US military cutbacks

MarineTpartier said:

Dude, that wasn't even the point to begin with. I used Iraq as an example because it is a familiar place we all know. Iraq was a threat to Kuwait because the violated their border. That was the point. Not that they were a threat to us. It was a hypothetical that if we have a weak military we could be in the same predicament that Kuwait was. Was that drawn out enough for you? If not, I'm done trying to explain it.

Click to expand...

Who has Iran invaded???

MarineTpartier said:

Which goes back to the original point that it isn't a required program. Tell yourself what you need to so you an be right though.

Click to expand...

it isn't "required" but it requires that more people pay into it than use it in order to properly subsidize your education. If you were to be treated like everyone else, you'd be responsible for your own tuition like everyone else instead of pooling enough people's money together in order to give you the proper amount of money for you to go to college and invest in your own future.

MarineTpartier said:

No delusion my friend. No one threatens our sovereignty because people like me and others posting on herestand in there way. Brings me to the point of this thread. When you're the biggest kid on the block, sure people may try to challenge you, but no one is going to succeed. Thats the state we're in whether you want to believe it or not. There are many countries on this earth that would love to see our country burn to the ground. Unlike you, I appreciate that people before me, with me, and in the future defend us against that. You need a heavy dose of reality my friend. Not everything is as cushy as you would have us believe it is.

Click to expand...

to various degrees, a proper military does provide a certain amount of deterrent. Yet you yourself being there does nothing for my freedom; nor have you fought for that at all. We could have a much smaller military, more concise and properly used, and still reap the same aggregate benefit for determent.

Catawba said:

Who has Iran invaded???

Click to expand...

What does that have anything to do with what I said?

Ikari said:

it isn't "required" but it requires that more people pay into it than use it in order to properly subsidize your education. If you were to be treated like everyone else, you'd be responsible for your own tuition like everyone else instead of pooling enough people's money together in order to give you the proper amount of money for you to go to college and invest in your own future.

Click to expand...

As does Social Security, should we do away with that?

Ikari said:

to various degrees, a proper military does provide a certain amount of deterrent. Yet you yourself being there does nothing for my freedom; nor have you fought for that at all. We could have a much smaller military, more concise and properly used, and still reap the same aggregate benefit for determent.

Click to expand...

Explain how I, and in turn the rest of the military, does nothing for your freedom. Explain how I haven't fought for it. Give me your vision for a "smaller, more concise and properly used" military. I'd like to hear your reasoning behind all of these views.

MarineTpartier said:

As does Social Security, should we do away with that?

Click to expand...

In many regards yes. But you're talking about how you want to be treated like everyone else; yet seem more than willing to take other people's money to pay for your education because you feel entitled to it. It's not much different than other forms of government support. Same group.

MarineTpartier said:

Explain how I, and in turn the rest of the military, does nothing for your freedom. Explain how I haven't fought for it. Give me your vision for a "smaller, more concise and properly used" military. I'd like to hear your reasoning behind all of these views.

Click to expand...

When was the last time America was actually threatened? When was the last time my rights and liberties were on the line against a force other than the US government? My freedom was already secured by those whom came before you. Our aggressive, offensive, occupational wars do nothing positive for my freedoms; in fact it gives an excuse to government to act counter to it. A strong military which is used exclusively for defense instead of offense can provide the same aggregated effects that our overly used and aggressive military tactics secure for us now. In fact, it stands that it could possibly be even "safer" by not pissing off entire regions of the world and playing into their propaganda.

MarineTpartier said:

What does that have anything to do with what I said?

Click to expand...

I was responding to your statement:

It was a hypothetical that if we have a weak military we could be in the same predicament that Kuwait was.

Click to expand...

I was demonstrating to you that unlike Iran, who has not invaded anyone, we have invaded many. There is simply no need for us to spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined.

There will be no solving the nations debt problem until that realization is made.

Has anyone discussed the US's use of contractors to replace soldiers and units that have been removed from the US arsanal. These are usually maintenance and security jobs. Contractors are more expensive than soldiers.

Also, how many security agencies, public and private, do we have? 1800? Isn't that redundant?

When they talk about shrinking the military, I think these are the areas we need to look at. At the same time, we have to avoid the military we had in the late 70s.

Can we cut the TSA before we cut the Military?

Blue_State said:

Can we cut the TSA before we cut the Military?

Click to expand...

It’s mind boggling when you consider that the national debt has now surpassed our economy and the only thing the two parties can agree on is to cut a couple trillion in defense spending.

Blue_State said:

Has anyone discussed the US's use of contractors to replace soldiers and units that have been removed from the US arsanal. These are usually maintenance and security jobs. Contractors are more expensive than soldiers.

Also, how many security agencies, public and private, do we have? 1800? Isn't that redundant?

When they talk about shrinking the military, I think these are the areas we need to look at. At the same time, we have to avoid the military we had in the late 70s.

Click to expand...

Contractors are, initially, more expensive. However, the money the gov't saves long term on healthcare, etc evens it out I believe. I have no data to back that, its just what I've heard in the contractor circles as I have looked into that sort of work vs reenlisting before. I will look around for data to back it up.

MarineTpartier said:

Contractors are, initially, more expensive. However, the money the gov't saves long term on healthcare, etc evens it out I believe. I have no data to back that, its just what I've heard in the contractor circles as I have looked into that sort of work vs reenlisting before. I will look around for data to back it up.

Click to expand...

Yes, but what is a contractor if not a mercenary? Sorry, I'd rather have actual, oath bound, US soldiers doing my killing, thanks.

Catawba said:

I was responding to your statement:




I was demonstrating to you that unlike Iran, who has not invaded anyone, we have invaded many. There is simply no need for us to spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined.

There will be no solving the nations debt problem until that realization is made.

Click to expand...

Who has Iran invaded was your response when I explained my use of Iraq and Kuwait as my example. What does that have to do with anything? We haven't invaded Iran, we are not at war with them, we have not engaged in any direct combat with them.
Now, on to counter points vice nit picking posts. I have no issue with cutting military spending. I have already said this. I believe we, as gov't employees, can always be better stewards with taxpayer dollars. Cutting programs such as the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle are good moves that should be made. However, when the military only makes up 4.7% of the GDP, but that is the place we are double dipping, and (something no ones talking about) possibly triple dipping on in regards to the automatic cuts that go into place due to the super committee's failure, thats's bad policy. There are many places where cuts can be made other than the military. I actually like the fact that we are cutting some troops. It trims the fat and makes what we have left more elite, at least in the Marine Corps. I know the US Army has had a lot of problems with lower recruiting standards. The only issue I have is when we execute slash and burn style cuts that neuter us as a force. I used the example earlier of my unit not being able to afford gas to drive 10 miles nor the rounds to allow 90 Marines to shoot 35 rounds a piece. This could result in an international incident in the future due to lack of training.
I will ask you this. Do you think we should shut down some of our embassies overseas or leave them in place?

KevinKohler said:

Yes, but what is a contractor if not a mercenary? Sorry, I'd rather have actual, oath bound, US soldiers doing my killing, thanks.

Click to expand...

I know, I agree with you. Just pointing out the fiscal benefits. I would rather a Marine or soldier too.

I think the biggest issue with out military is that they need to work smarter, in a way, and not harder. I think they are moving towards that, and have been for years...but still have a ways to go. Again, I'll take good intel and a sniper over a regiment of troops with heavy guns, whirly birds, and so on and so forth, when it comes to what we might now call modern warfare. Which isn't really warfare. When most folks think of war, they think of large battle fields, with armies of people shooting at each other. Those days are over. Our wars are covert, or at least, they should be. Take how we got Osama. That's the new war. Intel, plan, and execute. Now, could we have acted as fast as we could on that intel without folks already stationed there? Probably not...but I think it's high time some of this burden gets passed on to the many other countries that have a seat at the UN. Let France do a little work. Let Britain. Let Germany. Who cares. I'm tired of it being us. It's not a point of pride, anymore. It's just work, that needs to be done, that people aren't sharing.

Oh, and to play devils advocate on the other argument about being the biggest, baddest mofo on the block, and not getting invaded, etc...


Germany, Britain, France, Italy, China, Russia, Sweden, and Spain ALL spend FAR less on their military budget (that we know of) than we do, and none of them have been invaded in quite some time.

Ikari said:

In many regards yes. But you're talking about how you want to be treated like everyone else; yet seem more than willing to take other people's money to pay for your education because you feel entitled to it. It's not much different than other forms of government support. Same group.

Click to expand...

Would you rather we have the massive amounts of vets in the unemployment line or on the street because they used their college years fighting, like after Vietnam? There's a big difference between a program that we pay into and that virtually pays for itself versus a program where I possibly take the job a civilian who has put in the work to earn his job simply because I offer the added benefit of a tax break. Huge difference. With the GI Bill, I still have to make the grades, still have to make myself competitive in the civilian sector, and still have to compete on an uneven playing field with people that have at least 4 years experience in their field while I have none. As far as trying to demonize us for a program that has people paying into it without reaping the benefits, that is ridiculous. Many, many programs have the same risk/reward program of you get this but you to do this. If you don't do this, we keep the money, you get nothing back. That's the risk you take when entering into a program with such a high return for your investment. It is also a voluntary program that is thoroughly explained to troops before they sign up.

Ikari said:

When was the last time America was actually threatened? When was the last time my rights and liberties were on the line against a force other than the US government? My freedom was already secured by those whom came before you. Our aggressive, offensive, occupational wars do nothing positive for my freedoms; in fact it gives an excuse to government to act counter to it. A strong military which is used exclusively for defense instead of offense can provide the same aggregated effects that our overly used and aggressive military tactics secure for us now. In fact, it stands that it could possibly be even "safer" by not pissing off entire regions of the world and playing into their propaganda.

Click to expand...

Define threatened. If you want to take into account all of the attempted terrorist attacks against us in the past few years, I'd say alot. There was that whole 9/11 thing too. Or was that just the muslim community lashing out at us? Or would you rather wait, Ron Paul style, until a "Red Dawn" style invasion happens before we do anything? Or how about a mushroom cloud outside your bedroom?
What defensive tactics do you speak of? Would you have us just line up on the Mexican and Canadian borders and take turns making sure no one comes across? I love you libertarians use of the "defense instead of offense" mantra but you never explain it. You can't put your head in the sand and hope no one comes over here. It doesn't work that way. One of the first things the founders did, upon declaring independence, is send John Adam and Ben Franklin to France. What would you have had the founders do if the Brits would have assassinated them? That's no threat to our soil is it? We just let those two great men be killed with no reprecussion?
As far as the US Government taking your freedoms, sorry bro, I don't speak for the legislators that take our freedoms. If you have a beef with them, I suggest you write your congressman instead of trying to find a way of making me responsible for it. There's also that whole moving to another country thing. I mean, if its that bad, just leave. Its hard to get into our country legally. Not out.

KevinKohler said:

Oh, and to play devils advocate on the other argument about being the biggest, baddest mofo on the block, and not getting invaded, etc...


Germany, Britain, France, Italy, China, Russia, Sweden, and Spain ALL spend FAR less on their military budget (that we know of) than we do, and none of them have been invaded in quite some time.

Click to expand...

So we are on par with those countries? Thats despicable to think. I cringe at the very thought. Our military is one of the biggest reasons we are better than them. Unlike the European countries you mention there, if we collapse economically, we can still repel anyone that thinks they would like to try and see how weak we are until we get our act together. Even China, with all its economic power, is still a notch below us in part due to our military. The military isn't the only reason we're better, but its in the top 3, on any list.

Catawba said:

I was responding to your statement:




I was demonstrating to you that unlike Iran, who has not invaded anyone, we have invaded many. There is simply no need for us to spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined.

There will be no solving the nations debt problem until that realization is made.

Click to expand...

Iran invaded American soil in 1979 and in violation of the Geneva Convention, took 53 Americans hostage and held them for 444 days.

In 1983, the Iranian funded proxy army, Hezbollah, bombed the Marine Barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans.

In 1996, the Iranian funded proxy army, Hezbollah, bombed the Khobar Towers, killing 19 Americans

If the Iranians--or anyone else--doesn't like the way they're being treated by the United States, then I say tough ****!

MarineTpartier said:

Contractors are, initially, more expensive. However, the money the gov't saves long term on healthcare, etc evens it out I believe. I have no data to back that, its just what I've heard in the contractor circles as I have looked into that sort of work vs reenlisting before. I will look around for data to back it up.

Click to expand...

I've been on both sides. I was in the military, and I hired/worked with contractors. I can assure you, the contractors made more (the ones I worked with at least, IT dudes). I wish I had a stat for how many were trained by the military to just have them get out, and then get paid 3 times what they were making in the army, for less hours.

Blue_State said:

I've been on both sides. I was in the military, and I hired/worked with contractors. I can assure you, the contractors made more (the ones I worked with at least, IT dudes). I wish I had a stat for how many were trained by the military to just have them get out, and then get paid 3 times what they were making in the army, for less hours.

Click to expand...

Like I said, I agree the upfront costs are more. Its the benefits the gov't doesn't have to pay that levels it out. Let me look into it and see if I can find data to back that up.

MarineTpartier said:

Like I said, I agree the upfront costs are more. Its the benefits the gov't doesn't have to pay that levels it out. Let me look into it and see if I can find data to back that up.

Click to expand...

It really wasn't the point I was going for.

We can cut other things than the military. Not that I am a supporter of 700 worldwide bases or 350 vessels, but I am not sure the time when North Korea, Iran, Africa, and Afghanistan are going on that we need to cut our military. Retooling it, yes. Cutting it...eh...

MarineTpartier said:

Would you rather we have the massive amounts of vets in the unemployment line or on the street because they used their college years fighting, like after Vietnam? There's a big difference between a program that we pay into and that virtually pays for itself versus a program where I possibly take the job a civilian who has put in the work to earn his job simply because I offer the added benefit of a tax break. Huge difference. With the GI Bill, I still have to make the grades, still have to make myself competitive in the civilian sector, and still have to compete on an uneven playing field with people that have at least 4 years experience in their field while I have none. As far as trying to demonize us for a program that has people paying into it without reaping the benefits, that is ridiculous. Many, many programs have the same risk/reward program of you get this but you to do this. If you don't do this, we keep the money, you get nothing back. That's the risk you take when entering into a program with such a high return for your investment. It is also a voluntary program that is thoroughly explained to troops before they sign up.

Click to expand...

All I'm saying is a lot of you rally against other government support programs, yet are more than willing to engage in the ones you can take. "virtually pays for itself"? Only because you can take money from people who will never use the service. If you pay into the GI Bill and don't go to college, shouldn't you get the money you put into it back? It's your money? But no, instead of being "treated like everyone else", you have a sense of entitlement due to what you have done and feel that it is owed to you. You want to be treated like everyone else, yes? That's what you said. Pay for your own college instead of taking the money of your fellow servicemen in order to fund your personal education.

MarineTpartier said:

Define threatened. If you want to take into account all of the attempted terrorist attacks against us in the past few years, I'd say alot. There was that whole 9/11 thing too. Or was that just the muslim community lashing out at us? Or would you rather wait, Ron Paul style, until a "Red Dawn" style invasion happens before we do anything? Or how about a mushroom cloud outside your bedroom?
What defensive tactics do you speak of? Would you have us just line up on the Mexican and Canadian borders and take turns making sure no one comes across? I love you libertarians use of the "defense instead of offense" mantra but you never explain it. You can't put your head in the sand and hope no one comes over here. It doesn't work that way. One of the first things the founders did, upon declaring independence, is send John Adam and Ben Franklin to France. What would you have had the founders do if the Brits would have assassinated them? That's no threat to our soil is it? We just let those two great men be killed with no reprecussion?
As far as the US Government taking your freedoms, sorry bro, I don't speak for the legislators that take our freedoms. If you have a beef with them, I suggest you write your congressman instead of trying to find a way of making me responsible for it. There's also that whole moving to another country thing. I mean, if its that bad, just leave. Its hard to get into our country legally. Not out.

Click to expand...

Terrorist attacks can never bring down America in and of themselves. They are a probability that given enough time will work themselves out. Even 9/11 which is arguably one of the most successful terrorist attacks on the 50 State's soil proper didn't claim as many as cars do in a year. A true threat is another State engaging in war against us. And that we have not seen since WW II. I'm not trying to "make you responsible" for the legislation either; merely showing that the overall aggressive actions and misuse of the military by the government has not made me any free-er. If anything, it's consumed liberty. But keep pretending that you're doing something real for American sovereignty and freedom while robbing others of their money to go to school and then condemning others on the government dime.

Want to be treated like everyone else....my ass.

MarineTpartier said:

So we are on par with those countries? Thats despicable to think. I cringe at the very thought. Our military is one of the biggest reasons we are better than them. Unlike the European countries you mention there, if we collapse economically, we can still repel anyone that thinks they would like to try and see how weak we are until we get our act together. Even China, with all its economic power, is still a notch below us in part due to our military. The military isn't the only reason we're better, but its in the top 3, on any list.

Click to expand...

Define better. Also, no one is going to invade any of those european countries on account of economic collapse. Observe Ireland, or Greece. Economic collapse, no invasion forces, no war, no looting, pillaging, raping, burning, etc.

Not trying to compare is to them, just saying that, while being the biggest and baddest, and having all the best new weapons, and the most of them, ONCE served a purpose, the world is a different place than it once was. I view these things as being largely obsolete, from the defensive standpoint. We now have what it commonly referred to as an international community. Think of all these countries as you would a neighborhood. If one neighbor tosses a lit bottle of 151 on the side of someone else's house, and burns it, what are all the other neighbors likely to do?

And don't say that lit bottle would never have happened had the neighbor had the biggest bullies to guard the house; 9/11 still happened. Another still COULD happen. Military has NOTHING to do with those sorts of securities.

MarineTpartier said:

Who has Iran invaded was your response when I explained my use of Iraq and Kuwait as my example. What does that have to do with anything? We haven't invaded Iran, we are not at war with them, we have not engaged in any direct combat with them.
Now, on to counter points vice nit picking posts. I have no issue with cutting military spending. I have already said this. I believe we, as gov't employees, can always be better stewards with taxpayer dollars. Cutting programs such as the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle are good moves that should be made. However, when the military only makes up 4.7% of the GDP, but that is the place we are double dipping, and (something no ones talking about) possibly triple dipping on in regards to the automatic cuts that go into place due to the super committee's failure, thats's bad policy. There are many places where cuts can be made other than the military. I actually like the fact that we are cutting some troops. It trims the fat and makes what we have left more elite, at least in the Marine Corps. I know the US Army has had a lot of problems with lower recruiting standards. The only issue I have is when we execute slash and burn style cuts that neuter us as a force. I used the example earlier of my unit not being able to afford gas to drive 10 miles nor the rounds to allow 90 Marines to shoot 35 rounds a piece. This could result in an international incident in the future due to lack of training.
I will ask you this. Do you think we should shut down some of our embassies overseas or leave them in place?

Click to expand...

Military threats to the US are not proportional to our GDP. What is important is the amount we spend on the military relative to other countries. And we spend almost as much as the rest of the world COMBINED. We have lots of room for cuts in military spending and still spend twice as much as the next biggest spender, China. I'm glad you agree we need to cut military spending. Diplomatic embassies make more sense to me than having so many unnecessary military bases around the planet. The US can no longer afford to be the world's police.

apdst said:

Iran invaded American soil in 1979 and in violation of the Geneva Convention, took 53 Americans hostage and held them for 444 days.

In 1983, the Iranian funded proxy army, Hezbollah, bombed the Marine Barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans.

In 1996, the Iranian funded proxy army, Hezbollah, bombed the Khobar Towers, killing 19 Americans

If the Iranians--or anyone else--doesn't like the way they're being treated by the United States, then I say tough ****!

Click to expand...

That's not even a fraction of people killed by the US, or even by Israel, the proxy army for the US.