^doesn't sound like anything i've said. unless this is some kind of joke?
honestly, I don't even know what youre saying. here in the east? what?

Quote :

"which is good for everyone on this forum "

if we plundered the world and took all the resources it would be great for all of own good but we have to have moral standing and not just pure self-interest. Thats where most of you have gone wrong. moral standing. I want to be the "good guys" and not the "evil empire".

Quote :

"military spending is often viewed as wasteful and unnecessary until you need it."

We don't need 1/10th of our current spending to adequately defend the mainland, hawaii and alaska from all possible threats at all possible times. No other nation could even come close to invading us.

11/10/2009 11:08:10 PM

Quote :

" We don't need 1/10th of our current spending to adequately defend the mainland, hawaii and alaska from all possible threats at all possible times. No other nation could even come close to invading us. "

Yeah, the Germans in WWII didn't think much of logistics, either.

Seriously, do you know how mind boggling expensive it is to train, maintain, and field a combat unit? One tank platoon - four tanks - costs over 16 million dollars. These tanks can easily burn through thousands of gallons of fuel. Not to mention the cost of transporting that fuel along with spare parts, ammunition, etc. We tried that whole 'we'll cut spending and move everything to the reserves and national guard,' and it failed miserably. A military is expensive. Deal with it.

11/15/2009 11:34:38 PM

yeah, and we don't fight or equip ourselves on the cheap, that's for sure.

Did you know that NORTH KOREA, of all places, has more vessels in its navy than ours does (and we are most certainly the most dominant naval force in the world, by a wide margin)? They have a lot more people in their army, too.


We are geared towards power projection, too. I'm not saying that I think we should be as interventionist as we often are, but if we were to completely take our ball and go home, locking ourselves in our room as some of you seem to want, there would be some prices to be paid.

I rather like (a) keeping our options open by having the military solution to any real potential military problem, and (b) having overwhelming, orders-of-magnitude more combat power than any threat country or foreseeable combination thereof. Maintaining uber-readiness at all times keeps you from having to throw men into the grinder when the shit hits the fan--you just squash your opponent like a bug.


A lot of you seem to have more of a beef with our foreign policy than anything else. I hear you, but gutting the military is not the way to solve that problem.

11/15/2009 11:44:30 PM

Quote :

"but if we were to completely take our ball and go home, locking ourselves in our room as some of you seem to want, there would be some prices to be paid."

Such as? I can't really think of any, at least in the near term. The worst thing I can think of is China invades Taiwan, which is neither that likely nor that terrible an outcome.

11/16/2009 10:34:14 AM

The United States has a long history of aversion to a large standing army. What inevitably happens whenever we do go to war? We send what little troops we have into a meat grinder in order to buy time while we train the next wave of soldiers.

Ladies and gentlemen, this doesn't work anymore. It didn't work when we invaded - thus the vast number of National Guard units we've ended up using, and it won't work in the future. First of all, we don't have the facilities anymore. The number of bases out there just ain't what they used to be. Second of all, it doesn't take a handful of weeks to train soldiers - many MOSs take several months and even upwards of a year to complete. Third, we no longer have the manufacturing capability to spit out military goods like we used to, especially given the marked increase in complexity and technology.

Again, we tried to cut costs and size by moving all our Combat Service and Combat Service Support units to National guard and Reserve units, and it was a terrible idea. You need a large standing army, not because it is likely we will be attacked, but because of the exact opposite. People will think twice about doing it, and when they do, we have the forces on hand and the equipment to properly defend the US, instead of relying on the old 'meat grinder' strategy to buy time we no longer have.

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 10:48 AM. Reason : .]

11/16/2009 10:46:26 AM

I'm pretty sure we have more than enough people in the military to defend the United States. The problem is that they're off doing something other than defending the United States. If we were to bring all troops home, we'd probably need to actively downsize the military, which would be a positive thing. Many of those people would have to move from government (publicly funded) jobs to productive jobs, and the resources being dumped into military equipment could be used in a more productive manner. In before "why do you want the troops to be unemployed " or "why don't you want to continue stimulating the economy by paying military contractors (that are in bed with the U.S. government) billions of dollars every year "

11/16/2009 11:10:45 AM

Size of Chinese Military: 3,440,000
Size of US Military: 1,473,900

Chinese Citizen Fit for Service: 472,294,719 males, age 16–49

Without looking at an IPB, OAKOC, METT-T, etc., the rule of thumb is 3:1 ratio for defense.

11/16/2009 11:30:03 AM

Oh, okay. Well, then we definitely need to bring all troops home. We don't have the money to double the size of our military, so maybe we shouldn't have thrown away so much cash on useless bullshit around the world.

11/16/2009 11:33:06 AM

Quote :

"Such as? I can't really think of any, at least in the near term. The worst thing I can think of is China invades Taiwan, which is neither that likely nor that terrible an outcome."

Among other things, one immediate consequence is it means that we'd be abandoning big treaty obligations and the like. There are good reasons to want America's collective word to be worth something, or else the rest of the world becomes less likely to make any agreements with us (including those that don't have anything to do with defense).

Also in the short term, the Korean peninsula is likely to become a much more, ah, interesting place. Either the North will get frisky or the South will get super paranoid.

In the long term, you've thrown out the balance of power, which is maintained in large part by our near-hegemony and active participation in world affairs. I've no doubt that there are a number of countries whose good behavior is maintained only under the possibility of military intervention by more powerful states. Again, that's in the long term.

Quote :

" In before "why do you want the troops to be unemployed ""

Well, it's sort of an important question. A lot of military careers don't provide much in the way of useful experience. This isn't 1945, when the troops came home and could readily find employment in relatively low-skilled manufacturing jobs.

11/16/2009 1:27:34 PM

Well, I don't view government (and military) jobs as productive employment. Sure, it pays the bills for those individuals, but how are they getting paid? Public money. I mean, the government could pay 100 people to dirty the streets, then pay them to clean the streets, then pay them to dirty the streets again. Yeah, they got paid, but no economic growth actually occurred. Just as we had too many people in construction and real estate, we've got too many people in military jobs. They're going to have to transition into productive jobs. They might not get paid that much, so they may need to acquire additional skills. Many would be unemployed, just like the rest of the population.

You could argue that former military deserve better than to have to work menial, low paying jobs. Well, unfortunately for soldiers, their labor often isn't worth that much outside of combat situations. Maybe jobs in law enforcement are an option, I don't know. A productive, peaceful, industrialized society has limited use for people trained in firearms, survival, operating military machinery, etc. Each individual in the military might have additional skills or experience that allow them to find employment elsewhere.

11/16/2009 1:51:44 PM

11/16/2009 2:00:18 PM

Generally military jobs aren't productive. You spend your money and, most of the time, receive no benefit. You spend money on health insurance, too, and generally receive nothing from it. If you pay for life insurance, you never receive anything from it.

The military is an insurance policy. If things go to shit, we've got guys with howitzers to blow the shit up.

---

Also, I find it interesting that you "don't view government (and military) jobs as productive employment," then suggest that former military people go into law enforcement, which is run by the government with public money. Why is one nonproductive government job acceptable and the other isn't?

11/16/2009 2:04:10 PM

Because one group protects me, personally, from direct threats to my person and property and one kills barefoot towelheads on the other side of the planet.

One group has a negligible budget and the other has spent enough money in the past decade to feed and educate every child in the world for decades to come.

11/16/2009 2:12:24 PM

Quote :

"Generally military jobs aren't productive. You spend your money and, most of the time, receive no benefit. You spend money on health insurance, too, and generally receive nothing from it. If you pay for life insurance, you never receive anything from it. The military is an insurance policy. If things go to shit, we've got guys with howitzers to blow the shit up."

We're not using the military as an insurance policy. We're using them as a global police force. We're not in Iraq and Afghanistan for our safety or defense. They've turned into peacekeeping missions.

Quote :

"Also, I find it interesting that you "don't view government (and military) jobs as productive employment," then suggest that former military people go into law enforcement, which is run by the government with public money. Why is one nonproductive government job acceptable and the other isn't?"

Law enforcement is necessary for society to function. When people hurt other people, you need to have law enforcement there. It's just one way that current military can reintegrate into civilian society. So, while law enforcement is nonproductive in the same way any other government job is, it's a job that we all believe is necessary, and a legitimate function of government. We don't all agree that it's necessary to maintain bases around the world and keep the wars going. My position on this is informed by the belief we're engaged in way more military action around the world than seems to be necessary.

11/16/2009 2:15:13 PM

Then I guess now my question is why you think a drastic shrinking of the military is necessary. Like someone said earlier, it seems like you have more problem with foreign policy than you do with troop levels.

11/16/2009 2:17:21 PM

Quote :

"We don't need 1/10th of our current spending to adequately defend the mainland, hawaii and alaska from all possible threats at all possible times. No other nation could even come close to invading us."

do you have any sources or stats to back this up? or are you mindlessly trolling?



[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 2:21 PM. Reason : i think i answered my own question]

11/16/2009 2:20:56 PM

It's apparent that civilians are helpless to do anything about either one by democratic process.

11/16/2009 2:22:03 PM

Yeah, my problem is with foreign policy. I think national security is very important. We need to have an excellent army capable of defending the United States from foreign invaders. How many troops are necessary for that? I don't know. What I do know is that we have a large number of troops serving in non-defensive roles around the world. My position is that we don't need any non-defensive military action going on outside of the United States.

So, there's two possible scenarios, from my perspective: 1) We have enough troops in the continental United States to properly defend from possible invaders. Since we have troops serving in unnecessary roles outside of the United States, but adequate troop levels here, we should eliminate those unnecessary military jobs. 2) We don't have enough troops in the continental United States. We should transition troops from unnecessary roles to necessary (and constitutionally mandated) roles by ending both wars and selling bases and surplus equipment. Maintaining a military presence here is much cheaper than maintaining it abroad.

11/16/2009 2:38:46 PM

sometimes I have a hard time being comfortable with the idea that we a vast overwhelming dominating military power and the idea that we are the "good guys"

I mean... my juvenile self always takes it back to Star Wars. Do Islamic Extrimests looks at themselves as being the rebels against a vast and evil empire (I'm almost certain that they do). How do we look at them... oh... they're just crazy? Certainly, no reasonable person would blanketly think they're "evil".

On the measure of good and evil I just don't know where we really sit...

11/16/2009 3:10:37 PM

The people pulling the strings for them (bin Laden, Zawahiri, et al.) are evil. The run of the mill terrorist is a poor misguided individual who thinks they're doing the thing their "god" wants them to do.

We sit farther toward good than evil. Some companies that peddle in war profiteering bring that ratio down though.

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 3:15 PM. Reason : *]

11/16/2009 3:14:51 PM

Quote :

"The people pulling the strings for them (bin Laden, Zawahiri, et al.) are evil."

lol

Quote :

"We sit farther toward good than evil."

double lol

11/16/2009 3:26:47 PM

But certainly the killing of civilians to further your political aim is not necessarily an "evil" thing. It depends on what side of the killing line you sit.

Or maybe it's always an evil thing?

It all seems to come down to us verses them.

The thing that bugs me is that we claim to declare all these "good" facts about our government and society, but sometimes they seem like a LIE.

Our democracy, we complain about one party systems, but ours is a two party... if not by structure then by fact (and yes... there are political theories on why that is, but the two parties DO actively work, on a structural level, towards maintaining their overwhelming dominance) How is that better, especially when there are structural changes that could be make to make our system "more" democratic.

Universal Health Care. Now I'm not trying to inject this in... and actually I'm kind of against paying more money out in this time of economic crisis, but we're kind of dicks to not be insuring (no pun) the well being of our citizenry in a good and reasonable level. That's not good.

We invade other nations. We start wars. Nearly everyone thinks that the Iraq thing was an aggressive war. Our leaders actively LIED to us. They deceived us to make us agreeable and complicit towards attacking another nation. We can intellectually understand all the reasons that they did it. Most of those reasons are EVIL.

and others

LONG LONG LISTS OF OTHER THINGS

...

argh

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 3:31 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2009 3:26:58 PM

In a modern war between modern nuclear powers, first strike and missile defense effectiveness pretty much mean everything. Likely the first striker will use a nuclear EMP device, against which our missile defense systems are ineffective. Whoever gets hit first will likely lose a majority of their military capability.

Almost all of our military hardware is completely vulnerable to EMP. This is in spite of the fact that emp-protections are easily installed.

11/16/2009 3:31:31 PM

where does nuclear come in to this?

we spend our time and money on force projection and occupation

11/16/2009 3:33:44 PM

Quote :

"On the measure of good and evil I just don't know where we really sit..."

If you believe that people (and as a result, governments) are a product of their environment, the concept of good and evil doesn't make much sense. It's not as if terrorists are born that way.

If you look at the intentions of the U.S. government versus Islamic extremists, I'd say the United States government has good intentions for the most part. They seem to think they're doing the right thing when they invade and bomb countries, or drop nukes and kill 100,000 innocent civilians. Of course, the terrorists also think they're doing the right thing. Just as Christians in the United States justify their hatred for gays with the bible, Islamic fundamentalists justify their actions with a different holy book. It's not like they're just hurting people for the sake of it. They think they have the moral high ground.

All you can do is look at outcomes. The United States government is responsible for many more deaths of innocents than terrorism has been, so far. Does that mean "we" are more evil? No, I don't think so. A lot of the death that has resulted from U.S. policy was decided by elected officials, not the people. But, really, if you try to objectively look at some of the actions of the United States, as far as foreign policy goes, it's hard to come to the conclusion that haven't done some pretty terrible things.

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 3:37 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2009 3:35:13 PM

I know America has commited, and continues to commit many evils, but I don't doubt that any other country would be doing the same thing, or worse, in the same circumstances. Basically everyone is evil.

11/16/2009 3:35:38 PM

^^

How do you say all that stuff and still come up with this...

Quote :

"I'd say the United States government has good intentions for the most part."

you're like

USA BAD USA BAD USA BAD

....

still USA GOOD

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 3:37 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2009 3:36:45 PM

^^

yeah, your cynicism is awesome

11/16/2009 3:37:44 PM

listen, the point is, is that yeah, I'm an American and I believe in my country

I think that's we're basically doing ok.

but... we could be doing so much better

and it kind of sucks that we're not and, more importantly, that we're REALLY delusional about it

11/16/2009 3:39:17 PM

Good intentions, like "Oh, look, we're spreading freedom and democracy." That's technically a good intention. The problem is that when you think about ways to accomplish that, there can only be bad consequences.

11/16/2009 3:39:42 PM

oh

and the multiple post thing

11/16/2009 3:39:59 PM

Thanks. I try to be realistic.

11/16/2009 3:40:04 PM

Quote :

"Good intentions, like "Oh, look, we're spreading freedom and democracy." That's technically a good intention. The problem is that when you think about ways to accomplish that, there can only be bad consequences."

but even if we are doing it, which is debatable

we're go fucking BAD AT IT, we're doing terribly

why even kid ourselves and use that as a real argument?

11/16/2009 3:40:57 PM

I don't even have confidence that our government is particularly smart on at dealing with our strategic situation.

Does anyone here really think we're dealing with the Chinese effectively?

They're basically conducting economic war on us... are we working AT ALL to strategically counter this? We look so weak.

11/16/2009 3:44:55 PM

tbqh we need some prime directive style shit up in here.

11/16/2009 3:45:31 PM

It's not an argument or an excuse. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Quote :

"They're basically conducting economic war on us... are we working AT ALL to strategically counter this? We look so weak."

If anything, we're conducting economic war on them. We're the ones giving them a declining currency. We're borrowing money from them that we know we can't (and won't) pay back.

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 3:47 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2009 3:46:12 PM

isolationism is a true old fashioned tenant of american policy

maybe we should give it a serious looking into

11/16/2009 3:46:25 PM

Quote :

"I know America has commited, and continues to commit many evils, but I don't doubt that any other country would be doing the same thing, or worse, in the same circumstances. Basically everyone is evil."

Let's keep doing what we're doing because in an alternative reality other people might be doing the same

11/16/2009 3:47:05 PM

^^^

yeah, maybe we should STOP FUCKING DIGGING our hole

OH BUT WE CAN'T CUT AND RUN

fuck those motherfuckers both over there and over here

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 3:47 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2009 3:47:34 PM

Why does it matter? Everyone knows might makes right. We do what we want.

Also - History books are written by the winners, we are the champions and 1 American > 1000 ragheads.

11/16/2009 3:48:16 PM

Quote :

"If anything, we're conducting economic war on them. We're the ones giving them a declining currency. We're borrowing money from them that we know we can't (and won't) pay back."

What if they have a real plan? A strategy? There are any number of situations in which our debt could be used as a seriously leveraging tool.

11/16/2009 3:49:07 PM

^^

seriously, it's because of people like you that democracies die

11/16/2009 3:49:56 PM

People who can't recognize trolling or sarcasm +1

11/16/2009 3:50:43 PM

that's because your statement could of totally been real

message_topic.aspx?topic=581362

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 3:52 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2009 3:51:19 PM

DeltaBeta makes heinous statements and then backpedals when someone calls him on it, usually calling it "sarcasm" or "trolling." Pretty standard internet behavior.

11/16/2009 3:53:02 PM

Quote :

"Let's keep doing what we're doing because in an alternative reality other people might be doing the same"

Don't assume I'm advocating complacency.

11/16/2009 3:53:09 PM

^^^ So could our foreign policy... Sometimes I think we're just trolling the arab muslim world.

^^ In comes the dense parade.

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 3:54 PM. Reason : *]

11/16/2009 3:53:11 PM

"We're the good guys"

*points out shitloads of evil stuff*

"Might makes right"

Fuck off and die already

[Edited on November 16, 2009 at 3:53 PM. Reason : take your entire family with you]

11/16/2009 3:53:49 PM

So seriously, the outlandish shit I say in here you guys take seriously?

You really need to check your "outlandish shit" meters.

11/16/2009 3:55:42 PM

I'm just trolling duh

11/16/2009 3:57:43 PM