it.
> 
> I, for one, am sick and tired of underwriting the security of our economic competitors like Japan and Korea and Latin America.  They don't spend as big a percentage of their budget on defense as we do. * So that capital can be spent on infrastructure, putting them to work and earning wealth, or given back to them as tax breaks.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the left ALWAYS calls Congress "dysfunctional"? Why do you suppose that is?  CONGRESS IS SUPPOSED TO BE DYSFUNCTIONAL!!!! That was ALWAYS the entire point of the three separate powers. Apparently, though now, it has been determined that the President should just "wave his pen" and everything works. That goes against everything this country was founded upon.
> 
> Granted, Congress as of late, has been dragging it's feet in a terrible way (thanks Democrats and especially Harry Reid) but again - that is the JOB of Congress.
> 
> Is there fat that can be cut? absolutely! I have no doubt whatsoever. However, to then, take whatever savings that are realized from the dismantling the military and give it to use for domestic spending is lunacy. Spending more and more and more on food stamps, unemployment "benefits: for people that haven't now worked in a couple of years is madness. Pure madness.
> 
> Eventually, the money will run out. What do we do then?  Tax breaks!?!?! With Papa Doc in power!?!?!?!  What the HELL happened to the 860 BILLION dollars ALREADY spent on "infrastructure"!?!?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress is supposed to serve the people of the United States.
> 
> And as much as you would love to step on e necks of the poor and sneer, the handouts in pork to defense contractors could fund school lunch programs for generations.
Click to expand...



Congress is supposed to propose legislation and then debate legislation, as well as passing yearly operating budgets and then either passing them or not passing them. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SLOW PROCESS. THAT WAS ALWAYS IT'S PURPOSE - TO PREVENT UNDO HASTE.  And by that - serve their constituencies. PERIOD. It's called a Bicameral  form of government. And that's what Congress was elected to do. Instead, we have a "president" (and I use that term VERY loosely - I prefer to call him a tyrant) Who believes "to hell with the process". 

He claims to have been a "Constitutional Professor" for 10 years and I call BS. He seemingly knows NOTHING about the Constitution and, frankly, I don't believe that he gives a damn about it. He is quickly becoming a tyrant and seeks to do away with the very process that put him into power.

He tells his AG to "only enforce those laws that he agrees with" and his thug goes to a States AG conference and tells his State Attorney's General to "only force those laws that they actually believe in"  Don't believe me" look it up. Just happened and I won't do YOUR work for you.


Now, he's decided to dismantle the military??   Yeah, rather than paying down a 17 TRILLION dollar deficit, he intends to steal the money and give it to lazy individuals. But, no, he isn't becoming a tyrant, is he.....


Wake the hell up.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Interpol said:


> This is not "Chuck Hagel's plan". What an ignorant thread title.
> 
> This is the Obama administration's plan based on recommendations made by the Pentagon. And Chuck Hagel is for it. *I respect Chuck Hagel more than most Republicans. *
> 
> The plan is to bring active-duty military to about 450,000 from the 570,000 it's at currently.
> 
> It was expanded because we fought two really long wars simultaneously.
> 
> 450,000 is fine. We're leaving wartime and entering back into peacetime. That's how it should work. But the neo-cons and their supporters insist on more welfare for the military even though we already spend more than the next 13 countries combined.
> 
> Current military budget is $711 billion. Should come back down by about $200 billion a year, which was where it was at pre-9/11.
> 
> Wars are fought differently now. It isn't the size of your active-duty force that matters; it's who's got the best toys, and we got 'em all.




I stopped reading there.


----------



## RandallFlagg

HenryBHough said:


> Remember, Obama cleaned out all the upper echelons of the military, apparently according whether they felt their obligation was to the nation or just to Him personally.  So, from the leavings, you expected what?



I don't remember the exact number (too lazy I guess) but it was in the range of 100 Staff Officers. Maybe a little less - maybe a few more. One thing I know for fact, however, you do NOT disagree with Papa Doc. It WILL cost you your career.


----------



## aaronleland

In today's world there is no need for 570,000 troops. Several countries combined required a fraction of that number for the Normandy landings. In the age of cruise missiles and drone strikes 400,000 is more than enough.


----------



## RandallFlagg

aaronleland said:


> In today's world there is no need for 570,000 troops. Several countries combined required a fraction of that number for the Normandy landings. In the age of cruise missiles and drone strikes 400,000 is more than enough.




No, you're probably right. Hell, we should just let some 15 year old, pimply faced nerd, sitting in his Mom's basement, playing "Call of Duty", have a couple of buttons to push, right?

Here's a quick lesson for you....

Algeria - Standing Army - 484,200

Bangledesh - Standing Army - 3,780,000

Belarus - Standing Army -  472,440

Brazil - Standing Army - 2,072,710

People's Republic of China - 7,054,000

Columbia - 1,378,615

Russia - 3,250,000

Korea - 5,180,000


List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Right now the US has a standing Military of just over 2 million, That will drop to around 1 million (Army Navy Air Force and Marines) in the future with a Army of just over 438,000.

Yeah, you're right. Why should a country with 330 million people need anything larger than that?? After all, if the "shit hits the fan" - maybe we'll have just enough time to start drafting folks like YOU to serve their country!


----------



## Political Junky

Before WWII the US was #17 in armed forces ... we won.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Political Junky said:


> Before WWII the US was #17 in armed forces ... we won.



That's why I say to hell with it! Disband ALL the services and give all that money to the unemployed!!! and the 99%!!!!! Life will be great!!! A perpetual Eden on Earth!!!!


----------



## aaronleland

RandallFlagg said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> In today's world there is no need for 570,000 troops. Several countries combined required a fraction of that number for the Normandy landings. In the age of cruise missiles and drone strikes 400,000 is more than enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're probably right. Hell, we should just let some 15 year old, pimply faced nerd, sitting in his Mom's basement, playing "Call of Duty", have a couple of buttons to push, right?
> 
> Here's a quick lesson for you....
> 
> Algeria - Standing Army - 484,200
> 
> Bangledesh - Standing Army - 3,780,000
> 
> Belarus - Standing Army -  472,440
> 
> Brazil - Standing Army - 2,072,710
> 
> People's Republic of China - 7,054,000
> 
> Columbia - 1,378,615
> 
> Russia - 3,250,000
> 
> Korea - 5,180,000
> 
> 
> List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Right now the US has a standing Military of just over 2 million, That will drop to around 1 million (Army Navy Air Force and Marines) in the future with a Army of just over 438,000.
> 
> Yeah, you're right. Why should a country with 330 million people need anything larger than that?? After all, if the "shit hits the fan" - maybe we'll have just enough time to start drafting folks like YOU to serve their country!
Click to expand...


List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The largest military force on your list didn't even make the top 15. The second largest still utilizes conscription. The third largest has obligatory military service in a country of billions. Not to mention we still have all the cool toys.

Supercarrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Political Junky

Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan, discusses defense cuts.

Cheney attacks Obama over defense cuts | MSNBC


----------



## sambino510

This is the best news I've heard in quite a while coming out of the Pentagon. It's embarrassing the gross amount of money we spend on our war machine while things like bridges are crumbling and schools are shutting down all across our country. I'm not saying we don't need an adequate defensive force, but our global force is completely unnecessary. Someone would have a hard time convincing me that drone missiles are more financially important than funding our domestic educational system. I applaud Chuck Hagel for this welcome change of tone.


----------



## Synthaholic

Ringel05 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and thanks for proving my point about partisan politics.....
> 
> 
> 
> I never let an opportunity pass to remind people of why policy matters.
> 
> Exposing Right-Wing talking points is part of that.
> 
> Partisanship is not a bad thing, as long as both sides are able to honestly recognize facts.  When you start denying or ignoring facts, that's when partisanship becomes twisted and bad for the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who's there to expose left-wing talking points.......  Don't fool yourself, partisanship is not honestly recognizing facts, any other attempt at justifying it is nothing less than pure rationalization.
Click to expand...

I have no problems with you exposing Left-Wing talking points.  Just do it with facts, that are backed up by data.


----------



## Synthaholic

Ringel05 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uuummmmm, kinda generalizing just a bit..... aren't we......  Missed the part about towns (local businesses) that cater to the military personnel as well as the civilian population.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  That's the government, by virtue of it's expanding size, creating jobs in places where there wouldn't be jobs otherwise.
> 
> And likewise, cutting government eliminates jobs, whether it's in those particular government offices, or the printers, restaurants, audio-visual, delivery, document management, document disposal, computer sales and service, etc., etc. which service those government jobs in that community.  And that can be a branch of the EPA, or it could be a redundant military base.  Still government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that argument is most of those entrepreneurs will, by virtue of their nature, find other outlets that are not necessarily "government" related.
Click to expand...


Good!  Then stop opposing the closing of useless, redundant military bases.




> The employees will look for work that is not necessarily "government" related when those jobs are no longer available. * So your argument is technically a null point because people create these jobs, not the government or necessarily a government presence.*



Until you can tell me why there would spring up a new supply (say, economic activity in Fayetteville, NC) absence a new demand (Ft. Bragg), your position makes no sense.

Government jobs like the Foresters of The National Forest Service and the military of Ft. Bragg attract not only the people who fill those jobs, but the entire community, through increased neighborhood construction, schools, and infrastructure.  Which brings additional population in, as people and business always follow the money.

You can't tell me that if Ft. Bragg had never opened in Fayetteville that town would look anywhere _near_ the same today.


----------



## Theowl32

Half of you (or all of you) that have this "intelligent" idea of closing our military bases around the world truly have no clue about logistics. 

That makes all of you that think the military bases around the world are useless, amateurs. There is no other way to put it. 

There dangerous spots everywhere on the globe. By having military bases in....Japan, or South Korea, we have a logistical  advantage WHEN things happen. Also, OUR presence also PREVENTS things from happening. Yes, we do protect our allies. There are financial benefits as well. 

Amateurs always talk about what the military SHOULD DO, and the professionals are always studying logistics. 

Keep on thinking you have a clue.


----------



## Indofred

I say, "Prepare for war".
When someone proposes defence cuts, someone thinks of a great reason to go to war.

Dick Cheney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.management-aims.com/PapersMgmt/23Gargan.pdf

Korea and Vietnam are a very long way from the United states but it was deemed essential to go to war to protect America.
In Vietnam, for whatever reason, you lost but there was absolutely no danger to the U.S. mainland.
The reasons were invalid.






So, why did America go to war?

Easy, major defence contracts.
Take a look at the wars and who made the cash from them - yes - the very rich and well connected U.S. defence industry.






Every time the American military looks like it's about to be cut, something happens to build it back up.
That's one of the main reasons I'm so suspicious about the 9/11 attacks.
Before you start on the tin foil hat jobs, take a look at the history of defence contracts and spending.
Before each and every threat to America, there was a downsizing and spending cutbacks then, as if by magic, a reason for war - usually a crap one.


----------



## Indofred

Luckily, Obama seems to be holding the idiots back from starting any wars at the moment but one will be started as soon as the American arms industry buy a new president.


----------



## rightwinger

Indofred said:


> Luckily, Obama seems to be holding the idiots back from starting any wars at the moment but one will be started as soon as the American arms industry buy a new president.



Or as soon as we elect another Republican


----------



## bedowin62

YAWN
 another ignorant left-wing loser making a fool of himself

 liberal APPEASEMENT leads to wars; and no not just from American Presidents; it is the cause of WWII.


----------



## JWBooth

bedowin62 said:


> YAWN
> another ignorant left-wing loser making a fool of himself
> 
> liberal APPEASEMENT leads to wars; and no not just from American Presidents; it is the cause of WWII.


Long view ignorance of history also leads to wars, it led to WWII.


----------



## bedowin62

LIBS ARE COMICAL MORONS WHO LIE TO THEMSELVES


 funny watching people who sent millions to Vietnam; funded and carried out both "Bush" wars; even troop surging in Afghanistan; rained missiles on Libya until AL QAEDA took the country over; insist they could INVADE SYRIA WITHOUT EVEN ASKING FOR THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS


are ranting about starting wars?

 the world is in flames in places it hasnt been since WWII; from the Ukraine to North Africa

 libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## bedowin62

JWBooth said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> another ignorant left-wing loser making a fool of himself
> 
> liberal APPEASEMENT leads to wars; and no not just from American Presidents; it is the cause of WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> Long view ignorance of history also leads to wars, it led to WWII.
Click to expand...




oh goody; another moron that wants democrats to stay in power forever. 

you certainly must; because spewing hatred for both sides only helps Dems; you dont have enough power to do anything else


----------



## bedowin62

Indofred said:


> I say, "Prepare for war".
> When someone proposes defence cuts, someone thinks of a great reason to go to war.
> 
> Dick Cheney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> http://www.management-aims.com/PapersMgmt/23Gargan.pdf
> 
> Korea and Vietnam are a very long way from the United states but it was deemed essential to go to war to protect America.
> In Vietnam, for whatever reason, you lost but there was absolutely no danger to the U.S. mainland.
> The reasons were invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, why did America go to war?
> 
> Easy, major defence contracts.
> Take a look at the wars and who made the cash from them - yes - the very rich and well connected U.S. defence industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time the American military looks like it's about to be cut, something happens to build it back up.
> That's one of the main reasons I'm so suspicious about the 9/11 attacks.
> Before you start on the tin foil hat jobs, take a look at the history of defence contracts and spending.
> Before each and every threat to America, there was a downsizing and spending cutbacks then, as if by magic, a reason for war - usually a crap one.



beware of people ranting paranoid delusions about the Defense industry who can't even spell defense correctly


Are you even American?


----------



## JWBooth

Deleted because it makes no sense to take troll bait.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

The T said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need armed forces.
> 
> Everybody in the world loves us.
> 
> It's been that way since January, 2009.
> 
> Hasn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 57% say Obama and the US aren't respected in the world...so HELL? Cut the military and open the door to attack/invasion...
> 
> Hagel and Obama are playing a very dangerous game.
Click to expand...


*Yeah, they should be playing it as safe as Bush and Cheney did.  Nothing happened during their terms....*


----------



## RandomVariable

JWBooth said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> another ignorant left-wing loser making a fool of himself
> 
> liberal APPEASEMENT leads to wars; and no not just from American Presidents; it is the cause of WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> Long view ignorance of history also leads to wars, it led to WWII.
Click to expand...


No. That would have been the Versailles Treaty, but then a knowledge of history is not necessary to rewrite it, it helps, but not necessary.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Matthew said:


> Close 2/3rds of the bases
> Cut the military by 150k troops
> and use more drones that are overall cheaper to do the job.
> 
> = winning.



*It was clearly shown in 2011 that you could take about 30 SEALs and a couple of helicopters in the middle of the night in Abbottabad and get rid of a problem that Bush and Cheney knew about but instead they chose to invade two countries and spend $3,000,000,000,000 in taxpayer money for fucking nothing except self-enrichment through their ties to the contractors who extracted their booty.

Bush and Cheney knew where OBL was the entire time.  A good friend of mine was stuck in a hotel in Baku, Azerbaijan during 9/11.  The hotel was filled with National Security Council people and "others" from our federal government.  They were stuck in that hotel for two weeks after the attacks for security lockdown.  People talk.  OBL could have been found and killed immediately.   

What worked was not troops on the ground, but cutting off the money flow in and out of the major Al Queda cells.  It's always about money.  Follow the money.   *


----------



## JWBooth

RandomVariable said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> another ignorant left-wing loser making a fool of himself
> 
> liberal APPEASEMENT leads to wars; and no not just from American Presidents; it is the cause of WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> Long view ignorance of history also leads to wars, it led to WWII.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. That would have been the Versailles Treaty, but then a knowledge of history is not necessary to rewrite it, it helps, but not necessary.
Click to expand...

No US participation or taking sides in WWI would have lead to a different outcome, no Versailles, unlikely Bolshevik victory in Russia, and the guy with the funny mustache retires as a house painter.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Jroc said:


> Better to be feared than loved....Obama is niether



*That sounds good.  Righties are good at superfluous talking points, blather and pablum.

But the fact is we are neither.  We are hated.  And for good reason.  A bunch of Marines shoots up your town enough times and word gets around.  *


----------



## RandomVariable

JWBooth said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Long view ignorance of history also leads to wars, it led to WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. That would have been the Versailles Treaty, but then a knowledge of history is not necessary to rewrite it, it helps, but not necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No US participation or taking sides in WWI would have lead to a different outcome, no Versailles, unlikely Bolshevik victory in Russia, and the guy with the funny mustache retires as a house painter.
Click to expand...


? 
Off topic but OK. The Treaty of Versailles basically stated Germany was was completely responsible for WW I and Germany should therefor pay everyone else for damages. Some kind of like some super, extreme version of sanctions and other hardships were placed upon Germany. The poverty and resentment that grew in Germany was the primordial ooze from which Hitler came to the the most feared man is just about the whole world. Moral of the story? Poverty and resentment can be powerful motivators.


World War I Ended With the Treaty of Versailles


> World War I Ended With the Treaty of Versailles
> June 28, 1919
> World War I (1914-1918) was finally over. This first global conflict had claimed from 9 million to 13 million lives and caused unprecedented damage. Germany had formally surrendered on November 11, 1918, and all nations had agreed to stop fighting while the terms of peace were negotiated. On June 28, 1919, Germany and the Allied Nations (including Britain, France, Italy and Russia) signed the Treaty of Versailles, formally ending the war. (Versailles is a city in France, 10 miles outside of Paris.) The United States did not sign the treaty, however, because it objected to its terms, specifically, the high price that Germany was to pay for its role as aggressor. Instead, the U.S. negotiated its own settlement with Germany in 1921.


----------



## Jroc

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better to be feared than loved....Obama is niether
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That sounds good.  Righties are good at superfluous talking points, blather and pablum.
> 
> But the fact is we are neither.  We are hated.  And for good reason.  A bunch of Marines shoots up your town enough times and word gets around.  *
Click to expand...


Yep we're hated by some but not feared anymore. Thanks to Obama we're a joke and that's very dangerous


----------



## Jroc

Obama's utopia...



> The military cutbacks have been a central feature of Obama&#8217;s policies since 2009. According to former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in his recently published book Duty, since entering office, the president has worked to cut U.S. defenses in order to use the funds for domestic programs.
> 
> *Hagel said the defense reductions will pose new national security risks for the United States in the future. They also have forced the Pentagon to face the prospect of losing America&#8217;s position as the most dominant military power in the world.*
> 
> The force reductions when combined with the spread of advanced weapons around the world signal &#8220;we are entering an era where American dominance on the seas, in the skies, and in space can no longer be taken for granted,&#8221; the defense secretary said.



End of American Military Dominance | Washington Free Beacon


----------



## Theowl32

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Close 2/3rds of the bases
> Cut the military by 150k troops
> and use more drones that are overall cheaper to do the job.
> 
> = winning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It was clearly shown in 2011 that you could take about 30 SEALs and a couple of helicopters in the middle of the night in Abbottabad and get rid of a problem that Bush and Cheney knew about but instead they chose to invade two countries and spend $3,000,000,000,000 in taxpayer money for fucking nothing except self-enrichment through their ties to the contractors who extracted their booty.
> 
> Bush and Cheney knew where OBL was the entire time.  A good friend of mine was stuck in a hotel in Baku, Azerbaijan during 9/11.  The hotel was filled with National Security Council people and "others" from our federal government.  They were stuck in that hotel for two weeks after the attacks for security lockdown.  People talk.  OBL could have been found and killed immediately.
> 
> What worked was not troops on the ground, but cutting off the money flow in and out of the major Al Queda cells.  It's always about money.  Follow the money.   *
Click to expand...


Well, well well, a truther. 

What is pathetic about an asshole like you and rightwinger who liked your childish bullshit is you are clueless about diplomacy. It is not always about crossing borders and just killing him, it is about keeping a fragile coalition in tact. 

There are all sorts of factors that are involved that you and people like you never consider. What I do notice is pieces of shit like you and rightwinger is you do not seem to really fucking care about this commie in the white house killing the mythical terrorists with countless drone strikes. All of us could only imagine if BOOOOOSH was doing that to the brown people in those countries. 

Hey, Gitmo is still open. Oh, that is right. You do not give one flying fuck about your lying piece of shit and chief promising he was going to close that in first year during his 2008 campaign. Oh, but you dickbags sure clapped when he said it. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USRg3h4AdE]Obama's Promise to immediately close Guantanamo - YouTube[/ame]

You stupid ass hypocrites. It is also pretty clear you do not hold Clinton to account for passing the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs in Iraq. That was before BOOOOOOSH. 

You and people like you are worthless to debate. None of you stand for anything. You simply lick your shit covered fingers, and stick it in the air and find out where the political wind is blowing. You all then get worked up into a frenzy about any bullshit topic like gay marriage (as though any of you fucktards really give one shit about that) and hold rallies. 

You just sit there and blame Bush and Cheney.....probably for destroying the dinosaurs for oil. Oh, I will bet we could make some case for that. After all your liberal socialist hero Hugo Chavez once blamed capitalism for no civilization on Mars. 

Go ahead and keep on believing there are no logistical considerations for the bases we have around the world. You should all be use to showing everyone how fucking ignorant you are. It is no wonder why it is so easy for the commie administration to appeal to your pathetic simple minds in this ELECTION YEAR to rally the retarded liberal base by attacking those things the retarded liberal base hates. 

CUTTING MILITARY!!!!!!! 
liberal reaction







Last week when Lirch, better known as John Kerry blamed "Big Oil" on the new WMD.....man made global warming (climate change)......
liberal reaction.....







Yeah, they would never rally the retarded liberal base by casting blame on the liberals favorite boogie men. 

Tea Party, Big Oil, BOOOOSH, Cheney, "Faux News", right wing talk show hosts etc etc etc.  

It should not be that hard, considering how fucking dumb every left wing hack is.


----------



## Ringel05

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better to be feared than loved....Obama is niether
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That sounds good.  Righties are good at superfluous talking points, blather and pablum.
> 
> But the fact is we are neither.  We are hated.  And for good reason.  A bunch of Marines shoots up your town enough times and word gets around.  *
Click to expand...


You obviously love those talking points.......  How many other things are you clueless about?  There's a reason we're hated by some and it has little to do with your myopic partisan projection.  But hey, don't let that stop your spinning. 

And you other morons on the right love your spin just as much so think twice about thanking me for this post......


----------



## NoNukes

rightwinger said:


> How big a military do we need?
> 
> Do we need a Military that is larger than the next ten forces combined?  Do we need a Navy that protects the world? Has new technology made many of the ground pounders obsolete?  Same goes with our aircraft



That powerful army sure has a problem with guerrilla fighters. A smaller, well trained army does not necessarily mean a weaker army. l


----------



## rightwinger

NoNukes said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How big a military do we need?
> 
> Do we need a Military that is larger than the next ten forces combined?  Do we need a Navy that protects the world? Has new technology made many of the ground pounders obsolete?  Same goes with our aircraft
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That powerful army sure has a problem with guerrilla fighters. A smaller, well trained army does not necessarily mean a weaker army. l
Click to expand...


You build an Army based on the existing threat. Right now there is not threat of a major power engaging our Army. Existing threats are Civil Wars and terrorism that are best handled by the US supporting our allies in the fight


----------



## regent

How does a nation get its moneys worth out of a large army? The nation  has to use it.


----------



## hangover

Ringel05 said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My problem with the whole process is politicians generally can't see past the next election.  Traditionally the Dems focus on cutting the military and the Pubs focus on cutting social services, almost always for political capital to use in their campaigns.  Neither side seems willing to address the waste that occurs across the board in all areas of government.  After the end of the "Cold War" both Bush I then Clinton started and accelerated the intel and military cuts that left us relying on our allies, a very short sighted approach that had dire and expensive consequences.
> Yes, I agree that spending has to be curtailed but I know (been dealing with the government for decades) that if the true waste across the board is addressed the cuts could be just as great.  Of course that will also create some short term economic/employment issues but it could strengthen all of the governments activities in everything they do in the long run.  Don't think that will ever happen, partisan politics won't allow it.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have any "allies" we can count on. They all learned better from Iraq. They all count on us for foreign aid. We buy the only friends we have. Even the United Nations counts on us for 75% of its funds. The U.N. doesn't protect other countries, they expect us to do it. The U.S. is the biggest chump in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep swingin' Sparky.
Click to expand...


Really? Sand box banter is all you got? Oh, and stop being a bigot with your avatar, you insult my people.


----------



## hangover

Theowl32 said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Close 2/3rds of the bases
> Cut the military by 150k troops
> and use more drones that are overall cheaper to do the job.
> 
> = winning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It was clearly shown in 2011 that you could take about 30 SEALs and a couple of helicopters in the middle of the night in Abbottabad and get rid of a problem that Bush and Cheney knew about but instead they chose to invade two countries and spend $3,000,000,000,000 in taxpayer money for fucking nothing except self-enrichment through their ties to the contractors who extracted their booty.
> 
> Bush and Cheney knew where OBL was the entire time.  A good friend of mine was stuck in a hotel in Baku, Azerbaijan during 9/11.  The hotel was filled with National Security Council people and "others" from our federal government.  They were stuck in that hotel for two weeks after the attacks for security lockdown.  People talk.  OBL could have been found and killed immediately.
> 
> What worked was not troops on the ground, but cutting off the money flow in and out of the major Al Queda cells.  It's always about money.  Follow the money.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, well well, a truther.
> 
> What is pathetic about an asshole like you and rightwinger who liked your childish bullshit is you are clueless about diplomacy. It is not always about crossing borders and just killing him, it is about keeping a fragile coalition in tact.
> 
> There are all sorts of factors that are involved that you and people like you never consider. What I do notice is pieces of shit like you and rightwinger is you do not seem to really fucking care about this commie in the white house killing the mythical terrorists with countless drone strikes. All of us could only imagine if BOOOOOSH was doing that to the brown people in those countries.
> 
> Hey, Gitmo is still open. Oh, that is right. You do not give one flying fuck about your lying piece of shit and chief promising he was going to close that in first year during his 2008 campaign. Oh, but you dickbags sure clapped when he said it.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USRg3h4AdE]Obama's Promise to immediately close Guantanamo - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> You stupid ass hypocrites. It is also pretty clear you do not hold Clinton to account for passing the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs in Iraq. That was before BOOOOOOSH.
> 
> You and people like you are worthless to debate. None of you stand for anything. You simply lick your shit covered fingers, and stick it in the air and find out where the political wind is blowing. You all then get worked up into a frenzy about any bullshit topic like gay marriage (as though any of you fucktards really give one shit about that) and hold rallies.
> 
> You just sit there and blame Bush and Cheney.....probably for destroying the dinosaurs for oil. Oh, I will bet we could make some case for that. After all your liberal socialist hero Hugo Chavez once blamed capitalism for no civilization on Mars.
> 
> Go ahead and keep on believing there are no logistical considerations for the bases we have around the world. You should all be use to showing everyone how fucking ignorant you are. It is no wonder why it is so easy for the commie administration to appeal to your pathetic simple minds in this ELECTION YEAR to rally the retarded liberal base by attacking those things the retarded liberal base hates.
> 
> CUTTING MILITARY!!!!!!!
> liberal reaction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week when Lirch, better known as John Kerry blamed "Big Oil" on the new WMD.....man made global warming (climate change)......
> liberal reaction.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they would never rally the retarded liberal base by casting blame on the liberals favorite boogie men.
> 
> Tea Party, Big Oil, BOOOOSH, Cheney, "Faux News", right wing talk show hosts etc etc etc.
> 
> It should not be that hard, considering how fucking dumb every left wing hack is.
Click to expand...


BWAH HA HA! I see you're already enjoying the dems celebration of their kicking the cons asses in the election this year.

And your con rhetoric just makes it that much easier for them to win. Here's a clue, the voters are looking for more than sand box banter. Childish insults is not what they're going to vote for this year.

The GOP is only 33% of the electorate, and you can't win with that small of a percentage. The republicans are not going to get any libs or independents to vote for small minded blab. You really need a more adult message.


----------



## Mr. President

You idiots on here who are saying a smaller trained army is more effective are completely off of your rockers.  Special forces groups get to act with anonymity and destroy the targets.  If our conventional forces were told to go into either Iraq or Afghanistan and kill everything that looked like a threat there would be no resistance after the first year.

The problem is people trying to play politics and play war.  Politics get you into war.  Once there war must be fought with minimal political restraint.  Until you libs get the fact that war means people are going to die we will keep weakening the military and waiting to be attacked.  And to you right wingers my father and I have 8 deployments between us.  Let us win or let us go the hell home.  Also to you voters who vote on non issues like abortion and gay marriage, get informed, you got your black president now it's time for real change.


----------



## hangover

Mr. President said:


> You idiots on here who are saying a smaller trained army is more effective are completely off of your rockers.  Special forces groups get to act with anonymity and destroy the targets.  If our conventional forces were told to go into either Iraq or Afghanistan and kill everything that looked like a threat there would be no resistance after the first year.
> 
> The problem is people trying to play politics and play war.  Politics get you into war.  Once there war must be fought with minimal political restraint.  Until you libs get the fact that war means people are going to die we will keep weakening the military and waiting to be attacked.  And to you right wingers my father and I have 8 deployments between us.  Let us win or let us go the hell home.  Also to you voters who vote on non issues like abortion and gay marriage, get informed, you got your black president now it's time for real change.



It takes the next twenty most powerful governments military spending added together to equal what the U.S. spends every year. There is NO WAY IN HELL to justify that, unless you like the idea of being the world dictator. And to learn the lesson of WWII, trying that puts the bulls eye on this country. The rest of the world won't let it happen. Nobody likes a bully.


----------



## RandomVariable

Mr. President said:


> You idiots on here who are saying a smaller trained army is more effective are completely off of your rockers.  *Special forces groups get to act with anonymity* and destroy the targets.  If our conventional forces were told to go into either Iraq or Afghanistan and kill everything that looked like a threat there would be no resistance after the first year.
> 
> The problem is people trying to play politics and play war.  Politics get you into war.  *Once there war must be fought with minimal political restraint.*  Until you libs get the fact that war means people are going to die we will keep weakening the military and waiting to be attacked.  And to you right wingers my father and I have 8 deployments between us.  Let us win or let us go the hell home.  Also to you voters who vote on non issues like abortion and gay marriage, get informed, you got your black president now it's time for real change.



1) No they don't.
2) Are you freakin' insane?!


----------



## Unkotare

hangover said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whine about cutting spending, when whine when spending is cut, then whine when your war mongering is exposed. Poor baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I mean. What do you get out of being such a mindless hack? Anything? Do you get some thrill out of lying about my position as long as you can feel 'left' enough? Actually thinking can be fun too, you know. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Regarding your lies: I have never advocated cutting military spending. It is a very, very bad idea and our economic woes cannot be resolved that way in any case. "War mongering" is obviously empty hyperbole that you may feel free to shove back up your ass from whence you pulled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well duh. Cons only want to cut spending for the elderly(SS), the EPA, education, and health care. Military spending is YOUR sacred cow, war monger.
Click to expand...



Kid, being a mindless fucking partisan drone is no way to go through life.


----------



## RoadVirus

Interpol said:


> Wars are fought differently now. It isn't the size of your active-duty force that matters; it's who's got the best toys, and we got 'em all.



But what happens if those "best toys" stop working correctly?


----------



## hangover

Unkotare said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I mean. What do you get out of being such a mindless hack? Anything? Do you get some thrill out of lying about my position as long as you can feel 'left' enough? Actually thinking can be fun too, you know. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Regarding your lies: I have never advocated cutting military spending. It is a very, very bad idea and our economic woes cannot be resolved that way in any case. "War mongering" is obviously empty hyperbole that you may feel free to shove back up your ass from whence you pulled it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well duh. Cons only want to cut spending for the elderly(SS), the EPA, education, and health care. Military spending is YOUR sacred cow, war monger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kid, being a mindless fucking partisan drone is no way to go through life.
Click to expand...

Then stop being a mindless fucking partisan punk. So far, all you have posted is childish taunting. Here's a hint. Your juvenile indignity shows you have no credibility.


----------



## Jroc

"Peace through strength"...People test you when you're weak. a lot less likely when you're powerful. American weakness means war is more likely not less


----------



## Ringel05

hangover said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have any "allies" we can count on. They all learned better from Iraq. They all count on us for foreign aid. We buy the only friends we have. Even the United Nations counts on us for 75% of its funds. The U.N. doesn't protect other countries, they expect us to do it. The U.S. is the biggest chump in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep swingin' Sparky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Sand box banter is all you got? Oh, and stop being a bigot with your avatar, you insult my people.
Click to expand...


Really?  Far left-wing talking point's is all you've got?  And stop being a bigot period and insulting our people.


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> "Peace through strength"...People test you when you're weak. a lot less likely when you're powerful. American weakness means war is more likely not less



You reach a point of diminishing returns with your military strength
Basically ....enough is enough


----------



## TooTall

KNB said:


> Do you want American soldiers to occupy foreign countries where they are constantly a target?



There is no plan to occupy Afghanistan, only to maintain a small force to assist in training the countries military and assisting, when requested, in putting down a serious attack on the existing government.

The resurgence of Al queda in retaking major cities in Iraq should have taught the present administration a lesson, but it is rather apparent they are not capable of learning.  I expect theTaliban will do the same in Aghanistan without some US support to prevent it.

We have had troops and military bases in Japan and Germany since the end of WWII in 1945 and in South  Korea since the end of the Korean War in 1953.


----------



## Jroc

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace through strength"...People test you when you're weak. a lot less likely when you're powerful. American weakness means war is more likely not less
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You reach a point of diminishing returns with your military strength
> Basically ....enough is enough
Click to expand...




> "The idea the administration has of slashing the Army because we want to make sure we don't have the capability to do long-term occupations, that is like canceling your fire insurance to prevent a fire. It makes no sense,
> How long do they think it takes to develop a quality officer, battalion commander, or a quality platoon leader, or platoon sergeant? The military, ultimately, our military is and has to be about people," he said.
> 
> The United States has 520,000 troops, which would reduce to about 420,000 under President Obama's plan. By comparison, China has 2.2 million active duty members; North Korea, 1.2 million; Russia, 800,000; and Turkey has 510,000






[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLQSnB42emU]Former VP Cheney Blasts Planned Pentagon Budget Cuts As Dangerous - Lt Col Ralph Peters - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## thanatos144

The progressive wet dream is for all soldiers or as they call them jack booted baby killers to die or be jailed because they are jealous and hate knowing real men and women sacrifice so they can act the elite 

tapatalk post


----------



## RandallFlagg

thanatos144 said:


> The progressive wet dream is for all soldiers or as they call them jack booted baby killers to die or be jailed because they are jealous and hate knowing real men and women sacrifice so they can act the elite
> 
> tapatalk post





Actually not quite. The "progressive" wet dream is for the jack booted thugs to kill every conservative in the United States by whatever means possible (ala Nazi Germany); that's right - I equate the left with Nazis.  Probably why the military is now being infused with women, fags and mexicans, while young white and black men are being kicked out.


----------



## Indofred

bedowin62 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say, "Prepare for war".
> When someone proposes defence cuts, someone thinks of a great reason to go to war.
> 
> Dick Cheney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> http://www.management-aims.com/PapersMgmt/23Gargan.pdf
> 
> Korea and Vietnam are a very long way from the United states but it was deemed essential to go to war to protect America.
> In Vietnam, for whatever reason, you lost but there was absolutely no danger to the U.S. mainland.
> The reasons were invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, why did America go to war?
> 
> Easy, major defence contracts.
> Take a look at the wars and who made the cash from them - yes - the very rich and well connected U.S. defence industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time the American military looks like it's about to be cut, something happens to build it back up.
> That's one of the main reasons I'm so suspicious about the 9/11 attacks.
> Before you start on the tin foil hat jobs, take a look at the history of defence contracts and spending.
> Before each and every threat to America, there was a downsizing and spending cutbacks then, as if by magic, a reason for war - usually a crap one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beware of people ranting paranoid delusions about the Defense industry who can't even spell defense correctly
> 
> 
> Are you even American?
Click to expand...


English, old chap.
That's how I can spell 'defence' correctly.

I'm sorry your education was so poor, you only know the incorrect American spelling.


----------



## asterism

Jroc said:


> Liberaltopia downsizing our military? Chuck Hagel is simply Obama's stodge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will reportedly propose a Pentagon budget that will shrink the U.S. Army to its smallest number since 1940* and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets.
> 
> The New York Times reported late Sunday that Hagel's proposal, which will be released to lawmakers and the public on Monday, will call for a reduction in size of the military that will leave it capable of waging war, but unable to carry out protracted occupations of foreign territory, as in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> Under Hagel's plan, the number of troops in the Army will drop to between 440,000 and 450,000, a reduction of at least 120,000 soldiers from its post-Sept.11 peak.
> 
> Officials told the Times that Hagel's plan has been endorsed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and protects funding for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. It also calls for the Navy to maintain all eleven of its aircraft carriers currently in operation. However, the budget proposal mandates the elimination of the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proposed budget will reportedly shrink Army to pre-WWII numbers | Fox News
Click to expand...


I'll eventually get to reading this whole thread but I say good.

The DoD is terribly inefficient and since we've won the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now it's time to downsize.  Hopefully we'll be more efficient at weapons systems procurement the next time a big war has to be waged.


----------



## Imperious

Jroc said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want American soldiers to occupy foreign countries where they are constantly a target?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I want to be the most powerful military in the world always..understand?
Click to expand...


Why should that even be a concern? I don't understand the whole idea behind having the worlds strongest military force, having a sufficient one that can protect our own land should be our main priority, we need to solve the current crisis we have at homeland first, not swinging it out with larger nations. This isn't a time for us to have a massive military, this is a time to restructure our nations economy.


----------



## Politico

Jroc said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whine and bitch about spending, then when it's cut whine and bitch. See cons don't want less spending, they just want to fuck the poor and elderly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military spending is the job of the federal government idiot. All this social spending isnt
Click to expand...


In order to pay for the social spending they have to cut the other.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Politico said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whine and bitch about spending, then when it's cut whine and bitch. See cons don't want less spending, they just want to fuck the poor and elderly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military spending is the job of the federal government idiot. All this social spending isnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to pay for the social spending they have to cut the other.
Click to expand...



Correct. However, the left is hell bent on destroying this country by any means possible. I have often wondered what their optimal number of slugs draining the economy is - 75 million? 100 million? 200 million? Hell, 300 million?

I used to think that AMERICANS would stand up and put an end to this crap - however, I have lost hope of even that happening. I am so ashamed of this country and the direction it is headed. My God - what has happened to us........


----------



## bianco

RandallFlagg said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military spending is the job of the federal government idiot. All this social spending isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to pay for the social spending they have to cut the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. However, the left is hell bent on destroying this country by any means possible. I have often wondered what their optimal number of slugs draining the economy is - 75 million? 100 million? 200 million? Hell, 300 million?
> 
> I used to think that AMERICANS would stand up and put an end to this crap - however, I have lost hope of even that happening. I am so ashamed of this country and the direction it is headed. *My God - what has happened to us *........
Click to expand...


You found a heart for the homeless, unemployed, poor, and starving.


----------



## Sallow

RoadVirus said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars are fought differently now. It isn't the size of your active-duty force that matters; it's who's got the best toys, and we got 'em all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what happens if those "best toys" stop working correctly?
Click to expand...


One can only hope.


----------



## Sallow

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better to be feared than loved....Obama is niether
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That sounds good.  Righties are good at superfluous talking points, blather and pablum.
> 
> But the fact is we are neither.  We are hated.  And for good reason.  A bunch of Marines shoots up your town enough times and word gets around.  *
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0]Collateral Murder - Wikileaks - Iraq - YouTube[/ame]

Enough said.


----------



## thanatos144

Obama hates the military and Jews 

tapatalk post


----------



## Indofred

bedowin62 said:


> YAWN
> another ignorant left-wing loser making a fool of himself
> 
> liberal APPEASEMENT leads to wars; and no not just from American Presidents; it is the cause of WWII.



Those who pretend to understand politics but are really sheep, following whoever promises them the most, tend to assume everyone who disagrees with their idiocy to be the politically opposite of their psudo-position.

In fact, I'm a proud Thatcherite but you're probably too stupid to know what that is so you'll have to google.

You don't have to be a left winger to see the blindingly obvious.

However, I do have some good news for you.
Zombies (I'm assured) eat brains so, in the event of a zombie attack, you'll be safe.


----------



## rightwinger

thanatos144 said:


> Obama hates the military and Jews
> 
> tapatalk post



You forgot that he hates America and white people


----------



## Ringel05

Imperious said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want American soldiers to occupy foreign countries where they are constantly a target?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I want to be the most powerful military in the world always..understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should that even be a concern? I don't understand the whole idea behind having the worlds strongest military force, having a sufficient one that can protect our own land should be our main priority, we need to solve the current crisis we have at homeland first, not swinging it out with larger nations. This isn't a time for us to have a massive military, this is a time to restructure our nations economy.
Click to expand...


It has to do with people and those people who control/influence groups of people and nations.  There is always the push-pull for power/resources on a global scale and throw in the added sociopolitical and religious complexities.  Due to human nature/desires and motivations someone always has to be the top dog (No, we can't all just get along-just watch the news or read about all the conflict in the world) and I prefer it be us instead of China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran.......  
Eventually we will go the way of all "empires" and someone will take our place, isolationism will only hasten that process to a great extent.


----------



## Jroc

Sallow said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better to be feared than loved....Obama is niether
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That sounds good.  Righties are good at superfluous talking points, blather and pablum.
> 
> But the fact is we are neither.  We are hated.  And for good reason.  A bunch of Marines shoots up your town enough times and word gets around.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0]Collateral Murder - Wikileaks - Iraq - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Enough said.
Click to expand...


if it were up to people like you we'd all be speaking German. Weakness and appeasement lead to war. Hitler could have easily been defeated early on.... 55 million dead. You people are  joke. And you Obama lovers are even more of a pathetic joke

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO725Hbzfls]Neville Chamberlain - Peace in our Time - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Indofred

I believe I've mentioned in other threads - think happy thoughts that Obama is in office.
If Romney had managed, you would have been at war with Iran and your embassy in Israel would have been in their new capital,  Jerusalem, probably leading to a major middle east conflict or a serious escalation of violence in the region.
That also probably meaning more dead Americans and definitely a lot more of your tax money being given to Israel.
Anyway, moving on.

Have a map of world conflicts in 2013. None of these were any danger to America.
(Note - In some cases, whole countries are noted when a tiny part of that country has a problem)






I wonder how many of these places were subject to American interference or American aid in the form of arms sales.


----------



## Jroc

Indofred said:


> I believe I've mentioned in other threads - think happy thoughts that Obama is in office.
> If Romney had managed, you would have been at war with Iran and your embassy in Israel would have been in their new capital,  Jerusalem, probably leading to a major middle east conflict or a serious escalation of violence in the region.
> That also probably meaning more dead Americans and definitely a lot more of your tax money being given to Israel.
> Anyway, moving on.
> 
> Have a map of world conflicts in 2013. None of these were any danger to America.
> (Note - In some cases, whole countries are noted when a tiny part of that country has a problem)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many of these places were subject to American interference or American aid in the form of arms sales.



 Thank you for the *Indonesian* opinion


----------



## Theowl32

Indofred said:


> I believe I've mentioned in other threads - think happy thoughts that Obama is in office.
> If Romney had managed, you would have been at war with Iran and your embassy in Israel would have been in their new capital,  Jerusalem, probably leading to a major middle east conflict or a serious escalation of violence in the region.
> That also probably meaning more dead Americans and definitely a lot more of your tax money being given to Israel.
> Anyway, moving on.
> 
> Have a map of world conflicts in 2013. None of these were any danger to America.
> (Note - In some cases, whole countries are noted when a tiny part of that country has a problem)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many of these places were subject to American interference or American aid in the form of arms sales.



Wasn't the Obama administration pushing to bomb Syria.....for WMDs? Has anyone actually declared for a fact where Syria had those chemical weapons? No? Yes?

Oh never mind. You just unzipped your fly and revealed your tiny liberal dick. Meaning, it is obvious you are anti-Israel and have little to no clue about the situation. Probably have this little soft spot about the myth of the Palestinian people and their plight. 

You can deny it and pretend you are smarter than everyone around you by claiming to be all neutral (like any typical typical know it all delusional left winger). 

I am not sure if you even really know the basics on what caused the League of Nations to dissolve. Appeasement made the League of Nations totally irrelevant. The main lessons of the great appeasement was you do not appease tyrants. Iran, has publicly, and repeatedly said they want Israel wiped off the map. I know, to you that may very well be a great day. However, when one makes those claims unapologetically, the world cannot afford to take those words lightly. Considering that some psychotic may very well launch a missile (or 10 missiles) into Israel armed with nuclear tips, I am not sure what attitude you think is proper for Israel to have. Also, considering the sheer restraint Israel has shown towards it's enemies, should also appeal to you soft hearted liberals. It doesn't. 

BTW, Israel granted full citizenship to all of the Palestinian Arabs who fell within its borders after the War of Independence. Arabic is an official language in Israel. Israel remains to this day one of the few countries in the Middle East where Arabs can legitimately vote--and it is the only one where women can vote. Not that you or a dickbag like rightwinger give two shits.


----------



## Indofred

Jroc said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I've mentioned in other threads - think happy thoughts that Obama is in office.
> If Romney had managed, you would have been at war with Iran and your embassy in Israel would have been in their new capital,  Jerusalem, probably leading to a major middle east conflict or a serious escalation of violence in the region.
> That also probably meaning more dead Americans and definitely a lot more of your tax money being given to Israel.
> Anyway, moving on.
> 
> Have a map of world conflicts in 2013. None of these were any danger to America.
> (Note - In some cases, whole countries are noted when a tiny part of that country has a problem)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many of these places were subject to American interference or American aid in the form of arms sales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the *Indonesian* opinion
Click to expand...


I'm British, dear chap.


----------



## Indofred

Theowl32 said:


> Oh never mind. You just unzipped your fly and revealed your tiny liberal dick.



I answered that a little earlier. Let me repeat it for you.

Those who pretend to understand politics but are really sheep, following whoever promises them the most, tend to assume everyone who disagrees with their idiocy to be the politically opposite of their psudo-position.

In fact, I'm a proud Thatcherite but you're probably too stupid to know what that is so you'll have to google.

You don't have to be a left winger to see the blindingly obvious.

However, I do have some good news for you.
Zombies (I'm assured) eat brains so, in the event of a zombie attack, you'll be safe.


----------



## Theowl32

Indofred said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I've mentioned in other threads - think happy thoughts that Obama is in office.
> If Romney had managed, you would have been at war with Iran and your embassy in Israel would have been in their new capital,  Jerusalem, probably leading to a major middle east conflict or a serious escalation of violence in the region.
> That also probably meaning more dead Americans and definitely a lot more of your tax money being given to Israel.
> Anyway, moving on.
> 
> Have a map of world conflicts in 2013. None of these were any danger to America.
> (Note - In some cases, whole countries are noted when a tiny part of that country has a problem)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many of these places were subject to American interference or American aid in the form of arms sales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the *Indonesian* opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm British, dear chap.
Click to expand...


Yeah? What is that suppose to mean to us? That you proudly brag about being a subject still and pay taxation with out representation? Keep that obnoxious stiff lip, stiff. 

The problem with most of you know it all subjects to the crown, is you have no England anymore, but you really do not know it is as dead as here. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsLhNxzwK1Y]Kinks - Living on a Thin Line - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Theowl32

Indofred said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh never mind. You just unzipped your fly and revealed your tiny liberal dick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered that a little earlier. Let me repeat it for you.
> 
> Those who pretend to understand politics but are really sheep, following whoever promises them the most, tend to assume everyone who disagrees with their idiocy to be the politically opposite of their psudo-position.
> 
> In fact, I'm a proud Thatcherite but you're probably too stupid to know what that is so you'll have to google.
> 
> You don't have to be a left winger to see the blindingly obvious.
> 
> However, I do have some good news for you.
> Zombies (I'm assured) eat brains so, in the event of a zombie attack, you'll be safe.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you keep on thinking you get it. Like the tea sucking cigarette you are. What you have revealed is your pathetic left wing biased point of view. 

I know, to you....your point of view is a fact.


----------



## Theowl32

thanatos144 said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Far left-wing talking point's is all you've got?  Obviously they are more than you can refute. And stop being a bigot period and insulting our people.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't claim "our people", you betray the Native Americans with your right wing schick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get over yourself
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Ever notice none of these bleeding heart liberals would ever give up their home to a native American?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Funny stuff from the dick who used to be our veep, that Obama would rather spend on food stamps and that cutting the military by 5.4% would weaken us. 

Fact is, millions of food stamp dollars are spent by military families and that same dick cut the military by more than 25% back when he was in power. 

He also failed to mention that the cuts will leave us with the biggest military on the planet.


----------



## rightwinger

Luddly Neddite said:


> Funny stuff from the dick who used to be our veep, that Obama would rather spend on food stamps and that cutting the military by 5.4% would weaken us.
> 
> Fact is, millions of food stamp dollars are spent by military families and that same dick cut the military by more than 25% back when he was in power.
> 
> He also failed to mention that the cuts will leave us with the biggest military on the planet.



Hard to imagine that he opposes feeding the hungry in the US while his bloated military acts like policeman for the world

Twisted priorities


----------



## namvet

this is great news. nobody has to die for that half breed bastard. last year i talked 14 vets out of re-enlisting. gonna double that this year. we don't need a military. you've all been sold down the river. and you earned it


----------



## hangover

Luddly Neddite said:


> Funny stuff from the dick who used to be our veep, that Obama would rather spend on food stamps and that cutting the military by 5.4% would weaken us.
> 
> Fact is, millions of food stamp dollars are spent by military families and that same dick cut the military by more than 25% back when he was in power.
> 
> He also failed to mention that the cuts will leave us with the biggest military on the planet.


That Dick also wanted to reduce the military by 25% in 1991 when he was defense secretary. Cons have such a short memory.


----------



## Sunshine

Jroc said:


> Liberaltopia downsizing our military? Chuck Hagel is simply Obama's stodge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will reportedly propose a Pentagon budget that will shrink the U.S. Army to its smallest number since 1940* and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets.
> 
> The New York Times reported late Sunday that Hagel's proposal, which will be released to lawmakers and the public on Monday, will call for a reduction in size of the military that will leave it capable of waging war, but unable to carry out protracted occupations of foreign territory, as in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> Under Hagel's plan, the number of troops in the Army will drop to between 440,000 and 450,000, a reduction of at least 120,000 soldiers from its post-Sept.11 peak.
> 
> Officials told the Times that Hagel's plan has been endorsed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and protects funding for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. It also calls for the Navy to maintain all eleven of its aircraft carriers currently in operation. However, the budget proposal mandates the elimination of the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proposed budget will reportedly shrink Army to pre-WWII numbers | Fox News
Click to expand...


The sad day will come when we will be able to say, 'I told you so.'  It does not bode well for the future of our children.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

rightwinger said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny stuff from the dick who used to be our veep, that Obama would rather spend on food stamps and that cutting the military by 5.4% would weaken us.
> 
> Fact is, millions of food stamp dollars are spent by military families and that same dick cut the military by more than 25% back when he was in power.
> 
> He also failed to mention that the cuts will leave us with the biggest military on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to imagine that he opposes feeding the hungry in the US while his bloated military acts like policeman for the world
> 
> Twisted priorities
Click to expand...


Yep, for the right, its all about money. Let kids starve in the street but give more money to the war profiteers. 

And, boy do they hate President Obama for fighting for the middle class and the poor.


----------



## Sunshine

Theowl32 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't claim "our people", you betray the Native Americans with your right wing schick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get over yourself
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever notice none of these bleeding heart liberals would ever give up their home to a native American?
Click to expand...


Or sell their computers to feed the hungry!


----------



## Sunshine

Theowl32 said:


> Yeah? What is that suppose to mean to us? That you proudly brag about being a subject still and pay taxation with out representation? Keep that obnoxious stiff lip, stiff.
> 
> The problem with most of you know it all subjects to the crown, is you have no England anymore, but you really do not know it is as dead as here.
> 
> Kinks - Living on a Thin Line - YouTube



Their Constitution allows the monarch to dissolve Parliament and take over.  And they think they are free!  LMAO.  What a bunch of clueless little subjects they are.



> The British Constitution
> 
> We enjoy some features of a democracy, but our constitution is profoundly undemocratic. It is "not worth the paper it's not written on" according to one MP. Professor Stephen Haseler once described it as "whatever the government wants it to be".





> *The constitutional powers of the monarch*
> The Queen herself retains four key constitutional powers. Only the Queen herself may exercise these powers. No minister or advisor may exercise these powers on her behalf.
> The power to appoint the Prime Minister
> 
> Legally, the Queen has the power to appoint whomever she wishes to be the Prime Minister. Equally, if she so decided, she could appoint nobody to the office and could keep it vacant. There is no legal requirement even that the person appointed as Prime Minister be a Member of Parliament. Conventionally, however, the Prime Minister is the leader of the party with an overall majority of seats in the House of Commons. As long as there is such a majority, and as long as the party concerned has a clear leader, the Queen will have no real choice. But these things are not always so clear.
> 
> In 1957, when the Conservative party was in office, it was not clear who should succeed Eden as leader of the party and Prime Minister. The Queen effectively chose Macmillan over Butler. In 1963, when Macmillan was too ill to continue, the Queen, in the words of her biographer, allowed herself to be 'duped by' Macmillan into once again ensuring that Butler did not become Prime Minister, inviting Sir Alec Douglas Home to form a Government. The Queen's biographer describes this as 'the biggest political misjudgement of her reign'. Finally, in 1974 when there was a Hung Parliament no one party commanded a majority of seats in the Commons. This time the party leaders acted wisely, effectively keeping the Queen out of it until it had become clear that Harold Wilson should be invited to form a minority administration. Shockingly, there is no guarantee that this would necessarily happen again.
> 
> The power to dissolve Parliament
> 
> A dissolution of Parliament is the device that triggers a General Election. Only the Queen can dissolve Parliament and she has the power so to act at any time, for any reason, or for none. Normally the Queen will dissolve Parliament only on the advice of the Prime Minister. But Edward VII insisted on a dissolution in 1910 before he would agree to act on certain policies preferred by the Prime Minister of the day (Asquith). A full constitutional crisis was prevented only by the King's death and his replacement by George V.
> 
> In 1974 Prime Minister Harold Wilson called a second election following a very narrow victory over his Conservative opponents a few months earlier. It has been made clear since that the Queen was under no obligation to grant this request for an election. The Queen had the power to tell Wilson that the people had only recently been asked to vote and that their decision should be respected, that it was up to him to find a way to make his minority government work. In the event she granted his wish and he was returned with a small majority.
> 
> In 1990, when Margaret Thatcher was going through her prolonged removal from office at the hands of her parliamentary colleagues, there were real fears that she would out-maneuver them by calling an election. The Queen would have been within her 'rights' to deny such a request on the grounds that it was self-serving, and not in the interests of the country.
> 
> The power to dismiss the Government
> 
> Legally, the Queen has the power to dismiss the Government at any time and for any reason or for none. No exercise of this power could be struck down by any court of law. This power was last exercised in the United Kingdom by William IV in 1834, but it remains in place. It was exercised with devastating effect in 1975 in Australia.
> 
> The power to withhold royal assent to legislation passed by the Houses of Parliament
> 
> No Bill can become a legally binding Act of Parliament unless and until it receives the royal assent. This means that the Queen has a veto on all legislation passed by Parliament. She has the power to withhold her assent to any legislation for any reason or for none. Were she to exercise this power no court could hold it illegal. This is an astonishing power. It was last exercised in the United Kingdom by Queen Anne in 1708 but has been threatened to be exercised several times in the twentieth century, not least, it is reported, by the current heir to the throne, Prince Charles.



Republic | The British Constitution

So much for their being a 'free people.'  Doesn't it just make you to LOL when you read their stupid shit on here!


----------



## Synthaholic

Jroc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace through strength"...People test you when you're weak. a lot less likely when you're powerful. American weakness means war is more likely not less
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You reach a point of diminishing returns with your military strength
> Basically ....enough is enough
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The idea the administration has of slashing the Army because we want to make sure we don't have the capability to do long-term occupations, that is like canceling your fire insurance to prevent a fire. It makes no sense,
> How long do they think it takes to develop a quality officer, battalion commander, or a quality platoon leader, or platoon sergeant? The military, ultimately, our military is and has to be about people," he said.
> 
> The United States has 520,000 troops, which would reduce to about 420,000 under President Obama's plan. By comparison, China has 2.2 million active duty members; North Korea, 1.2 million; Russia, 800,000; and Turkey has 510,000
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLQSnB42emU"]Former VP Cheney Blasts Planned Pentagon Budget Cuts As Dangerous - Lt Col Ralph Peters - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Jon Stewart's researchers find clips of Cheney back when he wanted military cuts, shows he's a total hypocrite:


The Empire Cuts Back - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 02/26/14 - Video Clip | Comedy Central


.


----------



## 1776

Obama and his fellow goons want to bring the US to its knees....this is one piece of the plan.


----------



## eagle1462010

I again ask the libs their position on cutting the Commissary budget by a Billion.............

It is a basic service for our troops. It will remain a basic service after the cuts to the military.........

Over an over again they claim they are for the little people.  How they care.............Why have they been silent on this very issue.........................

Why on Tri-Care..................

Why on BAH cuts...............

And why on cost of living increases to Retired or disabled Vets....................

Why.............Step up to the plate against your current Administration for these cuts................You are for the little people................Right.....................


----------



## Victory67

1776 said:


> Obama and his fellow goons want to bring the US to its knees....this is one piece of the plan.



How does cutting our army forces by less than 20%, bring us to our knees?

Its selfish fools like you that want to cut spending on the poor and weakest among us, but pour wasteful dollars towards military programs that not even the Generals want.

Its asses like you that want our military to act as a front line for a Pax Americana.


----------



## eagle1462010

Again, I will ask about the Waste Reports that our Gov't refuses to do anything about............

Why aren't we cutting there................Duplicate programs being handled by several agencies........
Why should we keep them..........................

Finally, to my last post............I believe I heard that the Admin is talking about giving a BILLION to Ukraine in aid...........................

Too dang bad that he will not even do it for our own troops.


----------



## eagle1462010

Victory67 said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama and his fellow goons want to bring the US to its knees....this is one piece of the plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does cutting our army forces by less than 20%, bring us to our knees?
> 
> Its selfish fools like you that want to cut spending on the poor and weakest among us, but pour wasteful dollars towards military programs that not even the Generals want.
> 
> Its asses like you that want our military to act as a front line for a Pax Americana.
Click to expand...


Why do you glorify these cuts by attacking the troop numbers instead of WASTEFUL spending in the DOD............They have frozen Civilian levels but WHY WOULDN'T YOU CUT THERE FIRST.   Which is more important.............Civilians in support mode or actual troops.

Your's and the Admins priorities are wrong headed............I've stated cuts across the board for a long time.  I have stated that it would have to include the military...........But blanket cuts are BS.............There is quite frankly too much money floating in the contracts to make the cuts are FORCE those building the equipment to STAY ON BUDGET.............

You certainly don't attack the basic services of the military which is exactly what this is going to do.


----------



## 1776

Stupid fuck....a strong military prevents MAJOR wars. 

A weaker military scum like you want ends up getting millions killed and billions blown fighting the war. 

Your fellow scum in the 1930s helped Hitler rise to power and help kill 30 million people on this planet. 



Victory67 said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama and his fellow goons want to bring the US to its knees....this is one piece of the plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does cutting our army forces by less than 20%, bring us to our knees?
> 
> Its selfish fools like you that want to cut spending on the poor and weakest among us, but pour wasteful dollars towards military programs that not even the Generals want.
> 
> Its asses like you that want our military to act as a front line for a Pax Americana.
Click to expand...


----------



## Agit8r

Jroc said:


> Liberaltopia downsizing our military? Chuck Hagel is simply Obama's stodge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will reportedly propose a Pentagon budget that will shrink the U.S. Army to its smallest number since 1940* and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets.
> 
> The New York Times reported late Sunday that Hagel's proposal, which will be released to lawmakers and the public on Monday, will call for a reduction in size of the military that will leave it capable of waging war, but unable to carry out protracted occupations of foreign territory, as in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> Under Hagel's plan, the number of troops in the Army will drop to between 440,000 and 450,000, a reduction of at least 120,000 soldiers from its post-Sept.11 peak.
> 
> Officials told the Times that Hagel's plan has been endorsed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and protects funding for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. It also calls for the Navy to maintain all eleven of its aircraft carriers currently in operation. However, the budget proposal mandates the elimination of the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proposed budget will reportedly shrink Army to pre-WWII numbers | Fox News
Click to expand...


A step in the right direction 

"Were armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, we never should have been without them. Our resources would have been exhausted on dangers which have never happened, instead of being reserved for what is really to take place"
-- *Thomas Jefferson*; from 6th State of the Union Address (Dec. 2, 1806)


----------



## Victory67

1776 said:


> Stupid fuck....a strong military prevents MAJOR wars.
> 
> A weaker military scum like you want ends up getting millions killed and billions blown fighting the war.
> 
> Your fellow scum in the 1930s helped Hitler rise to power and help kill 30 million people on this planet.



How about you spend some more of your welfare dollars on our military?

Why should we spend money on a military to defend a Pax Americana when we could defend ourselves and our interested just fine with a smaller military?

You only want more money thrown to the military cause they are a jobs program for toothless hillbillies in The South.


----------



## 1776

The day after Hagel and Obama talked about $75B in extra cuts to the military to "save money" they unveiled a plan to blow $300B on bridges, roads, etc...aka union scams. 

It is quite clear they have no intention of saving any money from stealing from the DoD budget which is mandated by the Constitution.


----------



## eagle1462010

Victory67 said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid fuck....a strong military prevents MAJOR wars.
> 
> A weaker military scum like you want ends up getting millions killed and billions blown fighting the war.
> 
> Your fellow scum in the 1930s helped Hitler rise to power and help kill 30 million people on this planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you spend some more of your welfare dollars on our military?
> 
> Why should we spend money on a military to defend a Pax Americana when we could defend ourselves and our interested just fine with a smaller military?
> 
> You only want more money thrown to the military cause they are a jobs program for toothless hillbillies in The South.
Click to expand...


Your total disrespect to the members of the military is noted..............Shows volumes to what you think of or fighting men and women of this country.

Take a long walk off a short bridge on that note.


----------



## 1776

Burn in hell motherfucker. 

As a former military officer that served 22 years in the military with a TS-SCI clearance, I know more about the military, history, foreign affairs, etc than some ghetto trash like you. 

Given my 3 college degrees and foreign travel, I'd say you are ghetto trash that couldn't find Russia on a map. 



Victory67 said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid fuck....a strong military prevents MAJOR wars.
> 
> A weaker military scum like you want ends up getting millions killed and billions blown fighting the war.
> 
> Your fellow scum in the 1930s helped Hitler rise to power and help kill 30 million people on this planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you spend some more of your welfare dollars on our military?
> 
> Why should we spend money on a military to defend a Pax Americana when we could defend ourselves and our interested just fine with a smaller military?
> 
> You only want more money thrown to the military cause they are a jobs program for toothless hillbillies in The South.
Click to expand...


----------



## eagle1462010

It amazes me how the left starts the RAH RAh BS every time the military gets the axe, but they refuse to cut any dang thing else, even as reports show waste all over the dang place.

And none of them have the gonads to talk about the cuts I've already listed...........

Aimed directly at the troops.

Probably because they think like the last poster who calls them damn toothless Hill Billies.........

I said this a long time ago.  You people DISGUST ME.


----------



## Victory67

eagle1462010 said:


> Your total disrespect to the members of the military is noted..............Shows volumes to what you think of or fighting men and women of this country.
> 
> Take a long walk off a short bridge on that note.



Sorry dickhead, but our military is not supposed to be a welfare job program for otherwise unemployable rednecks and bumblefucks.  Its role is to protect the USA and our interests, not to defend a Pax Americana.


----------



## eagle1462010

1776 said:


> Burn in hell motherfucker.
> 
> As a former military officer that served 22 years in the military with a TS-SCI clearance, I know more about the military, history, foreign affairs, etc than some ghetto trash like you.
> 
> Given my 3 college degrees and foreign travel, I'd say you are ghetto trash that couldn't find Russia on a map.
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid fuck....a strong military prevents MAJOR wars.
> 
> A weaker military scum like you want ends up getting millions killed and billions blown fighting the war.
> 
> Your fellow scum in the 1930s helped Hitler rise to power and help kill 30 million people on this planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you spend some more of your welfare dollars on our military?
> 
> Why should we spend money on a military to defend a Pax Americana when we could defend ourselves and our interested just fine with a smaller military?
> 
> You only want more money thrown to the military cause they are a jobs program for toothless hillbillies in The South.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thank you for your Service........Obama's plan is..............

BOHICA to me..........................


----------



## 1776

What do you do for a living, shitstain?

How old are you?

What are your "news" sources?



Victory67 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your total disrespect to the members of the military is noted..............Shows volumes to what you think of or fighting men and women of this country.
> 
> Take a long walk off a short bridge on that note.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dickhead, but our military is not supposed to be a welfare job program for otherwise unemployable rednecks and bumblefucks.  Its role is to protect the USA and our interests, not to defend a Pax Americana.
Click to expand...


----------



## Victory67

1776 said:


> Burn in hell motherfucker.
> 
> As a former military officer that served 22 years in the military with a TS-SCI clearance, I know more about the military, history, foreign affairs, etc than some ghetto trash like you.
> 
> Given my 3 college degrees and foreign travel, I'd say you are ghetto trash that couldn't find Russia on a map....



See?  We are obviously spending too much on the military if racist fucks like you can get in.

We need higher standards, stricter requirements, and a "no hillbilly bumblefucks" policy.

And we need to cut spending and our forces to only what is necessary.  Its called Fiscal Conservatism.


----------



## eagle1462010

Victory67 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your total disrespect to the members of the military is noted..............Shows volumes to what you think of or fighting men and women of this country.
> 
> Take a long walk off a short bridge on that note.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dickhead, but our military is not supposed to be a welfare job program for otherwise unemployable rednecks and bumblefucks.  Its role is to protect the USA and our interests, not to defend a Pax Americana.
Click to expand...


I take complaints on what I think of you at the 3rd Port-O-Let to the right in the Basement.

Please feel free to submit your complaints there...........

Freedom............People have died to keep that here.............as you ditch those who serve with your posts............

Quite frankly, I wouldn't pee on you if you were on fire.


----------



## 1776

I joined when Bill Clinton was sexually assaulting women in the White House, shitbag. 

Again....tell us your age, job and news sources.



Victory67 said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Burn in hell motherfucker.
> 
> As a former military officer that served 22 years in the military with a TS-SCI clearance, I know more about the military, history, foreign affairs, etc than some ghetto trash like you.
> 
> Given my 3 college degrees and foreign travel, I'd say you are ghetto trash that couldn't find Russia on a map....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See?  We are obviously spending too much on the military if racist fucks like you can get in.
> 
> We need higher standards, stricter requirements, and a "no hillbilly bumblefucks" policy.
> 
> And we need to cut spending and our forces to only what is necessary.  Its called Fiscal Conservatism.
Click to expand...


----------



## Victory67

eagle1462010 said:


> I take complaints on what I think of you at the 3rd Port-O-Let to the right in the Basement.
> 
> Please feel free to submit your complaints there...........
> 
> Freedom............People have died to keep that here.............as you ditch those who serve with your posts............
> 
> Quite frankly, I wouldn't pee on you if you were on fire.



Our freedom will be protected just fine with 15% less army troops.

But we should get rid of limpdicks like you.  They don't belong behind an M-4.


----------



## 1776

Shitstain...it is not just the manning cuts, it is the weapon systems cuts, R&D cuts, etc....but you are too stupid to know this FACT.

I actually have no problem with "some" manning cuts but not like this bullshit which is carving off the leg of the military compared to shedding a few pounds. Simpletons like you have no clue about the Mission Analysis, COA development, etc needed to determine how much is too deep.



Victory67 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take complaints on what I think of you at the 3rd Port-O-Let to the right in the Basement.
> 
> Please feel free to submit your complaints there...........
> 
> Freedom............People have died to keep that here.............as you ditch those who serve with your posts............
> 
> Quite frankly, I wouldn't pee on you if you were on fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our freedom will be protected just fine with 15% less army troops.
> 
> But we should get rid of limpdicks like you.  They don't belong behind an M-4.
Click to expand...


----------



## Victory67

1776 said:


> Shitstain...it is not just the manning cuts, it is the weapon systems cuts, R&D cuts, etc....but you are too stupid to know this FACT.



How the fuck did a dumbass like you get into our military?  Must be due to Bush's allowing in convicted felons and such.

No money has been cut from the military budget.  The Republican House has to agree.

Didn't know that didya?  Of course not.


----------



## 1776

The DoD budget has been going down year to year under Obama. 

Obama wants to cut even more then turn around and spend more on welfare projects. 

DoD weapon systems need to be researched, developed, tested, fielded, maintained and sometimes upgraded....that takes years dumbfuck. You can't just quit funding a program for 2-3 years then restart it once China makes a move in Asia. 

I noticed you won't admit your age, lack of job and your insane news sources. 



Victory67 said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shitstain...it is not just the manning cuts, it is the weapon systems cuts, R&D cuts, etc....but you are too stupid to know this FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the fuck did a dumbass like you get into our military?  Must be due to Bush's allowing in convicted felons and such.
> 
> No money has been cut from the military budget.  The Republican House has to agree.
> 
> Didn't know that didya?  Of course not.
Click to expand...


----------



## Victory67

1776 said:


> The DoD budget has been going down year to year under Obama.
> 
> Obama wants to cut even more then turn around and spend more on welfare projects.
> 
> I noticed you won't admit your age, lack of job and your insane news sources.



Nothing happens without the consent of the Republican House, since January 2011.

So blaim your fellow bumblefuck hillbillies if the defense budget has been cut, which I don't believe as the only thing that's been passed since 2010 are Continuing Resolutions.


----------



## 1776

Some sellouts in the GOP have gone along with Democraps with the DoD budget cuts after believing Obama's lies about making entitlement cuts. 

Again....shitstain, Obama wants to cut even more which is proof he is a traitor to this country after the deep cuts the past few years. 

We understand you can't tell us your age, that you don't have a JOB and that you use msnbc/moveon/al Jazeera for news....



Victory67 said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The DoD budget has been going down year to year under Obama.
> 
> Obama wants to cut even more then turn around and spend more on welfare projects.
> 
> I noticed you won't admit your age, lack of job and your insane news sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing happens without the consent of the Republican House, since January 2011.
> 
> So blaim your fellow bumblefuck hillbillies if the defense budget has been cut, which I don't believe as the only thing that's been passed since 2010 are Continuing Resolutions.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jroc

Synthaholic said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You reach a point of diminishing returns with your military strength
> Basically ....enough is enough
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The idea the administration has of slashing the Army because we want to make sure we don't have the capability to do long-term occupations, that is like canceling your fire insurance to prevent a fire. It makes no sense,
> How long do they think it takes to develop a quality officer, battalion commander, or a quality platoon leader, or platoon sergeant? The military, ultimately, our military is and has to be about people," he said.
> 
> The United States has 520,000 troops, which would reduce to about 420,000 under President Obama's plan. By comparison, China has 2.2 million active duty members; North Korea, 1.2 million; Russia, 800,000; and Turkey has 510,000
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLQSnB42emU"]Former VP Cheney Blasts Planned Pentagon Budget Cuts As Dangerous - Lt Col Ralph Peters - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jon Stewart's researchers find clips of Cheney back when he wanted military cuts, shows he's a total hypocrite:
> 
> 
> The Empire Cuts Back - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 02/26/14 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

actually I was quoting Ralph Peters watch the vid clown


----------



## Jroc

hangover said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace through strength"...People test you when you're weak. a lot less likely when you're powerful. Hitler must have had that philosophy.  American weakness means war is more likely not less
> The only wars we've been in since WWII, were ones we started by sticking out world dictator nose in other countries. And we lost them all.
> 
> 
> 
> Learning is not in your vocabulary.
Click to expand...


You don't edit other member's posts punk...You can be banned for that


----------



## thanatos144

I have family serving and get disgusted on how much contempt this administration has for them... 

tapatalk post


----------



## mamooth

The headline of OP itself is deliberately misleading, but one expects that when FOX is the source.

Prior to WWII, the Air Force was part of the Army, and the Marines were a fraction of their current size. In terms of projected Army/Air Force/Marines combined troop numbers, the USA will still be way above the prior-to-WWII numbers.


----------



## Political Junky

[/quote]

Jon Stewart's researchers find clips of Cheney back when he wanted military cuts, shows he's a total hypocrite:


The Empire Cuts Back - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 02/26/14 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
.[/QUOTE]

The Right really likes to ignore that others on the Right cut the military.
Oh my, 5.9% vs. Cheney's 25%.


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## mamooth

Templar looks to be yet another conservative demanding an ever-larger government.


----------



## Jroc

mamooth said:


> The headline of OP itself is deliberately misleading, but one expects that when FOX is the source.
> 
> Prior to WWII, the Air Force was part of the Army, and the Marines were a fraction of their current size. In terms of projected Army/Air Force/Marines combined troop numbers, the USA will still be way above the prior-to-WWII numbers.



it takes more people to run today's military genus.we have high-tech equipment computers ststems this isn't pre WWII


----------



## Indofred

TemplarKormac said:


>



Terror threats were nothing until you stuck your fat noses into middle east politics.

What are you going to do about Putin? He has nukes that could easily destroy major American cities. Don't you know, America never starts wars against a country that can hit back. Playground bully, but bigger.

Ah, NK, yes, you can start a war there. They have sod all to hit America with. Hang on, if they're no threat to you, why do you want a war?

There is no Iranian nuke. It's a story Israelis tell their kids so they'll hate Muslims when they grow up. They also tell this story to their bitch, The U.S. of A., in order to get more American tax payer supplied, free gifts.

Not a single war America has been involved in since 1945 has been to protect the United states. 
If I'm wrong - name one and give reasons why it protected the U.S. from a threat.


----------



## thanatos144

Indofred said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terror threats were nothing until you stuck your fat noses into middle east politics.
> 
> What are you going to do about Putin? He has nukes that could easily destroy major American cities. Don't you know, America never starts wars against a country that can hit back. Playground bully, but bigger.
> 
> Ah, NK, yes, you can start a war there. They have sod all to hit America with. Hang on, if they're no threat to you, why do you want a war?
> 
> There is no Iranian nuke. It's a story Israelis tell their kids so they'll hate Muslims when they grow up. They also tell this story to their bitch, The U.S. of A., in order to get more American tax payer supplied, free gifts.
> 
> Not a single war America has been involved in since 1945 has been to protect the United states.
> If I'm wrong - name one and give reasons why it protected the U.S. from a threat.
Click to expand...


Fuck off terrorist loving ass monkey 

tapatalk post


----------



## Indofred

thanatos144 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terror threats were nothing until you stuck your fat noses into middle east politics.
> 
> What are you going to do about Putin? He has nukes that could easily destroy major American cities. Don't you know, America never starts wars against a country that can hit back. Playground bully, but bigger.
> 
> Ah, NK, yes, you can start a war there. They have sod all to hit America with. Hang on, if they're no threat to you, why do you want a war?
> 
> There is no Iranian nuke. It's a story Israelis tell their kids so they'll hate Muslims when they grow up. They also tell this story to their bitch, The U.S. of A., in order to get more American tax payer supplied, free gifts.
> 
> Not a single war America has been involved in since 1945 has been to protect the United states.
> If I'm wrong - name one and give reasons why it protected the U.S. from a threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck off terrorist loving ass monkey
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


I see your intelligence is rather limited.
Totally unable to argue a point, you simply spout shit.
Perhaps you could name of of the military actions that were undertaken to defend America.
The bombing of Indonesia, maybe?


----------



## JWBooth

Indofred said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terror threats were nothing until you stuck your fat noses into middle east politics.
> 
> What are you going to do about Putin? He has nukes that could easily destroy major American cities. Don't you know, America never starts wars against a country that can hit back. Playground bully, but bigger.
> 
> Ah, NK, yes, you can start a war there. They have sod all to hit America with. Hang on, if they're no threat to you, why do you want a war?
> 
> There is no Iranian nuke. It's a story Israelis tell their kids so they'll hate Muslims when they grow up. They also tell this story to their bitch, The U.S. of A., in order to get more American tax payer supplied, free gifts.
> 
> Not a single war America has been involved in since 1945 has been to protect the United states.
> If I'm wrong - name one and give reasons why it protected the U.S. from a threat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck off terrorist loving ass monkey
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see your intelligence is rather limited.
> Totally unable to argue a point, you simply spout shit.
> Perhaps you could name of of the military actions that were undertaken to defend America.
> The bombing of Indonesia, maybe?
Click to expand...


Well, you gotta cut him a little slack, as you said, his intelligence is limited and his world view is shaped by slacking off behind his store counter reading the Enquirer and People.


----------



## hangover

Republicans, "Cut spending, cut spending, cut spending! OMG! Not the military, that's our sacred cow!"

Republicans, "Cut the deficit, cut the deficit, cut the deficit! OMG! You can't do that by making the rich pay taxes! Destroy Social Security and Medicare, and throw grandma out in the street instead."


----------



## Theowl32

hangover said:


> republicans, "cut spending, cut spending, cut spending! Omg! Not the military, that's our sacred cow!"
> 
> republicans, "cut the deficit, cut the deficit, cut the deficit! Omg! You can't do that by making the rich pay taxes! Destroy social security and medicare, and throw grandma out in the street instead."



****left wing propaganda alert****


----------



## Indofred

Theowl32 said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> republicans, "cut spending, cut spending, cut spending! Omg! Not the military, that's our sacred cow!"
> 
> republicans, "cut the deficit, cut the deficit, cut the deficit! Omg! You can't do that by making the rich pay taxes! Destroy social security and medicare, and throw grandma out in the street instead."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ****left wing propaganda alert****
Click to expand...


Actually, it's accurate, if a little over dramatic, as far as American republicans go.
Sadly, the political left go exactly the other way and try to spend their way of of debt.
The latter applies to all left wing parties, regardless of country.

What you guys need is a Thatcher. Come to think of it, every country should have one.
How is human cloning technology coming along?


----------



## Synthaholic

eagle1462010 said:


> I again ask the libs their position on cutting the Commissary budget by a Billion.............
> 
> It is a basic service for our troops. It will remain a basic service after the cuts to the military.........
> 
> Over an over again they claim they are for the little people.  How they care.............Why have they been silent on this very issue.........................
> 
> Why on Tri-Care..................
> 
> Why on BAH cuts...............
> 
> And why on cost of living increases to Retired or disabled Vets....................
> 
> Why.............Step up to the plate against your current Administration for these cuts................You are for the little people................Right.....................


Why are you in favor of government, subsidized cheese?


----------



## Synthaholic

Jroc said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Former VP Cheney Blasts Planned Pentagon Budget Cuts As Dangerous - Lt Col Ralph Peters - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon Stewart's researchers find clips of Cheney back when he wanted military cuts, shows he's a total hypocrite:
> 
> 
> The Empire Cuts Back - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 02/26/14 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually I was quoting Ralph Peters watch the vid clown
Click to expand...

You posted:

*Former VP Cheney Former VP Cheney Blasts Planned Pentagon Budget Cuts As Dangerous - Lt Col Ralph Peters - YouTube*​*
*I commented on Dick Cheney's hypocrisy and flip-flopping.


----------



## TooTall

mamooth said:


> The headline of OP itself is deliberately misleading, but one expects that when FOX is the source.
> 
> Prior to WWII, the Air Force was part of the Army, and the Marines were a fraction of their current size. In terms of projected Army/Air Force/Marines combined troop numbers, the USA will still be way above the prior-to-WWII numbers.



I doubt that.  You do the math, and I didn't incude the Navy or the Marine Corp.



> On 17 June 1941 the Army was expanded to 280,000 men and nine days later to *375,000.* On 16 September the National Guard units were absorbed into the Army and Roosevelt persuaded Congress to pass the Selective Service Act; by July 1941, *606,915* men were inducted into the Army.
> 
> In June 1941 the United States Army Air Corps became the Army Air Force and was commanded by Major-General Henry H. Arnold. At that time its strength was only a small force of 9,078 officers and 143,563 enlisted men. Within six months its strength had risen to 22,524 officers (including cadets) and* 274,579 me*n. The numbers of aircraft had risen from 6,102 to 10,329 in the same period.


----------



## Synthaholic

1776 said:


> The day after Hagel and Obama talked about $75B in extra cuts to the military to "save money" they unveiled a plan to blow $300B on bridges, roads, etc...aka union scams.
> 
> It is quite clear they have no intention of saving any money from stealing from the DoD budget which is mandated by the Constitution.


Shut the fuck up.


----------



## RoadVirus

hangover said:


> Republicans, "Cut spending, cut spending, cut spending! OMG! Not the military, that's our sacred cow!"



Change the word "Republicans" to "Democrats", and "military" to "welfare entitlements".


----------



## mamooth

TooTall said:


> I doubt that.  You do the math, and I didn't incude the Navy or the Marine Corp.



Okay. I do include the Marine Corps.

Army, projected at 450k. Air Force, currently at 333K. Marines, 195k. Total, 978k

Prior-to-WII number, 608K (army) + 275K (army air corps) + 54k (marines) = 937K

978k would be more than 937k. Hence, the projected figures are still bigger than just-prior-to-WWII.


----------



## HenryBHough

Remember, The New Messiah purged the armed forces of all officers who didn't rate their commitment to Him personally above their obligation to support and uphold The U.S. Constitution.

So, He speaks; they nod sagely and say "yessssiiiirrrrr, yessssirrrrr, three bags full, sir".


----------



## eagle1462010

Synthaholic said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I again ask the libs their position on cutting the Commissary budget by a Billion.............
> 
> It is a basic service for our troops. It will remain a basic service after the cuts to the military.........
> 
> Over an over again they claim they are for the little people.  How they care.............Why have they been silent on this very issue.........................
> 
> Why on Tri-Care..................
> 
> Why on BAH cuts...............
> 
> And why on cost of living increases to Retired or disabled Vets....................
> 
> Why.............Step up to the plate against your current Administration for these cuts................You are for the little people................Right.....................
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you in favor of government, subsidized cheese?
Click to expand...


LOL

The U.S. military puts their asses on the line for this country.  Many over the last decade have come home in boxes.  They are separated from their families for very long period's of time............

And you would object to them getting a small benefit for themselves and their families.................

Show's your priorities are screwed up, but alas you are a liberal and it is expected.


----------



## mamooth

HenryBHough said:


> Remember, The New Messiah purged the armed forces of all officers who didn't rate their commitment to Him personally above their obligation to support and uphold The U.S. Constitution.



Seriously, are you insane? That would seem to be the only explanation for such a crazy post.


----------



## Indofred

HenryBHough said:


> Remember, The New Messiah purged the armed forces of all officers who didn't rate their commitment to Him personally above their obligation to support and uphold The U.S. Constitution.
> 
> So, He speaks; they nod sagely and say "yessssiiiirrrrr, yessssirrrrr, three bags full, sir".



Would you be kind enough to link to reliable sites in order to prove that claim, please?


----------



## Indofred

eagle1462010 said:


> The U.S. military puts their asses on the line for this country.  Many over the last decade have come home in boxes. .



They came home in boxes because your idiot governments sent them to invade foreign countries that were no threat to America.
Vietnam is a prime example.


----------



## TooTall

mamooth said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that.  You do the math, and I didn't incude the Navy or the Marine Corp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. I do include the Marine Corps.
> 
> Army, projected at 450k. Air Force, currently at 333K. Marines, 195k. Total, 978k
> 
> Prior-to-WII number, 608K (army) + 275K (army air corps) + 54k (marines) = 937K
> 
> 978k would be more than 937k. Hence, the projected figures are still bigger than just-prior-to-WWII.
Click to expand...


The statement was the ARMY will be shrunk to less than prior to WWII.  Prior-to-WII number, *608K *(army) Army, projected at *450k*


----------



## Theowl32

Indofred said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. military puts their asses on the line for this country.  Many over the last decade have come home in boxes. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They came home in boxes because your idiot governments sent them to invade foreign countries that were no threat to America.
> Vietnam is a prime example.
Click to expand...


That is rather simplistic and typical bullshit that comes out of the mouths of hippies or terribly misinformed foreigners. It is beyond obvious that communism (to the delight of the left wingers here and around the world) was spreading around the world. Southern Vietnam was indeed an ally to this country. There was certainly an interest in preventing the spread of communism and defending our allies. 

Here is what happened as a result of our Generals needing to conduct a political war. Where the hippies here (obvious communists in our schools) led massive protests. Most of the protesters had no clue what they were actually protesting. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane posing with the communist army on a turret that had obviously killed many Americans ( to the delight of the hippies). It became a political quagmire and our efforts were totally in vein. In reality, this country could have basically eradicated the communist push. 

As a result, this is what took over......

Watch the whole video......if you can stomach it...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_GNsG0_jMM]The Killing Fields - YouTube[/ame]

Do the hippy liberals ever see what they were supporting? Do they take any responsibility whatsoever for that? No, they don't. 













In the mean time lets us all take the time to ignore the slave like conditions in Vietnam today. I doubt a person like Tiger, who gets at least 100 million in endorsements from Nike, would ever publicly express his concerns of these slave like conditions. Or any of the other "African Americans" who make 100s of millions of dollars in endorsements from those companies that take advantage of people. 

Real different when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it? Yeah, ignorance is certainly bliss.


----------



## 1776

Shitstain...the entitlements are going to overtake the budget. Plus there is nothing in the US Constitution that backs your welfare programs compared to the national defense of this country.

Shut the fuck up.



hangover said:


> Republicans, "Cut spending, cut spending, cut spending! OMG! Not the military, that's our sacred cow!"
> 
> Republicans, "Cut the deficit, cut the deficit, cut the deficit! OMG! You can't do that by making the rich pay taxes! Destroy Social Security and Medicare, and throw grandma out in the street instead."


----------



## Desperado

Theowl32 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. military puts their asses on the line for this country.  Many over the last decade have come home in boxes. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They came home in boxes because your idiot governments sent them to invade foreign countries that were no threat to America.
> Vietnam is a prime example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is rather simplistic and typical bullshit that comes out of the mouths of hippies or terribly misinformed foreigners. It is beyond obvious that communism (to the delight of the left wingers here and around the world) was spreading around the world. Southern Vietnam was indeed an ally to this country. There was certainly an interest in preventing the spread of communism and defending our allies.
Click to expand...


If as you say we were fighting the spread of communism is Vietnam, why were we not fighting the spread of Communism 90 miles from America is Cuba?
Exactly how did Southern Vietnam qualify as an ally to the US?


----------



## Dante

eagle1462010 said:


> I served under Reagan.  I remember the pay increases.  I also remember I served on Rust Buckets that we desperately needing to be replaced.  The first ship I served on hadn't had an overhaul in 10 years and was literally falling apart.
> 
> All of the Presidents after Reagan benefited from the upgrade to the military.  People in the military were also getting food stamps back then.....Real great huh............


You may have served under Reagan but you are more than mistaken in the illusions you carry on in your mind

_After Carter’s second year in office military spending was boosted by 5% on an upward trajectory- continued by Reagan.   During the Carter years- defense spending increased from 4.7% of GDP to 5.2% of GDP- therefore- it was pure myth that during the Carter years the military was “hollowed out” or cut is simply not true.  Indeed “some” cut were being made as a result of winding up the Vietnam War and it was Carter who initiated programs to rectify this situation by creating new platforms, commission new weapons, and a surge in building “LIFT” capability (in later years this gave our military global reach).  Reagan continued and expanded upon Carter’s and Secretary of Defense Brown’s policies.


*I am personally a great fan of Ronald Reagan and remember his Presidency well, but in the study of history- we use time and greater time as an analytical tool to be able to reflect on events more clearly, more objectively and with less emotion- and probably- with many more facts than when events occurred.*

CARTER REVISITED_​


----------



## Dante

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=32811

Federal Civilian and Military Pay Increases Announcement on the President's Proposal.
August 31, 1979
Public Papers of the Presidents


President Carter proposed to Congress today a pay increase of 7 percent affecting 3.5 million military and civilian employees. The President's proposal would raise the pay of 1.4 million Federal civilian workers and 2.1 million members of the armed services.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dante said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I served under Reagan.  I remember the pay increases.  I also remember I served on Rust Buckets that we desperately needing to be replaced.  The first ship I served on hadn't had an overhaul in 10 years and was literally falling apart.
> 
> All of the Presidents after Reagan benefited from the upgrade to the military.  People in the military were also getting food stamps back then.....Real great huh............
> 
> 
> 
> You may have served under Reagan but you are more than mistaken in the illusions you carry on in your mind
> 
> _After Carter’s second year in office military spending was boosted by 5% on an upward trajectory- continued by Reagan.   During the Carter years- defense spending increased from 4.7% of GDP to 5.2% of GDP- therefore- it was pure myth that during the Carter years the military was “hollowed out” or cut is simply not true.  Indeed “some” cut were being made as a result of winding up the Vietnam War and it was Carter who initiated programs to rectify this situation by creating new platforms, commission new weapons, and a surge in building “LIFT” capability (in later years this gave our military global reach).  Reagan continued and expanded upon Carter’s and Secretary of Defense Brown’s policies.
> 
> 
> *I am personally a great fan of Ronald Reagan and remember his Presidency well, but in the study of history- we use time and greater time as an analytical tool to be able to reflect on events more clearly, more objectively and with less emotion- and probably- with many more facts than when events occurred.*
> 
> CARTER REVISITED_​
Click to expand...

Carter left our people in Iran for 444 days............................the beginnings of what we have today...............and Radical Islam as he did nothing...............

I know I got a pay raise under Reagan..........perhaps it was old legislation but  I doubt it.............Reagan DID REVAMP THE MILITARY.............The old RUST BUCKETS WE SERVED ON needed to be retired.................and replaced with new ships................Which was done under Reagan............

So spare me the Peanut head was responsible junk.


----------



## Dante

eagle1462010 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I served under Reagan.  I remember the pay increases.  I also remember I served on Rust Buckets that we desperately needing to be replaced.  The first ship I served on hadn't had an overhaul in 10 years and was literally falling apart.
> 
> All of the Presidents after Reagan benefited from the upgrade to the military.  People in the military were also getting food stamps back then.....Real great huh............
> 
> 
> 
> You may have served under Reagan but you are more than mistaken in the illusions you carry on in your mind
> 
> _After Carter’s second year in office military spending was boosted by 5% on an upward trajectory- continued by Reagan.   During the Carter years- defense spending increased from 4.7% of GDP to 5.2% of GDP- therefore- it was pure myth that during the Carter years the military was “hollowed out” or cut is simply not true.  Indeed “some” cut were being made as a result of winding up the Vietnam War and it was Carter who initiated programs to rectify this situation by creating new platforms, commission new weapons, and a surge in building “LIFT” capability (in later years this gave our military global reach).  Reagan continued and expanded upon Carter’s and Secretary of Defense Brown’s policies.
> 
> 
> *I am personally a great fan of Ronald Reagan and remember his Presidency well, but in the study of history- we use time and greater time as an analytical tool to be able to reflect on events more clearly, more objectively and with less emotion- and probably- with many more facts than when events occurred.*
> 
> CARTER REVISITED_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Carter left our people in Iran for 444 days............................the beginnings of what we have today...............and Radical Islam as he did nothing...............
> 
> I know I got a pay raise under Reagan..........perhaps it was old legislation but  I doubt it.............Reagan DID REVAMP THE MILITARY.............The old RUST BUCKETS WE SERVED ON needed to be retired.................and replaced with new ships................Which was done under Reagan............
> 
> So spare me the Peanut head was responsible junk.
Click to expand...

now you're full of shit. The Iranians were not afraid of Reagan and they hated Carter

Reagan sent in special forces to rescue them hostages. You and your perhaps. You're an ingrate. Are you also a mental patient at the VA? BEcause if you ain't maybe you should be. Your memory and your mind are a bit scrambled


----------



## Dante

now come to me trolls


come to me

come on


----------



## eagle1462010

Dante said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I served under Reagan.  I remember the pay increases.  I also remember I served on Rust Buckets that we desperately needing to be replaced.  The first ship I served on hadn't had an overhaul in 10 years and was literally falling apart.
> 
> All of the Presidents after Reagan benefited from the upgrade to the military.  People in the military were also getting food stamps back then.....Real great huh............
> 
> 
> 
> You may have served under Reagan but you are more than mistaken in the illusions you carry on in your mind
> 
> _After Carter’s second year in office military spending was boosted by 5% on an upward trajectory- continued by Reagan.   During the Carter years- defense spending increased from 4.7% of GDP to 5.2% of GDP- therefore- it was pure myth that during the Carter years the military was “hollowed out” or cut is simply not true.  Indeed “some” cut were being made as a result of winding up the Vietnam War and it was Carter who initiated programs to rectify this situation by creating new platforms, commission new weapons, and a surge in building “LIFT” capability (in later years this gave our military global reach).  Reagan continued and expanded upon Carter’s and Secretary of Defense Brown’s policies.
> 
> 
> *I am personally a great fan of Ronald Reagan and remember his Presidency well, but in the study of history- we use time and greater time as an analytical tool to be able to reflect on events more clearly, more objectively and with less emotion- and probably- with many more facts than when events occurred.*
> 
> CARTER REVISITED_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Carter left our people in Iran for 444 days............................the beginnings of what we have today...............and Radical Islam as he did nothing...............
> 
> I know I got a pay raise under Reagan..........perhaps it was old legislation but  I doubt it.............Reagan DID REVAMP THE MILITARY.............The old RUST BUCKETS WE SERVED ON needed to be retired.................and replaced with new ships................Which was done under Reagan............
> 
> So spare me the Peanut head was responsible junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now you're full of shit. The Iranians were not afraid of Reagan and they hated Carter
> 
> Reagan sent in special forces to rescue them hostages. You and your perhaps. You're an ingrate. Are you also a mental patient at the VA? BEcause if you ain't maybe you should be. Your memory and your mind are a bit scrambled
Click to expand...

Your an Idiot..................They were released the day Reagan took office you dolt.


----------



## rightwinger

Theowl32 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. military puts their asses on the line for this country.  Many over the last decade have come home in boxes. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They came home in boxes because your idiot governments sent them to invade foreign countries that were no threat to America.
> Vietnam is a prime example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is rather simplistic and typical bullshit that comes out of the mouths of hippies or terribly misinformed foreigners. It is beyond obvious that communism (to the delight of the left wingers here and around the world) was spreading around the world. Southern Vietnam was indeed an ally to this country. There was certainly an interest in preventing the spread of communism and defending our allies.
> 
> Here is what happened as a result of our Generals needing to conduct a political war. Where the hippies here (obvious communists in our schools) led massive protests. Most of the protesters had no clue what they were actually protesting. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane posing with the communist army on a turret that had obviously killed many Americans ( to the delight of the hippies). It became a political quagmire and our efforts were totally in vein. In reality, this country could have basically eradicated the communist push.
> 
> As a result, this is what took over......
> 
> Watch the whole video......if you can stomach it...
> [ame=[MEDIA=youtube]v_GNsG0_jMM[/MEDIA] Killing Fields - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Do the hippy liberals ever see what they were supporting? Do they take any responsibility whatsoever for that? No, they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the mean time lets us all take the time to ignore the slave like conditions in Vietnam today. I doubt a person like Tiger, who gets at least 100 million in endorsements from Nike, would ever publicly express his concerns of these slave like conditions. Or any of the other "African Americans" who make 100s of millions of dollars in endorsements from those companies that take advantage of people.
> 
> Real different when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it? Yeah, ignorance is certainly bliss.
Click to expand...

 

Jane Fonda and John Kerry were American patriots. They fought against an unnecessary war that cost 60,000 American lives for no reason

The true traitors were those who wrapped themselves in the American flag as they demanded more and more troops because "victory was just around the corner"


----------



## eagle1462010

rightwinger said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. military puts their asses on the line for this country.  Many over the last decade have come home in boxes. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They came home in boxes because your idiot governments sent them to invade foreign countries that were no threat to America.
> Vietnam is a prime example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is rather simplistic and typical bullshit that comes out of the mouths of hippies or terribly misinformed foreigners. It is beyond obvious that communism (to the delight of the left wingers here and around the world) was spreading around the world. Southern Vietnam was indeed an ally to this country. There was certainly an interest in preventing the spread of communism and defending our allies.
> 
> Here is what happened as a result of our Generals needing to conduct a political war. Where the hippies here (obvious communists in our schools) led massive protests. Most of the protesters had no clue what they were actually protesting. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane posing with the communist army on a turret that had obviously killed many Americans ( to the delight of the hippies). It became a political quagmire and our efforts were totally in vein. In reality, this country could have basically eradicated the communist push.
> 
> As a result, this is what took over......
> 
> Watch the whole video......if you can stomach it...
> [ame=[MEDIA=youtube]v_GNsG0_jMM[/MEDIA] Killing Fields - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Do the hippy liberals ever see what they were supporting? Do they take any responsibility whatsoever for that? No, they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the mean time lets us all take the time to ignore the slave like conditions in Vietnam today. I doubt a person like Tiger, who gets at least 100 million in endorsements from Nike, would ever publicly express his concerns of these slave like conditions. Or any of the other "African Americans" who make 100s of millions of dollars in endorsements from those companies that take advantage of people.
> 
> Real different when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it? Yeah, ignorance is certainly bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda and John Kerry were American patriots. They fought against an unnecessary war that cost 60,000 American lives for no reason
> 
> The true traitors were those who wrapped themselves in the American flag as they demanded more and more troops because "victory was just around the corner"
Click to expand...

LOL

Jane Fonda consorted with the enemy in a time of War.  TRAITOR..............

Kerry should have learned how to throw a Grenade so he wouldn't get shrapnel in his ass by his own grenade.


----------



## rightwinger

eagle1462010 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. military puts their asses on the line for this country.  Many over the last decade have come home in boxes. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They came home in boxes because your idiot governments sent them to invade foreign countries that were no threat to America.
> Vietnam is a prime example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is rather simplistic and typical bullshit that comes out of the mouths of hippies or terribly misinformed foreigners. It is beyond obvious that communism (to the delight of the left wingers here and around the world) was spreading around the world. Southern Vietnam was indeed an ally to this country. There was certainly an interest in preventing the spread of communism and defending our allies.
> 
> Here is what happened as a result of our Generals needing to conduct a political war. Where the hippies here (obvious communists in our schools) led massive protests. Most of the protesters had no clue what they were actually protesting. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane posing with the communist army on a turret that had obviously killed many Americans ( to the delight of the hippies). It became a political quagmire and our efforts were totally in vein. In reality, this country could have basically eradicated the communist push.
> 
> As a result, this is what took over......
> 
> Watch the whole video......if you can stomach it...
> [ame=[MEDIA=youtube]v_GNsG0_jMM[/MEDIA] Killing Fields - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Do the hippy liberals ever see what they were supporting? Do they take any responsibility whatsoever for that? No, they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the mean time lets us all take the time to ignore the slave like conditions in Vietnam today. I doubt a person like Tiger, who gets at least 100 million in endorsements from Nike, would ever publicly express his concerns of these slave like conditions. Or any of the other "African Americans" who make 100s of millions of dollars in endorsements from those companies that take advantage of people.
> 
> Real different when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it? Yeah, ignorance is certainly bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda and John Kerry were American patriots. They fought against an unnecessary war that cost 60,000 American lives for no reason
> 
> The true traitors were those who wrapped themselves in the American flag as they demanded more and more troops because "victory was just around the corner"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Jane Fonda consorted with the enemy in a time of War.  TRAITOR..............
> 
> Kerry should have learned how to throw a Grenade so he wouldn't get shrapnel in his ass by his own grenade.
Click to expand...

 
Jane Fonda was right about what was happening in Vietnam

The war hawks lied as we sent more and more troops into a senseless war

Who was the true patriot?  The war hawks because they waved the American flag as they sent 60,000 Americans to their deaths?


----------



## Sallow

eagle1462010 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I served under Reagan.  I remember the pay increases.  I also remember I served on Rust Buckets that we desperately needing to be replaced.  The first ship I served on hadn't had an overhaul in 10 years and was literally falling apart.
> 
> All of the Presidents after Reagan benefited from the upgrade to the military.  People in the military were also getting food stamps back then.....Real great huh............
> 
> 
> 
> You may have served under Reagan but you are more than mistaken in the illusions you carry on in your mind
> 
> _After Carter’s second year in office military spending was boosted by 5% on an upward trajectory- continued by Reagan.   During the Carter years- defense spending increased from 4.7% of GDP to 5.2% of GDP- therefore- it was pure myth that during the Carter years the military was “hollowed out” or cut is simply not true.  Indeed “some” cut were being made as a result of winding up the Vietnam War and it was Carter who initiated programs to rectify this situation by creating new platforms, commission new weapons, and a surge in building “LIFT” capability (in later years this gave our military global reach).  Reagan continued and expanded upon Carter’s and Secretary of Defense Brown’s policies.
> 
> 
> *I am personally a great fan of Ronald Reagan and remember his Presidency well, but in the study of history- we use time and greater time as an analytical tool to be able to reflect on events more clearly, more objectively and with less emotion- and probably- with many more facts than when events occurred.*
> 
> CARTER REVISITED_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Carter left our people in Iran for 444 days............................the beginnings of what we have today...............and Radical Islam as he did nothing...............
> 
> I know I got a pay raise under Reagan..........perhaps it was old legislation but  I doubt it.............Reagan DID REVAMP THE MILITARY.............The old RUST BUCKETS WE SERVED ON needed to be retired.................and replaced with new ships................Which was done under Reagan............
> 
> So spare me the Peanut head was responsible junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now you're full of shit. The Iranians were not afraid of Reagan and they hated Carter
> 
> Reagan sent in special forces to rescue them hostages. You and your perhaps. You're an ingrate. Are you also a mental patient at the VA? BEcause if you ain't maybe you should be. Your memory and your mind are a bit scrambled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your an Idiot..................They were released the day Reagan took office you dolt.
Click to expand...


1/2 hour after his inauguration, in fact.

Then?

They got parts for their US made planes and all sorts of cool stuff.

Nothing to see there, right?


----------



## eagle1462010

rightwinger said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. military puts their asses on the line for this country.  Many over the last decade have come home in boxes. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They came home in boxes because your idiot governments sent them to invade foreign countries that were no threat to America.
> Vietnam is a prime example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is rather simplistic and typical bullshit that comes out of the mouths of hippies or terribly misinformed foreigners. It is beyond obvious that communism (to the delight of the left wingers here and around the world) was spreading around the world. Southern Vietnam was indeed an ally to this country. There was certainly an interest in preventing the spread of communism and defending our allies.
> 
> Here is what happened as a result of our Generals needing to conduct a political war. Where the hippies here (obvious communists in our schools) led massive protests. Most of the protesters had no clue what they were actually protesting. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane posing with the communist army on a turret that had obviously killed many Americans ( to the delight of the hippies). It became a political quagmire and our efforts were totally in vein. In reality, this country could have basically eradicated the communist push.
> 
> As a result, this is what took over......
> 
> Watch the whole video......if you can stomach it...
> [ame=[MEDIA=youtube]v_GNsG0_jMM[/MEDIA] Killing Fields - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Do the hippy liberals ever see what they were supporting? Do they take any responsibility whatsoever for that? No, they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the mean time lets us all take the time to ignore the slave like conditions in Vietnam today. I doubt a person like Tiger, who gets at least 100 million in endorsements from Nike, would ever publicly express his concerns of these slave like conditions. Or any of the other "African Americans" who make 100s of millions of dollars in endorsements from those companies that take advantage of people.
> 
> Real different when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it? Yeah, ignorance is certainly bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda and John Kerry were American patriots. They fought against an unnecessary war that cost 60,000 American lives for no reason
> 
> The true traitors were those who wrapped themselves in the American flag as they demanded more and more troops because "victory was just around the corner"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Jane Fonda consorted with the enemy in a time of War.  TRAITOR..............
> 
> Kerry should have learned how to throw a Grenade so he wouldn't get shrapnel in his ass by his own grenade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda was right about what was happening in Vietnam
> 
> The war hawks lied as we sent more and more troops into a senseless war
> 
> Who was the true patriot?  The war hawks because they waved the American flag as they sent 60,000 Americans to their deaths?
Click to expand...

Had the War been fought as a War instead of a police action it wouldn't have been lost.........................

The Rules of Engagement Clowns have been losing Wars for a long time..................

Had we fought it like a War and drove North.............the Veitcong couldn't have stopped jack squat..................But some dumb asses had to come up with lines and rules to ensure a LOSS................................

Politicians lose Wars, and kill our troops because they refuse to fight it as a War.


----------



## eagle1462010

Sallow said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I served under Reagan.  I remember the pay increases.  I also remember I served on Rust Buckets that we desperately needing to be replaced.  The first ship I served on hadn't had an overhaul in 10 years and was literally falling apart.
> 
> All of the Presidents after Reagan benefited from the upgrade to the military.  People in the military were also getting food stamps back then.....Real great huh............
> 
> 
> 
> You may have served under Reagan but you are more than mistaken in the illusions you carry on in your mind
> 
> _After Carter’s second year in office military spending was boosted by 5% on an upward trajectory- continued by Reagan.   During the Carter years- defense spending increased from 4.7% of GDP to 5.2% of GDP- therefore- it was pure myth that during the Carter years the military was “hollowed out” or cut is simply not true.  Indeed “some” cut were being made as a result of winding up the Vietnam War and it was Carter who initiated programs to rectify this situation by creating new platforms, commission new weapons, and a surge in building “LIFT” capability (in later years this gave our military global reach).  Reagan continued and expanded upon Carter’s and Secretary of Defense Brown’s policies.
> 
> 
> *I am personally a great fan of Ronald Reagan and remember his Presidency well, but in the study of history- we use time and greater time as an analytical tool to be able to reflect on events more clearly, more objectively and with less emotion- and probably- with many more facts than when events occurred.*
> 
> CARTER REVISITED_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Carter left our people in Iran for 444 days............................the beginnings of what we have today...............and Radical Islam as he did nothing...............
> 
> I know I got a pay raise under Reagan..........perhaps it was old legislation but  I doubt it.............Reagan DID REVAMP THE MILITARY.............The old RUST BUCKETS WE SERVED ON needed to be retired.................and replaced with new ships................Which was done under Reagan............
> 
> So spare me the Peanut head was responsible junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now you're full of shit. The Iranians were not afraid of Reagan and they hated Carter
> 
> Reagan sent in special forces to rescue them hostages. You and your perhaps. You're an ingrate. Are you also a mental patient at the VA? BEcause if you ain't maybe you should be. Your memory and your mind are a bit scrambled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your an Idiot..................They were released the day Reagan took office you dolt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1/2 hour after his inauguration, in fact.
> 
> Then?
> 
> They got parts for their US made planes and all sorts of cool stuff.
> 
> Nothing to see there, right?
Click to expand...

And for not dealing with them then, we now have a 30 year plus movement of Radical Islam and a State sponsor of terrorism..............worked out well right...............If you live under a rock.............

We should have kicked their asses then............For holding our people.............now we deal with the inaction of then..............same as North Korea and refusing to fight it as a War.


----------



## Theowl32

rightwinger said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. military puts their asses on the line for this country.  Many over the last decade have come home in boxes. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They came home in boxes because your idiot governments sent them to invade foreign countries that were no threat to America.
> Vietnam is a prime example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is rather simplistic and typical bullshit that comes out of the mouths of hippies or terribly misinformed foreigners. It is beyond obvious that communism (to the delight of the left wingers here and around the world) was spreading around the world. Southern Vietnam was indeed an ally to this country. There was certainly an interest in preventing the spread of communism and defending our allies.
> 
> Here is what happened as a result of our Generals needing to conduct a political war. Where the hippies here (obvious communists in our schools) led massive protests. Most of the protesters had no clue what they were actually protesting. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane posing with the communist army on a turret that had obviously killed many Americans ( to the delight of the hippies). It became a political quagmire and our efforts were totally in vein. In reality, this country could have basically eradicated the communist push.
> 
> As a result, this is what took over......
> 
> Watch the whole video......if you can stomach it...
> [ame=[MEDIA=youtube]v_GNsG0_jMM[/MEDIA] Killing Fields - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Do the hippy liberals ever see what they were supporting? Do they take any responsibility whatsoever for that? No, they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the mean time lets us all take the time to ignore the slave like conditions in Vietnam today. I doubt a person like Tiger, who gets at least 100 million in endorsements from Nike, would ever publicly express his concerns of these slave like conditions. Or any of the other "African Americans" who make 100s of millions of dollars in endorsements from those companies that take advantage of people.
> 
> Real different when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it? Yeah, ignorance is certainly bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda and John Kerry were American patriots. They fought against an unnecessary war that cost 60,000 American lives for no reason
> 
> The true traitors were those who wrapped themselves in the American flag as they demanded more and more troops because "victory was just around the corner"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Jane Fonda consorted with the enemy in a time of War.  TRAITOR..............
> 
> Kerry should have learned how to throw a Grenade so he wouldn't get shrapnel in his ass by his own grenade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda was right about what was happening in Vietnam
> 
> The war hawks lied as we sent more and more troops into a senseless war
> 
> Who was the true patriot?  The war hawks because they waved the American flag as they sent 60,000 Americans to their deaths?
Click to expand...

'Right about what you sack of shit? That we should have allowed the communists to murder our allies?

You piece of shit.

The killing fields are on her hands and every last fucking left wing asshole.

This, is all her fault and every last left wing rich elitist pile of crap All their fault and anyone that defends the expansion of the communism through out the world are not worth and have NOT been worth an ounce of respect.


Fucking liberals folks. Find out what is happening. Can never happen here, right? Right? Of course not.

Let me clue you all in. It is happening. Look at this moron poster who still defends the spread of communism and mass murder that ensued as a result of the commie protests here that allowed the communists to achieve their objective.

They are all losers. They are nothing more than the useful idiots as stalin once described them. They deserve zero respect.


----------



## rightwinger

eagle1462010 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> They came home in boxes because your idiot governments sent them to invade foreign countries that were no threat to America.
> Vietnam is a prime example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is rather simplistic and typical bullshit that comes out of the mouths of hippies or terribly misinformed foreigners. It is beyond obvious that communism (to the delight of the left wingers here and around the world) was spreading around the world. Southern Vietnam was indeed an ally to this country. There was certainly an interest in preventing the spread of communism and defending our allies.
> 
> Here is what happened as a result of our Generals needing to conduct a political war. Where the hippies here (obvious communists in our schools) led massive protests. Most of the protesters had no clue what they were actually protesting. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane posing with the communist army on a turret that had obviously killed many Americans ( to the delight of the hippies). It became a political quagmire and our efforts were totally in vein. In reality, this country could have basically eradicated the communist push.
> 
> As a result, this is what took over......
> 
> Watch the whole video......if you can stomach it...
> [ame=[MEDIA=youtube]v_GNsG0_jMM[/MEDIA] Killing Fields - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Do the hippy liberals ever see what they were supporting? Do they take any responsibility whatsoever for that? No, they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the mean time lets us all take the time to ignore the slave like conditions in Vietnam today. I doubt a person like Tiger, who gets at least 100 million in endorsements from Nike, would ever publicly express his concerns of these slave like conditions. Or any of the other "African Americans" who make 100s of millions of dollars in endorsements from those companies that take advantage of people.
> 
> Real different when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it? Yeah, ignorance is certainly bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda and John Kerry were American patriots. They fought against an unnecessary war that cost 60,000 American lives for no reason
> 
> The true traitors were those who wrapped themselves in the American flag as they demanded more and more troops because "victory was just around the corner"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Jane Fonda consorted with the enemy in a time of War.  TRAITOR..............
> 
> Kerry should have learned how to throw a Grenade so he wouldn't get shrapnel in his ass by his own grenade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda was right about what was happening in Vietnam
> 
> The war hawks lied as we sent more and more troops into a senseless war
> 
> Who was the true patriot?  The war hawks because they waved the American flag as they sent 60,000 Americans to their deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had the War been fought as a War instead of a police action it wouldn't have been lost.........................
> 
> The Rules of Engagement Clowns have been losing Wars for a long time..................
> 
> Had we fought it like a War and drove North.............the Veitcong couldn't have stopped jack squat..................But some dumb asses had to come up with lines and rules to ensure a LOSS................................
> 
> Politicians lose Wars, and kill our troops because they refuse to fight it as a War.
Click to expand...

 
Still playing the ....We could have won if we only had more time and more troops

Politicians are in charge because they understand the global ramifications of the war

We saw what happened when we invaded North Korea and drew the Chinese into the war

Vietnam was a Civil War that we needed to stay out of


----------



## eagle1462010

rightwinger said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is rather simplistic and typical bullshit that comes out of the mouths of hippies or terribly misinformed foreigners. It is beyond obvious that communism (to the delight of the left wingers here and around the world) was spreading around the world. Southern Vietnam was indeed an ally to this country. There was certainly an interest in preventing the spread of communism and defending our allies.
> 
> Here is what happened as a result of our Generals needing to conduct a political war. Where the hippies here (obvious communists in our schools) led massive protests. Most of the protesters had no clue what they were actually protesting. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane posing with the communist army on a turret that had obviously killed many Americans ( to the delight of the hippies). It became a political quagmire and our efforts were totally in vein. In reality, this country could have basically eradicated the communist push.
> 
> As a result, this is what took over......
> 
> Watch the whole video......if you can stomach it...
> [ame=[MEDIA=youtube]v_GNsG0_jMM[/MEDIA] Killing Fields - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Do the hippy liberals ever see what they were supporting? Do they take any responsibility whatsoever for that? No, they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the mean time lets us all take the time to ignore the slave like conditions in Vietnam today. I doubt a person like Tiger, who gets at least 100 million in endorsements from Nike, would ever publicly express his concerns of these slave like conditions. Or any of the other "African Americans" who make 100s of millions of dollars in endorsements from those companies that take advantage of people.
> 
> Real different when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it? Yeah, ignorance is certainly bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda and John Kerry were American patriots. They fought against an unnecessary war that cost 60,000 American lives for no reason
> 
> The true traitors were those who wrapped themselves in the American flag as they demanded more and more troops because "victory was just around the corner"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Jane Fonda consorted with the enemy in a time of War.  TRAITOR..............
> 
> Kerry should have learned how to throw a Grenade so he wouldn't get shrapnel in his ass by his own grenade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda was right about what was happening in Vietnam
> 
> The war hawks lied as we sent more and more troops into a senseless war
> 
> Who was the true patriot?  The war hawks because they waved the American flag as they sent 60,000 Americans to their deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had the War been fought as a War instead of a police action it wouldn't have been lost.........................
> 
> The Rules of Engagement Clowns have been losing Wars for a long time..................
> 
> Had we fought it like a War and drove North.............the Veitcong couldn't have stopped jack squat..................But some dumb asses had to come up with lines and rules to ensure a LOSS................................
> 
> Politicians lose Wars, and kill our troops because they refuse to fight it as a War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still playing the ....We could have won if we only had more time and more troops
> 
> Politicians are in charge because they understand the global ramifications of the war
> 
> We saw what happened when we invaded North Korea and drew the Chinese into the war
> 
> Vietnam was a Civil War that we needed to stay out of
Click to expand...

North Korea exists because the Politicians tied Mac's hands behind his back...............................aka didn't let him crush the supply lines of China.


----------



## rightwinger

Theowl32 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> They came home in boxes because your idiot governments sent them to invade foreign countries that were no threat to America.
> Vietnam is a prime example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is rather simplistic and typical bullshit that comes out of the mouths of hippies or terribly misinformed foreigners. It is beyond obvious that communism (to the delight of the left wingers here and around the world) was spreading around the world. Southern Vietnam was indeed an ally to this country. There was certainly an interest in preventing the spread of communism and defending our allies.
> 
> Here is what happened as a result of our Generals needing to conduct a political war. Where the hippies here (obvious communists in our schools) led massive protests. Most of the protesters had no clue what they were actually protesting. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane posing with the communist army on a turret that had obviously killed many Americans ( to the delight of the hippies). It became a political quagmire and our efforts were totally in vein. In reality, this country could have basically eradicated the communist push.
> 
> As a result, this is what took over......
> 
> Watch the whole video......if you can stomach it...
> [ame=[MEDIA=youtube]v_GNsG0_jMM[/MEDIA] Killing Fields - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Do the hippy liberals ever see what they were supporting? Do they take any responsibility whatsoever for that? No, they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the mean time lets us all take the time to ignore the slave like conditions in Vietnam today. I doubt a person like Tiger, who gets at least 100 million in endorsements from Nike, would ever publicly express his concerns of these slave like conditions. Or any of the other "African Americans" who make 100s of millions of dollars in endorsements from those companies that take advantage of people.
> 
> Real different when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it? Yeah, ignorance is certainly bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda and John Kerry were American patriots. They fought against an unnecessary war that cost 60,000 American lives for no reason
> 
> The true traitors were those who wrapped themselves in the American flag as they demanded more and more troops because "victory was just around the corner"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Jane Fonda consorted with the enemy in a time of War.  TRAITOR..............
> 
> Kerry should have learned how to throw a Grenade so he wouldn't get shrapnel in his ass by his own grenade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda was right about what was happening in Vietnam
> 
> The war hawks lied as we sent more and more troops into a senseless war
> 
> Who was the true patriot?  The war hawks because they waved the American flag as they sent 60,000 Americans to their deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'Right about what you sack of shit? That we should have allowed the communists to murder our allies?
> 
> You piece of shit.
> 
> The killing fields are on her hands and every last fucking left wing asshole.
> 
> This, is all her fault and every last left wing rich elitist pile of crap All their fault and anyone that defends the expansion of the communism through out the world are not worth and have NOT been worth an ounce of respect.
> 
> 
> Fucking liberals folks. Find out what is happening. Can never happen here, right? Right? Of course not.
> 
> Let me clue you all in. It is happening. Look at this moron poster who still defends the spread of communism and mass murder that ensued as a result of the commie protests here that allowed the communists to achieve their objective.
> 
> They are all losers. They are nothing more than the useful idiots as stalin once described them. They deserve zero respect.
Click to expand...

 
These are our "killing fields"


----------



## rightwinger

eagle1462010 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda and John Kerry were American patriots. They fought against an unnecessary war that cost 60,000 American lives for no reason
> 
> The true traitors were those who wrapped themselves in the American flag as they demanded more and more troops because "victory was just around the corner"
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Jane Fonda consorted with the enemy in a time of War.  TRAITOR..............
> 
> Kerry should have learned how to throw a Grenade so he wouldn't get shrapnel in his ass by his own grenade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda was right about what was happening in Vietnam
> 
> The war hawks lied as we sent more and more troops into a senseless war
> 
> Who was the true patriot?  The war hawks because they waved the American flag as they sent 60,000 Americans to their deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had the War been fought as a War instead of a police action it wouldn't have been lost.........................
> 
> The Rules of Engagement Clowns have been losing Wars for a long time..................
> 
> Had we fought it like a War and drove North.............the Veitcong couldn't have stopped jack squat..................But some dumb asses had to come up with lines and rules to ensure a LOSS................................
> 
> Politicians lose Wars, and kill our troops because they refuse to fight it as a War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still playing the ....We could have won if we only had more time and more troops
> 
> Politicians are in charge because they understand the global ramifications of the war
> 
> We saw what happened when we invaded North Korea and drew the Chinese into the war
> 
> Vietnam was a Civil War that we needed to stay out of
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> North Korea exists because the Politicians tied Mac's hands behind his back...............................aka didn't let him crush the supply lines of China.
Click to expand...

 
MacArthur should have been court martialed after Pearl Harbor, his stubbornness and lack of readiness was criminal
His "I shall return" grandstanding wasted tens of thousand of unnecessary deaths just so he could get a photo-op landing on the beach
His invasion of North Korea drew the Chinese into the conflict and ended up costing tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths

No wonder Truman fired him


----------



## eagle1462010

rightwinger said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Jane Fonda consorted with the enemy in a time of War.  TRAITOR..............
> 
> Kerry should have learned how to throw a Grenade so he wouldn't get shrapnel in his ass by his own grenade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda was right about what was happening in Vietnam
> 
> The war hawks lied as we sent more and more troops into a senseless war
> 
> Who was the true patriot?  The war hawks because they waved the American flag as they sent 60,000 Americans to their deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had the War been fought as a War instead of a police action it wouldn't have been lost.........................
> 
> The Rules of Engagement Clowns have been losing Wars for a long time..................
> 
> Had we fought it like a War and drove North.............the Veitcong couldn't have stopped jack squat..................But some dumb asses had to come up with lines and rules to ensure a LOSS................................
> 
> Politicians lose Wars, and kill our troops because they refuse to fight it as a War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still playing the ....We could have won if we only had more time and more troops
> 
> Politicians are in charge because they understand the global ramifications of the war
> 
> We saw what happened when we invaded North Korea and drew the Chinese into the war
> 
> Vietnam was a Civil War that we needed to stay out of
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> North Korea exists because the Politicians tied Mac's hands behind his back...............................aka didn't let him crush the supply lines of China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MacArthur should have been court martialed after Pearl Harbor, his stubbornness and lack of readiness was criminal
> His "I shall return" grandstanding wasted tens of thousand of unnecessary deaths just so he could get a photo-op landing on the beach
> His invasion of North Korea drew the Chinese into the conflict and ended up costing tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths
> 
> No wonder Truman fired him
Click to expand...

While Mac did some stupid things in the end..................he was right to demand to hit China's bridges and supply lines once they entered the War.  Truman denied him this option.........

Truman was responsible for causing more American Deaths by refusing to allow the military do what was necessary.......................

The Bridges should have been destroyed...............The supply depots should have been destroyed, and the airfields that our pilots couldn't attack........even though when they entered Korea they could engage.

That is a way to lose a War...............Not Win it................By dumb ass rules of engagement.................Mac was right to challenge him............and was better off leaving with a dunce like Truman in office anyway.


----------



## rightwinger

eagle1462010 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda was right about what was happening in Vietnam
> 
> The war hawks lied as we sent more and more troops into a senseless war
> 
> Who was the true patriot?  The war hawks because they waved the American flag as they sent 60,000 Americans to their deaths?
> 
> 
> 
> Had the War been fought as a War instead of a police action it wouldn't have been lost.........................
> 
> The Rules of Engagement Clowns have been losing Wars for a long time..................
> 
> Had we fought it like a War and drove North.............the Veitcong couldn't have stopped jack squat..................But some dumb asses had to come up with lines and rules to ensure a LOSS................................
> 
> Politicians lose Wars, and kill our troops because they refuse to fight it as a War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still playing the ....We could have won if we only had more time and more troops
> 
> Politicians are in charge because they understand the global ramifications of the war
> 
> We saw what happened when we invaded North Korea and drew the Chinese into the war
> 
> Vietnam was a Civil War that we needed to stay out of
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> North Korea exists because the Politicians tied Mac's hands behind his back...............................aka didn't let him crush the supply lines of China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MacArthur should have been court martialed after Pearl Harbor, his stubbornness and lack of readiness was criminal
> His "I shall return" grandstanding wasted tens of thousand of unnecessary deaths just so he could get a photo-op landing on the beach
> His invasion of North Korea drew the Chinese into the conflict and ended up costing tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths
> 
> No wonder Truman fired him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While Mac did some stupid things in the end..................he was right to demand to hit China's bridges and supply lines once they entered the War.  Truman denied him this option.........
> 
> Truman was responsible for causing more American Deaths by refusing to allow the military do what was necessary.......................
> 
> The Bridges should have been destroyed...............The supply depots should have been destroyed, and the airfields that our pilots couldn't attack........even though when they entered Korea they could engage.
> 
> That is a way to lose a War...............Not Win it................By dumb ass rules of engagement.................Mac was right to challenge him............and was better off leaving with a dunce like Truman in office anyway.
Click to expand...

 
MacArthur was leading us to WWIII with the Chinese
Truman knew better and fired his ass

A prime reason why we put politicians in charge of the military. Remember when Patton wanted to invade the Soviet Union?


----------



## eagle1462010

rightwinger said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had the War been fought as a War instead of a police action it wouldn't have been lost.........................
> 
> The Rules of Engagement Clowns have been losing Wars for a long time..................
> 
> Had we fought it like a War and drove North.............the Veitcong couldn't have stopped jack squat..................But some dumb asses had to come up with lines and rules to ensure a LOSS................................
> 
> Politicians lose Wars, and kill our troops because they refuse to fight it as a War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still playing the ....We could have won if we only had more time and more troops
> 
> Politicians are in charge because they understand the global ramifications of the war
> 
> We saw what happened when we invaded North Korea and drew the Chinese into the war
> 
> Vietnam was a Civil War that we needed to stay out of
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> North Korea exists because the Politicians tied Mac's hands behind his back...............................aka didn't let him crush the supply lines of China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MacArthur should have been court martialed after Pearl Harbor, his stubbornness and lack of readiness was criminal
> His "I shall return" grandstanding wasted tens of thousand of unnecessary deaths just so he could get a photo-op landing on the beach
> His invasion of North Korea drew the Chinese into the conflict and ended up costing tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths
> 
> No wonder Truman fired him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While Mac did some stupid things in the end..................he was right to demand to hit China's bridges and supply lines once they entered the War.  Truman denied him this option.........
> 
> Truman was responsible for causing more American Deaths by refusing to allow the military do what was necessary.......................
> 
> The Bridges should have been destroyed...............The supply depots should have been destroyed, and the airfields that our pilots couldn't attack........even though when they entered Korea they could engage.
> 
> That is a way to lose a War...............Not Win it................By dumb ass rules of engagement.................Mac was right to challenge him............and was better off leaving with a dunce like Truman in office anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MacArthur was leading us to WWIII with the Chinese
> Truman knew better and fired his ass
> 
> A prime reason why we put politicians in charge of the military. Remember when Patton wanted to invade the Soviet Union?
Click to expand...

aka he sacrificed our men for appeasement.......................

When 100's of thousands of China men entered the War.........we were already at War..............The supply lines should have been cut and starved the Chineese beast......................There would be no North Korea today..............

And after getting hit the Chinese wouldn't have continued it to a full fledged War.


----------



## rightwinger

eagle1462010 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still playing the ....We could have won if we only had more time and more troops
> 
> Politicians are in charge because they understand the global ramifications of the war
> 
> We saw what happened when we invaded North Korea and drew the Chinese into the war
> 
> Vietnam was a Civil War that we needed to stay out of
> 
> 
> 
> North Korea exists because the Politicians tied Mac's hands behind his back...............................aka didn't let him crush the supply lines of China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MacArthur should have been court martialed after Pearl Harbor, his stubbornness and lack of readiness was criminal
> His "I shall return" grandstanding wasted tens of thousand of unnecessary deaths just so he could get a photo-op landing on the beach
> His invasion of North Korea drew the Chinese into the conflict and ended up costing tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths
> 
> No wonder Truman fired him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While Mac did some stupid things in the end..................he was right to demand to hit China's bridges and supply lines once they entered the War.  Truman denied him this option.........
> 
> Truman was responsible for causing more American Deaths by refusing to allow the military do what was necessary.......................
> 
> The Bridges should have been destroyed...............The supply depots should have been destroyed, and the airfields that our pilots couldn't attack........even though when they entered Korea they could engage.
> 
> That is a way to lose a War...............Not Win it................By dumb ass rules of engagement.................Mac was right to challenge him............and was better off leaving with a dunce like Truman in office anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MacArthur was leading us to WWIII with the Chinese
> Truman knew better and fired his ass
> 
> A prime reason why we put politicians in charge of the military. Remember when Patton wanted to invade the Soviet Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> aka he sacrificed our men for appeasement.......................
> 
> When 100's of thousands of China men entered the War.........we were already at War..............The supply lines should have been cut and starved the Chineese beast......................There would be no North Korea today..............
> 
> And after getting hit the Chinese wouldn't have continued it to a full fledged War.
Click to expand...

 
Chinese didn't give a fuck

They would have gladly lost a million casualties. They could always replace them
The American public was tired of war and really didn't care about Korea. We would not have tolerated 100,000 dead


----------



## thanatos144

rightwinger said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> North Korea exists because the Politicians tied Mac's hands behind his back...............................aka didn't let him crush the supply lines of China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MacArthur should have been court martialed after Pearl Harbor, his stubbornness and lack of readiness was criminal
> His "I shall return" grandstanding wasted tens of thousand of unnecessary deaths just so he could get a photo-op landing on the beach
> His invasion of North Korea drew the Chinese into the conflict and ended up costing tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths
> 
> No wonder Truman fired him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While Mac did some stupid things in the end..................he was right to demand to hit China's bridges and supply lines once they entered the War.  Truman denied him this option.........
> 
> Truman was responsible for causing more American Deaths by refusing to allow the military do what was necessary.......................
> 
> The Bridges should have been destroyed...............The supply depots should have been destroyed, and the airfields that our pilots couldn't attack........even though when they entered Korea they could engage.
> 
> That is a way to lose a War...............Not Win it................By dumb ass rules of engagement.................Mac was right to challenge him............and was better off leaving with a dunce like Truman in office anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MacArthur was leading us to WWIII with the Chinese
> Truman knew better and fired his ass
> 
> A prime reason why we put politicians in charge of the military. Remember when Patton wanted to invade the Soviet Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> aka he sacrificed our men for appeasement.......................
> 
> When 100's of thousands of China men entered the War.........we were already at War..............The supply lines should have been cut and starved the Chineese beast......................There would be no North Korea today..............
> 
> And after getting hit the Chinese wouldn't have continued it to a full fledged War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chinese didn't give a fuck
> 
> They would have gladly lost a million casualties. They could always replace them
> The American public was tired of war and really didn't care about Korea. We would not have tolerated 100,000 dead
Click to expand...

Your complete lack of knowledge of history is disturbing.  Are you special needs? 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## rightwinger

thanatos144 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> MacArthur should have been court martialed after Pearl Harbor, his stubbornness and lack of readiness was criminal
> His "I shall return" grandstanding wasted tens of thousand of unnecessary deaths just so he could get a photo-op landing on the beach
> His invasion of North Korea drew the Chinese into the conflict and ended up costing tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths
> 
> No wonder Truman fired him
> 
> 
> 
> While Mac did some stupid things in the end..................he was right to demand to hit China's bridges and supply lines once they entered the War.  Truman denied him this option.........
> 
> Truman was responsible for causing more American Deaths by refusing to allow the military do what was necessary.......................
> 
> The Bridges should have been destroyed...............The supply depots should have been destroyed, and the airfields that our pilots couldn't attack........even though when they entered Korea they could engage.
> 
> That is a way to lose a War...............Not Win it................By dumb ass rules of engagement.................Mac was right to challenge him............and was better off leaving with a dunce like Truman in office anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MacArthur was leading us to WWIII with the Chinese
> Truman knew better and fired his ass
> 
> A prime reason why we put politicians in charge of the military. Remember when Patton wanted to invade the Soviet Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> aka he sacrificed our men for appeasement.......................
> 
> When 100's of thousands of China men entered the War.........we were already at War..............The supply lines should have been cut and starved the Chineese beast......................There would be no North Korea today..............
> 
> And after getting hit the Chinese wouldn't have continued it to a full fledged War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chinese didn't give a fuck
> 
> They would have gladly lost a million casualties. They could always replace them
> The American public was tired of war and really didn't care about Korea. We would not have tolerated 100,000 dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your complete lack of knowledge of history is disturbing.  Are you special needs?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

 
Did Tapatalk tell you to say that?

You obviously have given up debating the facts


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Jroc said:


> Liberaltopia downsizing our military? Chuck Hagel is simply Obama's stodge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will reportedly propose a Pentagon budget that will shrink the U.S. Army to its smallest number since 1940* and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets.
> 
> The New York Times reported late Sunday that Hagel's proposal, which will be released to lawmakers and the public on Monday, will call for a reduction in size of the military that will leave it capable of waging war, but unable to carry out protracted occupations of foreign territory, as in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> Under Hagel's plan, the number of troops in the Army will drop to between 440,000 and 450,000, a reduction of at least 120,000 soldiers from its post-Sept.11 peak.
> 
> Officials told the Times that Hagel's plan has been endorsed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and protects funding for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. It also calls for the Navy to maintain all eleven of its aircraft carriers currently in operation. However, the budget proposal mandates the elimination of the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proposed budget will reportedly shrink Army to pre-WWII numbers | Fox News
Click to expand...



Sounds like political maneuvering. Propose a massive scary cut knowing it wont pass, but the counter prosed cut is more in-line with what you really wanted and knew could get through. Like proposing a massive gas tax so the compromise proposal gets through more easily since it looks much more attractive by the comparison.


----------



## rightwinger

Delta4Embassy said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberaltopia downsizing our military? Chuck Hagel is simply Obama's stodge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will reportedly propose a Pentagon budget that will shrink the U.S. Army to its smallest number since 1940* and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets.
> 
> The New York Times reported late Sunday that Hagel's proposal, which will be released to lawmakers and the public on Monday, will call for a reduction in size of the military that will leave it capable of waging war, but unable to carry out protracted occupations of foreign territory, as in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> Under Hagel's plan, the number of troops in the Army will drop to between 440,000 and 450,000, a reduction of at least 120,000 soldiers from its post-Sept.11 peak.
> 
> Officials told the Times that Hagel's plan has been endorsed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and protects funding for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. It also calls for the Navy to maintain all eleven of its aircraft carriers currently in operation. However, the budget proposal mandates the elimination of the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proposed budget will reportedly shrink Army to pre-WWII numbers | Fox News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like political maneuvering. Propose a massive scary cut knowing it wont pass, but the counter prosed cut is more in-line with what you really wanted and knew could get through. Like proposing a massive gas tax so the compromise proposal gets through more easily since it looks much more attractive by the comparison.
Click to expand...

 
The number of our troops compared to WWII is irrelevant

We no longer fight wars like that. We don't rely on massive number of boots on the ground to overwhelm our opponent. Our military forces are smaller and more agile....also more deadly


----------



## BlindBoo

eagle1462010 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> They came home in boxes because your idiot governments sent them to invade foreign countries that were no threat to America.
> Vietnam is a prime example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is rather simplistic and typical bullshit that comes out of the mouths of hippies or terribly misinformed foreigners. It is beyond obvious that communism (to the delight of the left wingers here and around the world) was spreading around the world. Southern Vietnam was indeed an ally to this country. There was certainly an interest in preventing the spread of communism and defending our allies.
> 
> Here is what happened as a result of our Generals needing to conduct a political war. Where the hippies here (obvious communists in our schools) led massive protests. Most of the protesters had no clue what they were actually protesting. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane posing with the communist army on a turret that had obviously killed many Americans ( to the delight of the hippies). It became a political quagmire and our efforts were totally in vein. In reality, this country could have basically eradicated the communist push.
> 
> As a result, this is what took over......
> 
> Watch the whole video......if you can stomach it...
> [ame=[MEDIA=youtube]v_GNsG0_jMM[/MEDIA] Killing Fields - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Do the hippy liberals ever see what they were supporting? Do they take any responsibility whatsoever for that? No, they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the mean time lets us all take the time to ignore the slave like conditions in Vietnam today. I doubt a person like Tiger, who gets at least 100 million in endorsements from Nike, would ever publicly express his concerns of these slave like conditions. Or any of the other "African Americans" who make 100s of millions of dollars in endorsements from those companies that take advantage of people.
> 
> Real different when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it? Yeah, ignorance is certainly bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda and John Kerry were American patriots. They fought against an unnecessary war that cost 60,000 American lives for no reason
> 
> The true traitors were those who wrapped themselves in the American flag as they demanded more and more troops because "victory was just around the corner"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Jane Fonda consorted with the enemy in a time of War.  TRAITOR..............
> 
> Kerry should have learned how to throw a Grenade so he wouldn't get shrapnel in his ass by his own grenade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda was right about what was happening in Vietnam
> 
> The war hawks lied as we sent more and more troops into a senseless war
> 
> Who was the true patriot?  The war hawks because they waved the American flag as they sent 60,000 Americans to their deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had the War been fought as a War instead of a police action it wouldn't have been lost.........................
> 
> The Rules of Engagement Clowns have been losing Wars for a long time..................
> 
> Had we fought it like a War and drove North.............the Veitcong couldn't have stopped jack squat..................But some dumb asses had to come up with lines and rules to ensure a LOSS................................
> 
> Politicians lose Wars, and kill our troops because they refuse to fight it as a War.
Click to expand...


Had we driven far into then north it was not the Vietcong we'd been fighting.  Vietnam should have been given it's freedom after WWII and not been given back to the French.


----------



## thanatos144

rightwinger said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While Mac did some stupid things in the end..................he was right to demand to hit China's bridges and supply lines once they entered the War.  Truman denied him this option.........
> 
> Truman was responsible for causing more American Deaths by refusing to allow the military do what was necessary.......................
> 
> The Bridges should have been destroyed...............The supply depots should have been destroyed, and the airfields that our pilots couldn't attack........even though when they entered Korea they could engage.
> 
> That is a way to lose a War...............Not Win it................By dumb ass rules of engagement.................Mac was right to challenge him............and was better off leaving with a dunce like Truman in office anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MacArthur was leading us to WWIII with the Chinese
> Truman knew better and fired his ass
> 
> A prime reason why we put politicians in charge of the military. Remember when Patton wanted to invade the Soviet Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> aka he sacrificed our men for appeasement.......................
> 
> When 100's of thousands of China men entered the War.........we were already at War..............The supply lines should have been cut and starved the Chineese beast......................There would be no North Korea today..............
> 
> And after getting hit the Chinese wouldn't have continued it to a full fledged War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chinese didn't give a fuck
> 
> They would have gladly lost a million casualties. They could always replace them
> The American public was tired of war and really didn't care about Korea. We would not have tolerated 100,000 dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your complete lack of knowledge of history is disturbing.  Are you special needs?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Tapatalk tell you to say that?
> 
> You obviously have given up debating the facts
Click to expand...

The facts are that democrats lost Korea by being pussies

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## rightwinger

thanatos144 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> MacArthur was leading us to WWIII with the Chinese
> Truman knew better and fired his ass
> 
> A prime reason why we put politicians in charge of the military. Remember when Patton wanted to invade the Soviet Union?
> 
> 
> 
> aka he sacrificed our men for appeasement.......................
> 
> When 100's of thousands of China men entered the War.........we were already at War..............The supply lines should have been cut and starved the Chineese beast......................There would be no North Korea today..............
> 
> And after getting hit the Chinese wouldn't have continued it to a full fledged War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chinese didn't give a fuck
> 
> They would have gladly lost a million casualties. They could always replace them
> The American public was tired of war and really didn't care about Korea. We would not have tolerated 100,000 dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your complete lack of knowledge of history is disturbing.  Are you special needs?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Tapatalk tell you to say that?
> 
> You obviously have given up debating the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts are that democrats lost Korea by being pussies
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

 
Tapatalk say......

Truman kept Korea from escallating into WWIII


----------



## Jroc

Dante said:


> now come to me trolls
> 
> 
> come to me
> 
> come on


Who's the troll here boy?


----------



## thanatos144

rightwinger said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> aka he sacrificed our men for appeasement.......................
> 
> When 100's of thousands of China men entered the War.........we were already at War..............The supply lines should have been cut and starved the Chineese beast......................There would be no North Korea today..............
> 
> And after getting hit the Chinese wouldn't have continued it to a full fledged War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese didn't give a fuck
> 
> They would have gladly lost a million casualties. They could always replace them
> The American public was tired of war and really didn't care about Korea. We would not have tolerated 100,000 dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your complete lack of knowledge of history is disturbing.  Are you special needs?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Tapatalk tell you to say that?
> 
> You obviously have given up debating the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts are that democrats lost Korea by being pussies
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tapatalk say......
> 
> Truman kept Korea from escallating into WWIII
Click to expand...

Did he now? And how did he do that?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## rightwinger

thanatos144 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese didn't give a fuck
> 
> They would have gladly lost a million casualties. They could always replace them
> The American public was tired of war and really didn't care about Korea. We would not have tolerated 100,000 dead
> 
> 
> 
> Your complete lack of knowledge of history is disturbing.  Are you special needs?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Tapatalk tell you to say that?
> 
> You obviously have given up debating the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts are that democrats lost Korea by being pussies
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tapatalk say......
> 
> Truman kept Korea from escallating into WWIII
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did he now? And how did he do that?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

 
Tapatalk say.....

He did it by ignoring the advice of MacArthur and firing his ass


----------



## Sallow

eagle1462010 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may have served under Reagan but you are more than mistaken in the illusions you carry on in your mind
> 
> _After Carter’s second year in office military spending was boosted by 5% on an upward trajectory- continued by Reagan.   During the Carter years- defense spending increased from 4.7% of GDP to 5.2% of GDP- therefore- it was pure myth that during the Carter years the military was “hollowed out” or cut is simply not true.  Indeed “some” cut were being made as a result of winding up the Vietnam War and it was Carter who initiated programs to rectify this situation by creating new platforms, commission new weapons, and a surge in building “LIFT” capability (in later years this gave our military global reach).  Reagan continued and expanded upon Carter’s and Secretary of Defense Brown’s policies.
> 
> 
> *I am personally a great fan of Ronald Reagan and remember his Presidency well, but in the study of history- we use time and greater time as an analytical tool to be able to reflect on events more clearly, more objectively and with less emotion- and probably- with many more facts than when events occurred.*
> 
> CARTER REVISITED_​
> 
> 
> 
> Carter left our people in Iran for 444 days............................the beginnings of what we have today...............and Radical Islam as he did nothing...............
> 
> I know I got a pay raise under Reagan..........perhaps it was old legislation but  I doubt it.............Reagan DID REVAMP THE MILITARY.............The old RUST BUCKETS WE SERVED ON needed to be retired.................and replaced with new ships................Which was done under Reagan............
> 
> So spare me the Peanut head was responsible junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now you're full of shit. The Iranians were not afraid of Reagan and they hated Carter
> 
> Reagan sent in special forces to rescue them hostages. You and your perhaps. You're an ingrate. Are you also a mental patient at the VA? BEcause if you ain't maybe you should be. Your memory and your mind are a bit scrambled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your an Idiot..................They were released the day Reagan took office you dolt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1/2 hour after his inauguration, in fact.
> 
> Then?
> 
> They got parts for their US made planes and all sorts of cool stuff.
> 
> Nothing to see there, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And for not dealing with them then, we now have a 30 year plus movement of Radical Islam and a State sponsor of terrorism..............worked out well right...............If you live under a rock.............
> 
> We should have kicked their asses then............For holding our people.............now we deal with the inaction of then..............same as North Korea and refusing to fight it as a War.
Click to expand...


Not dealing with them?

It was Reagan's policy to ENCOURAGE them.



He was funneling money to Osama Bin Laden and his merry band of nutty Muj.


----------



## eagle1462010

Sallow said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carter left our people in Iran for 444 days............................the beginnings of what we have today...............and Radical Islam as he did nothing...............
> 
> I know I got a pay raise under Reagan..........perhaps it was old legislation but  I doubt it.............Reagan DID REVAMP THE MILITARY.............The old RUST BUCKETS WE SERVED ON needed to be retired.................and replaced with new ships................Which was done under Reagan............
> 
> So spare me the Peanut head was responsible junk.
> 
> 
> 
> now you're full of shit. The Iranians were not afraid of Reagan and they hated Carter
> 
> Reagan sent in special forces to rescue them hostages. You and your perhaps. You're an ingrate. Are you also a mental patient at the VA? BEcause if you ain't maybe you should be. Your memory and your mind are a bit scrambled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your an Idiot..................They were released the day Reagan took office you dolt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1/2 hour after his inauguration, in fact.
> 
> Then?
> 
> They got parts for their US made planes and all sorts of cool stuff.
> 
> Nothing to see there, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And for not dealing with them then, we now have a 30 year plus movement of Radical Islam and a State sponsor of terrorism..............worked out well right...............If you live under a rock.............
> 
> We should have kicked their asses then............For holding our people.............now we deal with the inaction of then..............same as North Korea and refusing to fight it as a War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not dealing with them?
> 
> It was Reagan's policy to ENCOURAGE them.
> 
> 
> 
> He was funneling money to Osama Bin Laden and his merry band of nutty Muj.
Click to expand...

Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to CNN journalist Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997,

The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.[7]

Bergen quotes Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Afghan operation between 1983 and 1987:

It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan.[11]

Marc Sageman, a Foreign Service Officer who was based in Islamabad from 1987–1989, and worked closely with Afghanistan's Mujahideen, states that no American money went to the foreign volunteers.

Sageman also says:[12]

Contemporaneous accounts of the war do not even mention [the Afghan Arabs]. Many were not serious about the war. ... Very few were involved in actual fighting. For most of the war, they were scattered among the Afghan groups associated with the four Afghan fundamentalist parties.

No U.S. official ever came in contact with the foreign volunteers. They simply traveled in different circles and never crossed U.S. radar screens. They had their own sources of money and their own contacts with the Pakistanis, official Saudis, and other Muslim supporters, and they made their own deals with the various Afghan resistance leaders."[13]

Vincent Cannistraro, who led the Reagan administration's Afghan Working Group from 1985 to 1987, puts it,

The CIA was very reluctant to be involved at all. They thought it would end up with them being blamed, like in Guatemala." So the Agency tried to avoid direct involvement in the war, ... the skittish CIA, Cannistraro estimates, had less than ten operatives acting as America's eyes and ears in the region. Milton Bearden, the Agency's chief field operative in the war effort, has insisted that "[T]he CIA had nothing to do with" bin Laden. Cannistraro says that when he coordinated Afghan policy from Washington, he never once heard bin Laden's name.[14]


----------



## eagle1462010

The Northern Alliance was part of the group funded by the United States.  Which is a group that we supported in ousting the Taliban and Bin Laden...................

Different time, and we were attempting to oust Russia who's goal was expansion for their own goals.  The Cold War, and financial collapse eventually brought them down, which is a possibility we face if we don't turn our stupid finance around.


----------



## HenryBHough

All America needs under Emperor Zero is a single early-teen female armed with a long pole and a white flag.


----------



## dadsgm

KNB said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want American soldiers to occupy foreign countries where they are constantly a target?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I want to be the most powerful military in the world always..understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter how powerful your military is.  The US won't win in Afghanistan because the CIA trained the jihad in guerrilla warfare.  It was called *Operation Cyclone*.  The Mujaheddin were specifically trained in how to fight a more powerful military over a long period of time.  You've now spent $2b/wk for over ten years trying to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan and the US still hasn't won yet.  This doesn't tell you anything?
Click to expand...


We were never there to Win anything. We were there for ego and retribution.  Neither the President nor Congress gave us the personnel, mission nor the weapons and equipment to fight and win.


----------

