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

[hangover]

" 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

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

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.

 

[Katzndogz]

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

 

[Brain357]

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.

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.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.