U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-10-2010, 09:41 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,872 posts, read 44,104,222 times
Reputation: 18505

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
What is a big enough military? 10 times the size of our next competitor, twice that of all the rest of the world combined? 10 times that of the world combined? How will we pay for it all and who is going to join this army when we have had to lower recruitment standards to achieve the .5% of our population in the military now?

I'm not suggesting we do away with the military, but it is a place where cuts can and must be made. We can defend ourselves quite easily, but maintaining empire, not so much. The worst possible scenario that could happen did happen and that is when the liberal concept of spreading democracy met with the right wing love of the military and gave birth to Neoconsevatism.

While I consider China to be adversarial more than naturally cooperative, they garnished much of their military technology from the former Soviets which dare I say was a nice shiny red star painted over rust. After the fall of the Soviet Union it was soon realized that they were in no way on a technological par with the US and while China may have improved upon what they have, I don't currently see them as a military threat as much as an economic threat.

Leads me back to the reason why a serious and critical reassessment of our military expenditures needs to be made because like Russia, without a strong economy behind the bullets its a lot about naught.



Never and I mean NEVER, underestimate your opponent!

How many men and women are enlisted in the Chinese military?
How many do we have enlisted and on reserve, including coast guard?

We would be toast.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2010, 10:04 AM
 
11,135 posts, read 13,701,258 times
Reputation: 3691
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
Hardly a new idea or approach, nor is it something not done by previous Republican administrations:

Who Says Numbers Never Lie? - TIME

http://www.ndu.edu/library/pbrc/36ac7c2.pdf
Unlike 1983, our economy wasn't in the shape it is in now. I have no doubts that people in the Pentagon and defense sector will play fiddle-styx with the numbers all day long, but as it stands, there will have to be some cuts. I'm not holding my breath, I assure you, as I recognize just how entrenched our American love affair is with our defense industry, we love it as much as our mothers.

The main question is will the Tea Party which is riding the rails of "government spending" hold true and consider defense spending or will the Tea Party cop out and just pontificate about spending but basically spew bovine excrement out both sides of its mouth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Never and I mean NEVER, underestimate your opponent!

How many men and women are enlisted in the Chinese military?
How many do we have enlisted and on reserve, including coast guard?

We would be toast.
True, and the Chinese shouldn't underestimate the US either. If the United States with a military apparatus that spends as much as the next 15 of the worlds largest nations combined cannot rid southern Afghanistan of the Taliban, what chance do you think a country like China which spends like 20% of what the US spends on military goods is going to have in a conflict with the United States?

Does anyone honestly believe that any nation on earth would land on the shores of THIS country and attack us? Seriously?

One of the dangers of having bases in like 120 of the worlds nations as well as ships and personnel on every corner of the globe is that if the United States or its citizens are attacked, it is most likely to be a terrorist attack upon civilians or on a military target abroad. When your military is EVERYWHERE, then everywhere is a target and when it happens, because one day it will, the President, whom ever that may be will say "WE" were attacked. To be absurd, if someone threw a rock and hits a soldier in Germany, the papers read, "violence against soldiers in Europe increases, soldiers attacked", and once again the stage is set. Thats the problem with empire, everywhere and everything is a chance for some administration to say "WE", you and I, were attacked and we need to respond. We will go broke because of it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2010, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,005 posts, read 26,039,957 times
Reputation: 7094
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
Unlike 1983, our economy wasn't in the shape it is in now. I have no doubts that people in the Pentagon and defense sector will play fiddle-styx with the numbers all day long, but as it stands, there will have to be some cuts. I'm not holding my breath, I assure you, as I recognize just how entrenched our American love affair is with our defense industry, we love it as much as our mothers.

The main question is will the Tea Party which is riding the rails of "government spending" hold true and consider defense spending or will the Tea Party cop out and just pontificate about spending but basically spew bovine excrement out both sides of its mouth?
Actually, the economy was in very bad shape in the early 1980's, but you might not be as sensitive to it because it was a little before your time (making personal economic decisions). Interest rates were exceptionally high and inflation was an ongoing concern. Also, the Japanese were viewed as taking over the international economic climate, much as China is viewed today.

Though we now have the advantage of hindsight in evaluating that time frame, especially in light of subsequent challenges, back then our economic difficulties were viewed much the same as they are today.

As far as the "Tea Party", I don't see DoD cuts as an emphasis. Perhaps the Republicans will do some trimming, but I don't envision anything close to the types of reductions that you would hope to see. I don't see this as a "cop out" at all, I see the "Tea Party" as focused on reducing entitlement spending, especially on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2010, 11:49 AM
 
11,135 posts, read 13,701,258 times
Reputation: 3691
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
Actually, the economy was in very bad shape in the early 1980's, but you might not be as sensitive to it because it was a little before your time (making personal economic decisions). Interest rates were exceptionally high and inflation was an ongoing concern. Also, the Japanese were viewed as taking over the international economic climate, much as China is viewed today.

Though we now have the advantage of hindsight in evaluating that time frame, especially in light of subsequent challenges, back then our economic difficulties were viewed much the same as they are today.

As far as the "Tea Party", I don't see DoD cuts as an emphasis. Perhaps the Republicans will do some trimming, but I don't envision anything close to the types of reductions that you would hope to see. I don't see this as a "cop out" at all, I see the "Tea Party" as focused on reducing entitlement spending, especially on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Gates references what he calls, "brass creep", where Generals are doing Col. jobs in an era when advanced communications makes our Napoleonic era structured military hierarchy obsolete and even counter productive.

Quote:
These entourages are symbolic of a military leadership that, in the view of its civilian leader, is suffering from an inflated sense of entitlement and a distorted sense of priorities. If Gates has his way, the top brass will have to shed old habits and adjust to leaner times. Some of them will become civilians. The number of generals and admirals has increased by more than a hundred since 9/11, to 969 (and counting Reserves, roughly 1,300). Gates plans a first cut of at least 50. He intends to disband an entire headquarters, the Joint Forces Command, created after the Cold War with the noble aim of making the different armed forces work better together, but which has grown into a $250 million-a-year, 6,000-strong operation of questionable usefulness.
Gates measured but scathing in his judgment: “I concluded that our headquarters and support bureaucracies, military and civilian alike, have swelled to cumbersome and top-heavy proportions, grown overreliant on contractors, and grown accustomed to operating with little consideration to cost.” A speech which he gave at the Eisenhower Library because as he stated, Eisenhower "understood that real security lay in a strong economy."

However you are likely right about the Tea Party, as the majority of the right wing in America do in fact see military and defense spending as a holy sacred cow, and will defend the pork and bureaucracy which saturates the Pentagon and defense industries. You may not see it as a cop out, but I do, and when I look to what Rumsfeld stated, 17 layers of officialdom lay between him and a line officer. and Gates concluding that “in some cases the gap between me and an action officer may be as high as 30 layers.” (In 1948, when the Cold War began, the secretary of defense had a deputy and a staff of three supervising 50 employees; today, he has 26 political appointees running a staff of 3,000.) The outcome, says Gates, is “a bureaucracy which has the fine motor skills of a dinosaur.”

I see no way to defend this type of thing and still be able to consider oneself a fiscal conservative which many in the Tea Party claim. When you view entitlement as only being social programs and you dismiss the military entitlement waste, then it is a cop out, pure and simple.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2010, 12:06 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,872 posts, read 44,104,222 times
Reputation: 18505
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post

Does anyone honestly believe that any nation on earth would land on the shores of THIS country and attack us? Seriously?


Are you denying it has not happened now? The Nation of Islam has set their sights pretty high, then. ehh?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2010, 12:18 PM
 
12,936 posts, read 17,885,597 times
Reputation: 9104
What is the "War Party?" a group that advocates perpetual war as a means of economic stimulus? Wasn't that what George Orwell foreshadowed in his epic "Nineteen Eighty Four?" It also mentioned the Junior Anti-Sex League. Christine O'Donnell?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2010, 12:19 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 13,701,258 times
Reputation: 3691
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Are you denying it has not happened now? The Nation of Islam has set their sights pretty high, then. ehh?
A terrorist attack from a small group of ideologically driven nut jobs does not equate to the Chinese Marines landing on the beaches of South Carolina.

Unlike WWII, we aren't some second rate nation today.

I'm sorry I do not live in the same kind of fear that so drives many of my fellow countrymen. Under the guise of this fear, they will roll over on their bellies and demand that government save them from whatever boogyman is cited, whether real or imagined.

I fear having a heart attack, getting killed by a drunk driver, or dying during a robbery more than I fear the Chinese starting a military war with us, let alone dying of an act of terrorism. I know others will disagree and you all are free to live in fear, I will not.

As Thomas Babbington Mcauly once so eloquently stated in Horatius at the Gate, "Death cometh to all men sooner or late, how better to die than facing fearful odds for the ashes of my fathers and the temples of my gods".
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2010, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Imaginary Figment
11,447 posts, read 13,978,148 times
Reputation: 4777
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
Tea Party will never accept major cuts in military spending. They only support gutting "socialist" programs that benefit the old and disadvantaged of society. Cutting back military spending would be diametricly in opposition to the agenda of the Koch Bros. R. Murdoch, Dick Armey and his legion of lobbyists who actually control the Tea Party.
"Socialist" = Things the Tea Party doesn't like.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2010, 02:28 PM
 
6,021 posts, read 5,629,021 times
Reputation: 1871
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
I meant to post you this link to an interview between Bill Moyers and Andrew Bacevich, who I cite often. Bacevich has some pretty substantial creds, a military background and is what I could call a very rational and traditional conservative.

(Prior consent to post in part or entirety from this interview given by Mr. Bacevich.)
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS
Thanks for the link Tn, I will check it out later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
What is more is that Obama has slid right into George W Bush's shoes and its not because Obama thinks the same, but because those in the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of staff that surround and advise this President are many of the same ones who advised the former.
I wish I could remember that general the gave that interview about conventional and unconventional warfare.

Frankly this war is draining away resources from dealing with possibly more pressing and dangerous threats such as Iran & N. Korea's nuclear program.

Or what if the recent Russian military action would've resulted in a regional conflict.

These wars we are fighting are killing thousands of American lives, gorging on trillions of taxpayer dollars, while the oil robber barons we are fighting for, gouge us at the pump as a thank you.

I think you're right Tn, the admin needs to push its advisors on an exit strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
So we arrive once again at the crossroads of actual principles. Will the Tea Party that often cites the US Constitution as the basis for much of its reasoning, endeavor to continue empire building that isn't even remotely addressed in the Constitution while our house remains in flames? Will it even consider that the problem exist?
Like I said if its the Paulian Tea Partiers, then yes, I can see them putting their representatives feet to the fire if they're cool with fighting an un-winnable war.

Now if Palin and the rest of the freak show are so anxious to take a swipe at Iran, I think we should grant them their wish and ship all of them off to wage their holy war on the frontlines.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2010, 02:38 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 13,701,258 times
Reputation: 3691
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
Like I said if its the Paulian Tea Partiers, then yes, I can see them putting their representatives feet to the fire if they're cool with fighting an un-winnable war.

Now if Palin and the rest of the freak show are so anxious to take a swipe at Iran, I think we should grant them their wish and ship all of them off to wage their holy war on the frontlines.
Well this is my primary beef with the Campaign for Liberty and the Ron Paul wing of the Tea Party. At one time they were focused far more on how the cost of empire and war effect our economic well being. However, over the past years, the focus has been primarily on health care and similar debates. While I dislike the massive spending in general, my first concerns are our wars, empire and interventionist foreign policy that sucks the life out of our economy.

So on this, I'm very disappointed with Ron Paul's efforts on the subject, and while I still donate a couple of bucks now and again, if I don't hear more of his 2008 positions, I'm likely to end my support. While there have always been things I've disagreed with Ron Paul on, those things in which we did agree were the root of my support, so if they are no longer a key component, then whats the point?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:09 AM.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top