Just stating that a giant standing army that we're sending to other countries is doing nothing for the our country.. I'm sure that there are more murders per year by illegals then 9/11
There wouldn't be if PC didn't keep us from enforcing the laws of the land. One has nothing to do with the other as of now.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Just stating that a giant standing army that we're sending to other countries is doing nothing for the our country.. I'm sure that there are more murders per year by illegals then 9/11
Well one has alot to do with the other..
Believe you/me if we want Nationalism we need to start acting as a nation. Work towards making life better for our own people and allow the rest of the world to rot. This whole "to keep our freedoms safe" thing is utter bullshit, and should not be tolerated by us.
We need to update our infrastructure and stop codling illegals.
Believe you/me if we want Nationalism we need to start acting as a nation. Work towards making life better for our own people and allow the rest of the world to rot. This whole "to keep our freedoms safe" thing is utter bullshit, and should not be tolerated by us.
We need to update our infrastructure and stop codling illegals.
Too late. Entitlement, coupled with illegal immagration, socialism, and PC has done more than enough damage to ensure our failure as a nation.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well one has alot to do with the other..
Believe you/me if we want Nationalism we need to start acting as a nation. Work towards making life better for our own people and allow the rest of the world to rot. This whole "to keep our freedoms safe" thing is utter bullshit, and should not be tolerated by us.
We need to update our infrastructure and stop codling illegals.
I'm well aware of their limited value when it comes to conventional conflicts. When I say I want the military shrunk down to size I'm suggesting that we move the vast majority of our active duty forces into reserve units. We don't need nearly as many full time active duty as we currently have. Clinton was hated by military folks but I believe he had the right idea. I think Bush's cronies were fearful of further cuts and so they pushed him into wars to make the military appear 'useful'. That's a stretch but I don't think it's a very large one.RAIMIUS wrote:
The UK is no longer a world military power. They have a good military, but they lost most of their global power projection ability shortly after WWII.Nuclear weapons are of limited use. They prevent escalation dominance and are a fall-back in true defeats. However, their use is so catastrophic that most groups don't fear their use during anything but global war scenarios. Nobody is going to buy the threat "Mop up your pirates or we'll nuke you."JohnG@lt wrote:
Every major power in the world lives in fear of our nuclear weapons. They're all we need to be safe and snug in our homes with a log fire burning in the fireplace while visions of sugar plums and fairies dance in our heads.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Shrink our military into non-responsive, cut and run, ineffective units like it was under Clinton? and you think this was the "right idea"? Sorry, gotta disagree. Clinton's actions ( or in-action) contributed directly toward the state of war we are now engaged in. Hate it that you agreed with it.JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm well aware of their limited value when it comes to conventional conflicts. When I say I want the military shrunk down to size I'm suggesting that we move the vast majority of our active duty forces into reserve units. We don't need nearly as many full time active duty as we currently have. Clinton was hated by military folks but I believe he had the right idea. I think Bush's cronies were fearful of further cuts and so they pushed him into wars to make the military appear 'useful'. That's a stretch but I don't think it's a very large one.RAIMIUS wrote:
The UK is no longer a world military power. They have a good military, but they lost most of their global power projection ability shortly after WWII.Nuclear weapons are of limited use. They prevent escalation dominance and are a fall-back in true defeats. However, their use is so catastrophic that most groups don't fear their use during anything but global war scenarios. Nobody is going to buy the threat "Mop up your pirates or we'll nuke you."JohnG@lt wrote:
Every major power in the world lives in fear of our nuclear weapons. They're all we need to be safe and snug in our homes with a log fire burning in the fireplace while visions of sugar plums and fairies dance in our heads.
lol I actually wrote out a long response to why the U.S. is so important in the world. But I don't feel like explaining Intro To World Politics 101 to you.FatherTed wrote:
lol as if the EU is a paper tiger
get off your fucking national pride
So I'll just ask instead, what was the last large military action the EU took that wasn't along with the U.S.?
National Pride is important, you would understand that a bit better maybe if the northern tip of you didn't belong to England. That's not a personal attack either, it's just that, since the whole IRA thing maybe national pride is looked down upon there in Ireland.
No, I agree with Clinton in theory. At the end of the day he's nothing but a lawyer that doesn't know shit about the military. You, on the other hand, seem to have zero idea what it takes to run an effective military. To you, bigger is better. Napoleon would've loved facing you in the field.lowing wrote:
Shrink our military into non-responsive, cut and run, ineffective units like it was under Clinton? and you think this was the "right idea"? Sorry, gotta disagree. Clinton's actions ( or in-action) contributed directly toward the state of war we are now engaged in. Hate it that you agreed with it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
will respond to lowing when sober
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
You're Irish...that'll never happen.FatherTed wrote:
will respond to lowing when sober
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
But its more fun when you're drunk.FatherTed wrote:
will respond to lowing when sober
Fuck Israel
So, do you favor an exclusively defensive military?JohnG@lt wrote:
No, I agree with Clinton in theory. At the end of the day he's nothing but a lawyer that doesn't know shit about the military. You, on the other hand, seem to have zero idea what it takes to run an effective military. To you, bigger is better. Napoleon would've loved facing you in the field.lowing wrote:
Shrink our military into non-responsive, cut and run, ineffective units like it was under Clinton? and you think this was the "right idea"? Sorry, gotta disagree. Clinton's actions ( or in-action) contributed directly toward the state of war we are now engaged in. Hate it that you agreed with it.
Defensive oriented yes. I would want to keep the 18th Airborne Corps and Special Ops troops mobilized, the 18th as a QRF and the Spec Ops as our projected power. We shouldn't need more than what they can provide us.RAIMIUS wrote:
So, do you favor an exclusively defensive military?JohnG@lt wrote:
No, I agree with Clinton in theory. At the end of the day he's nothing but a lawyer that doesn't know shit about the military. You, on the other hand, seem to have zero idea what it takes to run an effective military. To you, bigger is better. Napoleon would've loved facing you in the field.lowing wrote:
Shrink our military into non-responsive, cut and run, ineffective units like it was under Clinton? and you think this was the "right idea"? Sorry, gotta disagree. Clinton's actions ( or in-action) contributed directly toward the state of war we are now engaged in. Hate it that you agreed with it.
My big gripe is with the Navy. Historically, the purpose for a navy is to protect trade and the ships that ply the oceans. Problem with that is that there aren't more than a bare handful of ships flying the American flag on the worlds oceans today. Yes, there was the Maersk that was attacked a few months back by pirates but with all the attacks that have occurred in that area, this was the only American ship. I go to Maritime College where the students graduate with either a deck license as a 3rd mate or an engineer license in the same grade. The only jobs available to them are on coastal vessels like tugs because foreign flagged companies just don't want to pay the cost of American labor, they prefer Indians etc. Nothing wrong with that, that's capitalism. I do NOT feel that we should be forced to protect them.
The expense that goes into a new aircraft carrier or a new missile cruiser is absolutely ridiculous. By adopting a defensive posture, our navy should be shrunk down to the absolute bare minimum. Mothball the rest in case of war.
The Air Force actually has the highest budget out of all branches, I understand that this is because our missiles fall under their jurisdiction and they are expensive to maintain. However, they need to really scale back their operations as well. I'm more hesitant to propose cuts when it comes to the AF though. Hard to train up pilots etc.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I guess the pentagon is too enthralled with the force projection capabilities brought by a carrier group (which are ofc significant to say the least).
Too enthralled to actually ask "do we actually need this capability?"
Too enthralled to actually ask "do we actually need this capability?"
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
If the Pentagon weren't told what they were required to do by the POTUS and NSC via the National Security Strategy, they would ask that question. But they are, so they don't.
Military planners don't dream this shit up. They are told what the POTUS wants to protect, then told to protect it (in the case of the Navy, which sea lines of communication to ensure freedom of movement for US and our Allies' interests). The result of that is the force structure you see.
Military planners don't dream this shit up. They are told what the POTUS wants to protect, then told to protect it (in the case of the Navy, which sea lines of communication to ensure freedom of movement for US and our Allies' interests). The result of that is the force structure you see.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Which flag ships are registered to is irrelevant, sea lanes are vital to US trade.
Since the US is dependent on imports they need to be protected.
Since the US is dependent on imports they need to be protected.
Fuck Israel
It's completely relevant. If the companies are using Liberian or Panamanian flags to get away from using unionized US crews etc then they are also ducking taxes that would go to pay for our navy. They aren't paying for the service that is the US Navy so why should they be protected? When they are raided by pirates they should call upon Panama and Liberia to send their navies out to defend them.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which flag ships are registered to is irrelevant, sea lanes are vital to US trade.
Since the US is dependent on imports they need to be protected.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I am not claiming to be a general trained in military tactics, I think in today's world, more technical/advanced and more of it than our enemies have is better, this includes intel.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, I agree with Clinton in theory. At the end of the day he's nothing but a lawyer that doesn't know shit about the military. You, on the other hand, seem to have zero idea what it takes to run an effective military. To you, bigger is better. Napoleon would've loved facing you in the field.lowing wrote:
Shrink our military into non-responsive, cut and run, ineffective units like it was under Clinton? and you think this was the "right idea"? Sorry, gotta disagree. Clinton's actions ( or in-action) contributed directly toward the state of war we are now engaged in. Hate it that you agreed with it.
Again, I am not pretending to be a general, ( who asked for more troops by the way) apparently against your highly tuned advice less troops and less advanced weaponry
I would not trade our technical edge for anything in the world. My gripe is with paying a million soldiers, sailors and airmen; active duty salaries. There's absolutely no need for it.lowing wrote:
I am not claiming to be a general trained in military tactics, I think in today's world, more technical/advanced and more of it than our enemies have is better, this includes intel.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, I agree with Clinton in theory. At the end of the day he's nothing but a lawyer that doesn't know shit about the military. You, on the other hand, seem to have zero idea what it takes to run an effective military. To you, bigger is better. Napoleon would've loved facing you in the field.lowing wrote:
Shrink our military into non-responsive, cut and run, ineffective units like it was under Clinton? and you think this was the "right idea"? Sorry, gotta disagree. Clinton's actions ( or in-action) contributed directly toward the state of war we are now engaged in. Hate it that you agreed with it.
Again, I am not pretending to be a general, ( who asked for more troops by the way) apparently against your highly tuned advice less troops and less advanced weaponry
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-10-31 13:32:49)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Agree to disagree. They are ones who operate the advanced technology and are the ones who, eventually, will be putting boots on the ground. A necessity in defeating your enemies.JohnG@lt wrote:
I would not trade our technical edge for anything in the world. My gripe is with paying a million soldiers, sailors and airmen; active duty salaries. There's absolutely no need for it.lowing wrote:
I am not claiming to be a general trained in military tactics, I think in today's world, more technical/advanced and more of it than our enemies have is better, this includes intel.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, I agree with Clinton in theory. At the end of the day he's nothing but a lawyer that doesn't know shit about the military. You, on the other hand, seem to have zero idea what it takes to run an effective military. To you, bigger is better. Napoleon would've loved facing you in the field.
Again, I am not pretending to be a general, ( who asked for more troops by the way) apparently against your highly tuned advice less troops and less advanced weaponry
Maybe they are worse; theirs is a God inspired insanity, and there are more Muslims than Japs or Krauts.Spark wrote:
you're a fucking idiot if you think radical islam is anything even approaching the nazis or the japanese.
more Marines
neh there are only "a few", ask anyone here they will tell ya.ATG wrote:
Maybe they are worse; theirs is a God inspired insanity, and there are more Muslims than Japs or Krauts.Spark wrote:
you're a fucking idiot if you think radical islam is anything even approaching the nazis or the japanese.
And "they" sit around 99% of the time doing busy work and not training. People that need constant training like Spec Ops or pilots? Fine. Your average infantryman does shit most of the year when he's in the rear. Would be covered easily by one weekend a month, two weeks a year.lowing wrote:
Agree to disagree. They are ones who operate the advanced technology and are the ones who, eventually, will be putting boots on the ground. A necessity in defeating your enemies.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
and what do you propose those servicemen charged with base security, aircraft maintenance, logistics, vehicle maintenance, communications, medical care, supply etc. do every day, or in your world none of that shit requires attention. Believe it or not, it take a lot of people to put a plane in the air, or a spec ops team in the field. I suppose pilots just get in and go, and spec ops just shows up with no support for either.JohnG@lt wrote:
And "they" sit around 99% of the time doing busy work and not training. People that need constant training like Spec Ops or pilots? Fine. Your average infantryman does shit most of the year when he's in the rear. Would be covered easily by one weekend a month, two weeks a year.lowing wrote:
Agree to disagree. They are ones who operate the advanced technology and are the ones who, eventually, will be putting boots on the ground. A necessity in defeating your enemies.