View Poll Results: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • Obama

    35 54.69%
  • Romney

    29 45.31%
Page 76 of 82 FirstFirst ... 26667475767778 ... LastLast
Results 751 to 760 of 817

Thread: For Veterans and Military personnel only.[W:651]

  1. #751
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I know this poll is about veteran and military personnel's opinions on Pres. Obama's handling of military/veteran affairs and proposals/promises Mitt Romney has made pertaining to our military and national defense, but a few things posted on Mitt Romney's campaign webpage caught my attention the other day under "National Defense. Specifically:



    Instead of pulling information from WhiteHouse.gov or even the DoD's website, I'll instead use a non-partisan source and let the charts and figures speak for themselves - data that completely contradicts Mitt Romney's claims of a aged post-WWII U.S. defense force still trapped in the age of prop planes and gravity bombs.

    From Business Insider:




    I can't post the charts and graphes here, but you can see them directly from the article or download the .pdf file copy of the article and review them for yourself. Clearly, defense spending hasn't taken a back seat under Pres. Obama as Mitt Romney and some Republicans would have one believe.
    The Pentagon's Biggest Threat In Years? Budget Cuts : NPR

    American Military Commanders Warn of War if Budget Cuts Enacted

    The Looming Military Budget Cuts Will Be A Disaster - Business Insider
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  2. #752
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    I saw the SEC DEF on CSPAN testifying in front of the Senate begging them not to cut defense anymore....Hussein Obama wants to cut it 500 billion more over the 487 billion they have already cut......
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  3. #753
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    I'm not saying that the fed shouldn't spend money in support of our military, quite the contrary. Mine was merely a counter-argument by Conservative Republicans who keep saying that the Obama Administration hasn't spent billions to modernize our military or support our troops. Those such argments clearly are false. But there's a finer point I think needs to be made and it should be viewed in the same vein as changing military philosophy as was done right after Vietnam.

    After 'Nam, our military and political leaders determined that our combat soldiers needed to be "smarter". So, a larger push was made to recuite servicemen (and women) who either were high school grads or college students (i.e., ROTC Midshipmen or Military Academy Cadets). There were alot of other things that transpired from such changes all of which are outlined in great detail in the book, "Your Government Failed You," by Richard A. Clarke. But today, something else is starting to take form witinh our military make-up...an increased focus on "privatization". Notice what's happening in Iraq with the U.S. security force in place there? If you think this just started w/Obama, however, then you completely missed it when the GW Bush Administration used these same private security contractors to patrol the streets and protect officials in Iraq.

    If you read both Business Insiders articles, you'll notice that one speaks of federal defense spending in relation to GDP (my linked article) and the other outlines concerns reductions in federal spending might have on our military's ability to deploy our forces abroad in times of world conflict (your article). But notice what the answer to this issue seems to be from your article?

    Answer: Contractor security forces...privatizations of our military.

    And whose brilliant idea was this? Clue: It didn't start with the Obama Administration, but he's certainly getting the blame for it.

    The irony here is this: We've spent so much money trying to win the wars in Iraq and AfPak that military spending has taken up well over 40% of GDP, but when Republicans in Congress are confronted with this they quickly hide behind the Constitution, "provide for the common defense...provide for a Army and Navy". But few look at how much technology has allowed us to draw down our troop forces. No one seems to have a problem with this when the point is made that technological advances have also made employment in some portions of the private sector difficult, yet we all want a leaner, meaner military fighting force. How do we bridge that gap between spending trillions on military technology while doing everything we can to not place our combat forces in harm's way (needlessly I might add)? Again, some seem to think short of robotics (i.e., drones and the likes) privatizing our military is the answer to which your Business Insider article seems to argue for, not against. Hence, the reason to continue spending trillions on our national defense.

  4. #754
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I'm not saying that the fed shouldn't spend money in support of our military, quite the contrary. Mine was merely a counter-argument by Conservative Republicans who keep saying that the Obama Administration hasn't spent billions to modernize our military or support our troops. Those such argments clearly are false. But there's a finer point I think needs to be made and it should be viewed in the same vein as changing military philosophy as was done right after Vietnam.
    What has he modernized?

    After 'Nam, our military and political leaders determined that our combat soldiers needed to be "smarter". So, a larger push was made to recuite servicemen (and women) who either were high school grads or college students (i.e., ROTC Midshipmen or Military Academy Cadets). There were alot of other things that transpired from such changes all of which are outlined in great detail in the book, "Your Government Failed You," by Richard A. Clarke. But today, something else is starting to take form witinh our military make-up...an increased focus on "privatization". Notice what's happening in Iraq with the U.S. security force in place there? If you think this just started w/Obama, however, then you completely missed it when the GW Bush Administration used these same private security contractors to patrol the streets and protect officials in Iraq.
    Private contractors have always been used in America at least as far back as the War of 1812.

    If you read both Business Insiders articles, you'll notice that one speaks of federal defense spending in relation to GDP (my linked article) and the other outlines concerns reductions in federal spending might have on our military's ability to deploy our forces abroad in times of world conflict (your article). But notice what the answer to this issue seems to be from your article?
    While I beleive that we spend more than we should, we don't top the list of %GDP.

    Answer: Contractor security forces...privatizations of our military.

    And whose brilliant idea was this? Clue: It didn't start with the Obama Administration, but he's certainly getting the blame for it.
    Again, goes farther back than W. Much farther.

    The irony here is this: We've spent so much money trying to win the wars in Iraq and AfPak that military spending has taken up well over 40% of GDP, but when Republicans in Congress are confronted with this they quickly hide behind the Constitution, "provide for the common defense...provide for a Army and Navy". But few look at how much technology has allowed us to draw down our troop forces. No one seems to have a problem with this when the point is made that technological advances have also made employment in some portions of the private sector difficult, yet we all want a leaner, meaner military fighting force. How do we bridge that gap between spending trillions on military technology while doing everything we can to not place our combat forces in harm's way (needlessly I might add)? Again, some seem to think short of robotics (i.e., drones and the likes) privatizing our military is the answer to which your Business Insider article seems to argue for, not against. Hence, the reason to continue spending trillions on our national defense.
    No, close to 40% of the budget, it's around 4.7% of GDP.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  5. #755
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Most vets will tell you that unless you move from active duty into some high profile government job, you'll never get rich while serving in the military. Of course, if you're lucky you can eek out a decent living...if you're lucky.
    You probably won't get rich, but you're paying the bills, its steady work, and you have medical/dental. Combat troops pay a lot more into it in blood, sweat, and tears. For some POG that never gets shot at and goes on one 7 month to a year field trip every 4 years, you can't beat it. There's A LOT of civilians that would take that deal any day of the week.
    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Thanks for the info. But it doesn't negate the fact that Pres. Obama has made sure that our troops were outfitted with the best equipment as quickly as possible straight off the production line.
    I'd say it's more like he fell in on an already well oiled machine. I will give him credit for not getting in the way though. He can't seem to do even that with most things lol.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  6. #756
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-28-12 @ 01:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    203

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Put in Gary Johnson lol, im not voting for either of these 2... Now if Dr Paul had or does get the nomination, I could easily vote Republican.

    Bush actually outfitted us, what was it called... RFI rapid fielding initiative, that was back in 04, we got the new ACHs and other junk. Also we slowly got up armor kits for our 113's and HMMWVs.

  7. #757
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    As a vietnam vet with a disability, I can say that Bush did very little for the veteran in 8 years, certainly next to nothing compared to what Obama has done for us......

    As an observer of waste by the military, and our congress, there are billions in wasted funds within the military. When congress forces the military to take weapons they DO NOT WANT just so some congressmen and women can fatten the payroll in their home districts, that is incredible waste.

    As someone who has attended the funerals of veteran friends, I can say that we aren't doing our troops any favors by having a large occupying force in countries that hate us. We should be using more smart bombs and cruise missles, and less boots on the ground.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  8. #758
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    As a vietnam vet with a disability, I can say that Bush did very little for the veteran in 8 years, certainly next to nothing compared to what Obama has done for us......
    you're unaware of the post 9/11 GI bill? Of course it doesn't apply to you, but it does apply to vets.

    As someone who has attended the funerals of veteran friends, I can say that we aren't doing our troops any favors by having a large occupying force in countries that hate us. We should be using more smart bombs and cruise missles, and less boots on the ground.
    Like Germany and Japan?

    edit: btw...there was no talk of upping retiree tricare costs nor was there widespread "close to retirement" admin seps under Bush....that can't be said for Obama.
    Last edited by mac; 06-14-12 at 09:01 PM.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  9. #759
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    you're unaware of the post 9/11 GI bill? Of course it doesn't apply to you, but it does apply to vets.


    Like Germany and Japan?
    Germany and Japan are ancient history when it comes to modern warfare....we have the capability today to take out any middle eastern country by a few days of selective target elimination. We aren't going to win their hearts, might as well just kick ass and walk away.
    GI Bill? good deal for the healthy vet, but poor compensation for the severly wounded who will likely never work again.....
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  10. #760
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Germany and Japan are ancient history when it comes to modern warfare....we have the capability today to take out any middle eastern country by a few days of selective target elimination. We aren't going to win their hearts, might as well just kick ass and walk away.
    not politically correct.

    GI Bill? good deal for the healthy vet, but poor compensation for the severly wounded who will likely never work again.....
    What about the spouse or kid you can transfer the benefit too? Read up on it. It is by far the single best vet benefit ever enacted....under Bush.
    Last edited by mac; 06-14-12 at 09:15 PM.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

Page 76 of 82 FirstFirst ... 26667475767778 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •