Far Leftists now wanting Obama to cut defense

[hookdown]

Of course those folks will not attack us directly, but they can use their military forces to create choke points, implement national strategy, and deny our access to critical areas. Also, they can make life miserable for our allies and we would be powerless to assist. As Clausewitz states, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means." Before it gets to that level however, military forces, just by being, can enforce national policy goals. Do you really think that the Iranians and North Koreans would have remained relatively "good" all these years without the threat of the U.S. military intervening? That China would not have already retaken Taiwan and established a hegemony in the western Pacific? Last time we had a relatively weak military force, we ended up in WW II. Deterrence of the bad guys is a good thing. And sometimes the only way to achieve that is having a military that scares, or at least worries, them.

Actually they want us to continue with our present methods of military acquistion so that it takes years, if not decades, before equipment makes it to the field and costs billions more than it was supposed to. They want us to keep building DD 1000 and LCS class ships, overpriced and undergunned junk that eats up funding better used for other, more worthwhile programs. They want us to keep our flag officer corp top heavy compared to O-6 and below and the enlisted ranks. Yes, there are things they want to see us keep doing, but they would love to see us reduce our forces to half of what it is today.

Just curious Salty, are you advocating an across the board 50% (or there abouts) decrease, or are you targeting particular areas?

And by the way, China is already targeting Guam in the event of hostilities. :icon_wink:

[JuBru]

OK, I'll change the question; now stop your obfuscating ways and try to answer it.

It's impossible to to answer loaded questions that are do nothing but push lies by an asshole.

The government is obligated to provide for an army and navy.
The military isn't bloated and over sized.
The military doesn't chose the wars.
The military isn't bankrupting the nation.
The military hasn't lost since the Civil War.

The question concerns military deterrence. The Nazi invasion (offensive operation) of the Soviet Union had more to do with extended supply lines, terrible weather, and a supreme leader that was a bit off his rocker than it did with anything else.

The US could cut its military in half and still deter Russia or China or anybody else from attacking us.

Get real. Russia , China or little bitty Iran is not going to attack us. I can see it now the headlines "RUSSIA INVADES ALASKA" or "CHINA BOMBS GUAM".

The last thing they want is for us to reduce the size of our bloated obese military because we would become more competitive in the world marketplace. Ask youself why the USA doesn't have any slice in the flat screen TV manufacturing biz?

So, 1.3 million people can defeat a force of 35+million?

Wrong. The slight of hand has been done and the wool has been pulled over your eyes. There is no money "saved" by cutting the military budget. It goes elsewhere, but not to help the American people.

[saltydawg]

Of course those folks will not attack us directly, but they can use their military forces to create choke points, implement national strategy, and deny our access to critical areas. Also, they can make life miserable for our allies and we would be powerless to assist. As Clausewitz states, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means." Before it gets to that level however, military forces, just by being, can enforce national policy goals. Do you really think that the Iranians and North Koreans would have remained relatively "good" all these years without the threat of the U.S. military intervening? That China would not have already retaken Taiwan and established a hegemony in the western Pacific? Last time we had a relatively weak military force, we ended up in WW II. Deterrence of the bad guys is a good thing. And sometimes the only way to achieve that is having a military that scares, or at least worries, them.

Actually they want us to continue with our present methods of military acquistion so that it takes years, if not decades, before equipment makes it to the field and costs billions more than it was supposed to. They want us to keep building DD 1000 and LCS class ships, overpriced and undergunned junk that eats up funding better used for other, more worthwhile programs. They want us to keep our flag officer corp top heavy compared to O-6 and below and the enlisted ranks. Yes, there are things they want to see us keep doing, but they would love to see us reduce our forces to half of what it is today.

Just curious Salty, are you advocating an across the board 50% (or there abouts) decrease, or are you targeting particular areas?

And by the way, China is already targeting Guam in the event of hostilities. :icon_wink:

I would like to see a 8% reduction every year until the defense budget is 3.5% of GNP. There are a lot of areas to target.

The military, like the rest of the federal government, is too big for its mission.

I can see why the Chinese have Guam in its bomb-sights. Need to eliminate competition from other clothes manufacturing sweat shops.

Making our military leaner and meaner will not stop it from waging war. The problem is that Congress doesn't want to pay for our wars as we fight them AND we go to war in a half-ass manner.

The NEW reality is that international trade is the new means to world power.

[louisiana_dog]

I would like to see a 8% reduction every year until the defense budget is 3.5% of GNP. There are a lot of areas to target.

The military, like the rest of the federal government, is too big for its mission.

I can see why the Chinese have Guam in its bomb-sights. Need to eliminate competition from other clothes manufacturing sweat shops.

Making our military leaner and meaner will not stop it from waging war. The problem is that Congress doesn't want to pay for our wars as we fight them AND we go to war in a half-ass manner.

The NEW reality is that international trade is the new means to world power.

This bothers me the most. Let the generals and admirals run the war, get the job done, and go home. Politicians have no place and too big of egos to think they can run wars. Being P.C. has NO place in war.

[DawgyNWindow]

The last thing they want is for us to reduce the size of our bloated obese military because we would become more competitive in the world marketplace. Ask youself why the USA doesn't have any slice in the flat screen TV manufacturing biz?

Without our military, there may not be a world marketplace.

Are you suggesting that our government should be making flat screen TVs? Your statement makes no sense.

[saltydawg]

Without our military, there may not be a world marketplace.

Are you suggesting that our government should be making flat screen TVs? Your statement makes no sense.

I'm not suggest that we don't have a military but rather that it takes a smaller slice of the federal budget.

The countries that developed flat screen tv's put more R&D money into developing commercial products and not into military or space areas. A lot of our R&D money goes into military or space areas which doesn't commercialize as easily.

America is only as strong as its economy and fiscal status.

[hookdown]

The countries that developed flat screen tv's put more R&D money into developing commercial products and not into military or space areas.

Of course a lot of those countries did not put a lot of R&D money in defense because they allowed the U.S. to protect them. Had they carried their fair share of the burden, the flat screens might not be so flat today.... :icon_wink:


S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and even a fair amount of the Euro's, while funding some of their defense, have basically stood behind the U.S. military for protection for decades. Had they not had the American shield and were forced to fund their total defense needs on their own, I suspect things would look different a little different now.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Get real. Russia , China or little bitty Iran is not going to attack us. I can see it now the headlines "RUSSIA INVADES ALASKA" or "CHINA BOMBS GUAM".

The last thing they want is for us to reduce the size of our bloated obese military because we would become more competitive in the world marketplace. Ask youself why the USA doesn't have any slice in the flat screen TV manufacturing biz?

Naive as Hussein Obama.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Democrats of the last 30-40 years have never understood and in fact hated the military and are always loking for excuses to cut it in half or worse.

Various links
LIZ CHENEY: Obama 'decimating our military capacity'...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cheney-obama-decimating-our-military-capacity_616686.html

BOOK: Obama didn't want to shake more hands, take more pictures with troops...

Michael Hastings' new book, The Operators, jabs at what could be a vulnerable spot for the Obama Administration, the president's relationship with the troops.
The book describes a visit to Baghdad:

After the talk, out of earshot from the soldiers and diplomats, he starts to complain. He starts to act very un-Obamalike, according to a U.S. embassy official
who helped organize the trip in Baghdad.
He’s asked to go out to take a few more pictures with soldiers and embassy staffers. He’s asked to sign copies of his book. “He didn’t want to take pictures with any more soldiers; he was complaining about it,” a State Department official tells me. “Look, I was excited to meet him. I wanted to like him. Let’s just say the scales fell from my
eyes after I did. These are people over here who’ve been fighting the war, or working every day for the war effort, and he didn’t want to take ****ing pictures with them?"

[JuBru]

I found this CRS report on U.S. arms sales intriguing.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/179578.pdf

[JuBru]

Well, there is some relief that they aren't planning on cutting the carrier fleets down.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...est=latestnews

But I wonder if they are going to continue to replace the current Nimitz class carriers with the Ford class. So far, the Enterprise* (2013), Nimitz (2018), and Eisenhower (2021) are scheduled to be replaced by the Ford (half-way) and Kennedy (maybe 1/5) that are already under construction and CVN-80 (hasn't been started), but theoretically they could be cancelled since the government has no qualms in pulling the plug after already spending millions on something.


*The Enterprise isn't a Nimitz class carrier.

[JuBru]

Win one for the good guys.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01...#ixzz1kSCyKUhl

But remember, let's cut our capabilities to do this because someone can't afford a new tv...