Defense Spending?

People commenting on defense and don't know what a -- boomer sub -- is, they need a dunce cap and sit in the corner.

Try google instead of making fools of yourselves. Watch the military channel. You will learn what boomer subs are.

They are by far the most devastating weapon on earth. I served on a sub.

No country would ever attack the USA if they knew we would use those subs. If I was the Commander in Chief no country would have any doubt we would use those subs. We'd never be attacked and would quit pissing any more money away on bullshit weapons that can't even win the war against the Taliban.

The Taliban can't cross the Atlantic Ocean. Every soldier being killed or maimed in Afghanistan or Iraq is being murdered by Bush & Obama.

Go fuck yourself, Miller. Nobody knows everything and there is nothing dishonorable about asking when you don't know.

And your own post reveals that you don't understand the dichotomy introduced with non state actors and asymmetric warfare. You should ask more questions instead of making a fool of yourself.
 
Perhaps, when I said R&D I really had (new supercarriers, fighters, tanks, etc) in mind, that IS necessary, we can't fall behind the rest of the world, namely China.

Here's a question...just how many Supercarriers do we need to defend ourselves?

well we'll have 3 less than we need and had initially ordered, the gerald ford class super carrier, the next generation for the Nimitz class was initially 5, then 4...then 3 now 2. the need is based on the number of aging carries we have now, the world as it is laid out ala spheres of influence , risk etc. . we have already cut 2 carrier grp.s in the last 4 years.

Projecting power according to the seagoing strategic rules of the cold war isn't needed anymore and sadly, that's what is still happening with our Navy.

In fact, the entire structure of the Marine Expeditionary Unit is flawed because the immediate response is to put the most nimble fighting force on the planet speeding at a whopping 20 knots. Somalia in 1993 was an "emergency" and we had 2 days to rush rush rush, only to show up 3 weeks later. :rolleyes:
 
Fuck that shit! We spent almost 3 trillion dollars in the last two years that we had to borrow from foreigners or from future earnings depending on how you approach it.

End the campaigns in the ME and close at least 60% of our 800 foreign bases and reduce military spending by 70% within 2 years. No ifs, ands or buts.

BTW , we bribed Israel with a grant of some 20 advanced jets worth $20 billion just get them to maintain a settlement construction freeze that they violate even while it is in place, and only for 90 days.

We pour more money down rat holes than 95% of the nations in the world spend, and we spend more on military and defense than the rest of the world combined once you figure in our foreign aid.

Time to live within our means.

Yeah, your recipe is one for disaster. Both economically, defensively and politically. But at least you hit the trifecta!

Bullshit.

Our current course is a recipe for complete economic collapse, or even another great depression, just ask anybody on wall street!

The status quo is the worst possible option. It is guaranteed to fail.

false dichotomy. Or strawman. Either way your argument is a logical fallacy.
 
I actually think that's already happening. We gotta get them recovering first, then we can start talking to them about paying up. "When you owe $100,000 to the bank and you can't pay, you have a problem. When you owe $10,000,000 to the bank and you can't pay, the bank has a problem."

Maybe it already happening. I would need to see a state by state breakdown. But we are giving record amounts of foreign military aid as well. In addition to spending almost as much on defense as the balance of the world we also contribute massive volumes of military aid to nations we need to influence, like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Iraq, Island alliances in the Pacific, Israel, and Pakistan.
 
Yeah, your recipe is one for disaster. Both economically, defensively and politically. But at least you hit the trifecta!

Bullshit.

Our current course is a recipe for complete economic collapse, or even another great depression, just ask anybody on wall street!

The status quo is the worst possible option. It is guaranteed to fail.

false dichotomy. Or strawman. Either way your argument is a logical fallacy.

iow you can't argue your point so you just wave generalizations. Maintaining our worldwide network of obsolete power projection bases is untenable and may very likely break the US just like it broke the SU in the late 80's.
 
Yeah, your recipe is one for disaster. Both economically, defensively and politically. But at least you hit the trifecta!

Bullshit.

Our current course is a recipe for complete economic collapse, or even another great depression, just ask anybody on wall street!

The status quo is the worst possible option. It is guaranteed to fail.

false dichotomy. Or strawman. Either way your argument is a logical fallacy.

Why not throw in a flippant comment about "Red Herrings?"
 
Bullshit.

Our current course is a recipe for complete economic collapse, or even another great depression, just ask anybody on wall street!

The status quo is the worst possible option. It is guaranteed to fail.

false dichotomy. Or strawman. Either way your argument is a logical fallacy.

iow you can't argue your point so you just wave generalizations. Maintaining our worldwide network of obsolete power projection bases is untenable and may very likely break the US just like it broke the SU in the late 80's.

Keep digging that hole.

I'll give you a clue: I never argued for maintaining the current levels or bases. Thats why your argument is a false dichotomy (70% cutting or nothing) and a strawman (I never argued for no cuts).
 
Bullshit.

Our current course is a recipe for complete economic collapse, or even another great depression, just ask anybody on wall street!

The status quo is the worst possible option. It is guaranteed to fail.

false dichotomy. Or strawman. Either way your argument is a logical fallacy.

Why not throw in a flippant comment about "Red Herrings?"

It wasn't a red herring. He's just arguing against a position I never took.
 
The other problem with jingoism, is it is bound to have unforeseen costs in the future

sorta like supporting the Mujahideen had :p

911.jpg
 
This isn't just a conservative problem. The problem lies on both sides, neither is willing to give in to less spending. I say 10% across the board....but that's just me.

There is nothing to give from the left, rather there are things that need funding. However, there is 54% of the budget going to the military to chop, and there is plently that can be cut, about 95% wouldn't be missed.
 
This isn't just a conservative problem. The problem lies on both sides, neither is willing to give in to less spending. I say 10% across the board....but that's just me.

There is nothing to give from the left, rather there are things that need funding. However, there is 54% of the budget going to the military to chop, and there is plently that can be cut, about 95% wouldn't be missed.


I read in USA Today this week that PFC's are making $39K and US Army Captains with no kids are making +$89K:eek:

Um....SHIT!!
 
This isn't just a conservative problem. The problem lies on both sides, neither is willing to give in to less spending. I say 10% across the board....but that's just me.

There is nothing to give from the left, rather there are things that need funding. However, there is 54% of the budget going to the military to chop, and there is plently that can be cut, about 95% wouldn't be missed.

Are you seriously arguing that the military and all related defense spending needs to be cut by 95%?
 
false dichotomy. Or strawman. Either way your argument is a logical fallacy.

iow you can't argue your point so you just wave generalizations. Maintaining our worldwide network of obsolete power projection bases is untenable and may very likely break the US just like it broke the SU in the late 80's.

Keep digging that hole.

I'll give you a clue: I never argued for maintaining the current levels or bases. Thats why your argument is a false dichotomy (70% cutting or nothing) and a strawman (I never argued for no cuts).

liar.

Like it or not, and I don't, we're going to be responsible for regional security for a few more years in Iraq. That's got to eat up a lot of dollars. And then there's Afghanistan.

Thanks George.

Fuck that shit! We spent almost 3 trillion dollars in the last two years that we had to borrow from foreigners or from future earnings depending on how you approach it.

End the campaigns in the ME and close at least 60% of our 800 foreign bases and reduce military spending by 70% within 2 years. No ifs, ands or buts.

BTW , we bribed Israel with a grant of some 20 advanced jets worth $20 billion just get them to maintain a settlement construction freeze that they violate even while it is in place, and only for 90 days.

We pour more money down rat holes than 95% of the nations in the world spend, and we spend more on military and defense than the rest of the world combined once you figure in our foreign aid.

Time to live within our means.

Yeah, your recipe is one for disaster. Both economically, defensively and politically. But at least you hit the trifecta!
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top