Education or guns?

[AZGrizFan]

It's more difficult now to see "cuts" in terms of $$ because everything is so bloody expensive. But when one looks at infrastructure and manning levels, we've been cutting back for ten years now, expecting materiel and personnel to do more with less.

They cut people, but they don't cut the budget. They're replacing people with expensive drones, missiles, etc. Cutting people <> shrinking the BUDGET and that's what we're talking about here.

Yes, Mark, there WAS something of a buildup in the '80s in support of the Cold War. Reagan did tout a "600-ship Navy," though I doubt that he actually made it. That concept didn't last too long after him, though. Every year, the stupid BRAC cuts infrastructure, making it harder to cover missions that haven't changed. The so-called "smart manning" on today's ships is only good until someone gets sick and has to be helo'ed off.

Reagan got to 596 ships. We now sit south of 300. And it's still too many. BRAC doesn't go far enough (see Chizzang's comment regarding 245 foreign military bases). God forbid someone get sick and the OS's have to go from 4-section duty to 3-section duty.

Conclusion: despite increasing budget numbers, our military is FAR short of where it should be to protect us. Chizzang's precious MIC exacerbated that by forcing huge numbers down the government's throat, resulting in record profits over time while decreasing our overall capability. And, yes, some of the leadership is to blame for that for buying into the mentality that bigger and "more capable" is always better. That puts more missions on one platform than it can readily handle.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Our military is about 4 x larger than it needs to be to protect US. It's the need to be the "world policeman" mentality that causes us to pour money (money we don't have and that we borrow from the Chinese, incidentally) down this sinkhole. Keep in mind that many, many times the defense department doesn't even WANT some of these projects/bases, etc., but the senators/congressmen know that if they lose them, the risk losing reelection because it might mean a loss of jobs/revenue for their district.

[Ibanez]

Mark and Chizzang:

I don't dispute the Cold War or the presence of an industrial complex. The presence of the industrial complex eliminated in-house production, thereby gouging the government on things it could have made for itself cheaper.

I'm saying that despite all of that, one only has to look at what has happened after EVERY war. After the Revolutionary War, just about EVERYTHING was cut down to cadre status (as was the custom of the time). It took quite a while to build back up for the War of 1812, after which there was ANOTHER huge cut. There was a build up to the Civil War. (One reason the CSA lost was that they didn't have the cash to keep up; they had people fighting barefoot because the government couldn't afford shoes.) Things were drastically cut after that.

There was ANOTHER buildup to the Spanish-American War (with its requisite draw-down). WWI was even more blatant as we played the neutrality card for as long as we were able. And then we cut to the bone after, harshly affected by the Washington Naval Treaty which affected what we were ALLOWED to have (remember the "treaty cruisers"?). It wasn't until the mid-'30s when Japan and Germany started violating that treaty that we started the WWII buildup. When Japan hit Pearl Harbor, they took out most of our Naval strength, particularly in the area where we THOUGHT the war would be mainly fought: line-of-battle ships. We were fortunate that carriers proved more important. Despite the industrial complex, there was ANOTHER cycle of draw-down/buildup after WWII and the start of Korea. After the Korea drawdown (which admittedly wasn't as draconian as the others), it took awhile to build up for Vietnam. There was a HUGE cut across the board after Vietnam, which was compounded by the way our country mistreated veterans who were only following the orders given them by POLITICIANS.

It's more difficult now to see "cuts" in terms of $$ because everything is so bloody expensive. But when one looks at infrastructure and manning levels, we've been cutting back for ten years now, expecting materiel and personnel to do more with less. And then we look on in wonder that people who have done five or seven deployments in as many years, having seen horrors "over there", come back and do stupid stuff.

Yes, Mark, there WAS something of a buildup in the '80s in support of the Cold War. Reagan did tout a "600-ship Navy," though I doubt that he actually made it. That concept didn't last too long after him, though. Every year, the stupid BRAC cuts infrastructure, making it harder to cover missions that haven't changed. The so-called "smart manning" on today's ships is only good until someone gets sick and has to be helo'ed off.

Conclusion: despite increasing budget numbers, our military is FAR short of where it should be to protect us. Chizzang's precious MIC exacerbated that by forcing huge numbers down the government's throat, resulting in record profits over time while decreasing our overall capability. And, yes, some of the leadership is to blame for that for buying into the mentality that bigger and "more capable" is always better. That puts more missions on one platform than it can readily handle.

And back to the original question of the thread: It should NOT be an either/or here. Especially nowadays with the technology of planes and radars, one cannot be simply a bum off the street to be successful in the military. Plus, outgoing servicemembers MUST be able to contribute to society. Education is needed, too. The GI Bill helps with that. K-12 funding does as well. We must have BOTH.

Look at the mindset from all those early conflicts. Look at the socio-econmic factors as well as the make up of the military. Yes, we've scaled down but we've been mission ready since the cold war. Today, we are not short of where we need to be for protection. I can guarantee you that.

[Ibanez]

It's more difficult now to see "cuts" in terms of $$ because everything is so bloody expensive. But when one looks at infrastructure and manning levels, we've been cutting back for ten years now, expecting materiel and personnel to do more with less.

They cut people, but they don't cut the budget. They're replacing people with expensive drones, missiles, etc. Cutting people <> shrinking the BUDGET and that's what we're talking about here.

Yes, Mark, there WAS something of a buildup in the '80s in support of the Cold War. Reagan did tout a "600-ship Navy," though I doubt that he actually made it. That concept didn't last too long after him, though. Every year, the stupid BRAC cuts infrastructure, making it harder to cover missions that haven't changed. The so-called "smart manning" on today's ships is only good until someone gets sick and has to be helo'ed off.

Reagan got to 596 ships. We now sit south of 300. And it's still too many. BRAC doesn't go far enough (see Chizzang's comment regarding 245 foreign military bases). God forbid someone get sick and the OS's have to go from 4-section duty to 3-section duty.

Conclusion: despite increasing budget numbers, our military is FAR short of where it should be to protect us. Chizzang's precious MIC exacerbated that by forcing huge numbers down the government's throat, resulting in record profits over time while decreasing our overall capability. And, yes, some of the leadership is to blame for that for buying into the mentality that bigger and "more capable" is always better. That puts more missions on one platform than it can readily handle.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Our military is about 4 x larger than it needs to be to protect US. It's the need to be the "world policeman" mentality that causes us to pour money (money we don't have and that we borrow from the Chinese, incidentally) down this sinkhole. Keep in mind that many, many times the defense department doesn't even WANT some of these projects/bases, etc., but the senators/congressmen know that if they lose them, the risk losing reelection because it might mean a loss of jobs/revenue for their district.

Excellent post! YOUr last comment, look at the Appropriation from last week. Pentagon said no, COngress said yes.

[SuperHornet]

Um, Mark, we have exhausted service members in every branch, including the reserves. We have platforms that are aging, and the so-called "replacements" are slow in coming and asked to do too much. Politicians are constantly expecting shrinking personnel and platforms to do more than designed. How is THAT "mission ready"?

AZ is making a better argument than you and chizzy. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he's doing MUCH better than you two.

[Chizzang]

Pretty much just read all the AZ posts and the debate is over...



next

[Ibanez]

Um, Mark, we have exhausted service members in every branch, including the reserves. We have platforms that are aging, and the so-called "replacements" are slow in coming and asked to do too much. Politicians are constantly expecting shrinking personnel and platforms to do more than designed. How is THAT "mission ready"?

AZ is making a better argument than you and chizzy. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he's doing MUCH better than you two.

if I said it while wearing a winne the pooh costume would it make a difference? Fuckibg herm

[AZGrizFan]

Pretty much just read all the AZ posts and the debate is over...



next

[Cap'n Cat]

Personally I wish the Federal government education spending was ZERO.

What dumb fvck.

[eagleskins]

311 said it best about guns. The funniest split is that the ghetto and the trailer park agree about gun control. N

[Chizzang]

Personally I wish the Federal government education spending was ZERO.

What dumb fvck.

Actually this is kinda what needs to Happen Cat...
We need to completely destroy the present lower education system grades 6 - 12
and I mean DESTROY like just implode it and start over

The only way to FIX it is to kill it and re-build it

[AZGrizFan]

What dumb fvck.

Actually this is kinda what needs to Happen Cat...
We need to completely destroy the present lower education system grades 6 - 12
and I mean DESTROY like just implode it and start over

The only way to FIX it is to kill it and re-build it

Why stop at the educaton system?

[Chizzang]

Actually this is kinda what needs to Happen Cat...
We need to completely destroy the present lower education system grades 6 - 12
and I mean DESTROY like just implode it and start over

The only way to FIX it is to kill it and re-build it

Why stop at the educaton system?

Agreed...
The TSA needs to be leveled

That would cheer me up actually

[houndawg]

right...so we should scrap it and replace it with what exactly?

I have no idea. I DO know, however, that anything the government touches turns to crap, it never goes away, and it ends up costing more and more and more. That's no solution, that's just a means for the government to reach deeper and deeper into my pocket under the guise of "helping people".

Follow the wishes of the founding fathers - disband the world's most costly standing Army.

There would be so much money left over we could all afford to have the kind of health care our so-called leaders provide for themselves at our expense.

[Col Hogan]

I have no idea. I DO know, however, that anything the government touches turns to crap, it never goes away, and it ends up costing more and more and more. That's no solution, that's just a means for the government to reach deeper and deeper into my pocket under the guise of "helping people".

Follow the wishes of the founding fathers - disband the world's most costly standing Army.

There would be so much money left over we could all afford to have the kind of health care our so-called leaders provide for themselves at our expense.

The Founding Fathers were in favor of a small standing Army, and a militia force in back up....not no standing Army...

And if that is done, the money saved should go back to the people who earned it...since the Founding Fathers wrote noting into the Constitution about the Federal Government providing health care to civilians...

But, if all that money goes back to the people, then they can afford to purchase health care...if they want it...

[Chizzang]

Follow the wishes of the founding fathers - disband the world's most costly standing Army.

There would be so much money left over we could all afford to have the kind of health care our so-called leaders provide for themselves at our expense.

The Founding Fathers were in favor of a small standing Army, and a militia force in back up....not no standing Army...

And if that is done, the money saved should go back to the people who earned it...since the Founding Fathers wrote noting into the Constitution about the Federal Government providing health care to civilians...

But, if all that money goes back to the people, then they can afford to purchase health care...if they want it...

Ya gotta be careful when you toss out random "founding Fathers' things...
They created a streamlined Republic
I do not know what we have today - but - Streamlined Republic probably isn't what would come to mind

[CID1990]

Somebody doesn't know his history. What happened after every freaking war we've ever had? We've drawn down FAR below what is safe, cashing in the so-called "peace dividend." The result was having to rely on massive (not to mention EXPENSIVE) buildups the next time the poop hit the fan.

Look it up in the history books. That's the truth.

So you're suggesting we're not a Military Industrial Complex..?
And that we will reduce our Military in similar proportion to other industrialized nations..?
So... Um... Really..?

So you do realize that:
A) $250 billion per year is used to maintain some 865 U.S. military facilities in more than forty countries
B) During the cold war U.S. military spending accounted for 26% of the worlds total Military expenditures
C) Today we have historically low number of Enemies: The CIA claims "we have fewer enemies then ever in our nations history" and we're spending more money...
D) $708 billion military spending called for by the Obama administration for fiscal 2011 will be equivalent to the military spending of all other nations in the world combined.


Please explain..?

Your facts above need some clarification.

C) I am obligated to mention that this CIA thing you talk about does not exist. NOW that we have gotten that out of the way, we will refer to it as "That Agency that Does Not Exist". The Agency that Does Not/Not Exist is referring to symmetrical enemies, i.e.: actual countries. This non-existent government agency is not referring to non-state actors. Secondly, this imaginary agency has been famously incorrect about some pretty big ticket items in the last several years. If this agency actually did exist, it would be incorrect in this current assertion, because most of its imaginary agents know full well that the Russia we inherited in 1991 is still quite adversarial towards us, except now it is run by a political hegemon with some pretty scary nationalist tendencies, as well as a tendency to lean towards that other adversary that does not exist, China.

D) The reason for this is because our military spending IS the rest of the world's military spending. Most European countries have been FAMOUSLY content with letting us insure their security since WWII, freeing up their coffers to spend lavishly on the social programs that are now the bricks that are drowning them. As long as we in America have the mindset that we have to somehow cure all the world's ills, we will continue to spend the amounts we do on "defense". We are regularly criticized by these countries for supporting regimes like the one in Israel, but watch what will happen the day we decide to pull chocks in Germany and elsewhere on the dying continent. Bloody Murder is what they will be screaming, because of the vulnerability they will have to a rabidly nationalist Russia, among other things. Think Georgia.

I am all for reducing our military spending to levels just necessary for protecting our own and keeping the sea lanes open, but people in this country will need to get used to the idea of letting somebody else put out the world's fires (and they won't..... can you imagine the long arm of the UN consisting of Sweden, France and maybe Denmark? I'm all for it. Let's serve notice on them and see what happens. Then the George Clooneys of the world can petition the Luxembourgs and Norways to put troops in Darfur or Liberia or Haiti or Djibouti or Georgia or wherever human beings are doing to each other what they always have since they learned how to make pointy sticks.


Also Sodomy

[Chizzang]

Your facts above need some clarification.

C) I am obligated to mention that this CIA thing you talk about does not exist. NOW that we have gotten that out of the way, we will refer to it as "That Agency that Does Not Exist". The Agency that Does Not/Not Exist is referring to symmetrical enemies, i.e.: actual countries. This non-existent government agency is not referring to non-state actors. Secondly, this imaginary agency has been famously incorrect about some pretty big ticket items in the last several years. If this agency actually did exist, it would be incorrect in this current assertion, because most of its imaginary agents know full well that the Russia we inherited in 1991 is still quite adversarial towards us, except now it is run by a political hegemon with some pretty scary nationalist tendencies, as well as a tendency to lean towards that other adversary that does not exist, China.

D) The reason for this is because our military spending IS the rest of the world's military spending. Most European countries have been FAMOUSLY content with letting us insure their security since WWII, freeing up their coffers to spend lavishly on the social programs that are now the bricks that are drowning them. As long as we in America have the mindset that we have to somehow cure all the world's ills, we will continue to spend the amounts we do on "defense". We are regularly criticized by these countries for supporting regimes like the one in Israel, but watch what will happen the day we decide to pull chocks in Germany and elsewhere on the dying continent. Bloody Murder is what they will be screaming, because of the vulnerability they will have to a rabidly nationalist Russia, among other things. Think Georgia.

I am all for reducing our military spending to levels just necessary for protecting our own and keeping the sea lanes open, but people in this country will need to get used to the idea of letting somebody else put out the world's fires (and they won't..... can you imagine the long arm of the UN consisting of Sweden, France and maybe Denmark? I'm all for it. Let's serve notice on them and see what happens. Then the George Clooneys of the world can petition the Luxembourgs and Norways to put troops in Darfur or Liberia or Haiti or Djibouti or Georgia or wherever human beings are doing to each other what they always have since they learned how to make pointy sticks.


Also Sodomy

First of all, My facts always need clarification
Because I use facts to reinforce what I already believe
in such a manner as not to challenge the ideological notions in my mind

Think of me as "The News" on TV
Pick you favorite News company - They're your favorite because - they are busily reinforcing what you already believe
Helping you feel better about what you've already decided on - reaffirming a foregone conclusion

Now - where were we...
Oh yes, we're a military industrial complex - we're never going to change that now
and guess what - I don't actually care
I just like responding to the people on here who say we're NOT spending enough on the military (you know who)

[Ivytalk]

Your facts above need some clarification.

C) I am obligated to mention that this CIA thing you talk about does not exist. NOW that we have gotten that out of the way, we will refer to it as "That Agency that Does Not Exist". The Agency that Does Not/Not Exist is referring to symmetrical enemies, i.e.: actual countries. This non-existent government agency is not referring to non-state actors. Secondly, this imaginary agency has been famously incorrect about some pretty big ticket items in the last several years. If this agency actually did exist, it would be incorrect in this current assertion, because most of its imaginary agents know full well that the Russia we inherited in 1991 is still quite adversarial towards us, except now it is run by a political hegemon with some pretty scary nationalist tendencies, as well as a tendency to lean towards that other adversary that does not exist, China.

D) The reason for this is because our military spending IS the rest of the world's military spending. Most European
countries have been FAMOUSLY content with letting us insure their security since WWII, freeing up their coffers to spend lavishly on the social programs that are now the bricks that are drowning them. As long as we in America have the mindset that we have to somehow cure all the world's ills, we will continue to spend the amounts we do on
"defense". We are regularly criticized by these countries for supporting regimes like the one in Israel, but watch what will happen the day we decide to pull chocks in Germany and elsewhere on the dying continent. Bloody Murder is what they will be screaming, because of the vulnerability they will have to a rabidly nationalist Russia, among other things. Think Georgia.

I am all for reducing our military spending to levels just necessary for protecting our own and keeping the sea lanes open, but people in this country will need to get used to the idea of letting somebody else put out the world's fires (and they won't..... can you imagine the long arm of the UN consisting of Sweden, France and maybe Denmark? I'm all for it. Let's serve notice on them and see what happens. Then the George Clooneys of the world can petition the
Luxembourgs and Norways to put troops in Darfur or Liberia or Haiti or Djibouti or Georgia or wherever human beings are doing to each other what they always have since they learned how to make pointy sticks.


Also Sodomy

First of all, My facts always need clarification
Because I use facts to reinforce what I already believe
in such a manner as not to challenge the ideological notions in my mind

Think of me as "The News" on TV
Pick you favorite News company - They're your favorite because - they are busily reinforcing what you already believe
Helping you feel better about what you've already decided on - reaffirming a foregone conclusion

Now - where were we...
Oh yes, we're a military industrial complex - we're never going to change that now
and guess what - I don't actually care
I just like responding to the people on here who say we're NOT spending enough on the military (you know who

Hey, Cleets, are you bored by your own board?

[Chizzang]

Hey, Cleets, are you bored by your own board?

The grass is always greener elsewhere
And everybody likes me over there - and that becomes tedious
I need to be disliked or at least: 1) held in moderate suspicion 2) Regarded as having questionable character 3) Hated


Any of those work fine

[AZGrizFan]

Hey, Cleets, are you bored by your own board?

The grass is always greener elsewhere

Hey, lets all just revel in the rare fact that Cleets agrees with AZ here.

[Chizzang]

The grass is always greener elsewhere

Hey, lets all just revel in the rare fact that Cleets agrees with AZ here.

Meh.. let's not get too carried away

[AZGrizFan]

Hey, lets all just revel in the rare fact that Cleets agrees with AZ here.

Meh.. let's not get too carried away

Fuck you. I'm reveling whether you like it or not.

[Chizzang]

Meh.. let's not get too carried away

Fuck you. I'm reveling whether you like it or not.

But you'll be dead wrong on something here shortly - stay tuned...
Ours is a fickle relationship

[CID1990]

**** you. I'm reveling whether you like it or not.

But you'll be dead wrong on something here shortly - stay tuned...
Ours is a fickle relationship

You're a libertarian, Cleets.

How's that for some hate?


Also Sodomy

[AZGrizFan]

Fuck you. I'm reveling whether you like it or not.

But you'll be dead wrong on something here shortly - stay tuned...
Ours is a fickle relationship

This is me...reveling: