In Order to Cut U.S. military spending dramatically would you be willing to......

[harmonica]

We can military spending easily by closing the vast majority of our military bases around the world, stop fighting other people's wars, and bring our solider back to our own borders.

you mean fight the next major war on American soil?

thats a terrible idea

.......they said the same thing if we had lost Vietnam----and then we lost Cambodia and Laos also, to communism --guess what?? the US is still here

 

[Bleipriester]

I don´t think so.

You dont think so what?

that south korea is not going out of its way to please the little rodent ruling north korea?

or that the US pulling out of south korea would drive them into the chinese orbit?

The latter. It is clear that China has its own claims and those not affected by these don´t have to fear anything.

 

[Mac-7]

they said the same thing if we had lost Vietnam----and then we lost Cambodia and Laos also, to communism --guess what?? the US is still here

uh, no.

no one claimed that vietnam was going to decide the outcome of the Cold War

ironically as china grows and expands outward vietnam is in US defense plans in a big way once again

 

[Mac-7]

The latter. It is clear that China has its own claims and those not affected by these don´t have to fear anything.

Thats gibberish

nothing you say becomes clear after you say it

It is clear that China has its own claims and those not affected by these don´t have to fear anything.

Claims to what? All of Asia?

yes, that much is clear

and they will stop at nothing to achieve that goal

 

[Bleipriester]

The latter. It is clear that China has its own claims and those not affected by these don´t have to fear anything.

Thats gibberish

nothing you say becomes clear after you say it

It is clear that China has its own claims and those not affected by these don´t have to fear anything.

Claims to what? All of Asia?

yes, that much is clear

and they will stop at nothing to achieve that goal

Taiwan, some sea and some border conflicts with India.

 

[Mac-7]

Taiwan, some sea and some border conflicts with India.

China is not entitled to Taiwan, parts of India or all the wealth in the South China Sea

 

[Bleipriester]

Taiwan, some sea and some border conflicts with India.

China is not entitled to Taiwan, parts of India or all the wealth in the South China Sea

Not up to you to decide.

 

[Mac-7]

Not up to you to decide.

I have as much right to decide as the communist dictators in beijing

and so I lend my voice alongside the Taiwanese people, India, and all the nations bordering the S China Sea who are being threatened by the so-called Middle Kingdom

 

[Dayton3]

Taiwan, some sea and some border conflicts with India.

China is not entitled to Taiwan, parts of India or all the wealth in the South China Sea

Not up to you to decide.

Not for the Chinese either.

 

[Bleipriester]

Not up to you to decide.

I have as much right to decide as the communist dictators in beijing

and so I lend my voice alongside the Taiwanese people, India, and all the nations bordering the S China Sea who are being threatened by the so-called Middle Kingdom

Taiwan, some sea and some border conflicts with India.

China is not entitled to Taiwan, parts of India or all the wealth in the South China Sea

Not up to you to decide.

Not for the Chinese either.

Actually, the UN should decide. It was made to solve conflicts like that.

 

[Mac-7]

Actually, the UN should decide. It was made to solve conflicts like that.

If china invades Taiwan or India it wont ask the UN for permisdion

 

[Bleipriester]

Actually, the UN should decide. It was made to solve conflicts like that.

If china invades Taiwan or India it wont ask the UN for permisdion

It would not be the only power doing that. But I guess that would backfire economically, so this won´t happen.

 

[Mac-7]

It would not be the only power doing that. But I guess that would backfire economically, so this won´t happen.

If china becomes the only world superpower as Xi and some libs in America want, then china has little to fear for its aggression toward Taiwan

 

[Bleipriester]

It would not be the only power doing that. But I guess that would backfire economically, so this won´t happen.

If china becomes the only world superpower as Xi and some libs in America want, then china has little to fear for its aggression toward Taiwan

It won´t. Projections for the USA and Russia are good, too.

 

[Mr Natural]

We missed our opportunity back in 2001 by not eliminating Mecca and the Saudi royal family and announcing to the world to never **** with us again.

 

[Dayton3]

We missed our opportunity back in 2001 by not eliminating Mecca and the Saudi royal family and announcing to the world to never **** with us again.

1) Eliminating Mecca would've set one billion Muslims on our case. From Indonesia to Indiana. If even 1% of them were willing to attack us it would've been a horrendous mess.

2) The U.S. has had an "arrangement" with Saudi Arabia since the aftermath of World War Two. Half a century. It often seems one sided and endlessly frustrating but it is still an arrangement. No American administration of either side was simply going to throw that away due to the actions of a dozen or so terrorists and one rogue branch of the Saudi royal family.

 

[Mac-7]

It won´t. Projections for the USA and Russia are good, too.

It wont what?

become the dominant world superpower?

china is well on its way

and IF biden wins the white house that timetable will accelerate

 

[Bleipriester]

It won´t. Projections for the USA and Russia are good, too.

It wont what?

become the dominant world superpower?

china is well on its way

and IF biden wins the white house that timetable will accelerate

Do you think, when you guess China will be the dominant superpower, it is a good idea to piss them off now? China, by the way, has published a so called whitebook, it includes China´s future foreign policy which includes no hegemonic desires.

 

[White 6]

ou were better with your first sentence,

Given a Democrat one-party state its not speculation about what will happen after libs gut the military

China will rule the world including the US

Gee, I been around a long time, including at least 6 to 9 democrat administrations (depending on how you count) and they have never gutted it before. Sounds like hysterical nonsense to me.

After inflation military spending during the Clinton Admin. declined by something on the order of 30-40% as did the size of the active duty military.

I was in the military at that time. We trained. We were equipped, we supported/ led the effort in Bosnia, and Kosovo. Heck, I was at V Corp, G3 shop part of the time when that was going on. We did the missions that needed done during all the Clinton years and under the budget forced by New Gingrich. So was the US not ready to kick ass after 9/11?

No it wasn't. I followed this issue closely during that time period. After 9/11 and prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq the U.S. defense industries went into overdrive purchasing new munitions and supplies. Everything from small arms ammunition to the specialize guidance kits that turned regular bombs into guided weapons and to the basic bombs themselves.

Several of those munitions plants I studied were working around the clock, three shifts a day, seven days a week in order to replenish U.S. weapons stocks.

Oh, and you falsely thought that was unusual for getting ready to go to war. Nah. Not so much. Always happens in times of mobilization. No getting around the fact we handled everything that came up. Manpower was at level necessary for the missions that were necessary for what was going on. I was in contact with RCPAC in St Louise within 36 hours of 9/11, they hadn't even started any mobilization and almost seemed surprised I told them they better be dusting off the MOBE books in prep for an Afghanistan mission, they didn't even have, reconfirmed contact info and told them to call me if they needed, as I was already officially retired but not reached 60 yet.
You may have heard of the phrase "peace dividend" as was expected after the supposed end of the cold war and Gulf War One. You don't get a peace dividend if you keep right on spending at higher levels that were not supposed to be needed. You don't think Newt spent enough on the military when he forced the balance budget thing on Bill Clinton, back in the days where we consistently passed budgets? Well it didn't take much forcing and worked out well for the country until, Bush Cheney had it killed and ran simultaneous wars off budget.
I am as pro-military as is sensible, but the spending level made sense, and especially in retrospect. You looked at it from the outside. I looked at it from the inside and had all the resources, equipment updates, ammunition, training areas and manpower to use and staff units at 100 to 110 percent manning levels and to adequately train my troops. If your company or state did not get a juicy military contract during the Clinton administration, tough $hit. The purpose of our military is not to guarantee a full employment civilian workforce in the defense industry and troops strength levels on bases to support local economies. Sorry. It's just not what we do.

 

[verker]

U.S. Military Forces in FY 2020: Army.

• The Army has had difficulty in growing the force even modestly because of recruiting challenges. The regular force increases from 478,000 soldiers in FY 2019 to 480,000 in FY 2020 instead of reaching the planned 492,000. The reserve components essentially hold steady in FY 2020.