• 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!

Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

So let me see if I have this straight....Billions in bail out funds for those who demo's are now painting as 'greedy', and unworthy.
We would have been fools not to have done those bailouts, bro.

More than a Trillion for a stimulus package that was really little more than a boon of pork, and a thousand pages.
It wasn't a trillion and half of it was tax cuts.
 
Why in the hell do we need eleven aircraftcarriers, when no other nation has more than three?

I don't want a military big enough for evil men like George Bush to abuse.

Aircraft carriers are excellent tools for power projection.Mobile airfields that have 100 aircraft each....Not a weapon you would want to do without.
 
We would have been fools not to have done those bailouts, bro.

It wasn't a trillion and half of it was tax cuts.

I bet you cash money that it wasnt half.
 
There would be a sizable anti-government movement even if the Afghan Government was a well oiled machine....That has always been the case in Afghanistan.

So not even trying is your answer? Did you learn anything from Vietnam?
Good government likely would have won Vietnam.

Most of your links discuss relatively low level civil servant and soldiers in corruption. Karzai's government is corrupt from the top down. When the President is seen as corrupt, ineffective and incompetent that is nowhere near the same as the front line and middle servants of the government being corrupt, but the top of the government relatively clean.

Those tactics required a large amount of troops to implement.

Not really. Much of the change in strategy went through before soldiers got there. Furthermore, we didn't need more troops when we turned the Sunnis to our side.

If more troops equated to winning, Indochina would still be under French rule.
 
So not even trying is your answer?

Not trying what?


Did you learn anything from Vietnam?
Good government likely would have won Vietnam.

:rofl We had the Vietcong defeated....We won every battle and ravaged their army,it was American public opinion and weak politicians that lost the war.



Most of your links discuss relatively low level civil servant and soldiers in corruption. Karzai's government is corrupt from the top down. When the President is seen as corrupt, ineffective and incompetent that is nowhere near the same as the front line and middle servants of the government being corrupt, but the top of the government relatively clean.

I call bs.....If you look through the links you would see that it is from top to bottom.


Much of the change in strategy went through before soldiers got there.

And the best results did'nt happen until AFTER reinforcements arrived.


Furthermore, we didn't need more troops when we turned the Sunnis to our side.

The hell we did'nt.


If more troops equated to winning, Indochina would still be under French rule.

No,Indochina would still be under French rule had they not had such poor leadership.
 
Not trying what?

Address the political issue?

:rofl We had the Vietcong defeated.

O'rly? Care to support this argument?

We won every battle and ravaged their army,it was American public opinion and weak politicians that lost the war.

You do realize that the Vietcong learned their lesson in avoiding conventional battles no?

Counting won battles and ignoring everything else they did doesn't mean we were winning.

I call bs.....If you look through the links you would see that it is from top to bottom.

One wonders if you even read your articles. Illiteracy seems to be spreading here like wildfire. Perhaps you should review your articles. I saw a great many complaints about those who actually interacted with the people and check points. Not exactly the President. Compare that with Karzai. Who's VPs are corrupt warlords.

And the best results did'nt happen until AFTER reinforcements arrived.

Confusing correlation with causation eh? Every single COIN expert has stated that COIN operations take time to work.

The hell we did'nt.

Perhaps you should review awakening councils who put down many of the insurgents. By the way, it's didn't not did'nt. Normally I don't mention spelling errors, but you did it twice.

No,Indochina would still be under French rule had they not had such poor leadership.

And you miss the point once again.

Illiteracy seems to be spreading here like wildfire.
 
You do realize that the Vietcong learned their lesson in avoiding conventional battles no?

And, by 1968, the Viet Cong were worn down to the point where they were totally combat ineffective.

Viet Cong operations aren't a good example of successful un-conventional warfare.
 
Where is it written that that is a hard and fast rule?

In the unwritten moral code. Most of use prefer not to kill the innocent along with those we are fighting. We have the technology to be as precise on our attacks as we need. There is no reason to bomb entire towns when all we need to do is take out a single house.


I support attacking any country that allows these men sanctuary and gives them financial support.
The country doesn't support these men though. The terrorist group that has take control of the country, and isn't supported by the populace does.

The Afghan's are unmotivated and anyone given the slightest bit of power either become corrupt or are killed and replaced with someone willing to be corrupt. That doesn't' give us the right to decide the populace should be exterminated from this world.
 
Last edited:
IMO, the U.S. should be careful to ensure that it makes sufficient investments in the military so as to meet the requirements that arise from its critical overseas interests. Needless to say, the hint of competition for funding between military needs and health care-related objectives is something that will become far more pronounced in the years ahead if the nation does not embark on a credible and sustained fiscal consolidation effort following the recession. A credible fiscal consolidation program would address the imbalances associated with the nation's mandatory spending programs.

At the same time, the growing cost differentials between the U.S. military and its foes is worrisome. In the long-run, financial considerations could give U.S. enemies an asymmetric advantage e.g., they would merely have to endure until the U.S. consumes its resources to the extent that the military efforts become politically unsustainable. Narrowing what is a growing cost-disadvantage is something that will need to be examined in a thoughtful and deliberate manner.
Don, you are good as usual. However, we need to also consider the earmarks that infest our defense budget, and the wishy-washy politics over doctrine that plays state (i.e., DoD contractors) interests over needs. Bringing home the bacon is a primary consideration of Congress. Many times this differs from what the Pentagon asks for. Also, the Air Force is saddled with space-based responsibilities that likely exaggerate the size of the budget that could be directly linked to the war or normal warfighting capabilities.
 
At least there is someone in the US political system that does not give a cart blanc to the military. All government spending should be under review including military spending.


Absolutely.

The United States should immediately cease all military activity and funding to defend any nation in Europe.

Let's see how their economies perform when they're forced to defend themselves against each other.
 
Go read about the Tet Offensive, boo dog.

I have studied the Tet Offensive. I learned that it was a complete debacle for the Communists and that the Viet Cong was in shambles after the dust settled. It was three years before the North was able to launch another offensive and they did it without the Viet Cong.
 
Three or four is enough, bro. That way evil Presidents like George Bush won't be so inclined to lie us into bogus wars.

Three or four is not enough, sis. Aircraft carriers allow flexibility that other weapon systems dont.
 
So it's nothing to throw billions toward GM, the banks, saving newspapers, and overhauling an already good healthcare system, but let's not be wasteful with military and national security and all that yucky stuff.

We are circling the toilet bowl, folks.
 
Three or four is not enough, sis. Aircraft carriers allow flexibility that other weapon systems dont.

Carriers are key to our defense. Just to use an example from my personal experience: when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Eisenhower battle group(with me on the Eisenhower) where inport Haifa Israel. The day after, we left for the Red sea, and entered it and went on station I think 3 days after the invasion of Kuwait(my memory is a bit cloudy, but 3 sounds right). That is over 7 thousand total troops, ~100 aircraft, long range strike capable, all with no base needed.
 
In the unwritten moral code. Most of use prefer not to kill the innocent along with those we are fighting. We have the technology to be as precise on our attacks as we need. There is no reason to bomb entire towns when all we need to do is take out a single house.

Innocents die in war. It's the nature of warfare that will never change, no matter how high-tech the weapons are.



The country doesn't support these men though. The terrorist group that has take control of the country, and isn't supported by the populace does.

These men are supported by someone. If they didn't have any support from the locals, they wouldn't be able to survive. The people that lend these men food and shelter are just as much the enemy as the Taliban.
 
Address the political issue?

And how would you like to see that implemented?


O'rly? Care to support this argument?


""It is a major irony of the Vietnam War that our propaganda transformed this debacle into a brilliant victory. The truth was that Tet cost us half our forces. Our losses were so immense that we were unable to replace them with new recruits," said PRG Justice Minister Trương Như Tạng"

-------

Tet was a definite change in strategy for the VC which largely had fought smaller-scale mobile and guerrilla warfare since the US arrival. During Tet they would stand and slug it out against the ARVN and Americans while enjoying the assistance of the aroused masses. The result was a military disaster, not only decimating the VC as an effective fighting force, but exposing much of their clandestine infrastructure. The Khe Sanh battle, while it did succeed in drawing a portion of American strength, was not sufficient to prevent or divert a strong US/ARVN response in the cities against the assaulting VC. The severe losses are noted even in official Communist sources.

It is significant that the main target of Tet was the GVN, the party tasked with pacification, the weak link in the defense of South Vietnam. Contrary to NLF dogma and expectations, the hoped for uprising of the masses never occurred. The South Vietnamese did not embrace the cause, and many ARVN units stood firm and fought back. Nevertheless Tet demonstrates how Communist strategy was focused on the key element in a People's War- the population - whether to control it or demoralize it, while American strategy focused on kill ratios and attrition.

--------

Viet Cong and PAVN strategy, organization and structure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do realize that the Vietcong learned their lesson in avoiding conventional battles no?

See above.

Counting won battles and ignoring everything else they did doesn't mean we were winning.

"By the end of 1969, there was no longer any communist-held territory, or "liberated zones," in South Vietnam, according to the official communist military history.[66] There were no predominantly southern units left and 70 percent of communist troops in the South were northerners
"

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong]Viet Cong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

One wonders if you even read your articles.

Looked at every one before posting.Perhaps you should try more than the first link.



Confusing correlation with causation eh? Every single COIN expert has stated that COIN operations take time to work.

Not at all-

Operations
The plan began with a major operation to secure Baghdad, codenamed Operation Fardh al-Qanoon (Operation Imposing Law), which was launched in February 2007. However, only in mid-June 2007, with the full deployment of the 28,000 additional U.S. troops, could major counter-insurgency efforts get fully under way. Operation Phantom Thunder was launched throughout Iraq on June 16, with a number of subordinate operations targeting insurgents in Diyala province, Anbar province and the southern Baghdad Belts.[47][48] The additional surge troops also participated in Operation Phantom Strike and Operation Phantom Phoenix, named after the III "Phantom" Corps which was the major U.S. unit in Iraq throughout 2007.

---------

Attack_Trends.jpg


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_surge]Iraq War troop surge of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]



By the way, it's didn't not did'nt. Normally I don't mention spelling errors, but you did it twice.

By the way, it's Oh really not O'rly :roll:
 
Let me know when you want to wager real money. I light my cigars with $50.00 bills.

Good,I'm glad your doing well.


"The Act specifies that 37% of the package is to be devoted to tax cuts equaling $288 billion "

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009]American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Carriers are key to our defense. Just to use an example from my personal experience: when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Eisenhower battle group(with me on the Eisenhower) where inport Haifa Israel. The day after, we left for the Red sea, and entered it and went on station I think 3 days after the invasion of Kuwait(my memory is a bit cloudy, but 3 sounds right). That is over 7 thousand total troops, ~100 aircraft, long range strike capable, all with no base needed.
We don't need to be paying for half of the world's aircraft carriers.
 
Back
Top Bottom