Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We can't afford to be "that guy" anymore, and no one appreciate us anyway. Like you, I believe our spending provides stability, but it does so for everyone but us.
Consider how many battles we've fought in the last 20 years. Panama, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. About 1 every 3 years.
How many has China been in? Russia? France?
We are doing all the heavy lifting here, and we don't get much of a benefit out of it.
Maybe the world won't be better off without our stability, but we will be.
Agreed. Like you I don't see that we benefit in ant meaningful way from the host of UN missions, the nation building missions nor the wars to free ungrateful people.
I like you feel that a streamlined military with missions designed specifically for national defence would be more cost effective.
However, our elected reps seem to feel that it is in fact our job to police Europes back yard, Somalia, Africa, Haiti,South America, and of course Asia.
Would you bring all those people home and put them on our borders? If not what would you do with them? Bring them back in to the work force with 10% unemployment?
The military is not supposed to be a jobs program, although it has degenerated into one.
It's just like any other welfare program, although they earn their keep, once it's implemented how do you get rid of it without sending people to the streets to fend for themselves? I do think they're highly educated now, more so than Vietnam.
It's just like any other welfare program, although they earn their keep, once it's implemented how do you get rid of it without sending people to the streets
Let them go to the streets - don't they have combat
training
And by the way it cost more money in the short term to close those bases and realign.
Well of course it costs money up front to close bases.
But if you think saving over a billion dollars a year is nothing, then you've got some serious problems with your idea of what money is worth.
Alternatives that would remove almost all Army forces stationed overseas
PLAN 3A: Move nearly all forces to continental United States and continuously rotate three brigade combat teams to Europe and South Korea
Upfront cost: $6.8 billion to $7.4 billion
Annual cost compared with status quo: -$925 million
CBO analysis: Substantial cost savings. Slight reduction in family separation time. Mixed impact on deployment times (large increase to South Korea). Reduces number of troops available for deployment by 9,000 to 15,000.
PLAN 3B: Eliminate nearly all forces from Germany and South Korea
Upfront cost: $6.8 billion to $7.4 billion
Annual cost compared with status quo: -$1.2 billion
CBO analysis: Large cost savings. Cuts family separation time by 22 percent.
We've spent over 700 billion in Iraq so far, and over 350 billion in Afghanistan so far.
I'd also quit building stupid aircraft that will never be used in battle like the F35, and start building smaller drone aircraft that can be operated remotely that need little to no refueling, would cost half or less of what the big super jets cost just to have a man on board.
I'd also cut military personnel totals by 25%. We don't need that many troops to defend our borders. Thats the duty of the military until Congress declares war, then we can start a draft, and if they do declare war, cost is not an issue. (see WWII, and the Civil War.)
It's just like any other welfare program, although they earn their keep, once it's implemented how do you get rid of it without sending people to the streets to fend for themselves? I do think they're highly educated now, more so than Vietnam.
Actually, I think the military is fairly easy to downsize. (Although operations and procurement are a bigger part of the budget than personnel.) Simply cut recruitment goals, take away the re-enlistment bonuses, and offer a few early retirements. You could cut personnel in half within 5 years if you had to.
Let the N Koreans invade the south. Then all of them will be speaking Chinese. Taiwan is the last bastion of Chang's corrupt clan. They are not worth protecting. Besides China will not invade this wayward province, it will buy it.
Let us withdraw our troops and our spending on private sector suppliers and mercenaries. Then we can develop a proper part time citizen’s army to protect our borders from invasion by the socialistic expansionist Canadians.
North Korea can barely feed it's army, let alone beat South Korea.
S. Korea had the misfortune of placing their capitol within rocket-propelled artillery range of the DMZ. Consequently, the N. Koreans have millions of tubes concreated into the ground, ready to destroy Seoul in a minutes notice. In the long run, N. Korea would get smoked - but not before Seoul was leveled. So its more like blackmail than war.
Our only real interest there is preventing N. Korea from making and selling Nukes on the blackmarket.
Finally a "Republican" Says what needed to be said.
Time to end the American Empire
WASHINGTON - Republican Sen.-elect Rand Paul says GOP lawmakers must be open to cutting military spending as Congress tries to reduce government spending.
The tea party favorite from Kentucky says compromise with Democrats over where to cut spending must include the military as well as social programs. Paul says all government spending must be "on the table."
Paul tells ABC's "This Week" that he supports a constitutional amendment calling for a balanced budget.
<IMG width="100%" height=0>
News Headlines (http://www.cnbc.com/id/40054591 - broken link)
I am very glad to hear this!
Although I have been accused of being a "Liberal" on C-D ... I am actually an independent thinker. I do not subscribe to either side 100% and I realize that there is no politician or political party whose values will totally match mine.
For example, I really wished Ron Paul would have won the Republican nomination. I would have proudly voted for Ron Paul even though there are things in his philosophy I disagree with! When it came to the most important issues of this country, I felt Ron Paul was actually going to do something for us. But who gets the nomination? The train wreck of McCain/Palin. I didn't like a lot of his policies; I felt he was going to be just another "corporate servant" if he got in office (no way would Ron Paul be!) and I felt that Palin had a distinct disadvantage in her lack of political experience and in just being a woman. So who did I vote for? The other train wreck because I was afraid of what would happen if McCain/Palin got in office: Barack Obama. Yes, I admit it. Yes, I regret it. He never was the evil "socialist" people are trying to make him out to be. He's nothing but a big corporate toady and a puppet. He takes his marching orders from Government Sachs (aka Goldman Sachs). Just take a look at his cabinet and his policies. He also outright lied about a lot of things he was going to do and actually ended up following in the Bush II agenda (TARP, more war in Afghanistan) and even borrowing ideas from McCain (the "health reform" bill ended up strikingly similar to what McCain/Palin were espousing on the campaign trail).
In conclusion, I hope to hear a lot more COMMON SENSE from the Pauls!
That would cripple our ability to mobilize. Is that something that we're willing to sacrifice? A military is absolutely defined in its ability to mobilize, and do it quickly.
Maybe you should look at the reasons why we would HAVE to mobilize quickly. The last time we were attacked it was because of our policies in the Middle East. As long as we continue to occupy Holy lands ILLEGALLY, continue to bomb Iraq, and occupy the Arabian peninsula we will continue to be a target. Hundreds of thousands have died at the hands of the American military. No wonder they hate us over there.
Dubya talked of a humble foreign policy yet he illegally invaded Iraq. No country attacked us but Bush calls up the troops to be the policeman of the world. We have suffered 4500 deaths of our beloved sons and daughters while serving our country. Our troops should be home protecting our borders where they belong, not off somewhere in the Middle East fighting for oil. They deserve better treatment than that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good for Rand Paul!
... I am actually an independent thinker. I do not subscribe to either side 100% and I realize that there is no politician or political party whose values will totally match mine.
