Is the sequester a threat to national security?

[emptystep]

I think the answer is a pretty straight forward yes. If the sequester cuts kick in about the only activity the U.S. military will be able to perform is the current war we are in now. Everything else will either get shut down or put on hold.

Before you get all comfy at night knowing that Republicans held their ground you should be a little more aware of what goes on in this world. Why look here, looks like our neighbor to the south is having some 'difficulties'.

Drug Cartels

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You think a $65 billion cut in defense spending is a threat to national security?

 

[OKTexas]

Maybe the military folks will get a chance to do things they should have been doing all along. Like allowing engineers to maintain installation facilities instead of requiring them to hire civilian union contractors. We spend hundreds of millions sending engineers overseas to do projects they could be doing here in the US.

 

[Lakhota]

Defense spending is already a threat to our national security. I say cut it in HALF over a 10-year period.

 

[emptystep]

I find this really odd. I would have thought this thread would be five pages by now. Where are all those people screaming, "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!" I mean, those four Americans who died in the line of duty were a wakeup call for us to protect our people right? Strange I don't hear the Republican Senators and especially the House Republicans screaming about cutting defense. They were all about holding hours and hours of Benghazi hearings. Now they don't have a minute to revisit the Ryan budget so the defense budget does not get slashed and leave American more at risk than even Benghazi was.

There is a word I am looking for here. Ironic might be the word but I think there is a better one. (starts with an 'h')

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think a 12% cut in defense spending will be good for national security.

We will force DoD to focus the attention on true defense. I'd rather have a military that is lean and mean rather than bloated and over-fed.

Sequester will be the best thing that could happen for DoD.

 

[emptystep]

I think a 12% cut in defense spending will be good for national security.

We will force DoD to focus the attention on true defense. I'd rather have a military that is lean and mean rather than bloated and over-fed.

Sequester will be the best thing that could happen for DoD.

Perhaps every one of our top military, and several top civilian, people may be against it but there sure are a whole lot of other counties who believe that this is the best thing that could have ever happen for them, er, I mean, for us.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think a 12% cut in defense spending will be good for national security.

We will force DoD to focus the attention on true defense. I'd rather have a military that is lean and mean rather than bloated and over-fed.

Sequester will be the best thing that could happen for DoD.

Perhaps every one of our top military, and several top civilian, people may be against it but there sure are a whole lot of other counties who believe that this is the best thing that could have ever happen for them, er, I mean, for us.

Fear monger much?

What percentage of our military budget goes to intervening in places where we should be keeping our nose out?

Hint: More than 12%

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I find this really odd. I would have thought this thread would be five pages by now. Where are all those people screaming, "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!" I mean, those four Americans who died in the line of duty were a wakeup call for us to protect our people right?

Yeah.....we need more aircraft-carriers!!!!!!!
​

February 19, 2013

Stuck in Past​

"The Obama administration foresees 21st century wars fought with fewer boots on the ground and more drones in the air, while the Pentagon continues buying weapons from the last century.

In his Feb. 12 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said America no longer needs to deploy tens of thousands of troops to occupy nations or meet the evolving threat from new extremist groups. Cyber-attacks are the “rapidly growing threat,” he said.

Nevertheless, the defense budget contains hundreds of billions of dollars for new generations of aircraft carriers and stealth fighters, tanks that even the Army says it doesn’t need and combat vehicles too heavy to maneuver in desert sands or cross most bridges in Asia, Africa or the Middle East.

....the military’s effort to prepare for every possibility has encouraged the Pentagon and defense contractors such as the three largest -- Lockheed Martin Corp., Chicago- based Boeing Co. (BA), and Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) based in Falls Church, Virginia -- to keep developing ever more complex and costly weapons.

While they warn that further budget cuts would cripple the military, Panetta and Dempsey, as well as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have said the Pentagon can cut costs by eliminating jobs and waste.

“Not every defense dollar is sacrosanct,” Gates said in September at an event organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “One need only spend 10 minutes walking around the Pentagon or any major military headquarters to see excess and redundancy."

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No, but our govt is.

 

[Desperado]

With any luck, this will force the military to let Europe, Japan and Korea pay for their own defense.
Hopefully, it will force our military to close these bases overseas and bring our troops home.

 

[emptystep]

I think a 12% cut in defense spending will be good for national security.

We will force DoD to focus the attention on true defense. I'd rather have a military that is lean and mean rather than bloated and over-fed.

Sequester will be the best thing that could happen for DoD.

Perhaps every one of our top military, and several top civilian, people may be against it but there sure are a whole lot of other counties who believe that this is the best thing that could have ever happen for them, er, I mean, for us.

Fear monger much?

What percentage of our military budget goes to intervening in places where we should be keeping our nose out?

Hint: More than 12%

So you acknowledge the fact that the sequester will reduce our presence around the world. And the sequester will not give us much transition time. So we are just going to pack up and leave. You know what that creates? Instability. Whether or not we should be there in the first place is debatable but creating instability is not in our best interest.

As long as you have me going overboard with fear mongering let's just max out. Anytime any great empire falls the near term result is fighting amongst the regions that were once being held together by the overall presence of the larger power. The fall of the Soviet Union being the most resent, large scale, example. May seem a stretch too far but you acknowledge yourself we will be pulling out of regions around the world.

You're only looking at it from your point of view. Imagine some country that has always wanted to invade its neighbor. Before they might have thought, "Better not, even if the U.S. doesn't send troops they will at least help defend the other country." Now it will be, "If I invade my neighbor I get all their natural resources and worst case scenario my people will suffer under sanction while I load up my Swiss (no offense Swiss) bank account. U.S. still has it's bark but she lost her bite. The cat has left the building."

 

[Truthmatters]

Cut the military and use the savings as stimulus to build infrastructure.

that will offset the job losses it would cause and give us infrastructure we badly need

 

[NYcarbineer]

If we can't be safe with as much military spending as we do,

what about the rest of the world's industrialized nations that spend mere fractions of what we do on defense?

They must be on the brink of total annihiliation!!!!!!!!!

 

[nodoginnafight]

Perhaps every one of our top military, and several top civilian, people may be against it but there sure are a whole lot of other counties who believe that this is the best thing that could have ever happen for them, er, I mean, for us.

Fear monger much?

What percentage of our military budget goes to intervening in places where we should be keeping our nose out?

Hint: More than 12%

So you acknowledge the fact that the sequester will reduce our presence around the world. And the sequester will not give us much transition time. So we are just going to pack up and leave. You know what that creates? Instability. Whether or not we should be there in the first place is debatable but creating instability is not in our best interest.

As long as you have me going overboard with fear mongering let's just max out. Anytime any great empire falls the near term result is fighting amongst the regions that were once being held together by the overall presence of the larger power. The fall of the Soviet Union being the most resent, large scale, example. May seem a stretch too far but you acknowledge yourself we will be pulling out of regions around the world.

You're only looking at it from your point of view. Imagine some country that has always wanted to invade its neighbor. Before they might have thought, "Better not, even if the U.S. doesn't send troops they will at least help defend the other country." Now it will be, "If I invade my neighbor I get all their natural resources and worst case scenario my people will suffer under sanction while I load up my Swiss (no offense Swiss) bank account. U.S. still has it's bark but she lost her bite. The cat has left the building."

We don't have the resources to "hold the world together."

Bankrupting ourselves while trying is just foolish. After we bankrupt ourselves, we won't be able to help anyone.

BESIDES:


DoD is every bit as bloated (if not more) than every other arm of government. Maybe moreso because fear mongers threaten world collapse if we can't spend $35,000 on a toilet seat. And dupes buy in. That keeps the defense contractors in G-5s and the campaign contributions rolling in. But it really doesn't make us or any other place in the world safer.

It's pure fear-mongering crap designed to seperate the saps from even more of their money.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If we can't be safe with as much military spending as we do,

what about the rest of the world's industrialized nations that spend mere fractions of what we do on defense?

They must be on the brink of total annihiliation!!!!!!!!!

What they need are some CONTRACTORS!!!!!!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXjCtkymRQ]US Troops in Iraq talk about Halliburton & KBR - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Cut the military and use the savings as stimulus to build infrastructure.

that will offset the job losses it would cause and give us infrastructure we badly need

No it won't. You're lying the same as O lied when he promised infrastructure with the stimulus bill.

 

[emptystep]

If we can't be safe with as much military spending as we do,

what about the rest of the world's industrialized nations that spend mere fractions of what we do on defense?

They must be on the brink of total annihiliation!!!!!!!!!

I am not saying the entire system is not screwed up, I'm not saying it is. What I am saying is if you have been stirring you coffee clockwise for a while and then you start stirring your coffee counterclockwise there is that time in the middle there when the coffee is all in chaos. I don't like chaos coffee. I like a nice smooth breakfast blend.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If we can't be safe with as much military spending as we do,

what about the rest of the world's industrialized nations that spend mere fractions of what we do on defense?

They must be on the brink of total annihiliation!!!!!!!!!

I am not saying the entire system is not screwed up, I'm not saying it is. What I am saying is if you have been stirring you coffee clockwise for a while and then you start stirring your coffee counterclockwise there is that time in the middle there when the coffee is all in chaos. I don't like chaos coffee. I like a nice smooth breakfast blend.

So let's just keep making the same mistakes over and over again because we are too afraid of changing?

Sorry, count me out.

 

[emptystep]

If we can't be safe with as much military spending as we do,

what about the rest of the world's industrialized nations that spend mere fractions of what we do on defense?

They must be on the brink of total annihiliation!!!!!!!!!

What they need are some CONTRACTORS!!!!!!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXjCtkymRQ]US Troops in Iraq talk about Halliburton & KBR - YouTube[/ame]​

You cut nuts and bolts DoD and this is exactly what you are going to get. Haliburton was not the military's brain child it was the NeoCons. Haliburton is the reason we have trillions of dollars and debt. They probably did more harm than good in Iraq. Haliburton is probably all for the sequester. Who is going to get called up to cover the gaps when something happens that we need to take care of but we don't have the military resources to do so.

The NeoCons hired Haliburton on our credit card, now we have to pay the debt, and as a bonus they will make sure we have to do it again. Wait. Were Haliburton and Romney Capital classmates in the "**** America" school?