Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That would still leave us with the largest military in the world. Why can't we do this?
Is there a problem with 7 aircraft carrier battle groups instead of 14? I believe Great Britain is the only other country in the world that actually has an ACC Battlegroup and they do it in cooperation with France.
But we have 12 on patrol all over the world at all times and 2 in reserve (apologies, this from memory).
So why can't we just slash it in half and go to the UN and dump a whole bunch on them, like the defense of Europe (from whom?) and half of the middle east problems.
Either that, or Haliburton agrees to pay 50% tax on all their revenues and the oil companies agree to the same.
And what would they do for jobs? Obama has just promised over 800,000 work visas to foreigners who are here breaking our country's laws, jobs that obviously cannot be given to American citizens. Nor to legal immigrants, nor to former military.
I think we should start cutting Senators in half until they decide to live within our nations means. I am betting you cut the first one in two (starting with the leadership) and it wouldn't be long before all government spending was slashed dramatically and would continue to be slashed.
It would be better to get out of Afghanistan, Iraq (yes, we still have troops there), Japan, South Korea, Germany etc..if we don't own the land, we don't have a base there. Bring the ships, troops home and call it a day.
But the real savings will have to come from spending, not just Medicare and Medicaid, but across the board spending cuts. Bush II and now Obama greatly increased spending in each federal agency and programs. A simple 10 percent cut per year for the next 4 years would be the wise choice to make now.
It's troubling that people think we should cut the military back any further. In January of 1999 my six year contract with the Navy was over, and I recall President Bush at the time cutting back our troop strength, and military spending overall, saying we'd have a sleeker more mobile force. I saw danger in that at the time, and quite frankly thought it was so ill-sighted that I voted for Clinton in '92. Wasn't the only reason, but it was a big one.
After Clinton was elected he then mentioned he was going to cut our troop strength, and we'd have a sleeker, more mobile force. Deja vu! So I knew before he was even sworn in I had made a mistake in voting for him. After Clinton's comments, Bush said he felt cutting the military any further was dangerous, and that he himself had made a mistake cutting the military back as far as he did.
(As a sidenote, I was not really that politically aware back in 1992 as a young man, so didn't know a whole lot about where each party stood on issues. More than anything I voted for Clinton because I wasn't a fan of President Bush. I started paying much more attention to the political process after '92, and haven't voted for a democrat for president since.)
Ironically, it wasn't long ago (a couple of years) I heard President Obama use the same language as President Bush in the late 80's & President-elect Clinton did in 1992, in saying we would have a more agile, mobile force, when talking about cutting back on the military.
Now people on this board want to argue for cutting the military back another 50%? That's unbelieveable, it really is. We should actually have higher troop strength. There should be many more people speaking up about how many tours of duty our military men and women have had to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, thanks to low troop numbers. That's one of the reasons so many of them have returned home with mental issues.
When I was in high school in the early 1980's I had a social studies teacher who made us each write a letter to a senator, asking one question and for an autographed photo. Who was I assigned??? Joey Biden, senator from Delaware! The question I asked was about selective service, because it had just been reinstituted in 1983, and I was one of the first to be required to register my name. I didn't know what the heck to ask a senator, so I just asked about the possibility of being drafted, and he told me it wasn't something to worry about because the country wouldn't let troop strength get low enough to have another draft. One of his points was spot on and a key point for people to consider. He said if we had a war, it would take several months to get new draftees trained and mobilized, and that we needed a ready fighting force.
Think about it, we've had enough trouble with troop strength in these past two wars, with troops serving multiple tours of duty. What would happen if we had to fight a country like China on short notice? No matter how small the possibility is, we have to be prepared. We have already allowed our fighting force get too small, and need to increase it not decrease it.
Someone mentioned our Navy not needing so many ships. During the 1980's President Reagan asked for a 600 ship Navy. We came close but I don't believe we ever reached that number. I believe it was in the 580's or 590's. Not long ago I read an article that are ship strength is around 230. If that article was correct then we are playing with fire.
Like it or not we are the country that is counted on to keep sea lanes open, and to act as a balance to countries like Russia and China. I'm not happy that European countries have shirked their responsibilities, but for our own safety and international relations, we have to be strong militarily because that's the only way the Chinese leadership, Russian leadership, etc., will respect us, and not test us and our resolve.
When it comes to cutting money from government spending there are plenty of things we could talk about in that regard, but let's get our military back to where it needs to be as far as troop strength, ship totals, and whatever else it desperately needs. We can start with having much tighter controls on waste and abuse of our taxpayer dollars. I have no doubt anyone of us could look at the details in specific department spending and see where they either used the money on things they didn't need, or paid way too much for things. But of course, if they don't spend all of the money that they were budgeted, the following year's allotted budget gets smaller. That in itself is a disincentive to spending wisely.
Cutting our military in half will force europe to become the united states of europe or a sattelite of Russia.
This act would end socialism in Europe as it exists because most of their dollars would need to go to defense rather than edu in a land where 'everyone' has a PhD.
We are the policeman of the world and unless you want to hand that title to Russia or China best not cut military in half. By the way we didn't strive to become the world's policeman it was thrust upon us.
Exactly who does Europe have to defend themselves against? BTW,we haven`t been the policemen of the world since WW2 ended.
Even if you were to cut out thousands of military families from the military, the Obama administration is not creating the millions of new jobs it promised, there would be no work for them especially now that 800,000 new work visas are being given out so that foreigners can take whatever job they like. May's job creation was only 69,000 which doesn't begin to take care of the very fast growing population of this country.
"Exactly who does Europe have to defend themselves against? BTW,we haven`t been the policemen of the world since WW2 ended."
Who? A provincial attitude might question. A NIMBY attitude of, 'it's not on my side of the property line so it isn't my business' attitude will come back to haunt you.
Try not to think in terms of military battles but the covert intervention and surrogate activities that are attratced by weakness.
Iranian surrogates are cause turmoil in the middle east...ooops that's none of europes concern, we''l just go with the winner for our oil. Unless the Russians need some cash and raise our prices or maybe Russia will put pressure on us for international issues and price your energy according to how you behave.
Of course if Europe wants to be a good global partner they might need to take care of 'issues' in their backyard before they fester and cause more serious problems such as mass migration into EU countries..for instance. The classic Neville Chamberlain attitude is prevelant where countries allow 'bullies', 'one more bite'. As in a medical condition if you let the wound fester you have bigger problems. Armed with rhetoric, European libs encourage an attitude of, 'it's not my problem until it is.
Nato is a really US taxpayer in disguise so don't rely on NATO to soothe your conscience.
Provincial attitudes toward problems outside your exact borders are made possible because of US intervention.
Police also show up for natural disasters as well as wars. Let's do a US body count since ww2 and see if the US has not been the world's policeman.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
rhetoric instead of ammo
