• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pentegon set to release new cuts to Active Duty

j-mac said:
I read before that even with the wars, America's largest military role was aid around the world....Are you advocating doing away with that as well?
Click to expand...

Don't know about him...but for me....Yes. In fact until we get our own country in order that would be a HELL YES. There's an old saying. You cannot help others out of the gutter unless you can help yourself first. If you can't then you will just get dragged into the gutter also.
 
So long as we stop rendering unpaid-for aid around the world, this is a good move. We can defend ourselves for less money and with less troops. However, we can't deliver food to starving countries, or render aid for catastrophic events like earthquakes and tsunamis.

The world is on its own. Fine.
 
j-mac said:
I read before that even with the wars, America's largest military role was aid around the world....Are you advocating doing away with that as well?
Click to expand...

Aid is just another word for control, so yes, most of it. Besides, we're 17 trillion dollars in debt and borrowing money to give to foreigners and charging our grandchildren to pay for it.
 
Erod said:
So long as we stop rendering unpaid-for aid around the world, this is a good move. We can defend ourselves for less money and with less troops. However, we can't deliver food to starving countries, or render aid for catastrophic events like earthquakes and tsunamis.

The world is on its own. Fine.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody would be against disaster relief, but that's a minimal amount of the "aid" (read, bribe money) that the US provides.
 
We should re-prioritize, so that less of that funding goes to massive defense contractors, and more goes to existing troops. I support expanding the military at the "grunt" level, if only as a form of jobs program.

Presently, we're dumping money into advance carrier, submarine, and jet fighter designs, when the last generation or two of high-tech weaponry has barely been used. We could update\replace them for a fraction of the cost, and still be dominant, but there's less money to be made this way.

Keeping an edge is important, but we've taken it way too far.
 
Montecresto said:
Aid is just another word for control, so yes, most of it. Besides, we're 17 trillion dollars in debt and borrowing money to give to foreigners and charging our grandchildren to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's just take your view on it....knowing that nature abhors a vacuum, whom do you suppose would fill that void, and what influence do you suppose would exerted? Good, or bad?

I don't think anybody would be against disaster relief, but that's a minimal amount of the "aid" (read, bribe money) that the US provides.
Click to expand...

No, no...you can't have it both ways....If you want the checkbook closed, then it is closed period....**** everyone else right? Your anti American views aside.
 
Dittohead not! said:
But, you see, the manufacturers of those military machines that we don't really need contribute to campaigns and fund lobbyists. The soldiers fighting our wars don't.
Click to expand...


It seems to be a common and deadly weakness in the human mind to always undervalue deterrence during periods of relative peace.
 
ecofarm said:
I support cuts across the board. If I am to believe that more can be done with less in regard to welfare, how am I to feel otherwise in regard to the military?
Click to expand...
Agreed.

j-mac said:
It is shameful that our military, especially enlisted ranks are paid what they are paid today...
Click to expand...
Agreed

Montecresto said:
Cut the military to a defensive force, not a menacing force, and the personnel can be paid well.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

jmotivator said:
It seems to be a common and deadly weakness in the human mind to always undervalue deterrence during periods of relative peace.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Even without a few newer fancier aircraft, we are still by far the most heavily armed and deadly force in the world. Until WWII we barely had a standing military and after that we had the most overblown one.

Cutting the toys out should easily provide for better pay for our troops. And finally make some progress to further cut our debts.

This is a good day for America. And we are just as safe from attack as we were before.
 
specklebang said:
Even without a few newer fancier aircraft, we are still by far the most heavily armed and deadly force in the world. Until WWII we barely had a standing military and after that we had the most overblown one.

Cutting the toys out should easily provide for better pay for our troops. And finally make some progress to further cut our debts.

This is a good day for America. And we are just as safe from attack as we were before.
Click to expand...


To keep referring to the next generation military equipment as "toys" makes me wonder whether you really do agree with me. Vast technological superiority IS the deterrence I was speaking about. It's not total troops (China and North Korea trounce us), it is the huge gap between US military technology and everyone else.

As for the soldiers pay, it is really a separate issue. Ask the soldier on the front line if he would give up hellfire missile support for an extra $50 in his paycheck.

Yes, paying soldiers more is a noble goal that I support, but not at the cost of technological superiority that helps the US keep those soldiers alive both on the battlefield and by keeping them off the battlefield all together through deterrence.

These aren't "toys".
 
You have to consider that your pay grade is based on merit. And what happens when you get top heavy?
 
Beatrice said:
You have to consider that your pay grade is based on merit. And what happens when you get top heavy?
Click to expand...

No always. Junior enlisted is very much reliant on time served, at least in the Air Force.

For enlisted, that won't happen. Promotions are based upon the number of openings at the higher grades. We do however have an officer to enlisted ratio at present that is way higher than it needs to be.

Also, the article doesn't talk about cutting troops, it talks about cutting their pay by limiting pay raises when inflation causes their pay to be less valuable.
 
Old saying in the Marine Corps "I never promised you a rose garden." If you are in the military to get rich your in the wrong occupation.
 
jmotivator said:
To keep referring to the next generation military equipment as "toys" makes me wonder whether you really do agree with me. Vast technological superiority IS the deterrence I was speaking about. It's not total troops (China and North Korea trounce us), it is the huge gap between US military technology and everyone else.

As for the soldiers pay, it is really a separate issue. Ask the soldier on the front line if he would give up hellfire missile support for an extra $50 in his paycheck.

Yes, paying soldiers more is a noble goal that I support, but not at the cost of technological superiority that helps the US keep those soldiers alive both on the battlefield and by keeping them off the battlefield all together through deterrence.

These aren't "toys".
Click to expand...

Fair enough. We already have superior war weapons. Presumably we keep an adequate inventory. Presumably we continue research on improved versions but stop funding huge purchases, particularly those that the military really don't want and are developed to pork an area and re-elect a Congressperson and invest in the upgrades to current equipment that improves the safety of our current military.

So, I retract the term "toys".
 
specklebang said:
Fair enough. We already have superior war weapons. Presumably we keep an adequate inventory. Presumably we continue research on improved versions but stop funding huge purchases, particularly those that the military really don't want and are developed to pork an area and re-elect a Congressperson and invest in the upgrades to current equipment that improves the safety of our current military.

So, I retract the term "toys".
Click to expand...

The Airforce has a habit of updating their airframes every few decades and the F-16 and F-18 are both showing their age. Improvements only go so far until you find the airframe needs replacement. VTOL aircraft like the F-35 are the natural replacement to the old style airframes, increasing the flexibility of the military tremendously.

I mean, you can argue that the "military" really doesn't want these new airframes and vehicles... but then they also didn't want airplanes, aircraft carriers, tanks, rifled muskets, etc.
 
Perotista said:
You my friend have hit the nail on the head. The campaign cash from lobbyist and those corporations of the military industrial complex are heard loud and clear. the soldier in the field, not at all.
Click to expand...

So, let me ask you. Was Eisenhower a prophet?
 
j-mac said:
I read before that even with the wars, America's largest military role was aid around the world....Are you advocating doing away with that as well?
Click to expand...

This topic is specifically about the Army, where these cuts would not have much of an impact on our ability to provide aid which is mostly done by the Navy and Marine Corps in terms of total volume.
 
danarhea said:
So, let me ask you. Was Eisenhower a prophet?
Click to expand...

He was a very wise man, but I find it highly entertaining that most of the people who like to quote Eisenhower's "military industrial complex" statement are the least likely to agree with most of the other stuff he said in that speech. Half would bemoan the growing theocracy due to the spirituality of the speech, others would disagree with him on the future of scientific endeavor, which he put on par with the military industrial complex.

All in all I think he was more spot on about the compromising of science for the easy money of government funding.
 
Interesting the cuts will bring us down to levels we had 'before' WWII. With a poontang like Obama in charge with his track record, the rest of the world will likely start displaying their aggressiveness.
 
danarhea said:
So, let me ask you. Was Eisenhower a prophet?
Click to expand...

I think so. Eisenhower had been there and had done that. He learned from personal experience. Then as a president he had to fight the military industrial complex. IKE had the stature to do so. The people trusted him.
 
WCH said:
Interesting the cuts will bring us down to levels we had 'before' WWII. With a poontang like Obama in charge with his track record, the rest of the world will likely start displaying their aggressiveness.
Click to expand...

So some bodies got to be aggressive so it might as well be us, I suppose. Have a defensive army that no fool on earth would ever want to **** with and you'll be safe.
 
Perotista said:
I think so. Eisenhower had been there and had done that. He learned from personal experience. Then as a president he had to fight the military industrial complex. IKE had the stature to do so. The people trusted him.
Click to expand...

Yep, but subsequent presidents failed to and we're where we are today because of it. Of course Eisenhower would tell us today, "I warned you of this".
 
jmotivator said:
He was a very wise man, but I find it highly entertaining that most of the people who like to quote Eisenhower's "military industrial complex" statement are the least likely to agree with most of the other stuff he said in that speech. Half would bemoan the growing theocracy due to the spirituality of the speech, others would disagree with him on the future of scientific endeavor, which he put on par with the military industrial complex.

All in all I think he was more spot on about the compromising of science for the easy money of government funding.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous, must you agree with everything a person says to agree with anything a person says. We wouldn't like the religious ****!
 
Montecresto said:
So some bodies got to be aggressive so it might as well be us, I suppose. Have a defensive army that no fool on earth would ever want to **** with and you'll be safe.
Click to expand...

Obama not only let Putin invade Georgia, he praised him for it.

I wouldn't feel to 'safe' if I were you.
 
Montecresto said:
Yep, but subsequent presidents failed to and we're where we are today because of it. Of course Eisenhower would tell us today, "I warned you of this".
Click to expand...

Exactly, at least for us old farts who remember him as president. All these nice toys, equipment if you will and civilian contractors hired to support the troops, these need to be cut. You need troops to operate and use all these nice toys and equipment. We really have warehouses full of stuff bought by the military because congress put it in their budget that will never be used and wasn't asked for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom