Barack Obama Commander in Chief

[GigiBowman]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Navy1960 again.

Ha! I seem to keep having that same problem with Navy1960

 

[Shattered]

Ha! I seem to keep having that same problem with Navy1960

I gave'm some for both of you.

 

[Annie]

I gave'm some for both of you.

and that's why we love you.

 

[Care4all]

World Military Spending:

CERTAINLY, we can STILL be the best and brightest and most powerful in the World with at least 25% less in spending.

If we can't, then we are absolute idiots imo.

STOP taking and wasting our money is what i have to say on it....

I don't know what programs to cut or keep or develop, but when you got Congressmen like Duke Cunningham who is now in prison, that got bought by the military industrial complex to spend billions upon billions on over priced military programs...and the briber got them all...

Then Houston, we got a problem and to ignore it, is simply wrong and does an injustice to tax payers...

and to fear monger does NOT help the problem, it only hurts us and prevents us from being good stewards of the tax payer's money while giving them the most efficient and best military....and that's unethical to me.

we need to STOP THE WASTEFULNESS in this area of our budget so that we can continue to be the best, without raping the tax payer imo.

And there is NOTHING wrong with the way i am thinking....it doesn't make me a lib-ur-el, it makes me a true Conservative...if you ask me....

Care

 

[Hum Dinger]

Since WWII America has has a perverse notion of 'National Defense'. It's true meaning has become 'Worldwide Miltary Domination'.

Before the Civil War, the Federal Government had no standing army. The U.S. Constitution does not provide for such.

Before WWII, we had a strong belief in isolationism and maintained a very minimal peacetime standing army.

Since WWII, we've had this notion that 'National' defense means the ability to project dominant military power throughout the world. To fight two major wars simultaneously and any number of minor conflicts.

Why?

Since then, we have fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf & Iraq. We have been involved in various levels of 'support of our Allies' too numerous to count.

Why is it that our 'Allies' are always so militarily impotent, while their opponents are always so militarily strong? Britain, France, Italy & Germany were all militarily dominate powers. What happened to them? Perhaps their people wised up?

My best guess is that U.S. foreign policy and miliatry doctrine has had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL DEFENSE.

We have become the strong arm of the ultra-conservative, colonialist European based banking system. Effectively the attack dogs of the very European royalty that our Founding Fathers fought so hard against.

Since WWII, the 9/11 attacks have been the only attack against America. We are justified in pursuing justice. But would the 9/11 attacks have happened if we hadn't supported the British Balfour declaration?

Of all the wars we've fought since WWII, only the Korean war was truly justified. Our 'involvement' in Vietnam was the most profoundly unjustified - the defense of the remnants of French colonialism. The Persian Gulf war was fought in defense of Saudi Arabia - the most unAmerican nation on earth. Our invasion of Afganistan was perverted from the original goal of destroying Al Queda to the current occupation - perhaps if we had decribed Bin Laden & co. as murderers the Taliban would not have felt compelled to harbour them.
The current Iraq war, at the behest of the Saudis, was engineered to be a permanent occupation, not a liberation. It is a fraud. The insurgency was created purposely as an excuse for ongoing occupation.

We have SHIT on the people worldwide at the mandate of the banking system of the European Royalty. Perhaps that's why we need a worldwide defense, not a national defense.

 

[xsited1]

The money will be redirected from military spending to pay for Social programs, but there will be no spending cuts. Eventually, the US will be a socialistic State and the Chinese and friends will have no trouble defeating us. I plan on living in South America by the time that happens.

 

[WillowTree]

The money will be redirected from military spending to pay for Social programs, but there will be no spending cuts. Eventually, the US will be a socialistic State and the Chinese and friends will have no trouble defeating us. I plan on living in South America by the time that happens.

that's what I said, we got to feed that fat lady.

 

[xsited1]

that's what I said, we got to feed that fat lady.

I've got several of them in my neighborhood. They sit on the porch all day and eat. It's a good thing they've got Obama signs in their front yards otherwise they might starve come January.

 

[Annie]

The money will be redirected from military spending to pay for Social programs, but there will be no spending cuts. Eventually, the US will be a socialistic State and the Chinese and friends will have no trouble defeating us. I plan on living in South America by the time that happens.

I plan on not being here when the shi* hits the fan. My kids are more tolerant. They probably will be fine with the new order.

 

[xsited1]

I plan on not being here when the shi* hits the fan. My kids are more tolerant. They probably will be fine with the new order.

They will be assimilated. Resistance is futile!

 

[Annie]

They will be assimilated. Resistance is futile!

Well, we that resist well...

 

[Navy1960]

Unbelievable.

I guess we're all socialists now!

When did conservatives become in favor of massive government spending, to boost employment? Sounds like FDR communism to me!

I have a better idea. If you think massive government spending to boost employment is a good idea, how about we cut unneccessary defense programs and redirect that money to building and upgrading highways, bridges, alternative energy, and electronic infrastructure. Those are things that actually improve the quality of life.

You know what the difference is Red Dawn? well if you don't then I will be more than happy to tell you. Providing for the common defense is a cornerstone of the constitution, whereas providing for the common highway is not. As for whatever label you wish to attach to it, then be my guest, I used the employment example to show the utter falacy in Barack Obama's policy when it comes to defense. On the one hand he talks of American jobs and American industry and on the other hand he cuts American Jobs and American Industry. As for this being socialistic , no it is more nationalistic when it comes to the construction and design of our Military infrastructure.

Now, my position is very simple, rather than cut the DoD and use it as a means to fund every program out there you wish to fund. The simple installation of accepted management principles in purchasing and program management will and should save enough money for you to have your highways and other programs. So the difference between you and I, is rather simple. IMO our nations infrastructure can be fully funded as well as DoD, whereas I want both, it seems a small but rather vocal element that has no vision other than what the government can do for them and no clue as to the stability of some world powers, would rather have whats good for them and them alone and hamstring this nations ability to defend itself.

 

[Red Dawn]

You know what the difference is Red Dawn? well if you don't then I will be more than happy to tell you. Providing for the common defense is a cornerstone of the constitution, whereas providing for the common highway is not. As for whatever label you wish to attach to it, then be my guest, I used the employment example to show the utter falacy in Barack Obama's policy when it comes to defense. On the one hand he talks of American jobs and American industry and on the other hand he cuts American Jobs and American Industry. As for this being socialistic , no it is more nationalistic when it comes to the construction and design of our Military infrastructure.

Now, my position is very simple, rather than cut the DoD and use it as a means to fund every program out there you wish to fund. The simple installation of accepted management principles in purchasing and program management will and should save enough money for you to have your highways and other programs. So the difference between you and I, is rather simple. IMO our nations infrastructure can be fully funded as well as DoD, whereas I want both, it seems a small but rather vocal element that has no vision other than what the government can do for them and no clue as to the stability of some world powers, would rather have whats good for them and them alone and hamstring this nations ability to defend itself.

If we're going to quote the constitution and defer to the founders, they didn't want large standing professional armies. In fact, they pretty much abhorred the prospect of permanent standing professional armies.

You know why we need to spend half a trillion dollars a year on the military industrial complex?

To defend our oil interests, and the shipping lanes that deliver those resources to us and our allies.

That's the bottom line. We aren't, and never will be, under threat of invasion by China, Venezuela, or Russian. North America is not under any kind of conceivable threat of invasion.

You know what a smart and sensible thing would be? Eliminate our dependence on middle eastern oil, and reduce our military industrial complex to half its size. North America can easily be defended with a defense budget half its current size.

And the peace dividend can be spent on social needs and infrastructure. Its not an academic exercise. You might think that the Federal government can only spend money on the military and postal roads. But, that issue has been settled in the courts, long ago.

 

[dilloduck]

If we're going to quote the constitution and defer to the founders, they didn't want large standing professional armies. In fact, they pretty much abhorred the prospect of permanent standing professional armies.

You know why we need to spend half a trillion dollars a year on the military industrial complex?

To defend our oil interests, and the shipping lanes that deliver those resources to us and our allies.

That's the bottom line. We aren't, and never will be, under threat of invasion by China, Venezuela, or Russian. North America is not under any kind of conceivable threat of invasion.

You know what a smart and sensible thing would be? Eliminate our dependence on middle eastern oil, and reduce our military industrial complex to half its size. North America can easily be defended with a defense budget half its current size.

And the peace dividend can be spent on social needs and infrastructure. Its not an academic exercise. You might think that the Federal government can only spend money on the military and postal roads. But, that issue has been settled in the courts, long ago.

oh ya baby--to hell with defending our economy---who needs it ??

 

[elvis]

If we're going to quote the constitution and defer to the founders, they didn't want large standing professional armies. In fact, they pretty much abhorred the prospect of permanent standing professional armies.

You know why we need to spend half a trillion dollars a year on the military industrial complex?

To defend our oil interests, and the shipping lanes that deliver those resources to us and our allies.

That's the bottom line. We aren't, and never will be, under threat of invasion by China, Venezuela, or Russian. North America is not under any kind of conceivable threat of invasion.

You know what a smart and sensible thing would be? Eliminate our dependence on middle eastern oil, and reduce our military industrial complex to half its size. North America can easily be defended with a defense budget half its current size.

And the peace dividend can be spent on social needs and infrastructure. Its not an academic exercise. You might think that the Federal government can only spend money on the military and postal roads. But, that issue has been settled in the courts, long ago.

I don't see the military being reduced at all. Obama has talked of expanding the military. We know where McCain stands.
I agree that, at least those like Jefferson, would be sick about us being in the Middle East aligned with Israel. He spoke of "free trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
Eliminating our dependence on foreign oil would require drilling in the continental US and Alaska. I don't think people are aware of that.

 

[Red Dawn]

oh ya baby--to hell with defending our economy---who needs it ??

If we weren't slaves to foreign oil, why would we need military bases in central asia, africa, and the persian gulf?

And can't Germany and the UK defend themselves without our bases in europe?

 

[Annie]

If we weren't slaves to foreign oil, why would we need military bases in central asia, africa, and the persian gulf?

And can't Germany and the UK defend themselves without our bases in europe?

yes. Under Obama let's bring them all home. From every nook and cranny.

 

[Red Dawn]

yes. Under Obama let's bring them all home. From every nook and cranny.

We were having an intelligent, adult conversation until you chirped in this nonsense.

Obama has proposed nothing of the sort.

Can you find somewhere else to troll, and let Navy, Elvis, and I continue without immature and baseless comments?

 

[Navy1960]

If we're going to quote the constitution and defer to the founders, they didn't want large standing professional armies. In fact, they pretty much abhorred the prospect of permanent standing professional armies.

You know why we need to spend half a trillion dollars a year on the military industrial complex?

To defend our oil interests, and the shipping lanes that deliver those resources to us and our allies.

That's the bottom line. We aren't, and never will be, under threat of invasion by China, Venezuela, or Russian. North America is not under any kind of conceivable threat of invasion.

You know what a smart and sensible thing would be? Eliminate our dependence on middle eastern oil, and reduce our military industrial complex to half its size. North America can easily be defended with a defense budget half its current size.

And the peace dividend can be spent on social needs and infrastructure. Its not an academic exercise. You might think that the Federal government can only spend money on the military and postal roads. But, that issue has been settled in the courts, long ago.

Your argument that the US Military is large to defend Oil interests while in the anti-war circles would get you a resounding applause it is hardly factual. You want some example's I will cite you some, take the recent Hurricanes that hit the gulf coast, do you now how the data that is collected to tell wind speed, and track hurricane paths is aquired? It comes from the US Navy, by flying into those very same Hurricanes with 50 year old Lockheed P-3 Orion Aircraft. Do you think it just the coast guard that performs rescues at sea or close in shore? Think again, try the US Air Force and the US Navy. Who do you think monitors this country's borders and fly's Intercept missions for border incursions? Do think the US Navys fleet ballistic Missile submarines are at sea to protect oil interests? There are many missions the US Miltary performs that most Americans are not even aware of.

I don't think , I ever said in any post here that infrastructre , like highways, etc. should not be funded. You assume thats my position when I have clearly stated my postiion.

I agree that this nation must end it's dependance on foreign sources of energy, on that I agree 100%.

As to your invasion statement, now why do you suppose that the countries you listed would not possibly consider doing such a thing? Could it be the US Military poses too much a threat to them and the down side to such and invasion would be too costly? Do you know how many ICBMS that are currently in the Russian inventory? Are you aware of their stated intent to upgrade their ICBM's.

Russia's strategic missile forces will equip the Topol-M missile system with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV) in the next two or three years, the commander said Monday. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov said the new system will help penetrate missile defenses more effectively. His statement comes against the background of growing tensions between Moscow and the West regarding plans by the United States to deploy elements of its global antiballistic missile defense system in Central Europe.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=862097

It is very evident that both China and Russia are investing in the last two years heavily in upgrading their respective military infrastructure. In a time when we are not only indebited to China, and dependant on foreign oil, to now seek the drawback of the US Military is a complete falacy. However, these opinions for defending the US with half it's current strength and budget given the fact we are currently engaged in two wars, and Barack Obama's stated intent to increase the size of the US Military by 65,000 in each branch seems to counter act one another.

The only thing I will add is this, next time you get the constitution out you may want to take a look at Article 1 Section 8 and see if there is any metnion in there as to the size of land forces or naval forces.

 

[Red Dawn]

Your argument that the US Military is large to defend Oil interests while in the anti-war circles would get you a resounding applause it is hardly factual. You want some example's I will cite you some, take the recent Hurricanes that hit the gulf coast, do you now how the data that is collected to tell wind speed, and track hurricane paths is aquired? It comes from the US Navy, by flying into those very same Hurricanes with 50 year old Lockheed P-3 Orion Aircraft. Do you think it just the coast guard that performs rescues at sea or close in shore? Think again, try the US Air Force and the US Navy. Who do you think monitors this country's borders and fly's Intercept missions for border incursions? Do think the US Navys fleet ballistic Missile submarines are at sea to protect oil interests? There are many missions the US Miltary performs that most Americans are not even aware of.

I don't think , I ever said in any post here that infrastructre , like highways, etc. should not be funded. You assume thats my position when I have clearly stated my postiion.

I agree that this nation must end it's dependance on foreign sources of energy, on that I agree 100%.

As to your invasion statement, now why do you suppose that the countries you listed would not possibly consider doing such a thing? Could it be the US Military poses too much a threat to them and the down side to such and invasion would be too costly? Do you know how many ICBMS that are currently in the Russian inventory? Are you aware of their stated intent to upgrade their ICBM's.

Russia's strategic missile forces will equip the Topol-M missile system with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV) in the next two or three years, the commander said Monday. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov said the new system will help penetrate missile defenses more effectively. His statement comes against the background of growing tensions between Moscow and the West regarding plans by the United States to deploy elements of its global antiballistic missile defense system in Central Europe.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=862097

It is very evident that both China and Russia are investing in the last two years heavily in upgrading their respective military infrastructure. In a time when we are not only indebited to China, and dependant on foreign oil, to now seek the drawback of the US Military is a complete falacy. However, these opinions for defending the US with half it's current strength and budget given the fact we are currently engaged in two wars, and Barack Obama's stated intent to increase the size of the US Military by 65,000 in each branch seems to counter act one another.

The only thing I will add is this, next time you get the constitution out you may want to take a look at Article 1 Section 8 and see if there is any metnion in there as to the size of land forces or naval forces.

No one is arguing against hurricane hunter aircraft. No one is arguing that we need don't some form of nuclear detterent, as long as other countries have nukes. No on is arguing that we don't need a medium sized professional navy to protect our coasts and project power into shipping lanes.

Unless we willfully choose to be slaves to foreign oil, what we don't need however, is a network of global miltary bases in central asia, africa and the persian gulf which are intended to protect energy resources in despotic third world countries.