Obama administration's plan to shrink US military faces sharp resistance in Congress

Habbit Animal said:

Please! Every nation has a right to insure national defense.
Don't worry about America. Advocate your nation disarm itself and disband its military.

Click to expand...

What if all of a sudden if we can't fight our friends wars for them we've no national defense?

That's laughable.

Habbit Animal said:

That's a shame.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 14

Click to expand...

Erm... that says nothing about being the world cop that you promote.

Cutting benefits to veterans was an inherently bad move. Shrinking the bloated military budget isn't necessarily problematic if it's done in a sensible manner. We need a military strong enough to prevent invasion and deter aggression. Having the strongest military on the planet is also a reasonable goal because of our size and economic success. We don't need to spend more than next top 14 spenders combined like we are currently doing though. Having a military that is so ridiculously over powered is too much of a temptation. We end up playing globocop and forget to mind our own buisness then. That leads to never ending war like we have been witnessing ever since the beginning of the Cold War. It also diverts funds from being used to invest in the country itself and leads to excessive debt. Look at the Soviet Union. Too much military spending, trying to keep up with the US, bankrupted the regime. We can't keep it up forever either.

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forest Wolf said:

Do you contend the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs is not Constitutional?

Click to expand...

Do you think the founders intended Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 to be construed to turn the united states into a world cop?

I gotta wonder how the Army feels about the cancellation of the A10. On one hand you've gotta love that cannon. On the other it's probably good news that the army is taking the reigns over its own air support instead of relying on a program the Air Force treats worse than a redheaded stepchild.

I imagine drones might be a little more useful against the enemies we're facing today. Warthogs were great for Soviet armor columns though.

Habbit Animal said:

I think this, along with other evidence, demonstrates that the Ass in the White house is an enemy of America.
As is his sorry excuse for a first female. Her remarks during flag day captured on tape: "All this for that damn flag!"

Click to expand...

Urban Legend and even then you got it wrong. It supposedly happened during an 9/11 commemmoration. If you can't even get a specious claim like that straight, how are we supposed to take anything else you say seriously?

Habbit Animal said:

Are people who are unarmed in the face of armed assailants left alone once the assailants realize their potential victim has nothing to fight back with?

Click to expand...

On what bizarroworld does one have to live to think that a 600,000 trooper Army and Marine Corps is "unarmed"? In what alternate reality is spending more on defense than the next 10 nations combined leaving us with "nothing {with which} to fight back"?

Habbit Animal said:

But when their country's backside is on the hook, they sure do call us.

Click to expand...

Who is this "us" of which you speak?

SnowCal said:

I gotta wonder how the Army feels about the cancellation of the A10. On one hand you've gotta love that cannon. On the other it's probably good news that the army is taking the reigns over its own air support instead of relying on a program the Air Force treats worse than a redheaded stepchild.

I imagine drones might be a little more useful against the enemies we're facing today. Warthogs were great for Soviet armor columns though.

Click to expand...

The A-10 remains the best close air support aircraft in inventory, not the least of which because it's one of the few left that were designed to do that. I can't imaging they're any more expensive than having B-52s loiter and dropping 2000 lb. JDAMs in such a role.

TerranceL said:

Uh... huh. So we aren't so much allies as we are protectors.

I don't think that was in the constitution.

And I have a question, if we had not intervened in the Yugoslavian war in 95 and allowed our "allies" to fight it out how would we have been "screwed"?

Because the lives of American citizens are so worthless we can just throw them away for other peoples wars. The people who have an actual stake in the war maybe?

Click to expand...

! But then too many think our military should be used to rescue our citizens who go to other countries, break that country's laws and end up in prison. They then complain that these people's "rights" are being violated as though our laws and Constitutional rights apply to these other countries. Being the daughter of a career military father, why should the lives of our soldiers be risked to save the skin of people who voluntarily went to other countries (of their own free will) and then broke the laws of that nation and ended up in prison? Needless to say, unless a person has diplomatic immunity, a person from a foreign country who breaks our laws is going to be punished and may very well end up in prison. We would be screaming bloody murder if they weren't!

SnowCal said:

I gotta wonder how the Army feels about the cancellation of the A10. On one hand you've gotta love that cannon. On the other it's probably good news that the army is taking the reigns over its own air support instead of relying on a program the Air Force treats worse than a redheaded stepchild.

I imagine drones might be a little more useful against the enemies we're facing today. Warthogs were great for Soviet armor columns though.

Click to expand...

Exactly, there is no mission left for the A-10.

And yes, the Air Force should have built less sexy fighters and more A-10's back in the day....

Forest Wolf said:

Answering a question with a question. I take it you don't know.

That will be all, thank you.

Click to expand...

Oh, you thought your question was relevant... I'm sorry for you.

The founders never intended to have a permanent standing army.

katherine2001 said:

Being the daughter of a career military father, why should the lives of our soldiers be risked to save the skin of people who voluntarily went to other countries (of their own free will) and then broke the laws of that nation and ended up in prison?

Click to expand...

Why not? I recall a similar conversation with a woman at a college rally who was railing agains the "warmonger George Bush" because her dear nephew, who had joined the Air Force a few months prior (about 2 years after the start of Iraq 2.0), was going to be sent to war. After all, he joined the military to go to college. I politely reminded her that:
A. He volunteered.
B. He volunteered during a time of war.
C. He joined the Air Force for some techy job.

The moral of my story: The lives of our soldiers should be risked for whatever cause the country is willing to support. More to the point, who is actually making the decision to risk a life, the soldier who voluntarily enlisted or the politician who sends them to do their actual job?

Forest Wolf said:

Derogatory remarks simply demonstrate you elect to be offensive when you can not answer the prior question.
This will definitely be all. I apologize for asking questions that encourage you to resort to such behaviors so as to cover your lack of knowledge on the matter.
"I don't know.", is not a sign of personal failure.While resorting to hateful sarcasm is.

Have a good night.

Click to expand...

This is precious.

When I stated(to another person by the way)

Uh... huh. So we aren't so much allies as we are protectors.

I don't think that was in the constitution.

Click to expand...

The other person states:

That's a shame.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 14

Click to expand...

Which is interesting because that clause says nothing at all about taking other nations to be protectorate.

To which you interject:

Do you contend the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs is not Constitutional?

Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with the conversation I was having with the other poster.

Have a good night. Keep those socks clean.

Forest Wolf said:

Derogatory remarks simply demonstrate you elect to be offensive when you can not answer the prior question.
This will definitely be all. I apologize for asking questions that encourage you to resort to such behaviors so as to cover your lack of knowledge on the matter.
"I don't know.", is not a sign of personal failure.While resorting to hateful sarcasm is.

Have a good night.

Click to expand...

Except he did answer the question, and quite correctly, I might add. As he said, the founders did not intend for the US to have a permanent standing Army. In fact, that is part of the reason the Constitution states (Article I, Section 8) states, "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"[emphasis mine] The entire reason for the two year limit was an attempt to prevent a permanent standing Army.

Shrinking the military industrial corporate welfare complex would be the greatest thing we could do.

World's military spending





....nuff said.