Mandated defense cuts could lead to war, top US military official says

[Vast LWC]

Perhaps if you served in the military, you'd have some appreciation for it. Defense cuts include cutting base pay and other benefits from our brave men and women and their families. It also results in equipment not being repaired, buying substandard - lowest bid - parts, ships rot at piers, morale declines, etc. etc. etc. I experienced it under Carter and then under Clinton when I served. Democrats always target the military.

Why don't you fucking enlist and see for yourself, asswipe.

I served in the military, and I agree 100%.

And the whole "it'll cut pay and benefits" thing is utter BS.

Total Defense Spending in 2010 was 683.7 billion dollars, not including costs for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Total spending for personnel and family housing was 157.3 billion dollars.

The top 3 programs for spending were as follows:

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter $11.4 billion
Ballistic Missile Defense $9.9 billion
Virginia class submarine $5.4 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

 

[Billo_Really]

Perhaps if you served in the military, you'd have some appreciation for it.

One has nothing to do with the other. My objections to spending my tax dollars on bullshit wars and an inflated defense budget that is 60 times more than China's defense budget, has nothing to do with whether I was a vet or not.

I will say, I appreciate the military to the point of not putting them in harms way over a bunch of lies.

Defense cuts include cutting base pay and other benefits from our brave men and women and their families.

I'm against cutting base pay and benefits. I'm of the opinion, that all vets should receive a free house in the state of their choosing, after their service is over.

It also results in equipment not being repaired, buying substandard - lowest bid - parts, ships rot at piers, morale declines, etc. etc. etc. I experienced it under Carter and then under Clinton when I served. Democrats always target the military.

Lowest bid? Tell that to Halliburton!

Why don't you fucking enlist and see for yourself, asswipe.

I never would've lasted. I don't like people telling me what to do. But I will say, if you get in my face, you won't see anyone backing up!

 

[rightwinger]

We have a military that is larger than the next ten nations combined. I'm sure our enemies would take advantage of any cut in strength

 

[Polk]

The Generals right, things like this show weakness and embolden our enemies to further action while at the same time it reduces our fighting strength, what they should do is not cut things across the board but make those things more financially efficient so they use the least amount of money possible.

Right, because if Lennox Lewis lost 10 pounds, I'd definitely think I could kick his ass...

You'd be surprised how many people would think that, its been shown through history whenever a country decreases its defense budget or military in general that theres always someone there to take advantage of it and it always turns out badly.

Yes, they're going to take advantage of the gap opened by cutting our five-to-one advantage over the next nearest nation to a 4.5-to-one advantage!

 

[Polk]

The United States accounts for 41% of all defense spending around the world. Our biggest spending allies (so, not counting nations out the global top 15 spenders) account for another 23.8%.

 

[Jroc]

Just to be clear cutting waste is not the same thing as across the boards cuts in the military. No we don't need across the board spending cuts and if anyone thinks a weaker American military is good for world peace they are sadly mistaken

Across the board cuts are exactly what we need. Can you imagine how quickly that waste will be found, once they are instituted?

And another thing, why should WE have to foot the bill for "world peace"?

who do you think is going to do it? While we're cutting the military lets cut our ties with the UN too. we can't afford that bullshit any more either.

That’s the key question isn't it? Who would fill the vacuum? China? Russia? Who? We do have to make some cuts, but across the board mandated cuts are not the way to do it. Almost seventy years of prosperity in this country is in large party due to our strong military, without it?

 

[Intense]

The defense lobby loves the fear card.

The defense budget is just a money laundering slush fund for the GOP. The GOP sends out tax dollars to the defense monopoly and the defense industry funnels the money back to the GOP election fund.

So all of the concerns about our troops being under funded, short on supply, Armour, vests, gas masks, during the Iraq Invasion, was all hype? Good to know.

 

[Intense]

The United States accounts for 41% of all defense spending around the world. Our biggest spending allies (so, not counting nations out the global top 15 spenders) account for another 23.8%.

It is a lot. We in effect do spend too much all around, from Military, to Payoff's, to Countries that don't even give us the correct time of day. Still, the Military cuts need to be made with precision, not blind folded. It is utterly irresponsible, and it will get people hurt and killed.

 

[rightwinger]

The defense lobby loves the fear card.

The defense budget is just a money laundering slush fund for the GOP. The GOP sends out tax dollars to the defense monopoly and the defense industry funnels the money back to the GOP election fund.

So all of the concerns about our troops being under funded, short on supply, Armour, vests, gas masks, during the Iraq Invasion, was all hype? Good to know.

It just shows the priorities of the military in what they buy. Easier to get a Congressman to approve an aircraft plant in his district than supply soldiers with vests, armor and gas masks

 

[Moonglow]

The top U.S. military official suggested Wednesday that scheduled Pentagon budget cuts could lead to war.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before a Senate committee Wednesday alongside Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Both offered dire warnings about the potential impact of the automatic budget cuts, known as sequestration, which will go into effect starting next January unless Congress intervenes.

Dempsey said the cutbacks could lead to the cancellation of weapons systems and disrupt "global operations." In turn, he warned, the U.S. could lose global standing -- opening the door for enemies to test American military might.

"We can't yet say precisely how bad the damage would be, but it is clear that sequestration would risk hollowing out our force and reducing its military options available to the nation," Dempsey told the senators. "We would go from being unquestionably powerful everywhere to being less visibly globally and presenting less of an overmatch to our adversaries, and that would translate into a different deterrent calculus and potentially, therefore, increase the likelihood of conflict."

Panetta made a similar argument last year when he said the sweeping cuts could weaken the military substantially, and invite "aggression" abroad

Read more: Mandated defense cuts could lead to war, top US military official says | Fox News

another meglamaniac

 

[candycorn]

We have a military that is larger than the next ten nations combined. I'm sure our enemies would take advantage of any cut in strength

What they may do is no longer worry about our sending in the air forces to affect outcomes in internal disputes; as we did in Lybia. Not attack our mainland.

As for the cuts affecting that--our ability to intervene--not a big deal. We don't need to have a dog in every fight. If China wants to take Taiwan back; I don't think we need to have a part in that. If two tribes are slugging it out in Uzbeki-becky--becky--becky--becky--becky--becky-stan, do we really need to have a part in that? I don't think either of us think so.

When oil is involved, we need to be there since we have a petroleum based economy. As long as we're living off the resources of other countries; we're bound to intervene in those countries.

It makes the case stronger than ever that we need to develop our internal power sources even more; does it not?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Dempsey said the cutbacks could lead to the cancellation of weapons systems and disrupt "global operations." In turn, he warned, the U.S. could lose global standing -- opening the door for enemies to test American military might.

Sure. If we reduce our military from being 10 times bigger than everyone else to 9 times bigger, Iran may send their Navy to test us.

What navy? Didn't you get the word, St Ronnie sunk Iran's navy!

Trick Lib Question of Reagan
March 28, 2008

CALLER: Ronald Reagan, why did he never respond to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, to answer the guy's question, "Why didn't Reagan respond?" He did. It's one of the most underreported aspects in world history. Amir Taheri wrote about it on April 18th, 2007, in a publication called Gulf News. Basically, Reagan sunk Iran's navy, if I could just sum this up. We sunk Iran's navy. The attacks from Lebanon came from Iran, as they still do to this day. We sunk Iran's navy, but we didn't talk about it much then because that would have made us look mean, and the mullahs didn't talk about it because they didn't want the world to know their navy had been sunk, but it happened.
END TRANSCRIPT

Ed i know you like Rush....but the reason is more like this.....Ronny wanted to bomb the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, which housed Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to be training Hezbollah militants......Def Sec.Casper Weinberger talked him out of it because he said there was no proof the Iranians were behind it...

 

[Harry Dresden]

The defense lobby loves the fear card.

The defense budget is just a money laundering slush fund for the GOP. The GOP sends out tax dollars to the defense monopoly and the defense industry funnels the money back to the GOP election fund.

and Democrats of course dont have their greedy little hands in that slush fund i suppose ....right Ed?....

 

[Harry Dresden]

The defense lobby loves the fear card.

The defense budget is just a money laundering slush fund for the GOP. The GOP sends out tax dollars to the defense monopoly and the defense industry funnels the money back to the GOP election fund.

So why does Obama love War too?

because the Democrats also have their hands in that slush fund......dont tell Ed ....it might ruin his perception of Democrats....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Across the board cuts are exactly what we need. Can you imagine how quickly that waste will be found, once they are instituted?

And another thing, why should WE have to foot the bill for "world peace"?

who do you think is going to do it? While we're cutting the military lets cut our ties with the UN too. we can't afford that bullshit any more either.

That’s the key question isn't it? Who would fill the vacuum? China? Russia? Who? We do have to make some cuts, but across the board mandated cuts are not the way to do it. Almost seventy years of prosperity in this country is in large party due to our strong military, without it?

Jroc makes these horseshit statements without any evidence. I supposed he could argue the Vietnam War was a success because forty years later it has most favored trading status with us.

Across the board cuts is the starting place for a downsizing of the armed forces and relief from our crushing government bills.

 

[Katzndogz]

A downsized military will do nothing but make us a very attractive and weak target. The weak are always targets whether it's a predatory nation or a predatory shark in the sea.

 

[rightwinger]

A downsized military will do nothing but make us a very attractive and weak target. The weak are always targets whether it's a predatory nation or a predatory shark in the sea.

A Target to whom?

Which nation on earth is currently capable of attacking us?

 

[Mr Natural]

A downsized military will do nothing but make us a very attractive and weak target. The weak are always targets whether it's a predatory nation or a predatory shark in the sea.

A super sized military didn't prevent us from being attacked in 2001.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A downsized military will do nothing but make us a very attractive and weak target. The weak are always targets whether it's a predatory nation or a predatory shark in the sea.

The fuckwit it will. Give us some evidence that your supposition is true: hint, you can't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And it allowed us to invade Iraq, the word foreign policy mistake in American history.