• 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!

US military cutbacks

Catawba said:
That's not even a fraction of people killed by the US, or even by Israel, the proxy army for the US.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant. You said that Iran never attacked anyone. I simply proved you wrong.
 
MarineTpartier said:
GREAT POINT! Wish I woulda thought of it lol. I didn't even know the 6 month rule though. I'm still active so I don't know every benefit I should though. Wish I could give you two likes for this one.
Click to expand...

:) I am too - EAS is two long years away. But my boss (who just finished SEPS/TAPS himself) is about as motivated as I am. I am keeping a sharp eye on those voluntary separation payments, should they become available.
 
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
Click to expand...

...and for the last 8 years Quds Forces (part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) have been killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...
A lot of us, not me. This is my opinion. I have heard quite a few vets say the things I'm saying, but, not all of them. I never claimed I was on here representing the entire vet community. The question is, when you turn 65, will you turn down your social security? If you will, you have an agrument here. If not, I suggest you move along with a different point because you are a hypocrite. Unless, of course, you believe that everyone in this country lives until 65, then decides to die.

Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...
Really? They can't bring us down? I would argue 9/11 has as much to do with our economic collapse as actual economic policies. That's the point of terrorism. It is the perfect strategy against a biggest, stronger opponent. Its death by a thousand knives. The days of another state engaging us in war are over, I agree. Why? Because unlike the time period between 1776-1915, we have actually decided to pull our heads out of our butt and realize there is a world beyond our borders. Acting as though the rest of the world is on its own and we can just sit back and watch the show is absurd. The economic collapse that would have happened had Germany won WWI or WWII would have devastated us just as much as it they blitzkrieg'd our borders. It would have turned into Germany, Russia, and Japan fighting for every piece of land in the world except North America, hopefully. Who's going to buy our exports then? This fallacy that we can pull everyone in a let the world collapse around us is absurd. By your logic, we should have never engaged in either World War.
As far as what I'm doing for our country. I have no confidence issues regarding that. You are entitled to your opinion and that's the reason I do it. And, regarding your "robbing others of their money to go to school" argument. If you plan to return your social security at 65 and refuse medicaid, you have solid footing for an argument. I would bet you plan to do neither. So, as I said above, move along to the second portion of your argument about us not needing a military as big as we have because your first portion is an exercise in hypocrisy.
 
Catawba said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I baited you into the embassy argument. How infuriated do you get when you see our embassies attacked? I'm sure, if you're any kind of patriot, it does infuriate you. Me too. That's where the military comes in. We NEED things like Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) that can handle these things. The 82nd and 101st Airborne are also participants in quick reaction type missions. If you need a better explanation about MEUs, here's a link Marine expeditionary unit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
It is a very expensive, very complex unit that is one of the cornerstones for our global security. They use every weapon in the arsenal. However, with recent cuts, the centerpiece of the MEU (an amphibious, tracked vehicle) has been totally ruled out. Like I said earlier, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) should have been cut. It had become too pricey and the company attempting to build it displayed that they didn't know what they were doing. However, the need is still there. The current version we have leaks, has no armor, is painfully slow in the water, and is extremely old. Imagine floating along, going to secure an embassy (with rounds incoming), and you're going 8 mph (on calm waters) with no armor around you and the only weapons you have are two machine guns that are easily outranged by any coastal type gun. This is all to make sure an embassy is secure, not to go invade some country or "fight for oil" like everyone likes to say about Iraq with no proof. If we want to be diplomatic, and we want to send these emissaries to all of these foreign countries, we owe it to them to provide security if they need it. This is not a far fetched idea. It happens more than people think it does. Just google embassy evacuated by Marines and see how many pages pop up. This is just a sample of why we need a military as big as it is.
 
Catawba said:
That's not even a fraction of people killed by the US, or even by Israel, the proxy army for the US.
Click to expand...
Show proof. Don't just come up with strawman arguments. This is a common argument used by the left but they never show the other sides atrocities.
 
apdst said:
That's irrelevant. You said that Iran never attacked anyone. I simply proved you wrong.
Click to expand...


My point was that both the US and Israel have killed more people than Iran in the last half century. You have not proved that wrong.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Sorry, but I baited you into the embassy argument. How infuriated do you get when you see our embassies attacked? I'm sure, if you're any kind of patriot, it does infuriate you. Me too. That's where the military comes in. We NEED things like Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) that can handle these things. The 82nd and 101st Airborne are also participants in quick reaction type missions. If you need a better explanation about MEUs, here's a link Marine expeditionary unit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
It is a very expensive, very complex unit that is one of the cornerstones for our global security. They use every weapon in the arsenal. However, with recent cuts, the centerpiece of the MEU (an amphibious, tracked vehicle) has been totally ruled out. Like I said earlier, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) should have been cut. It had become too pricey and the company attempting to build it displayed that they didn't know what they were doing. However, the need is still there. The current version we have leaks, has no armor, is painfully slow in the water, and is extremely old. Imagine floating along, going to secure an embassy (with rounds incoming), and you're going 8 mph (on calm waters) with no armor around you and the only weapons you have are two machine guns that are easily outranged by any coastal type gun. This is all to make sure an embassy is secure, not to go invade some country or "fight for oil" like everyone likes to say about Iraq with no proof. If we want to be diplomatic, and we want to send these emissaries to all of these foreign countries, we owe it to them to provide security if they need it. This is not a far fetched idea. It happens more than people think it does. Just google embassy evacuated by Marines and see how many pages pop up. This is just a sample of why we need a military as big as it is.
Click to expand...

You don't need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined to protect diplomats, We did it for a couple hundred years without creating so much debt.
 
Catawba said:
You don't need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined to protect diplomats, We did it for a couple hundred years without creating so much debt.
Click to expand...
Actually, our country has always had some debt. Not the levels we have today though, I agree.
Diplomatic posts used to not be the relatively cushy jobs they are now. They still aren't that great. Type murdered diplomat into google and look what pops up. I'm not saying our military should be huge just for diplomats, I was just using that as an example. Maintaining diplomacy takes a lot of manpower. Keeping trade routes open takes a lot of manpower. Rescuing Iranian fisherman takes manpower. Our military executes far more humanitarian type missions than combat. Even when Afghanistan and Iraq were both in high gear, we were still executing humanitarian missions all over the world. That helps just as much as the wars we fight. Just because you see the wars on TV all the time, doesn't mean other missions aren't being executed. Its just the news media playing to the worst story all the time. Just like you hear more about murders and rapes than you do feel good stories.
 
Catawba said:
You don't need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined to protect diplomats, We did it for a couple hundred years without creating so much debt.
Click to expand...
For that matter, name a country who does as much humanitarian work as we do. There isn't one. Who do you think does a lot of that?
 
MarineTpartier said:
Show proof. Don't just come up with strawman arguments. This is a common argument used by the left but they never show the other sides atrocities.
Click to expand...

We killed a million in Vietnam alone! Then there was Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), and Libya.

"Military casualties were 1.1 million killed and 600000 wounded in 21 years of war."

Casualties - US vs NVA/VC


What's Iran done to top that?
 
Catawba said:
We killed a million in Vietnam alone! Then there was Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), and Libya.

"Military casualties were 1.1 million killed and 600000 wounded in 21 years of war."

Casualties - US vs NVA/VC


What's Iran done to top that?
Click to expand...
Whats wrong with killing the enemy in Vietnam?
 
MarineTpartier said:
Actually, our country has always had some debt. Not the levels we have today though, I agree.
Diplomatic posts used to not be the relatively cushy jobs they are now. They still aren't that great. Type murdered diplomat into google and look what pops up. I'm not saying our military should be huge just for diplomats, I was just using that as an example. Maintaining diplomacy takes a lot of manpower. Keeping trade routes open takes a lot of manpower. Rescuing Iranian fisherman takes manpower. Our military executes far more humanitarian type missions than combat. Even when Afghanistan and Iraq were both in high gear, we were still executing humanitarian missions all over the world. That helps just as much as the wars we fight. Just because you see the wars on TV all the time, doesn't mean other missions aren't being executed. Its just the news media playing to the worst story all the time. Just like you hear more about murders and rapes than you do feel good stories.
Click to expand...

No one said our country never had any debt. All you have to do to see when the huge debt relative to our GDP began though is to look at the records:

debt-to-gdp.png

Source
Federal Reserve Flow of Funds

Chart of the day: Total US Debt | Credit Writedowns

Historians and economists attribute this great increase in debt to the combination of excessive military spending and cutting the taxes (revenues).

Bush doubled down and almost doubled military spending again while cutting taxes for the wealthy at the same time. Again, our debt increased dramatically again.

You can't continue spend as much as the rest of the world combined on the military industrial complex and continue giving tax cuts to the wealthy. We have 30 years of experience that proves it just leads to huge debt.

Is the GOP serious about getting our debt under control, or not?
 
Last edited:
MarineTpartier said:
Whats wrong with killing the enemy in Vietnam?
Click to expand...

Or discussion has been about the risk of Iran acting more aggressive than other countries with nuclear weapons were we not? Well I am showing you that Iran has behaved less aggressively to other countries than have we in the last half century. They waged less wars than we have and they have killed less people then we have.
 
Catawba said:
Or discussion has been about the risk of Iran acting more aggressive than other countries with nuclear weapons were we not? Well I am showing you that Iran has behaved less aggressively to other countries than have we in the last half century. They waged less wars than we have and they have killed less people then we have.
Click to expand...

We were protecting our country from dangerous people.
 
Catawba said:
No one said our country never had any debt. All you have to do to see when the huge debt relative to our GDP began though is to look at the records:

debt-to-gdp.png


Historians and economists attribute this great increase in debt to the combination of excessive military spending and cutting the taxes (revenues).

Bush double down and almost doubled military spending again while cutting taxes for the wealthy at the same time. Again, our debt increased dramatically again.

You can't continue spend as much as the rest of the world combined on the military industrial complex and continue giving tax cuts to the wealthy. We have 30 years of experience that proves it just leads to huge debt.

Is the GOP serious about getting our debt under control, or not?
Click to expand...
Here we go, the ready made lib argument. Its all Bushes fault. Obama is the victim. Yada yada yada. I know Bush was an economic train wreck. However, this is Obama's economy. Reagan took over something similar and had it fixed by the end of his first term. This debate was going good until you broke that out. Here you go, take a look at this and see what you think. Your boy has actually increased military spending while spending has gone from 5.1 trillion (with deficit added in) in 2007 to 6.2 trillion (with deficit added in) in 2010. He only spent 1% more than Bush though. So where's all that money going?
.....jpg
untitled.....jpg
 
Catawba said:
Or discussion has been about the risk of Iran acting more aggressive than other countries with nuclear weapons were we not? Well I am showing you that Iran has behaved less aggressively to other countries than have we in the last half century. They waged less wars than we have and they have killed less people then we have.
Click to expand...
Your discussion with me has been nothing about Iran. You are confusing me with apdst.
 
apdst said:
We were protecting our country from dangerous people.
Click to expand...

The domino theory, right? Haven't we been doing business with those "dangerous" communist Vietnamese for decades???
 
MarineTpartier said:
Here we go, the ready made lib argument. Its all Bushes fault. Obama is the victim. Yada yada yada. I know Bush was an economic train wreck. However, this is Obama's economy. Reagan took over something similar and had it fixed by the end of his first term. This debate was going good until you broke that out. Here you go, take a look at this and see what you think. Your boy has actually increased military spending while spending has gone from 5.1 trillion (with deficit added in) in 2007 to 6.2 trillion (with deficit added in) in 2010. He only spent 1% more than Bush though. So where's all that money going?
Click to expand...

Its not the lib argument it is the facts. The GOP wants wasteful spending but doesn't want to give up the tax cuts for the rich. Its been the same damn way for the last 30 years. The only time we make a significant dent in our deficit spending is when both sides came together in the 90's to eliminate some of the tax breaks for the wealthy and decreased military spending.

Obama has suggested cutting wasteful military spending. All the military brass I've heard agree, this is the direction we need to go. The question you have to ask yourself is do you want more debt, or increased taxes to pay for as much military spending as the rest of the world combined, or do you think some cuts are merited now that we have ended one war and are winding down another???
 
MarineTpartier said:
Your discussion with me has been nothing about Iran.
Click to expand...

Exactly:

"Our discussion has been about the risk of Iran acting more aggressive than other countries with nuclear weapons were we not? Well I am showing you that Iran has behaved less aggressively to other countries than have we in the last half century. They waged less wars than we have and they have killed less people then we have."
 
johnny_rebson said:
Liberals have short memories, they don't remember the Gulf of Tonkin.
Click to expand...

I must have missed the part where the US had a million casualties in the Gulf of Tonkin?
 
Catawba said:
Its not the lib argument it is the facts. The GOP wants wasteful spending but doesn't want to give up the tax cuts for the rich. Its been the same damn way for the last 30 years. The only time we make a significant dent in our deficit spending is when both sides came together in the 90's to eliminate some of the tax breaks for the wealthy and decreased military spending.

Obama has suggested cutting wasteful military spending. All the military brass I've heard agree, this is the direction we need to go. The question you have to ask yourself is do you want more debt, or increased taxes to pay for as much military spending as the rest of the world combined, or do you think some cuts are merited now that we have ended one war and are winding down another???
Click to expand...
The 90's? Yeah, in the 90's I was wearing Vietnam era body armor, with no bulletproof plates, and holding the body armor closed with bungee cord. I only shot my M-16 once a year, for 3 days. We could only go train in field craft once every 3 months. That's what we should go to? I think not.
I have said NUMEROUS times that I am fine with some cuts. The thing is, Obama's not cutting anything else. He double dips on the military but doesn't touch other major programs. No one's mentioning the automatic cuts that come into play due to the super committee failure.
Did you not look at the graphs I provided? Bush had less DOD spending than Obama. Did you ignore that little fact? I even picked 2007 as the Bush year because it was the peak of the surge in Iraq and he still had the House and Senate. So, during the peak time of the most expensive war he had and while he had the House and the Senate, he still spent less on the military and in general than Obama did in 2010. I'll answer my question to you from my last post? Where is all that extra spending? Look at welfare. Oh, and Obama cut education. The GOP are the ones saber rattling though right? The guys who spend more on education and less on military? Riiiiight
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom