US military needs to be completely revamped

[1srelluc]

About all I got out of this thread was that the next gop administration needs to retire a shit-load of three and four stars.

 

[candycorn]

I attended a Zoning Board meeting last night and during public comments, one of the men who stood up was an Army Veteran, served in the ME, fell on hard times upon his return and until recently was homeless for quite a while.

I was seething!! The US military priorities are completely wrong. Much like US Congress, the DoD has become a nest of greed and mismanagement.

No veteran SHOULD EVER BE HOMELESS !

Instead of funding 44 4 Star Generals and 155 3 Stars, the DoD should provide any veteran a home for $1.

There are so many currently available properties nationwide that can be acquired and turned to veterans housing TODAY that this should be fixed in a very short time. Communities serving injured Veterans would take longer to be built, but our veterans deserve no less.

While I question the "$1" thingy....lets get real for a moment. Vacate some of the airforce bases and move the planes and personnel to another base. Planes travel hundreds of miles an hour and can easily make up any time loss due to abandoning the pre-placement. Convert the empty base into a veterans colony with cheap housing for any vet who wants it.

 

[sparky]

About all I got out of this thread was that the next gop administration needs to retire a shit-load of three and four stars.

now i wonder how many homeless generals exist?....~S~

 

[pknopp]

now i wonder how many homeless generals exist?....~S~

 

[August West]

About all I got out of this thread was that the next gop administration needs to retire a shit-load of three and four stars.

Cutting the Pentagon budget by at least a third would be in order too. It`s become a jobs program.

 

[1srelluc]

Cutting the Pentagon budget by at least a third would be in order too. It`s become a jobs program.

Thing is the neocons will have to be reined-in.

 

[August West]

Thing is the neocons will have to be reined-in.

Along with the war profiteers who insist on selling military toys that the pentagon doesn`t want.

Pentagon Tells Congress to Stop Buying Equipment it Doesn't Need

Lawmakers want the U.S. military's service chiefs to have more power to prevent the Pentagon from buying weapons it doesn't need.

www.military.com

 

[JoeB131]

exactly why it became an exercise in futility Joe

Well, yes, if you don't even try very hard, um, yeah, you are going to fail.

What exactly was winnable? What were we supposed to win?

Doing exactly what we did with Germany and Japan After World War II.
Create viable democracies

The thing is, in THAT War, we actually committed enough troops, executed the enemy leaders and dead-enders without mercy, and controlled the narrative.

Now, this is where I fault Bush, because he was told that we would need half a million troops to effectively garrison Iraq, and he decided to go in with only about 130K. If we were serious about fighting a war on terror and transforming the Middle East in a meaningful way, then we should have committed the troops to do it.

We weren't. If we were, the day after 9/11, we'd have restarted selective service, and had a large enough military to get the job done.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I attended a Zoning Board meeting last night and during public comments, one of the men who stood up was an Army Veteran, served in the ME, fell on hard times upon his return and until recently was homeless for quite a while.

I was seething!! The US military priorities are completely wrong. Much like US Congress, the DoD has become a nest of greed and mismanagement.

No veteran SHOULD EVER BE HOMELESS !

Instead of funding 44 4 Star Generals and 155 3 Stars, the DoD should provide any veteran a home for $1.

There are so many currently available properties nationwide that can be acquired and turned to veterans housing TODAY that this should be fixed in a very short time. Communities serving injured Veterans would take longer to be built, but our veterans deserve no less.

As was stated above, once you leave active service the DOD no longer cares about you, that is what the VA is for.

 

[pknopp]

Well, yes, if you don't even try very hard, um, yeah, you are going to fail.



Doing exactly what we did with Germany and Japan After World War II.
Create viable democracies

We didn't do that.

The thing is, in THAT War, we actually committed enough troops, executed the enemy leaders and dead-enders without mercy, and controlled the narrative.

Now, this is where I fault Bush, because he was told that we would need half a million troops to effectively garrison Iraq, and he decided to go in with only about 130K. If we were serious about fighting a war on terror and transforming the Middle East in a meaningful way, then we should have committed the troops to do it.

We weren't. If we were, the day after 9/11, we'd have restarted selective service, and had a large enough military to get the job done.

World take over. Exactly what we condemn Russia for wanting to do (even though it's not true).

We are about as two faced as a country could ever come. Good for us, evil for anyone else.

 

[JoeB131]

We didn't do that.

Yes, we did.

World take over. Exactly what we condemn Russia for wanting to do (even though it's not true).

Except that we haven't taken anyone else's territory. At least not in over a century.
We liberated countries and helped them build democracies.

We are about as two faced as a country could ever come. Good for us, evil for anyone else.

Oh, I don't know, I'm sure that the people who were liberated from the Nazis or Japanese would have something to say about that.

 

[Couchpotato]

There should be fewer veterans.

? Why?

 

[whitehall]

The DOD is screwed up in a lot of ways but it's wrong to blame the federal government for a Veteran who becomes homeless. You know deep down that it was drugs ang/or alcohol that corrupted this guy. Blaming the Military is a cheap shot and demeaning to the millions of Veterans who lead productive lives.

 

[pknopp]

Yes, we did.

Except that we haven't taken anyone else's territory. At least not in over a century.
We liberated countries and helped them build democracies.



Oh, I don't know, I'm sure that the people who were liberated from the Nazis or Japanese would have something to say about that.

I don't recall any Nazis in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.

 

[progressive hunter]

Why, just because you were never man enough to serve?

Frankly, the worst thing we ever did was end selective service. Everyone should do at least a couple years in the military.

selective service hasnt ended,,

there has been no time outside of wartime where anyone was required to serve for any period of time,,,

se

 

[pknopp]

? Why?

We need a fraction of what we have to actually protect our borders.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't recall any Nazis in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.

A Ba'athist is pretty darned close to a Nazi.

We need a fraction of what we have to actually protect our borders.

Our security concerns go far beyond our borders... that's the one lesson we should have taken away from WWII.

 

[pknopp]

A Ba'athist is pretty darned close to a Nazi.


Our security concerns go far beyond our borders... that's the one lesson we should have taken away from WWII.

Not korea or Vietnam or Iraq or Syria or.......?

 

[August West]

Well, yes, if you don't even try very hard, um, yeah, you are going to fail.



Doing exactly what we did with Germany and Japan After World War II.
Create viable democracies

The thing is, in THAT War, we actually committed enough troops, executed the enemy leaders and dead-enders without mercy, and controlled the narrative.

Now, this is where I fault Bush, because he was told that we would need half a million troops to effectively garrison Iraq, and he decided to go in with only about 130K. If we were serious about fighting a war on terror and transforming the Middle East in a meaningful way, then we should have committed the troops to do it.

We weren't. If we were, the day after 9/11, we'd have restarted selective service, and had a large enough military to get the job done.

Get what job done? We weren`t attacked by a country although 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabians. None were from Iraq or Iran. We went after Iraq because we knew they didn`t have the means to fight back.

 

[JoeB131]

Not korea or Vietnam or Iraq or Syria or.......?

Korea we were completely in the right. One only has to look at North Korea today to realize we did the Koreans a solid.
Vietnam was a mistake, but because of superpower concerns, we fought that war with one hand behind our back to make it fair. Foolish.
Syria- a few advisors a war doesn't make.

My point about iraq is that both parties agreed Saddam had to go, and had been calling for him to go for a decade. The problem with the war on terror is that it was the first war where we were concerned about the enemy's feelings!

Get what job done? We weren`t attacked by a country although 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabians. None were from Iraq or Iran. We went after Iraq because we knew they didn`t have the means to fight back.

We went after Iraq because Saddam had been a pain in the ass for 20 years. Also, our Zionist masters wanted him to go.
But here's the thing, once you decide to go to war, you don't do half measures. It ruins your credibility.