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

cow451 · Feb 27, 2014

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

President Eisenhower said as much.

Forest Wolf · Feb 27, 2014

Maren said:
Except he did answer the question...

No, he did not. He instead resorted to sarcasm and invectives to detract from the question which he could not answer.

Forest Wolf · Feb 27, 2014

cow451 said:
President Eisenhower said as much.

Not exactly. He warned against misplaced power through the military-industrial complex.

(Sic)...In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
(Speech: President Eisenhower On The Military-Industrial Complex)

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

cow451 · Feb 27, 2014

Forest Wolf said:
Not exactly. He warned against misplaced power through the military-industrial complex.

(Sic)...In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

We have exactly what Eisenhower warned against. We have pork outfitted with body armor.

stamperben · Feb 27, 2014

Forest Wolf said:
Not exactly. He warned against misplaced power through the military-industrial complex.

(Sic)...In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
(Speech: President Eisenhower On The Military-Industrial Complex)

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Really, who do you think it is that guides our military expenditures? Congress does - through pork and bribes.

Maren · Feb 27, 2014

Forest Wolf said:
No, he did not. He instead resorted to sarcasm and invectives to detract from the question which he could not answer.

Nice deflection. Perhaps you'd like to show how the Constitution supports the US being the "world's policeman", rather than a limited military as we pointed out.

Forest Wolf · Feb 27, 2014

cow451 said:
We have exactly what Eisenhower warned against. We have pork outfitted with body armor.

I have family in the military. I'll not respond again to your disrespect of their service or the U.S armed forces.
You are no part of the 'we' you refer to.

stamperben said:
Really, who do you think it is that guides our military expenditures? Congress does - through pork and bribes.

You make an interesting point.
I however, did not say Congress does not play an integral part in funding our military.

Forest Wolf · Feb 27, 2014

Maren said:
Nice deflection. Perhaps you'd like to show how the Constitution supports the US being the "world's policeman", rather than a limited military as we pointed out.

When you can't answer the prior question without deflection this is rather silly.
Again, this will be all.

Maren · Feb 27, 2014

Forest Wolf said:
When you can't answer the prior question without deflection this is rather silly.
Again, this will be all.

I guess you are admitting you can't answer the point made, and that is why you were using deflection?

stamperben · Feb 27, 2014

Forest Wolf said:
You make an interesting point.
I however, did not say Congress does not play an integral part in funding our military.

you tried to make a point about Eisenhower's warning to America about the military-industrial complex. Your words were:

He warned against misplaced power through the military-industrial complex.

I'm saying that what he warned HAS come true. They control the power of the Congress through their influence in bribes and pork. That indeed is misplaced.

cow451 · Feb 27, 2014

Forest Wolf said:
I have family in the military. I'll not respond again to your disrespect of their service or the U.S armed forces.
You are no part of the 'we' you refer to.

I have family in the military, too, so you can stow your thin skin.

The "pork", as you well know (or should), involves "pet" weapons and systems that the Pentagon does not want or ask for... bases that serve no strategic purpose but to provide jobs for elected Congress members' constiencies.
[/quote]

The Army has a fleet of 2,400 Abrams, but a production line in Lima, Ohio means that political interests trump the recommendations of top military officials. Richard Lardner of the AP says it's no surprise that two Republicans are the champions for more tanks. Rep. Jim Jordan, whose district includes the plant and Sen. Rob Portman are two of Capitol Hills most prominent deficit hawks. They say their support is rooted in protecting national security, not in pork-barrel politics.

And:

Seven Absurd Ways the Miltary Wastes taxpeyer Dollars.

AceHero · Feb 28, 2014

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.

Maren said:

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.

Click to expand...

Wow. I didn't realize this. One wonders what a constitutional military would look like. Would we just rely on the National Guard then?

TerranceL · Feb 28, 2014

AceHero said:
Wow. I didn't realize this. One wonders what a constitutional military would look like. Would we just rely on the National Guard then?

In essence yes. Also a militia would become much more important.

Forest Wolf · Feb 28, 2014

AceHero said:
Wow. I didn't realize this. One wonders what a constitutional military would look like. Would we just rely on the National Guard then?

I imagine some would think that would be all that is needed, yes.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

What is often omitted from references made to Article 1 Section 8 is this;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

While this part:To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Is often enough used to argue we have standing armies in America and that is illegal or unconstitutional.

We don't have standing armies in America. Congress obeys the direction in the constitution when every two years they seek to appropriate funds, like the present discussion in Congress as to shrinking the military, every two years.

They're simply supporting the armies, and the appropriations process that can not last longer than two years is renewed every two years.

Otherwise, how could the other part of section 8 be fulfilled? Provide and maintain a Navy?

Provide and maintain.

Are we to dismantle the Navy every two years?

Further, the U.S. has been in a declared state of national emergency since March the 9th, 1933.And that was reiterated September 11,2001.

Which makes what some call a standing army a matter of national security and legal.

HonestTruth · Mar 1, 2014

Gee, why would the so called anti-government right wingers object to reducing needless government bureaucracy and corporate welfarists????

MachZer0 · Mar 1, 2014

HonestTruth said:
Gee, why would the so called anti-government right wingers object to reducing needless government bureaucracy and corporate welfarists????

Who are these anti-government right wingers?

HonestTruth · Mar 1, 2014

Anyone who is delusional enough to believe in the politics of the Reagan-Bush-Bush trio and those employed by the Koch cabal among others.

MachZer0 · Mar 1, 2014

HonestTruth said:
Anyone who is delusional enough to believe in the politics of the Reagan-Bush-Bush trio and those employed by the Koch cabal among others.

Ishraqiyun · Mar 2, 2014

JoyJuice said:
World's military spending

....nuff said.

Notice the next largest chunk of spending is being done by our allies too. We could make some rather large cuts to the military and still have more then enough for self defense. Look at how little is being spent by the nations we are most worried about. How puny the amount that Russia and China are spending on defense for example. Boogie men like Iran and North Korea are so under funded they aren't even worth listing separately. The only reason we would need a military of such incredibly power is if we planned on enslaving the world or going to war e with everyone else at the same time. It's well beyond what is needed for actual defense purposes.

JoyJuice · Mar 2, 2014

Forest Wolf said:
Star Tribune/National February 25

Solving spending problems on the backs of our veterans, by cutting their benefits 1%, and now this? How about cutting the benefits and salaries of rich politicians?

Obama et al also several years ago, and not just last week tried to expand veterans benefits, it never got passed his opponents.

So damn if he does, damn if he doesn't.

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

Standing with Ukraine.

Magical And Blessed

Magical And Blessed

Standing with Ukraine.

It's an old family tradition

Veteran

Magical And Blessed

Magical And Blessed

Veteran

It's an old family tradition

Standing with Ukraine.

Veteran

Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?

Magical And Blessed

Member

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Member

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Fanning the Divine Spark

Senior Veteran

Similar threads