Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s proposed drastic cuts to the U.S. Army are “absolutely dangerous" and would cause long-term damage to the military.

Cheney told Fox News’ Sean Hannity the proposed cuts, which would shrink the Army to its smallest size since just before the U.S. entered World War II, would have a devastating impact on the ability of future presidents to deal with future crises.

“This is really over the top,” Cheney said. “It does enormous long-term damage to our military.”

The Army had already been preparing to shrink to 490,000 active-duty members from a wartime peak of 570,000. Hagel is proposing to cut it further to between 440,000 and 450,000.

"We are repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new technologies, new centers of power, and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable, and in some instances more threatening to the United States," Hagel said at a press conference at the Pentagon.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s proposed drastic cuts to the U.S. Army are “absolutely dangerous" and would cause long-term damage to the military.

Cheney told Fox News’ Sean Hannity the proposed cuts, which would shrink the Army to its smallest size since just before the U.S. entered World War II, would have a devastating impact on the ability of future presidents to deal with future crises.

“This is really over the top,” Cheney said. “It does enormous long-term damage to our military.”

The Army had already been preparing to shrink to 490,000 active-duty members from a wartime peak of 570,000. Hagel is proposing to cut it further to between 440,000 and 450,000.

"We are repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new technologies, new centers of power, and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable, and in some instances more threatening to the United States," Hagel said at a press conference at the Pentagon.

Cheney needs to really just STFU.

I support the move, and can't imagine how another 50,000 troops could make that much difference in the long run....I also believe Hagel is right in focusing on new technologies and not just more bodies...but I support the move ONLY if there is a commeasurate DECREASE in our desire/willingness to be the worlds' policeman.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Cheney needs to really just STFU.

I support the move, and can't imagine how another 50,000 troops could make that much difference in the long run....I also believe Hagel is right in focusing on new technologies and not just more bodies...but I support the move ONLY if there is a commeasurate DECREASE in our desire/willingness to be the worlds' policeman.

"Commensurate": corresponding in size or degree; in proportion.

synonyms: equivalent, equal, corresponding, correspondent, comparable, proportionate, proportional



Nevertheless, applause for a progressive stance on this.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Just wouldn't want you to misspell the word in a letter to your customers.

For example, "My bloated salary and the fact that I fuck around on sports websites all day makes the interest I charge you not commensurate with my effort."

93henfan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Just wouldn't want you to misspell the word in a letter to your customers.

For example, "My bloated salary and the fact that I fuck around on sports websites all day makes the interest I charge you not commensurate with my effort."

93henfan wrote:The key point was made by AZ. If we can shift our foreign policy away from world police status, we can start making a dent in our national debt. Of course, entitlement reform, the other fiscal suck, needs to occur...

wait for it

...commensurately.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s proposed drastic cuts to the U.S. Army are “absolutely dangerous" and would cause long-term damage to the military.

Cheney told Fox News’ Sean Hannity the proposed cuts, which would shrink the Army to its smallest size since just before the U.S. entered World War II, would have a devastating impact on the ability of future presidents to deal with future crises.

“This is really over the top,” Cheney said. “It does enormous long-term damage to our military.”

The Army had already been preparing to shrink to 490,000 active-duty members from a wartime peak of 570,000. Hagel is proposing to cut it further to between 440,000 and 450,000.

"We are repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new technologies, new centers of power, and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable, and in some instances more threatening to the United States," Hagel said at a press conference at the Pentagon.

Cheney needs to really just STFU.

I support the move, and can't imagine how another 50,000 troops could make that much difference in the long run....I also believe Hagel is right in focusing on new technologies and not just more bodies...but I support the move ONLY if there is a commeasurate DECREASE in our desire/willingness to be the worlds' policeman.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

93henfan wrote:The key point was made by AZ. If we can shift our foreign policy away from world police status, we can start making a dent in our national debt. Of course, entitlement reform, the other fiscal suck, needs to occur...

wait for it

...commensurately.

The degree to which you advocate said issues is commensurate to the passion with which I enjoin on the same.

BDKJMU wrote:Reduce the Army's size to pre WWII levels, only if at the same time we reduce the # of people on food stamps to pre WWII levels....

Ibanez wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:Reduce the Army's size to pre WWII levels, only if at the same time we reduce the # of people on food stamps to pre WWII levels....

Baby steps.

BDKJMU wrote:Reduce the Army's size to pre WWII levels, only if at the same time we reduce the # of people on food stamps to pre WWII levels....

BDKJMU wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Baby steps.

Why just the military? How about cut ALL of fed govt to pre WWII levels...

ASUG8 wrote:As much as I'd like to believe that we would see these "savings" redirected toward reducing debt, the cynic that several administrations have created in me remains hugely skeptical.

I'd like to see us start either closing or consolidating regional bases overseas which could be a huge cost savings. It would certainly send a message that countries are responsible for their own security and defense but might cost us some allies. With friends like the Afghans who needs enemies, amirite?

ASUG8 wrote:With friends like the Afghans who needs enemies, amirite?

Bison Fan in NW MN wrote:Now frickin cut entitlements also.

BDKJMU wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Baby steps.

Why just the military? How about cut ALL of fed govt to pre WWII levels...

houndawg wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Why just the military? How about cut ALL of fed govt to pre WWII levels...

different issue

BDKJMU wrote:

houndawg wrote:
different issue

Bloated is bloated..

Chizzang wrote:As exciting as this talk is about reducing the bodies...
It won't actually translate into spending less on the Military and defense contractors

It'll end up being just less bodies / same overall price tag

Trust me when I say this