Justify: Why do we have such a massive military?

[zeke]

Is there anything that todays Republicans are not afraid of?

We all have to be afraid of criminals in our country and we all have to be afraid of the terrrorists in other countries.

And no amount of guns or money seems to alleviate those fears. Down ward spiral.

Ole President Eisenhower warned about the military/industrial complex, way back in the late 50ties. Man knew what he was talking about. And he was talking before lobbyists could spend so much on elections.

Yea, unless there is something in it for the Congresspeople that would have to decide on funding cuts for the military, I don't see much in the way reduced spending. To much money to be spread around by the defense industry and their lobbyists.

Kinda like "tax reform" and "term limits". The very people that would have to make the changes are the ones the changes would hurt. Not gonna happen.

 

[rightwinger]

We have more domestic oil production under Obama than we did under Bush. Keystone helps Canada get their oil to market. Without Keystone, Canada has no option but to sell that oil to us.

R&D investments do not always work out. We spent a lot of money on the fledgling oil industry. Many, many, many oil wells were dry. How did that work out?

More production on PRIVATE land, LESS on public. Google is your friend.

Can you show us where the US taxpayer financed those dry wells? I doubt it...

Do we need to get into the Standard Oil monopoly as an example?

 

[Dubya]

If we purchase 1 generation 5 fighter at 75 million dollars, but the Chinese purchase 10 generation 4 fighters for 75 million, they will eventually defeat us by numbers alone. Our technology ensures we are the best, but even the best prize fighter can be taken down by a mob.

Take the top 10 standing armies in the world..

10.Russia AP:321,000
9.Iraq AP:375,000
8.Turkey AP:402,000
7.Vietnam AP:412,000
6.USA AP:477,800
5.Pakistan AP:550,000
4.South Korea AP:560,000
3.North Korea AP:950,000
2.India AP:1,100,000
1.China AP:1,600,000

Those highlighted in red are definate enemies of the United States. India and Turkey I would not count as friends.

So, we have 7,108,00 troops against the USA's 477,000........That means we are out manned nearly 15:1. This does not include India and Turkey.

Find something else to cut because we're barely able to hold our own.

The size of a standing army isn't a measure of military strength. As far as your generation of fighter analysis, an enemy is little more than target practice due to the technological advances of our fighters. I don't think people like you could ever have enough military.

 

[rightwinger]

If we purchase 1 generation 5 fighter at 75 million dollars, but the Chinese purchase 10 generation 4 fighters for 75 million, they will eventually defeat us by numbers alone. Our technology ensures we are the best, but even the best prize fighter can be taken down by a mob.

Take the top 10 standing armies in the world..

10.Russia AP:321,000
9.Iraq AP:375,000
8.Turkey AP:402,000
7.Vietnam AP:412,000
6.USA AP:477,800
5.Pakistan AP:550,000
4.South Korea AP:560,000
3.North Korea AP:950,000
2.India AP:1,100,000
1.China AP:1,600,000

Those highlighted in red are definate enemies of the United States. India and Turkey I would not count as friends.

So, we have 7,108,00 troops against the USA's 477,000........That means we are out manned nearly 15:1. This does not include India and Turkey.

Find something else to cut because we're barely able to hold our own.

The size of a standing army isn't a measure of military strength. As far as your generation of fighter analysis, an enemy is little more than target practice due to the technological advances of our fighters. I don't think people like you could ever have enough military.

He just made one of the dumbest justifications for a military buildup ever

Size of your military does not matter in modern warfare.....Quality does

The US does not spend its money on more soldiers but on the best equipped, best trained, best supported military machine in the world

 

[Hum Dinger]

If we purchase 1 generation 5 fighter at 75 million dollars, but the Chinese purchase 10 generation 4 fighters for 75 million, they will eventually defeat us by numbers alone. Our technology ensures we are the best, but even the best prize fighter can be taken down by a mob.

Take the top 10 standing armies in the world..

10.Russia AP:321,000
9.Iraq AP:375,000
8.Turkey AP:402,000
7.Vietnam AP:412,000
6.USA AP:477,800
5.Pakistan AP:550,000
4.South Korea AP:560,000
3.North Korea AP:950,000
2.India AP:1,100,000
1.China AP:1,600,000

Those highlighted in red are definate enemies of the United States. India and Turkey I would not count as friends.

So, we have 7,108,00 troops against the USA's 477,000........That means we are out manned nearly 15:1. This does not include India and Turkey.

Find something else to cut because we're barely able to hold our own.

As soon as those red countries train their entire armies to swim across the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans with full battle gear, I'll start to worry.

Until then these armies, at worst, pose a stumbling block to American expansionism, but no real threat to the U.S.

 

[Dubya]

Military Spending is the SOCIALIST component of our economy that compensates for the fact the private sector free-enterprise system is a gross failure.

It's SOCIALISM with a "middle-man" and those "middle-men" not only make a fortune off of the American Tax payer, but use that money to control the political system and world events.

I prefer the term corporatism, which is right next to communism. The right-wing has forgotten what true capitalism is.

 

[Abel]

America is huge! And our easily defendable country did not stop pearl harbor, or 9/11. We as america have many enemys, we police the world to make allies, because like it or not, ww3 is coming up fast.

 

[Hum Dinger]

America is huge! And our easily defendable country did not stop pearl harbor, or 9/11. We as america have many enemys, we police the world to make allies, because like it or not, ww3 is coming up fast.

Paranoid Babble!

There is no potential for a third World War whatsoever.

 

[g5000]

justify: Why do we have such a massive military?

Because Muslims, libtard!

 

[Spoonman]

Ok. Many have said we need to have the tough talks about budget. Alright. Lets begin.

Military. Why do we have/need the biggest military, by far, in the world? Questions:

1- Our neighbors are Mexico and Canada. We are surrounded by vast oceans. We have one of the most easily defensable plots of land in the world. In fact, we barely have a legit threat in the entire hemisphere.

2- Are we the World Police? I know people argue that we are. WHY? Why us? Why not slash all that spending and downsize. Let the world police itself.

So, either we are the World Police, and we are OK with our tax money being spent to police the rest of the world....or we need to seriously downsize. We dont have an immediate threat anywhere in the hemisphere. Even if we slashed our military with massive cuts, we'd still be unmatched by any other nation.

Entitlements can be the next talk. The next thread. THIS thread is on this topic. So.....from righties and lefties...what is the justification for this massive military? We need to JUSTIFY ever tax dollar spent. Its the fiscally responsible thing to do. Justify it.

cut military spending and our economy takes a nose dive. it's as simple as that. obama has himself a catch 22

 

[GuyPinestra]

We have more domestic oil production under Obama than we did under Bush. Keystone helps Canada get their oil to market. Without Keystone, Canada has no option but to sell that oil to us.

R&D investments do not always work out. We spent a lot of money on the fledgling oil industry. Many, many, many oil wells were dry. How did that work out?

More production on PRIVATE land, LESS on public. Google is your friend.

Can you show us where the US taxpayer financed those dry wells? I doubt it...

Do we need to get into the Standard Oil monopoly as an example?

An example of the US taxpayer financing dry wells?

OK, go for it.

 

[Spoonman]

Is there anything that todays Republicans are not afraid of?

We all have to be afraid of criminals in our country and we all have to be afraid of the terrrorists in other countries.

And no amount of guns or money seems to alleviate those fears. Down ward spiral.

Ole President Eisenhower warned about the military/industrial complex, way back in the late 50ties. Man knew what he was talking about. And he was talking before lobbyists could spend so much on elections.

Yea, unless there is something in it for the Congresspeople that would have to decide on funding cuts for the military, I don't see much in the way reduced spending. To much money to be spread around by the defense industry and their lobbyists.

Kinda like "tax reform" and "term limits". The very people that would have to make the changes are the ones the changes would hurt. Not gonna happen.

we aren't afraid of guns and our constitutional rights

 

[JakeStarkey]

1. Doesn't matter because China is not going to invade the Americas and we are not going to fight them on the Asian Mainland.

2. Yes, we should reduce numbers.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

So what happens when Iran and Korea get nuclear capabilities and they sell them to Muslim Terrorist's?
Then they sneak in through our unsecured Mexican Boarder to detonate suitcase nukes here in the U.S?
Not smart at all to reduce our Military numbers.

How do you defend those things with numbers?

So do we invade Iran? Do we invade Korea? Do we invade Mexico? Or do we configure our forces for the new world of combat, standing down incredibly expensive invasions, while, as I have suggested elsewhere on the Board, increasing carrier forces, air groups, and spec ops.

 

[Redfish]

More production on PRIVATE land, LESS on public. Google is your friend.

Can you show us where the US taxpayer financed those dry wells? I doubt it...

Do we need to get into the Standard Oil monopoly as an example?

An example of the US taxpayer financing dry wells?

OK, go for it.

how does allowing tax deductions for exploration expenses equate to taxpayer financing? I can't wait for your explanation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do we need to get into the Standard Oil monopoly as an example?

An example of the US taxpayer financing dry wells?

OK, go for it.

how does allowing tax deductions for exploration expenses equate to taxpayer financing? I can't wait for your explanation.

Then that deduction for exploration expense is a taxpayer subsidy, is it not, in effect?

 

[Sallow]

More production on PRIVATE land, LESS on public. Google is your friend.

Can you show us where the US taxpayer financed those dry wells? I doubt it...

Do we need to get into the Standard Oil monopoly as an example?

An example of the US taxpayer financing dry wells?

OK, go for it.

You're kidding right?

Oil Shale Subsidy Called a Boondoggle by Taxpayer Watchdog | Taxpayers for Common Sense
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
The gas tax you don't even know you're paying - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

 

[Dubya]

So what happens when Iran and Korea get nuclear capabilities and they sell them to Muslim Terrorist's?
Then they sneak in through our unsecured Mexican Boarder to detonate suitcase nukes here in the U.S?
Not smart at all to reduce our Military numbers.

How do you defend those things with numbers?

So do we invade Iran? Do we invade Korea? Do we invade Mexico? Or do we configure our forces for the new world of combat, standing down incredibly expensive invasions, while, as I have suggested elsewhere on the Board, increasing carrier forces, air groups, and spec ops.

We have 10 active Nimitz-class carriers and 3 Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers under construction or planning. They all would require a battle group if all were active. My guess is they will retire a Nimitz-class carrier and not expand battle groups, which have some rather sophisticated ships, though such planning may be flexible, because smaller ships don't take as long to build. The Gerald R. Ford was to replace the Enterprise which retired in Dec 2012. These new carriers are due on 2015, 2020 and 2025 and the other two are named the John F. Kennedy and the Enterprise.

As far as I know, we have been increasing the air groups and spec ops. That Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a bad ass machine with 187 operational and 8 built for testing. It's a fifth generation fighter and a fourth generation stealth aircraft. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a fifth generation fighter originally built in 2006 that is part of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. The United States plans to buy 2,443 aircraft in the coming decades and 10 other nations have plans to buy them as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How do you defend those things with numbers?

So do we invade Iran? Do we invade Korea? Do we invade Mexico? Or do we configure our forces for the new world of combat, standing down incredibly expensive invasions, while, as I have suggested elsewhere on the Board, increasing carrier forces, air groups, and spec ops.

We have 10 active Nimitz-class carriers and 3 Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers under construction or planning. They all would require a battle group if all were active. My guess is they will retire a Nimitz-class carrier and not expand battle groups, which have some rather sophisticated ships, though such planning may be flexible, because smaller ships don't take as long to build. The Gerald R. Ford was to replace the Enterprise which retired in Dec 2012. These new carriers are due on 2015, 2020 and 2025 and the other two are named the John F. Kennedy and the Enterprise.

As far as I know, we have been increasing the air groups and spec ops. That Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a bad ass machine with 187 operational and 8 built for testing. It's a fifth generation fighter and a fourth generation stealth aircraft. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a fifth generation fighter originally built in 2006 that is part of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. The United States plans to buy 2,443 aircraft in the coming decades and 10 other nations have plans to buy them as well.

Excellent. Then we can start decreasing our ground forces by 33% over the next ten years.

 

[Sallow]

So do we invade Iran? Do we invade Korea? Do we invade Mexico? Or do we configure our forces for the new world of combat, standing down incredibly expensive invasions, while, as I have suggested elsewhere on the Board, increasing carrier forces, air groups, and spec ops.

We have 10 active Nimitz-class carriers and 3 Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers under construction or planning. They all would require a battle group if all were active. My guess is they will retire a Nimitz-class carrier and not expand battle groups, which have some rather sophisticated ships, though such planning may be flexible, because smaller ships don't take as long to build. The Gerald R. Ford was to replace the Enterprise which retired in Dec 2012. These new carriers are due on 2015, 2020 and 2025 and the other two are named the John F. Kennedy and the Enterprise.

As far as I know, we have been increasing the air groups and spec ops. That Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a bad ass machine with 187 operational and 8 built for testing. It's a fifth generation fighter and a fourth generation stealth aircraft. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a fifth generation fighter originally built in 2006 that is part of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. The United States plans to buy 2,443 aircraft in the coming decades and 10 other nations have plans to buy them as well.

Excellent. Then we can start decreasing our ground forces by 33% over the next ten years.

But then who will take on Darth Vader and the Death Star when they finally get here?

 

[Dubya]

So do we invade Iran? Do we invade Korea? Do we invade Mexico? Or do we configure our forces for the new world of combat, standing down incredibly expensive invasions, while, as I have suggested elsewhere on the Board, increasing carrier forces, air groups, and spec ops.

We have 10 active Nimitz-class carriers and 3 Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers under construction or planning. They all would require a battle group if all were active. My guess is they will retire a Nimitz-class carrier and not expand battle groups, which have some rather sophisticated ships, though such planning may be flexible, because smaller ships don't take as long to build. The Gerald R. Ford was to replace the Enterprise which retired in Dec 2012. These new carriers are due on 2015, 2020 and 2025 and the other two are named the John F. Kennedy and the Enterprise.

As far as I know, we have been increasing the air groups and spec ops. That Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a bad ass machine with 187 operational and 8 built for testing. It's a fifth generation fighter and a fourth generation stealth aircraft. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a fifth generation fighter originally built in 2006 that is part of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. The United States plans to buy 2,443 aircraft in the coming decades and 10 other nations have plans to buy them as well.

Excellent. Then we can start decreasing our ground forces by 33% over the next ten years.

The last time I checked, salaries of military personnel weren't that much of the defense budget. I made a suggestion to do away with things like enlistment bonuses and increase the pay throughout the ranks by $10,000 per year. My idea was to attract career minded people into the military and make it so competitive that the military could be more selective in who they allowed to join it. It would also cut out a lot spending for GI benefits, because the people wouldn't be leaving the military. If we could keep the politicians from using their greed to make decisions and follow what the military experts want to do with spending, we would get more out of a dollar of military spending or make cuts without it hurting our defenses. Yes, Congress has the duty to determine military spending, but often the politicians are looking at the jobs in their states and not the defense of the country.