NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
I bet the ghost of Abraham Lincoln would be surprised to hear that the US might soon have a smaller Air Force than he did.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yep, god forbid we ever reduce this comparative expense by a few percentage points:
That chart ignores several points.
The first is that Japan, Germany, UK and France rely on a strong US military to allow them to keep their defense budgets low.
And why are we allowing those countries to do that? What is the material, tangible net gain that the US gets by being a free of charge defense force for those countries?
Yep, god forbid we ever reduce this comparative expense by a few percentage points:
That chart ignores several points.
The first is that Japan, Germany, UK and France rely on a strong US military to allow them to keep their defense budgets low.
As for China and Russia, they remove a signifcant poriton of the cost by government manufacture of weapons, as well as conscription.
The final thing is that the US has always preferred technology and firepower vs. manpower. Basically we pay extra to assure our troops outgun, outbomb, and outfly anyone they will face.
The last point is that defense spending on new equipment provides for very good jobs from manufacture, to design, to maintenance and testing. Weapons are one of the last good exports we have, along with planes, heavy construction equipment, and agricultural products.
That chart ignores several points.
The first is that Japan, Germany, UK and France rely on a strong US military to allow them to keep their defense budgets low.
And why are we allowing those countries to do that? What is the material, tangible net gain that the US gets by being a free of charge defense force for those countries?
For Japan and Germany, it prevents the surrounding countries from going apeshit over possible re-militarism of the losers in WWII. This gives stability, which improves OUR economic situation.
With France and Britian, the question is a bit tougher. There it is more a question of population and reach.
Also the US has taken over Britian's role as queen of the seas. Since there is no one else to do that, a reduced US naval presence would result in increased piracy, hurting OUR economic situation.
And why are we allowing those countries to do that? What is the material, tangible net gain that the US gets by being a free of charge defense force for those countries?
For Japan and Germany, it prevents the surrounding countries from going apeshit over possible re-militarism of the losers in WWII. This gives stability, which improves OUR economic situation.
With France and Britian, the question is a bit tougher. There it is more a question of population and reach.
Also the US has taken over Britian's role as queen of the seas. Since there is no one else to do that, a reduced US naval presence would result in increased piracy, hurting OUR economic situation.
That is too nonsensical to even respond to.
If the proposed cuts in defense are made, how long will it be before another 9/11 happens only this time they may take out a whole city like L.A. or New York. I saw the world on the brink in the Cuban Missile Crisis and don't ever want to be that close to total destruction again, so unless you've been there, don't comment on something you've never experienced.Panetta: "Oh noes, don't take away the military's mountain of money! How will we pay for our overpriced pet projects?"
If such drastic cutbacks were to be made, I would give Obama a standing ovation. We might still have the largest military budget in the world after that; that's how much money the DoD is wasting right now. Also, I've said it before and will say it again; what the U.S is doing with its military right now is doing the country more harm than good in more ways than one (creating more enemies for us, wasting American lives on futile nation-building missions, wasting valuable resources and money, etc). It's a win-win-win situation.
Scratch that last thought, there would be losers: Weapons/military equipment manufacturers, uber-hawks in the GOP that financially benefit from said manufacturers... and that's all I can think of.
The military is like a giant squid sucking the life out of America.
The chicken shits are libtards like clinton, obamaturd, reid, and pelosi. Chicken shit and socialists.If Tea-Tards weren't such chicken shits we wouldn't need a large military.
Who said that if the U.S were to remove its bases from Germany and Japan, then they would re-arm and give world conquest another go? And why would Poland, Austria, Korea, etc. still hold such illogical grudges afters so many decades? By your logic Marty, the U.S should keep bases in Turkey and South Korea so Russians don't magically reincarnate Joseph Stalin to lead their country again.
The military is like a giant squid sucking the life out of America.
Not the military so much as the military/industrial complex.
If Obama were to do this, our country would be in great peril for our national security would be at dire risks. Right now, Russia and China are having massive buildups to their military hardware. They are developing at a rapid pace new weapons platforms that would pose a threat to our vital interests around the globe. I am not for reducing our Air Force down to the smallest level ever as well as lower the number of Naval vessels to WW1 levels in 1915 of 147 ships when we now have 436 ships. I believe by doing this, Obama would send a signal to our adversaries that our nation is weak and they would probably perceive it that way. In reality, we would definitely be weaker. This is a foolish move if it happens. These cuts was determined when the Super Committee was giving the task of coming up with a solution to reduce our spending and our deficit. Democrats walked out the other day rejecting the Republicans fair proposal putting our national security at serious risk. In a statement, John McCain said the automatic cuts "would set off a swift decline of the United States as the world's leading military power. ... This is not an outcome that we can live with, and it is certainly not one that we should impose on ourselves. The sequester is a threat to the national security interests of the United States, and it should not be allowed to occur." I agree. We should never put our status as the worlds superpower in jeopardy and should instead be on a constant buildup of technological advance weapons systems that no country can rival.
Panetta Warns Of Smallest Air Force Ever If Deep Defense Cuts Made | Fox News
The number of U.S. ground forces would drop to levels not seen since 1940, the Navy would drop to the smallest number of ships since 1915 and the Air Force would be the smallest ever, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in warning Congress of the dire implications of deeper defense cuts.
» GOP Offers Deal for Higher Tax Revenue, Dems Reject, Walk Out of Super Commitee Talks - Big Government
And why are we allowing those countries to do that? What is the material, tangible net gain that the US gets by being a free of charge defense force for those countries?
For Japan and Germany, it prevents the surrounding countries from going apeshit over possible re-militarism of the losers in WWII. This gives stability, which improves OUR economic situation.
With France and Britian, the question is a bit tougher. There it is more a question of population and reach.
Also the US has taken over Britian's role as queen of the seas. Since there is no one else to do that, a reduced US naval presence would result in increased piracy, hurting OUR economic situation.
That is too nonsensical to even respond to.
For Japan and Germany, it prevents the surrounding countries from going apeshit over possible re-militarism of the losers in WWII. This gives stability, which improves OUR economic situation.
With France and Britian, the question is a bit tougher. There it is more a question of population and reach.
Also the US has taken over Britian's role as queen of the seas. Since there is no one else to do that, a reduced US naval presence would result in increased piracy, hurting OUR economic situation.
That is too nonsensical to even respond to.
Tell Eastern Europe that we are withdrawing our forces from Germany, and see how those countries will react, or russia will react for that matter.
Tell Korea and China we are removing our forces from Japan, and allowing them to fully rearm, and see how stable the Western Pacific stays.
Reduce our navy down to just enough to protect our coasts, and see how international maritime trade suffers.
Just because you don't understand history, does not mean my points are "nonsensical"
For Japan and Germany, it prevents the surrounding countries from going apeshit over possible re-militarism of the losers in WWII. This gives stability, which improves OUR economic situation.
With France and Britian, the question is a bit tougher. There it is more a question of population and reach.
Also the US has taken over Britian's role as queen of the seas. Since there is no one else to do that, a reduced US naval presence would result in increased piracy, hurting OUR economic situation.
That is too nonsensical to even respond to.
Why? They are about the only logical conservative rebuttal that I can see. And they do make sense.
That is too nonsensical to even respond to.
Tell Eastern Europe that we are withdrawing our forces from Germany, and see how those countries will react, or russia will react for that matter.
Tell Korea and China we are removing our forces from Japan, and allowing them to fully rearm, and see how stable the Western Pacific stays.
Reduce our navy down to just enough to protect our coasts, and see how international maritime trade suffers.
Just because you don't understand history, does not mean my points are "nonsensical"
The idea that we are in Germany defending that country's interests for free because there is a real threat of another Hitler emerging is as nonsensical as nonsensical can be.
That is too nonsensical to even respond to.
Why? They are about the only logical conservative rebuttal that I can see. And they do make sense.
We need to spend 7 times what the Chinese or Russians spend on defense for fear of pirates is not nonsensical?