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

[9thIDdoc]

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

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

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

 

[Spare_change]

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

Speaking of brain dead .....

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

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

 

[Natural Citizen]

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

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

 

[jbander]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You talk such childish bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

So, we wait for:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

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

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

 

[jbander]

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

Speaking of brain dead .....

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

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

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

 

[jbander]

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

What moronic drivel.

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

 

[jbander]

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

Well, how are we gonna pay for it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jbander]

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

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

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

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

 

[jbander]

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

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

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

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

 

[rightwinger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You talk such childish bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

So, we wait for:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

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

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

This is the key....We have assigned ourselves the role of the worlds policeman. We need to spend $700 billion a year to satisfy this role. What do we gain for that $700 billion vs what do we give up?

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

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

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

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

 

[rightwinger]

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

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

The government is We the People

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm still waiting for answers.

 

[jbander]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Spare_change]

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

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

... and the answer remains the same.

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

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

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

 

[Spare_change]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You talk such childish bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

So, we wait for:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

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

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

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

Come back when you have something concrete to discuss.

 

[rightwinger]

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

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

... and the answer remains the same.

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

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

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

Which begs the question

Why do we still have military bases in Germany?

 

[Spare_change]

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

Speaking of brain dead .....

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jbander]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm still waiting for answers.

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

 

[jbander]

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

You talk such childish bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

So, we wait for:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other nations don't have our responsibilities, commitments, treaties, or global reach requirements.

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

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

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

Come back when you have something concrete to discuss.

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